Showing posts with label Evelyn Nesbit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evelyn Nesbit. Show all posts

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Recalling America's Lost "Progressive Era"

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy


Neither Edith Wharton nor E. M. Forster admired it, but Louis Auchincloss calls "The Wings of the Dove" the greatest of Henry James' novels. Published in 1902, the novel represented something of a “comeback for James”, whose only bestseller, Daisy Miller, had appeared more than two decades earlier. Set amid fashionable London drawing rooms and gilded Venetian palazzos, the story concerns a pair of lovers who conspire to obtain the fortune of a doomed American heiress. This version is said to be “the definitive New York Edition” appearing in 1907 with the author's Preface.

As Hollywood screenwriters might “pitch it”:
... a naïve young woman becomes both victim and redeemer in James's meticulous “map” (ordeal?) of drama, treachery and self-betrayal. “It seems to me that I know the characters even more intimately than I know the characters in the earlier novels of his Balzac period. The Wings of the Dove represents the pinnacle of James's prose.” said Louis Auchincloss.
Many British Novels depict the deterioration and ultimate collapse of the British "class system", most prominently the work of Vera Brittain. However, James captures it perfectly in this intimate portrait of three people trapped in a system that Bush would create in America, a system of primogeniture and privilege, a system of those who have and those who do not. As Billie Holiday would sing later in America: “God Bless the Child that's Got His Own!”
Money, you've got lots of friends
Crowding round the door
When you're gone, spending ends
They don't come no more Rich relations give
Crust of bread and such
You can help yourself
But don't take too much
Mama may have,Papa may have
But God bless the child that's got his own, That's got his own
There are undoubtedly many other models that do have a chance of working, that can be devised and improvised so that short falls of the various systems might be addressed.
For many, "economics" has become ideological and their view of it is "religious" in nature. Supply-side economics, for example, is accepted and espoused as a matter of "faith". Like various cultists, "supply siders" will not tolerate other world views.

I have often thought that it was the long cold war that radicalized economic thinking in this country but it's not so simple as that. Much of it has to do with the nature of the "very rich". There is a line in Henry James' “The Wings of the Dove” in which a young newspaper reporter warns his idealistic, "revolutionary" friends that the aristocrats would not reform themselves and, therefore, must not be entrusted to rule the British Empire. That story is set in London, circa 1900.

Arguably – the most radical period in world history was roughly 1840-1920. Karl Marx and colleague Friedrich Engels had issued the Manifest der kommunistischen Partei (Communist Manifesto) (1848) which they had hoped would precipitate a world wide social revolution. They very nearly succeeded. Socialism was advanced –even in America. Eugene Debs was the Socialist candidate for President. It was Debs who famously said in his defense: “While there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free”. Almost concurrently, Lincoln Steffens was exposing abuses throughout an increasingly unfair capitalist system. Anarchists found a voice in Emma Goldman.

When a viable labor movement began to frighten a growing class of “robber barons”, the “evil empire” of "robber barons" would strike back. By 1914, the “working man's” great champion, Clarence Darrow, was severely chastened but eventually acquitted of bribery charges in Los Angeles. His most egregious sin? He had dared defend two brothers –the McNamaras –on charges that they had bombed the Los Angeles Times building which ultimately caught fire and burned down. Though he brokered a successful “plea bargain”, he would never defend another labor case.

World War I –instead of energizing the U.S. movement as it had done in Russia –rallied "patriots" to the flag and had the effect –as do all wars –of limiting dissent, free speech and free thought! America marched off to war singing a George M. Cohan tune: “Over There!” Later –the Hoover Administration would deny World War I veterans their bonuses and ordered a military attack upon the veterans who dared demand their due!

The U.S. Army attack upon “their own” was a nation's ultimate betrayal of those who put their lives on the line for its defense. One is always at a loss for words to describe a betrayal so venal.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

E.L.Doctorow's Ragtime America

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

This article is not a review of the fourteen essays on literary, political, and historical topics that make up E.L. Doctorow's Jack London, Hemingway, and the Constitution: Selected Essays, 1977-1992. It is my take on Doctorow's best known novel --Ragtime. I mention the essays because they are better appreciated after one reads Ragtime.

Doctorow's essay on the Constitution is the counterpoint to this author's steeped obsession with American culture and politics. The Constitution of his description is a lost Arcadia, our innocence, our ephemeral flirtation with legitimate government and Democracy.

It is unfortunate, however, that this extraordinary collection of essays is not as well known as are Doctorow's novels -Ragtime (my favorite), Billy Bathgate, Welcome to Hard Times (his first novel) or World's Fair, winner of the 1986 National Book Award. In fact, it is not even mentioned in Wikipedia though his other collection of essays, Creationists: Selected Essays 1993-2006, is.

Good essays challenge the intellect at a time when it is easier to watch a music video designed to challenge the senses. It is uncomfortable to be challenged. It is easier to click a remote control in search of eye candy. It is easier to surf the web than deep dive for pearls.

Selected Essays, like Doctorow's Ragtime, is a curious mix of the best and the worst of American culture. For me, much of the appeal of Ragtime was the unlikely collection of real characters: Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Houdini, J.P Morgan, Evelyn Nesbitt, Emma Goldman, Stanford White, Harry K. Thaw, with fictional characters such as Father, Mother, and Mother's Younger Brother.

Most reviews of Ragtime miss the point. For example:
"In 10th grade, a teacher suggested that I read this book and do a report on it. I found one sex scene so shocking that I returned the book to her and suggested she was irresponsible for recommending it to a 14 year old."
The scene in question was most certainly the explicit "threesome scene" involving Mother's Younger Brother, Evelyn Nesbitt, the infamous "Gibson Girl", and Emma Goldman, the notorious socialist/anarchist.

Other fictional characters include Coalhouse Walker, a character that may have been inspired by Scott Joplin, and Sarah, the mother of his newborn boy. Sarah lives in New Rochelle with Mother, Father, and, until he leaves the nest, Mother's Younger Brother. A series of tragic events triggered by Coalhouse Walker propelled the 70's movie version of Ragtime though at least three main threads are woven artfully throughout the novel.

Of the three, none are more poignant than the story of Tateh and his little daughter. Tateh is a recent immigrant whose only skill is cutting out silhouettes. The pair face certain starvation in New York's lower east side until Tateh discovers that his "flip books" of sihoutetted ice skaters were marketable. By the end of the novel, Tateh is a successful film maker. It is the American dream from which we have all but recently awakened.

On the whole, however, Ragtime, though dreamily surreal, is true. Evelyn Nesbit was, in fact, an historical character but Mother's Younger Brother exists only in the person of many another real Nesbit admirer. And there were many.

This unlikely mix, this potpourri lunch, this surreal pastiche IS our history. This volatile concoction of characters wrapped up one century and helped shape another. From our vantage point in the early 21st Century, this era is too easily seen in sepia accompanied by ragtime. And, indeed, it was so until World War I awakened us to real nightmare.

At least one critic called Doctorow's collection of essays "unstartling":
This exiguous assembly of prefaces and assignments is unstartling: Jack London was "a workaday literary genius/ hack"; Hemingway was tormented; Orwelrs 1984 is concerned with "the political manipulation of reality through the control of history and language." In this salad bar of limp banalities, there is not a fresh thought, a crisp phrase, or a morsel of original research
Had Doctorow intended to "startle"? If I had not disagreed with the reviewer, I would not be writing about this little known book now. The above review is hash by a hack. In fact, other more intelligent reviewers were more receptive.
The essay that I find most interesting is entitled "Commencement," and is,in fact, the Commencement Address that Doctorow delivered to the Brandeis University graduating class of 1989. A theme in the address is taken from Sherwood Anderson and Doctorow refers to it as "the theory of grotesques." It goes something like this: The world is filled with many truths to live by, and they are all beautiful. Two that he first mentions are the truth of thrift and the truth of self reliance. There is a problem, however, when one of these truths is grabbed up and made into a cause to the exclusion of all other truths.
My favorite essay, naturally, is Doctorow's analysis of the Constitution. Doctorow seems to have made the argument that the Constitution is most notable for what it is not, for what it does not do, for what it does not say, for language it does not use.

The Constitution is a secular document. The word God is not used even once. The authority of the Constitution is not theological though it has, Doctorow claims, the voice of "Sacred Text". It uses the word "shall" though it makes no theological appeal. Significantly, the preamble cites the origin of Constitutional authority: "We the people....". It is a document of the people, by the people, for the people. It was the people --not God --who wrote the Constitution.

Often thought to be a document that guarantees that we be free, the Constitution does not use the word slave . Yet, it was Thomas Jefferson (not a delegate to the Constitutional covention) who had written "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". If in context the Constitution ensures our "freedom", it does not, therefore, do so upon a theocratic principle. It is not God who endows us with "unalienable rights". It is ourselves.

The Constitution, therefore, is an existentialist document entirely compatible with Sartre's assertion:
"Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself."
Indeed, a people are nothing but what they make of themselves. In the Constitution, we make of ourselves a free people. We are free because we have chosen to take responsibility for what we have made of ourselves.

If our brief flirtation with freedom is but a sepia toned dream of Doctorowesque fantasy, then, with Bush we awakened to nightmare. Still, our future as a nation lies not in God nor any person appointed by deities. Our fate is nothing more nor less than the choices we make. We may choose to end the nightmare. We may choose to end the Bush administration and, by reasserting our freedom, we define ourselves as a "free people".