by Ann Bogle
Of all the authors in the library, it was a wife in Maryland who called out from her marriage dormer I was not to read her. It might have been 2006. She shouted: “Some people should not be allowed to read books!” I intuited from Minnesota that the shout was for me, though we hadn't spoken of or to each other since graduate school, and almost never then.
On the cover of her book is a girl from the waist down in black skirt and shoes. It is one of many covers that began to appear after Reading Lolita in Tehran had delivered Lolita in a turn in planetary events as a beloved American novel to the hands of school kids and friends of Bill.
I have a writer friend in her sixties who reads for language, for its sounds and expression. She does not read to be taught moral lessons. She reads to listen to language as if it were as abstract and lyrical as music, emotive and without argument.
I have another friend, nearing sixty, who reads like a music librarian. He reads Vladimir Nabokov. He reads Robert Musil. He reads Alice Munro. He has read more of Richard Howard's translations than anyone I know (including the wife in Maryland, who knows Richard Howard outside of these stories). He reads scores. On the train he may read scores or he may conform to print culture and read The New Yorker. He might argue that music does argue, that he follows its arguments as if they were written in Italian rather than in notes on a page.
I used to read then write for the enjoyment of language—Gertrude Stein through the Beats—and when I read Lolita it was that way. I said later that Lolita was top shelf, not a book for messengers, but that might have been off, a dusty statement.
Then the covers appeared: girl from the waist down in rain boots. Girl from the waist down in Mary Janes. Girl from the waist down her socks slipping. Girl from the waist down on a park bench in the sun. These covers spoke as clearly as the bones and ghosts in titles.
After the wife in Maryland telepathically commanded me not to read, reminding me for the first time of child prostitution in her father's native country, I turned away and didn't read her book. An American princess, she gave in an interview that she drank whiskey in a Manhattan studio before she married. There are different kinds of whiskey. Being there, reading. I didn't know by what rules or game she had won or the effect of other antecedents—her glistening branch of hair, her pretty knees (knees I don't recall), or her visionary decision to write with her writer husband their first sex in Nerve.
In John 4:18, the harlot is a Samaritan who has had five husbands, and the man she has now is not her husband. The husbands of the departed wives have strokes and sinus infections and seizures and lesions and kneecap replacements. They are celibate, though they may own someone.
I began not to care as I had cared that women I had known were at last publishing novels, except for the first one at thirty whose books I had read, women trained to write poetry who were cheerleaders in high school, multicultural cheerleaders who had married, had children, and in middle age signed novels about women turning thirty. I saw how parochial and sycophantic it might seem to care for novels written by women in friendships tested by beauty: Asian white cheerleaders! Latina white cheerleaders!
I had been a cheerleader at Lolita's age or younger. In fourth grade in our red corduroy skirts and white wool turtlenecks we looked like the girls on the book jackets. It was a year of red, white, and blue bell bottoms, chokers, and mini-skirts. It was not a decade of pink stretch pants, pink sweatshirts, and pink snowsuits.
The police heard the music at my birthday party in fifth grade: A group of us girls had taken the portable record player to the park in the middle of the night and dropped our clothes. We hid in the willows from the cops' searchlight, our outfits draped over the hockey boards. The light scanned the horse path in a staccato blare then passed. We were aware but not afraid. I had felt in my spirit a song, though not a song, about “freedom,” a poem that had nothing to do with law, religion, or sex. The girls who stayed curled in sleeping bags while the others streaked in the night became athletes and cheerleaders, sisters without borders of the doctors of “turning thirty.”
I had thought of reading every book by every writer I had met at school. When the wife in Maryland rang across the country, I gave up my plan, conceived in joy. I had read the novels of a classmate, for joy that she had come so far, for joy in the stories and surprises in language, for joy that she had beaten the clock and found readers, not only the competitive and pilfering and preening writers who had been her audience at school, but readers for a story.
The institutional preference for short poetry and novels rushes one at the annual conference of the Association of Writers and Writing Programs in the form of human bodies, younger women and older men, poets seeming to outnumber fiction writers eight to one with their sixty- to eighty-page collections surpassing fiction writers' cumulative stacks of “nothing” if not published as novels.
The wife in Maryland had not studied fiction writing, had not sat in fiction workshop, and her novels with the girl from the waist down and the rain boots on the covers became New York Times bestsellers.
In 1997, nearing thirty-five, I sent a short story about a girl, the academic daughter of East German immigrants, turning twenty-eight, to The New Yorker. The editor I knew had left. The next editor, a poet herself, called the story “ambitious” when I sent it again in 2000. I did not know then that the editor was in her early twenties when she returned the story. She was thirty-five when her memoir about her mother appeared its year. It took eleven years. Vernon Frazer published the short story as “The Sitzer” in Big Bridge in 2008. Meanwhile, in 2005, Harper's had published an essay on experimental fiction by Ben Marcus. Marcus writes, “Ambitious” in menial code suggests, “You stand not with the people but in a quiet dark hole, shouting to no one.”
16
favs |
1683 views
33 comments |
1142 words
All rights reserved. |
I like it.
A revision.
B'go writes:
"I really like this piece. Maybe others will understand, but I don't, the levels of specificity in reference to others (e.g., ranging from a friend to Ben Marcus, Vernon Frazer). Those identified by epithets (the wife in Maryland) are the most interesting. The famous are okay (Musil, Beats). I don't know if many will know Marcus or Frazer.
"Just my thought, I may well be wrong, I don't know the Paris Review. I am mostly puzzled by the last paragraph, that you probably see as the punch line, that could be lopped off?
"The copy editor should ask you to spell out all the numbers less than 100, which, if I haven't missed something, means all of them (thirty, thirty-five, sixty, etc.)."
Great work, Ann. Interesting, informative, and still personal.
Thank you, Jennifer.
A particular style of autobiographical writing. The effect being, as with much of Ann's work, a very distancing one, the writer looking ever backwards, and you'd have to use a mixture of adjectives to even attempt to describe the tone of it. But begin by noting the use of the past perfect tense. That's to denote time having passed, gone forever; and the narrator being still completely in the present, well, that's part of the effect. The effect is of a curious, emotionless gaze. Not quite matter-of-fact reportage, because reworked with hard-to-define stylisation. Its numerous references make it thoroughly, impenetrably private; its often cryptic syntax (decoupled from its occasionally careless grammar (what in hell to make of the final sentence!)) makes the decipherment of references almost too tedious to persevere with. So the writing is not clear. It is not simple. It is indeed writing for oneself. Which is precisely its value, since it has it's own unmistakeable tone, voice.
"I used to read then write for the enjoyment of language—Gertrude Stein through the Beats—and when I read Lolita it was that way. I said later that Lolita was top shelf, not a book for messengers, but that might have been off, a dusty statement."
- and for me this piece - well-voiced and sure of itself - is not at all about enjoyment. It's about, as Ben Marcus writes, being "in a quiet dark hole, shouting to no one." Sense does have a place and time - but not here. It's not needed. The voice here is prophetic & shamanistic - one crying in the wilderness. The moment.
It's not truth as it is - but as it feels ... which is more vital and real and connecting.
I do listen. I take it in.
"Then the covers appeared: girl from the waist down in rain boots. Girl from the waist down in Mary Janes. Girl from the waist down her socks slipping. Girl from the waist down on a park bench in the sun. These covers spoke as clearly as the bones and ghosts in titles."
Marvelous writing - style, phrasing, example. *
love this, ann. from the opening to the close. love the lines, " It was a year of red, white, and blue bell bottoms, chokers, and mini-skirts. It was not a decade of pink stretch pants, pink sweatshirts, and pink snowsuits." ***
What I like about this is the paean to reading. I'm a little less enamored of the writerly shop talk. It seems to me that "ambitious" is as poisonous and odious as the academic "interesting." Both words are used as code for disapproval.
Very much like how the narrative shifts time. Reminds me of rhythmic modulations in music. What gives it power is that I ruminated on its meanings long after first reading it.
Fave. What a close! "Marcus writes, “ambitious” in menial code suggests, “You stand not with the people but in a quiet dark hole, shouting to no one.”' Ann, once again I'm "mind-Bogled". Great piece.
This is great! I love the ending so much! Just superb all the way through.
*
Ann I think I'd know your writer voice anywhere, even without a byline. This is compelling stuff, you let us into your mind when you write, you seem to slice it open the way one would cut a delicate peach in half.
*
Thanks, commenters, I take it in, thoroughly, without regard yet for further editing, except perhaps to write out numbers under 100.
Eamon, your critiques are always brisk, and this one is, especially. I shall cherish it and urge more to attempt it as you do.
Sam, this: "It's not truth as it is - but as it feels ... which is more vital and real and connecting." *
Thanks, James, David, Gloria, and Susan.
Dan, I would hate to lose a reader (such as you) with writerly shop talk.
I keep this quote from Harold Bloom by me this week:
"I realized early on that the academy and the literary world alike — and I don't think there really is a distinction between the two — are always dominated by fools, knaves, charlatans and bureaucrats. And that being the case, any human being, male or female, of whatever status, who has a voice of her or his own, is not going to be liked. …Since I am convinced that literary criticism is a purely personal activity, that it has exactly the same status as lyric poetry or narrative writing, why should I care about the personal response to it, one way or the other? Praise or blame, alike, is beside the point."
In particular, his equating literary criticism with other personal acts of writing.
Dan, triumphant about your comment about time and musical modulation. I win. The reader wins.
The final sentence, btw, is slightly misquoted at Electronic Book Review. To be thorough, I accessed the printed at Harper's. Alas! The misprint might suit my purpose more quietly, as I imagine Marcus may have meant it. It is the difference between the prepositions "at" and "to." Marcus wrote "to."
Outstanding work, as always, Ann. *
Thanks, Michael!
So original in every possible way.
"I intuited from Minnesota that the shout was for me, though we hadn't spoken of or to each other since graduate school, and almost never then."
Like nothing I have ever read before and like everything I like first-person fiction to do.
Shape-shifting genius.
*
Meg, deeply perceived. Thanks. Bill, that is the location. Thanks.
Oh, this conveys so much about how much of our own biased perspectives we bring to writing, and how we can't rely on an "objective" take from the literary world and academia. It isn't math. It will always be subjective in literature. This is a wonderful piece. Most definitely not ambitious. No dark holes for this. Fave*
Gloria, instead of thanking Meg and Bill for their comments after I read them, I waited, the clock on the website says nine hours. Then I thanked them, and in that act, algorithmically, my story went above your story, "The Miracle of My Father's Hat," and I almost withdrew it.
I texted to my sister, hoping to attract her as a reader, about this story, TT, "There is light in it but the light occurs in the night of the story told inside it."
She is a trained visual artist. Her work is on my walls. She texted back, "Nice that you're enjoying your writing and participation."
You justify my life with this piece.
You justify this piece with your comment, the first.
I love that the voice is insistent but doesn't attempt to occupy my brain. I can think along with it. I don't avert my eyes but I don't stop breathing either. I've been trying to figure out how you did it. I think it's the music. Anyway, great stuff. Great way to start a Sunday morning.*
Thanks, John. Your comment will stay with me.
Ann, this is written after my own heart. I haven't attempted to publish my own piece on Lolita yet, but it's coming. Your girls from the waist down in rumpled stockings certainly remind me of Lolita's washed out dullness at age 17, pregnant and pitiable, with her "helplessness so perfect."
Thank you for sharing your various editorial bon mots om the comments as well. My personal favorite of all times was about a story I'd written about Xanthippe, and the editor told me it was good, but he couldn't take it because I didn't include Socrates' POV (which I thought had been amply done by others already over the millenia).
This is wise, sharp, and innovative, and an entertaining read.
Taking a stab here, I'm guessing the New Yorker editor was Meghan O'Rourke? (Poet, about the right age, memoir about her mother.)
I admire you very much, Ann Bogle. This made me a bit weepy and happy at the same time. Many of my teachers are referenced in this piece. The wife in Maryland and those girls from the waist down will be in my dreams tonight.
Thanks, Beate, Neil, and Gessy. Comments on walls.
Brave.
PANK has never taken anything of mine. After this, I see that as a badge of honor.
Thanks, Sheldon and Jim. Further comments on walls.
Pia Ehrhardt wrote as a message to me an amazing comment this morning that I have asked her if I could post here, and she agreed. What follows are her comment and my response.
[from Pia Ehrhardt]: "Ann, a thought: what if this piece was written as a letter to the receiver (I can't remember the name) who brings out the deepest and bravest in you? Whose listening encourages you to digress into something surprising, and bigger than yourself? Which is what happens in the piece I read last week.
"I'm ducking some of the complaints in this piece because I feel like they're leveled at the whatever publishing world/cheerleaders, when, imo, you work in a different stratosphere. You know you don't write books that would ever merit those silly covers, or that would be bestsellers, so why want that?
"There's an interesting bit in the essay about how you thought about reading all of the books written by these writers you knew, and I wonder if there isn't something unconfessed about why you didn't. Because you wouldn't have read them to READ them, you would've read them, why?
"I like reading about your childhood, your background. The work, to me, begs to be more personal. And maybe to end on the gorgeous writing about books as music, rather than a Ben Marcus quote that would be more meaningful, more compassionate if he weren't such a star. You know?
"I hope this note helps. I offer it with complete respect for your work and for your intelligence. Editors are infuriating and unhelpful until they're not ... "
"Pia, you are so right. When I revised (slightly) this story (essay), TT, I noted that spot that you mention. I had thought of reading all the books by writers I had known at school. The reason I had thought of that project (of reading) is that I had attended school with the writers and had in some or many ways seen their developments that resulted later in published books. I believed fully that I would be a lifelong academic and teacher of writing and so I believed that it was an amazingly valuable idea to have taken in so much of my peers' development that I could then apply in teaching. Of course, or maybe it's not so obvious, or maybe it is, I became a career unpaid literary journal editor instead. It was before that had become clear, that I would not teach as a professor, that I had had the reading project with my eventual students in mind.
"What you point out about Ben Marcus interests me suddenly on a slightly other and new level: Marcus' essay is mainly a complaint or retort to Jonathan Franzen; in his essay on experimental fiction with its long title ("Why experimental fiction threatens to destroy publishing, Jonathan Franzen, and life as we know it"), he advances a partial argument in defining what "it" (experimental fiction) is, "It," as I have called it and what I more recently have called WπHπAπT, and a defense of himself and his ilk in view of Franzen. Franzen is to Marcus as cheerleader chick lit novelist is to Ann.
"This is an excellent comment that you wrote. I would like to see it included at Turning Thirty as a long comment, but I would understand if you do not want to include it there. I might add a part of this comment (to you) as a note toward revision (again)."
Filed correction in arithmetic in final paragraph based on my own realization of an error in it. The editor was 24 rather than 21 at time of my second (re-) submission of "The Sitzer." 10/29/2014, 3 a.m. CDT