Susan Sontag was born in New York, N.Y. She grew up in Tucson,
Arizona, and Los Angeles California, and entered at the age of
fifteen (1948) the University of California at Berkeley. After a year
she transferred to the University of Chigaco, and graduated in
1951. Sontag continued her studies at Harvard, where she was a
Ph.D. candidate from 1955-1957.
In 1957-58 Sontag studied at the University of Paris. She worked
as a lecturer in philosophy at the City College of New York and
Sarah Lawrence. From 1960 to 1964 she was an instructor in the
religion department of Columbia University, and then a
writer-in-residence for one year at Rutgers. In the 1960s Sontag's
connection with the Partisan Review brought her in close contact
with the 'New York intellectuals'. She contributed to various other
periodicals, including New York Review of Books, Atlantic Monthly,
Nation, and Harper's.
As a novelist Sontag started her career at the age of 30 with THE
BENEFACTOR.
The heavily symbolic work was partly a pastische of the
19th-century Bildungsroman, a novel about the formation of
character. In the story the protagonist, Hippolyte, a wealthy man,
attempts to make his daily life conform to his bizarre dreams and to
have them to serve as solutions to his normal life.
Hippolyte finally achieves complete freedom by rejecting outside
interpretations of his real/dream life, and finds peace at living in
silence. The novel prepared way for Sontag's essays about art -she
stated that people should not attempt to find the 'meaning' in a
work of art but experience it as a thing in itself.
On the bohemian New York scene of the early sixties, Sontag
swiftly acquired a reputation as the radical-liberal American
woman, who had not only deep knowledge ancient and modern
European culture, but could also reinterpret it from the American
point of view. A selection of her writings appeared in AGAINTS
INTERPRETATION AND OTHER ESSAYS (1968), where she stated
that the understanding of art starts from intuitive response and not
from analysis or intellectual considerations.
A work of art is a thing in the world, not just text or commentary
on the world. Rejecting interpretation, Sontag advocated what she
called 'transparency', which means 'experiencing the luminousness
of thing in itself, of things being what they are'. The 'meaning' of
art lies in the experiencing both style and content together without
analysis. Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art.
Sontag's other influental works include THE STYLE OF RADICAL
WILL (1969), which continued her explorations of contemporary
culture and such phenomena as drugs, pornography, cinema and
modern art and music. On Photography (1976) was a study of the
force of photographic images which are continually inserted
between experience and reality. Sontag developed further the
concept of 'transparency'. When anythig can be photographed and
photography has destroyed the boundaries and definitions of art, a
viewer can approach a photograp freely with no expectations of
discovering what it means. ILLNES AND METAPHOR (1978) was
written after her cancer treatment. Sontag's point was that
although illness is used often punitatively as a figure or metaphor,
the most truthful way is to resist such metaphoric thinking. The
book was later revised and expanded as Aids and its Metaphors
(1988).
Sontag's second novel, Death Kit (1967), a was a nightmarish
meditation on life, death and the relationship between the two. Like
in The Benefactor, the fragmented protagonist cannot always
distinguish between dream and reality.
Sontag's short stories, I, Etcetera, appeared in 1977. In 1992
Sontag published her third novel, The Volcano Lover, which became
a bestseller. It has been translated among others into Finnish. The
story was set in the 18th century, and depicted a drama between
the 56-year- old ambassador sir William Hamilton, his 20-year-old
wife Lady Emma Hamilton, and the hero of the age, Lord Nelson,
who won Napoleon but lost his victory for a woman. It is also a
story of revolution and the position of women, written in a manner
that approaches the formality of late 18th-century English. After
the appearance of the book Sontag has declared that she will
concentrate on writing fiction rather than essays.
Sontag's novel In America (1999) was based on a real story. It
depicted a woman's search for self-transformation. The protagonist
is Maryna Zalewska, an actress, who travels in 1876 with her family
and a group of Poles to California to found a utopian commune.
When the commune fails, Maryna returns succesfully on the stage
-now in America.
She would get her wish - Ms. Sontag burst onto the scene with
"Notes on Camp," which was published in Partisan Review - but not
before she earned a bachelor's and two master's degrees from
prestigious American universities; studied at Oxford on a
fellowship; and married, became a mother and divorced eight years
later, all by the time she turned 26.
After graduating from high school, Ms. Sontag spent a semester at
the University of California, Berkeley, before transferring to the
University of Chicago, from which she received a bachelor's degree
in 1951. At Chicago she wandered into a class taught by the
sociologist Philip Rieff, then a 28-year-old instructor, who would
write the celebrated study "Freud: The Mind of the Moralist" (Viking,
1959). He was, she would say, the first person with whom she
could really talk; they were married 10 days later. Ms. Sontag was
17 and looked even younger, clad habitually in blue jeans, her
black hair spilling down her back. Word swept around campus that
Dr. Rieff had married a 14-year-old American Indian.
Moving with her husband to Boston, Ms. Sontag earned her
master's degrees from Harvard, the first in English, in 1954, the
second in philosophy the next year. She began work on a Ph.D., but
did not complete her dissertation. In 1952 she and Dr. Rieff became
the parents of a son. Ms. Sontag is survived by her son, David Rieff,
who lives in Manhattan and was for many years her editor at Farrar,
Straus & Giroux. (A journalist, he wrote "Slaughterhouse: Bosnia
and the Failure of the West," published by Simon & Schuster in
1995.) Also surviving is her younger sister, Judith Cohen of Maui.
After further study at Oxford and in Paris, Ms. Sontag was divorced
from Dr. Rieff in 1958. In early 1959 she arrived in New York with,
as she later described it, "$70, two suitcases and a 7 year old." She
worked as an editor at Commentary and juggled teaching jobs at
City College, Sarah Lawrence and Columbia. She published her first
essays, critical celebrations of modernists she admired, as well as
her first novel, "The Benefactor" (1963), an exploration of
consciousness and dreams.
Shaking Up the Establishment
With "Notes on Camp" Ms. Sontag fired a shot across the bow of
the New York critical establishment, which included eminences like
Lionel and Diana Trilling, Alfred Kazin and Irving Howe. Interlaced
with epigrams from Oscar Wilde, that essay illuminated a particular
modern sensibility - one that had been largely the province of gay
culture - which centered deliciously on artifice, exaggeration and
the veneration of style.
"The experiences of Camp are based on the great discovery that
the sensibility of high culture has no monopoly on refinement," Ms.
Sontag wrote. "The man who insists on high and serious pleasures
is depriving himself of pleasure; he continually restricts what he
can enjoy; in the constant exercise of his good taste he will
eventually price himself out of the market, so to speak. Here Camp
taste supervenes upon good taste as a daring and witty hedonism.
It makes the man of good taste cheerful, where before he ran the
risk of being chronically frustrated. It is good for the digestion."
If that essay has today lost its capacity to shock, it is a reflection of
how thoroughly Ms. Sontag did her job, serving as a guide to an
underground aesthetic that was not then widely known.
"She found in camp an aesthetic that was very different from what
the straight world had acknowledged up to that point, and she
managed to make camp 'straight' in a way," Arthur C. Danto, the
Johnsonian professor emeritus of philosophy at Columbia and the
art critic for The Nation, said yesterday in a telephone interview. "I
think she prepared the ground for the pop revolution, which was in
many ways essentially a gay revolution, through Warhol and
others. She didn't make that art, but she brought it to
consciousness. She gave people a vocabulary for talking about it
and thinking about it."
The article made Ms. Sontag an international celebrity, showered
with lavish, if unintentionally ridiculous, titles ("a literary pinup,"
"the dark lady of American letters," "the Natalie Wood of the U.S.
avant-garde").
Championing Style Over Content
In 1966 Ms. Sontag published her first essay collection, "Against
Interpretation." That book's title essay, in which she argued that art
should be experienced viscerally rather than cerebrally, helped
cement her reputation as a champion of style over content.
Photoreporters
A social critic and polemicist: Susan Sontag in 1970.
Susan Sontag, who died yesterday at 71, was one of the few
intellectuals with whom Americans have ever been on a first-name
basis. It wasn't intimacy that gave her this status; it was that like
Marilyn and like Judy, she was so much a star that she didn't need
a surname. In certain circles, at least, she was just Susan, even to
people who had never met her but who would nevertheless talk
knowledgeably and intimately about her latest piece in The New
York Review of Books, her position on Sarajevo, her verdict on the
new W. G. Sebald book. She brought to the world of ideas not just
an Olympian rigor but a glamour and sexiness it had seldom seen
before.
Part of the appeal was her own glamour - the black outfits, the
sultry voice, the trademark white stripe parting her long dark hair.
The other part was the dazzle of her intelligence and the range of
her knowledge; she had read everyone, especially all those
forbidding Europeans - Artaud, Benjamin, Canetti, Barthes,
Baudrillard, Gombrowicz, Walser and the rest - who loomed off on
what was for many of us the far and unapproachable horizon.
Nor was she shy about letting you know how much she had read
(and, by implication, how much you hadn't), or about decreeing the
correct opinion to be held on each of the many subjects she turned
her mind to. That was part of the appeal, too: her seriousness and
her conviction, even if it was sometimes a little crazy-making.
Consistency was not something Ms. Sontag worried about overly
much because she believed that the proper life of the mind was
one of re-examination and re-invention.
Ms. Sontag could be a divisive figure, and she was far from
infallible, as when she embraced revolutionary communism after
traveling to Hanoi in 1968 and later declared the United States to
be a "doomed country... founded on a genocide." But what her
opponents sometimes failed to credit was her willingness to change
her mind; by the 80's she was denouncing communism for its
human-rights abuses, and by the 90's she had extended her
critique to include the left in general, for its failure to encourage
intervention in Bosnia and Rwanda. She had found herself "moved
to support things which I did not think would be necessary to
support at all in the past," she said in a rueful interview, adding,
"Like seriousness, for instance."
Not that she was ever unserious for very long. There was about
most of her work a European sobriety and high-mindedness and an
emphasis on the moral, rather than sensual, pleasures of art and
the imagination. Her reputation rests on her nonfiction - especially
the essays in "Against Interpretation" and "Styles of Radical Will"
and the critical studies "On Photography" and "Illness as Metaphor"
- while the 1967 novel "Death Kit," written to a highbrow formula of
dissociation, now seems all but unreadable.
For a while Ms. Sontag took the French position that in the right
hands criticism was an even higher art form than imaginative
literature, but in the 80's she announced that she was devoting
herself to fiction. She wrote the indelible short story "The Way We
Live Now," one of the most affecting fictional evocations of the
AIDS era, and in 1992 she published a novel, "The Volcano Lover,"
that had all the earmarks of the kind of novel she had once made
fun of. It was historical and it was a romance, about the love affair
of Lord Nelson and Emma Hamilton. Being a Sontag production, it
was of course brainy and stuffed with fact-laden research, but as
many critics pointed out, there was also a lightness and even - who
would have guessed? - an old-fashioned wish to entertain. Much
the same was true of her last novel, "In America," which came out
in 2000, about a Polish actress who comes to the United States at
the end of the 19th century.
Ms. Sontag was too much a critic and essayist to stick to her
resolve; her last book, "Regarding the Pain of Others" (2003), was
nonfiction, an outspoken tract on how we picture suffering. Last
May she expanded on those ideas for an article in The New York
Times Magazine about the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. This piece
was classic, provocative Sontag. But those late novels, playful and
theatrical, are a reminder that behind that formidable, opinionated
and immensely learned persona there was another Sontag, warmer
and more vulnerable, whom we got to see only in glimpses.
1963
By DANIEL STERN
THE BENEFACTOR
By Susan Sontag
For her first book Susan Sontag, a 30-year-old New Yorker, has
chosen to write a carefully modern work, a picaresque anti-novel.
The tone is detached, the action almost nonexistent, and the
characters do not lead lives, they assume postures. We are not told
the hero's surname or the name of his city, though this last is
clearly Paris during the past 40 or 50 years.
The Benefactor is the supposed memoir of an aging man named
Hippolyte, who has dreamed his way through an ambiguous life. As
a young man without any of the usual human ambitions, he
abandons his university education and is supported by his wealthy,
indulgent father. His primary purpose is solitary speculation, and to
further this he lives only on the periphery of other lives. In line with
this he frequents the salon of a foreign couple, the Anderses, a
salon peopled by virtuoso talkers. At about this time Hippolyte
has the first of a series of disquieting dreams. Shortly afterward he
makes his great decision: instead of using his dreams to interpret
his life, he will use his life to interpret his dreams. Cued by a dream,
he begins an affair with his hostess, Frau Anders. She is a plump,
sensuous woman in her late thirties, and there is much talk about
sensuality; yet it remains a curiously cerebral affair.
From this point on the novel alternates cinematic descriptions of
dreams with what, for want of better words, must be called waking
life. Both are cryptic, both devoid of identifiable drives and
emotions. Along the way Hippolyte does some occasional acting in
films, flirts with an experimental religion, has frequent
conversations with a thief and sometime homosexual, takes a trip
to an Arab country with Frau Anders, where he sells her into white
slavery, marries and becomes a widower.
None of these activities, however, has any dimensional life.
Obviously meant to be emblematic, they are thin as experiences,
undeveloped as ideas.
Hippolyte also dreams numerous repetitious dreams, ponders
(cavila) them endlessly and keeps encountering Frau Anders, like a
guilty conscience.
The intent is to present waking life as if it were a dream. And, to
present dreams as concrete as daily living. The result is that
Mr. Stern is the author of Who Shall Live, Who Shall Die and
other books.
*
new-wave films, pop art and the like, than from overexposure to
certain fringe movements of literary criticism.
And, as has to be added, that argument isn't especially fresh or
well-informed. Miss Sontag's announced cause is that of design, the
surface art in the Jamesian sense in fine, the cause of style. She
invokes a (predictable) string of sages from Ortega y Gasset to
Marshall McLuhan in support of the claim that interpreters
-people who translate the elements of the poem or play or novel
or story into something else -are philistines. And, impatient with
theorists who continue to treat novels and movies as means of
depicting and commenting on secular reality, she insists that art
now is a new kind of instrument, an instrument for modifying
consciousness and organizing new modes of sensibility. One
weakness of the case, in the present version, is it rather beamish
dependence on crude distinctions between form and content.
Another is that it lacks urgency. The author believes her sort of
thinking is out of favor and that lit-crit generally in the last few
decades has avoided matters of structure and style. She is wrong
by a country mile on this point, and the embattled sections of her
book seem, in consequence, more like tomboy fantasies than
reactions to critical things as they are.
Competent chatterers about critical things as they are, though,
aren't in short supply these days. What is rare is the writer who has
moved beyond the Gee Whiz or See Here response to the new art
the observer who breathes naturally in encounters with a Godard
film or a nouveau roman and takes as his critical purpose the
re-creation of these encounters as known an experienced by the
feelings and the imagination. Miss Sontag at her best is such a
writer. She doesn't simply view a Happening, for instance; she
inhabits the moment of its performance and gives it back to her
reader as an inward disturbance as well as a set of odd outward
events. We, the audience, feel teased and abused, she
reports.
Nobody caters to our desire to see everything, events occur in
semidarkness or simultaneously in different rooms, we are
deliberately frustrated,
enveloped, mocked, turned into scapegoats: I, and other
people in the audience, often laugh during Happenings. I don't
think this is simply because we are embarrassed or made nervous
sensation. If her critical writing has not always been entirely lucid,
it has been fresh and fascinating, and idiomatically true to itself.
Her novels are a different matter. In The Benefactor (1963), she
explored, at tedious and wandering length, the dream- and
waking-life of a fellow who wants to fashion actuality from his
dreams -a seemingly easy chore because his dreams are so
undreamlike, and a chore because so dull. The novel was infused
with ideas that had little dramatic relation to the narrative; voices
where confused (the novel's and Miss Sontag's) or at any rate
confusing, and the pacing was erratic. On the positive side, the
novel was an attempt at innovation and -one is grateful for
surprises -the tone throughout was not French and decadent, as
one might expect, but resolute and even cheery.
Much of the same may be said of Death Kit, which skips,
shuffles and snoozes over very similar territory. Its nonhero and
occasional quasi-narrator is a 33-year-old, expensively educated,
Pennsylvania businessman who is moderately thoughtful, entirely
dependable in everyday matters, and nicknamed Diddy -the sort
of man it's hard to dislike, and whom disaster avoids. But: Diddy,
not really alive, had a life. Hardly the same. Some people are their
lives. Others, like Diddy, merely inhabit their lives. In fact, the life
that Diddy inhabits is also unreal, as Miss Sontag evolves it. But
this is as nothing compared with Diddy's immediate problem, which
is: Did he bludgeon to death a railroad worker while his train was
halted in a darkened tunnel -as he himself believes -or was he
sitting all the time quietly in his seat, as Hester, the sensuous blind
girl who hears all, testifies.
The answer, or nonanswer, is suspected all along, though Miss
Sontag seems not to care overmuch, and all along is a long, long
way. During the lulls -Diddy's dreams, who-knows-who's
philosophical ruminations, Miss Sontag's epistemological riddles,
the reader's daydreams, art vs.
life, Gide, Camus, Freud vs. Jung vs. Wilhelm Reich, authenticity vs.
reflection, action as indecisive evidence of no death quite yet, and
so on and on and on -one comes to think that Miss Sontag may
have been taken in by Hester's post-tryst (in the train's bathroom)
admonishment to Diddy: There's no point in not doing what you
want, is there? I mean, if nobody's stopping you. A novelist might
have stopped before even this early point, and rethought character
brainy and darkly beautiful, smart enough to tell America off, and
glamorous enough to make America like it. Susan Sontag is
definitely in. To meet her, to write about her, to rent her a car is
to edge a little in oneself.
But I decided to begin as though I didn't know who she was.
First, I read the facts. Born: 1933, New York. Moved to Arizona,
then California. High school diploma at 15 (North Hollywood High
School), Bachelor's degree at 18 (Chicago). Graduate work
(Harvard). A marriage, a child, a divorce. Then, New York again.
Teaching, articles, books, fame.
Next, I studied the photographs, wondering at the different women
I saw.
A photographer, unable to capture an unphotographic subject,
invents her. On the dust jacket of her first book (The Benefactor)
she looks like the woman aviator who parachutes through the
greenhouse roof in Shaw's Misalliance. On the second dust jacket
(Against Interpretation) like someone not gentle, made to appear
so. On the third (Death Kit) like a beautiful woman, period.
Finally, I found myself looking in Vogue and The World Journal
Tribune, at a lovely exurbanite woman with her dark-eyed son, who
strikingly resembled the young Marcel Proust.
Third, I read the reports and opinions: American culture-dealers at
work. They write about someone who is news; everyone will read it;
fame rubs off. (Your are reading this because it is about Susan
Sontag; not because I wrote it). Their wit triumphs over her fame.
(Susan Sontag is the most serious young writer we have in
America today. She has also been called the Nathalie Wood of the
U.S. Avant Garde.) (When she published her novel, 'The
Benefactor,' in 1963, and received a Merit Award from
Mademoiselle, her somber posture in the magazine was splendid.
Barbra Streisand appeared no more exemplary as Singing
Comedienne, of Valentina Tereshkova as Cosmonaut, than Susan
Sontag as Writer.) They make jokes about her alliterative name as
though, like Marilyn Monroe's, it had been publicity, not
mother-invented. The great American sport: have it and eat it too.
Fourth, I read the other interviews. These seem designed to show
her playing the have it and eat it game, (For weeks they've been
bombarding Miss Sontag with telegrams, offering huge fees for her
participation. 'I wouldn't dream of it,' she says calmly. 'I'm not
enigmatic,
complex,
useful. But one major adjective must be added: moral
-because the eight essays in Styles of Radical Will are mainly
exercises in moral definition, as far as moral definition can be
accomplished today on the two supremely and terrifyingly insecure
areas of modern art and modern political brutality.
Like all moralists, Miss Sontag hopes to inspire readers with the
desire to act upon her principles. But there are insurmountable
difficulties in acting upon them, and this is the final, most
maddening element in the world she so brilliantly describes.
For example: How is art -even radical art -useful for individual
survival in an era of permanent apocalypse? As Miss Sontag has
convincingly argued, good and bad have become useless concepts;
the most valid forms -in art, in philosophy -are those which
accommodate the greatest ambiguity; they are profoundly
disturbing but are psychologically appropriate to our condition.
Thus Bergman's Persona and the films of Godard are exemplary
esthetic models. But art is not life; life drives one crazy and
corrupts the language with which one could recognize one's
condition, while art reinvents language and makes sure one
recognizes just how badly off one is. Can such a vicious circle aid us
in a moral definition? How useful to individual survival can it -or
similar intellectual structures -be?
This issue -like so many -reaches the point of crisis when Miss
Sontag confronts the question of Vietnam in her essay Trip to
Hanoi, based on her visit there in the spring of 1968. It is her
triumph that by being true to what she sees and feels -her first
concern -she is able to transfer her artistic and philosophical values
to politics without distorting them or losing herself, and find value
and meaning where others have lapsed into political cliches or
been struck dumb with horror. The placement of Trip to Hanoi as
the concluding piece in the book is symbolic of the way in which
Vietnam has wrenched many students, writers, teachers and
intellectuals away from their guarded concerns into a field of
experience where they must suddenly cope as never before.
When Trip to Hanoi appeared last year in Esquire and later as a
paperback, inmates of the liberal and radical wards in the cultural
asylum roared in pain. How dare Susan Sontag use the Vietnamese
Notes on Camp,
The Aesthetics of Silence, and Trip to Hanoi. In the world in
which she's chosen to live, she continues to be the best there is.
Mr. Bensky, a critic and former managing editor of Ramparts, lives
in San Francisco.
*
September 25, 1969
Susan Sontag's 'Duet for Cannibals' at Festival
By ROGER GREENSPUN
The special providence that protects movie critics decrees that
when they do take up honest work they often make surprisingly
good movies. Godard and Truffaut come to mind at once, but also a
whole line of Cahiers du Cinema critics including Chabrol,
Rivette, and Eric Rohmer.
In America, we have Peter Bogdanovich (Targets) and now Susan
Sontag with Duet for Cannibals, which played last night at the
New York Film Festival. Miss Sontag's credits extend, of course, a
considerable distance beyond movie criticism, but she has been
one of the best of critics, and I have heard some of her colleagues
remark, with disarming generosity, that she has proved herself so
good at making movies you'd never guess she had written about
them.
Except for some bandages out of Godard, two wigs out of
Antonioni, and a leading lady out of Bernardo Bertolucci (Adriana
Asti, who is more interesting here than she was in Before the
Revolution), Duet for Cannibals doesn't seem to owe much to
anybody except to Miss Sontag and her own idiomatic, uncluttered
sense of the medium.
The film is in Swedish, made in Sweden for a Swedish producer,
but the subtitles are Miss Sontag's, and I suspect that as much has
been gained as lost in the various translations and transpositions
required in realizing the project.
The cannibals are a middle-age radical German political activist
and the theoretician, Bauer -Hans Erborg -living with his young
Italian wife Francesca -Miss Asti -in Sweden. Their victims are a
young Swede who goes to work as Bauer's secretary, and his
October 3, 1969
Susan Sontag Talks About Filmmaking
By MEL GUSSOW
Novelist, short-story writer, essayist, critic, esthetician,
superintellectual -Susan Sontag is an awesome literary lady. For
many years she has harbored one large unfulfilled ambition. She
wanted to direct movies.
I would have taken any offer just to show I could do it, she says.
I would have gone to Afghanistan. As it turned out, she only had
to go to Sweden.
The offer came suddenly last year. It gave her complete freedom.
The only suggestion from the producer was that the film not be too
expensive. In the end, it cost $180,000. The genius of the Swedish
films, she says, is the invisibility of the producer. Mine didn't see
the picture until it was finished. The result, Duet for Cannibals,
written, directed, edited, and subtitled by Miss Sontag, filmed
entirely in Sweden, in Swedish, has been one of the hits at the New
York Film festival. It will begin a regular run Oct. 14 at the Carnegie
Hall Cinema.
Miss Sontag is now, officially, a movie director.
During a break in film festivities, she relaxed in her sparsely
furnished West Side penthouse and reflected on her movie debut.
When she arrived in Sweden, last summer, she said, they didn't
know what I was going to do, but I had five movies in my head that
I had wanted to make for years.
They were in embryonic form, stories for films, she added.
The one she chose to make first was a grotesque chamber film
about two couples, one older and perverse (the cannibals), one
younger and vulnerable.
In three weeks in her hotel room she wrote a 100-page shooting
script, then chose locations and actors and began filming it exactly
as she had written it. Everything was so relaxed and
unhysterical. There wasn't even a language problem. English was
the language of the set.
I had never made a film, she continued, but I've been around
the film world. I've been on sets of many films. I've been an extra. I
used to act -until I was 21. I've read a lot of books. I knew enough
about the camera and lights and actors and editing. I don't know
how I knew but I knew I knew. She has spent a large part of her
life in theaters seeing movies. She has watched many directors
work, including her friend Mike Nichols. I admire the way he gets
people to do what he wants them to do without making them feel
oppressed. That's my way. While she was shooting, she thought
her film morbid. I didn't like that aspect, she said, but that's
what it was. I was making a dark, depressing Swedish movie. In the
rushes people started laughing, and she realized that she was
making a black comedy.
In a way it didn't surprise me. I don't think the author is the best
judge, she conceded, and so when people began analyzing the
film, she listened.
Richard Roud said, 'Obviously, Dr. Bauer is a descendent of Dr.
Mabuse.' Not that there was a conscious influence, Miss Sontag
said, but there is a relationship. Someone else said something
about Hitchcock, and I thought, 'Yes.' Or, 'I love the theme of the
pornography of eating in your film.' Yes. How marvelous! Her own
feeling on seeing it, she said, was one of surprise, pleasure,
amazement that it exists independent of me. At the Cannes
festival, she sat through it twice listening to the people in the
seats. She has seen it about 100 times. On the other, she said,
I've never reread anything I've published. She thinks there is a
similarity between novels and screenplays. I'm so inside [a film].
The story is really happening. I'm reporting it. My novels are also
conceived very quickly. In a few hours I see the whole story. It's just
getting it down. But the techniques are strikingly different. A
director has to be an amateur psychiatrist. He has to have certain
-Long shot: The eye tracks forward as the film company's bus pulls
into the square and stops. The driver checks his watch (7:15 A.M.)
and makes an impatient gesture in the direction of two figures
hurrying hand-in-hand toward the bus.
Medium shot: It is SUSAN SONTAG and her 17-year-old son, DAVID,
they get into the bus and drive off. Sounds: bus door slamming and
motor starting.
Credits: SUSAN SONTAG, 37, American writer, lapsed philosopher,
abdicated critic, radical intellectual, daughter of a traveling
salesman, mother but no longer wife, existential voyager and
filmmaker.
So far.
Medium shot: We are in the bus speeding toward a location
outside Stockholm where SONTAG is making -writing, directing,
editing -her second film, an elliptical tale called Brother Carl.
Seated behind the driver, SONTAG and DAVID are leaning close
together, speaking in low, intimate tones. They look very tired.
SONTAG (tenderly): David arrived unexpectedly from Africa last
evening.
He is on his way to college at Amherst. We talked all night.
Closer shot of the two: Both SONTAG and DAVID are dark and very
handsome. The eye pans on her. She is thinner and taller than in
her photographs -though just as mysterious looking. She has long,
straight, black hair and she moves as warily as a young Indian
brave.
She is dressed in jeans and white sneakers.
Long shot: Forty minutes later the bus comes to a halt in a field.
Background: the Baltic Sea. Foreground: an ancient wooden
cottage, no electricity and no running water.
Full shot: Now we are inside the cottage, where a scene is being
rehearses between French star GENEVIEVE PAGE and Swedish actor
KEVE HJELM. HJELM is having trouble with his lines -not in recalling
them, but in the nuances of English.
HJELM (aside): I'm losing my identity -I can't think in English.
Acting is thinking. It becomes a sort of talking-by-ear, without my
knowing exactly what I'm saying.
Two-shot of HJELM and SONTAG in profile seated on opposite sides
of the camera. She reads his lines huskily, emphasizing the verbs.
I'm sure that Norman Mailer didn't like being known for 20 years as
the author of The Naked and the Dead when he had done a lot of
other things. It's like referring to Frank Sinatra in terms of the
Frankie of 1943.
REPORTER: Ah, but Against Interpretation, your first collection of
essays, was published four years ago, and Styles of Radical Will
came out last year.
SONTAG: They don't interest me at all. You see, I don't love my
work, I like it. But I'm not attached to it in the sense that I feel a
responsibility now to be consistent with my past work. In fact, I
would be delighted to be inconsistent -I'm interested in leaving my
past work behind.
REPORTER: But you do love making movies.
SONTAG: What I love about making movies is the chance to
exercise a part of my imagination and my powers in a way that I
can't as a writer. A visual sense, a structural sense, a musical
sense. The pleasure of working with people. Writing is a very
solitary occupation.
REPORTER: But earlier you complained that although you decide
everything, you can't execute everything. Isn't there an area of
compromise in filmmaking that's absent in writing?
SONTAG: Did I say that? If I want to be in total control of
something, I write -but not for films. Filmmaking is an entirely
separate career.
I'm not interested in films as a writer, but as a director and an
editor. As it happens, I have written the scripts for both of my films,
but that's not the side of filmmaking that interests me. The side
that interests me is precisely what you call the area of
compromise. Film directing is film directing. It's not a compromise
any more than conducting a symphony orchestra is a compromise.
REPORTER: I know that you're working in Sweden because you
were invited here by Sandrews, the Swedish film company. But I
wonder if anyone, particularly an American, can do his best work
abroad. Wasn't Antonioni's first American film, Zabriskie Point, a
failure?
SONTAG: I don't think there's anything inherently difficult in
working abroad -just that it's hard for some people. It's really a
question of temperament and empathy. I think Zabriskie Point is
a brilliant film -far better than some of Antonioni's Italian films. So
the film is the story of how her life is saved by the enigmatic Carl,
who forms a bond with her own desperately withdrawn young
daughter, Anna, and effectively brings the girl out of her private
distances and back into the world.
I have greatly simplified the story, which is very complex and full
of symbolic event and confrontation, and which is also a little
foolish. In a sense, Brother Carl is all about learning to give, and
its climactic miracle (Miss Sontag's word) is essentially to evoke
laughter from a little girl. These suggest sentiments worthy of
Hollywood in the 1930's and 1940's, but that Miss Sontag is willing
to treat them openly and seriously is, paradoxically, perhaps her
greatest source of strength.
There are a directness and an awkwardness of gesture and of
larger movement in Brother Carl that count among its most
attractive qualities, and that go a long way to compensate for its
occasionally strained pretensions. It is a very imperfect film, with
one bad performance (Genevieve Page as Karen) and several
performances that seem to have been directed toward an
excessive inexpressiveness.
But I think that it indicates the taking of considerable imaginative
and emotional risks, as Duet for Cannibals did not, and the result
is a real movie.
Brother Carl was filmed in Sweden with an English-language
sound track. It opened yesterday at the New Yorker Theater.
*
July 12, 1974
Screen: Sontag's 'Promised Lands'
By NORA SAYRE
Susan Sontag's film about Israel, Promised Lands, which was
made in October and November of 1973, isn't intended to be a
documentary.
However, that country's situation is just too factually complex to
be treated as a tone poem. In an effort to eschew talking heads,
there's a lot of voice-over narration, as people walk through the
streets, but sometimes we don't know who's talking. There's some
handsome photography -especially of figures in landscapes
-although what's seen and what is said often don't go together, and
many shots seem irrelevant. The movie opened yesterday at the
First Avenue Screening Room.
One's ready to be moved by the subject. But the viewer almost
has to function as an editor, since the selection of the footage is so
haphazard. Hence the emotions of or about Israel don't come
through, even though glimpses of graveyards and corpses and the
consciousness of Auschwitz, the lingering shock of the October
attack and the awareness that the struggle between Arabs and
Jews may be insoluble -as one man says, There's no solution to a
tragedy -run through the marrow of the picture. Throughout, the
ideas and the people and the machines of war are examined from a
distance, as though everything had been observed through some
kind of mental gauze.
The Israelis -particularly those in robes -are filmed as if they were
extremely foreign or exotic. Also, Israel seems like a nearly all-male
country, since few women appear and none have been
interviewed.
There are a few sympathetic words for the Arabs, but their
existence seems shadowy and abstract -almost as bloodless as the
statues in a wax museum devoted to Israeli history.
Two scenes are particularly disturbing. At a mass burial, the
camera rushes in on a weeping profile in a way that's intrusive
-because we've been given so little sense of the dead or even of
the war. Later, in a hospital, a shell-shocked soldier relives his
battlefield experiences under drugs, while a psychiatrist and the
hospital staff recreate the noises of shooting and bombing. (This is
said to be therapeutic for the patient. The staff looks as though it
rather enjoys the task.) It should be devastating to watch this man
burrow into the pillow, shudder, dive beneath the bed. But these
moments have been filmed with such confusion that we can't
respond to his suffering - indeed, suffering's hardly conveyed in
Promised Lands. Because the movie is dull and badly organized,
the war is made to seem unreal.
Unlike Claude Lanzmann's very fine documentary, Israel Why,
which was shown at the 1973 New York Film Festival, the Sontag
film won't increase your understanding of Israel. Perhaps the latter
should have been a book instead of a film.
*
February 9, 1975
The Evolution of Susan Sontag
By HILTON KRAMER
In place of hermeneutics, Susan Sontag wrote at the close of her
famous essay Against Interpretation, in 1964, we need an
erotics of art. It was this essay, with its stunning declaration of
independence from the traditional obligations of criticism, that
gave the title to Miss Sontag's first volume of essays, published in
1966, and it was this sentiment -for it was clearly a sentiment more
than an idea -that helped to make Against Interpretation one of
the most widely read and widely influential works of criticism in the
1960's. Hermeneutics, the attempt to analyze or interpret works of
art for their hidden meanings, was resoundingly rejected in favor of
an erotics that, though never defined, invoked a promise of
untroubled esthetic delight: untroubled precisely because it would
no longer be burdened by intrusions of moral discrimination.
In the cultural climate of the late 1960's, this was a position of
immense consequence. It conferred on the experience of art the
same kind of radical freedom that was already at work in the realm
of politics and personal moral, in modes of dress and sexuality and
social manners -in everything, indeed, that came to be lumped
under the rubric of life-style. What was upheld as the highest
value was the sensuous surface of art, and anything in our
response that complicated or modified or abridged our surrender to
the sensory experience of the work of art was dismissed as a
form of life-denying philistinism. The fiercest opprobrium was
reserved for criticism that concerned itself with the so-called
content of a work of art, for it was this content that was
alleged to prompt these despised efforts of interpretation. It is no
exaggeration to say that Miss Sontag's views on this question
-abetted, as they were, by so many other voices joined in the
celebration of style at the expense of moral analysis -had a
far-reaching effect on the way an entire generation conceived the
very nature of esthetic experience. Exactly how this erotics of art
might differ from that powerful current of estheticism that had
been a significant factor in both art and criticism, at least since the
Dividing the time into Past, Present & Future suggests that reality
is distributed equally among three parts, but in fact the past is the
most real of all. The future is, inevitably, an accumulation of loss,
and dying is something we do all our lives. If artists are memory
specialists, professional curators of consciousness, they are only
practicing -willfully, obsessionally -a prototypical devoutness.
There is a tilt in the very experience of living which always gives
memory an advantage over amnesia.
To reproach artists for having an insufficiently radical relation to
the world has to be a complaint about art as such. And to reproach
art is, in more than one way, like reproaching consciousness itself
for being a burden. For consciousness can be conscious of itself, as
Hegelians quaintly say, only through its sense of the past. And art
is the most general condition of The Past in the present. To become
past is, in one version, to become art. (The arts that most
literally illustrate this mutation are architecture and photography.)
The pathos that all works of art reek of comes from their historicity.
From the way they are overtaken by physical decay and stylistic
obsolescence. And from whatever is mysterious, partly (and
forever) veiled about them. And simply from our awareness, with
each work, that no one would or could ever do exactly that again.
Perhaps no work of art is art. It can only become art, when it is part
of the past.
Doesn't demanding that artists cut themselves loose from the
inherited past, as some radical critics do, mean wanting them
not to be artists any more? Such a talent for jettisoning everything
has to be extremely rare. And its promised benefits have yet to be
demonstrated. The clean sweep being proposed as a goal for
radical therapy as well as art (and, by extension, for politics)
suggests that liberation can be very confining. That is, it seems
regressive in relation to the full range of our possibilities -among
which civilization tries, to almost everyone's dissatisfaction, to
arbitrate. The price we would pay for liberation in that sense is at
least as steep as the price we've been paying for civilization.
If one is going to be forced to choose between defensive fantasies
of liberation and ruling corruptions of civilization, let's work fast to
soften the harshness of that choice. It's sobering to realize that
both options seemed just as morally defective a century ago when
Henry James made his prescient, melancholy analysis of our
intellectuals who are also feminists doing their bit in the war
against misogyny in their own way, letting the feminist implications
be residual or implicit in their work, without risking being charged
by their sisters with desertion.
Some feminist critics, for example, have labeled Ingmar Bergman
as a reactionary artist. That's the weapon of repressive and
ignorant officialdom in you-know-which countries, where
reactionary is also associated with a kind of pessimistic content
or with not providing positive images. Being very attached to the
benefits of pluralism in the arts and of factionalism in politics, I've
grown allergic to the words reactionary and progressive. Such
judgments always support ideological conformity, encourage
intolerance -even if they aren't originally formulated to do that. As
for Bergman, I'd say that anyone who reduces his work to its
neo-Strindbergian views of women has jettisoned the idea of art
and of complex standards of judgment. The harsh indictment of
Bergman simply inverts the slack standards that prevail in much of
feminist criticism. To those critics who rate films according to
whether they make moral reparations, it must seem snobbish to
cavil about the low quality of most recent movies made by women
which do convey positive images.
It's not the appropriateness of feminist criticism which need to be
rethought, but its level -its demands for intellectual simplicity,
advanced in the name of ethical solidarity. These demands have
convinced many women that it is undemocratic to raise questions
about the quality of feminist discourse, if it is sufficiently militant,
and the quality of works of art, if these are sufficiently
warm-hearted and self-revealing. Hatred of the intellect is one of
the recurrent themes of modernist protest in art and in morals.
Though it is actually quite inimical to effective political action, it
seems like a political statement.
Both avant-garde art and feminism have made large use of, and
sometimes seem to be parodies of, the languages of failed political
movements. One common denominator of New Left polemics was
its zeal for pitting hierarchy against equality, theory against
practice, intellect (cold) against feeling (warm). Feminists have
tended to perpetuate these philistine characterizations of
hierarchy, theory and intellect. That kind of second-hand militancy
may appear to serve feminist goals in the short run. But it means a
Artaud claims not to have it. Artaud shows how the Hegelian,
dramatistic, self-regarding consciousness can reach the state of
total alienation ( instead of detached, comprehensive wisdom )
-because the mind remains an object.
The language that Artaud uses is profoundly contradictory. His
imagery is materialistic (making the mind into a thing or object ),
but his demand on the mind amounts to the purest philosophical
idealism. He refuses to consider consciousness except as a process.
Yet it is the process character of consciousness -its unseizability
and flux -that he experiences as hell. The real pain, says Artaud,
is to feel one's thought shift within oneself. The consequence of
Artaud's verdict upon himself -his conviction of his chronic
alienation from his own consciousness -is that his mental deficit
becomes, directly or indirectly, the dominant, inexhaustible subject
of his writings.
Some of Artaud's accounts of his Passion of thought are almost too
painful to read. He elaborates little on his emotions -panic,
confusion, rage, dread. His gift was not for psychological
understanding (which, not being good at it, he dismissed as trivial)
but for a more original mode of description, a kind of physiological
phenomenology of his unending desolation. Artaud's claim in The
Nerve Meter that no one has ever so accurately charted his
intimate self is not an exaggeration. Nowhere in the entire
history of writing in the first person is there as tireless and detailed
a record of the microstructure of mental pain.
The quality of one's consciousness is Artaud's final standard. thus,
his intellectual distress is at the same time the most acute physical
distress, and each statement about his body. Indeed, what causes
his incurable pain of consciousness is precisely his refusal to
consider the mind apart from the situation of the flesh.
The difficulties that Artaud laments persist because he is thinking
about the unthinkable -about how body is mind and how mind is
also a body. This inexhaustible paradox is mirrored in Artaud's wish
to produce art that is at the same time anti-art. The latter paradox,
however, is more hypothetical than real.
Ignoring Artaud's disclaimers, readers will inevitably assimilate his
strategies of discourse to art whenever those strategies reach (as
they often do ) a certain triumphant pitch of incandescence.
Artaud's work denies that there is any difference between art and
thought, between poetry and truth. Despite the breaks in
exposition and the varying of forms within each work, everything
he wrote advances a line of argument.
Artaud is always didactic. He never ceased insulting, complaining,
exhorting, denouncing -even in the poetry written after he emerged
from the insane asylum in Rodez, in 1946, in which language
becomes partly unintelligible; that is, an unmediated physical
presence. All his writing is in the first person, and is a mode of
address in the mixed voices of incantation and discursive
explanation.
His activities are simultaneously art and reflections on art. In an
early essay on painting, Artaud declares that works of art are
worth only as much as the conceptions on which they are founded
Artaud's criterion of spectacle is sensory violence, not sensory
enchantment; beauty is a notion he never entertains. The
experience of his work remains profoundly private. Artaud is
someone who has made a spiritual trip for us -a shaman. It would
be presumptuous to reduce the geography of Artaud's trip to what
can be colonized. Its authority lies in the parts that yield nothing for
the reader except intense discomfort of the imagination.
Artaud's work becomes usable according to our needs, but the
work vanishes behind our use of it. When we tire of using Artaud,
we can return to his writings. Inspiration in stages, he says. One
mustn't let in too much literature. All art that expresses a radical
discontent and aims at shattering complacencies of feeling risks
being disarmed, neutralized, drained of its power to disturb -by
being admired, by being ( or seeming to be) too well understood,
by becoming relevant. Most of the once exotic themes of Artaud's
work have within the last decade become loudly topical: the
wisdom (or lack of it) to be found in drugs, Oriental religions,
magic, the life of North American Indians, body language, the
insanity trip; the revolt against literature, and the belligerent
prestige of non-verbal arts; the appreciation of schizophrenia; the
use of art as violence against the audience; the necessity for
obscenity.
Both in his work and in his life Artaud failed. His work includes
verse; prose poems; film scripts; writings on cinema, painting, and
literature; essays, diatribes, and polemics on the theater; several
plays, and notes for many unrealized theater projects, among them
an opera; a historical novel; a fourpart dramatic monologue written
for radio; essays on the peyote cult of the Tarahumara Indians;
radiant appearances in two great films (Gance's Napoleon and
Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc) and many minor ones; and
hundreds of letters, his most accomplished dramatic form -all of
which amount to a broken, self-mutilated corpus, a vast collection
of fragments. What he bequeathed was not achieved works of art
but a singular presence, a poetics, an aesthetics of thought, a
theology of culture, and a phenomenology of suffering.
Artaud in the nineteen-twenties had just about every taste (except
enthusiasms for. comic books, science fiction, and Marxism ) that
was to become prominent in the American counterculture of the
nineteensixties, and what he was reading in that decade -the
Tibetan Book of the Dead, books on mysticism, psychiatry,
anthropology, tarot, astrology, Yoga, acupuncture -is like a
prophetic anthology of the literature that has recently surfaced as
popular reading among the advanced young. Susan Sontag
-whose new novel, In America, has just been published -doesn't
feel at home in New York, or anywhere else. And that's the way she
likes it April 13, 2000
*
December 18, 1977 A Different Kind of Art
By WILLIAM H. GASS On Photography
By Susan Sontag
Mirrors and fatherhood are abominable, the anonymous narrator of
one of Borges's apocalyptic tales tells us, because they multiply
and disseminate an already illusory universe; and if this opinion is,
as seems likely, surely true, then what of the most promiscuous
and sensually primitive of all our gadgets -the camera -which
copulates with the world merely by widening its eye, and thus so
simply fertilized, divided itself as quietly as amoebas do, and with a
gentle buzz slides its newborn image into view on a coated tongue?
No simple summary of the views contained in Susan Sontag's brief
but brilliant work on photography is possible, first because there
and the image the camera caught, and was made to cough up, was
an image already stopped, seized, like the victims of Pompeii's
lava, in the slow flow of the subject's will. We can easily see the
difference now, because, out of the continuities of experience, the
sitter (that was the word) selected the slice that was to stand for
his or her life, the prettiest or most imposing self (although this
itself took skill that few possess); whereas it is normally the camera
that makes the choice these days, and we are encouraged to relax,
to guard against being on our guard, as if the pose were merely
that, and the candid camera, more likely to serve up a fairer, fuller
share of us that our own decision would supply. Besides,
ceremonies are another thing of the past, and a visit to the
photographer is itself something to be photographed before it
disappears like the Aborigines. What was once a black box with a
backwards beard, a menacing presence, a merciless eye, has
become as discreet as a quick peek, friendly as an old chum,
ubiquitous as bees at a picnic or Japanese school children at a
shrine.
But camera enthusiasts are nor always fans of the photograph.
There are too many benefits in the point and click itself. The
business of taking a picture is, first of all, a flattering and righteous
one, as Sontag points out, so the shooter is accorded considerable
respect: If the subject, we are pleased to have been found
pictorial, worthy of homage or memorial; if a bystander, we do
not wish so come between the lens and its love, so we stop or turn
aside or otherwise absent our image. It is bad manners to block the
view or be insensitive to the claims of the camera.
We have learned to read resemblance as easily as English. A
photograph is flat, reduced, rigidly rectangular like the view-finder,
cropped out of space like a piece of grass, sliced from time like
cheese or salami, fixed on a piece of transportable paper, soft or
glossy as no perception is, often taken at artificial speeds,
positions, distances, so we can see both shatters and implosions,
the pale denizens of caves or the deep sea, the insides of minerals,
as she says, crystals, sky, the speed of bees; and almost invariably,
in the case of the serious camera, the photograph is composed
wholly of shadow, its shades going from gray to gray like night or
our moods in a state of depression; yet we breathe in its illusions
like a heavy scent.
or mud that preserves the tire tread of a robber's car; but the
causal connection is loose, and can be faked. Suppose, for
instance, we contrived to dimple up an image, by artificial means,
created the picture of a person who never existed (doctored
photographs do that for events). The photo would still look like a
man, but it would not be the image of anybody, and so (without its
of) would not be an image.
Would it any longer be a photograph?
The great equalizer, the camera has brought democracy to the
visual levels of the world. Now images accompany us everywhere,
even attesting to our quite fragile and always dubious identity (to
paraphrase Gertrude Stein: I am I because my shrunken photo
shows me). Though only a hundred years old as an art,
photography seems already ageless as a skill, its product without
limit, even if its images are not immortal and do decay, and even if
some species are endangered. Perhaps they move us too easily, as
though we stood on skates. Perhaps, at the same time, we have
grown too familiar with the way the camera makes our common
clay seem strange. Now, not even strangeness is unfamiliar.
Instead of text accompanied by photographs, Susan Sontag has
appended to her book a collection of quotes, framed by
punctuational space and the attribution of source. These are
clipped from their context to create, through collage, another
context -yet more words. And for a book on photography that shall
surely stand near the beginning of all our thoughts upon the
subject, maybe there is a message, a moral, a lesson, in that.
William H. Gass is the author of Omensetter's Luck,
Fiction and the Figures of Life,
On Being Blue and other books. He is professor of philosophy at
Washington University, St. Louis.
*
On Photography (by Susan Sontag)
reviewed by Philip Greenspun for photo.net.
On Photography by Susan Sontag, 1977 Anchor Books.
Go into a bookstore with a photography criticism section. Pick up a
book and open it to a random page. If the text on the page seems
*
December 18, 1977
Sontag Talking
By CHARLES SIMMONS.
Why is there more critical attention being paid to photography
nowadays? Is photography getting better?
A. In the time, the three years or so, that I was working on these
essays, it seemed to become much more central. As late as 1973,
photography books in bookstores tended to be in the back with
gardening books and cookbooks. Now they have a section of their
own, right up front near the cash register. The audience for
photography books - which is an important index to the interest in
photography -enormously enlarged just in that brief period.
There have been many times more photography shows in
museums in the past couple of years than there were, say, 10
years ago. There are many more photography galleries in large
cities than there were 10 years ago.
There's an interest everywhere. The New Yorker started an
occasional photography column about two years ago.
But I can't believe it's because photography is better. In fact, I'm
sure it isn't. There's no reason to think that there are more great
photographers now than in the past. But now photography has
respectability. The battle that has been going on since 1840 for
photography to be acknowledged as an art form has finally been
won.
Indeed, photography as an art form interests a lot of people who
were formerly interested mainly in painting and sculpture.
Q. Could it be that painting and sculpture are simply less
interesting?
A. That's sometimes said. One hears that painting and sculpture
are in a state of demoralization, that there are no exciting new
figures conveying a sense that these are arts in which very
important things are happening, such as people had in the 1950's
and 60's.
Another explanation that's often given is that the enormously
inflated market for painting in the 60's priced many collectors out
of the market and there was a need for a cheap object that people
cold collect.
And the third idea that you hear sometimes is that there's a
reaction against difficulty in art. Not only is photography an art
more easily practiced by large numbers of people, it's also easier to
understand, easier to grasp. It makes fewer demands. For example,
understanding serious contemporary photography doesn't involve
knowing about the history of photography. But to understand
serious contemporary painting one has to know something about
the history of painting.
Q. Did serious music complicate itself in recent years and lose its
audience, so that popular music is now taken more seriously?
A. If that is so, I think the fault is with the audience. In the past
decade people have been less and less willing to take on difficult
things. The very notion of professionalism came into disrepute as
authoritarian, elitist. I don't think it's that the work got too
complicated, I think it's that the audience got lazier. Seriousness
has less prestige now.
I don't mean to suggest that individual photographers aren't
serious.
But I think that the audience -and we're still talking about a fairly
small audience -is less willing to be serious is that old-fashioned
way that modernist art demands. It's very complicated, because
part of modernism is the idea of antiart. So modernism itself, while
being the breeding ground for all these great works of art starting
from the end of the last century, contained the seeds of its own
destruction. Too much emphasis was placed on outrage, and
people got used to taking short cuts. Enough artists said we had to
close the gap between art and life.
Now people aren't willing to put in the work involved in entering
these realms of discourse which distinguish art from life.
Q. Modern art taught people how to be ironic about art, and that
was a relief for a time.
A. Enough artists said, Down with art! No more masterpieces! So
it was inevitable that one day audiences would take this in a much
simpler form and say, Yes, down with art! No more masterpieces!
We want an art that's comfortable, that's ironic, that's easy. I think
we see the results everywhere.
More and more, audiences want quick results, they want punch
lines from the beginning. Modernism always assumed that the
recalcitrant bourgeois audience that could be shocked was going to
hang onto its own standards.
But when modernism became the established mode, it also
became a contradiction in terms. And that, I think, is the situation
in which photography has prospered.
Q. There's a particularly intimate passage in your book in which
you describe seeing in a bookstore in Santa Monica in 1945, when
you were 12, photographs of Bergen-Belsen and Dachau, and you
make the extraordinary statement that you divide you life in half
-before seeing these photographs and after. And you say that
something in you died at that midpoint. Do you know what that
was, and do you want to talk about it?
A. I think that that experience was perhaps only possible at that
time, or a few years after. Today that sort of material impinges on
people very early -through television, say -so that it would not be
possible for anyone growing up later than the 1940's to be a horror
virgin and to see atrocious, appalling images for the first time at
the age of 12. That was before television, and when newspapers
would print only very discreet photographs.
As far as what died -right then I understood that there is evil in
nature. If you haven't heard that news before and it comes to you
is so vivid a form, it's tremendous shock. It made me sad in a way
that I still feel sad. It wasn't really the end of childhood, but it was
the end of a lot of things. It changed my consciousness. I can still
remember where I was standing and where on the shelf I found
that book.
Q. While you were writing this book did your attitude toward
photography change? I had a sense that you credited photography
more by the end of the book than at the start.
A. I don't think it changed. What I did come to appreciate as I was
writing these essays is how big a subject photography really is. In
fact, I came to realize that I wasn't writing about photography so
much as I was writing about modernity, about the way we are now.
The subject of photography is a form of access to contemporary
ways of feeling and thinking. And writing about photography is like
writing about the world.
manifest oneself. I'm doing it with you now. If Richard Avedon asked
to photograph me I would go and be photographed by him. He may
not ask me, because we're friends, and he tends not to photograph
people he knows.
Q. The one he did of Renata Adler is awfully nice.
A. Well, there are two photographs of Renata. There's the beautiful
one with the hat, and there's another, which he told me he took the
day they met; that was the way he wanted to photograph her. He
has told me that he prefers to do that sort of photograph.
Q. What sort?
A. The kind you call distorted -I say revealing. You could say that
the way he photographs emphasized skin blemishes very much,
because it's extremely accurate, sharp-focus photography. The
image is unflattering in that way. But I don't agree that Avedon's
photographs distort. I think, on the contrary, that we expect to be
flattered by photography, we expect in fact that the photograph
will show us to be better looking than we really are.
Q. Photogenic.
A. That notion of being photogenic actually means that you look
better in a photograph than you do in real life. We all want to be
photogenic; that is, we all want -since the photograph is this thin
slice of time -to be photographed at that moment when we are
looking better than usual. What Avedon has done is to take
photographs which do not contain in any way the idea of the
photogenic.
Q. Which writers are you reading now?
A. I don't know where to start. Since his death I've been reading all
of Nabokov, I'm overwhelmed by how good he is. He gets better
and better every time I reread him. I'm sad that he didn't get the
Nobel Prize. So many second-rate writers have gotten it, one wants
first-rate writers to get it too. And I've been reading and rereading
Viktor Shklovsky, Sinyavsky, Joseph Brodsky.
Q. What are you writing now?
A. I'm finishing an essay called Illness as Metaphor. And I'm
writing a story, which will be called either Act 1, Scene 2, or The
Letter. And then I've been at work on a novel for several years, off
and on.
I'll get back to that after the first of the year.
Q. Is it a relief to get off one project and onto another?
behind, for she belonged to a family that had perfected the art of
self-regard and self-recording.
The elder Henry (a ponderous (volumioso) Victorian patriarch) was
himself a gentleman-writer, and he fostered in at least three of his
children an astonishingly articulate hypersophistication. The four
writing Jameses -Henry, Sr., William (in photo, left), Henry, Jr. (in
photo, right) and Alice -were graphimaniacal phenomena, turning
all their minutest experiences into words-about-experience. The
entire family anticipated by a generation the literary
accomplishment of Marcel Proust, who transmuted his life (during
years he spent in a cork-lined bedroom) into an all-but endless
narrative discourse that could be cut off only by the death of the
author. Some consider this death a mercy, and the now fashionable
metaphor, the death of the author, has come to characterize the
modern condition of fiction. But the historical Alice James left no
doubt that she welcomed the literal death that brought her acute
physical and emotional torments to a close.
Henry Sr. had loomed over the childhood of his five offspring (the
two younger boys, Wilkie and Bob remain even more obscure than
Alice) in a magisterial way, for he was thought in his time to be a
prominent intellectual whose name would live on. He knew and
associated with Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau,
Bronson Alcott, William Ellery Channing, and Margaret Fuller, the
great American Transcendentalists who became familiar names to
his children. Henry James, Sr.
made his mark as a loopy Swendenborgian mystic whose religious
insights were derived from a mental life destabilized by a horrible
childhood burn, the indolence of inherited wealth, and an
inexplicable mental collapse he learned (following Swedenborg) to
call his vastation. History, however, bypasses many
self-important intellectuals who seem to themselves and to their
contemporaries unretrenchably established as important figures,
and Bloomian theorists of the anxiety of influence can have a
field day analyzing the example of the two prodigious James
brothers decisively usurping their venerable pater's imposing
cultural pretensions.
But Alice was also afflicted with anxieties of influence and she
has left us a startling description of her earliest nervous
breakdown: I used to sit immovable reading in the library with
persist after the causes of the disease are known and a successful
treatment is produces.
It is appalling that the disease retains its secret. So long as it dies,
the secret is likely to turn itself into a mystery and to stand for
nameless evils of every kind. In the meantime we should be alert to
our attitudes and to our words. Miss Sontag's book is bound to help
in this respect, even though it is short of evidence. As long as a
particular disease is treated as an evil, invincible predator, not just
a disease, most people with cancer will indeed be demoralized by
learning what disease they have. I'm sure that's true, though I'm
not convinced that many cancer patients are encouraged or forced
to think of their disease in that way. What they fear is not an evil,
invincible predator, but the terrible probability that their disease
will result in death. If the metaphorical use of cancer discouraged
doctors from trying to discover its cause and its cure, the situation
would indeed be obscene, but there is no evidence that this is the
case. Still, we are careless in our language. Miss Sontag is right in
that charge.
But she is not innocent in her practice. She confesses that once, in
despair over America's war on Vietnam, she wrote that the white
race is the cancer of human history. That is the kind of statement
she would now repudiate, not for its political sentiment but for its
recourse to the metaphor of cancer. In the last chapter of her book
she comments on the fact that the same vocabulary is used in
reference to cancer, aerial warfare and science fiction. Cancer cells
invade the body, patients are bombarded with toxic rays,
chemotherapy is chemical warfare: the enemy is a nameless Other
to be conquered and destroyed. Tumors are malignant or benign.
And so on. The use of cancer in political discourse, Miss Sontag
maintains, encourages fatalism and justifies 'severe' measures -as
well as strongly reinforcing the widespread notion that the disease
is necessarily fatal. Miss Sontag is sensitive to this issue partly, I
think, because she knows that her own rhetoric has often been
guilty. Her victims have mostly been literary critic, so they have not
deserved better treatment, but the habit of mind in her sentences
has regularly been punitive. In the first pages of Against
Interpretation, for instance, she wrote that like the fumes of the
automobile and of heavy industry which befoul the urban
atmosphere, the effusion of interpretations of art today poisons our
Trip to Hanoi and now Illness as Metaphor, she would use lurid
metaphors to fight lurid metaphors, believing that a good end
justifies any means, any language, any style.
It is my impression that Illness as Metaphor is a deeply personal
book pretending for the sake of decency to be a thesis. As an
argument, it seems to me strident, unconvincing as it stands, a
prosecutor's brief that admits nothing in defense or mitigation. The
brief is too brief to be just. So the reader is left with a case not fully
made but points acutely established; enough, at any rate, to make
him feel not only that he must in future watch his language but,
with the same vigilance, watch his attitudes, prejudices,
spontaneities.
Denis Donoghue is professor of Modern English and American
Literature at University College, Dublin. His most recent book is
The Sovereign Ghost. He will teach at the Graduate Center in the
City University of New York next fall.
*
that calls not for interpretation but for small, repeated signs of
recognition. All of them bear the impress of an active, questing
intelligence that can apply language with neurosurgical skill to
isolate and cut away the necrotic tissues of our collective modern
consciousness.
Some are decidedly more successful than others. Project for a Trip
to China is an autobiographical reverie that is well enough written
in the self-catechizing mode Miss Sontag uses in several pieces,
but it is so resolutely unfictional that I can see no reason for its
inclusion in this collection. American Spirits (the erotic career of
Miss Flatface, a young woman of irreproachable white Protestant
ancestry) and Doctor Jekyll (an eccentric updating of the
Stevenson tale) are both fables in which the demonstration of
themes becomes much too mechanical -as it does in Baby (the
well-meant mutilation of a male child by its parents), where the
piling-on of psychological cliches of a Southern California variety
amounts finally to overkill. But only one story, Old Complaints
Revisited, is, in my opinion, a nearly total failure -a tedious
allegory on the subject of being Jewish that perversely calls
attention to its own dullness.
The remaining three are very good indeed. My favorite is the story
called Debriefing. Using a technique of collage similar to that
perfected by Renata Adler in Speedboat, Miss Sontag produces
an image of New York life that is both delicate and haunting. This
city, she writes, metaphorically pushing the buttons of the most
technologically advanced equipment, is neither a jungle nor the
moon nor the Grand Hotel. In long shot: a cosmic smudge, a
conglomerate of bleeding energies. Close up, it is a fairly legible
printed circuit, a transistorized labyrinth of beastly tracks, a data
bank for asthmatic voice-prints. Only some of its citizens have the
right to be amplified and become audible. Among the latter is the
narrator's friend Julie, a poor moneyed waif, verging on anorexia,
who has given up on human relations and now seldom leaves her
apartment. Then there are three suffering black woman (one of
them Julia's maid) who are all named Doris and who have all, one
way or another, lost their children (in Doris I's case, they have died
in a Harlem fire; Doris II's daughter has been bewitched by a
muscularly fat and rich black woman who is, among other things,
a voodoo priestess third-class; Doris III's daughter is serving time
and Nobel Prize winner, Czeslaw Milosz, but now found its
description of coercion in Poland if anything, underestimated.
Why did we not have a place for, ears for, their truth? Miss
Sontag asked. The answers are well-known. We had identified the
enemy as Fascism. We heard the demonic language of Fascism. We
believed in, or at least applied, a double standard to the angelic
language of Communism.
Now we take another line. Now it seems easy to do so. But for
many decades, when horrors exactly like -no, worse than -the
horrors now taking place in Poland took place, we did not meet to
protest and express our indignation, as we are doing tonight.
We were so sure who our enemies were (among them, the
professional anti-Communists), so sure who were the virtuous and
who the benighted.... And we were countenancing a great deal of
untruth. Miss Sontag compared the measures in force in Poland
with the repression found in right-wing regimes in Argentina, Chile
and elsewhere.
What the recent Polish events illustrate is something more than
that Fascist rule is possible within the framework of a Communist
society, whereas democratic government and worker self-rule are
clearly intolerable and will not be tolerated, she concluded.
'I would contend that what they illustrate is a truth that we should
have understood a very long time ago: that Communism is Fascism
-successful Fascism, if you will. What we have called Fascism is,
rather, the form of tyranny that can be overthrown -that has,
largely, failed. 'Facism With a Human Face' I repeat: not only is
Fascism (and overt military rule) the probable destiny of all
Communist societies -especially when their populations are moved
to revolt -but Communism is in itself a variant, the most successful
variant, of Fascism. Fascism with a human face. In a passage
eliminated from The Nation version, Miss Sontag also criticized
liberal publications. Imagine, if you will, someone who read only
the Reader's Digest between 1950 and 1970, and someone in the
same period who read only The Nation or The New Statesman.
Which reader would have been better informed about the realities
of Communism? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it
be that our enemies were right? The replies to her speech so far
have been varied. Some have said Miss Sontag's current
sentiments were, in fact, held by many on the left for years, others
just wait for you to become a target, and there are a lot of people
out there just waiting to jump in. It's not as if they're seriously
disagreeing with views, they just say in effect, 'Let's get her.'
Suddenly she laughed and exclaimed, All of this politics is taking
up too much time, and what I really want to do is get back to my
novel. It's out of character that she has not replied to her
attackers more extensively, because she enjoys a debate. But,
pointing to the stacks of books and papers surrounding us, she
said, At the moment I have to admit I am writing a long essay on
intellectuals and Communism. That's what these books are.I'm not
going to reply to any of these attacks, because they are totally silly,
but I do feel I have something to say. The subject of the essay is
the whole history of people having some kind of double standard. I
hope I'll be able to do it, and that's the last I'll ever want to say on
the subject. She leaned back in her chair, smiling, and cupped her
hands behind her neck. Writing well is the best revenge. When
Roger Straus, her publisher, proposed doing A Susan Sontag
Reader, she at first refused. I felt what I imagine a painter feels.
I'd like to have another show, but I don't think I'd like to have a
retrospective. The convention of a 'Reader' is, after all, for writers
whose work is finished.
Not only don't I think of my work as finished, I think of myself as
only a little way past the starting point, which may sound odd,
since I've been publishing for close to 20 years. At any rate, in
looking over her early essays Notes on Camp and Against
Interpretation, she reacted with contradictory feelings, which
made the process of selection difficult. On the one hand, the early
pieces have that 'first voice' from which I have since evolved. Then
there are other moments, of course, when it seems, oh, God, you
just do it over and over again. You try to make it different, but it is
always the same thing. Both are true; both prove that I am in flight
from my past work. That's part of the problem: to open your writing
to more and more things. At least in my case I certainly don't feel
that I want just to have the same repertoire all my life. But I don't
know, it's very mysterious. The actual selection for the Reader
was made very rapidly. I know I wanted to remind people that the
first book I ever published was a novel, and I'm quite fond of my
two novels. Included in the Reader are 17 chapters of The
are not the same person afterwards. I was told that very likely I was
going to die. I didn't die, I was lucky. But the fact is that I have
survived, that I am not now ill. I'm in a remission, and perhaps that
means I am cured. It doesn't mean I can cancel that experience.
One is on the other side of something that changes your relation to
life, that brings you close to death in a such a way that you can
never come completely back.
And it has changed a lot of things for me. In some ways it has
been a strengthening experience. It's like any one of the great
emergencies that bring out the best and worst in people, and that's
very impressive. I saw it in other people, not just in myself -other
people with the most extraordinary amount of courage, intelligence
beyond anything that they were capable of before. It's also
weakening, because you realize in a very painful way your own
mortality and once again the extent of all this needless human
suffering, which enraged me, which is why I wrote 'Illness as
Metaphor.' The book was met with general admiration, and it won
the National Book Critics Circle Award.
Illness as Metaphor does not appear in the Reader, but the
most serious omission for Miss Sontag herself is Trip to Hanoi,
which was written in 1968, when writers like Mary McCarthy, Muriel
Rukeyser and Denise Levertov also made the trip as a protest
against the war.
Asia has always been important to Miss Sontag, whose parents
were old China hands and had settled in Tianjin, where they were
in the fur trade. Therefore she was actually conceived in China, but
out of medical precaution, her mother returned to New York to give
birth. The first lie that Miss Sontag remembers telling was to her
classmates in the first grade, when she claimed to have been born
in China. Her parents had decided against taking her back, so she
grew up in the United States. From old photographs her mental
picture of her parents is of their playing Gatsby and Daisy inside
the British Concession. HER childhood home in New York City was
filled with Chinese curios that colonialists collect. She learned to
use chopsticks as an infant and remembers being told by her
parents' Chinese friends that she looked Chinese. Her father died of
tuberculosis in China when she was 6. As a child she even dug a
hole in the front yard to tunnel her way to China.
and Mr. Kundera -who dreamed them up. As the playwright's own
experience in Czechoslovakia exemplifies, the man who chooses to
imagine can still, to a point, know freedom.
Mr. Kundera has long championed Diderot -and Diderot's esthetic
forebear, Laurence Sterne -as influences on his fiction. In
Jacques, we're reminded of how strong that influence has been.
The play's techniques -the contrapuntal use of multiple narrators,
the variational structure, the interjected metaphysical debates
-take us from Mr.
Kundera's first novel, The Joke, through The Book of Laughter
and Forgetting and The Unbearable Lightness of Being. On
stage, these devices often play as Pirandellian -even as the
symbiotic servant-master pairing pointedly evokes a literary
continuum stretching from Cervantes to Moli ere to Beckett.
Yet, for all that baggage, Jacques usually achieves its disquieting
effects through ribald comedy. Miss Sontag's staging lacks the
requisite velocity and fizz, and the performances, especially those
of the seven actors populating the internal narratives, are mostly
flat and sexless. While Mr. Drivas summons up the appropriate
dandified style of the Master, Mr. Derrah's nondescript Jacques
denies him a foil. Only Miss Smith brings the play fully alive. As the
lowly innkeeper acts out the cautionary tale of the high-born
Marquise de La Pommeraye, the actress leaps between wildly
disparate social and theatrical roles with perfect timing and sly
humor. Her performance alone unlocks the explosive laughter in
existential anxiety.
Even if the other actors rose to Miss Smith's level, the production
would still be hobbled by its set and score. In both his stage
directions and dialogue, Mr. Kundera demands an empty stage; he
writes in his published introduction that Diderot's contribution to
the anti-Naturalistic novel was a stage without scenery. So why
has Miss Sontag asked her talented designer, Douglas Stein, to
provide an eggshell-colored Roman ruin abstractly patterned after
a Piranesi engraving? For no reason I can tell, except to add
intellectual window dressing and accompanying documentation in
the program. Worse, the actors enter through sets of sliding doors
that, as crowned with recessed lights, resemble an elevator bank in
a convention hotel.
January 5, 1986
When Writers Talk Among Themselves
By SUSAN SONTAG
Fame, prestige and sheer seniority make the writer a public figure,
in some countries a very public figure. And this is when writers not
only tend to get more service-minded but are expected to be more
collegial. With age, and with a certain volume of accomplishment
-whose vol-ume depends precisely on the writer's having been able
to sit in a room every day, year after year, alone -comes a stack of
invitations to board planes, cross borders and sometimes oceans,
check into large hotels, in order to palaver...
with each other.
Every writer I admire speaks condescendingly of these meetings
and probably would be displeased never to be invited. One is as
likely to hear us confiding how much we like conferences and
congresses of writers as to hear us declaring how much we enjoy
country the writer doesn't usually visit -like the chance to meet
with one's local translator or publisher. Nobody hates a free trip. Of
course, there are a few writers I admire -Milan Kundera, V.
S. Naipaul, Gore Vidal -whom, as I understand it, no congress of
writers can tempt. When I think about them I can see their point
too. W HAT gets discussed at these meetings?
Although there is some lit talk -the Death of the Novel has long
been replaced by the Revival of Historical Fiction, and there is
usually a colloquium on translation -the main themes of most
congresses of writers are much broader, about cultural relations
rather than about literature.
Literature and Culture, History and Literature, the Writer and the
State, the Future of Literature, the Future of European Culture, the
Writer and National Identity -the diction and the possible
permutations are pretty obvious.
The custom is to devise a title, drawing on a small packet of such
seasoned abstractions, that says as little as possible. Such a
classical title promotes an ecumenical spirit: encourages
compromise, mutes confrontation. To be sure, some words have
become a little too worn. Spiritual Values (as in Literature and
Spiritual Values) and Humanism are far from the robust concepts
they once were; New is looking a little peaked too. (Toward a New
Humanism - the theme of the writers' congress held in Budapest
in June 1936, a session of the League of Nations' Commission
Internationale de Cooperation Intellectuelle, attended by Thomas
Mann, Karel Capek, Bela Bartok, Paul Valery, Salvador de
Madariaga, et al. -is unthinkable now.) Next week the American
Center of PEN, the international writers' organization (chapters or
centers in more than 80 countries) will be host in New York to the
organization's 48th annual international congress, and in its zeal to
produce a first-rate, memorable congress -the last one held here
was 20 years ago -the program committee (of which I'm a member)
may have bent custom a little, by choosing as the theme The
Writer's Imagination and the Imagination of the State. But one can
probably count on the piquant, slightly original topic being brought
back firmly in the course of our weeklong discussions to its familiar,
authentic substratum: the Writer and the State.
Meetings of writers, at least of a certain size, tend to resemble
each other physically, no matter where they take place, in the way
statements, for among these writers there are a few great writers.
And from a great writer one may and should expect some wisdom.
Susan Sontag's most recent books are I, Etcetera (stories),
Under the Sign of Saturn (essays) and A Susan Sontag Reader.
She is a vice president of American PEN.
*
September 7, 1986
What's New Among Executive Pitchmen
By SUSAN SONTAG
Executives and economists are not only gracing board meetings
and Congressional hearings these days. They are also showing up
on billboards, on television and in magazines, hawking clothing,
computers, liquor, all kinds of products made by companies other
than their own. Roger A. Enrico, president and chief executive
officer of Pepsico Inc., and Ted Turner, president of Turner
Broadcasting, have taken turns as the man in the Hathaway
shirt. F. Ross Johnson, president of RJR Nabisco Inc., has shown off
Oleg Cassini suits on television Alan Greenspan, former chairman of
the Council of Economic Advisers, has advised people to use the
Apple IIc computer.
Money
is
not
the
motivating
factor
for
these
businessmen-cum-actors. Most of them are paid far less than
sports figures and other celebrities who endorse products.
Designer Oleg Cassini says Ted Turner and Ross Johnson appeared
in his ads for free. Part of the reason, he guesses, is that they enjoy
the limelight. A few years ago, the big corporation man wanted
anonymity, Mr. Cassini said. Now the big businessman wants to
have his name known. Indeed, some of the executives say the ads
help their image in the sense of identifying them with classy or
youthful products, or giving them a public forum for their views.
Others say they do endorsements as favors for friends. And a
great many echo Alan Greenspan, who says simply: It was fun.
From the advertisers' point of view, the burgeoning number of
executives appearing in ads represents a recognition that the
general public no longer perceives business as boring.
impending loss of their friend, but with their own various and
unsettling responses. The disease, clearly AIDS, is never mentioned
by name.
CommentaryThe person at the center of the story serves as a
mirror and sign of his friends' own vulnerability. They don't really
know how to become a functioning healing and helping community,
but figure it out as they go along. The dark side of this story is its
exposure of the fallibility of friendship and good intentions; some
friends just back off.
The heartening message is that communities of friendship, despite
that fallibility, can be strong, flexible and resilient even as they
construct themselves ad hoc and ex tempore in a time of crisis. The
story suggests and demonstrates how conversation quite literally
creates a community of healing. The whole of this network of
friendship eventually becomes bigger than the sum of the parts.
SourceThe New Yorker, November 24, 1986
*
June 4, 1987
Sontag Heads PEN Center
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Susan Sontag was elected president of PEN American Center
yesterday at the organization's annual meeting. She succeeds
Hortense Calisher as president of the group, the largest of the 86
centers of International PEN, the worldwide association of writers,
translators and editors. Ms. Sontag, a member of the American
Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters, is the author of many
books, including Against Interpretation,
On Photography and Illness as a Metaphor.
*
typically seeks out its victims in their prime, at the moment when
physical attractiveness is most integral to one's sense of self.
Indeed, for homosexuals this esthetic concern is far from
arbitrary: not only is the disease hideously disfiguring, but it
originates in a moment of erotic attraction, when physical beauty is
very much to the point. The supremely ironic structure of the
disease - one readily thinks of Blake's Sick Rose -makes its
metaphorical association with dehumanization, once again, seem
entirely appropriate.
As Ms. Sontag admits, one cannot think without metaphors, so
the correct question to ask regarding the way we think about AIDS
is whether its metaphors are well or ill chosen. They would be ill
chosen if they misrepresented the disease or contributed to its
victims' pain. Despite her ingenuity and her manifest good will, Ms.
Sontag doesn't convince me that either is the case.
By comparison with earlier diseases, the metaphors associated
with AIDS have tended to be both tame and apposite. The disease
itself, and not the way we talk about it, is the true source of its
horror.
Paul Robinson, a professor of history at Stanford University, is the
author of The Modernization of Sex.
*
January 26, 1989
Susan Sontag, as Image and as Herself
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN
The first exhibit -as Susan Sontag might begin if she were writing
an essay about herself -is a thin volume entitled Aids and its
Metaphors, which adds itself to a growing collection of volumes
sharing a widely recognized characteristic. They all strive to be on
the cusp of cultural discovery.
The second exhibit is Susan Sontag herself, sitting in her sparely
furnished apartment in lower Manhattan, speaking of her values,
her ambitions, the nature of the highly visible public role she plays
and, finally, perhaps the most elusive question of all regarding her
25-year career: why is she so famous?
By Lava Possessed
By JOHN BANVILLE
The Volcano Lover A Romance.
By Susan Sontag.
At a literary festival some years ago, the critic George Steiner
expressed his impatience at the arrogance of poets and novelists,
most of whom, it seemed to him, believe that theirs are the only
areas of literature in which a writer can be truly creative. For his
part, he declared, he would happily swap any number of
second-rate sonnets for one page of Claude Levi-Strauss's Tristes
Tropiques, and whole shelves full of indifferent novels for a single
chapter of Freud's Interpretation of Dreams. His remarks aroused
anger and vituperation, of course, yet many in the audience
thought he had a point. That point, however, loses some of its
acuity when one recalls that Mr. Steiner has committed fiction of
his own -three books of it, in fact. Would he exchange his first
volume of tales, Anno Domini, for a page of his Language and
Silence? Perhaps he would; yet it seems that even the
profoundest critics are not content merely to criticize fiction, but
itch also to produce the stuff.
The Volcano Lover is a surprise. A historical novel by Susan
Sontag? And a historical novel that declares itself (shamelessly,
one almost wants to say) to be a romance, at that? Who would
have thought it? Although she has written fiction in the past, Ms.
Sontag is best known as a critic who for the last 30 years has been
one of the leaders of the avant-garde in the United States, the
American champion and interpreter of such quintessentially
European figures as Roland Barthes and E. M. Cioran. Surely the
author of that seminal essay Against Interpretation would look
with nothing but scorn upon a modern-day attempt to produce
something worthwhile in such a tired old genre as the historical
novel? Well, not a bit of it. The Volcano Lover, despite a few nods
of acknowledgment toward post-modernist self-awareness, is a big,
old-fashioned broth of a book. Sir Walter Scott would surely have
approved of it; in fact, he would probably have enjoyed it
immensely.
THE volcano lover of the title is Sir William Hamilton, the British
diplomat and antiquary who is best remembered as the
August 2, 1992
Susan Sontag Finds Romance
By LESLIE GARIS
As soon as Susan Sontag delivered the last section of her new
novel, The Volcano Lover, to the offices of her publisher, she felt
bereft. It was like taking a beloved person to the airport and
returning to an empty house, she says softly, intensely, during a
15th century. Countries are ignorant about each other. And, like
Erasmus, exactly when it is needed, Susan Sontag is a
communicator in this broken-down world.
Erasmus traveled with 32 volumes, which contained all the
knowledge worth knowing. Susan Sontag carries it in her brain! I
know of no other intellectual who is so clear-minded with a capacity
to link, to connect, to relate.
She is unique. As she sits in her kitchen, she does have the air of
one who has wrestled prodigiously, and over a considerable
lifetime, with essential questions. Wrinkles and creases run wild on
her unadorned face. Her skin is as pale as a monk's. Her long,
unruly, onyx-black hair is rent by a dramatic slash of pure white
that runs like an ice flow over the crest of her head. But her candid
expression, her round dark eyes that fill easily with tears, her
frequent laughter and her deep, vibrant voice suggest the
eagerness and avidity of a seeker; a curiously timeworn child who
needs a bit more sleep.
I think I've always wanted to write this book, she is saying. I'm
glad to be free of the kind of one-note depressiveness that is so
characteristic of contemporary fiction. I don't want to express
alienation. It isn't what I feel. I'm interested in various kinds of
passionate engagement. All my work says be serious, be
passionate, wake up.
The Volcano Lover anatomizes immense varieties of passionate
engagement. Hamilton loves abjectly not only his art collection,
which he continually augments, but Vesuvius, his beloved volcano,
whose threats and displays of destructive energy hold him in
permanent thrall. He loves Emma as a connoisseur loves a
Leonardo, with cultivated, refined appreciation.
Enter Nelson, the man of action, the genuine hero, and another
sort of passion is ignited in Emma, which relegates Hamilton, the
expert on nature's power, to the status of outsider in the drama of
human forces unleashed under his own roof. And then there are the
passions of revolution and an epic array of 18-century follies
engendered by romantic dreams of reason.
SONTAG, HERSELF, IS A hybrid of reason and romance. One need
only peruse the vast library in her airy five-room apartment for
confirmation. An intellectual who studies the history of ideas might
.. Her voice drifts off. We are back in the kitchen. Her hair, which
has been gathered into the semblance of a ponytail, has been
gradually escaping from its elastic band, which she now removes
entirely and plays with in her fingers. Her nails are so short I think
she must have bitten them.
She continues. I would put my report card by her bed at night and
find it signed at the breakfast table in the morning. She never said
a word. She sighs. I have a vision of my mother lying on her bed,
with the blinds drawn, and a glass next to her that I thought was
water, but I now know was vodka. She always said she was tired.
As a consequence, I am happy to sleep four hours a night.
Sontag's sister, Judith, was only 12 when Sontag left home at 15,
and they hardly saw each other until they were both in their 50's.
Judith, who is also extremely intelligent and went to Berkeley, is
married, has one daughter and lives on the island of Maui, where
she owns a small business. The two sisters discovered to their
surprise that they had many things in common -among them a love
of books.
I think a childhood like that, Sontag says, breeds a great talent
for stoicism. If you're going to survive, you say, I can take this; it's
bearable. Otherwise you're lost.
I refuse to see myself as a victim. I'm the most unparanoid person
in the world. In fact, I envy paranoids; they actually think people
are paying attention to them. She laughs. I didn't feel
persecuted, I felt abandoned. When she was 15, her principal told
her she was wasting her time at North Hollywood High and
graduated her. She was delighted. Now her life would really begin.
After one term at Berkeley, she enrolled at the University of
Chicago, which at that time had a set curriculum and no electives.
She took exams when she entered and placed out of most of her
courses. She had already done the reading.
I audited classes in the graduate schools, and that was
wonderful. I would start at 9 in the morning and go all day.
It was a feast. It was there she met Philip Rieff, a young instructor
in a social theory course that Sontag had placed out of. It was
1950, December of her second year. On friends' recommendations
she went to hear him lecture on Freud (his 1959 book, Freud: The
Mind of the Moralist, is essential reading for scholars). Ten days
after the lecture, they were married. She was 17. It was an endless
conversation. He was, she says today, the first person she could
talk to.
He seemed older than his 28 years, and Sontag looked extremely
young. He was a dapper Anglophile, while she, a Westerner, lived in
blue jeans and wore her hair long down her back. They were an
odd-looking couple. Soon after they were married, she attended
one of his lectures and behind her one student whispered to
another, Oh, have you heard?
Rieff married a 14-year-old Indian! For the next nine years, she
and Rieff lived an academic life. Their son, David, was born in 1952.
Sontag received master's degrees from Harvard in English
literature and philosophy and finished her course work for a Ph.D.
when she received a fellowship to Oxford. At the same time, Rieff
was offered a fellowship at Stanford. They went separate ways for
one academic year, but when Sontag returned to America the
marriage unraveled. It was 1959, and Sontag at last realized one of
her childhood dreams: she moved to New York.
She had a child, a furnished mind and no income. I had $70, two
suitcases and a 7-year-old, Sontag recalls. (Her lawyer told her
she was the first person in California history to refuse alimony.)
David Rieff was another prodigy. He calls himself today
overeducated. His two books, Going to Miami and Los
Angeles, Capital of the Third World, were both critically acclaimed.
I asked him about his childhood, if he felt under great intellectual
pressure, and he said he was comfortable with scholarly activities
-athletics would have been a reach. He painted a picture of mother
and son so close in age and interests that separation -even the
ability to distinguish between who was who -was difficult and took
longer than it should have. During the first New York years, I was
very aware of how precarious our life was. We lived in very small,
close quarters for a long time. Life was pretty tough. After that,
things started to go much better. She was making a career. After a
stint of teaching philosophy and the history of religion at various
New York colleges, she wrote her first novel, The Benefactor, and
decided to stake her future on writing full time. In 1964, she
emerged as a literary star with an audacious essay for Partisan
Review, Notes on Camp, which defined for the first time that
esoteric, urban, cult sensibility, which exalted artifice and mocked
have all this feeling -I'm in a storm of feeling all the time -and
instead of expressing it I'm writing about people with feeling.'
Twelve years ago in London, while poking around the print shops
near the British Museum, Sontag first saw the volcano prints
Hamilton had commissioned. She was immediately drawn to them
and bought several. Years later, she read a biography of Hamilton
and the story began to simmer.
When I started the novel, it seemed like climbing Mount Everest.
And I said to my psychiatrist, 'I'm afraid I'm not adequate.' Of
course, that was a normal anxiety. What worried me was that I
would not be writing essays, because they have a powerful ethical
impulse behind them, and I think they make a contribution. But my
psychiatrist said, 'What makes you think it isn't a contribution to
give people pleasure?' She stops talking and bites her lip. She is
clearly moved and is trying not to cry. She takes a deep breath.
And I thought, ohhhhhh. That sentence launched me. ILLNESS
AS metaphor,
Aids and its Metaphors and On Photography -all book-length
essays -challenge us to consider a deeper view of the concept of
illness and the effects of the visual image than we ordinarily
attempt.
Sontag's object is to liberate perception from the simple and
reductive by offering a more layered analysis. Her essays equate
complexity with clarity and obfuscation with oversimplification.
Ill people are haunted by dread, shame and humiliation, she
says angrily. The two illness books are an attempt to rectify the
human cost of these superstitious, medieval notions. Above all, she
adds, I am always struggling against stereotypes. Robert B.
Silvers, the editor of The New York Review of Books, which has
published much of her writing, describes her quest to reject lazy
assumptions as the cautionary element in her work. Sontag calls
it the Don Quixote in me. Because her prose is polemical and her
philosophy avant-garde, she has, on occasion, angered many older
and more conservative critics. Richard Poirier, for many years an
editor of Partisan Review, remembers when she was an exotically
beautiful young writer for his magazine and aroused the ire of
Phillip Rahv and others of the New York intellectual establishment,
who distrusted both her enthusiasm for popular culture (film,
dance, music) and her dense academic knowledge.
She was one of those rare creatures, he told me, who knew
about what was going on in the universities and in European
criticism, who had the courage and the force of will and character
to challenge the men in the intellectual community to pay attention
to these things. IF HER INTELLECT IS rigorous and pure, so is her
apartment, for aside from books and papers, the environment is
strikingly Spartan. She says she goes out seven nights a week with
friends for dinner, concerts, plays. She has phenomenal energy and
stays out late, always ready to do one more thing, go one more
place. (Suddenly it's 4 in the morning, she says, and somebody
suggests something else.
You go on. You don't say you're tired or you've had enough.
Because you can never have enough.) Considering her abundant
social life, I am amazed at the absence of furniture -there are so
few places to sit. Doesn't she have friends over?
No. This apartment is the inside of my head. It's a map of my
brain.
Have you always lived alone?
No, no. Not only have I at different times lived with lovers, but
I've had friends come and stay. I like the idea that there are other
bodies in other rooms. She has never remarried, but she has
many intense friendships, which constitute a kind of multifarious
international bond.
FROM THE LATE 1960's to the mid-70's, Sontag was an expatriot.
David had dropped out of Amherst College, and joined her in Paris,
living in separate apartments, entirely absorbed by French culture,
rarely speaking English. She returned to New York in 1976 (by then
David was at Princeton), when she was diagnosed with breast
cancer.
I remember when I was thrown into the world of people with
cancer, one of the things that most surprised me was people
saying, 'Why me?' But I saw that for lots of people these dramatic
illnesses became victim situations. Illness is like a lottery -some
people get ill and you happen to be one of them. I didn't feel a
victim of my illness. The prognosis was grim. At that time, New
York oncologists were more alarmist about chemotherapy than they
are now, so she chose to follow the treatment of Lucien Israel, a
renowned French oncologist, who recommended radically high
If you think you are going to die, and you are spared, you can
never completely disconnect from the knowledge. You always feel a
little posthumous. But I think one's imaginative participation in the
horrors that are part of history.... She looks outside. Her apartment
has sweeping views of the Hudson River. I can never take my own
unhappiness really seriously because I think so much of how badly
off most people in the world are. She has always had a high
political profile, from her early radical days to her work on behalf
the victims of Soviet totalitarianism. During the Vietnam War, she
made a famous, controversial trip to Hanoi. She remembers a
woman she saw in a factory there, working under the most abject
conditions. When Sontag expressed outrage, the woman told her
she was so much better off than her parents, because, as rice
farmers, they lived up to their hips in water.
I don't think a week goes by when I don't think of that woman.
'I'm dry,' she said. 'I have work in which I'm dry.' I'm reluctant to
believe that social morality can be so internalized, and ask her if it
doesn't seem artificially rational to ameliorate her own grief by
making make such historic comparisons.
No, you don't decide! She is leaning forward passionately.
You either are in touch with that imaginatively or you're not. It's
not deciding -it's the other way around. I can't screen it out. I feel
I'm receiving messages all the time.
And sometimes I'm overwhelmed.
Overwhelmed by what?
By suffering. A friend once said to me, 'You are lacking a skin that
most people have.' I'm also incredibly squeamish.
I cannot watch most American movies. I don't even have
television. AS PRESIDENT OF PEN in 1987 and as an original
member in 1974 (with the founder, Richard Sennett) of the New
York Institute for the Humanities, she has been an effective
advocate for imprisoned writers.
When Sontag conceived of The Volcano Lover, she acquired an
agent (Andrew Wylie) for the first time in her life and won a
lucrative four-book deal with her lifelong publisher, Farrar Straus
Giroux. With that advance, she bought this apartment. Then, in
1990, she was awarded a MacArthur fellowship, which will pay
$340,000 over five years, plus medical insurance. She is at last
comfortably, even luxuriously, set up.
But such films not only have to be exceptions -that's true of great
achievements in any art. They have to be actual violations of the
norms and practices that now govern movie making everywhere in
the capitalist and would-be capitalist world -which is to say,
everywhere. And ordinary films, films made purely for
entertainment (that is, commercial) purposes, are astonishingly
witless; the vast majority fail resoundingly to appeal to their
cynically targeted audiences. While the point of a great film is now,
more than ever, to be a one-of-a-kind achievement, the
commercial cinema has settled for a policy of bloated, derivative
film-making, a brazen combinatory or recombinatory art, in the
hope of reproducing past successes. Cinema, once heralded as the
art of the 20th century, seems now, as the century closes
numerically, to be a decadent art.
Perhaps it is not cinema that has ended but only cinephilia -the
name of the very specific kind of love that cinema inspired. Each
art breeds its fanatics. The love that cinema inspired, however, was
special. It was born of the conviction that cinema was an art unlike
any other: quintessentially modern; distinctively accessible; poetic
and mysterious and erotic and moral -all at the same time.
Cinema had apostles. (It was like religion.) Cinema was a crusade.
For cinephiles, the movies encapsulated everything.
Cinema was both the book of art and the book of life.
As many people have noted, the start of movie making a hundred
years ago was, conveniently, a double start. In roughly the year
1895, two kinds of films were made, two modes of what cinema
could be seemed to emerge: cinema as the transcription of real
unstaged life (the Lumiere brothers) and cinema as invention,
artifice, illusion, fantasy (Melies). But this is not a true opposition.
The whole point is that, for those first audiences, the very
transcription of the most banal reality -the Lumiere brothers filming
The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station -was a fantastic
experience. Cinema began in wonder, the wonder that reality can
be transcribed with such immediacy. All of cinema is an attempt to
perpetuate and to reinvent that sense of wonder.
Everything in cinema begins with that moment, 100 years ago,
when the train pulled into the station. People took movies into
themselves, just as the public cried out with excitement, actually
ducked, as the train seemed to move toward them. Until the
intoxicating as victory. How long will it take for the Serbs to realize
that the Milosevic years have been an unmitigated disaster for
Serbia, the net result of Milosevic's policies being the economic and
cultural ruin of the entire region, including Serbia, for several
generations? Alas, one thing we can be sure of, that will not
happen soon.
Susan Sontag is the author, most recently, of The Volcano Lover:
A Romance. She is completing a new novel.
*
A Photograph Is Not an Opinion. Or Is It?
in Women (Random House, 1999) by Annie Leibovitz.
Essay
by Susan Sontag
Undertake to do a book of photographs of people with nothing
more in common than that they are women (and living in America
at the end of the twentieth century), all -well, almost all -fully
clothed, therefore not the other kind of all-women picture book...
Start with no more than a commanding notion of the sheer
interestingness of the subject, especially in view of the
unprecedented changes in the consciousness of many women in
these last decades, and a resolve to stay open to whim and
opportunity...
Sample, explore, revisit, choose, arrange, without claiming to have
brought to the page a representative miscellany...
Even so, a large number of pictures of what is, nominally, a single
subject will inevitably be felt to be representative in some sense.
How much more so with this subject, with this book, an anthology
of destinies and disabilities and new possibilities; a book that
invites the sympathetic responses we bring to the depiction of a
minority (for that is what women are, by every criterion except the
numerical), featuring many portraits of those who are a credit to
their sex. Such a book has to feel instructive, even if it tells us what
we think we already know about the overcoming of perennial
impediments and prejudices and cultural handicaps, the conquest
of new zones of achievement. Of course, such a book would be
*
February 29, 2000
BOOKS OF THE TIMES
'In America': Love as a Distraction That Gets in the Way of
Art
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI In America By Susan Sontag.
387 pages. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $26.
With her last book, The Volcano Lover (1992), Susan Sontag, the
onetime high priestess of the avant-garde, demonstrated that she
could set aside modernist theorizing to create an enthralling
historical novel. In retelling the story of the love affair of Lady
Hamilton and Lord Nelson, she managed to write a book that was
at once an old-fashioned romance and an encyclopedic novel of
ideas, a novel whose emotional wisdom and virtuosic story-telling
formed a perfect bookend to the cerebral dazzle (deslumbre) of her
essays.
Sontag's latest novel, In America, is another historical
production about a woman caught in a love triangle between her
husband and lover, but it's an altogether more desultory (inconexa)
-and unsatisfying -performance. Despite a playful preface that
introduces the author as a postmodernist commentator on the
story, the novel quickly devolves into a banal, flat-footed narrative
that chronicles the characters' exploits through letters, journals and
corny (cursi), omniscient voice-overs. He was in a dark place,
Sontag writes of one character, where there were only wounds.
Though In America plays with the Jamesian dialectic between
America and Europe, though it reverberates with echoes of
Hawthorne's
Blithedale
Romance
and
George
Eliot's
Middlemarch, it turns out to have little in common with those
novels. It turns out to be a thoroughly conventional imitation of a
thoroughly conventional 19th-century novel.
The heroine of In America, Maryna Zalewsky, we are told, is
Poland's most celebrated actress; like Sir William Hamilton in
The Volcano Lover, she is what Sontag once dubbed (llam) a
saturnine personality -one of those fiercely serious souls
condemned to work and possessed of a self-conscious and
unforgiving relation to the self. Maryna's autocratic bearing and
of
Instead, her imagination flew to this party in Warsaw, and here she
has decided to stay. I thought if I listened and watched and
ruminated, she reasons, taking as much time as I needed, I could
understand the people in this room, that theirs would be a story
that would speak to me, though how I knew this I can't explain.
Settling into a story -choosing a setting and characters, working out
the particulars -is an awkward process for the novelist, part whim
(capricho), part a matter of waiting for the authentic detail to
suggest itself; in dramatizing that process Sontag has hit on a neat
metafictional truth.
I dwell on this opening scene because she moves readers through
it with sure-footed and wonderfully daring technique. At the same
time (prelude to a battle that will rage throughout this book), the
ideas about fiction that Sontag proposes seem the opposite of
daring. Each of us carries a room within ourselves, waiting to be
furnished and peopled, the narrator announces, sounding a little
passive and complacent. Imagination, she seems to say, is not
much more than a survey of the contents of your own brain.
But back to the story, which improves tenfold (diez veces ms)
once the narrator gets out of the way and lets the characters do
their thing. Our heroine, Maryna, is heavy-jawed and sturdily
(firmemente) built, too old, at 35, to be strictly beautiful, but with a
diva's skillful gestures and commanding gaze, which make her
seem like the most gorgeous creature anyone has ever seen. Still
weak from a recent battle with typhoid and fed up with the
indignities of Russian occupation, she worries that she is losing her
passion for acting. So she decides to give up her career and sail to
America, and she persuades a full entourage -including her decent
but sexually absent husband and a young journalist who longs
above all else in life to be her lover- to accompany her. Maryna's
plan, rather vague, is for everyone to pitch in toward a humble
communal life somewhere, a more authentic existence; the group
is inspired in part by Fourier's then fashionable ideas but most of all
by the weary actress's desire to be done with the tired part of
Maryna Zalezowska and take on a meaty new role.
The arrival of these Polish idealists in kitschy America sets the
scene for some charming historical set pieces: they nibble on that
bizarre native delicacy, dry airy lumps (masas) made by exploding
kernels (almendras) of white corn, and at the Philadelphia
face, the actress's under-face, when behind her the door seemed to
break open and in front of her, sharing the mirror, hurtling toward
her, she saw her august rival's reddened, baleful face shouting the
absurd insult, threw herself back in her chair, turned, glimpsed the
arm descending just before an involuntary grimace of her own
brought down her eyelids at the same instant it bared her upper
teeth and shortened her nose, and felt the shove and sting of a
large beringed hand against her face.
It all happened so rapidly and noisily -her eyes stayed closed, the
door banged shut- and the shadow-flecked room with its hissing
gas jets had gone so silent now, it might have been a bad dream:
she'd been having bad dreams. Maryna clapped her palm to her
offended face.
Zofia? Zofia! Sound of the door being opened softly. And some
anxious babble from Bogdan. What the devil did she want? If I
hadn't been down the corridor with Jan, I would have stopped her,
how dare she burst in on you like that! It's nothing, Maryna
said, opening her eyes, dropping her hand. Nothing. Meaning:
the buzz of pain in her cheek.
And the migraine now looming on the other side of her head,
which she intended to keep at bay by a much-practiced exercise of
will until the end of the evening. She bent forward to tie her hair in
a towel, then stood and moved to the washstand, where she
vigorously soaped and scrubbed her face and neck, and patted the
skin dry with a soft cloth.
I knew all along she wouldn't-
It's all right, said Maryna. Not to him. To Zofia, hesitating at the
half-open door, holding the costume aloft in her outstretched arms.
Waving her in, Bogdan shut the door a bit harder than he intended.
Maryna stepped out of her robe and into the burgundy gown with
gold braiding (No, no, leave the back unbuttoned!), rotated
slowly once, twice, before the cheval glass, nodded to herself, sent
Zofia away to repair the loose buckle on her shoe and heat the
curling iron, then sat at the dressing table again.
What did Gabriela want?
Nothing.
Maryna! She took a tuft of down and spread a thick layer of
Pearl Powder on her face and throat.
She came by to wish me the best for tonight.
Really?
Quite generous of her, wouldn't you agree, since she'd thought
the role was to be hers.
Very generous, he said. And, he thought, very unlike Gabriela.
He watched as three times she redid the powder, applied the
rouge with a hare's foot well up on her cheekbones and under her
eyes and on her chin, and blackened her eyelids, and three times
took it all off with a sponge.
Maryna?
Sometimes I think there's no point to any of this, she said
tonelessly, starting again on her eyelids with the charcoal stick.
This? She dipped a fine camel's-hair brush into the dish of burnt
umber and traced a line under her lower eyelashes.
It seemed to Bogdan she was using too much kohl, which made
her beautiful eyes look sorrowful, or merely old.
Maryna, look at me!
Dear Bogdan, I'm not going to look at you. She was dabbing
more kohl on her brows. And you're not going to listen to me. You
should be inured by now to my attacks of nerves. Actor's nerves. A
little worse than usual, but this is a first night. Don't pay any
attention to me. As if that were possible! He bent over and
touched his lips to the nape of her neck. Maryna...
What?
You remember that I've taken the room at the Saski for a few of
us afterward to celebrate -
Call Zofia for me, will you? She had started to mix the henna.
Forgive me for bringing up a dinner while you're preparing for a
performance. But it should be called off if you're feeling too...
Don't, she murmured. She was blending a little Dutch pink and
powdered antimony with the Prepared Whiting to powder her hands
and arms. Bogdan? He didn't answer.
I'm looking forward to the party, she said and reached behind
for a gloved hand to lay on her shoulder.
You're upset about something.
I'm upset about everything, she said dryly. And you'll be so
kind as to let me wallow in it. The old stager has need of a little
stimulation to go on doing her best!
MARYNA DID NOT RELISH lying to Bogdan, the only person among
all those who loved her, or claimed to love her, whom she did in
fact trust. But she had no place for his indignation or his eagerness
to console. She thought it might do her good to keep this
astonishing incident to herself.
Sometimes one needs a real slap in the face to make what one is
feeling real.
When life cuffs you about, you say, That's life. You feel strong. You
want to feel strong. The important thing is to go forward.
As she had, single-mindedly, or almost: there had been much to
ignore. But if you are of a stoical temperament, and have a talent
for self-respect, and have worked hard with another talent God
gave you, and have been rewarded exactly as you had dared to
hope for your diligence and persistence, indeed, your success
arrived more promptly than you expected (or perhaps, you secretly
think, merited), you might then consider it petty to remember the
slights and nurture the grievances. To be offended was to be weak
-like worrying about whether one was happy or not.
Now you have an unexpected pain, around which the muffled
feelings can crystallize.
You have to float your ideals a little off the ground, to keep them
from being profaned. And cut loose the misfortunes and insults,
too, lest they take root and strangle your soul.
Take the slap for what it was, a jealous rival's frantic comment on
her impregnable success -that would have been something to
share with Bogdan, and soon put out of mind.
Take it as an emblem, a summons to respond to the whispery
needs she'd been harboring for months -this would be worth
keeping to herself, even cherishing. Yes, she would cherish poor
Gabriela's slap. If that slap were a baby's smile, she would smile at
the recollection of it, if it were a picture, she would have it framed
and kept on her dressing table, if it were hair, she would order a
wig made from it... Oh I see, she thought, I'm going mad. Could it
be as simple as that? She'd laughed to herself then, but saw with
distaste that the hand applying henna to her lips was trembling.
Misery is wrong, she said to herself, mine no less than Gabriela's,
and she only wants what I have. Misery is always wrong.
Crisis in the life of an actress. Acting was emulating other actors
and then, to one's surprise (actually, not at all to one's surprise),
finding oneself better than any of them were -including the pathetic
bestower of that slap.
Wasn't that enough? No. Not anymore.
She had loved being an actress because the theatre seemed to her
nothing less than the truth. A higher truth.
Acting in a play, one of the great plays, you became better than
you really were. You said only words that were sculpted, necessary,
exalting. You always looked as beautiful as you could be, artifice
assisting, at your age.
Each of your movements had a large, generous meaning. You
could feel yourself being improved by what was given to you, on
the stage, to express. Now it would happen that, mid-course in a
noble tirade by her beloved Shakespeare or Schiller or Slowacki,
pivoting in her unwieldy costume, gesturing, declaiming, sensing
the audience bend to her art, she felt no more than herself. The old
self-transfiguring thrill was gone. Even stage fright -that jolt
necessary to the true professional -had deserted her. Gabriela's
slap woke her up. An hour later Maryna put on her wig and
papier-mch crown, gave one last look in the mirror, and went out
to give a performance that even she could have admitted was, by
her real standards for herself, not too bad.
BOGDAN WAS so captivated by Maryna's majesty as she went to
be executed that at the start of the ovation he was still rooted in
the plush-covered chair at the front of his box, hands clenching the
rail. Galvanized now, he slipped between his sister, the impresario
from Vienna, Ryszard, and the other guests, and by the second
curtain call had made his way backstage.
Mag-ni-fi-cent, he mouthed as she came off from the third
curtain call to wait beside him in the wings for the volume of sound
to warrant another return to the flower-strewn stage.
If you think so, I'm glad.
Listen to them!
Them! What do they know if they've never seen anything better
than me? After she'd conceded four more curtain calls, Bogdan
escorted her to the dressing-room door. She supposed she was
starting to allow herself to feel pleased with her performance. But
once inside, she let out a wordless wail and burst into tears.
Oh, Madame! Zofia seemed about to weep, too.
pressing his bouquet into her hands, said the Saski was only seven
streets away and that he preferred to walk.
How strange, in her native city to be receiving friends in a hotel,
but for the last five years -her talents having led her inexorably to
the summit, an engagement for life at the Imperial Theatre in
Warsaw -she no longer had an apartment in Krakw.
Strange, she said. To Bogdan, to no-one, to herself.
Bogdan frowned.
A thunderbolt, like the crack of gunfire, as they arrived at the
hotel. A scream, no, only a shout: an angry coachman.
They walked up the carpeted marble staircase.
You're all right?
Of course I'm all right. It's only another entrance.
And I have the privilege of opening the door for you. Now it was
Maryna's turn to frown.
And how could there not be applause and beaming faces,
customary welcome at a first-night party -but she really had given
a splendid performance -as Bogdan opened the door (in answer to
her Bogdan, are you all right? he had sighed and taken her hand)
and she made her entrance. Piotr ran to her arms. She embraced
Bogdan's sister and gave her Ryszard's silk flowers; she let herself
be embraced by Krystyna, whose eyes had filled with tears. After
the guests, gathering closely around her, had each paid tribute to
her performance, she looked from face to face, and then sang out
gleefully: May you a better feast never behold, You knot of mouth
friends!
Upon which words everyone laughed, which means, I suppose (I
had not arrived yet), that she said Timon's lines in Polish, not
English, but also means that nobody except Maryna had read
Timon of Athens, for the feast in the play is not a happy one, above
all for its giver. Then the guests spread about the large room and
began talking among themselves about her performance and, after
that, about the larger question afoot (which is more or less when I
arrived, chilled and eager to enter the story), while Maryna had
forced herself toward humbler, less sardonic thoughts. No jealous
rivals here. These were her friends, those who wished her well.
Where was her gratitude? She hated her discontents. If I can have
a new life, she was thinking, I shall never complain again.
MARYNA? No answer.
I knew you would say that! She stamped her foot. I order you. I
implore you, don't speak of my temperament! (Yes she had been
ill. Her nerves. Yes she was still ill, all her friends except her doctor
said among themselves.) So you believe in paradise, he
murmured placatingly.
Yes, and at the gates of paradise, I would say, Is this your
paradise? These ethereal figures robed in white, drifting among the
white clouds? Where can I sit? Where is the water?
Maryna... Taking her by the hand, he led her back to the settee.
I'm going to pour you a dram of cognac. It will be good for both of
us.
You drink too much, Henryk.
Here. He handed her one of the glasses and pulled a chair
opposite her. Isn't that better? She sipped the cognac, then
leaned back and gazed at him mutely.
What is it?
I think I will die very soon, if I don't do something reckless...
grand. I thought I was dying last year, you know.
But you didn't.
Must one die to prove one's sincerity!
FROM A LETTER to nobody, that is, to herself: It's not because my
brother, my beloved brother, is dying and I will have no one to
revere... it's not because my mother, our beloved mother, grates
on my nerves, oh, how I wish I could stop her mouth... it's not
because I too am not a good mother (how could I be? I am an
actress)... it's not because my husband, who is not the father of my
son, is so kind and will do whatever I want... it's not because
everyone applauds me, because they cannot imagine that I could
be more vivid or different than I already am... it's not because I am
thirty-five now and because I live in an old country, and I don't
want to be old (I do not intend to become my mother)... it's not
because some of the critics condescend, now I am being compared
with younger actresses, while the ovations after each performance
are no less thunderous (so what then is the meaning of
applause?)... it's not because I have been ill (my nerves) and had to
stop performing for three months, only three months (I don't feel
well when I am not working)... it's not because I believe in
paradise... oh, and it's not because the police are still spying and
Brooks has observed, ''as just another scrap in the media confetti.''
Sontag was 31, and had already written a slim and stylized novel,
''The Benefactor,'' as well as a bunch of essays, including one on
Simone Weil for the inaugural issue of The New York Review of
Books. Her formidable brain and dramatic physical presence had
been causing a stir in cerebral circles for several years, but with
this piece her audience widened to include the masses who read
Time, which took up both Sontag and her bold conception of the
camp sensibility with wild enthusiasm.
In the decades since, Sontag has voiced shifting, sometimes
contradictory opinions on matters political, intellectual and literary.
These have included incendiary manifestoes (on the ''pornographic
imagination'' and the unredeemable malignity of America, which
she once called ''a doomed country... founded on a genocide'');
arrogant miscalculations (about the politics of North Vietnam and
Cuba); thoughtful reconsiderations (of the nature of Communism
and of the filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl); and unabashedly esoteric
artistic judgments (favoring foreign over home-grown writers, and
form over content). If consistency is truly the hobgoblin of little
minds, Sontag's mind must be very large, for she has never been
stopped by her own last pronouncement. In the past decade, for
instance, while continuing to champion the kind of elliptical
European fiction that meets her much elaborated and stringent
critical standards, she began writing best-selling, plot-heavy
novels. But whatever the position or wherever the situation, Sontag
has managed to hold the limelight as few of her kind have done.
Carl Rollyson and Lisa Paddock's unauthorized, gossipy account of
the life and times of Susan Sontag is built around two reductive
suppositions: that the real source of their subject's cultural
influence is her keen insight into ''the machinery of self-promotion
which she could have patented,'' and that she rules over the house
of intellect like a highbrow Lucrezia Borgia, by fear and
intimidation. Their biography broadcasts its debunking intentions
right up front, in the resolute wording of its subtitle: ''The Making of
an Icon.'' In their chatty introduction, the authors describe their first
encounter with Sontag, at an academic conference in Poland in
1980. ''We approached her,'' they write, ''with a proper sense of
awe, yet Carl found it remarkably easy to sit next to her at a table
and talk for 15 minutes about contemporary literature.'' One can
that her silence on gay issues, rather than adding to her ''iconic
power,'' as the authors claim, actually detracts from it.
Sontag is, finally, too faceted and elusive a creature to be caught
in the flash of a paparazzo's lens. Whatever is wrong with her is not
easily waved away by her fans, and whatever is right about her is
not easily dismissed by her critics: she is difficult to categorize,
much less analyze. One particularly problematic aspect of her
writing for me is her insistently antipsychological stance, which has
led to a kind of moral obtuseness about the subtler implications of
political events as well as to a convenient opacity about her own
motivations. There is also her unsettling tendency to see the world
in terms of a hierarchy of intellect, in which basic human concerns
are given short shrift. But no one would deny Sontag's enduring
romance with the world of ideas, or her ability to translate that
romance into an urgent, if occasionally wrongheaded, conversation
with the reader. I will never forget the thrill I felt upon coming to
the conclusion of her piece ''Fascinating Fascism,'' when it first
appeared in The New York Review of Books in 1975. I was 20, a
literature-besotted senior at Barnard, and here was evidence of a
woman with the intellectual stamina equal to that of the male
critics I studied. The essay's final paragraph connects the erotic
theater of sadomasochism -- severed from personhood, from
relationships, from love'' -- with the visual allure of Nazi imagery.
''The color is black,'' she writes, ''the material is leather, the
seduction is beauty, the justification is honesty, the aim is ecstasy,
the fantasy is death.'' In its violent yoking together of disparate
emotional and aesthetic references, Sontag's thesis is an uncanny
presentiment of cultural preoccupations to come.
Precisely because Susan Sontag is an influential, even
paradigmatic figure, for both good and bad, gaining a fuller
understanding of her would help us to understand the times we live
in better. From this perspective, ''Susan Sontag: The Making of an
Icon'' falls woefully short, for it delivers the dish, but not much
more. If you're looking for the sort of bitchy nuggets that go to
prove that people of achievement -- and intellectuals in particular -are invariably miserable characters, this will suit you just fine.
Meanwhile, the real Sontag has eluded us -- and will undoubtedly
continue to do so until such time as she gets the smart, serious
biography she deserves.
There's not always an obvious split between the work and the
writer, is there? Sometimes the personality of the writer emerges
from the work and becomes a force in its own right. I'm thinking of
the way Walter Benjamin emerges as a personality in Under the
Sign of Saturn, your essay about him.
Yes, and that's when I realized I should stop writing essays. I
thought, I better quit, this isn't an essay anymore, this is a portrait.
I'm writing about a certain temperament, the melancholic, and
since I'm not really dealing with ideas, I should go back to fiction.
In your essay One Culture and the New Sensibility you say,
Literary men, feeling that the status of humanity itself was being
challenged by the new science and the new technology, abhorred
and deplored the change. But the literary men... are inevitably on
the defensive. They know that the scientific culture, the coming of
the machine, cannot be stopped. That was written more than
thirty years ago, but it applies pretty well to current debates about
the Internet.
What strikes me now is not that technology can't be stopped, but
that capitalism can't be stopped. I'm stunned (aturdida) by what I
call the total takeover (toma de posesin) of capitalism.
Mercantilist values and motives now seem absolutely self-evident
to people. I don't mean to say people weren't previously interested
in their own prosperity or material advances, but they did
understand that there were some zones of activity where
materialist criteria didn't apply. Or that you could have a conflict:
you're going to be very well paid for something you think is shoddy
(falso) or unworthy, and you might actually not do it! I think more
and more people don't even understand why in the world you
wouldn't do anything to make a buck, and why everything isn't
about property.
Technology extends capitalism. With eBay, the market reaches into
your closets.
I don't have a problem with technological culture. I have a problem
with capitalism. I use a word processor. It's the greatest typewriter
ever invented. I don't use the Net. So far, the information I get
names of their drugs. Not only that, but they are chatting away
about having read a protocol from the University of Indiana, or
research from somewhere else, and they give you the Web site.
And that's wonderful.
As you observed thirty years ago, it's often literary intellectuals
who are the least enthusiastic about the prospects for technology.
The great leap (salto) is the Gutenberg leap. Someone was
marveling that I moved with so much pleasure to the word
processor. And I said, The leap is from writing by hand to the
typewriter. From writing with a typewriter to using a computer is no
leap at all. In the same way, the real leap is when books are set in
type and they become uniform, reproducible objects. They can
then be uniform reproducible objects in some non-paper-based
form, and I don't feel in any way threatened by that. I don't need
the OED in book form. I'm delighted it's a CD and I can stick it in my
computer.
But if you're going to read the poems of Jorie Graham, which are
really hard, you can't read them hyperkinetically. Either you don't
read Jorie Graham at all, or you read her real slow, and over and
over. It's an effort of immersion and decipherment. You can't read
The Brothers Karamazov hyperkinetically. Either you're going to get
the good of it, or you're not.
I know people who find it hard to watch a movie. They want
shorter attention units. And I know other people who listen to
Morton Feldman -hours of music just above the threshold of
audibility.
So maybe we're getting more varieties of attention.
I think that's exactly what that essay, One Culture and the New
Sensibility, as I dimly (confusamente) recall it, was about. It was
about not having to exclude, which seemed very heretical then.
Now, of course, the question is, Does anyone want to listen to
Morton Feldman? Are people being rewired so they are kind of
jumpy? It's the neurological and the anthropological issues that
concern me.
But, in the end, isn't this all a function of prosperity? Will there be
eternal prosperity in a small part of the world? Maybe there will,
maybe Keynes is obsolete. But suppose there are hard times
ahead, and people have real material problems. Don't you think
they'll slow down a little? It's almost a function of luxury, this
hyperkinetic thing.
You have also been seen as the European connection, showing
that an American could be an intellectual the way Europeans were.
And I wanted to do that. I thought that was a useful thing to do, a
thing nobody was doing, and I knew how to do it.
In your essays you often presented European writers -Benjamin,
Canetti, Barthes, Artaud -to Americans. And in the new novel the
main character is a Polish actress who comes to America. You
maintain the European connection.
It's a question of affinities. When I left this place -and it actually
was this place, Cambridge, Harvard- I ended up for the better part
of a year in Paris. Everything until then was mediated through
painting and music and especially books; everything was canonical.
It was precisely in Europe that I had more of a confrontation with
the modern and the contemporary. It was through films. It was
probably Godard. I felt my life was divided into before Godard and
after Godard.
Before, I hadn't understood the force of the modern. I just felt the
past is bigger than the present and European culture is obviously
bigger than American culture. And America has been so much
about disburdenment, getting rid of the past. I thought, Why can't
one have it all? -a very American thought, I hasten to add. And
wouldn't it be nice to look at these things in a fresh way, and not
make the sorts of distinctions that have to do with notions of the
canon? Though I was totally a product of the canonical way of
thinking, and still am. But we can open up a lot of annexes and
branches, can't we? Why choose? Very American.
When I started trying to do fiction, though, I didn't know how to
open up. The fiction was mostly taking place in somebody's head.
So I thought, I don't want to just be talking about the commotion in
someone's head. Why don't I make movies? Then, a story idea
came my way, and it started with something visual. In a print shop
near the British Museum, in London, I discovered the volcano prints
from the book that Sir William Hamilton did. My very first thought -I
don't think I have ever said this publicly- was that I would propose
to FMR (a wonderful art magazine published in Italy which has
beautiful art reproductions) that they reproduce the volcano prints
and I write some text to accompany them. But then I started to
adhere to the real story of Lord Hamilton and his wife, and I
realized that if I would locate stories in the past, all sorts of
inhibitions would drop away, and I could do epic, polyphonic things.
I wouldn't just be inside somebody's head. So there was that novel,
The Volcano Lover.
And there was the notion of the foreigner. I have done a novel
about English people in southern Italy, a novel about Poles in
America, and the next one is going to be about French people in
Japan. I say it's a privilege to be a foreigner, it's such an intensifier
of experience.
The narrator of In America is a foreigner in the sense that she is
foreign to the past; she time travels.
The book begins with her time traveling. I like foreigners. I feel like
a foreigner in New York. I like not being too comfortable.
Harvey Blume is a contributing writer for Atlantic Unbound and The
Boston Book Review.
Copyright 2000 by The Atlantic Monthly Group.
*
The Radical Imagination
By WILLIAM DERESIEWICZ
Published: November 4, 2001, Sunday
WHERE THE STRESS FALLS
Essays.
By Susan Sontag.
351 pp. New York:
Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $27.
A NEW collection of essays by Susan Sontag is a major cultural
event. Or is it? It depends upon whether you think Sontag is
America's leading intellectual -- a view long held by the press, by
Europeans, indeed by just about everybody except other American
Who are the "we" at whom such shock-pictures are aimed? That
"we" would include not just the sympathizers of a smallish nation or
a stateless people fighting for its life, but-a far larger constituencythose only nominally concerned about some nasty war taking place
in another country. The photographs are a means of making "real"
(or "more real") matters that the privileged and the merely safe
might prefer to ignore.
"Here then on the table before us are photographs," Woolf writes
of the thought experiment she is proposing to the reader as well as
to the spectral lawyer, who is eminent enough, as she mentions, to
have K.C., King's Counsel, after his name-and may or may not be a
real person. Imagine then a spread of loose photographs extracted
from an envelope that arrived in the morning post. They show the
mangled bodies of adults and children. They show how war
evacuates, shatters, breaks apart, levels the built world. "A bomb
has torn open the side," Woolf writes of the house in one of the
pictures. To be sure, a cityscape is not made of flesh. Still, shearedoff buildings are almost as eloquent as bodies in the street. (Kabul,
Sarajevo, East Mostar, Grozny, sixteen acres of lower Manhattan
after September 11, 2001, the refugee camp in Jenin...) Look, the
photographs say, this is what it's like. This is what war does. And
that, that is what it does, too. War tears, rends. War rips open,
eviscerates. War scorches. War dismembers. War ruins.
Not to be pained by these pictures, not to recoil from them, not to
strive to abolish what causes this havoc, this carnage-these, for
Woolf, would be the reactions of a moral monster. And, she is
saying, we are not monsters, we members of the educated class.
Our failure is one of imagination, of empathy: we have failed to
hold this reality in mind.
But is it true that these photographs, documenting the slaughter of
noncombatants rather than the clash of armies, could only
stimulate the repudiation of war? Surely they could also foster
greater militancy on behalf of the Republic. Isn't this what they
were meant to do? The agreement between Woolf and the lawyer
seems entirely presumptive, with the grisly photographs confirming
an opinion already held in common. Had the question been, How
can we best contribute to the defense of the Spanish Republic
against the forces of militarist and clerical fascism?, the
Continues...
*
'Regarding the Pain of Others': Sontag Changes Lenses
By JOHN LEONARD
Toward the end of ''Regarding the Pain of Others,'' her coruscating
sermon on how we picture suffering, Susan Sontag loses her
temper. As usual she's been playing a solitary hand, shuffling
contradictions, dealing provocations, turning over anguished faces,
numbing numerals, even a jumping jack (''we have lids on our
eyes, we do not have doors on our ears''). But she seems
personally offended by those ''citizens of modernity, consumers of
violence as spectacle, adepts of proximity without risk'' who ''will
do anything to keep themselves from being moved.'' And she is all
of a sudden ferocious:
''To speak of reality becoming a spectacle is a breathtaking
provincialism. It universalizes the viewing habits of a small,
educated population living in the rich part of the world, where news
has been converted into entertainment.... It assumes that everyone
is a spectator. It suggests, perversely, unseriously, that there is no
real suffering in the world. But it is absurd to identify the world with
those zones in the well-off countries where people have the
dubious privilege of being spectators, or of declining to be
spectators, of other people's pain... consumers of news, who know
nothing at first hand about war and massive injustice and terror.
There are hundreds of millions of television watchers who are far
from inured to what they see on television. They do not have the
luxury of patronizing reality.''
So much, then, for Guy Debord, Jean Baudrillard and their Frenchfried American fellows in the media studies programs, looking down
on staged events as if from zeppelins, or like the kings of Burma on
the backs of elephants, remote and twitchy among the pixels, with
multiple views in slo-mo, intimate focus or broad scan, and an IVfeed of chitchat. When we think about the pictures we have seen
from Bosnia, Rwanda and Chechnya, about the videotapes
Sontag of course has done our homework for us, her usual
archaeology. She follows the trail of photojournalism from Roger
Fenton in the Valley of Death after the charge of the Light Brigade,
to Mathew Brady's illustrating of America's Civil War, to Robert
Capa among Spanish Republicans, to the horrors of Buchenwald
and Hiroshima, to famine in India and carnage in Biafra and napalm
in Vietnam and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. After consulting
Goya on what a victorious army does to a civilian population, she
takes us to Tuol Sleng, near Phnom Penh, to look at the
photographs the Khmer Rouge took of thousands of suspected
''intellectuals'' and ''counterrevolutionaries'' (meaning Cambodians
who had gone to school, spoke a foreign language or wore glasses)
after they were tortured but before they were murdered.
She reminds us of how hard it is for the image makers to keep up
with improvements in the technology of torture and execution,
from the stake, the wheel, the gallows tree and the strappado to
smart bombs dreamed up on bitmaps in virtual realities. (Longdistance mayhem gets longer by the minute. The British who
bombed Iraq in the 1920's and the Germans who bombed Spain in
the 1930's could actually see their civilian targets, whereas the
recent American bombings of Afghanistan were orchestrated at
computer screens in Tampa, Fla.) She has shrewd things to say
about colonial wars, memory museums, Christian iconography,
lynching postcards, Virginia Woolf, Andy Warhol, Georges Bataille
and St. Sebastian; about ''sentimentality,'' ''indecency'' and the
''overstimulation'' Wordsworth warned us would lead to to (lovely
phrase!) ''savage torpor.''
And, as usual, she provokes. It probably isn't true that ''not even
pacifists'' any longer believe war can be abolished, that photos
have a ''deeper bite'' in the memory bank than movies or
television, that ''the appetite for pictures showing bodies in pain is
as keen, almost, as the desire for ones that show bodies naked,''
and that ''most depictions of tormented, mutilated bodies do
arouse a prurient interest.'' I don't know, and neither does she. On
the other hand, when she revises her own conclusions from ''On
Photography'' to say she's no longer so sure that shock has ''term
limits,'' or that ''repeated exposure'' in ''our culture of spectatorship
neutralizes the moral force of photographs of atrocities,'' I agree
with her for no other reason than I want to. Her job is not to win a
verdict from a jury, but to make us think.
And so she has for 40 years. Never mind that Cyndi Lauper
reputation from those essays in ''Against Interpretation'' on
happenings, camp and science fiction. Maybe in the early 60's girls
just wanted to have fun. By the time of ''Styles of Radical Will,'' she
was already Emma Goldman, if not Rosa Luxemburg, reviewing
Vietnam as if it were a Godard film. But there was nothing playful
about ''On Photography,'' which deserved all those prizes, or
''Illness as Metaphor,'' which actually saved lives, or ''Under the
Sign of Saturn,'' where essays so admiring of Walter Benjamin and
Elias Canetti reminded us that she had always been the best
student Kenneth Burke ever had, and could be relied upon to value
Simone Weil over Jack Smith. ''If I had to choose between the Doors
and Dostoyevsky,'' she would write years later, ''then -- of course -I'd choose Dostoyevsky. But do I have to choose?''
Yes, she had to, with the culture she cared about going down the
tubes. Against that gurgle and flush, she sent up kites and caught
the lightning bottled in ''Where the Stress Falls,'' asking us to think
the prose of poets and the ''excruciations'' of everybody else, from
Machado de Assis to Jorge Luis Borges to Adam Zagajewski to
Robert Walser to Danilo Kis to Roland Barthes, before he was struck
down by a laundry truck on his way to his mother's, not to mention
side excursions to the dance of Lucinda Childs, the photography of
Annie Leibovitz and the 15-hour version of Alfred Doblin's ''Berlin
Alexanderplatz'' that Rainer Werner Fassbinder managed to make
for German television. All this, plus what she found out about
herself under the influence of morphine and chemotherapy, and an
essay, hilarious in its very conception, on ''Wagner's Fluids.''
Then there were the novels. If the early ones, ''The Benefactor''
and ''Death Kit,'' smelled of the lab, the recent ones, ''The Volcano
Lover'' and ''In America,'' are full of ocean and desert airs. It is an
amazing, buoyant transformation, by a writer with as much staying
power as intellectual wherewithal -- a writer, moreover, who went a
dozen times to Sarajevo while the rest of us were watching the
Weather Channel -- and still she's niggled at even by people she
hasn't sued.
Late in the first act of ''Radiant Baby,'' the new musical about Keith
Haring, they bring on a highfalutin critic. She is trousered and
turtlenecked in black, with a white streak in her dark mane. She is,
of course, a Susan Sontag doll, maybe even a bunraku puppet. You
almost expect her to quote Kleist. How remarkable, when even the
best-known critics in the history of Western culture pass among us
as anonymously as serial killers, that this one should end up
emblematic, a kind of avant-garde biker chick, and also be so
envied and resented for it. From the political right, you'd expect
vituperation, a punishment for her want of piety or bloodthirstiness
about 9/11, as if all over hate radio, Fox News and the blogosphere,
according to some mystical upgrade of the Domino Theory, every
pip was caused to squeak. But in our aggrieved bohemias?
Who cares that her picture has been taken by Harry Hess, Peter
Hujar, Irving Penn, Thomas Victor, Diane Arbus, Robert
Mapplethorpe and Annie Leibovitz, not even counting Woody Allen
for purposes of ''Zelig''? That she's shown up as a character in
unkind novels by Judith Grossman, Alfred Chester, Edmund White,
Philippe Sollers, Francis King and Sarah Schulman? The only Sontag
who matters is the one who keeps on publishing her own books.
''One result of lavishing a good part of your one and only life on
your books,'' she wrote in 1995, ''is that you come to feel that, as a
person, you are faking it.'' I hope not, but I don't have time to find
out because I have to look up, at her recommendation, another
writer I've never read, Multatuli, who's written another novel I
never heard of, ''Max Havelaar.'' Anyway, in the course of admiring
so many serious thinkers, she became one.
If, however, we must plight some troth to the cult of Gaia, this is
how I imagine her, as the poet Paul Claudel saw the ornamental
sandstone dancing maiden in the jungles of Cambodia, one of
those apsaras that Andre Malraux tried to steal -- smiling, writes
Claudel, her ''Ethiopian smile, dancing a kind of sinister cancan
over the ruins.'' She knows lots of things the rest of us only wish we
did. Think of Susan Sontag as the Rose of Angkor Wat.
John Leonard reviews books for Harper's Magazine and The Nation,
movies for ''CBS News Sunday Morning'' and television for New
York magazine.
***
from inured to what they see on television. They do not have the
luxury of patronizing reality.''
So much, then, for Guy Debord, Jean Baudrillard and their Frenchfried American fellows in the media studies programs, looking down
on staged events as if from zeppelins, or like the kings of Burma on
the backs of elephants, remote and twitchy among the pixels, with
multiple views in slo-mo, intimate focus or broad scan, and an IVfeed of chitchat. When we think about the pictures we have seen
from Bosnia, Rwanda and Chechnya, about the videotapes
available to us of Rodney King being beaten and Daniel Pearl being
murdered, media theory seems merely impudent.
Yet Sontag has no more use for the pure of heart and perpetually
incredulous who are always shocked by the wounds of the world,
by evidence of ''hands-on'' cruelty and proof ''that depravity
exists.'' Where have they been? After a century and a half of
photojournalistic witness, ''a vast repository'' of ''atrocious images''
already exists to remind us of what people can do to each other. At
this late date, to be surprised is to be morally defective: ''No one
after a certain age has the right to this kind of innocence, of
superficiality, to this degree of ignorance, or amnesia.''
So there is suffering, and there are cameras, and it is possible to
worry about the motives of the men and women behind the
cameras, whether one may be too arty, another a bit mercenary, a
third a violence junkie, as it is possible to worry about whether our
looking at the pictures they bring back from the wound is
voyeuristic or pornographic; whether such witness, competing for
notice among so many other clamors, seems more authentic the
more it's amateurish (accidental, like satellite surveillance);
whether excess exposure to atrocity glossies dulls Jack and jades
Jill; or whether.... But then again, maybe these worries are selfindulgent and beside the point, which should be to think our way
past what happened to why. ''It is not a defect,'' Sontag says, ''that
we do not suffer enough'' when we see these images:
''Neither is the photograph supposed to repair our ignorance about
the history and causes of the suffering it picks out and frames.
Such images cannot be more than an invitation to pay attention, to
reflect, to learn, to examine the rationalizations for mass suffering
offered by established powers. Who caused what the picture
And, as usual, she provokes. It probably isn't true that ''not even
pacifists'' any longer believe war can be abolished, that photos
have a ''deeper bite'' in the memory bank than movies or
television, that ''the appetite for pictures showing bodies in pain is
as keen, almost, as the desire for ones that show bodies naked,''
and that ''most depictions of tormented, mutilated bodies do
arouse a prurient interest.'' I don't know, and neither does she. On
the other hand, when she revises her own conclusions from ''On
Photography'' to say she's no longer so sure that shock has ''term
limits,'' or that ''repeated exposure'' in ''our culture of spectatorship
neutralizes the moral force of photographs of atrocities,'' I agree
with her for no other reason than I want to. Her job is not to win a
verdict from a jury, but to make us think.
And so she has for 40 years. Never mind that Cyndi Lauper
reputation from those essays in ''Against Interpretation'' on
happenings, camp and science fiction. Maybe in the early 60's girls
just wanted to have fun. By the time of ''Styles of Radical Will,'' she
was already Emma Goldman, if not Rosa Luxemburg, reviewing
Vietnam as if it were a Godard film. But there was nothing playful
about ''On Photography,'' which deserved all those prizes, or
''Illness as Metaphor,'' which actually saved lives, or ''Under the
Sign of Saturn,'' where essays so admiring of Walter Benjamin and
Elias Canetti reminded us that she had always been the best
student Kenneth Burke ever had, and could be relied upon to value
Simone Weil over Jack Smith. ''If I had to choose between the Doors
and Dostoyevsky,'' she would write years later, ''then -- of course -I'd choose Dostoyevsky. But do I have to choose?''
Yes, she had to, with the culture she cared about going down the
tubes. Against that gurgle and flush, she sent up kites and caught
the lightning bottled in ''Where the Stress Falls,'' asking us to think
the prose of poets and the ''excruciations'' of everybody else, from
Machado de Assis to Jorge Luis Borges to Adam Zagajewski to
Robert Walser to Danilo Kis to Roland Barthes, before he was struck
down by a laundry truck on his way to his mother's, not to mention
side excursions to the dance of Lucinda Childs, the photography of
Annie Leibovitz and the 15-hour version of Alfred Doblin's ''Berlin
Alexanderplatz'' that Rainer Werner Fassbinder managed to make
for German television. All this, plus what she found out about
it. The gaze drifts upward. The smile is still enigmatic, but it seems
calmer and wiser, as though guarding a different set of secrets.
Sontag, like Benjamin before her, has been consistently suspicious
of the power and pervasiveness of images in the culture. In ''On
Photography'' (1977), she called for a restrictive ''ecology of
images,'' and she often writes with deep exasperation about the
banality of image-saturated, celebrity-driven contemporary culture.
Even so, she has become a fixture, or at least an occasional
ornament, in that culture, appearing in Woody Allen's ''Zelig'' and
popping up as a knowing allusion in an early episode of ''The
Simpsons'' and in the lyrics to Jonathan Larson's ''Rent.'' She has
also written the introduction to Leibovitz's most recent book,
continuing a longtime affiliation with the glossiest of celebrity
photographers.
Her most identifiable public image remains that of an icon of
seriousness, the embodiment of the intellectual in a culture
pathologically ambivalent about the very category. Which means
that she has been revered for her range and erudition, and also
attacked for arrogance and irresponsibility. Her brief essay about
media and political responses to the 9/11 attacks caused a squall of
rage and ridicule far out of proportion to her arguments
themselves, which in retrospect seem tone-deaf and insensitive but
not altogether wrong. ''Let's by all means grieve together,'' she
wrote. ''But let's not be stupid together.''
The assumption of general stupidity, and the implication of her
own superiority, were no doubt part of what infuriated her critics.
But her vilification as an avatar of the ''anti-American left'' also
seemed to involve a settling of old scores, left over from the late
1960's, when she argued that America was ''doomed'' and far
inferior to the North Vietnamese model of social organization. Since
then, however, her politics have shifted, more or less in line with
the rest of the international literary and artistic class. She annoyed
many former allies when, in 1982, she identified communism as
''fascism with a human face'' and, in the 1990's, called for Western
intervention against Serbian aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Her current stance against war in Iraq may well mask the extent to
which she has become, though not in the usual sense of the term,
a leading cultural conservative. In the mid-60's, she was the
prophetess of a ''new sensibility'' that would demolish the