readinginsomniac

11/1/093:59PMLRB·EdwardMendelson·LooseCanons(printversion)Page1of11http://www.
lrb.
co.
uk/v10/n12/edward-mendelson/loose-canons/printLooseCanonsEdwardMendelsonHistoryandValue:TheClarendonLecturesandtheNorthcliffeLectures1987byFrankKermodeOxford,160pp,15.
00,June1988,ISBN0198123817NyabyStephenHaggardandFrankKermodeOxford,475pp,5.
95,June1988,ISBN0192821350BritishWritersoftheThirtiesbyValentineCunninghamOxford,530pp,30.
00,February1988,ISBN0192122673FrankKermode'sHistoryandValuereadstheliteratureoftheThirtiesas'alovestory,almostastoryofforbiddenlove'.
Thestoryisusuallytoldinpoliticalterms,butthecharactersandactionsinKermode'sversionandintheconventionalversionarethesame:thepoetsandnovelistswhohopedtoserveaproletarianrevolutionthatwouldabolishtheirprivilegeandconsumetheirclass.
Inthereceivedversionofthe'Thirtiesmyth',themiddle-classwriterswhotookupleft-wingviewssucceededonlyindeceivingthemselvesandbetrayingtheirgifts.
InKermode'scounter-myth,thesewritersbravedadangerouspassageacrossasocialandpsychologicalfrontierinthehopeofofferingtheirworkandtheirlivestoaclassthat,tothem,wasastrangeandwondrousOther,theimageandagentofapocalypticpower.
Theirborder-passagesweretransgressions.
Theyviolatedsocialandartistictabus.
Transgressionalwaysevokespioushorroramongthosewho,inAuden'swords,'wouldratherberuinedthanchanged'.
Butthesetransgressionswereactsofconscience,imaginationandlove.
MostofKermode'sauthorscametoregrettheirtransgressions.
The'Thirtiesmyth',articulatedfirstbyOrwell,receiveditsstrongestsanctioninthereproachesmadebytheolderAudentotheyoungerAuden.
ForKermode,theirregretsdonothingtodiminishtheiracts.
Hisbrief,hewrites,doesnotrequirehimtoassertthathisbourgeoisauthorswerenevergliborfalseintheirpolitics,andheisurbanelydevastatingwhenhefindssleekcondescensionstalkingbeneaththeragsofpity.
Buthisbookisalover'sdiscourse.
Whereothersfindfaultheisnotembarrassedtopraise.
Hehearsinthepoliticalliteratureofthe11/1/093:59PMLRB·EdwardMendelson·LooseCanons(printversion)Page2of11http://www.
lrb.
co.
uk/v10/n12/edward-mendelson/loose-canons/printothersfindfaultheisnotembarrassedtopraise.
HehearsinthepoliticalliteratureoftheThirtiesalucidnoteofaweandwonder.
Hisauthorsbeganwithagenerouswish'tolearnaboutandpossiblylovetheunknown,theOther';theconsequence,morepassionatethantheyhadhoped,wasaliterature'splendidinthemomentofitsenforcedengagementwiththealmostunthinkableOther'–and'capableoffinenesseveninitsmomentofwithdrawal'.
ThelovethatKermodewritesaboutisasvisionaryasitistransgressive.
Therevolutionaryvirtuesthatthewritersadmiredamongtheworkerswerenotthevirtuesthattheworkersgenerallydetectedamongthemselves.
KermoderecallsfromhisproletarianadolescenceintheThirtiesthattheworkingclassshowednosignofgrowingripewithrevolutionarytransformation.
Familieslikehisown'managedfairlywell'onamanualworker's3aweek.
Amongthosewholivedashedidnearthebottomoftheladder'animositywasreservedlargelyforthosewhowerearunglower.
'Thismakesthepoliticalcommitmentofthepoetsallthemoreadmirable:'consciousnessoftheneedandpossibilityofactionwastoaveryconsiderableextentanaffairofmiddle-classconscience.
Anditissurelytothecreditoftheintellectualleft,nowsomewhatdespisedfornaivetéthattheyweresomoved,thattheycametobelievethattheymustdosomethingaboutthewholesystemthatintheirviewmadepovertyandwarequallyinevitable.
'Iftheirworkseemstousnowarecordoftheirfailuretounderstandoraltertheconditionsoftheirage,'weneedtoaskinwhatdegreeitisourfailureratherthantheirs.
'Kermode'sthemeisthevirtueoftransgression–virtueinitsdoublesenseofmeritandpower.
HebeginswithaforgottenThirtiesnovelthatheregardsasanagreeableminorwork,notaneglectedmasterpiece.
Itfailedtosurvivebecause,despiteitsmerits,it'mimestransgressionbutnevercrossestheboundary'.
StephenHaggard'sNyaisthestoryofthelovebetweenayoungmananda13-year-oldgirl.
ReadersofLolitawillimaginesuchabookasahotbedofsexualandlinguistictransgression.
ButinNyanothinguntowardhappens.
Sexualinnocenceisnoteventemptedintoexperience;thegirlfirstplaysamongstreet-boysbutreturnsasifbyinstincttothemiddleclassintowhichshewasborn.
Whilethemorebrutalrepresentativesofconventionalmoralityarechallenged,conventionalmoralityitselfisaffirmed.
Thebookplaysitsafe,andwithoutthedisturbing,unresolvedenergyoftransgression,nobookcansurvive.
InmakingthisargumentaboutthewaybookssurviveKermodefocusesontransgressiveloveandtransgressivelanguageandform.
Hecouldequallyhavearguedthatnobookcanbetakenseriouslyifsomeonedoesn'tgetmurderedinit,orifsomeonedoesn'tfallunderthethreatofmurder.
Noneofthisimpliesthatthecanonofrememberedbooksconstitutesmorethanasmallfractionofthetransgressiveworksthatdeserveaplaceinit;Kermode'sbookisinpartabrieffortheundeservedlyforgotten.
Nordoesitimplythateveryoneshouldcommitthreetransgressionsbeforebreakfast.
Thetransgressoralwaysstandsinmoralandmortal11/1/093:59PMLRB·EdwardMendelson·LooseCanons(printversion)Page3of11http://www.
lrb.
co.
uk/v10/n12/edward-mendelson/loose-canons/printtransgressionsbeforebreakfast.
Thetransgressoralwaysstandsinmoralandmortaldanger.
InthebackgroundofthisbookisEliot'sremarkthatitisbettertodoevilthantodonothing,becausewhenwedoevilweatleastarehuman.
KermodepreferstheirrationalhatredsanddisgustsofWyndhamLewistothesoberrationalisationsofLewis'sinterpreterswho'smoothhimout'intoaprincipledcriticofanunrulyage.
Butheprefersevenmorethesacrificialtransgressionsofforbiddenlove.
HeseesinChristopherCaudwell'sconversiontoCommunisma'lovingsurrendertonecessity'thatcouldonlyhaveoccurredthrougha'psychicrevolutioninthelover'.
Caudwell'scommitmenttotheproletariatwascomplete.
Thepoliticsoflesscommittedwritershasplausiblybeenattackedasanexerciseinsentimentalsublimation:whattheyreallywantedfromtheworkerswassex.
Kermodeseesthematterinadifferentlight.
Theintertwiningofsexandpoliticsisaforbiddentransgressionthatisalsoauniversalfact.
HedrawsatransgressivemoralfromRobertMusil:'ThemanysexualcombinationsexhibitedinTheManwithoutQualitiestestifytothegreattruththatallknowledgeoftheother,allintercoursebetweenopposites,isanalogoustocarnalknowledge.
Itisanideareadyforpoliticalapplications.
Thelovebetweenindividualswhorepresentcollectives,classes,isaunionofpoliticaloppositesthataspirestoinseparability,androgyny.
'Kermodeisnotaloneinnoticingthe'overtoneofthatsexualinterestinthecompletelyotherthatoneoftenseesinthebourgeoiswritingoftheperiod'.
HeillustratesitwithashrewdlychosenscenefromTheRoadtoWiganPierinwhichOrwelladmirestheminers''mostnoblebodies'.
ButKermodealsonoticesthatthistransgressiveinterestgoesbothways.
TheproletarianwriterLewisJones,whosenovelsportraypoliticalstrugglesataWelshmine,praisestheenviably'magnificentbody'ofthecoal-owner'sson.
Kermode'sargumentisbuiltonanimplicitcontrastbetweenrelationsofloveandrelationsofpower,andbetweenthelanguagesappropriatetoeach.
Thepolitically-mindedpoetsoftheThirtiesusedthelanguageoflove.
Thepolitically-mindedcriticsoftheEightiesusethelanguageofpower.
Kermodedescribes,ontheonehand,aliteraturethatfoundvalueinpersonalandcollectivelivesand,ontheother,acriticismthatwieldspowerwhenitcanandservespowerwhenitcan't.
'IntheThirties,'hewrites,'therelationoftheworkingclasstoliteraturewasanurgentpracticalissueandnotmerelyaproblemofacademicMarxisttheory,asitisnow.
'Thequestionofvaluearisesnowmostlyinthecourseoffactionalacademicdisputes,'whentheargumentstendtobeaboutpoliticalpowerratherthanaboutthevalueofparticularworks'.
KermoderecognisesthatacademicMarxistcriticsexpendmuchingenuityinjustifyingthevalueofcanonicalliteraturewhoseideologyisrepugnanttosocialistconscience.
HeobservesthattheydothisnotoutoflovefortheOther,butinordertomaintaintheprivilegesoftheirown'institutionalisedandauthoritarianviewofhistory'.
Nomatterhow11/1/093:59PMLRB·EdwardMendelson·LooseCanons(printversion)Page4of11http://www.
lrb.
co.
uk/v10/n12/edward-mendelson/loose-canons/printprivilegesoftheirown'institutionalisedandauthoritarianviewofhistory'.
Nomatterhowmuchacriticcomplicatesthematterbyclaimingtoperceivehistoricaltruththroughthelensofthework'sideologicalerror,orbyclaimingtoproducetruevalueintheactofanideologicallycorrectreadingofanideologicallyerroneouswork,'intheendyouhavetohaveanauthoritativeviewofwhattruehistoryis,asdistinctfromfalseideologicalversionsofit.
Or:sinceonlyMarxistshavethetruthabouthistoryandtheideologicalbasewhich,withwhateverdegreeofcomplexity,controlsthevalueofthetext,valuationistheprivilegeofMarxists;andeveniftheirvaluationssometimescoincidewiththoseofnon-Marxists,theyaloneareproperlyequippedtomakethem.
'PoliticalliteraturecrossesoverthebordertovaluetheOther.
Politicalcriticismsitsintheseminarroomandvaluesitself.
ThereareproblemsinKermode'spolemic.
HeignoresthoseintheThirtiestowhomrevolutionofferedhigh-mindedreasonsforbeatinguppeopletheydon'tlike,andheprejudicesthecasebyjudgingcriticsbystandardsappropriatetopoetsandnovelists.
Verylittlecriticismhaseverbeentransgressive.
ItisnotthefaultoftheEightiesiftheThirtieshadthegoodlucktoproduceEmpson–whosesuggestionthattheproletariannovelwasavarietyofpastoralgaveKermodetheseedforthisbook.
AndKermode'sassumptionthatthingsaregettingworseignorestheproblemthatwehavenowayofknowingwhethertheyreallyareworseorwhether,asonegrowsolder,onegrowslesswillingtogivehigh-mindednonsensethebenefitofthedoubt.
Fiftyyearsfromnow,someonemayrecalltoday'stheoreticalStalinoidsaschevaliersservants,althoughthisseemsunlikely.
Kermode'sviewofthesorrystateofcriticism,inanyevent,isnotanartifactofseniority:intheearlyFiftiesheendedhisintroductiontotheArdenTempestwitharebuketothatera'svarietiesof'madcriticalpride'.
HistoryandValueendswithadefenceoftheliterarycanon.
KermodeneednotdefenditagainstmostMarxistcritics,fortheytendtofindMarxistreasonstoaccepttheestablishedcanon.
Hedefendsitinsteadagainstthoseradicalcritics(notalwaysMarxists)whowouldreplaceanexistingauthoritativecanonwithamorepoliticallypalatablebutequallyauthoritativeone,andagainstthePost-Modernistswhofancythatthecanonhasalreadydisintegratedintoawildernessoffragmentsandsurfaces.
Kermodeendorsestheradicals'chargethatacanonisinevitablyrestrictiveandthatitisalwaysimplicatedintheunjustworkingsofauthority.
Buthenoticesthatthose'whowanttoberidofwhattheyregardasareactionarycanoncanthinkofnowayofdoingsowithoutputtingaradicaloneinitsplace'.
Hepreferstoenlargethecanon,andmakesanexemplarycaseforadifficultoutsiderlikeEdwardUpward,stillloyaltotheromanticcommunismofhisyouth,stillawitnessagainstthemurderouspowerofthestate.
HehaslesspatiencewiththePost-Modernistsandtheirfantasythatweliveattheendofanerawhencanonsandcoherenceswerepossible–anotion'socomprehensivelyignorantastodefypolite11/1/093:59PMLRB·EdwardMendelson·LooseCanons(printversion)Page5of11http://www.
lrb.
co.
uk/v10/n12/edward-mendelson/loose-canons/printandcoherenceswerepossible–anotion'socomprehensivelyignorantastodefypolitecorrection'.
Kermodearguesthataliterarycanonisoneoftheinescapableinstrumentsbywhichhumanbeingsmakesenseoftheiracts.
Thecanonisameansofconstructingmemoryoutof'theindeterminate,disjectfactsofhistory',andameansoffindingvalueinlivesdifferentfromourown.
Kermodehasadiffidenthabitofleavinghisreaderstodrawthemostinterestingconclusionsfromhisarguments.
Itisahabitthatmakeshisworkliterary–thatis,usefullyopentointerpretation–inwaysthatmoreself-consciouslyliteraryworksofcriticaltheoryarenot.
Hisdefenceofthecanonpointstowardastrongerandmoreunsettlingconclusionthananythingheexplicitlyoffers.
Hearguesearlyinthebookthatallworksthatentertheliterarycanonaretransgressive.
Thissuggeststhatallcanonicalworkscontainforbiddenknowledge,thattheypresentunsettlingtruthsthatinstitutionalauthorityseekstodeny.
Ifthesebooksconfirmedtheprejudicesofarulingélitetheywouldhavebeenforgottencenturiesago;nothingismemorableorsurprisinginabookthattellsyouwhatyoualreadythinkyouknow.
Theworksinthecanonprobablysurvivepreciselybecauseinstitutionalauthorityfindsthemtoodisturbingtoignore,andseeksalwaystocontrolthem.
Critics,teachers,andtheoreticianslabourtorationalisetheseuncontrollableworks,struggletotamethemintocharmingsocialdocuments,pleasingformalconstructionsorfascinatingnetworksofinternalcontradictions.
Buttheystilldiscomforttheirreaders,andtheypreservethemeansbywhichtherigidifyingexcessesoftheirdefendersmaybejudged.
FromAeschylustoZamyatin,thecanonisarecordofperenniallyurgent,perenniallyunresolvedproblems.
Anewworkisreceivedintoitwhenapowerfulbodyofreadersfindsthattheycannolongerevadetheproblemsthattheworkrefusestoresolve.
If,asseemslikely,theonce-forgottenblackwomanwriterZoraNealeHurstonentersthecanonofAmericanliterature,shewilldosobecausesheconfoundsmorethansheendorsesthepoliticalpietiesofthosewhorecommendher.
Whenreadersargueoverthemeaningofacanonicalwork(orwhentheyargueaboutitwiththemselves),theybecome,ineffect,the'twoaccomplices'inAuden's'Vespers'who,'inspiteofthemselves,cannotresistmeeting/toremindtheother(doboth,atbottom,desiretruth)ofthathalfoftheirsecretwhichhewouldmostliketoforget'.
InhismostsustainedcriticalargumentKermodedefendsAudenagainstwhatKermodetakestobehisowndeliberateforgetfulness.
KermodeaffirmsthetransgressivemeritsoftwopoemsthatAudenexcludedfromthecanonofhiswork:'OLove,theinterestitselfinthoughtlessheaven'and'Spain'.
Hereadsthefirstas'aprophecyofloveanditsattendantterror',andthesecondasasimilar'attempttoexpresswhatitfeelsliketoconfrontagreathistoricalcrisis',apoemcomparableinkindandstaturetoMarvell's'HoratianOde'.
11/1/093:59PMLRB·EdwardMendelson·LooseCanons(printversion)Page6of11http://www.
lrb.
co.
uk/v10/n12/edward-mendelson/loose-canons/printKermodebelievesthatAuden,whenherejectedthesepoems,musthavemisunderstoodorforgottenwhattheymeant.
Thisisimprobable,butitpointstowardamorelikelyexplanation.
Areaderneednotjudgeaworkofartunderthesamecodeofconsciencethatitsauthorusedwhenjudgingit.
Audenunderstoodhispoemsperfectlywell,buthejudgedthemintermsofasenseofpersonalguiltsodeep,sopervasive,sofarinexcessofhisacts,thatnoreadercouldpossiblyshareit.
Whenherejectedapoem,hedidsolessforitsownfaultsthanforitsexpressionofthoseaspectsofhimselfthathisguiltcondemned.
Asisgenerallythecase,Audencondemnedhimselfforimaginarytransgressionsratherthanforrealones,andareaderneednottakethosetransgressionsintoaccountwhenjudgingthesuccessorfailureofthepoems.
Butwithoutthatsenseoftransgressionthepoemswouldneverhavebeenwritten.
Andwithouttheguiltyknowledgeoftransgressionthattheyprovokeintheiraudience,theywouldneverberead.
Indefendingthesepoems,Kermodedisputes(andmisquotes)someargumentsIoncemadeagainstthem.
Onthewhole,IshouldprefertoseeKermode'sargumentsprevail.
Atamomentwhentheoreticalcriticismtreatsliteratureasastutteringrecordofitsownignoranceandfutility,asanindictmentofitsownpoliticalinjusticeandlinguisticfaults,asawindowthatopensonlyontotheabyssofitsownemptiness,Kermode'sreadingofliteratureasanactoftransgressiveandforbiddenloveseemsbothvaluableandtrue.
Usingthesamesetof'indeterminate,disjectfacts'thatKermodeshapedintoalovestory,ValentineCunninghamconstructssomethingverydifferent.
BritishWritersoftheThirtiesmarshalseverythingthereistoknowabouttheliteraryThirtiesintoanextraordinaryandindispensableresource.
Cunninghamhasreadmorepoems,novels,politicaltracts,andtravelbookswrittenintheThirtiesthananobsessedinsomniaccouldpossiblyhavereadduringtheperioditself.
Hehasransackedarchives,andhasdrawnontheextraordinarylearninghehadearlierputtouseincompilingthetwobestanthologiesoftheliteratureoftheSpanishCivilWar.
NothingThirtiesisalientohim:hikers,newsreels,suburbsandrevolutionsfindanequalwelcome.
TheTwentiesandFortiessufferedagoniesofenvywhenthisbookappeared.
Theyrelaxedwhentheystartedreadingit.
CunninghamreadstheThirtiesasthelowestofthedishonestdecades.
Itsliterature,inhiseyes,wasbothhistrionicandshabby,anunilluminatingspectacleofutopiandelusion,licentiousappetite,andbrutalimaginings.
AmongtheThirties'manyfaults,oneoftheworstwasthatitwas'aperiodperpetuallyhaphazardabouttheory'.
TheradicalismoftheThirtieshasnowbeeninheritedandimprovedbythecriticsoftheEightiesin'theoldschoolsofuniversityEnglish(andtheirsuccessorsinthepolytechnicsandthenewerdepartmentsofculturalstudies)'.
Thetoneinsuchplacesis'nowmorecautious,lessheroisinglessself-romanticisingthanintheThirties'–lesstransgressive,inshort.
Today'steachersandcritics'haverealisedthatthegroundof11/1/093:59PMLRB·EdwardMendelson·LooseCanons(printversion)Page7of11http://www.
lrb.
co.
uk/v10/n12/edward-mendelson/loose-canons/print–lesstransgressive,inshort.
Today'steachersandcritics'haverealisedthatthegroundoftheorymustbesternlybesiegedaspartoftheprocessofmakingthereadingandwritingofbooks(andofalltheirtextualneighbours)ofmoreinterestandpertinencetoallthepeople.
'Cunninghamopenswithatheoreticalpolemic.
Hisbookwillbeanaccountof'aliteratureinahistoryandsociety',buthewillnot'endorsetheseparationsbetween"literature"ontheonehandand"society"ontheother'.
DuringtheThirtiessuchseparationsweretacitlyorexplicitlyassumedonbothsidesincriticaldebatesbetweenModernistsandMarxists.
Todaythesameassumptionsrecurintheinsultstradedbetweendeconstructionistsandeveryoneelse(withthetwist,notmentionedbyCunningham,thatthebeleaguereddeconstructionistshavenowbeguntopresenttheirtheoriesas'theresourceforapolitics').
Cuninghamproposestodissolvetheseolddivisionswiththehelpoftheory:'thelanguageofpost-Saussuriansemiotics,despitesomeofitsmoreembarrassingburstsofrecentnotoriety,canstillhelpushere.
'Thankstosemiotics,'alltextsandcontextswillbethoughtofhereastendingtolosetheirseparateidentities,collapsingpurposefullyintoeachotherandexistingratheraswhatwemightcall(con)texts.
'Kermodecallsthoseembeddedbrackets'afashionabledeviceforhavingitbothways',andbythestartofhissecondchapterCunninghambeginstoquestionandabandonthepositionheoccupiedinthefirst.
EvenwhenheillustrateshistheoreticalargumentwithanimpressivelybravurasocialreadingofHenryGreen'sPartyGoing(arejoindertoKermode'shermeneuticreadinginTheGenesisofSecrecy)thetextneverlosesitsformalidentitybybeingtreatedasadisturbedanddisturbingmeditationonthethemesofitsmoment.
NorwoulditgainanythinginrecompenseforlosingitsidentityinthewayCunningham'spolemichadproposed.
Cunningham'sreadingofPartyGoingisthebestthinginthebook,because,forthefirstandlasttime,hestartswithasinglecompletework–somethingthatrecognisablyhasafirstpageandalast–andreadsitasanapproachtothethemesoftheThirties.
Throughouttherestofthebook,hestartswithanarbitrarilychosentheme,andtreatsitasanapproachtoarbitrarilychosenbitsandpiecesofliteraryworks.
Hisgargantuanbook(morethanfivetimesthelengthofKermode's)consistslargelyoflistsofthemesandimages,illustratedbyanythingandeverythingthatanyoneintheThirtieswroteaboutthosethemes.
Achaptertitled'IntheCase'includesthreedensepagesaboutzoos:thezooasametaphorforbestialityorenclosure,thezooasasceneofnovelisticaction,thezooasaplacewhereacharacterinanElizabethBowennovelrecallsbeinggiventeabyanaunt,thezooasthesubjectofabookissuedinthesameserieswithabookonaeroplanesbyChristopherCaudwell,thezooasaplacewhereStephenSpenderthoughtit11/1/093:59PMLRB·EdwardMendelson·LooseCanons(printversion)Page8of11http://www.
lrb.
co.
uk/v10/n12/edward-mendelson/loose-canons/printaeroplanesbyChristopherCaudwell,thezooasaplacewhereStephenSpenderthoughtitworthtellingGeoffreyGrigsonhehadspentanenjoyableSaturdaywithafriendin1934.
Listsofthiskindfill13chapters,crowded,fascinating,obsessive,withsomeimportantthemeslikespiesandbordersturningupintwoorthreedifferentplaces.
Nosubjectistoovariousortoomeantogeneratealistofexamples.
Cunninghamobservesthat'manypublishedThirtiesauthorswereonlyslightlyolderthanAuden.
Severalwereexactlyhisage.
Anumberofthemwereactuallyyounger.
'Therefollowtwopagesofillustrativedetail.
Asarule,criticalbooksthatmakeloudtheoreticalnoisesintheopeningchapterturnliteralandnaiveimmediatelyafterward.
Cunninghamwritesasifeverythingthatoccursinaliterarywork,unlessexplicitlydenouncedbytheauthorormadethesubjectoftransparentirony,issomethingtheauthorapprovesof.
Hecan'ttellthedifferencebetweennightmareanddaydream.
Auden'stransgressive,apocalypticterrorsinTheOrators,likecomparablevisionsofanarchyanddestructioninotherwriters,provokehimtosweepingcondemnations.
Heseesnothingbutheartlesscrueltyinthewritersheinsistsoncalling'theyouthies'or'theOldBoys':'Theyouthieswereemotionalcripplesstillenmeshedinthememoriesofboyish,prep-schooldoings,childishviolences,boyishadmirationsforbombing-planesandtheready-fistedcockoftheschoolandofschool-fiction.
'Cunninghamcanconvincehimselfofthisbecause,afterdissolvingallbordersbetweentextandcontext,henonethelesstreatseveryfragmentofabookasifitexistedinabsoluteisolation,asastatementonlyofitslocalandliteralmeaning.
Cunningham,whohaswrittenverywellonMethodismandthenovel,disapprovesofanyliterarytonethatdoesn'thaveadissenter'searnestseriousness.
Itishardlynewsthatliterarylaughtercanhaveaseriouspurpose.
ButallCunninghamcanhearistheschoolboysnicker.
'It'stheslapstickthatsticksinthemind,'hewritesofthemixedstylesinaplaybyMacNeice.
'Likewise,thecabaretabsurditiesofTheDogBeneaththeSkinratherdiminishtheundoubtedwisdomofitstwoJournalists.
'Buttheabsurditiesarepartoftheplay'swisdomabouttheJournaliststhemselves.
Wheneveraseriouspurposegetsentangledwithsex,Cunningham'sanathemasgrowbothnervousandorotund.
Hedoesnotmerelycomplainthathomosexuality'helpedkeeptheyouthiesjuvenile'('MrsLeavisthoughtthistoo'):headdsalongparagraphworryingoverhisowncomplaint.
'Oneis,inthefirstplace,complainingaboutthewayhomosexualliaisonsandsympathiesreinforcedtheOldBoys'pronenesstoclique-pufferyandbluntedcriticalstandards.
.
.
Inthesecondplace,however,oneiscomplainingaboutsomethingthatmaybemoreintrinsictohomosexualwritingandnotjustintheThirties.
Atleastonemustdeclareaworryabouttheprevalenceintheperiod'sliteratureofanumberofspecialisedattitudesthattheprevalenthomosexualitytendedtonormalise.
'AndhecitesthereportedtestimonyofAudenandIsherwood'sDoverlandladytoconfirmthat'theywereapairof11/1/093:59PMLRB·EdwardMendelson·LooseCanons(printversion)Page9of11http://www.
lrb.
co.
uk/v10/n12/edward-mendelson/loose-canons/printtestimonyofAudenandIsherwood'sDoverlandladytoconfirmthat'theywereapairofscamps'Cunninghamrequireswritersnotmerelytosoundseriousbuttosoundseriousatexactlytherighttime.
Hesuspectsthemofimpenitentfoot-dragging.
Iftheyturnseriousatall,theydosobecausethepressureofworldeventswon'tletthemwriggleoutofit,althoughtheydotheirbesttotry.
Cunninghampouncestriumphantlyonanywriterwhosebadtimingcauseshimtowriteaboutaserioussubjectatamomentwhenthatsubjectisnotquiteasseriousasithadbeenafewmonthsbefore.
Auden,worstofall,combinedbadtimingwithculpablefrivolity:'Revealingly,heonlygotaroundtoagas-bombfiction,andthatadisconcertinglyspryone,thepoem"JamesHoneyman".
.
.
inAugust1937whenalreadythenationalgas-bombobsessionwasfadingandbeingdisplacedbythemorerealisticconcernwithhighexplosive.
'RevealinglyofwhatEvenifawriter'snightmaresaretobejudgedbytheirexactdegreeofcorrespondencewiththenewsoftheday,Cunningham'scensoriousfervourlosestouchwithhistoricalreality.
Poisongasdidn'tdisappearfrompublicanxietiesbecauseexplosiveshadbeenusedinSpain.
Kermoderecallsthatthenextwar'wasexpectedtobeliketheSomme,plusaerialbombardmentwithgas,electricrays,civilianpanic'.
Andthe'nationalgasbombobsession'didn'tendin1937.
DuringtheSudetenlandcrisisin193838milliongasmaskswerestockpiledforquickdistributionacrossEngland.
CunninghamhasconvincinglygoodwordsforGrahamGreene'smoralintelligence(althoughGreene'ssenseofevil'istoonearlyManicheanandtoosectarian'),forMac-Neice'scoolaloofness(whenhewasn't'egregiouslycheeky'),andforEvelynWaugh'sdislikeofeverythingCunninghamdislikes('AudendeservedWaugh'schidings.
SodidWaugh').
YeteventhewriterswhoenjoyintermittentpraiseinthisbookmustfinditadizzyingexperiencetoreaditonthefoothillsofParnassus.
Onewriterislikelytobepraisedonlywhenanotherwritercanbeshowntobelessseriousbycomparison;soonafterwards,thefirstwriterturnsouttobelessseriousthanathird.
ChristopherCaudwell'sconversiontoCommunismisononepage'theadmirableandnotableexception'tothegeneralruleofbourgeoispinkfrivolity.
OnanearlierpageCaudwellwasaprophetofviolence.
OnalaterpageheisaharshpurveyorofMarxistorthodoxy.
NeartheendofachapterofAuden-bashingCunninghamabruptlyannouncesthatAuden'wasn'tsoslowassometimesmightappearingrowingupintoadultperceptions'.
ButonthenextpageAuden'wouldstillgoonplaying'–unlikethe'intellectuallymuchtougher'Caudwell.
Cunninghamissoconsistentlyangrywithhisauthorsthatheaccusesthemofcrimestheynevercommittedundernamestheyneverused.
IsherwoodtwicetakestherapforMac-Neice'sshareinLettersfromIceland.
Mac-Neicehimself,forallhisuprightheterosexuality,ischargedwithtransvestitecampinginhis'HettytoNancy'chapterinthe11/1/093:59PMLRB·EdwardMendelson·LooseCanons(printversion)Page10of11http://www.
lrb.
co.
uk/v10/n12/edward-mendelson/loose-canons/printheterosexuality,ischargedwithtransvestitecampinginhis'HettytoNancy'chapterinthesamebook.
EdwardUpward'sautobiographicaltrilogyTheSpiralAscentisbookedundertheegocentrictitleTheUpwardSpiral–andCunninghamexclaimsofthemisnamedbookthatit'simplyboresyou'.
(Itdoesn'tboreKermode,whospeaksof'thebeautyofUpward'sslowlydevelopingdesign'thatfinallyreconcilesCommunismandpoetry.
)Cunninghamisquicktoexposeguiltyaliases:'inthisperiodthechoiceofnamereflectsadeliberateefforttodisguiseabourgeoisidentity.
.
.
SomanybourgeoisChristiannamesgotdropped,itwaslikejackpot-timeonasociallyalertfruitmachine.
'Ifsomeonedoesn'tdropaChristianname,Cunninghamdoesitforhim.
GeorgGroddeckappearsfourtimesasWaltherorWalterGroddeck,onlyonceasGeorg.
Whatismissingfromthiscornucopiaofdetailisanysenseofeventhemostpartialandtentativeintegrityofindividualworksandlives.
Everythingisanillustrationofatype,usuallyaguiltyone.
WhereKermodepraisesaThirtiesMarxistfor'puttinginallthepedestriandetailandgivingitarelationtothewholework(acriterionofvaluedespised,I'mafraid,bymodernMarxists)',Cunningham'smethodrequireshimtoreduceliteraryworkstoscrapsandfragments.
Itisperhapstohiscreditthatherecoilsfromtheresultingspectacle.
TheworkthatCunninghampraisesmostfromtheThirtiesisanessaybyTomHarrissonwhichattacksthewritersofthetimeintermsthatanticipateCunningham's.
Harrisson'sessayisacerbicbutirrelevant.
Heisangryatthepoetsfortheirrefusaltorecordpeople'slivesinthemannerofMass-Observation.
TherearetoomanydeathsinhisrepresentativesampleofThirtiespoetry,andnotenoughdinners.
'Threemealsareeaten:allbreakfasts.
'Thereis'noattempttopresentthemajorityfacts,oranyfactsinawaythatthemajoritycanunderstandthem.
'Cunninghamcallsthisarticle'oneoftheperiod'sbestpiecesofliterarycriticism',andhequotesitatgreaterlengththanalmostanythingelseinthebook.
ButalasforHarrisson,themomenthestopsdebunkingpoetsandturnstoothermatters,Cunninghamfindsthathisworkrings'asgratinglyandasbogus'asthepoetsheattacks.
Cunningham'spassionforseriousnessmayhavealottodowithhispreferenceforcritics–especiallythosesternbeseigersofthegroundoftheorywhonevercrackasmile.
UnfortunatelythosesternwarriorsofthetheoreticalEightiesareaschimericalasthenobleworkersofthepoliticalThirties.
Thedialecticensuresthatunrelentingseriousnessturnsintosomethingmorefrivolousthananythingitdisfavours.
Cunningham'srelentlesshabitofsneeringatauthorsunderderisivecollectivelabels–theyouthies,theOldBoys,AudenandCo,IsherwoodandCo,theBrightYoungBaedekers–finallysoundscallousandshallowtoadegreeunequalledbyanythingintheauthorsthemselves.
11/1/093:59PMLRB·EdwardMendelson·LooseCanons(printversion)Page11of11http://www.
lrb.
co.
uk/v10/n12/edward-mendelson/loose-canons/printISSN0260-9592CopyrightLRBLtd.
,1997-2009Cunninghamknowsthatsufferingisaseriousmatter.
ItstopsbeingseriouswhenCunninghamdoesn'tcareforthesufferer.
HewritesoftheanthropologistJohnLayard,whohadbeenpsychoanalysedbyHomerLaneinanattempttoovercomeanervousbreakdownsoseverethatitatfirstcausedphysicalparalysis:'annoyedbyAuden'srefusaltolovehimandbyLane'sdyinghalf-waythroughhisanalysis,Layardshothimselfinthemouth.
'SomethingseemsbadlyawrywhenCunninghamattacksdozensofwritersfortheheartlessfrivolityhefindsintheirtreatmentoffictionalcharacters,onlytowriteofarealhistoricalcharacterthathewas'annoyed'intotryingtokillhimself.
AconvincingcontrastisofferedbyKermode'ssenseofthecomplexintegrityofindividuallives,ofthechoicesavailablewithintheconstraintsofsocialclassandliteraryform,oftheethicalvaluethatcanbelearnedamongtheinjusticesofhistory.
AndalthoughKermodeknowshiswayabouttheairlessheightsofliterarytheory,thislatestandfinestofhisbooksisalsohismostpersonal.
Vol.
10No.
12·23June1988EdwardMendelsonLooseCanons(printversion)Pages12-14|5054words