Gertrude and Claudius
Dear Tony,
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponThere's a passage in Gertrude and Claudius that I want to quote, on the general theme of women and their physical and sexual experiences. The passage comes at the moment when Queen Gertrude, alone in a room with Claudius, finally gives herself to him. Claudius lifts off her silk tunic and her linen chemise. She is naked.
But wait! I have to interject that, at this salacious turning point in Updike's novel, Gertrude's name is Geruthe, and Claudius's is Fengon. And so:
Geruthe pressed her rosy ripeness into the abrasions of Fengon's rough clothes. His riding shirt had leather shoulders to cushion mail. She inhaled the rain-drenched dead-animal smell. "Protect me," she whispered, adhering tight against him as if for concealment, her lips seeking the gap in his bristling wet beard. Afterwards ...
If there is anyone who could reliably tell us what it's like to be an aroused and naked woman, adulterously embracing a rain-soaked bearded knight in armor, who, however, does not happen to be wearing his armor right now, but is wearing armor's damp leathery smelly undergarments--if anyone could tell us, surely it would have to be John Updike. There are many pleasures to be had in reading his novels, and we have invoked some of the weightier ones, maybe to excess. But the main pleasure has got to be the simplest one of all. Reading a few pages of Updike is like running your hand through a box full of jewels. The most amazing things sparkle up at you, one after another--things seen from angles you've never imagined, or in a light you've never pictured.
Gertrude and Claudius's great merit is the chance it gives Updike to go tearing through a medieval museum like a wide-eyed little boy, describing wonders on every side--costumes, customs, falcon gewgaws, trinkets from faraway Byzantium, memories of pre-Christian pagan rites, and splendidly exotic poisons that are impossible to identify once they have worked their usefully bloody effect. Updike does do his research, and Gertrude and Claudius isn't the first instance of it, either. In the Beauty of the Lilies and Memories of the Ford Administration are filled to bursting with what seem to me genuine historical insights. The only serious problem with Gertrude and Claudius is--but before I say, let me turn to the point you raise about Shakespeare and Harold Bloom and the inventing of what it means to be human.
The idea that Shakespeare invented the modern idea of being human is not a new one. Victor Hugo wrote a book called William Shakespeare in which he made the same case, though Hugo spread the credit also to Aeschylus and Dante and several other people, the geniuses of literature and thought, whose achievements have lifted mankind out of muck of savagery. There's something to that idea, I would think, even if, fresh from reading Updike, anyone might add that mankind and the muck are not so far apart as could be hoped. Shakespeare, as you point out, has always meant a great deal to us moderns because he seems to be looking backward and forward at once--back toward the Middle Ages, forward to our own times.
You are right to observe that Updike's novel tries to evoke that same feeling of transition--of being caught halfway between medieval barbarism and modern skepticism. But this is what strikes me as silliest in Gertrude and Claudius. In the Danish court at Elsinore, Gertrude tries to explain to her husband what young Prince Hamlet has been studying, away at the university in Wittenberg:
There's a ferment going on in cultivated circles to the south, various bits of ancient knowledge the Crusaders brought back, the Arabs and the Byzantine monks have been transcribing them for centuries but nobody read them, something about a new way of looking at the world scientifically, whatever that is, letting nature tell us about itself in little details. ... Instead of taking everything on faith from the priests and the Bible, I mean.
To which the king replies:
You confirm my worst suspicions. My son is down there on the Elbe learning how to doubt--learning mockery and blasphemy when I'm trying to install piety and order into a scheming, rebellious conglomeration of Danes.
Those sentences sound ridiculous. They sound like someone's term paper on the Renaissance. They devastate the mood. There are a lot of those passages, too, and they would sink Gertrude and Claudius if it weren't for a steady supply of happy phrases like "scheming, rebellious conglomeration of Danes," which, in their wry buoyancy, keep the novel afloat.
But, enough on Gertrude and Claudius. Tony, what you and I should try to figure out, on some future occasion (now that our electro-epistolary exchange has ended), is the answer to one remaining question. Namely: If you and I and so many people look on Updike with such warm enthusiasm, why do so many other perfectly reasonable people, book-lovers, look on him quite differently? Among the best-known writers of today, Updike seems to me the most controversial--the most thoroughly disliked, even despised, by some people. More than Roth, more than Bellow. Why is that? I don't know the answer.
yours,
Paul
This week, a discussion of John Updike’s new book, Gertrude and Claudius (click here to buy it). A.O. Scott is a film critic for the New York Times. Paul Berman is the author of A Tale of Two Utopias: The Political Journey of the Generation of 1968 (click hereto buy the book) and is a fellow at the New York Public Library's Center for Scholars and Writers. 
Nine Is So Weird, You Should Probably Go See It
How Will Michael Jackson's Death Change Music?
What Jenny Sanford Wrote in Obama's Facebook News Feed
The 12 Best Cheeses To Serve at Christmas
Oops—I Forgot I Was Piloting This Plane
Can You Believe What Joe Biden Said This Week?
Highlights from The Fray:
I've always been really ambivalent about Updike. In the Rabbit books, for example, Harry pretty clearly represents Updike's worst view of himself, and yet in a funny way the novels echo and vindicate many of Rabbit's attitudes toward women and indeed the whole of the human race. Does Updike ever discover what he thinks in the course of writing a novel, or has he pretty much made up his mind?
A related point: In a piece about a decade ago that David Denby wrote for The New Republic, he had a paragraph about Updike's amazing prose but added that he felt the very superhuman fluidity of Updike's writing finally worked against the novel: "Nothing resists [his prose]" Denby said. In a review of Long Day's Jouney Into Night, Tynan quotes Stark Young to the effect that what we often respond to O'Neill is not so much the beauty of the prose but the "personal cost to the writer" of what he's writing. Is Updike in that sense the anti-O'Neill? Or am I simply prejudiced against his (enviable) work ethic? (Shakespeare was prolific, too, and no one holds it against him. On the other hand, how can we not feel the "cost to the writer" in Lear?)
--David Edelstein
[David Edelstein is Slate's movie critic]
(To reply, click here.)
I would be wary of characterizing the sweet prince as a hardhearted brat who cannot, or declines to, fathom the needs of his mother's libido. Mr. Updike's anachronistic fondness for our contemporary middleclass mores notwithstanding, Shakespeare was writing about a dynastic crisis, not a domestic one. Gertrude's marriage, and her lust, has deprived Hamlet of the throne which should have been his. Her love is also incestuous; as a barely Christianized barbarian queen, this does not seem to trouble her unduly. The situation would have pricked the conscience of an Elizabethan audience however. The parallels between Claudius and Henry VIII, who had his marriage to his brother's widowed queen annulled on the grounds that he was committing incest, would have been apparent to all, especially Queen Elizabeth, the fruit of the divorced King's second union.
Sexual passions in Hamlet are inextricably coupled with political ones, where in modern America we have seen fit to sever them into their separate "public" and "private" spheres (as case in point I offer a recently concluded national soap opera on this very theme). Well, we get the Hamlet we deserve, and if we prefer to see the Danish tragedy through the lens of American Beauty, as the story of a boy who gets upset when he finds out that mommy likes to rut his uncle, it speaks volumes about our peculiarly American narcissism and good fortune, and our bizarrely American paucity of imagination and feeling.
--CSStone
(To reply, click here.)
Re: Tuesday's entry:
is precisely a quotation from the Bard, who does not always indulge in bawdy word-plays.
--Adrian Mihalache
[Jim Morrison then said he could not find this quotation anywhere in Shakespeare, and Mr Mihalache responded:]
Jim Morrison and possibly other readers too did not find the Shakespeare quotation similar to Updike's line because they focused on the "spicy sausages", instead of considering the figure of speech itself as a context-free structure. This structure is the following: "somebody gives something a name (possibly shameful, even dangerous), while somebody else (wisely) gives it another name, more decent, benign or safe". Now, I was thinking of the following instantiation of the afore-mentioned structure:
Here, the "long purples" are the "spicy sausages", the "shameful name" is just "a grosser name" etc. However, the structure of the figure of speech is precisely the one Updike used (unconsciously or not) and Scott misjudged.
(To reply, click here.)
A.O. Scott's posting convinced me to some level of begrudging respect for Updike. But as for Scott's claim that Updike has been unfairly accused of misogyny ... I'd like to hear some proof. I'd also LOVE any explanation of why Updike is so popular, considering so many of his books are self-indulgent and downright boring.
--Maura Kelly
(To reply, click here.)
To Maura Kelly:
Updike is nowhere near a misogynist--he adores women. Is this possibly a generational thing? I'm guessing you may be under 45 and so accustomed to a more modern style of woman. If you are under that age break, you may identify the older, middleclass, woman-at-home protagonist of many of Updike's settings as someone irrelevant and that might lead to accusations of misogyny. Not so. He simply expresses his affection, his admiration, his almost awe, sometimes, of those ladies, their graciousness, their physical beauty (even when it is waning) and they are often/usually NOT the prototypical/stereotypical media-accepted beauties, they are real women. With flaws, wrinkles and wide hips. Mothers. Wives. Divorcees. He just ADORES us, and frankly, it's so lovely. And such a change.
--Female Updike Fan
(To reply, click here.)