Recommended: Biographies

For starters:

My recommended Fiction books

My recommended Non-Fiction books

BIOGRAPHIES:

American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson, by Joseph Ellis
I’ve written a lot about Joseph Ellis’ work here. While I love David McCullough’s work so much, Ellis is my favorite contemporary commentator on the Founding Fathers. This is not a biography so much as it is a psychological study and – as the title shows – a meditation on the man’s character. There will always be much we do not know and cannot know because Thomas Jefferson kept his secrets. He wasn’t a wear-your-heart-on-your-sleeve guy in the way John Adams was. Jefferson had a lot more to hide. Ellis is an elegant and thoughtful writer.

Marlon Brando, by Patricia Bosworth
Part of the Penguin Lives series, this slim volume about Marlon Brando is one of THE ones to read. Do NOT read the Peter Manso unless you feel like throwing a book across a room. It’s vicious and malicious. Bosworth does Brando justice.

Elvis and Gladys, by Elaine Dundy
A unique curio in Elvis-ilia, it’s also an essential part of the conversation, and one of the most important books in helping me get my thoughts together in re: Elvis. It’s a very SOUTHERN book, and goes way WAY into his family tree – the research Dundy did was an essential contribution, and biographers still lean on what she did. Gladys is as big a character as Elvis is, and Dundy really dug into who Gladys was. Elvis truly was his mother’s child. It’s also beautifully written with some REALLY good observations, unique observations that (in my opinion) only a woman could make – at least the (straight) men who have written about Elvis – haven’t dug into the things Dundy did, like his beauty and what it was like for him to be beautiful, and how essential that beauty was to creating the phenomenon of Elvis. It’s hard to talk about but it’s really important.

The Life of Charlotte Brontë , by Elizabeth Gaskell
Gaskell was a novelist and a personal friend of the Bronte family. This book came out in the wake of Charlotte Bronte’s death. It’s still in print, which speaks to the book’s staying power. Filled with Gaskell’s personal observations (she knew them all), it is still a researched piece of work, and one of its main good points is how liberally it quotes from Charlotte’s copious correspondence. Charlotte comes to life. They all do. So Gaskell may have exaggerated, may have played a Mabel Todd-like role in creating the myth of the Brontes, but there’s enough truth here, enough grounding in facts, that you feel like you are entering the Bronte household, you feel like you are eavesdropping, they all appear three-dimensional, living, breathing. An amazing accomplishment. But also: gossipy. Gaskell gloats at her inner circle status. If there is a myth of the Brontes and what their life was like, it can all be traced back to Gaskell’s book.

Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow
Maybe my favorite biography ever written. I INHALED it when it first came out, because I’d long been a Hamilton fangirl, from when it was still very unpopular to do so. Every biography you read of any of the other “guys” of the time, he was either ignored or diminished, made peripheral, or like he was some outrageous wayyyy out-there unacceptable threat. I mean, that’s the tone. The problem with dying “too early” is you leave the reputation in the hands of your enemies, and when Hamilton died he had ONLY enemies. Their slander of him lasted 200 years. Until Chernow came along. Richard Brookhiser also wrote a good biography of Hamilton, an admiring biography, which came out in 1999. I met Brookhiser at a Hamilton celebration on the bicentennial of Hamilton’s death at the New York Historical Society (which Hamilton founded, because the man never slept). But anyway, Brookhiser’s book cracked the edifice … and Chernow blew the whole edifice down. IT’S ABOUT TIME.

Zelda: A Biography, by Nancy Milford
This was my Nancy Milford Gateway Drug. It’s the biography Zelda deserves. And it’s not along the lines of “she was the TRUE talent” – the kind of bullshit that’s so common now. Joan Acocella, in her review of a book about Lucia Joyce, James Joyce’s mentally ill daughter, goes AFTER that attitude in a definitive way. Genius isn’t just genius. Genius is also hard work, the ability to concentrate, the ability to block the world out and get to work, the ability to take criticism and not give up, the stick-to-it-ive-ness – do not discount these things. And maybe it’s harder for women to do those things, due to childrearing and everything else (although let’s face it: Zelda had a lot of free time. She and her husband lived in a state of prolonged wild adolescence, children or no). And so: Zelda would start things with passion and focus, and then lose heart and drop them, or lose interest and move on to another obsession. Her husband knew her gift, and they actually wrote a couple pieces together, and he borrowed liberally from her writing (“plagiarism begins at home,” Zelda cracked in one of their shared essays). For various reasons, some of which were not her fault, some of which were, Zelda just could not stick to anything. Zelda was such an interesting (and tragic) person – and she COULD write – which made what happened to her later that much more tragic. She was unstable. And so was he. The party couldn’t go on forever. Once the party stopped, Zelda was lost. Milford treats her subject with empathy and compassion, and has dug into Zelda’s writing – her unfinished novels and stories – so that you really get to hear Zelda unfiltered. It’s a beautiful book.

Seduction: Sex, Lies, and Stardom in Howard Hughes’s Hollywood, by Karina Longworth
Karina Longworth’s fascinating cultural study is also a biography of the elusive Howard Hughes – the amount of research she did is insane. Her footnotes are daunting. I highly recommend this book and reviewed it for the LA Times.

Oscar Wilde, by Richard Ellmann
I loved how much Ellmann focused on Wilde’s absolutely extraordinary parents, both of whom were famous before their son surpassed them both.

Montgomery Clift: A Biography, by Patricia Bosworth
As I wrote when Bosworth just recently died of Covid-19: This is the greatest actor biography ever written. Not only that, but it’s one of the greatest biographies – PERIOD – ever written.

Dino: Living High in the Dirty Business of Dreams, by Nick Tosches
Nothing like this book. Before or since.

Jean Renoir: A Biography, by Pascal Merigeau, translated by Bruce Benderson
This gigantic book took me about 6 months to complete. It is so detailed you want to faint from admiration. I have not seen all of Renoir’s work and keep meaning to do a complete deep dive – preferably chronlogically.

Orson Welles, Volume 1: The Road to Xanadu, by Simon Callow
Callow’s attention to detail is almost … too much. There’s, like, a 10-page discussion of some paper Welles wrote in the 5th grade, and etc. But I know when I’m in the presence of a Grand Obsessive, and I prefer biographies written by Grand Obsessives (see Joan Schenkar’s biography of Patricia Highsmith, somewhere below), those who are so obsessed they devote years of their lives to delving into said subject. What is so special about thes three-volume biography is 1. Welles warrants this much attention and 2. Callow is an actor, and so he really gets into the technical issues the technique issues the acting/directing style – in ways that are completely gratifying. We need to know how great someone is before we start looking at all the ways they failed/disappointed. And if you don’t even value the greatness of the artist, then honestly I don’t even want to hear your criticisms. (See: many commentaries on John Wayne by liberals who just hate his politics and therefore refuse to taint their lily-white sensibilities with getting into his work – which means they are critiquing him without having even seen him in action. These are not serious people.)

Orson Welles, Volume 2: Hello Americans, by Simon Callow
I still haven’t read Volume 3 yet! This one is pretty upsetting, because Welles starts to fall apart, his reputation starts to disintegrate, and you are seeing the choices made – by him and others – that would banish him from Hollywood and its protection/support for the rest of his life. Nobody likes an outsider who comes in and “shows up everyone” with his very first film. And they particularly don’t like one who does that at the age of 25. They may all ooh-and-ahh over the film, but he will not be embraced wholeheartedly since he didn’t “come up” through the system. Envy is powerful.

Howard Hawks: The Grey Fox of Hollywood, by Todd McCarthy
Since Howard Hawks, one of my favorite directors, was such a tall-tale-teller and braggart (he would claim responsibility for NASA, if he could get away with it), it takes some undoing to unravel all the stories he told. (He’s a braggart in an endearing way … and he also has a right to be proud of what he accomplished, the rules he broke, the new rules he set, etc.) This book is heavily researched and very entertaining, and McCarthy really knows his stuff.

Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, by Peter Guralnick
The book was a game-changer. And it was only Volume 1.

Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley, by Peter Guralnick
Game Changer, Part 2. I take issue with some of Guralnick’s conclusions and/or interpretations, some of which I have tried to address in my own writing. The way he breaks up the two volumes – the first one takes us up to him joining the Army in 1958 – the second takes us from 1958 to his death in 1977 – is part of the problem and it is the narrative that endures. John Lennon said it: Elvis died when he went into the army. But … no. He didn’t. The man lived for 20 more years, and there was a hell of a lot of great stuff that happened, major recordings, enduring classics, etc. Sure it’s a sad story, he died too soon, but I continue to insist that the way to look at his life is not a steep and slow decline over 20 years. BUT. We all owe Guralnick a huge debt for his thoughtful and humanizing approach. Elvis seems like a real person when you read these books. Guralnick also treats his musicianship and artistry with respect, long overdue. Guralnick understands Elvis’ intelligence.

John Adams, by David McCullough
The book that really launched McCullough, as well as a mini-series. I grew up thinking “John and Abigail” must be family members, since we had relatives in Quincy and we’d have Thanksgiving there, and we’d drive by “John and Abigail’s house” and I wondered if they were going to show up for dinner. True story. My parents told us the story of the American Revolution when we were kids, and it’s just unavoidable growing up where I did. I grew up in a town where Washington actually slept. But McCullough really brings Adams alive, and gets into what is so likable – and also so irritating – about Adams. Adams was flawed. But he was also important. McCullough’s work is popular to the so-called masses and I love it when a really good historian “breaks through” like that.

Edie: American Girl, by Jean Stein, edited by George Plimpton
This was one of THE books of my adolescence. Along with Mary Ellen Mark’s Streetwise, read around the same time, this oral history of Edie Sedgwick ushered me into a deeper understanding of the world, and opened up a whole slice of American cultural history I was unaware of as a 15-year-old girl growing up in the 1980s. Characters emerged. It was through this book I learned about Patti Smith, for example. I had to go out and buy her albums because of her presence in this book. Same with Andy Warhol. I was so fascinated by the whole scene. I sought out Andy Warhol’s movies. And this was slightly difficult back then. The VCR days. I saw Ciao Manhattan when I was 17, and became obsessed. Mitchell and I dressed up as Edie and Andy for Halloween during an epic costume party I threw at my house in college. The obsession had not diminished.

A Strange Eventful History: The Dramatic Lives of Ellen Terry, Henry Irving, and Their Remarkable Families, by Michael Holroyd
The kind of biography that feels like it was written for me specifically. About famous Victorian-era theatre company The Lyceum, headed up by beloved stage star Ellen Terry and phenomenal actor-director-manager Henry Irving. A dual biography. GREAT history of the theatre of the era (Bram Stoker was involved at the Lyceum), as well as really smart on acting, and who these people were as actors. (I’ve written about both Terry and Irving before: we can only imagine what these productions were like – but this book is filled with eyewitness testimony from audience members).

His Excellency: George Washington, by Joseph Ellis
See above my praise of Joseph Ellis. I’m slightly behind in keeping up with his work. There was a good 10 years, though, when I bought everything he wrote basically upon its publication date. This is a gorgeous book about Washington, and a companion piece to the Jefferson bio. Ellis also wrote one on John Adams (Passionate Sage). I recommend all three. These men intersected, they were all so different. Alone, they would have been disastrous. We needed Adams to counteract Jefferson and vice versa, we needed Washington’s generalship – and most important – we needed him to step down after two terms. A peaceful transfer of power: an example to the world that such a thing can be done, and he showed it was possible. It may be his most important contribution. (His famous and gorgeous farewell address waswritten by Alexander Hamilton. Of course.)

Nureyev: The Life, by Julie Kavanagh
An engrossing biography of a fascinating figure, whose life encompassed so much: the Cold War, his famous defection, his soaring (literally) triumphs, his collaboration with Margot Fonteyn and finally his AIDS diagnosis. Kavanagh really knows her stuff. I associate this book with 2009 when I stopped being able to read. I was so caught up with grieving and then having a total fucking nervous breakdown in June-July-August – if you go back and read those months here on the blog you can see the quick deterioration – it’s hair-raising even to me to watch how I stopped being able to use language properly. I’ve considered deleting all of it but figure, well, no, it’s a record of what happened. And at least when I posted song lyrics or a photo I felt that I was somehow still connected to the world. Years later, when I got diagnosed with my mental illness, I told the main doctor treating me about 2009 and how I stopped being able – literally – to read. I couldn’t grasp language anymore. It took me forever to even process a paragraph. I’d have to re-read short paragraphs three times in order to absorb it. It was devastating because if ever I needed the escape of reading it was in 2009 and escape was barred to me. The doc told me that grief as I was experiencing it is actually a brain injury which shows up on CT scans, just like a concussion does. Your brain is injured, your brain is in the process of trying to protect you and heal itself and therefore things like language and comprehension as well as attention span will have to wait. I had no idea. He told me too that the brain can heal itself. Which also bore out in my life. By 2010 I was able to read again, although not with the voracious speed I had had pre-2009. AT ANY RATE: during that terrible year when I only could complete 14 books, as opposed to the normal 50 or 60 … this book about Nureyev was one of the few books I was able to finish. It took me almost the whole year (normally it would take me a month). I was so upset at how long it was taking me to get through it. This is not at all to say the book is a slog: the opposite is true. It’s just that I was heavily compromised when I read it. In many ways, the book became symbolic to me. I am going to finish this book, dammit.

Capote: A Biography, by Gerald Clarke
It really says something about Clarke’s book that it was published in 1988 and so far nothing has knocked it off its throne. One of the best biographies I’ve ever read: the final years are so harrowing to read you almost can’t wait for it to be over, even as you know the book being over means that the subject has died.

Lindbergh, by A. Scott Berg
An extraordinary book about an amazing man, with the most improbable journey, a journey he seems almost born to. And then the controversies (the ultimate understatement) of his WWII shenanigans, particularly that horrifying unforgettable picture of him receiving the medal from Goering. I initially “came to” Lindbergh through his wife’s journals, 5 gigantic volumes dating from the early 20s into the 40s. I read them when I was in high school. I was into HER, not really him, and she’s a wonderful and engaging writer. Once I learned more of the backstory, I paid much closer attention to her WWII journal (entitled War Within War Without), where she grew increasingly conflicted about her husband’s involvement with America First (history repeats itself. But you have to actually KNOW history to “grok” this), and then I started to perceive the excuses she made for him (the most infamous being her TERRIBLE small book The Wave of the Future which basically said: Fascism is the future, and we can’t stop it, nor should we. Not because fascism is good but because it’s a necessary part of our development … or some such muddled nonsense. She was pilloried for it, and rightly so, and it was seen as apologia for her husband, again rightly so). Anyway, I digress. A. Scott Berg treats the life as a whole though, and that’s refreshing in our particular era where … people basically decide so-and-so isn’t even worth learning about because of abhorrent views or terrible behavior or whatever. I have so many books on Stalin and Hitler on my shelves. I’ve read Mein Kampf because I want to know what the dude said. Not because I agree but because if you don’t understand these two guys then you can’t understand the 20th century. You may think you already know. In which case … congratulations on being incurious and dumb. Lindbergh’s journey spans from the teens to the 60s, and he was a part of every major event in those years, due to his fame and then infamy: it’s one of those biographies where you don’t just learn about the man, you get to know about his era in an on-the-ground in-real-time way. What Lindbergh did goes way beyond “terrible behavior”, of course (side note: my Special Ops pal, who is a pilot and admires Lindbergh’s pioneering in aviation, and knows way more about it than I ever could, believes that Lindbergh’s actions during WWII came as a result of him being in the employ of the US government, on the payroll as it were, in a secret way, to gather insider information about the development of the German airforce: that he was, essentially, a spy. I don’t call my friend Special Ops for nothing. And incidentally it’s one of my nicknames too. He really is Special Forces and Intelligence. Anyway: it is his belief – and he’s not alone – that Lindbergh’s cozying up to the Germans was deliberate in order to gather information which he then would pass on to the State/War Department. Now you may not buy this and I’m not sure I do – especially when you read Lindbergh’s speeches for America First – but I for one don’t think it can be entirely discounted, and my Special Ops friend is not, to put it mildly, a credulous idiot.) BE THAT AS IT MAY: Lindbergh was a famous man: the first to fly across the Atlantic. He was as famous as Elvis. Plus: the gorgeous looks! Slam-dunk. Then, THEN, there was the kidnapping and murder of his baby son. And it’s pretty much 100% that the wrong man was accused/executed for the crime. Horrifying. And THEN as WWII heated up in Europe, he became an isolationist making terrible speeches where he referenced the Jews and that they needed to take some responsibility. His wife read the text of that speech before he made it and BEGGED him to cut that part out. He refused. And so here we are today. It’s not a surprise that the specter of Lindbergh becoming President is the alternate-history Philip Roth draws out in Plot Against America, although the ending shows a kind of naivete, in light of our current reality. We will not bounce back from this so easily. Our institutions have been shattered. All of this is examined and brought forth in intimate detail in this massive biography and Berg is such a good writer it’s a pleasure to read.

Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., by Ron Chernow
In the Sheila Pantheon of Great Contemporary Biographers lie only a couple of names: Patricia Bosworth (RIP), Nancy Milford, Joseph Ellis, David McCullough and Ron Chernow. My friend Allison read this book and raved about it and so I read it. I, of course, had already read his centuries-overdue biography of Alexander Hamilton, which almost made me cry since I was a Hamilton Stan since high school. One of Chernow’s specialties is focusing on figures who have much to do with economics, with finance, with banking, with MONEY. I am not a math/money person and one of the things I appreciate so much about his writing is how clear it is, and how he explains things in a way I can understand. Similar to Lindbergh, Rockefeller’s journey is one of the most improbable – and impactful – in American history. The whole Rockefeller clan amazes me: with all their rapacious business practices, they used their money to, oh, create public libraries across the land, establish Johns Hopkins, create freakin’ MoMA, create the Cloisters, here in New York, to buy up land in New Jersey across the Hudson and establish an extended “Palisades” where no development was allowed, so that you get an unbroken forest stretching up the cliffside … anyway, these people helped make America a better place in HOW they used their enormous wealth. I highly recommend this fascinating book.

James Joyce, by Richard Ellmann
One of the greatest biographies ever written. Don’t argue unless you’ve read it.

Tom: The Unknown Tennessee Williams, by Lyle Leverich
I am grateful this book exists. I am also so saddened that Leverich died before he could write Volume 2. Volume 1 ends with the triumphant run of Glass Menagerie in Chicago. The book is so wonderful, so gorgeously written, I could not wait for the sequel. I waited years. This was before I could just Google shit to figure out what was going on. Eventually I somehow learned that Leverich had died. I remember telling my friend Ted this (he had loved Tom as much as I did) and he gasped, “Oh no!” Not just because of his death but because that meant we wouldn’t get Volume 2. I still wonder what his Volume 2 would have been like – how much did he finish? Apparently, he knew he was ill and hand-picked John Lahr to complete Volume 2. But John Lahr had a different “take” on TW than Leverich – which, of course, is fine – and so his Volume 2 feels definitely like a “break” with Volume 1, and therefore, I don’t care for Lahr’s book. There are great anecdotes and all the rest, but Lahr’s book feels gossipy. Plus, he analyzes ALL of the plays as if they were literal autobiographies, a huge no-no in my book when you’re dealing with an artist. What about the IMAGINATION? Of course TW was a personal writer, but Lahr’s treatment of this feels like grade-school shit. “So this means this and that means that and it all is tied up nicely in a little psychoanalytic bow.” He feels on solid ground with backstage gossip and he feels WAY out of his depth in literary analysis. Whereas Lyle Leverich had both, AND his book doesn’t read like an extended Page Six. C’est la vie. Read Tom. It’s gorgeous.

Built of Books: How Reading Defined the Life of Oscar Wilde, by Thomas Wright
This book feels like it was written specifically for me. It’s about Oscar Wilde’s library: all the books he owned, and how each book or author had influenced him.

The Sisters: The Saga of the Mitford Family, by Mary S. Lovell
You can’t even believe these sisters existed. You also can’t believe that a prestige mini-series hasn’t been made about these sisters. Each one is more fascinating than the last. I suppose they were created by extraordinary times. But still. This is a bit more extraordinary than most. The image of Decca carving a hammer and sickle onto the pane of glass in the bedroom window she shared with her sister Unity … and then Unity carving a swastika. Teenage girls battling it out on their bedroom walls. Crazy.

Marie Antoinette: The Journey, by Antonia Fraser
A classic. Similar to Ron Chernow’s Hamilton, this book was a major chip in the armor of the legend, the official story. You wouldn’t look at Marie Antoinette in quite the same way again after reading this book. Sofia Coppola clearly felt the same way.

John Wayne: The Life and Legend, by Scott Eyman
A superb biography I feel like I’ve been waiting for my whole life. FINALLY. The man put into context by someone who admires his work. I can’t wait to read Eyman’s next book, on Cary Grant. Grant has also not been served well by biographers.

The Talented Miss Highsmith: The Secret Life and Serious Art of Patricia Highsmith, by Joan Schenkar
Most of the books on this list I have written about here at one time or another. This one I’ve written quite a lot about because it’s one of the most unique biographies I’ve ever read. Even the way it’s structured … it’s not chronological, it’s not linear. It’s broken up into themes/categories/sub-categories, with repetitive-titled chapters, so you can locate yourself not in TIME, but in THEME. Joan Schenkar is truly obsessed with Patricia Highsmith, and that obsession leads her to be bold, brave, free … in ways you don’t get with other biographies. She was fascinated by Highsmith’s duplicitousness (Highsmith even lied in her journal, to throw anyone who might peek off the scent), and so Schenkar devised a structure that helped dig into Highsmith’s hierarchy of lies and obfuscations, the various smoke screens Highsmith erected to shield her inner world. Anyway. One of my favorite biographies ever.

Lost Highway: Journeys and Arrivals of American Musicians, by Peter Guralnick
This book is made up of mini-biographies of all these great figures in rhythm & blues and country music. From Furry Lewis to Merle Haggard. Beautifully written. Guralnick is not just a historian – but a journalist who saw all of these artists in person and interviewed all of them. Because of this, his stuff is very humanizing, plus he gives his own perspective and observations on their performing styles and behavior.

Grant, by Ron Chernow
I read this fascinating biography last year. Another fascinating figure with yet another improbable journey – from where he started to where he ended up would blow your mind. From war hero to President, and what a corrupt Presidency it was. Chernow’s contention is that it was Grant’s naivete that put him in bed with such hooligans, and also – the system then was being corrupted quicker than anyone could grasp. It’s a great commentary on the problems of graft – which have since grown to epic proportions. I haven’t read Chernow’s biography of Washington, which I must. Ellis’ book did great things to get us into Washington’s world and experience … but I’m sure Chernow will bring even more to it.

Utopia Parkway: The Life and Work of Joseph Cornell, by Deborah Solomon
The only biography about Joseph Cornell. Joseph Cornell is a tough one because he lived a life with almost no surface events. He didn’t marry. He didn’t fight in a war. He didn’t do drugs. He didn’t party it up in Greenwich Village. He barely left Manhattan. I think once he went to the Jersey Shore. He most probably died a virgin. He stayed at home, on Utopia Parkway (it’s just too perfect), living with his mother and his brother who had cerebral palsy and needed full-time care. He spent his days scrounging through second-hand shops up and down Second Avenue, and going to movies, obsessing on movie stars, and eating in Automats. Then he would go home to Utopia Parkway and create the famous “boxes” which now sit in some of the most prestigious museums in the world. I know a lot about Joseph Cornell because I was involved in a workshop production of a play about his life. A fascinating gentle man, a wonderful artist, whose final words were, “I wish I had not been so reserved.”

The Brontës, by Juliet Barker
If you were around when this gigantic door-stop of a book came out, then you remember the brou-haha. Barker went at her subject with a battering ram made up of thousands of footnotes. No stone left unturned. Church records. Land deeds. The whole nine yards. Her contention was that the “myth” of the Brontes – as established by Elizabeth Gaskell’s famous biography of Charlotte Bronte – still in print to this day – was, if not balderdash, then a huge exaggeration. The Brontes were not the wild feral girls of popular imagination, stuck out on the moors with no one to talk to. Barker re-established their world as very social, with many gatherings, and church events, and etc. They were part of a small but bustling community. It’s hard to dispel a myth which has lasted almost two centuries. This book is not playing around. Just one look at it and you know you’re in for it. But, just like Chernow’s bio of Hamilton, there were centuries of myths/rumors/speculations/exaggerations to combat.

Savage Beauty: The Life of Edna St. Vincent Millay, by Nancy Milford
I mentioned my love of Nancy Milford’s work above. She’s wonderful. Edna St. Vincent Millay was not a particularly likable person. Lock up your husbands when she comes around. But it’s fascinating to read about a woman who played so by her own rules, who knew no social mores or any reasons that should stop her from doing whatever the hell she wanted to do. She was famous almost instantly, plucked out for fame when she was just a teenager. Her poetry readings were EVENTS. I love her poetry and it was really interesting learning about her life.

Desert Queen: The Extraordinary Life of Gertrude Bell: Adventurer, Adviser to Kings, Ally of Lawrence of Arabia, by Janet Wallach
I was involved in an experimental theatre production of a life of Gertrude Bell, one of the founders of modern-day Iraq. Often referred to as the female Lawrence of Arabia, Gertrude Bell fell in love with the Middle East the first time she visited, and kept going back. She became embroiled in the politics, knew everybody, and was a trusted advisor to sheikhs and desert Bedouin and all the rest. Her accomplishment is, of course, not exactly positive and much of today’s troubles date back to the carving up of the Middle East post-WWI, with all of these artificial borders imposed. These borders are still problematic today. Nevertheless: fascinating woman and if you want to know about the all-important geopolitical issues which helped create the modern Middle East – the rapacious empires eager to cut up this ancient land into pie pieces – this book gives a great background. Gertrude Bell is buried in Baghdad. The experimental production I was in was some years back, and we did it in a huge warehouse performance space in Dumbo (in Brooklyn), and I had to learn (some) Arabic, and at one point, when I was making a speech about the glories of Mesopotamia, behind me on a gigantic screen was projected the scene in Lawrence of Arabia with the camels racing towards each other. I wore a pith helmet. I made a whole speech in Arabic. I sweated over that, let me tell you. The director was a fabulous young Iranian woman, who was confident, inspiring, and knew exactly what she wanted. It was a great experience and I learned a lot.

Hellfire: The Jerry Lee Lewis Story, by Nick Tosches
See above. What is so extraordinary about THIS biography is it was written while Jerry Lee Lewis was still alive (and of course he is STILL alive today). Tosches is dead but JLL lives? Whoda thunk it. The book is bleak and frightening. I challenge anyone to write about JLL and provide as much insight as Tosches does.

James Dean: The Mutant King: A Biography, by David Dalton
This book was the start of a lot of things for me. I became obsessed with James Dean early, 12/13 years old, and because I worked in a library after school I could easily do research in those days before the Internet. That public library had a very healthy Entertainment section, with all kinds of bios, all of which I read over the course of my high school years. I read Capra’s autobiography. Carroll Baker’s. Elia Kazan’s. And the library had a copy of The Mutant King, still a really important text in James-Dean-Lore. I devoured it. I drank in the pictures. I read paragraphs over and over again. I was so INTRIGUED by this actor. I couldn’t get a HANDLE on him. I think that’s part of his eternal appeal.

Elvis, by Dave Marsh
One of the best books about Elvis, written at what feels like white-hot urgent speed – it feels like he wrote it in a weekend, hyped up with outrage and pain and a desperation to explain – to INSIST – on Elvis’ importance. Written in the immediate aftermath of Elvis’ death, Marsh was anguished to watch how Elvis was dragged through the mud – first, in the book by his bodyguards, published a month before Elvis died – and then in the feeding frenzy after Elvis’ death. The man’s WORK was not being discussed. Marsh was furious. That fury – and that love – ignites his book. You can read it in a day. And the final two paragraphs make me weep.

Posted in Actors, Books, Directors, Founding Fathers, James Joyce, Theatre, writers | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Baby It’s Cold Outside

and I miss my family and everyone and humanity in general. Elvis keeps me warm.

Posted in Personal | Tagged | Leave a comment

R.I.P. Irish poet Eavan Boland

“I began to know that I had to bring the poem I’d learned to write near to the life I was starting to live. And that if anything had to yield in that process, it was the poem not the life.” — Eavan Boland

This one hurts. Pioneering Irish poet Eavan Boland has died at the age of 75.

Irish literature is clogged with big names. You always know who you are up against if you’re a writer. You have to “take on” Yeats. You have to “take on” Joyce. There are giants like Patrick Kavanagh to wrestle with. You have to carve out your own space. You have to get those other guys out of the way, just in order to have the confidence to continue.

“Guys” is right. While there have always been Irish women writers, more often than not, Irish women are the subject of the literature, rather than the creators. Historically, it’s a macho field. (That’s changed and THEN some. Some of the best books I’ve read in the last 10 years have been by Irish writers who happen to be women.) Boland was one of the pioneering voices who changed all that.

Boland has the same concerns as the giant males of her generation – Seamus Heaney, Michael Longley, Derek Mahon and others: what it means to be Irish, what it means to come to terms with history/past, what it means to be an exile, either in your own land or elsewhere. They write about the sense of dislocation that is often the Irish birthright. Patrick Kavanagh – a giant – was also a major influence, as well as an encouragement. New ground always needs to be opened up. Someone’s got to do it.

Boland attended the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, which made her a fan of workshops forever. She created a workshop in Kilkenny that exists to this day. She got married. She had kids. It was the 70s. A hot and explosive time to be a woman who was also a writer. Sylvia Plath was a huge influence: not so much her tone, but her fearlessness with subject matter. We are talking about Life here. Men write about their lives and it is viewed as universal. Women write and it’s only about and for “women.”

The Irish writer, male or female, already has to deal with a sense of intimidation and potential-silencing because of the giants of the past. The Joyces, the Yeats’s, the Kavanaghs. You are influenced, whether you like it or not, but you resent it. You also love it. You need that inspiration, you are proud of it. But how on earth do you find the cajones to take them all on? (Pardon the gendered language. You see the trouble here.)

Her influences were many. The emotion is in the line. Watch for that.

“Pomegranate” was the first of hers I read.

Pomegranate

The only legend I have ever loved is
the story of a daughter lost in hell.
And found and rescued there.
Love and blackmail are the gist of it.
Ceres and Persephone the names.
And the best thing about the legend is
I can enter it anywhere. And have.
As a child in exile in
a city of fogs and strange consonants,
I read it first and at first I was
an exiled child in the crackling dusk of
the underworld, the stars blighted. Later
I walked out in a summer twilight
searching for my daughter at bed-time.
When she came running I was ready
to make any bargain to keep her.
I carried her back past whitebeams
and wasps and honey-scented buddleias.
But I was Ceres then and I knew
winter was in store for every leaf
on every tree on that road.
Was inescapable for each one we passed.
And for me.
It is winter
and the stars are hidden.
I climb the stairs and stand where I can see
my child asleep beside her teen magazines,
her can of Coke, her plate of uncut fruit.
The pomegranate! How did I forget it?
She could have come home and been safe
and ended the story and all
our heart-broken searching but she reached
out a hand and plucked a pomegranate.
She put out her hand and pulled down
the French sound for apple and
the noise of stone and the proof
that even in the place of death,
at the heart of legend, in the midst
of rocks full of unshed tears
ready to be diamonds by the time
the story was told, a child can be
hungry. I could warn her. There is still a chance.
The rain is cold. The road is flint-coloured.
The suburb has cars and cable television.
The veiled stars are above ground.
It is another world. But what else
can a mother give her daughter but such
beautiful rifts in time?
If I defer the grief I will diminish the gift.
The legend will be hers as well as mine.
She will enter it. As I have.
She will wake up. She will hold
the papery flushed skin in her hand.
And to her lips. I will say nothing.

Her poem “The Achill Woman” was a breakthrough for her. (More on that in the quote section below.) This was the moment, the revelation, similar to James Joyce’s “tundish” scene in Portrait or Heaney’s first major poem “Digging.” Joining the history of a culture that had been suppressed, feeling a part of a long-scorned continuum. With Boland, there is the added tension of being a woman.

The Achill Woman
She came up the hill carrying water.
She wore a half-buttoned, wool cardigan,
a tea-towel round her waist.

She pushed the hair out of her eyes with
her free hand and put the bucket down.

The zinc-music of the handle on the rim
tuned the evening. An Easter moon rose.
In the next-door field a stream was
a fluid sunset; and then, stars.

I remember the cold rosiness of her hands.
She bent down and blew on them like broth.
And round her waist, on a white background,
in coarse, woven letters, the words “glass cloth.”

And she was nearly finished for the day.
And I was all talk, raw from college—
week-ending at a friend’s cottage
with one suitcase and the set text
of the Court poets of the Silver Age.

We stayed putting down time until
the evening turned cold without warning.
She said goodnight and started down the hill.

The grass changed from lavender to black.
The trees turned back to cold outlines.
You could taste frost

but nothing now can change the way I went
indoors, chilled by the wind
and made a fire
and took down my book
and opened it and failed to comprehend

the harmonies of servitude,
the grace music gives to flattery
and language borrows from ambition—

and how I fell asleep

oblivious to
the planets clouding over in the skies,
the slow decline of the Spring moon,
the songs crying out their ironies.

All the male poets at the time gave her the props for what she had done with “Achill Woman,” the space she opened up. It couldn’t have been written by a man, and they recognized that.

Michael Longley wrote a beautiful poem dedicated to Eavan Boland (posted it here). Turns out there was room for her – but she had to make it herself. No one “stepped aside.” Life doesn’t work like that. Boldand’s work has withstood the upheavals of the sociopolitical upheavals of the 60s/70s (in a way that many other strictly message-based feminist writers’ have not.)

Boland was in progress, always.

The Oral Tradition

I was standing there
at the end of a reading
or a workshop or whatever,
watching people heading
out into the weather,

only half-wondering
what becomes of words,
the brisk herbs of language,
the fragrances we think we sing,
if anything.

We were left behind
in a firelit room
in which the colour scheme
crouched well down –
golds, a sort of dun

a distressed ochre –
and the sole richness was
in the suggestion of a texture
like the low flax gleam
that comes off polished leather.

Two women
were standing in shadow,
one with her back turned.
Their talk was a gesture,
an outstreched hand.

They talked to each other
and words like ‘summer’
‘birth’ ‘great-grandmother’
kept pleading with me,
urging me to follow.

‘She could feel it coming’ –
one of them was saying –
‘all the way there,
across the fields at evening
and no one there, God help her

‘and she had on a skirt
of cross-woven linen
and the little one
kept pulling at it.
It was nearly night …’

(Wood hissed and split
in the open grate,
broke apart in sparks,
a windfall of light
in the room’s darkness)

‘… when she lay down
and gave birth to him
in an open meadow.
What a child that was
to be born without a blemish!’

It had started raining,
the windows dripping, misted.
One moment I was standing
not seeing out
only half-listening

staring at the night; the next
without warning
I was caught by it:
the bruised summer light,

the musical sub-text
of mauve caves on lilac
and the laburnum past
and shadow where the lime
tree dropped its bracts
in frills of contrast

where she lay down
in vetch and linen
and lifted up her son
to the archive
they would shelter in:

the oral song
avid as superstition,
layered like an amber in
the wreck of language
and the remnants of a nation.

I was getting out
my coat, buttoning it,
shrugging up the collar.
It was bitter outside,
a real winter’s night

and I had distances
ahead of me: iron miles
in trains, iron rails
repeating instances
and reasons; the wheels

singing innuendos, hints,
outlines underneath
the surface, a sense
suddenly of truth,
its resonance.

QUOTES:

Eavan Boland:

I began to write in an Ireland where the word ‘woman’ and the word ‘poet’ seemed to be in some sort of magnetic opposition to each other. Ireland was a country with a compelling past, and the word ‘woman’ invoked all kinds of images of communality which were thought to be contrary to the life of anarchic individualism invoked by the word ‘poet’ … I wanted to put the life I lived into the poem I wrote. And the life I lived was a woman’s life. And I couldn’t accept the possibility that the life of the woman would not, or could not, be named in the poetry of my own nation.

Michael Schmidt, Lives of the Poets:

Boland is a poet who understands what she is up to with uncanny clarity.

Melanie Rehak, The New York Times Book Review:

[Her voice] is by now famous for its unwavering feminism as well as its devotion to both the joys of domesticity and her native Ireland.

Eavan Boland on Adrienne Rich’s Snapshots of a Daughter-in-Law:

For this first time, we hear a distinctive note: the sound of a silenced woman suddenly able to voice a conventional suppression in terms of an imaginative one.

Michael Schmidt:

[Boland] lived in London from the age of six to twelve, in a large residence, rather displaced by her accent and her culture from other children. “Some of the feelings I recognise as having migrated into themes I keep going back to – exile, types of estrangement, a relation to objects – began there.” Boland lived in New York for a time, returning to Ireland in her midteens to school. Before going up to university she took a job and saved to print her first pamphlet of poems in 1963. She attended Trinity College, Dublin. Hers is the generation of Seamus Heaney, Derek Mahon, Michael Longley, Brendan Kennelly. Patrick Kavanagh< was as important to her as he was to them. But apart from the intellectual stimulus of that environment, there were deprivations she began to feel. The "genderless poem" is what was expected of her. There was the danger of becoming an honorary male poet or, in the cruel terminology of some feminist critics, a "male-identified female poet."

Clare Wills, Times Literary Supplement:

Boland is a master at reading history in the configurations of landscape, at seeing space as the registration of time. If only we know how to look, there are means of deciphering the hidden, fragmentary messages from the past, of recovering lives from history’s enigmatic scramblings.

Jay Parini, Poetry Review:

The literal site of these poems is often Ireland itself, with its heroic gestures, high rhetoric, and (sometimes pretentious) symbol-making held in abeyance, even fended off. Boland brilliantly attacks, and nullifies, this tradition. Boland is, in her quiet way, as melodramatic as any of her forbears. This is always what I have liked about her, the clash of intention and manifestation.

Eavan Boland on Adrienne Rich:

They contest the structure of the poetic tradition. They interrogate language itself. In all of this, they describe a struggle and record a moment which was not my struggle and would never be my moment … And yet these poems came to the very edge of the rooms I worked in, dreamed in, listened for a child’s cry in … I felt that the life I lived was not the one these poems commended. It was too far from the tumult, too deep in the past. And yet these poems helped me live it … Truly important poets change two things and never one without the other: the interior of the poem and eternal perceptions of the identity of the poet.

Anne Fogarty, Irish Book Review:

[New Collected Poems] acts as a timely reminder of the significance and innovatory force of Boland’s achievement as a poet and of the degree to which so many of her texts … have lastingly altered the contours of Irish writing. Modern Irish poetry would be unthinkable without her presence. New Collected Poems valuably updates the record of Eavan Boland’s artistic output. More vitally, it underscores the vibrancy of her ongoing project as a poet who is doubtless one of the foremost writers in contemporary Ireland.

Eavan Boland:

I had the good fortune to meet [Patrick] Kavanagh when I was still a student. I sat across from him in a café at the bottom of Grafton Street, where they still turned and gritted the coffee beans in the window. Our conversation was brief but memorable, at least for me. And yet it would be years before I could unpick the legendary threads, the second-hand mythology of the poet. Once I did I could bring with me into later life not an image of sitting across from him, but the less easily realized shape of a writer of persistence and craft: an innovative and dissenting poet, neither afraid of the limits of his subject matter nor the reach of his own imagination.

Eavan Boland:

My father had a superb intelligence, but it was a rational one…[My mother introduced] this wonderful fragrance of the unrational, the inexplicable, the eloquent fragment.

Michael Schmidt:

In “The Achill Woman,” the poet, a student preparing for finals, retires to a rural croft to revise “the Court poets of the Silver Age” and one evening encounters a countrywoman, speaks with her and begins to find herself. It is an incident to which Boland has referred in prose essays and interviews, the point at which she began to apprehend her Irishness and her womanhood as something given, positive and in the broadest sense political… The poets she could no longer comprehend were those who, like Spenser and Ralegh, had fought to control the ancestors of that Achill woman.

Eavan Boland:

What went into the Irish poem and what stayed outside it was both tense and hazardous for an Irish woman poet.

Michael Schmidt:

Irish women have had to negotiate from being objects in the Irish poem to being authors of it.

Eavan Boland:

“[I am] an indoor nature poet … [Nature poets]… like Frost or the best of John Clare, for example. Their lexicon is the overlooked and the disregarde. They are revelatory poets. They single out the devalued and make a deep, metaphorical relation between it and some devalued parts of perception … What happens is that the poet becomes the agent in the poem for a different way of seeing.

Michael Schmidt:

Kavanagh, [Austin] Clarke and Padraic Fallon had to work out from the great poem of Yeats; they had to “write a whole psychic terrain back into it.” Indeed, the overshadowed Irish poet, the poet who isn’t Yeats, or Heaney, has always to clear a space in the shadow of these presences. Boland was writing “a whole psychic terrain” into the Irish poem as well, not again but for the first time.

Eavan Boland:

[Feminism is] an enabling perception but it’s not an aesthetic one. The poem is a place – at least for me – where all kinds of certainties stop. All sorts of beliefs, convictions, certainties get left on that threshold. I couldn’t be a feminist poet. Simply because the poem is a place of experience and not a place of convictions.

Eavan Boland on Outside History (1990):

Here I was in a different ethical area. Writing about the lost, the voiceless, the silent. And exploring my relation to them. And – more dangerous still – feeling my ways into the powerlessness of an experience through the power of expressing it. This wasn’t an area of artistic experiment. It was an area of ethical imagination, where you had to be sure, every step of the way – every word and every line – that it was good faith and good poetry. And it couldn’t be one without the other.

Michael Schmidt:

[Sir Philip Sidney’s Apology for Poesy (1595)] is a justification of the freedom of language, exploration and concern that poetry might enable. The strategy Sidney adopts, which is not to answer the attack but to advocate “in parallel,” is a rhetorical approach rarely used. In recent years Eavan Boland, trying within Irish poetry to clear a female space, employs the same kind of unaggressive, reasonable and reasoned strategy. It is hard to answer because it adjusts the counters of argument in an unexpected way.

Eavan Boland on In a Time of Violence (1994):

I want a poem I can grow old in. I want a poem I can die in. That’s a very different undertaking for a woman poet than for a poet like Yeats … A woman poet has to grow old in poems in which she has been fixed in youth and passivity: in beauty and ornament. The sexual has to be separated from the erotic … The woman poet has to write her poem free of any resonance of the object she once was in it.

Eavan Boland, interview in The New Yorker:

“So much of European love poetry is court poetry, coming out of the glamorous traditions of the court … There’s little about the ordinariness of love.

Posted in On This Day, RIP, writers | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Foraging for Food with Elvis

Everything is completely normal.

Posted in Personal | Tagged | Leave a comment

Music Monday: The Legendary Boy In The Rafters, by Brendan O’Malley

My talented brother Brendan O’Malley is an amazing writer and actor. He’s wonderful in the recent You & Me, directed by Alexander Baack. (I interviewed Baack about the film here.) His most recent gig was story editor/writer on the hit series Survivor’s Remorse. Brendan hasn’t blogged in years, but the “content” (dreaded word) is so good I asked if I could import some of it to my blog. I just wrapped up posting his 50 Best Albums. But I figured I’d keep “Music Monday” going with more of the stuff Bren wrote about music.

Bren’s writing is part music-critique, part memoir, part cultural snapshot. Many of these pieces were written a decade ago, so I am happy to share it with you!

The Legendary Boy In The Rafters

When I first saw The Replacements at The Living Room in 1987 their entire world had changed. They had fired founding member Bob Stinson, recorded an album (Pleased to Meet Me) as a trio, and hired Minneapolis six-stringer Slim Dunlap as Bob’s (ahem) replacement for the tour supporting the album.

I was bummed that I’d not seen the gang in their original form with Smokin’ and Drinkin’ Bob Stinson hammering away in a dress or a garbage bag but the album was amazing and I preferred the survival of the band to a drunken mess. Advance word had it that they were scorching every stage they touched. Advance word was right.

I’ve talked about this show before but I keep coming back to it for a number of reasons. Primarily because it holds up in my mind as the greatest rock and roll show I’ve ever seen but also because of the simple fact that live rock and roll was still a new phenomenon for me.

The preceding year had been a difficult one for my school, my town, my friends. A well-liked classmate had killed himself. This had perforated any remaining innocence I could have claimed, and channeled me towards darker and darker realms. I was about to enter college, my best friends were both leaving town which meant my band was leaving town, and I knew I would miss them terribly.

So in the midst of this, The Replacements’ new album was akin to a new set of gospels being discovered in your own backyard. One song in particular seemed oddly apt, a bleak upbeat howl called “The Ledge” sung entirely from the perspective of a teenager on the brink of suicide.

The video was controversial, which for The Replacements was a bit ironic. They had balked at making videos once signed to Warner Bros. For example, the video for “Bastards of Young” consisted of an LP spinning on a turntable next to a speaker. At the end of the song, a Converse clad sneaker kicks the speaker in.

MTV banned “The Ledge” from regular rotation. I’ve actually never seen it. Don’t really care to.

Back to the show:

It was about a thousand degrees in the club, to the point where a shirtless guy wasn’t seen as some sort of imposition or brag. The band raised the temperature a number of degrees with a blistering set. I fought my way up to the lip of the stage and stared up at my idols.

Well past the two hour mark, they tore into “The Ledge”. For a teen who had been recently shaken to the core by suicide, this might have been the most healing thing that could have happened. All that pain and confusion muscled into a sing-along!

During the song, everyone became aware of a scrawny kid who somehow had made his way up into the rafters of the club. He hung over the stage listening intently. Tommy Stinson banged away at his bass but managed to bid the kid be careful when he danced up to the mike to sing backup vocals. Paul Westerberg was too far into the performance to notice but the content of the song combined with this mini re-enactment to create an almost unbearable tension.

As the band wound the song down the kid followed meekly and made his way to the edge of the stage. The bouncers were so relieved they didn’t even throw the kid out. He took a spot at the foot of the band like me and took in the rest of the show.

“All the love that they pledge
For the last time will not reach
The ledge”
– The Replacements “The Ledge” off of Pleased to Meet Me

— Brendan O’Malley

Posted in Music | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Reading Tosches Reader

I’m reading The Nick Tosches Reader right now, a super dense collection of his writing – put together by Tosches himself, from book reviews in long-defunct ‘zines, to pieces he wrote for Creem and etc. Nobody. Like. Him. I can’t even say he’s inspirational as a writer – honestly – because to be inspirational you have to inspire in other writers thoughts like: “I want to write like him.” Yeah, well, I can’t. Not in a million years. His stuff is so sui generis it’s a fingerprint of his soul, dark and dirty, golden and shining. It couldn’t come from anyone but him. But I can stand in awe of his use of language, and push myself to do better in my own work in my own way. Take RISKS.

I’ve read the Reader before, but it was years ago, so I am having fun revisiting it. Hope seems to enjoy it too.

Some of his writing is soaringly transcendent and yet there’s always darkness too: light and dark, height and depth, surface and underbelly, maybe you can’t have one without the other (Manichean, perhaps). Sometimes he is trenchant with contempt. But his contempt doesn’t become a rant: it remains focused, which makes it even more brutal. Like his piece on the concert for Bangladesh at Madison Square Garden drips with poisonous observations about the do-gooders’ hypocrisy as well as his dismay that rock ‘n roll was now trying to be earnest and helpful, which seemed, to him, to defeat the purpose.

On teevee they showed what the ticket-line area looked like after da people had, after waiting hours, gotten their tickets. It was just a whole big, dense trail of garbage. Soda cans, beer cans, newspapers, food wrappers, liquor bottles, wine bottles, paper bags. All sorts of ugly shit. And it just seems like plain old logic that people who don’t give a shit about so totally contaminating their immediate environment couldn’t possibly give two garboons about a few Pakistanis getting snuffed out of the carbon cycle scene thousands of miles away. What’s all this ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ shit? How come no songs about litterbugs? A person incapable of holding on to an empty wine bottle until he gets to a garbage receptacle is incapable of empathizing with Hollis Brown.

Oh my God. And he keeps coming back to these dirty hippies all aglow with helping the world littering up the sidewalk. To him, nothing else needs to be said. But of course he says more. Later in the same blistering paragraph:

I mean, people are dying and getting bricked out and the whole world is contaminated and this guy gets up there and sings “My sweet Lord/Hmm my Lord.” The total tepidity and quasi-philosophic non-relevance of such macrokitsch is on a par with Schopenhauer’s literary luncheon suicide spiels and Bertrand Russell’s “war crime tribunals.” Think of it as a two-track stereo tape and out of one channel you’ve got all these groans and screams and tuberculosis vomits and death noises and sobs and out of the other channel there’s this saccharine voice crooning nice Lord, sweet Lord, kiss kiss, here comes the sun, nice Lord, kiss kiss, sugar sugar, kiss kiss glitter glitter.

His contempt is as blinding as the sun, and completely justified in my opinion. Also: Schopenhauer? Bertrand Russell? Throwing in references like that in an essay about a rock concert is classic Tosches.

Here he makes a point I adore:

I mean, does rock’n’ roll have anything to do with anything? Once it adopts pretensions of meaningfulness outside that of a self-contained expression, matrical and flashing, doesn’t it become art or pop/kitsch? If not, how come all the psychedelic dreck of the last five years in retrospect, can’t hold a candle, in terms of cosmic epiphany or plain old life energy, to Little Richard of The Heartbeats? Little Richard, via his pure white-energy raunch and total over-simplification, had the power to make people say “fuck it” and turn their backs on their own control conditioning and just go out and debauch and catch a glimpse of the violent, drunken, loving, dancing Universe.

Gorgeous. Lester Bangs made a similar observation about Elvis in his famous 1977 obituary for the man.

He goes on and on, in this devastating crescendo of what can’t even be called criticism and really should be called an indictment and ends with:

So send your loot to the East Pakistani Relief Fund c/o The United Nations, but remember that you can’t be a litterbug and save mankind at the same time. But who says you should care about saving mankind in the first place? A-womp bop a-lu bomp a-womp bam boom. Cuentaselo a tu abuela.

Later.

Here’s a pic of Tosches in 1972, a year after this piece on the concert for Bangladesh went down. He’s on the left.

Many of the pieces are frankly pornographic, detailing his crazy relationships, all of which begin in barrooms (as he admits), and many are legit laugh out loud funny. Sometimes it’s not even the situation that’s funny – just how he turns a phrase. Also: he’s for grown-ups. Rated R and X. Get outta here if you want to hold onto your innocence.

In the middle of what seems like a pedestrian topic he’ll toss some transcendence/darkness your way.

1. “We shared, he in his erudite way and I in my unlettered fashion, a love for those ancient fragments that were the wisps of the source, the wisps of origin, the wisps of the first and truest expression of all that since has been said. And we both had dirty minds, given as much to the gutter as to the gods.”

2. “No ‘flower children’ they, the sinister emanation of a generation who only yesterday, it seems, were set on changing a world in the shadow of nuclear holocaust and overpopulation into a piece of utopia and love. They drop the knee of fealty before the Antichrist.”

My Utopia is people who distrust Utopias.

3. “…death-row blowjob of a down…”

4. “Yes, it’s an old cliche that it’s an old cliche but there’re two sides to every story.”

5. “…seedy Lotharios of the muse’s dowry…”

Like: WHAT.

6. “Although I have since forsaken these more esoteric preoccupations for a life, as my dear mum once put it, ‘just fooling around and hiding behind a bottle,’ I have retained the patois of the ars arcuns for retaliative use among the intimidating spiritual hoi polloi of the outer Sephir.”

See what I mean? That’s his fingerprint.

7. “It’s just like last year I couldn’t get out of Ogalala, Nebraska, for eleven fucking days I did everything but I couldn’t get out.”

8. “If you still think that existentialism is anything more than getting laid in Paris and acting twenty years older than you are …”

9. “…merely arcane to the leeringly heinous…”

10. “I am 18, just like Alice Cooper.”

11. “…the fierce winds of whatchamacallit…”

12. “…you never know where on the river’s shores the tides of honky tonk seraphim and shot glasses will puke you up.”

13. “It was like necrophilia without any of the sensationalism.” (This, by the way, is about having sex with a woman when she’s menstruating.)

14. “…arch moll of rhythm’d word” (this on Patti Smith)

15. “…out to recast poetry with the nighttime slut-gait of rock ‘n’ roll.” (again on Patti Smith)

16. “…a communique direct from the Antichrist of all that was politically correct” (on the horrified response to one of his columns)

17. “I realize now that [the Stones’] ‘Honky Tonk Woman’ was welcome detumescence for the sixties, and a surly, languid waking from the restless sleep of ideology.”

JESUS LORD.

18. “Though I never drank when I wrote, I drank more than I wrote.”

19. “He could hear the garbage trucks in the distance, and he knew that dawn, the vanquisher of dark confusion, would soon come.”

It’s that “vanquisher of dark confusion” tossed in there that makes it his. It’s the thing I might feel silly writing, because it doesn’t come from me, not really. But it DOES come from him, the deepest part of him.

20, “Dempsey went mad with the lust that only sadness with its wild black cawings could inspire…”

I mean, that’s my 20s and early 30s right there. “Wild black cawings” is magnificent.

21. “Second, lighten up on the broads. Sure, Jezebel was a floozy. But is it really necessary to have her devoured by dogs, a scene that has doubtless cost the book countless female readers? Why not give her a nervous breakdown, or a career crisis, after which she is allowed to find herself?” (his tips to the Bible on how it could be better)

22. “No, Elvis did not invent rock ‘n’ roll. But he was its avatar, the embodiment of its spirit and might. He was more than a star. He possessed the souls of his followers. Virgins burned for him, and boys strove to recast themselves in his image. He had charisma, in the true and Greek New Testament sense of that word, meaning, divine grace. It was that grace, that mysterious, innocent power, that raised Elvis, the singer with no song of his own, the praiser of abject mediocrity (proclaiming at the height of his fame, in 1957, that Pat Boone had “undoubtedly the finest voice out now”), from the merely mundane to the profoundly ineffable. He could have started a religion. In a way, he did.” (This from his extraordinary essay “Elvis in Death.” And he says up front he was not a fan of Elvis. But he understood the power and wrote about it in a way that feels necessary and appropriate.)

23. “However we choose to look at Elvis Presley–as a saint, a savior, or a monstrosity, as the apotheosis of America’s fatal and garish yearning; or as the final god in the pantheon of the West–we can be sure that the likes of him will not pass this way again… One thing is certain. In an age bereft of magic, Elvis was the last great mystery, the secret of which lay unrevealed even to himself. That he failed, fatally, to comprehend that mystery gives the rest of us little hope of ever doing so. After all, the greatest and truest mysteries are those without explanations.”

Tears.

There’s one piece called “Lust in the Balcony” about how he and his buddy, when they were teenagers, used to troll the movie theatres of Jersey City – my ‘hood! – looking for willing girls to feel up in various balconies. That’s the set-up but the piece then morphs into an all-encompassing culturally-literate and brilliantly-insightful analysis of 1960s Hollywood movies and how “salaciously pure” they were. Consider those two words together. A more accurate description of the majority of 1960s movies, particularly comedies, has never been written. As a writer, he has his cake/eats it too: we get the picture of teenage virgin Tosches aching for sex in the balcony, and we also get a very funny portrayal of what was actually up on the screen, and how weird it was, and why he thought that was. The weirdness of trying to find a girl during a screening of Beach Blanket Bingo, and how he knows if he strolled into Beach Blanket Bingo he’d be run off the beach as a dirty dirty boy. The schizophrenia of the 1960s.

So we have that teenage perspective (“tumescence stirred the shark-skin of my adolescence”), but then we have the adult Tosches, now familiar with the so-called “industry”, with some perspective on why the movies were like that.

On Elvis movies:

In the thirteen Elvis pictures released in the years 1961 to 1965, Presley sang, danced, and (to choose a merciful word) acted his way through an endless gauntlet of young, wet female flesh–without ever once getting laid … what confused us was that the possibility of getting laid was never even intimated. It was as if there no such thing as fucking, as if all lust were slaked by a kiss.

On the “beach” movies of Annette Funicello and Frankie Avalon:

Even more otherworldly in its chastity was the series of films … starring the Romeo and Juliet of all-American asexuality … Beach Party, Bikini Beach, Muscle Beach Party and Beach Blanket Bingo. There was something vaguely frightening about these spayed and gelded California beach creatures, so unlike the habitues of our own Jersey shore–something that seemed to imply that brutal desires, like beer bellies and unfiltered cigarettes, had no place in the land of happiness.

The whole piece is dazzling, and it actually IS what I try to do (using my own vocabulary, because his is so … oops … sui generis). Incorporating personal information into critical essays must be used sparingly, must be carefully chosen, and also – you just flat out have to know how to write to pull it off. I am so bored with pieces that start off with a “here’s my personal experience as a preamble”, before launching into a long piece about being a lonely misfit and how this or that movie made you feel not so alone. And listen, I’ve written them in the past. That was the past. Since it now is THE template, I’ve stopped, or at least I choose my moments extremely carefully. Critics promote their stuff on Twitter saying, “This is the most personal I’ve ever been in any review.” And I don’t blame them. People flock to that stuff. I do not begrudge people their hustle, I am just pointing out a trend, a trend I have done my best to resist, particularly once I stopped writing about my life and my boyfriends here. A couple years ago it felt like every review of Boyhood started with a sentence along the lines of “Boyhood makes me think of warm summer days in the golden age of my childhood”… I know I’m being bitchy, but if you wrote a piece like that, I probably didn’t read it (unless you’re a writer where I read anything you write, including capsule reviews of 200 words). Let’s present the other side, just to not be absolute: Of course: Personal experience is important and writers need to be able to know how to access that. The best critical writing DOES come from a very personal place (even if you’re not sharing stories of your childhood. YOU are in your pieces, regardless). But when you read 30 reviews of Boyhood in a row that start the same way you realize … well you realize a couple of things.
1. This movie touched a lot of people and that’s wonderful.
and
2. People are clearly not reading each others’ pieces. Because … maybe try something different.
and
3. A lot of people DON’T know how to write personally, even if their feelings ARE deeply personal and intense, and so what comes out is banality, cliches. They can’t help it. They’re not good enough yet to pull it off. There’s probably, too, a resistance to revealing too much at the same time you want to reveal. People only want to reveal the stuff that “makes them look good” which at this current moment in time means: “I have suffered.” “I was bullied.” “I didn’t fit in.” I am NOT saying these things aren’t valid and that they don’t cause pain – please don’t misunderstand – but what I AM saying is that in this current moment it doesn’t take all that much “bravery” to admit that. What would take bravery is to say “I am fairly well-adjusted.” What also takes bravery is to write about mistakes you’ve made, times you’ve hurt people, times you’ve led people on (even if you didn’t mean to), having ambivalent feelings about being a mother (just go and read the comments sections of pieces like that – anyone who has anything other than “I am in a glow of bliss” responses is PILLORIED. And this is by other women, so, ladies you’re not off the hook.). You know what REALLY takes bravery right now? To apologize for something. What IS brave is to “tell on yourself” … that’s something almost NO ONE does. Everything has to be a self-empowerment narrative now and I find it extremely alienating.

And then you compare those pieces to something like Tosches’ pieces about copping a feel in the balcony all while wondering why the hell no one is getting laid onscreen – it’s just no contest. Granted, this is an unfair comparison – he’s a master – but sometimes unfair comparisons press us on to do better, be braver, go deeper, expose MORE of ourselves, and how we think, and what we think. (I would say too: he pushes you to want to READ more. If you are a writer and you AREN’T a voracious reader, I definitely give you the sideeye. Also, I can usually tell. Your frame of reference is narrow: it’s either just your personal experience and reaction or you can only do compare-and-contrast with other movies. It’s a closed loop.)

But here’s Tosches, talking about the restless energy of teenage boys with no sexual experience, being set loose in these movie palaces, which is indeed connected to his thesis about the “salaciously pure” movies in the 1960s.

One of the pieces I love is his “dirty letters” essay, about “dirty letters” written by famous people. He used as a launch-pad the “dirty letters” James Joyce wrote to his wife Nora, during the few months in their lifetime together when they were separated. These letters are notorious. And … okay … dirty, maybe? … but … James and Nora were both consenting adults. As well as life partners. I don’t know. Maybe people do all kinds of things in bed, have you ever considered that? Maybe there are 10 appetizers for every main course? Where did all this prudery come from? People are like “ikky ikky look what other people do in bed” (not to mention the assumption that women can’t enjoy any of it, and that most sex involves coercion. Women: when you write shit like that, you make it clear you think women like me are WEIRDOS. Which I am perfectly willing to acknowledge, but the difference is I feel fine about it, I feel liberated about it, I know who I am and I know what I have overcome and nobody forces me to do anything. So when you sniff at “weird” sex practices, or you assume that women are always coerced, that there’s no way a woman could do such-and-such without being pressured, you banish us to the status of “not really women, not like the rest of us, not like NORMAL women.” And fuck you for that.) So I read the prudey responses to wild sex, indiscriminate sex, promiscuous sex, or kink or whatever, or sex that doesn’t proceed in a linear fashion, careful and polite, I think “What year is this again? these are ADULTS saying this shit? And let’s not ignore that these kind of comments are not coming just from fundamentalist misogynists and homophobes but from people who believe they are progressive and sexually ‘woke’. Yeah, well, your commentary would pass muster in the Victorian era.”

But why this dirty letters piece by Tosches is so great is that he introduces the subject with a paragraph on Joyce’s sexy letters and then wonders: “What would it be like if we had dirty letters from different authors through history?” And Tosches then WRITES imaginary dirty letters in the style of Henry James, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Faulkner. These fake letters are so funny I was CRYING. When does reading material ever make you CRY with laughter?

What I love so much about it is how well he mimics these writers’ styles. He didn’t go to college, but the piece shows how well he knows their work, how he has read all of it, how familiar he is with their quirks of style, their vocabularies, even their backstories. You can’t write a piece like this if you are not a voracious reader, and a highly learned man. It’s basically pornographic, and yet you have to be extremely literate to even get 95% of the jokes. I think my favorite was Henry James’ dirty letter. It’s one of the meanest things I’ve ever read, and yet you think, “Yeah … this’d probably be how it would go.”

Nick Tosches, prince of fire and air, prince of the chthonic forces acting upon us all.

Posted in Books, writers | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

My final column at Film Comment: on Jonathan Demme’s Citizens Band

As some of you may be aware, Film Comment is going on an “indefinite” hiatus during this uncertain time. There have been a lot of layoffs at the Film Society of Lincoln Center, and Lincoln Center itself is struggling. While this is very upsetting news – not just for me personally (although that too) – but for all the hard-working editors and production people over at Film Comment, who have done their damndest to keep things going, hosting a daily podcast talking to critics about what they’re watching while they shelter-in-place (I was a guest on one of them, to talk about Jean Arthur and Dead Ringers, because that’s what the weirdness of quarantine has brought me to), as well as putting together what may very well by the final issue of the magazine, the magazine that has been around for almost 60 years. It’s devastating. I have a gigantic piece in the final magazine (I wrote about the difficulties of writing it in this frightening time), and so I’m proud to at least be a part of this historic moment. Maybe Film Comment will come back. There was an outcry against the announcement. We are losing so much, stuff that won’t come again, media has already collapsed, outlets are no more … without these things, what will we become? As everything gets corporatized, as corporations take over independent voices, we ALL lose.

I am so grateful I spent the last year writing my column. Every two weeks it came out. It is now a healthy archive (next month will mark the one-year anniversary of “Present Tense”), and at least I got to do it for a year, and not just a couple of months. There’s enough there for a book, and many of them are pieces I have wanted to write for decades (in some cases; like the one on 1970s tomboys). I am especially proud to have been the first person to dig into Sylvia Plath’s heretofore-unknown cinephilia. I didn’t want to just use the column to spout my opinion. That piece involved mounds of original research from primary texts. I’m proud that I wrote about things not just interesting to other film critics, but to people from other disciplines – poetry, and … hockey. I highlighted female directors like Martha Coolidge, Sophia Takal, and Maryam Shahriar, and I wrote about little-known and under-seen films I have wanted to celebrate for years: Arizona Dream, Used Cars, Angel Baby, Out of the Blue, and What Happened Was…. I wrote about acting topics which have always fascinated me, as well as small things I’ve wanted to highlight: the romantic subtext of Ripley and Hicks in Aliens, Frank O’Hara’s love of movies, moments of “back-ting” in cinema, the genius acting of female comedians, the art of the death scene, and watching a film alone as opposed to with an audience. I’ve also highlighted actors I’ve always wanted to write about: from Marlon Brando’s physicality to Jean Arthur’s voice, the torment of Nick Nolte, Kristen Stewart’s magic, and the threatened-vulnerable-hyper-machismo of Matthias Schoenaerts. Woven into all of these pieces are things I’ve been thinking about for a long time: loneliness, mental illness, the damage that gender norms do (in the pieces on Matthias Schoenaerts, tomboys, Daughters of the Sun), the “Miracle on Ice,” Edward Hopper, the essential work of Olivia Laing, the beautiful-agonizing tension between men and women, acting technique, David Foster Wallace, the importance of teenage-girl fans, Walt Whitman, I even threw in a paragraph on Jensen Ackles’ genius in Supernatural … you know: Me. My fingerprint. I always want you to know a piece is by me. If I only had to write about film, I’d be bored out of my mind.

And there’s more. Outliers. Martin Scorsese’s recent Bob Dylan concert film, Rolling Thunder Revue, and an interview with Memphis director Brett Hanover about his documentary-hybrid Rukus.

So I closed out the column with a piece on a film I adore, Jonathan Demme’s wonderful ensemble film Citizens Band (aka Handle with Care), an underseen 1977 film, early on in Demme’s career, starring a gorgeous Paul Le Mat. They don’t make movies like that anymore.

Thank you all for reading.

Posted in Actors, Movies | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Interpreting Lady Macbeth: Sarah Siddons vs. Ellen Terry

For Shakespeare’s Birthday

hollyer-frederick-portrait-photograph-of-ellen-terry
Ellen Terry


Sarah Siddons

Michael Holroyd’s A Strange Eventful History: The Dramatic Lives of Ellen Terry, Henry Irving, and Their Remarkable Families tells the story of 19th century theatre-manager Henry Irving, and his lead actress Ellen Terry.

I have read Ellen Terry’s memoir (my review here), and loved it, but once I read Holroyd’s book I realized how much she left out. The effect of her memoir is that of shifting veils: you get the sense that what she ISN’T revealing may be more interesting than what she IS. Ellen Terry herself wrote:

I never felt so strongly as now that language was given to me to conceal rather than to reveal – I have no words at all to say what is in my heart.

When Terry’s memoir came out, Virginia Woolf, a big fan of the actress, wrote in her diary about it:

… a bundle of loose leaves upon each of which she has dashed off a sketch …Some very important features are left out. There was a self she did not know.

Continue reading

Posted in Actors, On This Day | Tagged , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Music Monday: BUDWEISER!!!!!, by Brendan O’Malley

My talented brother Brendan O’Malley is an amazing writer and actor. He’s wonderful in the recent You & Me, directed by Alexander Baack. (I interviewed Baack about the film here.) His most recent gig was story editor/writer on the hit series Survivor’s Remorse. Brendan hasn’t blogged in years, but the “content” (dreaded word) is so good I asked if I could import some of it to my blog. I just wrapped up posting his 50 Best Albums. But I figured I’d keep “Music Monday” going with more of the stuff Bren wrote about music.

Bren’s writing is part music-critique, part memoir, part cultural snapshot. Many of these pieces were written a decade ago, so I am happy to share it with you!

BUDWEISER!!!!!

The title of this post comes from 1988. I was in college and as far into my obsession with Elvis Costello as I would ever go. I don’t know how to describe what happened with Elvis and I, only that I feel much like one half of a famous divorced couple. I only have nice things to say about him but we aren’t together anymore.

Don’t get me wrong, now, the man is one-in-a-million. His creative stretch from 1984 to 1990 was astonishing. 1986 alone has two MASTERPIECES. King of America and Blood & Chocolate came out the same year and are almost diametrically opposed in a stylistic sense.

King of America was recorded live with crack session musicians and prefigures the whole alt-country movement by about 10 years. If you ever listened to Wilco and thought they invented that wheel, you ought to check this album out.

Blood & Chocolate was recorded with The Attractions. They all hated each other and him at this point. The album doesn’t suffer for it; in fact the discord etches these songs indelibly into the memory. You can hear every single breath that Elvis has to take in order to spew the vitriol and pain. “I Want You” is 6 minutes of exposed id. He begs a lover who has betrayed him to tell him every detail, to explain the unexplainable, to account for the devastation he is left with. And the love is always the primary emotion that comes through in spite of the anger and the rage.

It is this song upon which the title of this post hinges.

I had gone to Keaney Gym with my sister’s boyfriend at the time, as much of an Elvis fan as I was. We snuck in a flask of vodka which we mixed in with Del’s Lemonade. (Anyone from RI will know what this means. If you aren’t from Little Rhody, imagine the best crushed ice lemonade drink ever, multiply it by several million, and then you’ll approach the delicio-sity of Del’s Lemonade.)

Nice and toasty from our subterfuge drinks, we settled back to take in Elvis solo. Nick Lowe opened and he was fine. But he just seemed pleasant compared to the artistry that came after.

Elvis played what seemed like 70,000 songs. Each one a bigger hit than the last. The acoustic format was a bit of a stretch for an arena of that size but he filled the space easily. He added a drum machine and distortion for “Pump It Up” and many other sound effects/embellishments made for as varied an array of sounds as a single man with a guitar could hope to make.

During his encore, which came well past the two hour mark, he started the immediately recognizable chords that open “I Want You”. Stark and minor, he went through the intro which itself lasts almost two minutes, and ends with him saying “Anything else is a waste of breath.” Then the song goes on for almost 5 more minutes.

In the pause between “…waste of breath” and the kerang of the opening chord to the bulk of the song, the tension in the arena was palpable. His emotional performance was WRENCHING. It was as if we 3,000 strangers were listening in on his break-up call.

In that pause, some bozo screamed “BUDWEISER!!!!” at the top of his lungs.

Even anonymous intimacy is too much for some people.

— Brendan O’Malley

Posted in Music | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Action Shot, 1899

“Horse Training”, Félix Thiollier, 1899.

Posted in Art/Photography | Tagged | 7 Comments