Voidful?
is
a kind of literary joke that Ravelstein might have appreciated. The fact
that I have placed a question mark beside it reflects the transition of views
that I have had with this novel. At first reading, 'Ravelstein' is quite
irritating. There are all those repetitions with jar on the nerves.
They look as though Bellow's editor was too nervous of his literary reputation
to indulge on a necessary cull. They jar, unlike the repetitions in
Alistair MacLeod's 'No Great Mischief', which are as comfortable as a chorus
and are reflective of that latter novel's grounding in oral history.
But there is an
oral element to 'Ravelstein' too. Here, however, the storyteller is all
too human, the lapses in memory forming part of his story. At times, it
seems as though the anecdotes which the narrator relates or refers to are more
fascinating than the stated purpose of the novel: to provide a portrait of the
political philosopher Ravelstein. The novel begins with a reference to
the Scopes Monkey Trial. Unless you're well up on your American legal
history, the significance of this humorous episode may well pass you by.
Yet this novel cannot help but be about ideas, given the nature of its
subject. The State of Tennessee objected to the teaching of Darwinism
on religious grounds, a decision which now seems risible. As
Ravelstein lies dying however, his thoughts turn more to Jerusalem and the
Holocaust. Darwinism had no more twisted a disciple than Adolph
Hitler. No wonder Ravelstein laments the priority given to technical
education in the States over and above the Arts. Not that the Arts were
free of Nazi propagandists, as the narrator conveys by discussing Celine.
The narrator is
Chick, one of Ravelstein's few confidants (although Ravelstein does have a
whole troupe of ex-students with whom he can gossip). Ravelstein asks
Chick to write a memoir of his life after he has gone. In this regard,
'Ravelstein' could be seen as a failure. If Ravelstein really is meant to
be a portrait of Bellow's late friend, Allan Bloom, then surely the whole
purpose of the exercise is defeated if Bellow can only compose it as
fiction? It seems that all the effort has gone to waste. But then
critical commentators have had no difficulty identifying the hero as Bloom, so
maybe the decision to fictionalise his life was correct. Perhaps it is
most fitting that Bloom's life should be reflected in a work of art.
Unfortunately, I have never studied Bloom's ideas, so I might well have missed
out on Bellow's memoir if it had not been presented as a work of fiction.
Sometimes, it
does seem as though this novel is more about Chick than Ravelstein. There
are long sections where Ravelstein is not physically present, most obviously
when he has died. You do wonder why Chick continues his account, covering
his own life threatening illness, where the links to Ravelstein seem tenuous to
say the least. Okay, so both Chick and his young wife knew Ravelstein,
but do we really need to see the aftermath of their tropical
holiday? At times, it seems as though Chick's voice is held in check by
theory: you know, the impossibility of objectively giving an account of another
human being's life, the sort of approach which so stilts A. S. Byatt's 'The
Biographer's Tale'. However, there is a telling moment where Chick
relates that he could only approach the life of someone like Ravelstein
piecemeal, with hints of pictures and tippets of conversation. And that's
how I came to like this novel, by reading it piecemeal, by dividing the book up
into the bits I liked best (of which there were surprisingly many, considering
my initial reservations about this novel). Ravelstein liked the
vaudeville tradition, the revelation of bawdy truths, the snappiness of
critical insight rather than the Freudian liberal soul-searching that I'm
admittedly more comfortable with.
Ravelstein
seems most comfortable with the Greek theorists. Chick discusses
Ravelstein's ideas with reference to Plato's Symposium, the notion that to
"be human was to be severed, mutilated... The work of humankind in
its severed state is to seek to missing half", with the coital embrace as
just a temporary relief from this severed state. However, the way in which
the body is mutilated affects its state of mind, Chick seems to be
saying. It could be that the repetitions which seem to mar this novel are
simply reflections of a mind ravaged by disease. Certainly one symptom of
the cigua toxin which Chick ingests is for the patient to become circumlocutory
in speech. This may also be why Chick is forced to recount his own
illness, since his state of mind is very much reflected in his narrative.
His own close call with death also provides the catalyst, the creative spark he
needs to infuse his memoir of Ravelstein.
There are
moments when Bellow seems obsessed with the vulgarities of fame.
Ravelstein seems drawn to cod celebrities like a magnet. At one point, he
pursues Elisabeth Taylor through the streets, and both he and Chick can't help
but stare at Michael Jackson (the popster is staying in the same Parisian hotel
as they). Ravelstein seems both fascinated and appalled by popular
culture. 'Ravelstein' the novel does not make easy reading at first, but
it does become more rewarding when you return to it. Bellow's
'pictures' certainly tend to stay in the mind a long while, and certain phrases
resound. If his portrait of Ravelstein does seem a little fuzzy at the
edges, then it's because Bellow's left room for the reader's own imagination to
fill in the gaps. Maybe Ravelstein the fiction will outlive both Bloom
and Bellow after all.
AuthorTrek
Rating: 7/10.
Kevin
Patrick Mahoney
Lisez cette page en français avec
Babelfish Lesen
diese Seite auf Deutsch mit
Babelfish
