Norman Mailer, R.I.P.
Sunday, November 11th, 2007I’m not sure how I could add anything to what Roger Kimball has to say about the novelist who passed yesterday at age 84. From his desire to overcome his childhood self-image as a nice Jewish boy from Brooklyn to his preoccupation with buggery to his woefully underbaked views on the Vietnam conflict and America’s feelings about it, to the gargantuan vanity of his lifeong quest to write the greatest novel ever, Kimball has it covered.
I might have an observation or two about his place in the overall culture. BN readers know I’m currently making my way through Diana West’s supremely important Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization. She looks at such cultural unfoldments as the advent of rock and roll (and she’s thorough, going back to the birth of BMI in 1940 and what ending ASCAP’s monopoly on royalty clearance did to American music), the impact of Lenny Bruce, the rise of mass media geared to teenagers and the pervasiveness of consumerism. Where does Mailer fit into all this? He exists at an interesting nexus: he was clearly trying to emulate Hemingway, with all that boxing and carousing and boozing. His rise on the cultural radar screen loosely coincides with that of the actor Robert Mitchum, and they share in common aspects of the pot-smoker-with-the-volatile-personality persona. Mailer got going on his leftist bona fides early on with the founding of the Village Voice. On the other hand, he relished building up his creds among the New York intellectuals and the east coast glitterati. He loved nothing so much as an A-list cocktail party.
We can definitely say that he was self-absorbed. I think what we ought to find noteworthy about that was the success with which he got American culture to be fascinated by his self-absorption. Even in Armies of the Night, when writing about this Pentagon demonstration the perceived nobility of which he ostensibly wanted to impart, it wound up being all about Norman. and that’s what critics were left with to write about.
His passing marks a good occasion for asking a question that’s more pertinent by the day: Isn’t it time to quit ascribing depth or even cleverness to artists who spread chaos to all they touch in the name of making a statement?