Posted on

Edmund White on MY KIND OF GIRL by Buddhadeva Bose

White-Edmund

My Kind of Girl  by Buddhadeva Bose (1908-74) is a charming Bengal quartet of tales, a sort of truncated Indian version of the Decameron.  Four upper middle-class men, all professionals, are stranded in a cold train station waiting room all night; they tell each other real-life stories to while away the time. They have been inspired by the sight of an attractive pair of newlyweds who are also waiting hours and hours for the next train.  The couple has hollowed out a little cozy space in which to sleep, but even in sleep they seem tenderly aware of each other.

In all four tales recounted by these elderly gentlemen burns the bright flame of first love, sometimes of hopeless love.  We’re in the land and epoch of arranged marriages, of slender, naive adolescent girls and the young men who dote on them. One girl pines after a strikingly handsome male heartbreaker, but she ends up (happily enough) with the heartbreaker’s best friend, a shy young doctor.
Or a band of three provincial boys fall deeply if innocently in love with a local beauty whom they dub “Mona Lisa.”  The ebb and flow of her precarious health rule their days and constitute their destiny. Even though the boundaries in “good” families between male and female are high, nearly impenetrable, the girls are daring for the period and even hard-headed.  But a kind of sweetness, of decorum, of chivalry characterizes these stories of a past colonial world that preceded Independence, in which the men sometimes wear trousers and sometimes dhotis, in which the children alternate between Bengali (laced with Hindi) and English, in which a poor professor’s daughter is deemed too good to marry a rich merchant.
That the writing has an old-fashioned generality about it and avoids the spikey specificity of our fiction makes it all the more mellow and seductive, the tone of fairytales.  Just as Chekhov’s characters are caught between up-to-date Western ways and retrograde Slavic manners, in the same way these colonial Indians are torn between an English forthrightness and a thoroughly Bengali muted sensuality.
Edmund White
__________________
Click here to read Rick Moody on LENZ by Georg Büchner!
Posted on

Review of BLINDING in London Review of Books

Martin Riker has just reviewed Mircea Cărtărescu‘s Blinding, translated by Sean Cotter, for the London Review of Books, as well as his previous book, Nostalgia (New Directions). Riker compares the two:

Blinding can seem like a surprising next step after Nostalgia, whatever stylistic qualities the two books may share. Nostalgia describes a multiple, uncertain, open-ended world while Blinding expands inward, plumbing the infinite depths of an individual imagination. It’s as though Cărtărescu has chosen to withdraw from any topical literary or cultural conversation, and that rather than attempting to stitch together a fragmented contemporary reality, he is returning to a time that never actually existed, an imaginary time when all genres were one genre and all discourses one discourse, before everything broke into parts.

Read the full review here.

Posted on

Inside the Giant Eyeball of an Undefined Higher Being

by Martin Riker
from the London Review of Books (20 March 2014)

Blinding: Volume I by Mircea Cărtărescu, translated by Sean Cotter
Archipelago, 464 pp, £15.99, October 2013, ISBN 978 1 935744 84 9

At the end of Mircea Cărtărescu’s collection Nostalgia (1993, translated into English in 2005) is a fantastical tale called ‘The Architect’, about a man who buys a car and becomes obsessed with its horn, then with car horns in general, then with the music of car horns and music in general, but never actually learns how to drive. It comes after a series of stories written in progressively more complicated styles – from the Kafka-like ‘Roulette Player’ to the shifting subjects and conflated genders and genres of ‘The Twins’ and ‘REM’ – that demonstrate the breadth of Cărtărescu’s aesthetics. Born in 1956, he’s a member of the Romanian ‘Blue Jeans Generation’, so called for their interest in Western culture, and seems at home in both American and European traditions, and in all historical periods. He cut his teeth on Pynchon and is versed in Gass and Barth. He wrote his doctoral dissertation on Romanian postmodernist and oneiric literature, and has taught literary history at the University of Bucharest. His own fiction weaves realism with dream, memory, myth and parable; he has been compared to Borges, Cortázar and Garcia Márquez. He is also renowned as a poet (his 1990 epic poem ‘Levantul’ tracks the history of the Romanian language just as the ‘Oxen of the Sun’ chapter in Ulyssesdoes with English), has been an influential political columnist in Romania and has had his work translated into many languages.

In ‘The Architect’, after trying out every sort of electronic car horn, Emil Popescu has a synthesiser installed where the dashboard would be, so that he’s no longer constrained by the available horn melodies or even by standard tones and pitches. Though Emil is an architect and knows almost nothing about music, he plays his way through the entire history of human-composed sound – instinctively, like an accidental Pierre Menard – from Orphic hymn to Gregorian chant to Bach, Ravel, Schoenberg and eventually rock music. He stops leaving the car, even to sleep, and grows physically enormous. As his improvisations evolve into an impossible music that has never been heard before, his body grows so large that it subsumes the planet, after which the sun explodes and Emil’s synthesiser-fused planet-body migrates towards the centre of the galaxy. Finally, ‘the matter of his body and his arms, having reached in the course of the migration an extreme state of rarefaction, condensed itself during a period of incommensurable time, lost its consistency, and became star crumbs, which ignited suddenly in the darkened and empty universe. A young galaxy revolved now, throbbing, pulsating in place of the old one.’ Nostalgia ends here, on this grandiose image of destruction and rebirth, a harbinger of what was to come in Cărtărescu’s trilogy, Blinding, the first volume of which was published in Romanian in 1996 and is translated here with prodigious skill by Sean Cotter.

The trilogy is modelled on the anatomy of a butterfly: the first volume is the left wing, the second the body and the third the right wing. Cărtărescu has described the first volume as ‘visionary and idealistic’, while the other two are more historical, satirical and angry, ‘as if Dante had wandered in reverse’. The entire trilogy was written by hand, Cărtărescu says, over many years, from start to finish without rewrites, cuts, additions or revisions; he describes the result as ‘a crisp and genuine image … scanning and mapping my mind’. While Nostalgia has its roots in modernism and postmodernism, Blinding is possessed by the spirit of Romanticism, by belief in the supremacy of the individual imagination, the sovereignty of dream and the inextricability of art from life. Cărtărescu’s Romanticism comes filtered through surrealism and other more recent avant-gardes, but there’s something antique, if not biblical, about it as well. Baroque, expansive, carefully crafted but only sparsely plotted, Blinding seems intent on creating an entire sprawling universe of its own. It has too much shape to resemble a ‘mind’, but it doesn’t much resemble a novel either. You might think of it as a vast, book-shaped performance of the imagination as it works through its subjects over time.

In the first volume, those subjects are Cărtărescu’s youth, his mother and the workings of memory, all three of which are introduced in an opening section of about forty unabashedly Proustian pages. From the first line – ‘Before they built the apartment blocks across the street, before everything was screened off and suffocating, I used to watch Bucharest through the night from the triple window in my room above Stefan cel Mare’ – we’re taken back to the world of what Cărtărescu calls the ‘adolescent’ imagination, before reality was delineated into categories and ‘everything was screened off and suffocating.’ In a small room above desolate Bucharest, the life of the narrator Mircea begins to unfold in a feverish mixture of memory, imagination and dream. In this earlier world things that are usually separate tend to merge:

Nocturnal Bucharest filled my window, pouring inside and reaching into my body and my mind so deeply that even as a young man I imagined that I was a mélange of flesh, stone, cephalo-spinal fluid, I-beams and urine, supported by vertebrae and concrete posts, animated by statues and obsessions, and digested through intestines and steam pipes, making the city and me a single being.

As Mircea travels further into the ‘catacombs of the imagination’, his small room over Bucharest fades into the background and the fertile world of the half-imagined past takes over. Proust becomes the Brothers Grimm: the first story, a horrific folk-tale filled with angels, demons, opium addicts and zombies, recounts Mircea’s maternal ancestors’ migration from Bulgaria to Romania:

The convoy stopped to rest and eat, plumb in the middle of the frozen Danube. They unpacked zacusca and cherry liquor, and sat on pallets of blankets, here and there, on the verdant glass. Shanks of pork stewed in pots of their own fat, along with the tripe that for so long had satisfied the convoy. They could see the back of a gigantic butterfly beneath them, only a few paces under the ice, like the neck of a dolphin under the waves of the sea. ‘I wonder what butterfly meat tastes like?’ said a teenager with luminous snot on his upper lip … In the end, in spite of the priest’s advice not to ponder the matter further, a few villagers lit up on hooch took out their shovels and heated stakes in the flames and began to break the ice. They lit more fires around, to lift out the entire winged midge. The crowd worked for a few hours, until they could touch the velvet fur on every side of the ringed stomach and palm the little goldfish scales on the wings. And when, suddenly, a tremor blew through the trim, budded horns of the butterfly and its thin feet began to twitch, the villagers took a scythe to the barrel-sized head and set it rolling away. Blue, thick blood splattered the executioner. Then they began to cut hunks out of the butterfly’s back. The meat was as shiny and wiggly as aspic, but a little firmer, and sweet-smelling. Not one bone ran through it, but the skin and ivory needles held it in place like in a glittering net. They boiled it in clay pots and hung it from an iron tripod. All of them ate the flesh, except the priest, who thought he spotted one of the Impure One’s ploys.

From here, almost anything can happen. Mircea the narrator reappears and disappears again and again. Bits of realist memoir grow into gnostic, Hindu or hoodoo theology. There’s a nightmarish scene with a carnival spider-woman. A black musician in a Romanian nightclub – a character uncomfortably close to a stereotype – tells a story about the meeting of holy and satanic forces in the swamps of New Orleans. Part One takes Mircea through a hallucinatory Bucharest in search of a childhood home. Part Two focuses on his mother, Maria, though her reality is equally infused by imagination and dream, and her story has all the strangeness and sensuality of the book’s other sections. Part Three centres on the time young Mircea spent in various hospitals and brings Blinding to a dramatic climax. A few scenes drag, a few philosophical glosses run long, but the individual pieces matter less than the way they’re absorbed into the book’s fabric. Different realities (imagined, remembered, dreamed) are brought together, as are types of discourse (political, religious, anatomical) and genres (folk-tale, science fiction, sermon). The imagery frequently combines the grotesque and the beautiful: ‘It stank of swamp, violets, permanent marker, uterus.’ There’s also much philosophising about the concept of combination, though Blinding’s philosophical passages resemble conventional philosophy in the same way its historical stories resemble the history we know – at once highly stylised, strangely archaic and contemporary:

The bilateral symmetry of our organism – our two arms, two legs, two cerebral hemispheres, two eyes, two lungs, two kidneys and two gonads – often overshadows the subtler symmetry of top-bottom, the higher and truer symmetry. Our diaphragms, like walls between two kingdoms, divide our bodies into two zones with opposing polarities … The head corresponds to the genitals, and all our mystical, animal faculties are concentrated there … And both, in different planes of existence, live and bathe in immortality. The sublime universe appears to us in the orgasm of the mind and the syllogisms of fecundity, in the sperm of the brain and the memory of the ovaries. Under two different faces – angelic and demonic, masculine and feminine – the sublime universe appears to us, touches the blood-filled jewel in which we live.

As passages of philosophy these are not particularly enlightening, but they don’t stand alone. They belong to the ‘visionary’ world of Blinding, a world built from Mircea’s ‘adolescent imagination’ and his specifically imagined past, where a character might at any moment descend into a vast cavern below Bucharest (it happens twice), or simply go to the movies.

*

In Part Three, Mircea delivers a realist account, almost too meticulous, of his hospitalisation and shock treatments:

The final component of my treatment was massage. Long after I left the hospital, I continued to do it myself, in the mirror, like a woman worried she’s getting old. I’d put a little talcum powder on my fingers, and start with my forehead, pushing my skin towards my temples and noting, day by day, how, if I raised my eyebrows in mock surprise, the folds in the left part of my brow took a clearer shape (in the hospital they’d been non-existent). I turned next to my eyebrows and the tops of my cheekbones, with special movements I’d learned from the blind masseur, then massaged under the cheekbones to the cheeks.

Mircea remembers the old blind masseur who provided his physical therapy in hospital. He describes their sessions, dwelling on what they felt like, until the masseur begins telling him ‘bizarre stories, neither flesh nor fowl, whispered, insinuating stories as if he were telling them to himself’. The tone shifts and suddenly we’re in a surreal thriller: a man is abducted and brought to an enormous hall, with ceilings thousands of metres high and a floor that stretches to the horizon. He’s tied to a crystal chair and surrounded by robed men who speak an unknown language, until ‘an enormous eyelid began to slowly unstick from half the horizon and let a crescent of blinding light into the hall,’ and he finds himself inside the giant eyeball of an undefined higher being. Then the blind masseur says:

I had been stolen from the cerebral structures generating the dream of this being that kneaded our world in its sleep … passed through the polychrome carpet of its retina and forced to look, from the middle of the crystalline ball, at a world that was blinding, blinding … The eyelid rose higher. The light from beyond light struck me like a monstrous column descending through the pupil, the hall filled with the unbearable colour of blindness, and in the height of those pains, compared to which a simple pierced eyeball would have been a heavenly balm, a kind of voice, or a kind of calligraphic design on my seeing flesh told me the strange myth of Those Who Know, their global conspiracy, which spread as much in space as time.

The secret sect of Those Who Know shows up elsewhere in Blinding, in other storylines and different guises. Cărtărescu is perhaps alluding to Pynchon, but the existence of his sect has none of the material consequences that conspiracies and underground organisations have in Pynchon’s work. Pynchon’s Trystero points to the instability and anxiety underlying arrangements in the real world; Cărtărescu’s Those Who Know is a purely fantastical device that might be the work of Raymond Roussel. As with Cărtărescu’s use of philosophy, history and memory, even his conspiracy theories are folded into the generative messiness of the novel, which is both ‘messy’ and coherent, since the style of performance is at the heart of the aesthetic: the perforation of boundaries, the association of dissimilar things to produce a single new thing or sometimes to return each to its original state.

Blinding is full of emblems of change and transformation, butterflies most obviously. They’ve appeared in his writing before, notably in a line from Thomas Mann that serves as an epigraph to ‘The Architect’: ‘There is only one problem in the world: How does one break through the chrysalis and become a butterfly?’ The line glosses the story’s subject matter – Emil’s musical metamorphosis from architect to galactic entity – but would be a better epigraph for Blinding, if only for the number of butterflies it contains. In addition to the butterfly of the trilogy’s structure, butterflies or butterfly shapes appear on practically every page. They’re there in the outline of a spinal cord cross-section, or a Rorschach test, or a butterfly tattoo. People change into butterflies in their dreams, and there are fantastical, grotesque butterflies like the giant meaty one eaten by those villagers. Perhaps the most exotic example comes when a woman who has been asleep for hundreds of years in an elevator car, suspended at the top of an elevator shaft in the ruins of an old building, is finally woken up and impregnated by a giant butterfly man from Baton Rouge. If that sounds comical, it isn’t. For all the carnivalesque extravagance, Blinding is a relentlessly serious book. Fantasy and dream are never sources of levity, absurdity is never a joke, and butterflies are never, or never only, lovely.

Blinding can seem like a surprising next step after Nostalgia, whatever stylistic qualities the two books may share. Nostalgia describes a multiple, uncertain, open-ended world while Blinding expands inward, plumbing the infinite depths of an individual imagination. It’s as though Cărtărescu has chosen to withdraw from any topical literary or cultural conversation, and that rather than attempting to stitch together a fragmented contemporary reality, he is returning to a time that never actually existed, an imaginary time when all genres were one genre and all discourses one discourse, before everything broke into parts.

Posted on

REVIEW: Quarterly Conversation on A Treatise on Shelling Beans

 

8365_w.mysliwski

P.T Smith thoughtfully reviews Wiesław Myśliwski’s A Treatise on Shelling Beans in Issue 35 of Quarterly Conversation. 

A man enters a house and asks to buy some beans, but we aren’t given his question, only the response: humble surprise from the narrator and an invitation inside. This modesty, though it remains at the core of the narrator throughout, is quickly overwhelmed when his questions, his welcoming explanations, flow into an effort to tell his whole life story, from his childhood in Poland during World War II to his current life as an aging caretaker of cabins by a lake. During it all, the narrator responds to questions from the listener, but we never hear this strange man’s voice, only the responses. Each question becomes a starting point for another story.

 

Posted on

Review of Moscow in the Plauge Year, Stand, Volume 13 (1) 2015

Marina Tsvetaeva, Moscow in the Plague Year, translated from the Russian by Christopher Whyte. Archipelago Books, 2014. ISBN 9781935744962. By Avril Pyman.

 

Marina Tsvetaeva, a displaced, dissonant poet whose 20th century sensibility is rooted in the European cultural tradition and whose cosmopolitan experience is often expressed in the idiom of Russian folklore, has proved and is still proving an artist of enduring international appeal and a challenge to translators.

 

Christopher Whyte, in Moscow in the Plague Year, has given us a colloquial, witty and most welcome complete English version of poems from the Revolution/Civil War period – the amazingly robust reaction of a young, Silver Age Moscow poet, daughter of a concert pianist and the curator of the Russian capital’s greatest museum of Western Art, grass widow of a White Officer and mother of two little girls … to the Bolshevik Revolution. Tsvetaeva’s ‘Plague Year’ in fact stretches from the autumn of 1918 to the spring of 1920, with one poignant reprise to herald the onset of further catastrophe in 1939:

A noise. I can’t make out a word.
Something draws close…

The book is attractively presented, light and portable as poetry books should be, generously set out so that each four-liner has its own page. The cover is in suitable black, dull gold and warm brown – though I would not have used the droopy Modigliani portrait of ‘Jeanne Hébuterne with hat and necklace’ for the feisty, unkempt, iconic Marina. It was Anna Akhmatova Modigliani painted in Paris pre-1917 (not yet, as that poet noted in Requiem, the real 20th century), and painted as Muse and femme fatale, not, as Tsvetaeva saw herself, as fallen woman, homeless vagrant, gallant drummer-boy ‘with God’s thunder on my chest…’ The one persona these two very different women poets shared and shouldered together was that of Intercessor for the land of Russia.

 

It is brave of Whyte to take on a poet Elaine Feinstein has made so much her own through both biography and translation; whose poems from the same period, a smaller selection entitled The Demesne of Swans (Ardis, 1980), have been melodiously rendered into English by Robin Kemball and, in a collection from a wider period, less euphonically but still in rhyme, by David McDuff (Bloodaxe, 1987); a poet, who figures in various translations of various merit, in a number of bilingual anthologies from Obolensky’s classic The Heritage of Russian Verse with irreproachable ‘plain prose translations of each poem’ (Indiana University Press, 1962) to Olga Carlisle’s Poets on Street Corners (Random House inc. 1968) with ‘adaptations’ by Rose Styron and Denise Lefertov, and Donald Rayfield’s The Garnet Book of Russian Verse (The Garnet Press, 2000), which, once again, offers prose versions. The list is far from exhaustive and will, of course, grow.

 

Such a challenge as Marina Tsvetaeva represents is irresistible to the translator in love with two languages. In every attempt to present a poem in another language, something is sacrificed: either the order of ideas and images, or strict adherence to form, or colloquial fluency. Many 20th century Russian poets, contemporaries of their contemporaries in content, adhered to a prosody already discarded, or half-discarded, by their English- speaking counterparts. I recall one dear friend and translator of Anna Akhmatova exclaiming in indignation at one reviewer’s snide comment: ‘But Akhmatova does sound like Hymns Ancient and Modern’. Form, as Blok says of his own poetry, is, after all, an inalienable part of content. Tsvetaeva, like most of the great Russians, is a musical poet, but her orchestration is bold, unexpected, full of syncopation and dissonance … more Shostakovich than Tchaikovsky, more Mayakovsky than Blok. Nevertheless, the close association of music and words is still there … and Whyte does not concern himself with the attempt to echo this. He eschews rhyme and, for the most part, such poetic conceits as onomatopoeia (in which Tsvetaeva’s poetry is rich), assonance and alliteration. Occasionally, too, as in the first part of the delightful ‘To Alya’, a poem dedicated to the elder child with whom Marina cohabitated in indigent camaraderie, he missed out on word-play or the exact, intimate warmth of the Russian: ‘creature of enchantment’ is stilted; Tsvetaeva’s short, high- bridged nose was anything but ‘hooked’ and the poet and her daughter were ‘small’ or ‘little’ together: not one a ‘child’ and the other ‘young’ … In the wonderful evocation of the poet’s two grandmothers the play on ‘white’ (soft, perhaps, or tender in our idiom), and ‘black’ (or horny, calloused) hands, is lost … But this is to pick nits from a fine body of resonant and witty blank verse.

 

Whyte’s contribution to the ‘English’ Tsvetaeva, apart from the focus of the selection which gives the reader the opportunity really to get to know the poet as a young woman caught up by the tornado of war and revolution, is, to my feeling, at least, the way he reflects her edgy humour:

While your eyes follow me into the grave,
write up the whole caboodle on my cross!
“Her days began with songs, ended in tears,
but when she died, she split her sides with laughter!”

her pithy self-characterisations:

The year nineteen nineteen’s forgotten I’m
a woman … I’ve forgotten it myself.

or

You tell me I’m a whore – and but
for one small detail, you are right!
I only accept handsome clients –
moreover, I don’t let them pay.

or, again, a summary of this whole book:

My rings upon so many hands,
My songs upon so many lips,
My tears wetting so many eyes …
paraded through the squares – my youth …

Tsvetaeva’s visual imagery is superbly conveyed:

… a ballroom dress empty foaming
In a dusty mirror …

As are her sustained, ephemeral metaphors:

I wrote it on a blackboard of dark slate,
along the tiny folds of faded fans,
along a river’s sands, on the seashore
with skates on ice, using my ring on glass …
on treetrunks, so everyone can know
how constantly, unfailingly, I love you,
adding my name, a rainbow, on the sky.

What a fine feeling for language to say ‘on’, not ‘in’ the sky, so that we see not just the rainbow name MARINA, but the industrious adolescent stretching up to spell it out. For the sake of this name, Whyte allows the Russian music to break through his own, more sober idiom:

Masks and music? What’s the third thing he loves? […]
Moscow, magnets, merriment, Mayhem and mazurkas.
The first letter is “M”.
Could it be Maypole, mandarins?

Alliteration and repetition, even rhyme, struggle to surface, all the more effective for the seemingly involuntary character of their eruptions.

Free until now, my hands can’t get
Past their surprise, holding a saw.
Our Lady of the snowstorms sets
Snowstorm on snowstorm hurtling past.

The Englishman is totally in sympathy with his anarchic, female, Russian poetic persona:

My way doesn’t lead past your house.
My way leads past nobody’s house.
[…]
I burst out laughing at the pointless
hoards you amass, merchants!
I raise up palaces and bridges
in a single night.

(Pay no attention to my words!
They’re woman’s babbling!)
When morning dawns, with my own hands
I tear down what I built.
Like scattering straw, the mansion’s gone!
My way doesn’t lead past your house.

Jauntily, he flings down her defiance:

I take the blame, I’ll pay the price.

My heart is stalwart – after all,
not everyone dies in his bed!

Yet also, most tenderly, he conveys her capacity for hero-worship:

Burying my head in your indulgent knees, I ask myself
if all the roses in the garden
have been gathered for your sake?

This I swear to: every single
heir to the throne lost his chance
of sitting on the little crimson
bench that’s placed next to your feet.

She sees herself as the herald of God – ‘a grumpy old man’:

Rely on me! My forehead meets the storms,
I am your armies’ drummer-boy […]
I’m God’s own volunteer.

Here, to conclude, is the man’s rendering of the mother’s lament for the younger of her two daughters. Anastasia died of malnutrition after she was entrusted to a nursing home where, Marina had hoped, she might survive the rigours of war Communism better than in her own poet’s attic. Reading it in this English version, I understood, for the first time, precisely why Tsvetaeva killed herself in the Evacuation during the Second World War in Russia, fearing she would be unable to get work and in the belief that the State would feed her orphaned son:

Two hands lowered gently
onto a young child’s head!
I was given two of them,
One beneath each hand.

Using both, clenched tight
and fiercely as I could,
I snatched the older from the dark
but lost the younger one.

Two hands to fondle and caress
those fluffy, tender heads.
Two hands – within a single night
I had no use for one.

Bright, upon its slender neck,
a dandelion stalk!
It’s still impossible to grasp
my child lies in the earth.

Easter Monday, 1920