“One must bear in mind the odd angle or slant that the rays of love have to take in order to reach a heart like mine.”
By my recognition, Saul Bellow has rightfully earned his
place amongst the greatest American writers of the 20th century so
one can understand my high expectations when approaching this particular novel,
which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1975. Charles Citrine, the esoteric
protagonist and narrator of the story recalls that his literary idol and
mentor, a once famous poet name Humboldt Fleisher, admonished the literary
award with ironic vehemence: “The Pulitzer is for the birds—for the pullets.
It’s just a dummy newspaper publicity award given by crooks and illiterates.
You become a walking Pulitzer ad, so even when you croak the first words of the
obituary are ‘Pulitzer prize winner passes’” (3). It makes me wonder if Mr. Bellow still harbored these negative sentiments or had a change of heart when accepting the
award.
Humboldt’s Gift by Saul Bellow is a flawed masterpiece, a
wildly ambitious tour-de force with the author in top form. Once
again, his inimitable writing style featuring the harmonious fusion between
scholarly discourse and virtuoso literary aesthetics is funny, poignant,
insightful and overflowing with ideas but he is unable to maintain the same
consistent momentum or quality of writing established in the first half of the
novel. Despite the uneven narrative structure that seems to be split into two
completely different novels altogether—the first part focusing on the
narrator’s inner thoughts, personal reflections and philosophical reveries
greatly overshadowing the second half that is more story-oriented, containing a
bizarre series of events, odd character encounters (Charlie’s relationship with
an eccentric mobster named Cantible is a perfect example) that seem so out of
place, eventually leading to some
questionable outcomes—Bellow should still be commended for managing to
keep the overwhelming amount of story material intact from imploding on itself throughout
500 pages even though the narrative gets away from him as it hiccups
towards the end. Despite this minor hindrance, Saul Bellow is a very clever writer who uses irony to highlight the
absurdities of the narrative—one is not supposed to take the novel at
face-value, it satirizes the intellectual as a phony, a buffoon, a failure. At
first, this approach hindered my overall enjoyment of the novel because Bellow’s
flippant sardonic humor conflicts with my own literary aspirations. Why
shouldn’t the artist be recognized as having a prestigious status if their
talents prove worthy of esteem? Upon further reflection, it dawned on me that Bellow
is using irony as justification for legitimizing the artist in a society that
no longer recognizes them not as a group of intellectuals but rather as the creators
behind vapid ‘entertainments’ that come
out of Hollywood every year. This irony becomes explicitly clear at the end of
the novel when Charlie discovers Humboldt’s gift to him beyond the grave
(hence, the title of the novel takes on
a double-meaning since it refers to Humboldt’s talents as a poet along with his
“gift” bequeathed to Charlie that solves his financial problems).
Furthermore, irony is used to subvert the haughty
sententiousness of Charlie’s predisposition as an artist who intends to
enlighten humanity and influence society through his work, yet his approach is
passive; he theorizes eloquently and draws conclusions but is reluctant to take
any immediate action to confront many of the contentious issues of living as an
artist in a capitalist western society, nor is he willing to address the
problems of his own life in a rational manner, which of course causes serious
repercussions including divorce, various court proceedings, lawsuits, extortion,
the involvement with hoodlums and failed relationships. Charlie recognizes the
contradictions of his intellectual life: “What good is all this reading if you
can’t use it in the crunch?” (87). Again, more irony. The falling-out between
Humboldt and Charlie is a direct result of intellectual stubbornness by both
parties, however, the latter is plagued by a guilty conscious after reading
about Humboldt’s death in the paper (don’t worry, this is not a spoiler since
it occurs in the first few pages) and this sends a flood of memories as he
attempts to reconcile the past. Charlie prefers live in the metaphysical realm,
avoiding direct experience by replacing it with art and philosophical
discourse. With an air of self-righteousness, he believes that it is his
responsibility as a distinguished writer and member of the intellectual elite
to change the way people perceive the world through the influence of his art as
well as continuing the work of other artists, like his late friend Humboldt
Fleisher: “It means that the only art intellectuals can be interested in is an
art which celebrates the primacy of ideas. Artists must interest intellectuals,
this new class. This is why the state of culture and the history of culture
become the subject matter of art” (32). As challenging as this endeavor seems
to Charlie, his intellectual snobbery only serves to alienate those around him
and drive them away.
Charlie takes solace in meditation, to free the mind from
all external influences in order to achieve an enlightened state of being. He
refers to this activity as an “exercise in contemplation or Spirit-recollection
(the purpose of which was to penetrate into the depths of the soul and to
recognize the connection between the self and the divine powers)” (143-144).
Religious connotations aside, Charlie spends the first half of the novel
engaged in his own therapy session; stretched out on the sofa, he attempts to
make sense of his entire life that is spinning out of control through this
intellectual exercise of deep contemplation. His ramblings thoughts whirl in
every direction as he reflects on the past, his adolescence, former
girlfriends, the money grubbing ex-wife, his capricious girlfriend Renata, his
tenuous relationship with Humboldt. Additionally, he tackles a great deal of
complex issues and ideas, including art, history, pop-culture, philosophy,
literature, science, religion, sociology—Bellow is full of encyclopaedic
knowledge; he fills his pages with extensive references while expounding on so
many different subjects with fervent enthusiasm. In a similar style to many of his other
works, there is less focus on a traditional narrative and more emphasis placed
upon the exploration of ideas, an engagement of intellectual discussion. This
time around, the main concern is twofold: anthroposophy (theories of the human
soul) and death. Charlie is terrified of death (something that I can easily relate to) and is eager to justify his failed life with the belief that humans
must possess an immortal soul that is connected to the after-life, otherwise
life is meaningless. His intention is to write a significant work, a
dissertation on “boredom” focusing on its impact on capitalist society, the
connection to sleep and to the human soul. Just thinking about the many lengthy
passages devoted to his theoretical undertaking makes my head spin.
Similar to Philip Sydney or Percy Shelley, Bellow attempts
to write his own “Defense of Poetry” for the 20th century and
ardently puts forth arguments supporting the artist—in this case the poet—but realizes
the many contradictions associated with this role. Charlie goes on to describe
the irony of Humboldt’s artistic yearnings:
“He wanted to be magically and cosmically expressive and
articulate, able to say anything; he
wanted also to be wise, philosophical, to find the common ground of poetry and
science to prove that the imagination was just as potent as machinery to free
and to bless humankind. But he was out also to be rich and famous” (121).
This juxtaposition between the artist and capitalist society
is an issue that is frequently addressed and Charlie struggles to come to terms
with his success and sense of self-worth. Furthermore, the role of the poet in
contemporary society is no longer considered prestigious, nor is it highly
valued as a lucrative or profession that contributes much to society:
“The country is proud of its dead poets. It takes terrific
satisfaction in the poets’ testimony that the USA is too tough, too big, too
much, too rugged, that American reality is overpowering. And to be a poet is a
school thing, a skirt thing, a church thing. The weakness of the spiritual
powers is proved in the childishness, madness, drunkenness, and despair of
these martyrs. Orpheus moved stones and trees. But a poet can’t perform a
hysterectomy or send a vehicle out of the solar system. Miracle and power no longer belong to him. So
poets are loved, but loved because they just can’t make it here” (119).
The reference to Orpheus is an obvious hyperbole but the
argument is clear: Poets are no longer
praised as valuable members of society like they were in previous centuries.
With the advance of technology and the push towards rationalization, the poet is
now obsolete, a memento of times past when literary traditions were regarded as
important aspects of culture but now they no longer have a place in capitalist
society. Charlie continues his position:
“It was not the factory or department store, not the great
corporation office or bureaucratic civil service, it was not the routine job
world. If you could arrange to avoid that routine job-world, you were an
intellectual or an artist. Too restless, tremorous, agitated, too mad to sit at
a desk eight hours a day, you needed an institution—a higher institution”
(135).
The material world has changed, industries have greatly expanded
and globalization is taking over. Therefore,
the poet, intellectual or whatever else title you want to call the artist, is
someone who challenges the system by avoiding the 9-5 job in order to apply
their time and energies to creative enterprises. Of course, this bohemian
lifestyle is no longer practical and unless there is income from other sources,
it is rare nowadays to be a full-time artist. This is only one aspect of the
novel worth exploring. There is so much
more story-material to unpack and ideas to analyze.
Many are sure to find Bellow’s style to be obnoxious and
preachy (this is true to a certain extent) but even if he does get carried away
at times with his lecturing or philosophical digressions, his writing is such
an absolute pleasure to read. He might be an erudite scholar but his prose is
not dense or monotonous as one might expect. On the contrary, Bellow possesses
such a command of language—his words possess an exuberant energy, sharpness and
eloquence that is mesmerizing. The
descriptions are vividly realized, the attention to detail is most striking and
his witty humor is spot on. Even though his characterizations may not be the most
impressive, Bellow has a knack for writing great dialogue and it is always a
joy to hear his characters speak, especially when they debate or bounce ideas
off one another. Unless you happen to
already be a fan of Saul Bellow’s work, this is a difficult novel to
recommend to newcomers despite being fairly accessible. Then again, it is bound
to appeal to anyone with an inquisitive mind, those interested in studying literature
or aspiring writers who are committed to mastering the craft. Academics and
scholars also seem to be the intended demographic. Nonetheless, this is a richly
complex literary work that appeals to my own sensibilities—Bellow being one of
those special authors whose writing I find myself connecting with on a personal
and philosophical level. Not to mention, I am also quite partial to novels
about writers struggling in their artistic and personal lives. Humboldt’s Gift is a wonderful reading experience with my appreciation of its greatness rising as I continue to mull it over. There is very little doubt that I will enjoy it even more with a closer-reading.
Quote: It makes me wonder if Mr. Bellow still harbored these negative sentiments or had a change of heart when accepting the award.
ReplyDeleteActually, the Fleisher character is based on a poet with whom Bellow himself was friends so, if anything, the character would be expressing the attitudes of that poet and not the author himself. (If I remember correctly, the protege is the character that is the most autobiographic.)
Thanks for clarifying this up Satia. That does make a lot of sense now.
ReplyDelete