Norman Mailer RIP

a_sharp · Nov 11, 2007

Yesterday the writing world lost a 20th Century great. Norman Mailer died in New York at 84. His 1948 debut with "The Naked and the Dead" was one of 30 books he published, including novels, biographies and works of non-fiction. He won the Pulitzer in 1968 for "The Armies of the Night."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/11/10/mailer.obit/index.html

imagegod · Nov 11, 2007

His death is a tragedy...not for the man who lived an incredibly full and rich life. It's a tragedy that the world is blind to his heroisim...his literary, intellectual, artistic heroism. Completely, tragically blind.

He wasn't always right (by far). He wasn't always artistically successful (by far). But he was always herioic...and always striving for greater heroism. Artistic, intellectual, personal heroism.

And our culture, our world has no idea what this means.

I can only take solace in the knowledge that all heroes aren't dead...and that these living heroes will someday bring that heroism to a blind and deaf world. And change it for the better.

Amen.

FinbarReilly · Nov 11, 2007

I do find it rather fitting that, for someone who liked to stir things up a bit, that two unions in industries where he made a major contribution are striking (WGA and stagehands). An interesting send-off...

FR

Will Lavender · Nov 11, 2007

imagegod said:
His death is a tragedy...not for the man who lived an incredibly full and rich life. It's a tragedy that the world is blind to his heroisim...his literary, intellectual, artistic heroism. Completely, tragically blind.

He wasn't always right (by far). He wasn't always artistically successful (by far). But he was always herioic...and always striving for greater heroism. Artistic, intellectual, personal heroism.

And our culture, our world has no idea what this means.

I can only take solace in the knowledge that all heroes aren't dead...and that these living heroes will someday bring that heroism to a blind and deaf world. And change it for the better.

Amen.

Seriously? I'm nervous about responding here, because I think this may be tongue-in-chceek. I can appreciate your opinion (if it's truly an opinion), but I think calling the man a "hero" is a bit...much.

First, he was no personal hero. I don't need to say any more about that, I'm sure.

Second, he wasn't a great writer in the way that Hemingway was, or Faulkner was, or even Updike. There, I said it. He wrote three or four fantastic books, he had a hand in making a couple of interesting films, he was a good (though, again, not great) journalist -- but as a novelist, that which he aspired to be and became at like 20 years old, he was not the master that he himself thought he was.

Still, still...he wrote a couple of IMMENSE novels and one book that is one of the finest I've ever read, that being The Executioner's Song. And through it all, in my mind a discussion of great 20th century literature mentions Mailer only in the footnotes.

gerrydodge · Nov 11, 2007

Yes, Mailer was a good writer, a very good writer. I would say he is not the caliber of Joyce Carol Oates--who I think is overlooked because she's so prolific. I think people wonder, How can she be considered good if she writes a novel a year? But I think Mailer is certainly a very, very interesting writer for the late half of the twentieth century, but, as Will Lavender says, not as important as a writer like Updike or in my opinion,Toni Morrison.

Khazarkhum · Nov 11, 2007

Are we all talking about the same Norman Mailer who almost stabbed his wife to death and thought another man stabbing his mistress made the man a hero?

The same man who made a film where he & his pals improvised all the 'dialog' and 'action' which managed to accurately portray being stupidly drunk on camera?

The very same man who thought it was courageous for some punks to rob an old man at his store?

The Norman Mailer who testified for the murderer he helped get released from jail because he was willing to see society sacrifice for art?

The one man whose 1000+ page 'books' are so incoherent and inept that nobody would publish them if they were by anyone else?

You know what? Good riddance.

jst5150 · Nov 11, 2007

We've already got this thread started, folks:

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83249

Will Lavender · Nov 11, 2007

Khazarkhum said:
The one man whose 1000+ page 'books' are so incoherent and inept that nobody would publish them if they were by anyone else?

Well...I'm not going there. Mailer wrote more than one masterpiece.

gerrydodge · Nov 11, 2007

Will Lavender said:
Well...I'm not going there. Mailer wrote more than one masterpiece.

I agree, and writers are very human regardless of their talent. Hemingway was married five times, shot animals too magnificent to contemplate they should die for some living-room trophy or to prove some macho code of conduct, mistreated his boys and then shot himself. Faulkner was a drunk who died from acute alcohol poisoning, just as two examples. And although Faulkner, even in his weak attempts at fiction, couldn't not write a masterpiece, Hemingway wrote some pretty damn bad stuff.

Khazarkhum · Nov 11, 2007

gerrydodge said:
I agree, and writers are very human regardless of their talent. Hemingway was married five times, shot animals too magnificent to contemplate they should die for some living-room trophy or to prove some macho code of conduct, mistreated his boys and then shot himself. Faulkner was a drunk who died from acute alcohol poisoning, just as two examples. And although Faulkner, even in his weak attempts at fiction, couldn't not write a masterpiece, Hemingway wrote some pretty damn bad stuff.

Oh, no, Faulkner wrote more than his fair share of garbage. But he also did "A Rose For Emily" which is a masterpiece.

Hemingway isn't my favorite either, but we need to keep in mind that big-game hunting was the thing to do at the time. It's only fairly recently that trophy hinting has fallen by the wayside. Ironically, the trophy hunters did far less damage than the local warlords who have AK47s at their disposal and have no compunction about blasting away at anything that moves.

But--neither Hemingway nor Faulkner thought it was heroic to stab someone physically weaker than themselves. Even more appalling, Mailer was still lionized afterwards. Maybe if he'd done some time in prison, he'd have been a better man. Or not. Some people are too far gone to save.

Khazarkhum · Nov 11, 2007

Will Lavender said:
Well...I'm not going there. Mailer wrote more than one masterpiece.

Really? Name one. 'The Executioner's Song' is probably the least bad. But "Ancient Evenings"? Come on.

Khazarkhum · Nov 12, 2007

Oh, and gerrydodge? I have to wonder how far we've fallen when we can compare attempted murder with hunting--and be serious.

Will Lavender · Nov 12, 2007

Khazarkhum said:
Really? Name one. 'The Executioner's Song' is probably the least bad. But "Ancient Evenings"? Come on.

I don't think anyone would consider Ancient Evenings a masterpiece. It was possibly Mailer's worst book. (And here, I'll have to admit, I'm just going on what others have said. I've never read the book. I do know that Mailer wouldn't let anyone, not even his editor, touch it before it was published, even though many warned him that the book was not going to be well-received.)

But The Executioner's Song, Armies of the Night, The White Negro, and The Naked and the Dead are all considered great works of the 20th century. I've read two of those: Executioner and Naked, and thought both were brilliant.

Probably a good idea to separate Mailer the man from Mailer the writer.

But going back to the original dispute: a hero he wasn't.

lostlore · Nov 12, 2007

THE SPOOKY ART was decent. And in it he pretty much admits to the self-knowledge that he's not a first-rate novelist, not a Hemingway or Scott Fitzgerald. But in our time, who is?

gerrydodge · Nov 12, 2007

Khazarkhum said:
Oh, and gerrydodge? I have to wonder how far we've fallen when we can compare attempted murder with hunting--and be serious.

I made the point about Faulkner and Hemingway, Khazarkhum, to illustrate that writers are human and they have foibles like everyone else. I agree with Will Lavender, again, that it probably is always a good idea to separate a writer's private life from his writing when regarding criticism. Joyce, for instance, was childish in his proclivities toward women and toward his wife in particular. To read his letters to his wife makes one want to reconsider his work--but that's unfair to his talent as a writer, I think.

lkp · Nov 12, 2007

Ancient Evenings is the only Mailer book I have read. And despite that a rather adolescent sensibility towards being male was evident throughout (and which I expected), I really, really liked it.
I guess I should read his other work.

a_sharp · Nov 12, 2007

I saw Mailer on Charlie Rose last year. Charlie kept priming him for new book ideas, asking why no recent publications. My impression of Mailer's response goes like this: "because there's nothing left to say." He also indicated that at some point late in life the energy to write his kind of work became too much. One can argue that he paid for his earlier self-abusive life style, but whether that's the case, a book that consumes years upon years of life was just beyond him anymore.

Khazarkhum · Nov 12, 2007

gerrydodge said:
I made the point about Faulkner and Hemingway, Khazarkhum, to illustrate that writers are human and they have foibles like everyone else. I agree with Will Lavender, again, that it probably is always a good idea to separate a writer's private life from his writing when regarding criticism. Joyce, for instance, was childish in his proclivities toward women and toward his wife in particular. To read his letters to his wife makes one want to reconsider his work--but that's unfair to his talent as a writer, I think.

Yes, it is a good idea to keep the Author/Man separate. However, in Mailer's case that simply isn't possible. He self-inserts into every single piece. And his authorial stance is indistinguishable from his personal one.

EriRae · Nov 13, 2007

I for one will miss his novels. If he didn't think he had anything else to write, so be it, but I had more I wanted to learn from him. I learn from everything I read, be it what to do or what not to do.

Khazarkhum · Nov 13, 2007

Erinmiller77 said:
I for one will miss his novels. If he didn't think he had anything else to write, so be it, but I had more I wanted to learn from him. I learn from everything I read, be it what to do or what not to do.

If you look at him as a shining example of what not to do, then he is indeed quite valuable.

a_sharp · Nov 13, 2007

Khazarkhum said:
If you look at him as a shining example of what not to do, then he is indeed quite valuable.

Are you speaking of his personal life or his writing? Because it's easy to find fault with his personal life. Your criticism of that aspect is neither the first nor the most original. And I happen to agree with your assessment of him as a human being. I never liked him.

But I think it's hard to ignore his impact on literature, whether you like what he wrote or how he wrote it. The man took risks, and some of those risks didn't pay off. But he entertained and he made people think about tough questions. To some, that sort of accomplishment is heroic.

imagegod · Nov 16, 2007

a_sharp said:
The man took risks, and some of those risks didn't pay off. But he entertained and he made people think about tough questions. To some, that sort of accomplishment is heroic.

Exactly. The man took risks...but even more than that, he was constantly reaching beyond himself.
On the novel: "It offers the highest challange for moral inquiry." N. Mailer on Charlie Rose.

The man wasn't a hero...personal, intellectual, artistic hero. He was, however, constantly pursuing the highest challange; constantly heroic.

It's useful to compare him to Orson Welles. Welles had a mammoth talent...and he made a mammoth piece of Art. (Citizen Kane). But he let his talent slip through his fingers until he was a joke.

Mailer never had Orson's talent...not by a long shot. But he was always reaching for the greatness Orson let slip so easily away.

Always reaching for greatness...that's heroic.

J. R. Tomlin · Nov 16, 2007

imagegod said:
Exactly. The man took risks...but even more than that, he was constantly reaching beyond himself.
On the novel: "It offers the highest challange for moral inquiry." N. Mailer on Charlie Rose.

The man wasn't a hero...personal, intellectual, artistic hero. He was, however, constantly pursuing the highest challange; constantly heroic.

It's useful to compare him to Orson Welles. Welles had a mammoth talent...and he made a mammoth piece of Art. (Citizen Kane). But he let his talent slip through his fingers until he was a joke.

Mailer never had Orson's talent...not by a long shot. But he was always reaching for the greatness Orson let slip so easily away.

Always reaching for greatness...that's heroic.

I rather object to your insults to Welles. Yes, he was at times a joke late in life, but if you think he let his greatness slip away easily I think you are mistaken. I can't judge Mailer though. I couldn't get past his penis worship which seemed amazingly juvenile, but that was me.

imagegod · Nov 16, 2007

J. R. Tomlin said:
I rather object to your insults to Welles. Yes, he was at times a joke late in life, but if you think he let his greatness slip away easily I think you are mistaken.

He had a lifetime to correct the supposed insults of Hollywood...and he wasted them on a multitude of unfinished projects, appearences on Carson and I Love Lucy, making wine commercials and voicing a planet on 'The Transformers'.
Instead of a planet, he could of been a super-nova.
How 'easily' he let his vision slip away is, to my mind, mostly irrelevant...for the vast majority of his 70 years, he had his health, his mind, his heart and soul intact...what he ended up doing with that time is simply shameful.
And, in the negative, precisely what being 'heroic' is all about.

Khazarkhum · Nov 17, 2007

imagegod said:
He had a lifetime to correct the supposed insults of Hollywood...and he wasted them on a multitude of unfinished projects, appearences on Carson and I Love Lucy, making wine commercials and voicing a planet on 'The Transformers'.
Instead of a planet, he could of been a super-nova.
How 'easily' he let his vision slip away is, to my mind, mostly irrelevant...for the vast majority of his 70 years, he had his health, his mind, his heart and soul intact...what he ended up doing with that time is simply shameful.
And, in the negative, precisely what being 'heroic' is all about.

You don't understand what happened.

Welles alienated Hollywood powers. There's a very real blacklist in Hollywood, and he was on it pronto. His creative life was enmeshed in that in such a way that it could never be completely extracted.

Mailer had no such problems. No matter how juvenile, repellent or downright inept his writing, he was beloved & coddled by the NY literati. He was 'sticking it to the man' despite the fact that he lived the life of 'the man'.
He was a despicable person & a generally lousy writer. And it didn't matter, because he was a part of the scene & above reproach.

If someone outside that milieu pulled half the stunts Mailer did (not to mention stabbing his wife) he would have been shunned. But Mailer was the Wild Child, the Free Spirit, and therefore unassailable.

Norman Mailer RIP

a_sharp

Somebody give me an A

imagegod

FinbarReilly

Will Lavender

Everything is what it seems.

gerrydodge

Khazarkhum

jst5150

Vorpal Comics. Weekly Podcast. Twitch Artist. Vet

Will Lavender

Everything is what it seems.

gerrydodge

Khazarkhum

Khazarkhum

Khazarkhum

Will Lavender

Everything is what it seems.

lostlore

gerrydodge

lkp

a_sharp

Somebody give me an A

Khazarkhum

EriRae

:P

Khazarkhum

a_sharp

Somebody give me an A

imagegod

J. R. Tomlin

imagegod

Khazarkhum