It is not that I object categorically to novels about wealthy families with domestic troubles. Let's not throw out the Balzac with the bathwater. But Michael Cunningham is not Balzac.
By Nightfall, his new book, is typical. A vaguely dissatisfied, generally middle-aged, somewhat unhappily married, fairly prosperous, mostly unremarkable New York art dealer drifts into his forties, finds himself . . . well, drifting, and because this is a Michael Cunningham novel, he falls into a swoon for his wife's much younger brother, a homosexual set piece whose lovingly described body is lugged on and off the stage at various important scenes like a divan in a Donizetti, something pretty to fall against while warbling. This Mitchell Gold sofa is nicknamed "Mizzy," or The Mistake, an affectation and a telegraph so stunningly tone-deaf and totally out of place that it feels as if it were accidentally inserted from the novelization of a Logo original movie. In addition to evoking, for main-character Peter, an androgynous image of his wife as a younger woman, Mizzy recalls his dead gay brother, for whom he still harbors obliquely incestuous feelings. Now that would seem like it might lend the proceedings a little heat, at least, but everyone's lust is evoked lyrically and held at a slightly prim distance. Because of Cunningham's obvious Proustian ambitions, I was repeatedly reminded of Aciman's Call Me by Your Name, which is a book that actually has the cock and balls to give you a hard-on even as it manages to work in interesting bits of Heraclitus. (Aciman's next novel, set among prosperous New Yorkers, was on the contrary a failure; one wonders about the territory.)
By Nightfall moves between scenes of relentless interiority, by which I mean the boring personal taxonomy of an overanalyzed yuppie's mental architecture, and catty art-world commentary. The art stuff is occasionally funny, but depressingly phoned-in. Its hustlers and fakers, its earnest believers, and its ancillary clients and artists are all of type, and it reads like an impression of what the world of contemporary art is like by a person who has read a lot of people's impressions of what the world of contemporary art is like. Everyone's dilemmas are banal; nothing is at stake; no one is ever happy, and the closest it gets to sadness is a state of exhausting, agitated anxiety about nothing in particular. Peter wonders if it is possible to be gay for just one dude. (But given his feelings about his departed--from AIDS, of course--brother, isn't it more like, two dudes?) In life, probably not. In a Michael Cunningham novel, you betcha.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Gayest Ex Machina
Labels:
Culture,
Fiction,
Literature
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Christ, is this a novel or Dan Savage's Letter of the Day?
Haha. That is a way better review than mine, LP.
I know this is going to sound sarcastic, but are you going to take on a book that actually has/had a chance of being good?
Actually, mp, I have been rereading The Transmigration of Timothy Archer and I am going to write about it and some other Dick sometime soon.
Love some Dick.
"It is not that I object categorically to novels about wealthy families with domestic troubles. Let's not throw out the Balzac with the bathwater"
Huh? That's not really how I would describe Balzac
That was perhaps inartfully phrased, FB. Actually, what I mean is that Cunningham's Peter reminds me acutely of Baron Hulot.
Read VALIS and The Divine Marriage first right?
What thinks IOZ of "Q"? Thaswut I wannano.
I think it was John de Lancie's finest role.
He was the only one who could go toe-to-toe with Patrick Stewart.
Actually, mp, I have been rereading The Transmigration of Timothy Archer and I am going to write about it and some other Dick sometime soon.
neat. at least the ennui in that shit is fueled by something.
it's a shame pk didn't write more (or less) "realistic" fiction and less pew pew pew time travel shit.
Heh. "Balzac."
"vaguely dissatisfied, generally middle-aged, somewhat unhappily married, fairly prosperous, mostly unremarkable New York"
Was of course not a new theme in '74 either, but I thought Heller did a good job with it - though it's been a while since I read it.
Here's KVJR's contemporary thoughts:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/02/15/home/heller-something.html
"a nattily-dressed, sourly witty middle-management executive named Robert Slocum, he tells us, who lives in a nice house in Connecticut with a wife, a daughter and two sons. Slocum works in Manhattan..."
I finished Aciman's latest and wanted nothing more than to mug him, steal his cell phone, lure her up to the Bronx with an insanely vapid text full of omgs, dress her in a burlap sack and leave her handcuffed to a storefront grille at 174th and MLK Blvd with headphones playing Pachelbel's Canon welded to her head.
Right on Ioz. Nothing is less appetizing than lyrically evoked lust. Had we but worlds enough and time but we don't so that ends that nonsense. One must man up at the earliest opportunity. However, I cannot in good conscience go along with Unsatisfied customer's otherwise excellent plan: too risky in that area where there is no shortage of miscreants who kidnap women tied up to storefront grilles with headphones playing Pachelbel's Canon and sell them to laboratories for medical experiments.
As much as I find these reviews of books I was never going to read anyway amusing, they leave me wondering: 1) Why, when you so clearly anticipate not liking many of these books, do you read them? and 2) Are you ever going to review something you do like, so I can then possibly judge for myself whether your literary aesthetic is of any worth to me?
Seriously, there must be some novel you've fond of some worth relatively recently, or else why would you continue to read them?
Or, shorter: "Oh, IOZ, why are you so negative all the time, you nihilist?"
I think the recent crop of novels is so blah because competition from life is too intense. Par exemple:
"[I}llicit drug use was already common in the platoon as it prepared to leave Lewis-McChord for Afghanistan in spring 2009, at least according to the sworn testimony from one of its members, Pfc. Justin A. Stoner."
IOZ, is the twink thing truly over?
What are you even doing, reading books like this?
"it's a shame pk didn't write more (or less) "realistic" fiction and less pew pew pew time travel shit."
Actually, much of his pew pew pew time travel shit is, uh, the shit, but he did write non-sf fiction in the 50s...to the tune of 8 or 9 completed novels. Unfortunately, the publishers weren't keen on 'em and they sat unpublished until his demise, (except for Confessions of a Crap Artist, published by indie house "Entwistle Books" in 1975). All his non-sf work was eventually republished, fell out of print, and about half of it is now back in print, courtesy of TOR books.
It's good stuff.
Bend this clown at SMBIVA over, IOZ. I know his remarks are too stupid to deserve a thoughtful response, but that doesn't stop you from taking on Tom Friedman, so I hope you join the fun over there.
Aww, the teenage anarchists don't like being mocked for their lazy stoner utopian bullshit. Whadda shock.
Ahh, anon has nothing to say but to bask in the warmth of his herd.
...says some dude commenting in one of the biggest collections of rigid groupthink on the political interwebs. Har har.
IOZ, I'd love to send you my first short novel to review. It's also about candy-ass NY'ers but it's got some good fucking and a Lost Weekend-ish desperation/hysteria that might appeal. As much as I'd hate to be on your critical shit list, I'd take my lumps like a man.
Jesus Christ-- if one is ISO a bottom, try the commenters on this thread
Tim 2 - email me at monsieur_ioz at hotmail dot com.
mp, Rojo, et al.:
The IOZ giveth as well as taketh away. I read Nicholson Baker's "The Mezzanine" and Bolano's "By Night in Chile" due to earlier posts here. Thanks, Monsieur. I totally wanted to read "2666" too, but it was really long.
Post a Comment