Tuesday, October 8, 2024

On Gogol's "Dead Souls," МЕРТВЫЕ ДУШИ, Boots, ЛЕЙТМОТИВЫ: САПОГИ

 




ЛЕЙТМОТИВЫ: САПОГИ
LEITMOTIFS: BOOTS

 The boot leitmotif in DS may have autobiographical overtones and the veiled self-parody typical of Gogol’s works. He himself, apparently, was always interested in footwear, at least according to Ivan Yermakov, who published an extremely Freudian interpretation of “The Nose.” Remarking that “Gogol’s literary works are filled with descriptions of boots,” Yermakov cites passages from “Nevsky Prospect,” The Marriage, and Dead Souls. “One memoir tells how Gogol’s curious landlords, peering through the keyhole, observed him sitting for hours on end, the most serious expression on his face, inspecting the heel of his boot. It might seem that Gogol knew he was being watched, but even if that were the case, his choice of this particular form of joke—which seems accidental at first glance—reveals his keen interest in footwear.” In a footnote (!) Yermakov adds that “The symbolism of the boot and the heel is very common, as a fetish, among neurotics” (Yermakov in Gogol from the Twentieth Century, p. 171-173).

Here Yermakov does not identify the memoir in question, and you wonder if this tale is fabricated, based on the scene of the lieutenant from Riazan, who examines boot heels at the end of Ch. 7 of DS. Memoirs of Gogol’s friends and acquaintances frequently describe this sort of spying on Gogol as he worked—or, here, as he relaxed—apparently in an attempt to delve into the secrets of his creativity. Yermakov suggests that Gogol was aware of the spies, and enjoyed putting on something of a performance for them. Doubtful. But then, he was capable of such behavior. His whole life was highly performative.

Boots go tromping their way all through the narrative of DS. In Ch. 1 Chichikov calls upon nearly all the town officials, and he meets in passing some of the landowners whom he will later visit in search of dead souls to buy: Manilov, Sobakievich and Nozdryov. A burly bear-like man, Sobakievich begins their acquaintance by trodding on his foot. After Manilov invites Chichikov to visit his estate, “Sobakievich also said, rather laconically, ‘Come see me too,’ scraping one foot that was shod in a boot of such gigantic proportions that its equal was hardly to be found anywhere . . .”

Boots seem to be on everyone’s mind. Korobochka (Ch. 3) mentions to Chichikov that some three years back her sister brought some warm boots from Moscow for the children; “very solid stuff, it was, and still wearing well.” Upon Chichikov’s departure from her estate, Korobochka sends a little peasant girl, Pelageia, to ride a short ways on the britzka and point out the road to the highway. She is described as a girl of about eleven standing near the porch, in a homespun dress and “with bare feet that, from a distance, might have been thought shod in boots, so plastered with fresh mud were they.”

Bragging on his dead souls in Ch. 5, Sobakievich mentions “Maksim Teliatnikov, a bootmaker; he’d just run his awl through a piece of leather, and there was a pair of boots for you, and for every pair you’d want to thank him, and it wasn’t as if he ever took a single drop of spirits in his mouth.” In Ch. 6 the miserly Plewshkin makes one pair of communal boots do for all his menials:

“At last the door opened and in came Proshka, a lad of thirteen, in such large boots that at every step he took he all but stepped out of them. The reason why Proshka wore such large boots can be explained without delay: Plewshkin had for all his domestics, no matter how many of them might be in the house, but the one pair of boots, which always had to be left standing in the entry. Anyone summoned to the master’s chambers had to prance barefoot through the entire yard, and, upon reaching the entry, had to don these boots and appear in the room only when thus shod. On coming out of the room he had to leave the boots in the entry again and set off anew on his own soles. Had anyone glanced out the little window on an autumn day, and especially when slight hoarfrost set in of mornings, he would have seen all the domestics in the midst of such grand jetés of leaps as even the sprightliest of ballet dancers in theaters could hardly have hoped to perform.”  Plewshkin’s pile of assorted objects scarfed up at random on his daily walks includes “an old boot-sole.”

The tale of the communal boots in Plewshkin’s household strikes an odd note, given that it describes the exact opposite ritual from that which takes place in countless Russian modern households. Someone entering a house or apartment from outdoors will immediately remove dirty shoes or boots in the anteroom, donning slippers available there. But then, I suppose that Plewshkin’s ritual achieves the same purpose: keeping mud and dirt out of the inner rooms.

In Ch. 7 Chichikov is described as donning “morocco boots with fancy appliqués of variegated colors,” such as are to be found selling briskly in the town of Torzhok. Chichikov’s attire has been frequently described in detail earlier—especially his frockcoat of lingonberry red with sparkles. A strange lapse here: that the author waited seven chapters to tell us about his boots. Something else weird about this passage: Chichikov, in celebration of his having acquired almost four hundred dead souls, jumps out of bed, dons the boots, and does a little dance. Who on earth begins dressing right out of bed by putting on boots? More on the dance scene later in this book. A similar stylistic faux pas occurs in Ch. 11, when Chichikov, angry with Selifan, throws his sword down on the floor—"the sword that accompanied him on all his travels, to inspire appropriate awe wherever necessary.”  That’s odd, thinks the reader; we’re almost all the way through the book, and only now does this sword show up in Chichikov’s hands, or dangling at his side.

How does Gogol know that morocco boots are selling well in Torzhok? Probably because he saw them on sale there in October, 1839, when, traveling with members of the Aksakov family by stagecoach from Moscow to St. Petersburg, they stopped off in Torzhok (see U.R. Bowie, Gogol’s Head, p. 97-98). Aware that his main character in DS would need some nice boots, Gogol probably went ahead and bought him some then.

Among the weird ghostly characters who come crawling out of the woodwork in Ch. 9—aroused by the wild tsunami of rumors—are “the lie-abeds and sit-by-the-fires who had been lolling and vegetating at home in their dressing gowns for years, placing the blame for their indolence either upon the bungling bootmaker who had made their boots too tight, or on their worthless tailor, or on their drunkard of a coachman . . .”

In a (or the) climactic scene of the novel, at the ball (Ch. 8), the drunken Nozdryov reveals to all and sundry that Chichikov “trades in dead souls.” The boot theme marches into this episode as well. After the incident at the ball Chichikov feels awkward and ill at ease, “every whit as if he had stepped with brightly polished boot into a filthy, stinking puddle.”

Gogol’s letters sometimes make reference to boots, and the importance he personally attaches to them. In a letter to S.T. Aksakov from Vienna (July 7, 1840), e.g., Gogol asks Aksakov’s son, who will be travelling to Western Europe, to bring him several things, among them a volume of Shakespeare and editions of folk songs collected by Maksimovich. “And here’s the main thing: buy or get Mikhail Semenovich [Shchepkin] to buy some Petersburg tanned leather from the best bootmaker—the softest kind for making boots, i.e., only the upper leather (which is already cut out so that it won’t take up space and is easy to carry); two or three pairs. Had a bad thing happen: all the boots that Také made for me turned out to be too short. That stubborn German! I tried to tell him they’d be short, but he, the boot-tree, didn’t want to listen to me! And they’re so wide that my feet have swollen up. It would be good if you could get that leather to me: they make rather good boots here.”

ПОРУЧИК РЯЗАНЬ
P.S. ON BOOTS: LT. RIAZAN

The boot theme in DS finds its culmination at the end of Ch. 7, with the appearance of the lieutenant from Riazan—a character whom one of my students on an exam once described as “Lt. Riazan.” His rank in the Tsarist army is poruchik, which most approximates in the modern American army that of first lieutenant. This personage has already peeked into the novel near the end of Ch. 6, when the waiter at the inn informs Chichikov that “yesterday we had some kind of military lieutenant arrive; he’s taken Room 16 . . . Don’t know who he is; from Riazan; he’s got bay horses.”

Gogol ends several chapters by playing parodic games with the rather hackneyed device, especially in Romantic literature, of ending a chapter in a novel by putting the characters to sleep, then panning, say, outside for a beautiful description of a moonlit night. Ch. 6, we recall, concludes with Chichikov sleeping “that marvelous slumber known only to those fortunate beings who are bothered neither by hemorrhoids, nor fleas, nor over-developed intellectual faculties.” At the end of Ch. 7, instead of taking us outside to show us the full moon and the fluttering linden leaves, Gogol’s narrator takes us inside another room at the inn and shows us a scene verging on absurdity.

At the end of Ch. 7 Chichikov returns drunk to the inn from the party celebrating his purchase of the dead souls. He is at the acme of his good fortune in the novel, “never having felt so happy, already imagining himself a real landowner in Kherson.” He sleeps, and his menials, Petrushka and Selifan go off and get drunk together, then come back and fall, in their turn, into a deep sleep:

“They both fell asleep the same moment, raising a snore of unheard-of intensity, to which the master from next door responded with a high-pitched nasal whistle. . . Soon after the arrival of the two, everything grew quiet, and the inn was enveloped in profound sleep, save that in a single little window there was still a glimmer of light to be seen, coming from a room in which some lieutenant from Riazan was staying. Evidently he had a great weakness for boots, for he had already ordered four pairs and was now incessantly tying on a fifth. Several times he approached the bed, intending to take them off and lie down, but he just could not bring himself to do so; the boots were indeed well made, and for a long while yet he went on raising now this foot, and now the other, inspecting the deftly and wondrously turned heel of each boot.”

What we have here could well be a scene refracted through a dream by Chichikov. Often in our dreams the dream producers make use of incidental characters who have appeared in our waking moments. At least in his subconscious Chichikov may be pondering on this Lt. Riazan, whom the waiter has mentioned to him in Ch.6. Furthermore, there is something dreamlike about the way the scene is written, since in one skewed sentence Lt. Riazan seems to be, simultaneously, in his hotel room about to go to bed and in some shoe-shop trying on boots.

Here's Vladimir Nabokov on that scene:

“Thus the chapter ends—and that lieutenant is still trying on his immortal jackboot, and the leather glistens, and the candle burns straight and bright in the only lighted window of a dead town in the depth of a star-dusted night. I know of no more lyrical description of nocturnal quiet than this Rhapsody of the Boots” (Nabokov, Nikolai Gogol, p. 83). Here Nabokov, with his usual deft use of description, not only praises Gogol’s chapter ending as beautifully lyrical, but, in so doing, also writes his own beautifully lyrical sentence, as if to say, “See there: I can do it too.” Nabokov’s book on Gogol, by the way, is especially notable (and welcome) in that it defies the standard professorial practice of writing literary criticism in a dense and ponderous, even sometimes opaque style—see, e.g., James B. Woodward’s lumbering, humorless monograph on DS. It’s worth noting as well that near the end of Ch. 8, after Chichikov’s disastrous encounter with Nozdryov at the ball, the whole town is described as sleeping, while perturbed Chichikov does not sleep a wink all night long.

As if Gogol were playing with the different ways to get sleepers (and anxious non-sleepers) in at the end of chapters, the ending of Ch. 8 also has its sui generis sleeping scene—this makes three chapters in a row with sleepers at the end. A long description of Korobochka’s ramshackle carriage entering the town concludes with two ancillary characters asleep: (1) a night watchman on the other end of town, awakened by the clamor of the carriage, cries out “Who goes there?” Hearing only “a distant rumble,” he captures an insect crawling over his collar and “executes” it on his fingernail, before going back to sleep; (2) upon arrival of the Korobochka carriage at the home of the priest’s wife, a threadbare lackey riding footman is “pulled down by his feet,” since he is “in a dead sleep.” From the carriage emerges Korobochka, who has spent “three sleepless nights,” worried that she has sold her souls to Chichikov at too low a price.

In his novel Pnin, which he was working on roughly at the same time that he wrote his book on Gogol, Nabokov himself toys with the device of ending chapters by putting the characters to sleep. He does this by way of playing games with the POV of the omniscient narrator. At the end of Ch. 3 Timofey Pnin, off in dreamland, is awakened by the return of the Clements’ daughter Isabel. At the end of the next chapter Pnin is afflicted with insomnia and bad dreams: “His back hurt. It was now past four. The rain had stopped.

“Pnin sighed a Russian ‘okh-okh-okh’ sigh, and sought a more comfortable position. Old Bill Sheppard trudged to the downstairs bathroom, brought down the house, then trudged back.

“Presently all were asleep again. It was a pity nobody saw the display in the empty street, where the auroral breeze wrinkled a large luminous puddle, making of the telephone wires reflected in it illegible lines of black zigzags” (Pnin, end of Ch. 4).

What else can we possibly make of the appearance of “Lt. Riazan” in the book? For one thing, in terms of the social and moral message of the novel, the lieutenant could be representative of the obsession with gross materialism characteristic of nearly everyone in DS. He is so devoid of spiritual qualities that he makes boots the principal thing in his life, an object of almost religious awe. One more dead soul, an empty-headed materialist, the lieutenant makes his appearance—possibly in Chichikov’s dream—right at the point where the novel’s hero has attained to his greatest success. He could present something of an omen, suggesting that one who chases the god of materialism, as does Chichikov, is due for a big fall. The rest of the novel, beginning with Ch. 8, shows the comeuppance of Chichikov in the town of N. The appearance of the boot-loving lieutenant could be seen as the climax of the book, or at least one high point/near climax. The biggest high point/climax comes with the ball scene in Ch. 8, and, especially, the moment that the drunk Nozdryov blurts out to one and all: “he trades in dead souls.”

[excerpted from the forthcoming book by U.R. Bowie: 

THE FUTILE SEARCH FOR A LIVING SOUL

[A NEW READING OF GOGOL’S DEAD SOULS (МЕРТВЫЕ ДУШИ)]

 


Monday, October 7, 2024

Translation of Poem by Innokenty Annensky, Иннокентий Анненский, "Минута," ONE MOMENT

 


Иннокентий Анненский
(1855-1909)

                 Минута
 
Узорные ткани так зыбки,
Горячая пыль так бела,-
Не надо ни слов, ни улыбки:
Останься такой, как была;
 
Останься неясной, тоскливой,
Осеннего утра бледней
Под этой поникшею ивой,
На сетчатом фоне теней...
 
Минута — и ветер, метнувшись,
В узорах развеет листы,
Минута — и сердце, проснувшись,
Увидит, что это — не ты...
 
Побудь же без слов, без улыбки,
Побудь точно призрак, пока
Узорные тени так зыбки
И белая пыль так чутка...
 
_________

d
 
                                          Literary Translation/Adaptation by U.R. Bowie
 
                One Moment
 
The tessellate leafage beguiling,
The white searing dust in the blur;
We can do without words, even smiling,  
Just be the way you always were.
 
Be just a bit vague, sadly sallow,
More pallid than morning in fall,
Beneath the fell droop of the willow,
On the patches of shadowy sprawl.
 
One moment goes by and the wind
Blows leaves’ tessellation askew;
In that moment my heart’s sore chagrined,
For it sees that what’s there is not you.
 
Abide with me wordless, unsmiling,
Stay here like the spectre you were,
With tessellate shadows beguiling,
With white dust aglow in the blur.

 

 



Poem by Bobby Goosey, HAW

 



Bobby Lee Goosey

 

The One Haw River

Indiana has a river called the Haw.

It blurbles and it giggles as it runs. Haw.

It never laughs uncouthly with a vulgar crass guffaw,

But blurbles on discreetly with a single placid “haw.”

Not two “haw-haws,” not three “haw-haw-haws,”

But one demure moist solitary “haw.” Haw.

What a cultivated river is the one-haw Haw,

The Indiana river called the Haw.




Translation of Poem by Valery Slutsky, Валерий Слуцкий, "Как в пропасть шаг..." ONE STEP INTO A CHASM

 


Валерий Слуцкий

 
Valery Slutsky
(born 1954)
 
Как в пропасть шаг, сказать любви: «Разрыв»,
Звонкам, объятьям, планам (были ярки)
Всему, что, как ребенок надарив,
Затребует назад свои подарки.
 
Отъятие фатальным – драма, слом,
В котором пережитая утрата
С тобой в неотменяемом былом.
Не то – «разрыв». Им бывшее изъято,
 
От коего душа отщеплена,
Стираются черты, недавно близки,
И оборотень светлого – вина,
Как приговор: «без права переписки».
 
21.8.2024
 
d

                                              Literary Translation/Adaptation by U.R. Bowie
 
One step into a chasm: to say to love, “We’re done,”
To phone calls done, to hugs and plans (once shining),
As if to give to child gifts, and then the next day come:
“I need to take the stuff all back, so give it here, no whining.”
 
Departure for calamity: a fissure incommutable, 
In which the loss you’ve lived through’s fated
To stay with you in some past time immutable,
Not so much “done” as just seized, confiscated
 
From one whose soul is gutted and must wilt;
The features once so near steeped in despondence,
While the lycanthrope of bright hopes known as guilt
Decrees: “without the right of correspondence.”
 
#

                                                  Valery Slutsky: Very Brief Biography

Born in 1954. Native of Leningrad/St. Petersburg, where he published his early poetry. Since 1990 he has lived in Israel.



Saturday, October 5, 2024

Translation of Poem by Valery Slutsky, Валерий Слуцкий, "«Земную жизнь пройдя до…» TRAVERSING THIS EARTHLY LIFE

 



Валерий Слуцкий


Valery Slutsky
(Born 1954)

 

«Земную жизнь пройдя до…», скажем так,
До точки «не становимся моложе»,
Взираю без панических атак
На божий мир с творящимся «о Боже!».
 
Дивиться злу не позволяет вкус,
С безумьем спорить – опытность на страже:
Неси, мол, свой, тебе посильный груз
С готовностью – чем дальше в лес, тем гаже.
 
Нет «смысла жизни», смысл – она сама,
Как блага нет в ней, жизнь сама есть благо,
Которой данность – пробник для ума
В реальности святилища и флага.
 
Бог даст, очнемся в будущем. Каком?
Его помыслить нет первопроходца,
Но только всеми враз и целиком
Само каким-то образом поймется.
 
7-13.4.2022

d


                                   Literary Translation/Adaptation by U.R. Bowie

Traversing this earthly life, let’s say,
To the waystation called, “Ain’t Getting No Younger;”
No panic attacks, through God’s world I sashay,    
Though I murmur, “Oh, God,” at a globe rent asunder.
 
To marvel at evil is somehow in bad taste,
Don’t quarrel with madness, its crankiness, shabbiness;
Bear a load that won’t leave your weak back sore and chafed,
For the deeper you go in the woods, the more ghastliness.
 
There’s no “meaning of life,” for life is the meaning,
No goodness in life, for it’s life that’s the good,
The thing that’s the given for mind’s probing, screening
Of what’s really real in our shrines and selfhood. 
 
 
If God grant we’ll wake in the future some day,
But no pathfinder’s been there to tell what’s ahead;
She’ll show up for us with some wham-bam byplay,
Having worked herself out in some deep dark seabed.

 

                                                                       Biography

 Валерий Слуцкий родился в 1954 году. Жил в Ленинграде. Закончил ЛГПИ им. Герцена (дефектология, русский язык и литература). Участник сборника "Круг" (Ленинград, 1985). В 1988-90 г. г. заведовал отделом поэзии журнала "ВЕК" ("Вестник еврейской культуры"). Автор поэтических книг: "Стихотворения 1970-1977" (2002), "Omnia" (1993), "Новый век" (2002), а также сборника переводов "Из еврейской поэзии ХХ века" (2001). С 1990 живет в Израиле в поселении Кдумим.

 

                                                    U.R. Bowie with Ivan Bunin, 1998, Yelets


Saturday, September 28, 2024

Translation of Poem by Joseph Brodsky, Иосиф Бродский, "Ниоткуда с любовью, надцатого мартобря," FROM NOWHERE, WITH LOVE

                                          The Blue-Footed Booby Does a Mating Dance

Иосиф Бродский

Joseph Brodsky
(1940-1996)
 

Ниоткуда с любовью, надцатого мартобря,
дорогой, уважаемый, милая, но не важно
даже кто, ибо черт лица, говоря
откровенно, не вспомнить уже, не ваш, но
и ничей верный друг вас приветствует с одного
из пяти континентов, держащегося на ковбоях.
Я любил тебя больше, чем ангелов и самого,
и поэтому дальше теперь
от тебя, чем от них обоих.
Далеко, поздно ночью, в долине, на самом дне,
в городке, занесенном снегом по ручку двери,
извиваясь ночью на простыне,
как не сказано ниже, по крайней мере,
я взбиваю подушку мычащим «ты»,
за горами, которым конца и края,
в темноте всем телом твои черты
как безумное зеркало повторяя.

1975/1976

d

Literary Translation/Adaptation by U.R. Bowie
 
                                 From Nowhere with Love, dated N-teenth of Marchober
 
Dear Friend, Most Respected, or Dear Lass,
 
No matter even who you are, for frankly speaking,
the facial features one no longer recalls if they’re yours, or if
nobody’s faithful friend greets you from one of
the five continents held up on the backs of the cowboys.
 
I loved you more than the angels, than my very self,
and that’s why I feel farther removed from you now
than I am from the both of them (angels and selves).
Far off I am now in the depths of the night,
in some vale or dale at the bottom of it all,
in a city snowbound and snow-wreathed
up to the very doorknobs or handles,
writhing on sheets of the nightfall
 
(see below, but no, don’t), I at least
fluff up my pillow with a bleating out “you,”
which finds its end and its limit
beyond the far mountains,
with all of my body in the darkness
your features repeating/reflecting
in some fun-house mirror.

 


THE KIDNAPPED SCREAM

 


Help Me!

Edvard Munch’s famous painting titled “The Scream” was stolen in 1994, but later recovered when heard shrieking faintly from an isolated copse, where it was bound and tied to a birch tree, held for ransom.

 [excerpted from the book by U.R. Bowie, Here We Be. Where Be We?]



Thursday, September 26, 2024

Translation of Poem by Bella Akhmadulina, Белла Ахмадулина, "Опять сентябрь, как тьму времен назад," ONCE MORE SEPTEMBER

 


Белла Ахмадулина
(1937-2010)
 
Опять сентябрь, как тьму времен назад,
и к вечеру мужает юный холод.
Я в таинствах подозреваю сад:
все кажется — там кто-то есть и ходит.
 
Мне не страшней, а только веселей,
что призраком населена округа.
Я в доброте моих осенних дней
ничьи шаги приму за поступь друга.
 
Мне некого спросить: а не пора ль
списать в тетрадь — с последнею росою
траву и воздух, в зримую спираль
закрученный неистовой осою.
 
И вот еще: вниманье чьих очей,
воспринятое некогда луною,
проделало обратный путь лучей
и на земле увиделось со мною?
 
Любой, чье зренье вобрала луна,
свободен с обожаньем иль укором
иных людей, иные времена
оглядывать своим посмертным взором.
 
Не потому ль в сиянье и красе
так мучат нас ее пустые камни?
О, знаю я, кто пристальней, чем все,
ее посеребрил двумя зрачками!
 
Так я сижу, подслушиваю сад,
для вечности в окне оставив щелку.
И Пушкина неотвратимый взгляд
ночь напролет мне припекает щеку.
 
1973

d
 
Literary Translation/Adaptation by U.R. Bowie
 

                             Once More September
 
September once more, as in eons of timeness ago,
and toward twilight jejuneness of cold turns to manliness.
I suspect the dim garden of clandestine schemes on tiptoe,
for it seems someone’s walking there, wreathed in a scantiness.

But I’m not afraid, for I feel exultation
in the fact that these parts give abode to a spectre.
Since I’m steeped in the kind thoughts of my fall elation,
no one’s steps I can take for a benign protector. 
 
Nobody to ask, but could be it’s affirmable;
I’ll write in my notebook: “When dew’s at its driest,
the grasses and air into spirals discernible
are twisted by hornets frenetic and spryest.”
 
And one more thing: by the squinting of whose eyes
is what was apprehended once upon a lunar sea,
made to facilitate the return trip of rays
that on this earth can be seen along with me?
 
Anyone whose gazings have been sucked in by the moon
is free—along with the adoration or admonishment
of other people—upon different times far/soon
to fix his posthumous peering astonishment.
 
Is not that the reason, in their loveliest glints ever glimmering,
the moon’s empty rocks do so agonize us, so torment?
O, I know who leers most intently of all at the shimmering,
who has silvered the moon by the force of two eyeballs’ ferment!
 
So I sit, and I eavesdrop on hush of the garden immensurable, 
leaving eternity one tiny spot through the window to peek,
while Pushkin’s soft gaze, which is ever consoling, inexorable,
all the night through keeps a warm smudge aglow on my cheek.
 

 



Translation of Poem by Olga Tabachnikova, "Notes of a Translator," Записки переводчика

 


Olga Tabachnikova
(born 1967)

 

                               Записки переводчика
                                                                                                           
"Язык мой - враг мой..."
 
Язык мой - друг мой!  - выведи на свет
Из полумрака языка чужого,
Откуда я загадочное слово
Перевожу через десятки лет,
Через миры, над пропастью с шестом,
Шестыми чувствами нащупывая место,
Куда ступить. Так незнакомую невесту
С опаскою заводят в отчий дом.
В саду чужом, под чуждый птичий гам
Вдруг расцветает пришлое растенье,
Дает плоды и тень. И в этой тени
Душа чужая внятней станет нам.
 
                                             Август 2019
 
[from the poetry collection titled Половинка яблока (Apple Sliced in Half)]
 

 
d

Literary Translation/Adaptation by U.R. Bowie
 
                               
                               Notes of a Translator

“My language, my foe”
 
My tongue, my friend!
Lick language out into the light
from the obscurity of an alien tongue.
Wherefrom do I get this mysterious word,
do I transfer it over through dozens of years,
through eons of worlds, tight-roping along
with a pole in my hands, over a gorge,
girding all six of my senses, groping with toes
for the next spot to step . . .
 
Just so do they lead a new bride,
all timidity and blush,
into the groom’s house
to meet with the patriarch.
 
In an alien garden,
under the twitters of alien birds,
suddenly burgeons an outsider, 
an invasive species of plant;
that plant produces fruit and shade.
 
And in the shade
an alien soul stands peering at us,
bathed in the light
of pure clarity.
 


Poem by Bobby Goosey, "Reflections Upon Turning Ten"

 


Bobby Lee Goosey

 

Reflections Upon Turning Ten

Living in a daze, in a daze nowadays,

Living in a double-digit daze.

Thought I’d live forever

In the single-digit phase,

Thought I’d be forever young,

But years and months and days

Have vanished like a moist cold drop

Of mistdrip in the haze.

 

Since my birthday (now I’m ten)

I’m living in a daze,

Getting old, decrepit, muddled,

Getting older, weak, befuddled,

Just a double-digit widget,

Here I sit and squirm and fidget,

Nine more decades: triple-digit!

Living in a double-digit daze.




Saturday, September 7, 2024

Translation of Poem by Olga Tabachnikova, Ольга Табачникова, "Когда кончается болезненная нега," "The bliss and morbid torpor evanesce"

Natan Altman


 

Ольга Табачникова

Olga Tabachnikova
(born 1967)
 
Когда кончается болезненная нега,
мечту сменяет долгая печаль.
На подоконнике при виде снега
цветок задумался и медленно зачах.
 
Река замёрзла, и рука застыла
на спинке стула, как на кромке льда,
безжизненная... Что однажды было,
то медленная память унесла.
Затихла рыба, понимая ясно: 
всесилен лёд – его не проломить...
 
Но странному движению подвластно,
что не сбылось – не прекращает быть,
не убывает, не теряет в силе,
замкнувшись внутрь от горя и потерь...
 
Так наша страсть запискою в бутыли
качается на вечности теперь.
                                                    
Март 2013
 
[from the poetry collection titled Половинка яблока (Apple Sliced in Half)]
 
           d
 
                                     Literary Translation/Adaptation by U.R. Bowie
 
 
The bliss and morbid torpor evanesce,
and dreams give way to lengthy bouts of anguish.
When snowflakes touch a window, coalesce, 
the house plant sees, and knows it’s time to languish. 
 
The river’s frozen; one hand immobilized
on chairback halts, as if at edge of ice,
anticipatory . . . What once had life is fossilized,
to memory’s slow workings a grim sacrifice.
Time to come to terms with ice, the fish decides,
knowing fins can’t swim in chilled nonbeing . . .  
 
But subject to the strange in-outs of tides, 
the thing that could not be retains some being,
does not diminish, does not lose its force,
while hunkered in its shell of loss dismaying . . .
 
So now our passion—
a note in a bottle,
writ in rue and remorse—
on Sea of Evermore
goes bobbing, swaying. 

 


Book Review Article, Sigrid Nunez, THE FRIEND

 

Book Review Article

 

Sigrid Nunez, The Friend: a Novel. Penguin Random House, 2018 (Riverhead Books paperback, 2019, 212 pp.)

Bereavement

Maybe a better title for this book would be Bereavement, since that’s the main theme. We begin on the first page with a description of Cambodian women who had gone through hideous traumatic experiences and who, subsequently, appeared to have cried themselves blind. That, in a sense, is what the narrator is doing throughout the pages of the novel: metaphorically crying herself blind.

The unnamed first-person narrator, like the author herself, lives in New York City and teaches creative writing in a university. They appear to be about the same age (sixties or seventies), so Nunez, who at some point has lost the tilde in her last name (that’s a different issue), must be basing the action of the novel largely on her own experience. We do not know, however, if she ever lost a best-friend-fellow-writer to suicide and, subsequently, adopted that writer’s bereaved dog, a Great Dane. More on the dog later.

A question never really answered: what, exactly, was the narrator’s connection with the dead writer, the “You” to whom this novel is told throughout? She remarks at one point that “Our relationship was a somewhat unusual one.” Over the course of his life he had three wives, but she was not one of them. She does, however, consider him a very special friend, and she grieves for him as one grieves for a dead husband or lover. What was this man, this “You” of the narrative, like? He was a highly successful writer of fiction. “You had us believing that one day you’d win the Nobel Prize.” Like the narrator, he taught creative writing at a university. This man was a seducer of his female students, a cad by anyone’s at any time’s standards, and by today’s exacting standards an insufferable cad.

Why did “You” commit suicide in late middle age, taking his wives and friends by surprise? He was depressed, for one thing, because he was getting older and could no longer enjoy screwing his students anymore. The new generation of feminists, in fact, does not exactly approve of professors screwing students. One group of them had lodged a complaint with the dean over the way he called them all “dear.” Another problem was/is the state of creative literature in the modern world—a major theme of the whole book. “You” complains that “nobody in publishing seemed to care how anything was written anymore.” He “had become dismayed by the ubiquity of careless reading,” and by the fact that his students could not tell a good sentence from a bad one. Then again, he had lost his “conviction in the purpose of fiction—today, when no novel, no matter how brilliantly written or full of ideas, would have any meaningful effect on society.” He was utterly dismayed by the way political correctness and “cancel culture” ruled in the university ambiance. “What a load of crap,” he would say, “making the university a ‘safe place.’”

Notwithstanding You’s considerable faults as judged by modern standards, the narrator has always stood by him. When he dies she collapses into something like a temporary madness that plagues her throughout the narrative. At one point her friends organize an intervention, informing her that she is in the throes of “pathological grief.” The magnitude of her emotional crisis is described three-quarters of the way through the book (p. 154): (1) “my feeling of living with one foot in madness; (2) “no matter how much I sleep I’m exhausted; (3) “the days when I don’t eat” (or eat nothing but junk); (4) absurd fears: “What if there’s a gas leak and the building blows up?”

This short novel is close to being over, and the narrator describes herself as anxious about classes beginning in a week, having “open wounds, hidden fears, loneliness, rage; never-ending grief.” Worst of all, her only new friend in bereavement and loneliness (a dog) is aging and moribund. The subject of suicide comes up periodically in the narrative. She muses at one point that “it could be a rational decision, a perfectly sound choice, a solution even” (but not for the young). She notes that suicides never get much sympathy, that they are almost always condemned. Listening to a radio program, she hears what those who call in have to say. “All the usual word-stones were cast: sinful, spiteful, cowardly, vengeful, irresponsible. Sick. No one doubted that the suicide had been in the wrong. A right to commit suicide simply did not exist. Monsters of self-pity, suicides were. Such ingratitude for the precious gift of life.”

Certain ancient sages, on the contrary, have opined that “though generally to be condemned, [suicide] could be morally acceptable, even honorable, as an escape from unbearable pain, melancholy, or disgrace—or even just plain old boredom.” Meanwhile, she goes on suffering through her bereavement, listening to “the monotonous woe-is-me of the mourning doves.” Her therapist informs her pointedly that suicide is contagious. “One of the strongest predictors of suicide is knowing a suicide.”                                                                                

                                                                     On Writing and Writers

Some of the most creative of writers featured in the book are panhandlers that the narrator comes across, holding signs or wearing shirts. One drunk who “has pissed himself and is sprawled in a doorway,” wears a tee shirt reading “I Am the Architect of My Own Destiny.” Nearby is a guy with a handmade sign: “I used to be somebody.” I wonder if the most creative signs might make for the most beggarly of moolah handed out to the beggars. This would jibe with a major point of the book: that really creative lit gets no respect anymore.

One of the most prominent themes of the whole book is the theme of writing and writers, including the state of creative literary writing in the modern world. At one point the narrator mentions that good writing is all about rhythm: “Good sentences start with a beat.” Who in the book cares about that, besides her. Publishers? No. Readers? No. The students in her creative writing classes? Hell, no. A salient message of The Friend is that creative writing of fiction these days is in one hell of a state. What’s wrong with fiction writing and fiction writers and wannabe fiction writers today? Many, many, many things, so tells us Sigrid Nunez through the intermediation of her writer/teacher narrator.

For one thing, animosity is rife. “The literary world is mined with hatred, a battlefield rimmed with snipers, where jealousies and rivalries are always being played out.” Something like a “sinking raft that too many people are trying to get onto.” If you are already safely ensconced on the raft, you must push those clamoring newbies away, which “makes the raft a little higher for you.” After all, nobody much is reading fiction anymore—many are reading nothing—so why do we need more writers to crank out stuff that won’t be read? “In the news: 32,000,000 adult Americans can’t read. The potential audience for poetry has shrunk by 2/3 since 1992.” “Whenever a writer hits it big a lot of effort seems to go into trying to bring that person down.” Well, sure, but nothing new there; we human beings are out to boost our egos by way of deflating the egos of others. Human nature. Watch hummingbirds fighting each other over a hummingbird feeder: that’s us.

Another thing: writers, so it seems, are not happy people, and are ever more chagrined about the very thing they devote their lives to. There are no more “feckless bohemians” among today’s writers—that went out long ago. Today’s writers, at least in the U.S., are basically bourgeois. They don’t hunker down in a rat hole in Greenwich Village, frenetically typing out the great American novel on a manual typewriter while surviving on baked beans, cigarettes and hot dogs. They teach creative writing in universities, where they throw dinner parties for their fellow creative writing teachers. No smoking allowed. There they sample fine wines and bitch about how stupid their students are. Furthermore, “many writers today admit to feelings of embarrassment and even shame about what they do.”

Want to be a bad guy? Be a writer. Writing, so says Georges Simenon, is “not a profession but a vocation of unhappiness.” This astonishing admission from a man who “wrote hundreds of novels under his own name, hundreds more under two dozen pen names, and who, at the time of his retirement, was the bestselling author in the world. Now, that’s a lot of unhappiness.” Nunez has plenty more quotations from famous writers to back up her points. W.G. Sebald: “There seems to be no remedy for the vice of literature; those afflicted persist in the habit despite the fact that there is no longer any pleasure to be derived from it.”

Henry de Montherlant: “All writers are monsters.” Joan Didion: “Writers are always selling somebody out.” Rebecca West: “Any writer worth his salt knows that only a small proportion of literature does more than partly compensate people for the damage they have suffered in learning to read.” John Updike: “Whenever I see my books in a store, I feel as if I’ve gotten away with something.”

Things have been bad enough for some time, but the new efflorescence of sanctimony that has burgeoned in the Western world—this tendency to judge harshly anyone who deviates even one eon from what are assigned and enforced mores and behavior—has also come down hard on writers of fiction. Famous writers themselves have contributed to this judgmental spirit. In a pious mood one day Toni Morrison, e.g., “called basing a character on a real person an infringement of copyright. A person owns his life, she says. It’s not for another to use it for fiction.” So we’re all personally copyrighted; we own our own inviolate selves. An interesting notion, which suggests that Toni Morrison is either (1) incredibly naïve about fiction writing and fiction writers, or (2) lying to herself and others. Most likely #2. If she were still alive I suppose she would support the latest absurd “rule” that any writer is forced to follow: “If you’re not a Mexican you’re not allowed to write fiction featuring Mexican characters and a Mexican setting. If you do, sucker, we’ll cancel you!”

“It’s become entrenched, hasn’t it. This idea that what writers do is essentially shameful and that we’re all somehow suspect characters.” So says a fictionalized You, in Ch. 11, which amounts to a short story the narrator writes, featuring her visit to a You who did not commit suicide after all. This story also treats more of the silly BS being churned out by “right-thinking” self-congratulators. About how writers are, largely, of the white privileged society and therefore should not be allowed to write anymore. “They shouldn’t write about themselves, because that furthers the agenda of the imperialist white patriarchy. But they also shouldn’t be allowed to write about other groups [say, Mexicans], because that would be cultural appropriation.” Ah, the voices of the doctrinaire and dogmatic “illiberal left,” squeezing tight their sanctimonious sphincters, informing all and sundry what we’re allowed to say, what words we must use in saying it, and, ultimately, what we’re allowed to think.

In that same short story of Ch. 11 the narrator seems to speak approvingly of Svetlana Alexievich and her “documentary novels,” which feature the voices of women speaking directly into the narrative. “No invention. No authorial point of view.” Of course, most of her narrators are women; “women make better narrators because they examine their lives and feelings in ways men usually don’t, more intensely . . .” Here we speak approvingly of narrative creative fiction void of creator or creativity: Just give me the facts, ma’am. It’s only natural that there’s a twinge of feminism, male-bashing, in this passage, given that some fifty years ago—with the feminist movement—is where so much of this illiberal balderdash originated.

People who teach creative writing, so the narrator tells us, are embarrassed to admit what they teach. They are, of course, working in a university ambiance, where the tight-sphinctered proponents of “progressive” notions explained above are in the ascendancy. They certainly must be embarrassed as well by the very students they teach. At one point Nunez writes, “The rise of self-publishing was a catastrophe.” Maybe so, but much, much greater is the damage done to the American literary scene by the rise of creative writing programs and the insipid published fiction that inundates the literary world—fiction that comes, largely, from those very writing programs. Nunez never directly makes that point, and for good reason: both she and her narrator make a living by teaching in creative writing programs. But The Friend pulls no punches in describing what the students of those programs are like in the twenty-first century.

Creative Writing Programs and Their Students

Flannery O’Conner quoted: “Only those with a gift should be writing for public consumption.” Flannery O’Connor had a gift, which she demonstrated early on, when she was a student in a creative writing program in Iowa. She saw first-hand some of the problems with such programs way back when: in the 1940s and 1950s. Another quote: “It’s dangerous to have students critique each other’s manuscripts: the blind leading the blind.” Those problems have now proliferated with the vast over-proliferation of creative writing instruction in universities all over the U.S.

Could Flannery have done without whatever they taught her at Iowa? Easily. She later said, in effect, that she already knew how to write before she went to Iowa. But her stay there was certainly not wasted. There she made the contacts that would ease her entry into the literary world of the Eastern Establishment. Without the help and encouragement of writers and intellectuals she met at Iowa, she might have returned to Milledgeville, Georgia, and wasted away unknown, unpublished. Then again, she was young, a raw talent when she arrived at Iowa. She had never heard, e.g., of Nikolai Gogol. At Iowa one of her mentors suggested she read Gogol; she did, and was influenced by him.

The narrator of The Friend tells us what it’s like to teach creative writing twenty-five years into the twenty-first century. Not a pretty story. In the first place, universities these days—flush with the “progressive” principles, judgmental and self-righteous to the core—are bent on restricting all sorts of academic freedom, both that of professors and students. She describes how the profs at her place of employ all are required to take an online course, Sexual Misconduct Training, in which they learn that practically anything they say or do may be construed as sexual misconduct. She does not say so, but I suppose that all students are also required to take such a course. The narrator confesses to skimming over the materials, only to discover that in the test she took at the end, she got two out of ten questions wrong. Among other things, the narrator learns “that, yes, I was required to report immediately any knowledge I might have of a teacher dating a student, and that although not required I was strongly advised to report a colleague for telling an off-color joke, even if the joke didn’t personally offend me.”

No humor allowed, folks; after all, you might offend somebody. Laughing is best always suppressed. Given the touchy-feely students in the classroom, all hypersensitive to extremes, all needing to feel safe, and all prepared to report violations of touchy-feely rules to the dean, I’d guess that the modern-day prof must weigh his/her words extremely carefully. The situation reminds me of the atmosphere in the Soviet Union in Stalin’s time, when everyone spoke in whispers and there were stukachi (informers) denouncing people right and left. Or in today’s Russia, for that matter, where people can be arrested for calling Putin’s War a war.

Nowadays, so it appears, that fear of offending someone or “triggering” something affects even the creative writing exercises that students present for critique in class. So the narrator tells us, there is no sex in the writings anymore. Sex is dangerous and potentially offensive, so I better not put it in my story. The profs say they’re happy about this development, since they could get in trouble for discussing sex in class! Then again, discussing practically anything in class these days can get you in trouble. I would suppose that the obligatory course in Sexual Misconduct also informs the student how to go about properly engaging in sex—if anyone dares do that at a modern university. You have to do it by the numbers, I’m sure, making certain that the partner is okay with each step by asking caring questions as you go along: is it okay if I hug you? Okay. Can I put my hand here, on your knee? Okay. Would it offend you if I caressed (worry, worry) your breast? Until you finally get—if all goes well—to the last question: would you mind very much if I put my wiener in your slot? By the way, I did not make this last thing up—about sex by the numbers. I heard it advocated in all seriousness by a member of the illiberal left.

The narrator informs us in some detail about what attitudes her students have toward the English language, toward words and creative literature. One English major thinks you put a period after a question mark. Another student is thinking of taking her course but sends out a questionnaire in advance. One of the questions: “Are you overconcerned with things like punctuation and grammar?” Student A complains about all the reading assigned: “I don’t want to read what other people write, I want people to read what I write.”

Sad fact: today’s creative writing students—at least the ones who have passed through the narrator’s classes, and You’s as well—don’t know zilch about creative writing. They don’t know what good creative writing is, nor do they care. They do not care to read it, much less write it. Their social consciences are running amuck, and they want the voices of the oppressed, the insulted and the injured to be heard. When told that Rilke claimed writing “is a religion requiring the devotion of a priest,” they laugh derisively: ridiculous. That idea was pretty well accepted, says the narrator, when she was coming along. Now it’s universally absurd. In his imaginary dialogue with the narrator in Ch. 11, You says, “another thing I noticed about the students: how self-righteous they’ve become, how intolerant they are of any weakness or flaw in a writer’s character . . . I once had an entire class agree that it didn’t matter how great a writer Nabokov was, a man like that—a snob and a pervert, as they saw him—shouldn’t be on anyone’s reading list.” Anybody really interested in highly creative, artistic literature can only gape in astonishment at that evaluation—by a group of young dolts—of one of the greatest creative writers of the twentieth century.

The situation is so egregious that it calls for drastic measures. As for Nunez and her narrator—I mentioned this previously, but it bears repeating—neither of them can advocate such measures since their income depends on teaching in creative writing programs. The solution is one I have advocated previously—see a variety of postings on my blog and on the Dactyl Review website, where I have treated this subject in exhausting detail. The solution is to abolish all creative writing programs in all American universities. The state of creative literary fiction in this country would be much improved by such a measure. If there were at least one dissenting voice in that classroom of dolts advocating “cancelling” Nabokov, there might be some hope. Given that there were zero dissenting voices—a unanimity of doltitude—one can only declare the situation hopeless: abolish all creative writing programs. Let the writing students who hate Tolstoy, Hemingway, Nabokov, Shakespeare, Flannery O’Connor (yes, Flannery too makes some of the cancellation lists), everybody worth reading, get a job somewhere worthy of their talents: say, in McDonald’s, flipping burgers.

Or maybe let a few creative writing programs continue to function, in, say, five or so American universities. Admission to these programs would require passing an entrance exam. Here is one of the multiple-choice questions: Why do you want to be a writer? (a) because I want to make the world a better place; (b) because I want to improve the lot of the insulted and injured of the earth; (c) because I want to produce a new kind of literature, all touchy-feely and safe, a literature having nothing in common with that written by the many nasty dead white men of the world; (d) because I’m in love with words and my dream is to write beautiful sentences. Anyone checking any box but “d” would automatically fail the exam. After all, there’s really no good reason for becoming a writer of literary fiction except being in love with words. And I don’t mean writing the dreck that’s called literary fiction all over the Eastern Establishment these days; I mean highly creative literary fiction.

One small ray of optimism lies in the fact that Sigrid Nunez—although complicit in the creative-writing-program racket and all the gruesomeness that it entails—has, nonetheless written a good novel. She’s not Proust or Nabokov, but with The Friend she has written a lovely little novella reeking in literary creativity. Bravo.

A Bereaved Woman and Her Bereaved Dog

NB: in the final chapter the one addressed by the narrator as “you” is no longer You: the new you is her best friend and partner, the Great Dane named Apollo. I would guess that most readers of this book—little interested in the egregiousness of creative writing programs and the sad lot of literature—follow with most interest the narrative line of woman/dog and dog/woman. For this is a unique story about someone who becomes “the emotional support human” for a dog. Of course, had her emotions been anything other than skewed after the suicide of her friend, she never would have taken on the burden of keeping a dog that large in a small apartment in New York City. Where, incidentally, all pets are prohibited.

She takes on the care of Apollo out of some sense of duty toward her friend. No one else wants his dog, who loved You and was loved by You. The dog, it so happens, is also in a state of bereavement, missing terribly his previous master, and he never gets over the loss. So that the book describes a woman leading a dog through a strange haze of bewilderment and grief. Sounds like a bummer. Especially since, when the narrator becomes attached to the dog she abandons all other friends and devotes herself solely to Apollo—whose life expectancy is already short when she acquires him. So that this thing can certainly not end well.

Since she is already in a deep emotional crisis over her recently demised friend, one does not even care to imagine how she will feel after her new only friend dies: which he does on the last page of the book. Oddly enough, the book is so well-written and entertaining that this dismal plot does not propel the reader into a depression. We (or at least I) prefer not to think about what happens after the action of the narrative is done. Which is one more advertisement for the writing of good sentences.

You can learn a lot about dogs by reading this book. You learn, e.g., some of the perils of being a pure pedigree dog. The message seems to be that God loves mutts best of all. “Idiot collies, neurotic shepherds, murderous Rottweilers, deaf Dalmatians, and Labs so calm you could shoot a gun at them and they wouldn’t suspect danger.” The Great Dane breed, that of the secondary hero of the book, has some bad press as well. The Danes are known to be dumb and have a very short life expectancy. As the narrator discovers, they poop copiously, and her efforts to deal with this while walking Apollo on the streets of New York furnish much entertainment to passersby.

Another example: there are “pointers that freeze in point posture and then can’t get out.” Sounds impossible, a sick joke, but apparently it’s true. Even more interesting is what you learn about people who are avid dog lovers, people who, ever increasingly in our modern world, have a best friend, or even lover, who is a dog. The narrator cites the book, My Dog Tulip, by J.R. Ackerley (1896-1967). Thoroughly in love with a dog, the lovestruck Ackerley details his “fifteen-year marriage, the happiest years of his life.” Here we touch upon the subject of buggery, which, I suppose, makes for a satisfactory sex life for some people nowadays. Different strokes for different folks. The so-called “Incels,” young male women haters who can’t get laid, might consider this option: buy a dog.

The narrator takes Apollo to the vet, “the sort of man who speaks to women as if they are idiots and to older women as if they are deaf idiots.” The vet says, “Whoever trained him made him understand that humans are the alphas, and you don’t want him to start thinking otherwise. You don’t want him getting it into his head that he’s the alpha.” The vet’s parting remark: “the last thing you want is for him to start thinking you’re his bitch.” We don’t know what Apollo is thinking, though thinking appears to be not his métier. But by the end of the book—although the possibility of buggery is excluded—it appears that the narrator is close to becoming exactly that: his bitch.

As mentioned above, the very act of walking a Great Dane on the streets of New York creates a sensation. As older woman walking a big dog, the narrator does not have to put up with men’s off-color remarks, as she had to when she was a young, attractive woman walking a big (different) dog. This made me sympathize with what young women, especially the pretty ones, have to put up with from various idiot swinging dicks. I’d imagine that not being pretty is even somewhat to be preferred. Or being old, since the old, neither men nor women, get the least bit of attention from anyone.

Then there are the problems that come with an aging pet. As the narrator declares, “I want Apollo to live as long as I do. Anything less is unfair.” That statement is indicative of a sea-change in attitudes toward pets in the U.S. over the past 50-60 years. When I was young (long time ago) nobody would think of treating a dog as if it were a human being. Now vast numbers of human beings do exactly that, and those human beings spend exorbitant amounts of cash treating the ailments of pets, and even keeping moribund pets alive. What does that say about the attachments people have these days? And about the epidemic of loneliness that has spread all over the U.S.?

d

Appendix: List of My Jeremiads Against the Creative Writing Racket

(Available on the Blog, “U.R. Bowie on Russian Literature” and on the website Dactyl Review)

Analysis and Critique of George Saunders book, A Swim in a Pond in the Rain, with particular reference to his insipid, BS-laden “workshoppy” presentation of the Anton Chekhov short story, “In the Cart.” In a different posting I present my own critical analysis of the same story.

 

Book Review Article: Best American Short Stories, 2017. About how the “best” stories are often not very good. About the dull and tired genre of “domestic literary fiction,” produced largely by writers who come out of MFA programs in creative writing.

 

“The Great American Boondoggle (On the Sad State of the Short Story)” More on “domestic literary fiction,” on the insipidity of the “New Yorker story” and the ubiquity of bad published fiction.