Thursday, November 21, 2013

Reading Silence: Dallas, November 22, 1963

We read so many things.

Obviously we read print – comics, novels, poems, short stories, memoirs, disquisitions on any number of topics, monographs, tax forms, car manuals, billboards, bus schedules, cook books and all manner of periodicals. We read the faces of strangers and those we love. Someone fly fishing reads a stream. A golfer reads a green. A quarterback reads a defense. Those who look to the sky try to read its weather. All of us, including politicians, try to read the past for what it will say about the future. And of course, moment by moment, we read the present for its cues (red light, stop), its dangers (not that ski slope, it’s too steep), and for whatever this moment-by-moment might add to our general knowledge. This reading of the present can be exhausting, which is why we establish habit and routines; they free us from the vigilant attention that reading the present can otherwise require. Those same routines can numb us, which is one reason travel can wake us.

Fifty years ago this week, John Kennedy was shot, and the twelve year old I was then has not and will not ever fully recover from it. Such an event experienced at such an age alters one’s view of what is possible. Over a long life, other events, private ones, equal it in intensity. But that November run of days stands out for me as a series of firsts, its events coming so rapidly they could not be attended to, presented so publicly they saturated every physical and emotional space; to escape them was not possible – there was nowhere to turn.

We were released from school early that day, a Friday, the nuns trying not to cry in our presence, their lips moving in prayer even as they ushered us up the bus steps. The television was on in my house when I got home, and it stayed on all that day and the next and the next. I recall those images, ones now familiar for being so often replayed, and seeing them again this week brings me close to tears, for I see that twelve year old boy and know again his deep confusion. Beyond those images what stays with me is the silence in the house, the silence outside, the silence in streets and stores and even as we stopped in the car for gas. No desultory talk. Everyone quieted. We all of us kept the television on in a futile effort to fill that silence with something like understanding, and what we got were police reports, repetitious statements of shock, of disbelief, the movements of a new president and a new widow, Lee Harvey Oswald shot in the stomach, speculation, constitutional explanations, reactions of world leaders, the planning for a funeral and the funeral itself.

What we did not get that weekend were directions about how to understand this new-to-us country, this United States where in our lifetime, now, a president could be shot. Without the need to ever say this to ourselves, we had believed such an event impossible. We had seen this president avert nuclear war, another previously impossible possibility. In some real way he had saved the world. And now he was dead because of someone with a rifle, a good eye, a steady hand.

Since that run of days in 1963, the world has seemed to me precarious in a way that I’ve become accustomed to but still don’t like. Perhaps this is merely that sort of maturity, which, it seems, comes only at cost. The memorials, interviews, and archival footage replayed this week invoke again that silence which was our only answer to questions we could not think how to ask. It is a large silence – one I yet struggle to read.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

On the Police Procedural: Peter Lovesey & Donna Leon (with a Brief Nod to Tana French)

Though I am but a novice and erratic explorer, I sense that the large world of mystery novels holds any number of provinces, one of which is called (if I’m not mistaken) the police procedural.

To enter this world is to live within the tight focus of an imagined here and now: more precisely the here and now of a dead body recently discovered. This focus becomes the story’s world, one purged of the extraneous: little concern over current events except as they might be reflected in one example, little discussion of sports or movies or of the various diversions that can typically constitute a week or a month. Little discussion or interest in anything, really, except as it might constitute evidence or motive. Thus a police procedural can make a narrowed world at once scary and comforting, comforting because typically its moral compass stays firm, scary because it’s a world of what appears to be (at least at first) random and inexplicable violence. One enters this world as a reader precisely because a police procedural promises that the random will be transformed, page by page, into an explicable result of cause and effect.

The Peter Diamond series, authored by Peter Lovesey, and the Commisario Brunetti series, authored by Donna Leon, both inhabit this large world. Both consistently feature one detective, center on a single crime or series of related crimes, and locate themselves in or around a single locale. Peter Diamond works out of the nick on Manvers Street in the English city of Bath, while Guido Brunetti’s office is located in the Questura in Venice, Italy.

Over the course of many novels, both series offer deepening understandings of their principal characters. Peter Diamond is paunchy, smart, intolerant of paperwork. He inspires loyalty because he is clearly and fundamentally a decent guy; he inspires sympathy because, in the latest novels in the series, he has had to deal with bereavement -- for his own wife was killed. Guido Brunetti is of a similar middle age, married, his wife a university teacher of literature in English with a particular interest in Henry James. She’s a great cook, and she’s a member of one of Venice’s most powerful families. The Brunetti’s two children grow as this series of books progresses, giving all the Brunetti characters the chance to deepen, giving readers an even more rounded view than we get of Peter Diamond.

Both series also owe some of their attraction to the beauty and historical interest of their locations. To follow Brunetti is to walk the streets, the calle, and bridges of Venice, experience its tides and weather, and begin to understand its unique culture and relationship to the rest of Italy. It’s also to see the tensions produced by tourism, by European unification, and by the corruption of politics. To read a Peter Diamond mystery is always to be located in or around Bath. Though Peter Diamond himself may not know its full and deep history, someone in any given novel does know it. And Lovesey frequently weaves in literary allusions. Thus reading a Peter Diamond mystery, one may learn that Mary Shelley wrote part of Frankenstein while in Bath, or that Jane Austen stayed at a particular address.

Both series also rely on a deft management of point of view. As readers, in effect we become either Peter Diamond or Guido Brunetti, sharing their intelligence, foibles, trials, private lives and baseline commitment to civil society. Both detectives often must deal with inept (or, in Brunetti’s world, sometimes also corrupt) colleagues. Both lean on trusted equals of longstanding, and both must negotiate the use new computer and electronic surveillance techniques that they at once welcome and distrust. This is a point-of-view that readers have full access to at the start. It’s also one that is subtly withdrawn as any given novel proceeds to its end. At some point, some crucial reflection or series of conclusions made by the detective is not presented; thus, the endings to these books are not necessarily predictable, which may also make them more enjoyable.

Yet in terms of pacing and focus, Leon’s and Lovesey’s books diverge considerably. Lovesey stays close to the crime and to the police investigation that results. As the series has progressed, Peter Diamond has risen to a leadership position, a fact which changes the part of the procedure that he might conduct and direct. For readers who follow the series closely, this is a satisfying progression. Donna Leon can be less focused on a given crime; it can take many pages before the crime even occurs. Leon’s interest is often more fully invested in her lead character, Guido Brunetti. He has consistently held his superior rank as Commisario, which places him one level below the Questura’s senior leader, an incompetent and vain individual whom Brunetti tolerates and manipulates by turn. He enjoys his food and drink, and often both are given in some detail. His marriage functions as a genuine partnership and he clearly struggles to keep the parts of his life in healthy balance. He loves his city and his walks through it – all things Leon takes time to present.

Peter Diamond almost always gets a result that leads to charges and convictions. In a Donna Leon novel, Brunetti typically unravels the mystery, but such knowledge, while at least somewhat satisfying to him and to readers, may not lead to the public affirmation of a judicial process. Sometimes Brunetti cannot prove what he knows. An educated man, he reads Tacitus for consolation.

Both series dependably do what police procedurals do: offer a tested formula of character and action. Neither Peter Lovesey nor Donna Leon can claim to have penned great literature. If you remember the plot arc of one of their novels, there’s considerably less enjoyment in reading them a second or third time. In contrast, Tana French has written at least two books that might fall into this same genre description, yet also rise above it. But that’s a new discussion.

To help track locations in Donna Leon’s Venice, see this site:

Friday, November 01, 2013

Keats and His Urn

Since every man whose soul is not a clod
Hath visions and would speak, if he had loved…
                                                     ("Fall of Hyperion")

Halloween approaches and passes, and John Keats comes to mind, not because of costumes or the dim memories of saints but because Keats was born on October 31st. We don’t get to choose our birthdays nor the situation or family into which we arrive. Keats’s family was tubercular: his mother died of the disease, as did Tom, Keats’s brother, as did John himself. It’s a sad story and well-enough known to those who find Keats’s odes among the finest poems one keeps within arm’s reach on a desk.

As with the work of other writers – Plath, Woolf, Weldon Kees, Emily Dickinson – the act of reading Keats’s poems seems now almost inevitably bound up with the facts of biography, his too-short life. It is as though Keats himself has become a figure on his own “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” a silent form who teases us out of thought. What would he have written had he lived as long as Coleridge? Keats letters are rich with theorizing. He was a writer keenly observant, whether of a nightingale, the manners of his friends, or the workings of his own responses, his own intellect and negative capability. Aside from the odes, one could argue that he never got the chance to test or fit his ambition to its appropriate forms. Keats knew this as he was dying, and it vexed him.

But Keats is best thought of now not for his biography but for what can only be termed, inadequately, his profound curiosity, his impulse to thoroughly inquire in and thoroughly partake of the time he had. Biographers suggest that his interest in medicine – which he studied until his money ran out – had its origins in watching his mother, then his brother, die. Of course this makes sense. But such a motivation may merely have been the topmost layer of a much deeper and all-encompassing interest in how things work, and particularly in how human things work. The same mind interested to trace the seemingly twin experiences of dream and thought (as in “Sleep and Poetry” and “Ode to Psyche”) may well have found medical knowledge a compelling if insufficient part of the much larger picture.

And this same curiosity (the term is too lightweight, alas) led, in Keats, to a sort of humility that could also be understood as ambition. Keats was interested in his own experience, yes, but that interest he always saw as a doorway or introduction to something far larger and more compelling. He looks at a Grecian urn and sees not his own mind but rather an expression of something he identifies as essential in human life, essential and recognizable to any who share the cultural knowledge to interrogate what is presented on the urn itself. Keats doesn’t see this effort or the education necessary to it as elitist; he eagerly scrutinizes the urn because doing so offers a way to understand (so he hopes) part of the complexity of human experience – all human experience. He knows art for what it is: artifice. Yet he also knows such artifice makes experience and that such experience may lead to understandings or recognitions or qualities of mind unavailable except through art. For Keats, art is an effort to be learned because it is artificial and because it is human to want to try more and know more.

Keats wants to understand how art stops time (even as it reproduces it), and whether such art can tell us anything. The urn stops time in that it preserves a moment. In this, it’s like a photograph (unknown to Keats) or a painting. In preserving the moment, it also reproduces that moment, over and over, whenever someone cares to look. The urn is thus a seamless embodiment of a contradiction, one it holds poised, its elements at once resolved and ever opposed. The people on the urn are at once forever happy and in love – and forever unable to move beyond the moment.  So how are we to understand their condition?

The urn itself speaks at the poem’s end, and what it says goes unchallenged except by the silence that follows it: “Beauty is truth, truth beauty, -- that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” Is beauty the only truth we’ll know and the only one we need to know? That’s the question Keats learns in examining the urn. It’s a valuable thing to figure out how to pose a question. The urn not only helps Keats pose a question, it also offers its own answer.

We know, then, what the urn says. Do we agree? Would Keats, at 60, have agreed? We’ll never know, “For poesy alone can tell her dreams” (“The Fall of Hyperion,” canto 1).

"Ode on a Grecian Urn"