
All the King's Men

Chris,
"Yes, but ..." is an inherently undignified stance, wishy-washy and namby-pamby. And yet it's the position to which your excellent (and vehement—nothing wishy-washy about you) first posting reduces me. I agree with a good many of your criticisms of this novel—and incidentally, I plan to contribute a few of my own in the course of the next few days—but nevertheless, I think the novel works. In fact, despite some serious reservations, I think it may even merit its classic status.
One issue about which we don't agree, or at least don't agree completely, is the quality of Warren's prose. Yes, it frequently gets overripe, and yes, it could have benefited from more aggressive editing, and it certainly evinces a variety of tics over the course of its 600 pages that finally begin to act on one's nervous system like a dentist's drill; but it isn't all as dire as the examples you cite. Far from it. The novel also contains more than its fair share of beautifully crafted, evocative, vivid writing.
Here, for example, is the way we are introduced to Tiny Duffy, a small-time political hanger-on who becomes a member of Willy Talos' entourage and a significant player in the book's denouement: "He didn't need any sign to let you know what he was. If the wind was right, you knew he was a city-hall slob long before you could see the whites of his eyes. He had the belly and he sweated through his shirt just above the belt buckle, and he had the face, which was creamed and curded like a cow-pattie in a spring pasture, only it was the color of biscuit dough, and in the middle was his grin with the gold teeth." One run-on sentence pretty much captures the man and pins him to the page.
Or here, describing the long driveway leading to an elegant sanitarium: "Between the regularly spaced oaks stood pedestals on which classical marbles—draped and undraped, male and female, stained by weathers and leaf-acid and encroaching lichen, looking as though they had, in fact, sprouted dully out of the clinging black-green humus below them—stared out at the passerby with the faintly pained, heavy, incurious unamazement of cattle."
You mention a perceptible Hemingway influence on Warren's writing, and I agree it's unmistakable. But the long sentence just quoted suggests another: William Faulkner. Which isn't surprising, of course. It would be difficult for a Southern writer of Warren's generation to remain unaffected by such an imposing, ubiquitous figure. (We probably agree that Warren might have done well to heed the Hemingway influence a little more and the Faulkner a little less; they can both be dangerous influences for a journeyman novelist, but Faulkner can be positively lethal.) In any case, in addition to these, I think I detect a third voice whispering in Warren's ear, and this one is surprising. Am I alone, or did you also notice echoes of Raymond Chandler in sentences like the following: "You cross the Mojave at night and even at night your breath rasps your gullet as though you were a sword swallower who had got hold of a hack-saw blade by mistake." Could the poet have been reading detective fiction while writing his prose masterpiece? It wouldn't surprise me.
One more observation about the prose you find so obnoxious: I wasn't bothered by its stylistic strains and contradictions, strains and contradictions you quite correctly adduce. (And let's face it, any prose that can claim Hemingway, Faulkner, and Chandler as forebears is clearly going to be full of strains and contradictions.) Jack Burden's narrative voice seemed plausible given his character and personal history. He is meant to be a well-born Southerner who had, years before the events of the novel, abandoned his history doctoral dissertation in order to become first a newspaperman and then a political functionary, aide to country demagogue Willy Talos. The romantic, intellectual idealist and the hard-boiled vulgarian live in uncomfortable, jostling proximity within his soul; the clashes and excesses of his prose can reasonably be considered the objective correlative of these warring qualities.
I've already used up too many of my allotted words this posting to discuss some of the almost crippling structural and dramatic flaws I find in the novel, as well as some of its countervailing strengths. I'll save those for later. But I do want to say a few words about the word "nigger," which recurs frequently within the pages of All the King's Men. One must, you and I presumably agree, read fiction within the context of the time and culture in which it was composed and which it seeks to evoke, and obviously the word "nigger" enjoyed wide currency in Depression-era Louisiana. And yet its reiterated use here bothered me, and bothered me increasingly as the novel progressed, in ways that, for example, I am not bothered when I read Huckleberry Finn or even Light in August. In ways more troubling than the unapologetic use of the word "kike" in The Sun Also Rises, than the pervasive, unquestioning, albeit largely implicit racism of Benito Cereno. Why? Well, I'm still struggling with the question. But I suspect it's because Warren isn't merely echoing specific language, nor even merely echoing certain characteristic social attitudes. It goes further than that. He never seems to notice the humanity of his black characters, virtually all of whom in any case play exclusively nonspeaking roles. At one point, Jack is accused of being "a nigger-lover." His response: "'No sale,' I said, "I like mine vanilla …' "
I guess it bothers me because it seems to represent a failure of rudimentary imagination, a failure simultaneously human and artistic.
Over to you.
In amicable (and namby-pamby) disagreement,
Erik















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?
Notes From The Fray Editor:
Well, someone had to launch an unabashed defense of the book, and it is Rich LaSasso, here: "I can think of no American novel that exceeds it in terms of stylistic, structural and thematic scope." Claude Scales says he's inspired--even by Chris Caldwell's negative words--to read the book again. Ananda Gupta says that a better novel about politics is Face Time--by one Erik Tarloff. Meriadoc thinks "Bad books exist to give us entertaining reviews." Mike G says the movie was better, and lists some other books of which that might be true.
Meanwhile: this thread, begun by Kassandra and joined by many, leaves All The King's Men behind pretty quickly, but may be the best general discussion on literature ever in the Book Club Fray. Shakespeare, Henry James, Theodore Dreiser, cinematic adaptations of great books—all get a good going over. The initial post is called "Loose Baggy Monsters," and one poster says that's what the thread becomes, but it is highly recommended anyway.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
It seems to me that both readers have confused the focus of Warren's book, which is unequivocally Jack Burden himself. Don't be swayed by thinking this is Willie's story, as Jack purportedly thinks; this is why both readers make a distinction between A plot, the Boss, and the B plot, Anne. Neither of them are the plot; instead, this is a story about a man, Jack Burden, and we are intimately tied to him and through him to the events that unfold around him.
It is a shame to me that we bring up the ideas of race and sex in order to castigate Warren (although, to be fair, perhaps he should be castigated; though only on today's high moral grounds). The story treats both secondarily because they are secondary to Jack himself. We see the story through Jack's eyes because he is the focus of it, even if the plot is how his life unfolds. Warren is a racist only if Burden is a racist, and Burden is hardly anything but a detached observer (or at least he thinks he is, for most of the book). The point about Noel Polk's version of ATKM being worse writing, I think, misses a whole host of issues that are brought up with that modified sentence. Perhaps we today aren't used to thinking of race in terms of conflict; but this sentence highlights to us how the relationship between master and slave must be enforced through the master's obvious authority. A lack of command is weakness; and no weak man can lead, unless he lead men weaker than he. Perhaps we understand more the modified sentence, but we lose with it the understanding of racial tensions and the burden of racial tension on the master. We also lose understanding of how far Alex Michel has fallen; unable to command anything but old, weak niggers.
--Donmonson
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
Oddly enough, I recently re-read "All The King's Men" and enjoyed nearly as much as when I first came across it during a course while in college. I had read Robert Penn Warren as a poet and critic of the Fugitive Group, and I was never smitten by his attempts to convince his readers that what we need is a return to an agrarian economy, and all the values and virtues that come with it. I'm too much of a city kid, and even as a whelp thought that Warren's idealization of an old southern moral superiority to be soft at the center, not what I think poetry in the 20th century needs to be. He was a better novelist, and All The King's Men is indeed a masterpiece on several counts. Hardly a lazy effort, I don't think, here Warren works hard on his metaphors and links them to real passion, and links passion with an idea that it acts as corrupting force; it is now standard issue to regard sex-politics linkages as clichés, but Warren's character studies here were fairly fresh for the time, and even in this day , a complaining, cell-phone driven era of insane impatience and unearned cynicism, the prose makes the issues as compelling as they ever have been. It still reads well, which is the principle reason why the book is in print over fifty years after its first run.
--Ted Burke
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(2/6)