Paul Auster, Man In The Dark
"I lie in bed and tell myself stories," says August Brill, the main narrator of Man In The Dark, going to add that they "might not add up to much, but as long as I'm inside them, they prevent me from thinking about the things I would prefer to forget." The fact that storytelling serves up a cocktail of escape, denial, and consolation is is nothing new for readers of Paul Auster -- if Joan Didion hadn't already poached the title We Tell Ourselves Stories In Order To Live for her massive brick of collected work, I have no doubt Auster would have pounced on it for his own complete novels or another volume of the series he curated for NPR or something -- and neither is the fact that Brill is the latest in a long list of author-protagonists learning to live again after some form of devastating loss, but, as with Murakami and Carroll (continuing on this previous post; god, it feels like only a few days have passed since writing in here last), in each new book the author builds on his past works with a new blend of familiar elements. So the core of this novel, the heartbreaking incident that haunts Brill, is the image of the death of Titus [1] Small, his granddaughter's fiance, and of course Brill is attempting to work through Titus' death using his storytelling, with results that are as measured and uneasily accepting as to be expected (Auster tries to turn "as the weird world rolls on" into a catchphrase illustrative of this mentality, though it's not nearly as euphonic as he seems to think it is). The question that remains unanswered is the same one left by his tight, unsettling previous novel, Travels In The Scriptorium, in which an author-analog is isolated, cared for, and repeatedly interrogated by characters from other Auster books. Here, August Brill comes up with a story wherein protagonist Owen Brick is tasked with assassinating August Brill, the man deemed responsible for creating the fictional world into which Brill finds himself hurled. Why is Paul Auster trying to kill himself?
Man In The Dark and Scriptorium share the theme of failed authorial attempts at self-annihilation, but while Scriptorium may have been most masterful book of Auster's career (or the one with the fewest egregious flaws, at least), much of Man In The Dark fizzles. Part of this is due to the nature of the plot, which necessarily entails an assassination attempt that is casually dismissed, never having had a chance at success in the first place. Part of this is the uneven prose, which frequently grasps for the nearest sense of unreality with no regard for what sort might be most appropriate for the circumstances:
"My little ones?" Really? He's going for nightmarish and ending up with Count Floyd's Monster Chiller Horror Theater. Compare this to the chilling final section of Scriptorium when the trap shuts tight and Fanshawe clinically describes Mr. Blank's fate, capping it with the genuinely creepy "getting what he deserves -- no more, no less." But Scriptorium is superior not only for consistency of tone and prose quality, not simply because it's unabashed in its existence as a thought experiment [2] and shorn of the cheap sentimentality that has all but completely taken over Auster's books, but due to Man In The Dark's political conception. Auster is afflicted with Acute Post-9/11 Anxiety, and by God, he wants you to know that he's been grappling with it in his fiction.
Somewhere in Auster's Collected Prose, he approvingly quotes Georges Bataille, noting that "[he] speaks of "a moment of rage" as the kindling spark of all great works: it cannot be summoned by an act of will, and its source is always extra-literary. "How can we linger," he says, "over books we feel the author was not compelled to write?" (p. 325)." Auster comes down on the side of books born of necessity as opposed to books written for the sake of experiment. I consider this to be something of a false dichotomy, but I can see why he draws the distinction; all throughout his career, Auster has faced criticism for the distance he keeps from his creations, for sterile inventions, a lack of memorable, recognizably human characters, and a bag of increasingly stale verbal tricks -- in other words, for the sort of sins accused of pretty much every postmodernist writer. But postmodernism is a dead end in understanding Auster [3]. Yes, his persistent themes are primarily those considered postmodern (the lack of answers / objective truth, the collapse and failure of systems / language, etc.), but Auster lacks the stylistic gifts of, say, Beckett or Kafka (from whom he lifts those major themes). Auster is closer to a pre-modernist in his approach to literature; he constructs novels the way Thomas Sutpen thought he could assemble morality, as if the ingredients of a novel were "like the ingredients of pie and cake and once you had measured them and balanced them and mixed them and put them into the oven, it was finished and nothing but pie or cake could come out."
Thus Auster attempts to make up for the chilliness in his mediocre Kafka homage Mr. Vertigo, for example, with heaping globs of sentimentality, and then tries to balance *that* out with a generous dose of vulgarity. What you get isn't the bittersweet tale of fatherly love and loss he was hoping for; the characters are stock, the relationships are crudely drawn, the swearing doesn't make the sappiness any less treacly, and it all ends up rather empty. This approach reaches its apotheosis in The Brooklyn Follies, one of the most infuriatingly dumb books I've ever read. It winds its way through a nauseating plot about characters escaping unhealthy relationships or existential despair and meeting and finding love, and all through it in the background the narrator is writing a "catalog of human folly" which goes nowhere, and eventually everything works out for everyone (except the lovable doomed gay con artist bookstore owner, whose tragic death clears the way for everyone else's happy ending) and then, on the last page, 9/11 HAPPENED and truly, it were the greatest folly of all that this was right around the corner. As if the implications of the last sentence change anything at all about how to receive the story before it; if I changed the last scene of the Sex In The City movie to five minutes of shots of corpses in Darfur, it would justly be considered stupid and pretentious beyond belief. It might be an artistically challenging move -- OMG, he's indicting the audience and reminding them about the reality of the world they live in!!! AND THE PILE OF SKULLS YOU'RE STANDING ON IN THOSE MANOLOS -- and it might even raise awareness about an important subject. But it would still be a laughably dumb and awkward-to-the-point-of-inappropriate-an d/or-counterproductive way to raise the issue. Which leads me back to the political genesis of Man In The Dark.
Auster has gone on over plenty of interviews (here is a good example) about how the Iraq war is unjust and was sold to the public under false pretenses, how Gore was the legitimate winner in 2000, how Bush stole the election, how living through the Bush presidency has felt like living in some sort of scary alternate history, and other political opinions that I more or less agree with (or at least am sympathetic to). The story-within-a-story in Man In The Dark takes place (mostly) in an alternate universe where, due to a Supreme Court ruling on the presidency in 2000, America has been torn apart by civil war. Thankfully, Auster has enough writerly sense to resist any didactic urge he might have to stump for his position in the AU; Owen Brick's alternate world is not a liberal wet dream, but a nightmare transplanting aspects of the war in Iraq to American soil, reimagining a variant of the de Vega story from Scriptorium into something that is specific to current events. This is not in any sense treated realistically; the other world, with its half-baked noir thriller feel and the (intentional) sense that it's being made up as the author goes along, is meant to contrast with the reality, as Brill and his family grapple with the emotional costs of loss and pointless war. Because (SPOILER ALERT, as if you can spoil an Auster book because the resolution to the mystery is always that there is no tidy resolution) Titus Small, driving trucks for a contractor in Iraq, was captured and executed, and his execution was filmed. That's it. That's the unimaginably horrific thing that happened. That's it?
I don't mean to imply that the thought of that happening to a loved one wouldn't be ghastly beyond belief, but I don't buy how Auster handles this, a story element that blatantly references Daniel Pearl but alters the circumstances to make a political point. It makes sense for the AU to feature tableaus recasting iconic moments and images from the war, because it's informed by the things stewing in Brill's mind, but by removing a layer of artifice and placing this reference in the "real world," as well as giving it the majority of the narrative weight, Auster lays bare his moral purpose. That is to say, I'm sure that the Pearl murder is the real life event that kindled Auster's moment of rage, the one that forced him to write this book. The entire story is built around this incident. But the choice to make Titus work for a contractor -- thus making him a relative innocent who is nonetheless complicit in America's economic exploitation of Iraq -- instead of a journalist -- unambiguously innocent, opposed to the narrative promulgated by the power structure and martyred in the pursuit of truth and justice -- means that his death functions as a harsh form of karma: America has sinned, and look who pays the price. In other words, we do it to ourselves -- hence the civil war in the metafiction, cutting out the middlecountry (as it were) and spotlighting the misery born of the country's internal divisions. This is where Auster's solipsism and self-obsession becomes a problem for me -- when it's not simply about literary aesthetics, but commenting directly on the world. The emphasis is on what America is doing to itself and not on the effects it has on others, as if the worst part about mismanaging a war and hopelessly fucking up another country isn't that we got busloads of innocents killed, but rather that it hurts us, too. Or, the really bad part about having done those bad things is that now we feel bad about being bad people [4]. This is moral narcissism, reducing complex issues of agency and responsibility to the lens of a single perspective.
This isn't a bad book, just not one whose central concept grabs me the way it should. At least it proves that Scriptorium wasn't purely a fluke, and that Auster seems to have worked past the self-parody of Oracle Night and The Brooklyn Follies [5]. It's just that... well, Orwell says, "Where I lacked a political purpose… I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.” For Auster, it seems to be the opposite case; his style suffers and he falls into those bad habits when he hits on an urgent point he wants to make. Meanwhile, I expect the theme of authorial suicide-by-character to be developed further in his next novel, because although I couldn't say which direction he's headed, he's definitely going somewhere with it.
[1] The reference in the name is to one of Auster's pet obsessions, Rembrandt's son, whom he outlived, which leads down a road of associative meaning which isn't really a fruitful road for discussion. Same with the obligatory nods to Thoreau, Hawthorne, etc. BUT REST ASSURED, IN CASE YOU WERE WORRIED. I CAUGHT EVERY REFERENCE.
[2] And uniquely for Auster, who has been justly criticized for asking simple questions to flatter his readers' cleverness (even the New York Trilogy, though well-executed, was essentially as much of a retread of / sloppy blowjob to Beckett's trilogy as Superman Returns was to Donner's Superman films), it's a thought experiment posing questions worth asking about the process by which an author-surrogate (or self-insertion) becomes differentiated and fixed as a character.
[3] Even moreso than genre fiction, where he's at least comfortable borrowing the surface-level trappings and the cliches to play with, though little more than that (his pseudonymous first novel was fairly typical detective fare, though he seems to think he was working beneath his talents and cleverly tweaking the tropes of the genre). He's certainly far less familiar with and more removed from genre than Murakami or Carroll.
[4] This also irks me with respect to Moorcock, whose recurring theme of "you can't truly betray anyone but yourself" is one with which I fundamentally disagree.
[5] God, those are some truly terrible books, using toothless, insubstantial surrealist touches in a doomed attempt to spice up turgid, simplistic melodramatic plots. The most embarrassing passage of Auster's career may be the moment in Oracle Night when the narrator decides that the premise of The Time Machine is flawed because he is convinced people would rather visit the past than the future.
"I lie in bed and tell myself stories," says August Brill, the main narrator of Man In The Dark, going to add that they "might not add up to much, but as long as I'm inside them, they prevent me from thinking about the things I would prefer to forget." The fact that storytelling serves up a cocktail of escape, denial, and consolation is is nothing new for readers of Paul Auster -- if Joan Didion hadn't already poached the title We Tell Ourselves Stories In Order To Live for her massive brick of collected work, I have no doubt Auster would have pounced on it for his own complete novels or another volume of the series he curated for NPR or something -- and neither is the fact that Brill is the latest in a long list of author-protagonists learning to live again after some form of devastating loss, but, as with Murakami and Carroll (continuing on this previous post; god, it feels like only a few days have passed since writing in here last), in each new book the author builds on his past works with a new blend of familiar elements. So the core of this novel, the heartbreaking incident that haunts Brill, is the image of the death of Titus [1] Small, his granddaughter's fiance, and of course Brill is attempting to work through Titus' death using his storytelling, with results that are as measured and uneasily accepting as to be expected (Auster tries to turn "as the weird world rolls on" into a catchphrase illustrative of this mentality, though it's not nearly as euphonic as he seems to think it is). The question that remains unanswered is the same one left by his tight, unsettling previous novel, Travels In The Scriptorium, in which an author-analog is isolated, cared for, and repeatedly interrogated by characters from other Auster books. Here, August Brill comes up with a story wherein protagonist Owen Brick is tasked with assassinating August Brill, the man deemed responsible for creating the fictional world into which Brill finds himself hurled. Why is Paul Auster trying to kill himself?
Man In The Dark and Scriptorium share the theme of failed authorial attempts at self-annihilation, but while Scriptorium may have been most masterful book of Auster's career (or the one with the fewest egregious flaws, at least), much of Man In The Dark fizzles. Part of this is due to the nature of the plot, which necessarily entails an assassination attempt that is casually dismissed, never having had a chance at success in the first place. Part of this is the uneven prose, which frequently grasps for the nearest sense of unreality with no regard for what sort might be most appropriate for the circumstances:
The mind that created the war was going to belong to someone else, another invented character as unreal as Brick and Flora and Tobak and all the rest, but the longer I went on, the more I understood how badly I was fooling myself. The story is about a man who must kill the person who created him, and why pretend that I am not that person? By putting myself into the story, the story becomes real. Or else I become unreal, yet one more figment of my own imagination. Either way, the effect is more satisfying, more in harmony with my mood -- which is dark, my little ones, as dark as the obsidian night that surrounds me. (p. 102)
"My little ones?" Really? He's going for nightmarish and ending up with Count Floyd's Monster Chiller Horror Theater. Compare this to the chilling final section of Scriptorium when the trap shuts tight and Fanshawe clinically describes Mr. Blank's fate, capping it with the genuinely creepy "getting what he deserves -- no more, no less." But Scriptorium is superior not only for consistency of tone and prose quality, not simply because it's unabashed in its existence as a thought experiment [2] and shorn of the cheap sentimentality that has all but completely taken over Auster's books, but due to Man In The Dark's political conception. Auster is afflicted with Acute Post-9/11 Anxiety, and by God, he wants you to know that he's been grappling with it in his fiction.
Somewhere in Auster's Collected Prose, he approvingly quotes Georges Bataille, noting that "[he] speaks of "a moment of rage" as the kindling spark of all great works: it cannot be summoned by an act of will, and its source is always extra-literary. "How can we linger," he says, "over books we feel the author was not compelled to write?" (p. 325)." Auster comes down on the side of books born of necessity as opposed to books written for the sake of experiment. I consider this to be something of a false dichotomy, but I can see why he draws the distinction; all throughout his career, Auster has faced criticism for the distance he keeps from his creations, for sterile inventions, a lack of memorable, recognizably human characters, and a bag of increasingly stale verbal tricks -- in other words, for the sort of sins accused of pretty much every postmodernist writer. But postmodernism is a dead end in understanding Auster [3]. Yes, his persistent themes are primarily those considered postmodern (the lack of answers / objective truth, the collapse and failure of systems / language, etc.), but Auster lacks the stylistic gifts of, say, Beckett or Kafka (from whom he lifts those major themes). Auster is closer to a pre-modernist in his approach to literature; he constructs novels the way Thomas Sutpen thought he could assemble morality, as if the ingredients of a novel were "like the ingredients of pie and cake and once you had measured them and balanced them and mixed them and put them into the oven, it was finished and nothing but pie or cake could come out."
Thus Auster attempts to make up for the chilliness in his mediocre Kafka homage Mr. Vertigo, for example, with heaping globs of sentimentality, and then tries to balance *that* out with a generous dose of vulgarity. What you get isn't the bittersweet tale of fatherly love and loss he was hoping for; the characters are stock, the relationships are crudely drawn, the swearing doesn't make the sappiness any less treacly, and it all ends up rather empty. This approach reaches its apotheosis in The Brooklyn Follies, one of the most infuriatingly dumb books I've ever read. It winds its way through a nauseating plot about characters escaping unhealthy relationships or existential despair and meeting and finding love, and all through it in the background the narrator is writing a "catalog of human folly" which goes nowhere, and eventually everything works out for everyone (except the lovable doomed gay con artist bookstore owner, whose tragic death clears the way for everyone else's happy ending) and then, on the last page, 9/11 HAPPENED and truly, it were the greatest folly of all that this was right around the corner. As if the implications of the last sentence change anything at all about how to receive the story before it; if I changed the last scene of the Sex In The City movie to five minutes of shots of corpses in Darfur, it would justly be considered stupid and pretentious beyond belief. It might be an artistically challenging move -- OMG, he's indicting the audience and reminding them about the reality of the world they live in!!! AND THE PILE OF SKULLS YOU'RE STANDING ON IN THOSE MANOLOS -- and it might even raise awareness about an important subject. But it would still be a laughably dumb and awkward-to-the-point-of-inappropriate-an
Auster has gone on over plenty of interviews (here is a good example) about how the Iraq war is unjust and was sold to the public under false pretenses, how Gore was the legitimate winner in 2000, how Bush stole the election, how living through the Bush presidency has felt like living in some sort of scary alternate history, and other political opinions that I more or less agree with (or at least am sympathetic to). The story-within-a-story in Man In The Dark takes place (mostly) in an alternate universe where, due to a Supreme Court ruling on the presidency in 2000, America has been torn apart by civil war. Thankfully, Auster has enough writerly sense to resist any didactic urge he might have to stump for his position in the AU; Owen Brick's alternate world is not a liberal wet dream, but a nightmare transplanting aspects of the war in Iraq to American soil, reimagining a variant of the de Vega story from Scriptorium into something that is specific to current events. This is not in any sense treated realistically; the other world, with its half-baked noir thriller feel and the (intentional) sense that it's being made up as the author goes along, is meant to contrast with the reality, as Brill and his family grapple with the emotional costs of loss and pointless war. Because (SPOILER ALERT, as if you can spoil an Auster book because the resolution to the mystery is always that there is no tidy resolution) Titus Small, driving trucks for a contractor in Iraq, was captured and executed, and his execution was filmed. That's it. That's the unimaginably horrific thing that happened. That's it?
I don't mean to imply that the thought of that happening to a loved one wouldn't be ghastly beyond belief, but I don't buy how Auster handles this, a story element that blatantly references Daniel Pearl but alters the circumstances to make a political point. It makes sense for the AU to feature tableaus recasting iconic moments and images from the war, because it's informed by the things stewing in Brill's mind, but by removing a layer of artifice and placing this reference in the "real world," as well as giving it the majority of the narrative weight, Auster lays bare his moral purpose. That is to say, I'm sure that the Pearl murder is the real life event that kindled Auster's moment of rage, the one that forced him to write this book. The entire story is built around this incident. But the choice to make Titus work for a contractor -- thus making him a relative innocent who is nonetheless complicit in America's economic exploitation of Iraq -- instead of a journalist -- unambiguously innocent, opposed to the narrative promulgated by the power structure and martyred in the pursuit of truth and justice -- means that his death functions as a harsh form of karma: America has sinned, and look who pays the price. In other words, we do it to ourselves -- hence the civil war in the metafiction, cutting out the middlecountry (as it were) and spotlighting the misery born of the country's internal divisions. This is where Auster's solipsism and self-obsession becomes a problem for me -- when it's not simply about literary aesthetics, but commenting directly on the world. The emphasis is on what America is doing to itself and not on the effects it has on others, as if the worst part about mismanaging a war and hopelessly fucking up another country isn't that we got busloads of innocents killed, but rather that it hurts us, too. Or, the really bad part about having done those bad things is that now we feel bad about being bad people [4]. This is moral narcissism, reducing complex issues of agency and responsibility to the lens of a single perspective.
This isn't a bad book, just not one whose central concept grabs me the way it should. At least it proves that Scriptorium wasn't purely a fluke, and that Auster seems to have worked past the self-parody of Oracle Night and The Brooklyn Follies [5]. It's just that... well, Orwell says, "Where I lacked a political purpose… I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.” For Auster, it seems to be the opposite case; his style suffers and he falls into those bad habits when he hits on an urgent point he wants to make. Meanwhile, I expect the theme of authorial suicide-by-character to be developed further in his next novel, because although I couldn't say which direction he's headed, he's definitely going somewhere with it.
[1] The reference in the name is to one of Auster's pet obsessions, Rembrandt's son, whom he outlived, which leads down a road of associative meaning which isn't really a fruitful road for discussion. Same with the obligatory nods to Thoreau, Hawthorne, etc. BUT REST ASSURED, IN CASE YOU WERE WORRIED. I CAUGHT EVERY REFERENCE.
[2] And uniquely for Auster, who has been justly criticized for asking simple questions to flatter his readers' cleverness (even the New York Trilogy, though well-executed, was essentially as much of a retread of / sloppy blowjob to Beckett's trilogy as Superman Returns was to Donner's Superman films), it's a thought experiment posing questions worth asking about the process by which an author-surrogate (or self-insertion) becomes differentiated and fixed as a character.
[3] Even moreso than genre fiction, where he's at least comfortable borrowing the surface-level trappings and the cliches to play with, though little more than that (his pseudonymous first novel was fairly typical detective fare, though he seems to think he was working beneath his talents and cleverly tweaking the tropes of the genre). He's certainly far less familiar with and more removed from genre than Murakami or Carroll.
[4] This also irks me with respect to Moorcock, whose recurring theme of "you can't truly betray anyone but yourself" is one with which I fundamentally disagree.
[5] God, those are some truly terrible books, using toothless, insubstantial surrealist touches in a doomed attempt to spice up turgid, simplistic melodramatic plots. The most embarrassing passage of Auster's career may be the moment in Oracle Night when the narrator decides that the premise of The Time Machine is flawed because he is convinced people would rather visit the past than the future.