Quantcast
Channel: pseudonyms – The Paris Review

“Lies Don’t Last with Age”: An Interview with John le Carré

$
0
0

At 92Y’s Unterberg Poetry Center, The Paris Review has copresented an occasional series of live conversations with writers—many of which have formed the foundations of interviews in the quarterly. Recently, 92Y and The Paris Review have made recordings of these interviews available at 92Y’s Poetry Center Online and here at The Paris Review. Consider them deleted scenes from our Writers at Work interviews, or directors’ cuts, or surprisingly lifelike radio adaptations.

This week we’re debuting four new recordings from the series, and first up is John le Carré, who spoke to our founding editor George Plimpton back in October 1996—their conversation formed the basis of Le Carré’s Art of Fiction interview in the magazine the next year. Here, he touches on his discovery of his character George Smiley, his experience with intelligence services, and how he chose his inimitable pseudonym: 

When I began writing, I was what was politely called “a foreign servant.” I went to my employers and said that I’d written my first novel. They read it and said they had no objections, but even if it were about butterflies, they said, I would have to choose a pseudonym. So then I went to my publisher, Victor Gollancz, who was Polish by origin, and he said, My advice to you, old fellow, is choose a good Anglo-Saxon couple of syllables. Monosyllables. He suggested something like Chunk-Smith. So as is my courteous way, I promised to be Chunk-Smith. After that, memory eludes me and the lie takes over. I was asked so many times why I chose this ridiculous name, then the writer’s imagination came to my help. I saw myself riding over Battersea Bridge, on top of a bus, looking down at a tailor’s shop. Funnily enough, it was a tailor’s shop, because I had a terrible obsession about buying clothes in order to become a diplomat in Bonn. And it was called something of this sort—le Carré. That satisfied everybody for years. But lies don’t last with age. I find a frightful compulsion towards truth these days. And the truth is, I don’t know.  

A new biography of Le Carré appeared late last year.

If you’d like to listen to more of these collaborations, check out our previous installments: the Southerners (Gail Godwin, Reynolds Price, Tony Kushner, and Horton Foote)  the poets (Maya Angelou, Denise Levertov, and Gary Snyder) and the travel writers (Paul Theroux, Jan Morris, and Peter Matthiessen).

We are able to share these recordings thanks to a generous gift in memory of Christopher Lightfoot Walker, longtime friend of the Poetry Center and The Paris Review.

Dan Piepenbring is the web editor of The Paris Review.


Kill Thurber

Being Seymour Glass

$
0
0

Why I borrowed a name from Salinger.

An illustration of Salinger’s “A Perfect Day for Bananafish” by Jonny Ruzzo, 2013.

Ask someone who Seymour Glass is and they’ll tell you he’s a Salinger character: the eldest of the precocious Glass family, a misanthrope who shoots himself on vacation in “A Perfect Day for Bananafish.” But if that someone works in the New York fashion industry—specifically, in the editorial departments of select glossies—their response might be, Didn’t he used to work here?

That’s me they’re thinking of. 

My birth name is Ricardo Rolando Hernández. When I was nine, as part of my so-called Confirmation into the Roman Catholic faith, an additional name—Jesús, naturally—wriggled its way between the Rolando and the Hernández, completing the inescapably Hispanic arrangement of syllables that would come to represent my identity crisis as a Cuban American.

Such a crisis was my birthright: Cuban people are defined by it. On the one hand, they take pride in the memory of an opulent tropical life before la revolución, a sun-bleached montage of salsa, palm trees, and café con leche amidst the palaces and sculptured colonnades of Old Havana. On the other, they feel shame for everything that happened after—deprivation, exile, and the loss of that former life, as they were forced to start over on to a different kind of island.

Unlike the rest of my uprooted family—we had ended up in Miami, as Cubans often do—my mother was born in the United States.

As a matter of pragmatism, she believed my Spanish name should be the single conciliatory nod to that “lesser” half of me, and introduced me to the cousin of a viewpoint endorsed by a certain Nick Carraway: Opportunities in America, like a sense of the fundamental decencies, were parceled out unequally at birth. And the better half of those opportunities went to rich white people—not to Latinos, and certainly not the progeny of Cuban exiles.

The resulting self-hatred ran deep, and my first hatred was my name. Another person might have found Ricardo Rolando Jesus Hernández to be a fine name—victorious and grand, a name in the tradition of the Spanish conquistadores. To me, it was a joke—that I should be saddled with a name like that, when all I wanted was to escape the inferiority that it denoted.

It felt like being forced to wear a painful pair of shoes, in a style I didn’t like. I knew I couldn’t change it—I was too young, and didn’t know how. But as I grew up, I started to realize, perhaps I could change other aspects of myself instead. This was the beginning of my interest in fashion: to change one’s clothes seemed a convenient alternative to changing one’s identity. I subscribed to Esquire; daftly attempted “layering” in the Miami weather. Then when I got into Yale, I made a weekly ritual of raiding the local New Haven thrift store for the hand-me-downs of WASPs: prep-school blazers, cable-knit cardigans, neckties embroidered with tiny whales and sailboats. 

Fashion created a barrier between other people’s perception of me and my true self; allowed me to “pass” as another person—and by senior year, I wasn’t unlike the Pauper, bedecked in the Prince’s plumage yet possessing no royal blood.

I didn’t know what I’d do after graduation—just that I wanted it to involve art or fashion, and sweep me up into the glamorous blur of some life that had so far evaded me. This vague premise amassed a real shape when I landed an internship at a prestigious fashion magazine. 

In anticipation of my first day, I had three custom suits made by a New Haven tailor, in opulent fabrics like shiny brocade and Oriental silk—the most expensive investment of my young life, and the beginnings of a new wardrobe. Around that time, I’d been reading Salinger’s Nine Stories, in which Seymour Glass makes his short-lived appearance. Wouldn’t it be fantastic, I remember thinking, to have a quaint old name like Seymour? To introduce yourself as a Seymour, thrusting out your palm for a handshake, would suggest not only that you were white, but that you were a hoity-toity kind of white, descended of old money and grand history. Maybe your family was Jewish, maybe French, maybe British—to be any of those was better than what I really was. 

I looked into the process of changing one’s name. Evidently, it didn’t take much work—if you wanted a new name, all you had to do was begin using it. I knew I wanted to be a Seymour, but as I began to cycle through last names, I found that none was as appealing to me as Glass. For a fictional Jewish family assimilating to New York in the early twentieth century, the name Glass presented as much of a problem as my own name did to me in real life; for me, though, it seemed a poetic solution. I could hide in plain sight behind the gleaming sanctuary of a word like glass. I was attracted to the perfect symmetry—one shameful name erasing the shame of another, a bridge across decades, between fact and fiction, want and worth.

The transition was clumsy. The assistant who had interviewed me knew my real name—so did human resources—but even though I’d asked her to call me Seymour, she kept forgetting. When an important fashion editor spiraled into the office for the first time—a British dandy with a handlebar mustache, fresh from a vacation, yet roving like a lost whirligig—the assistant called me the wrong name, Ricardo.

The editor was patting around the towers of papers on his desk, in search of a misplaced scribble. “I thought your name was Seymour,” he said, referring to the name I had been using in my e-mails. I turned red—to disclose my name change stripped away the name’s power, defeated the purpose. He nodded abstractly at my explanation. Then he muttered something to his assistant about moth balls for his closet and was off once more, to catch a flight to a supermodel’s wedding in some improbable British shire. I spent the rest of the week confined to my desk, subsumed in dull work, my only opportunity for social interaction taking place over the cash register in the cafeteria.

It seemed I’d never get the chance to introduce myself to others—let alone reinvent myself—until another big-time editor showed up, also back from a vacation. He, too, was a dandyish character—larger than life, always sermonizing impressively about style and swooshing around in some glamorous mantle. 

When we first met, he cast his eye over my Oriental suit, and flabbergasted, almost burst into amazed laughter: Who are you? he asked. I told him, and thereafter he made a habit of calling me into this office, to chitchat, and fix his computer.

My vision of Seymour Glass flew in the face of Salinger’s. I was a hundred times more precocious, with my thick round glasses and disorderly lops of curly brown hair. In my little ascots and patterned suits, the only thing I had in common with Salinger’s Glass was our polka-dotted idealism.

By rewriting my identity, and my personal history by extension, I had hoped to confirm the rightness of my mother’s words all those years ago—that greater opportunity might knock on the door of the “better” half of me—and amazingly, it did. I had no way to tell if in my thrifted duds, I’d have had the same good fortune going by the name Ricardo, but I was sure that becoming Seymour had made the difference. As if ticking off the boxes of a best case scenario checklist, my flamboyant boss invited me to Fashion Week.

At the time, Fashion Week was kicked off by a citywide event called Fashion’s Night Out, during which fashion devotees flitted from store to store for an evening of style-oriented fanfare. I wore my brocade suit and met my boss at the Manolo Blahnik boutique, where a queue of people awaited an audience with him and a famous actress. I had been at his side for all of fifteen minutes—behind him, really, while he regaled captive admirers—when I was approached by a camera crew from an entertainment news channel. Who was I wearing? an interviewer asked, holding up a microphone. Their white light flooded my eyes. My heart raced and I lied, citing Gucci as the designer of my suit. The rest of the night I felt like a true somebody—Seymour Glass alongside his famous fashion editor friend, in head-to-toe Gucci—I almost believed it myself, and as we rode around in a black Escalade from one event to the next, flitting between conversations, I made up more lies to keep up with my own ruse: “Oh sure, I’ve met Donatella.” “Love Cannes, but I prefer when the festival has passed.” Later that week, backstage at her own show, Diane Von Furstenberg asked me if we’d met before. I laughed and assured her, yes, we’ve met—a couple times, in fact. 

High off my own fantastic vision of myself, I continued going to fashionable parties in the weeks that followed. I emphasized my Yale pedigree at every opportunity, while implying that as a child I had traveled far and wide—even though, really, I had only been as far as Disney World. Although people were often intrigued by my name, nobody recognized its literary origin. If I had called myself Balenciaga, I might have received a few raised eyebrows, but in this world, evidently, Salinger was of little consequence. I didn’t have qualms about misrepresenting myself—everybody did it to some extent, didn’t they? And if I wasn’t hurting anyone, why should I tell the truth, when I was convinced the truth would hurt me?

I told myself that other people had done nothing to deserve the advantages that mere birth had ensured them. I was simply leveling the playing field; and all the while, writing everything down. As a person with terrible memory, I’d kept a pocket notebook for much of my life, a kind of shorthand diary—now I was racing through one notebook after another, taking notes on every fascinating detail: what people said, how they acted, where they liked to eat and party and go on vacation. Provided I could remember long enough to escape into the nearest bathroom, I tried my best to take down entire conversations. I was enthralled.

I should have exercised some restraint with my new persona at the office. Instead, my outfits got more daring. Inspired by Andreja Pejic, the trans model who described herself as living “between genders,” I started wearing women’s shoes—chunky heeled boots with a pointed toe. That, I’m sure, was the moment I crossed the line—although I had no idea until it was too late. In the footsteps of Caitlyn Jenner, wearing heels as a man may seem anticlimactic, but at the time, amid turmoil over same-sex marriage and the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, it was evidently too bold an assault on convention for my cubicle-bound coworkers, who had been observing my escapades from afar, unamused.

They didn’t need an official reason to dismiss me. The phrase that later haunted me was “making a spectacle of yourself,” paired with something about how people didn’t work for years in the “acceptable” fashion, only for me, an intern, to click-clack around like I belonged there.

My loss made for an unceremonious fall from grace. The first stage was denial—shock and awe, really—followed by anger in the form of a fierce, self-righteous determination to “make it” elsewhere, and show those who’d rejected me, eventually, what a mistake they had made. I applied to dozens of internships at magazines across Manhattan—only to be met with silence, and realize just how rare the opportunity I’d let slip through my fingers had been.

Like a comet with a brief blaze of a career that had been knocked off course, I floated aimlessly, my ambition replaced with dread, self-doubt, and the reversion to my lifelong anxiety, that without illumination from some greater sun to validate me—a fancy college, fancy job, fancy name—I was myself a black hole, a nobody. 

In naming myself for a suicidal war veteran with PTSD, I’d evidently written myself into a morbid line of some divine foretelling. And after several bleak weeks, I suddenly had more in common with Salinger’s tortured Seymour than I’d thought.

Depression had reared its head before—in youth, I was subject to the pressures of my own angry ambitions—but even at its worst, things had never seem so bleak. To plug up the unrest that had erupted in me, I was going out every night, drinking to excess—a vice which in my college days could be justified by a jubilant precedent, but which now had become a self-destructive recourse. One late evening—it must have been two or three in the morning—my reckless misery reached a drunken fever pitch, led me staggering alone through Central Park.

Who the hell was I? What was I even trying to accomplish? I felt like a bananafish, swimming deeper and deeper into a hole I could never leave. Salinger’s Seymour had fully possessed me. 

Certain of what I should do next, I ended up on a tree-lined street on the Upper East Side, and deciding on the tallest apartment building there, passed through the doors. The whole place seemed to sway beneath my feet.

Marble floors. White molding. The glint of gold fixtures as I rushed toward the nearest elevator. 

I would press the ^ button—travel up, up, up. And I would jump, goddamnit. Give up on trying to make it, or be a somebody.

Excuse me!” 

As the walls appeared to flex, I still remember rooting my gaze to his white gloved hands—“Who are you here to see?” the doorman asked.

I was there to see nobody, of course. I must have stumbled toward him—no doubt with a glazed, pathetic look—because he righted me with both hands, and offered to call me a cab. If I’d made it to the roof, I would have most likely collapsed into a self-pitying heap, too sad and scared to jump, and woken up with my breath steeped in whiskey and self-loathing. Instead, after the Seymour Glass-iest moment of my life, I returned to my apartment and wrote this sentence: “With all the tall buildings everywhere, you’d think it would be easier to kill yourself in New York City.”

That same week I got offered a job at another magazine, and three years and many sentences later, that first sentence became the opening line of my first novel, An Innocent Fashion.

“They want to publish your book,” my agent said over the phone, “on the condition that it’s under your name—not Seymour Glass.”

By that point, I was exhausted from teetering constantly on the tightrope that was Seymour Glass. It was like a work of performance art that had gone on too long, for which the consequence of one wrong move was a long drop and a hard fall. Furthermore, I had long since started to be unsure which self was the “true” one, Ricardo or Seymour. And after spending so much time surrounded by the people I’d longed to be like, I couldn’t even remember why I’d wanted to be one of them. 

And so Seymour Glass died once more.

R. J. Hernández is the author of An Innocent Fashion.

That Was Not a Very Nice Thing to Do, and Other News

$
0
0

From the cover of My Brilliant Friend.

  • Now, let’s divert our attention to a much less controversial story from the NYRB: Nathaniel Rich on George Plimpton. “The quintessential Plimptonian anecdote comes near the end of Paper Lion when, a year after leaving the team, he wistfully follows his old squad from afar. We find him in Bellagio, on Lake Como, chasing down a box score in a Paris Herald he has found at a waterside café. ‘When I read that the Lions had lost a game,’ he writes, ‘I rose in anguish out of my chair, absolutely stiff with grief, my knee catching the edge of the table as I came up, and toppling it over in a fine cascade of Perrier bottles’ … Philip Roth, in the extended appreciation of Plimpton that appears in Exit Ghost, identified the issue of social class as ‘the deepest inspiration for his writing so singularly about sports’ … But the technique only works because Plimpton hides this knowing quality from his readers. There is never a wink or nod in the direction of the premise’s artifice. A consummate straight man, he emphasizes how seriously he is taking matters.” 

  • Michael Hofmann has some advice for translators: just don’t think about it. If you’re one of those “thinking” types, put a sock in it, he writes: “Translation offers great potential for over-thinking. Most of this is not done by translators—we don’t have the time, or the aptitude, most of us. I had what felt to me like exquisitely interesting thoughts about English and German and the author while I was translating Kafka, but I couldn’t capture any of them—I would have ground to a halt. I was briefly in a fascinating position, but, thankfully, it passed. I like thinking; but as a translator, it’s not what I’m paid for. What I do is to strike the two stones of English and German against each other, for as brief a time as possible. Most of my time is spent, and almost all my enjoyment comes from, blowing on the tiny flames.”
  • If the aftermath of Lionel Shriver’s controversial speech—i.e. the scandal we couldn’t forget about before this unforgettable Elena Ferrante scandal came along to help us forget it—Jess Row has a few ideas about what a white writer of fiction might reasonably do: “We still live in a culture in which white people are very seldom stopped from doing anything they want to do, and when they are stopped or challenged, get extraordinarily upset about it … My term for it is ‘white dreamtime.’ And waking up in the middle of a dream, as we all know, is an unpleasant experience … The white writer, in this Shriver/Franzen formulation, is entitled to a zone of absolute privacy and limitless artistic autonomy; if a critic makes an observation about their work on the order of, ‘this person is depicted stereotypically,’ or ‘this wide-ranging, ambitious urban American social novel lacks a single nonwhite character,’ that critic is attacking their private imaginative process, their dream-life, rather than simply reading the work itself.”
  • When René Magritte wasn’t stoking the flames of his surreal obsession with men in bowler hats, he was writing art criticism: and now some of it is finally available in English. E.g.: “People do not want a diamond for its intrinsic properties—its authentic qualities alone—but because, as it costs a great deal, it gives the man who possesses it a kind of superiority over his fellow men, and is a concrete expression of social inequality. Besides, things have reached such an absurd point that if you buy a fake diamond unawares, you will be just as satisfied, because you have paid the price of the genuine article. It is no different with art.”

Being Seymour Glass

$
0
0

We’re away until January 3, but we’re reposting some of our favorite pieces from 2016. Enjoy your holiday!

An illustration of Salinger’s “A Perfect Day for Bananafish” by Jonny Ruzzo, 2013.

Why I borrowed a name from Salinger.

 

Ask someone who Seymour Glass is and they’ll tell you he’s a Salinger character: the eldest of the precocious Glass family, a misanthrope who shoots himself on vacation in “A Perfect Day for Bananafish.” But if that someone works in the New York fashion industry—specifically, in the editorial departments of select glossies—their response might be, Didn’t he used to work here?

That’s me they’re thinking of.

Read More >>

The Ascending Strings, and Other News

$
0
0

Augusta Savage presents a model of “The Harp” to Grover Whalen, the organizer of the World’s Fair. Photo: New York Public Library

 

  • Are you tired of fellow feeling? Have you had it up to here with all this talk about “walking a mile in another person’s shoes” and “understanding the suffering of others”? You probably don’t have many friends, do you? And yet there’s a place in this world for you. A new book by the psychologist Paul Bloom argues so steadfastly against empathy that its title is Against Empathy. And his theory is not so uncaring as that title suggests: “People are bingeing on a sentiment that does not, on balance, make the world a better place. Empathy is ‘sugary soda, tempting and delicious and bad for us.’ In its stead, Mr. Bloom prescribes a nutritious diet of reason, compassion, and self-control … His complaint is with empathy defined as feeling what someone else feels. Though philosophers at least as far back as Adam Smith have held it up as a virtue, Mr. Bloom says it is a dubious moral guide. Empathy is biased: people tend to feel for those who look like themselves. It is limited in scope, often focusing attention on the one at the expense of the many, or on short-term rather than long-term consequences. It can incite hatred and violence … It is innumerate, blind to statistics and to the costs of saccharine indulgence.”
  • Augusta Savage was the most important black woman sculptor of the twentieth century, Keisha N. Blain writes, but she’s tragically uncelebrated now: “Like other key figures of the 1920s such as Langston Hughes and Zora Neale Hurston, Savage skillfully challenged negative images and stereotypical depictions of black people. One of her largest commissions, for instance, were sculptures for the World’s Fair of 1939, inspired by ‘Lift Every Voice and Sing,’ a song often described as the black national anthem. ‘The Harp,’ another work in the commission, depicted black singers as the ascending strings of that instrument. Regrettably, both pieces were destroyed when the fairgrounds were torn down … The racial climate at the time hampered wider recognition of her work. Savage won a prestigious scholarship at a summer arts program at the Fontainebleau School of the Fine Arts outside of Paris in 1923, for instance, but the offer was withdrawn when the school discovered that she was black. Despite her efforts — she filed a complaint with the Ethical Culture Committee — and public outcry from several well-known black leaders at the time, the organizers upheld the decision.”

  • Taylor Swift, on the other hand, is celebrated more and more, especially among a demographic she would do well to disavow: white supremacists. As Zachary Woolfe writes, Swift’s lily-whiteness has made her the belle of the fascist ball, and yet she refuses to break her increasingly intolerable silence on politics: “Andrew Anglin, who writes the avowedly neo-Nazi blog the Daily Stormer, has called her ‘a pure Aryan goddess, like something out of classical Greek poetry.’ Another alt-right blogger, this one female, celebrated her as ‘the embodiment of healthy Southern values.’ And in the post-verbal media of Twitter and Facebook, Swift now frequently appears in mocked-up photos cribbed from her own social-media feed, and kitted out with SS flags, storm-trooper uniforms, swastika armbands, and Gothic-lettered Jew-hatred … The irony of Swift’s Nazification is that the Wonder Bread pop star is a neurotic curator of her image, emitting only the safest of soft-feminist statements and keeping all other beliefs under wraps.”
  • Centuries before the Heritage Foundation was churning out dubious “research studies” to support the Reagan Right, precursors to “think tanks” were thriving in France, where they served similarly propagandistic ends, Jacob Soll says: “While the term think tank is modern, it can be traced to the humanist academies and scholarly networks of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries … In France, in particular, which was famous for its academies and libraries, the crown often called on groups of scholars from the Republic of Letters—a self-styled international network of scholars and experts who corresponded, shared information, and ran archives, libraries and publication projects. When in need of an expert, kings such as Louis XIII would call on figures like Godefroy and sent them as experts and representatives to diplomatic meetings.”
  • No one knows where the name John le Carré came from, including David Cornwell, the man who claimed it for himself. But wait—could it be—in the letters of the New York Review of Books, one Irving U. Ojalvo reports that he remembers the story from a double date he went on with Cornwell in the early seventies: “David Cornwell seems to have forgotten the origin of his nom de plume. If so, I can possibly help to refresh his memory as I had a chance encounter with him … in a Spanish parador that we were both staying at and over dinner with our respective female companions. During our conversation … he also stated that he had struck upon the name ‘le Carré’ when in Switzerland where he was intrigued by a sign over a shoe cobbler shop with that name.”

Misplaced Logic: An Interview with Joanna Ruocco

$
0
0

 

Hilarious, possibly impervious, Joanna Ruocco is, of all the writers I know, the one who writes most purely in order to write—or so I’ve always imagined. I’ve long wanted to ask her about the impetus behind her wonderfully weird assortment of prose, so when I learned she has five books coming out this year—two last month alone—each utterly different from the others, it seemed the perfect opportunity.

The Week is a collection of stories that could be the offspring of Padgett Powell’s and Thomas Bernhard’s comic shorter works. From “Paparazzi”: “It is best to be a mediocre person, a person that can be easily replaced. In the succession of generations, there will be many people who think and do what you think and do, and who inspire the same kinds of feelings in other people that you yourself inspire in other people, and you know that it works the other way too, that before you were born there were people who thought and did what you think and do, with adjustments made for available technologies and prevailing opinions.”

The Whitmire Case, a novella-length chapbook, is a comic/surrealist detective story about a young woman who “resembles, in form, in spirit, nothing so much as a sourdough starter,” whom one day everyone suddenly fails to recognize. Another chapbook, The Lune no. 12, extracts “The Boghole & the Beldame,” a lyrical account of a witch (I think?) that reads more like an immersive poem.

The novel Field Glass, written in collaboration with Joanna Howard, is a grim fragmentary series of what seem to be radio transmissions concerning the inhabitants of a postapocalyptic hostelry. It is fiction in close conversation with theory, starting with an epigraph from Paul Virilio and ending, in the acknowledgements, with the opening of Deleuze and Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus (“The two of us wrote Field Glass together. Since each of us were several, there was already quite a crowd.”)

Last—not least!—Dark Season, written under the pseudonym Joanna Lowell, is a 327-page historical romance novel about an epileptic young woman and a brooding nobleman; it is the fourth romance novel Ruocco has written, under three different names.

 

INTERVIEWER

Can we start with the romance novel? Dark Season is the first I’ve read, but in dipping into some others for comparison, I was delighted by how good you are at it, how seriously you take it. Why do you write romance novels?

‬‬‬‬‬‬RUOCCO

I’m glad you think I’m good at it. One of the rejections I got from an agent who read Dark Season said it was “fourteen times too literary,” which was very funny and specific. It did make me think about literariness—what constitutes literariness as an appealing or off-putting quality in a text—and I realized that I tend to create metaphorical linkages when I write. A metaphor can provide narrative continuity, but it didn’t work in the romance novel. It needed to feel more literal, or maybe more literal, less literary. Anyway, I write romance novels for the money! Or at least, theoretically—I haven’t actually made any money. But I told myself I was writing them for the money. And I like to write them. I like how formally constrained they are. I spend so much time tending to language when I write that it’s fun to be forced by a form to focus on macro-level plot arcs instead—the overcoming of the central antagonism, the libidinal slide from antipathy into desire, all the preposterous barriers to delay the inevitable.

In nonromance writing projects, I never want to repeat myself stylistically. I always want to find some new way into sentence making/arranging—that’s part of the project—but this is also why I find romance so pleasing. I get to repeat with variations the same form again and again.

INTERVIEWER

You’ve written other romance novels under other pseudonyms—Toni Jones’s No Secrets in Spandex is my favorite of your titles—and I wonder why you don’t stick to a single pseudonym. Don’t romance writers build up an audience, book to book?

RUOCCO

I think they do, and I am always in the process of utterly failing to market myself through those kinds of choices. But the pseudonym is part of the feel of each book for me. Toni Jones couldn’t have written Ghazal in the Moonlight. She’s way too sporty. Joanna Lowell is a good pseudonym for Victorian romance, so I’m going to stick with her.

INTERVIEWER

In some ways, I think every one of your books should have a pseudonym, or heteronyms, like Pessoa—where part of the point of fake names is to allow you to be an entirely different writer each time.

RUOCCO

I want that! A new name for every book. I published this steampunk kind of story in Lady Churchill’s Rosebud Wristlet last year, and I really wanted to publish it as Jo Ruocco instead of Joanna Ruocco because it was much more of a Jo Ruocco story, but then I couldn’t figure out how to ask for a name emendation without feeling crazy. Maybe I’ll publish something as Hildebrand von Schlange. 

INTERVIEWER

You mentioned “the project,” which I take to mean your aesthetic project in general. What else is part of the project?

RUOCCO

Trying to be more awake, generally, to the world. Keeping open the question of what a world might be at all.‬‬

‬INTERVIEWER

And the newness of each book is a kind of awakeness?‬

RUOCCO

Yeah, when you’re still off-balance in a project and wandering in it and need to pay attention to where you’re stepping and can’t take the ground for granted. I hate that feeling because you feel you’ll never find any kind of way, but it’s also exciting to look for ways instead of relying on a route you’ve already charted out. On the charted route, you usually miss all the cool funguses. In my daily life, I’m a creature of habit. I walk the same paths around the neighborhood and sit in the same chair in my house eating seeds and grapes. So there’s a tension between stability and disruption. The writing is, I guess, where the pushing happens.

INTERVIEWER

On the other hand, there’s the Joanna Ruocco-ness of each book, the qualities that recur. The Week, for example, seems to me in a lineage with your second book, Man’s Companions—both high comedy, playing in similar ways with language and logic, though these new pieces are on the whole less slapstick and not quite as clearly stories. ‬‬‬‬‬

RUOCCO

I do think The Week is in a lineage with Man’s Companions. The compositional mode is similar, in the way I thought of each little piece as part of something larger, a book, because of the constraints I established‬.‬ With Man’s Companions, I was writing “animal” stories, each story treated some idea of the animal, at least that’s how I went about writing them. When I wrote The Week, I was living in Denver and my mother got me a subscription to that magazine The Week. It’s a weekly news digest in which all the reporting from the past week is made even more summary and bite-size, and the abridged articles juxtapose wars and innovations in lingerie. I started to write stories that take bits of language from those abridged news articles and to use some of that language of abridgment. The Week was originally fifty-two stories, a year of weeks, but then I cut and combined pieces. The number of stories wasn’t so important in the end‬.‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

INTERVIEWER

Each of your books has its own lexicon, often with playful attention to particular words. I imagine it involves a sort of linguistic research, into archaic diction and syntax for “The Boghole & the Beldame,” for instance—“Racemes of flowers, white flowers, are visible across the tarn.”

RUOCCO

I love linguistic research, combing through old botany books, for example, for words that feel both occult and resonant—you know what they mean because of how they sound. I was reading Norse sagas when I was writing “The Boghole & The Beldame” and playing lots of first-edition Dungeons and Dragons, in which there’s a delirious focus on itemization, your gear, your spells, your characteristics. I was the only woman adventurer, and I was writing “The Boghole & The Beldame” in part as a response to the triumphalist boyishness of the adventures. I wanted to write something in the high register of saga but without getting anywhere or gaining experience points, something more like fragments of the dreams the women are always having in the sagas. My items were all the words I’d gathered, but they kept sinking in the bog.

INTERVIEWER

D&D words?

RUOCCO

Not necessarily. No gnolls, but in the same vein. You can do outside research for D&D, and our magic user was always claiming he’d found certain kinds of herbs and funguses. I made my own herbarium.

INTERVIEWER

A different comic work is The Whitmire Case, a detective story in the Beckett style, where the material circumstances of the “case” are shrouded in doubt and an odd digressive logic abounds. What is it about misplaced logic and pseudo theories that make them such fruitful subject matter?

RUOCCO

I don’t know, I love misplaced logic so much. Maybe the mind spinning on a point, trying to reduce and contain, has the paradoxical effect of exposing an impasse and the dizzying outside of the problem? You think you understand the parameters, that you can set the parameters and police them, and then suddenly you realize there’s a massive disconnect, that not only what you know but the knowledge system we rely on is completely inadequate. It’s funny and giddy making and sort of liberating.

INTERVIEWER

It is giddy and funny, but in your writing it often opens onto a space of chaos, darker and less containable than the space we thought we were in.

RUOCCO

It’s frightful, trying to think and move within larger systems undergirded by murderous logics and illogic and having even your imaginative lines of flight short-circuited. There’s never only mental chaos or order. There’s the world, the mind is in the world. In The Whitmire Case, the narrator wants to control his reality, but this notion of control is premised on his understanding of the totalizing social and economic structures that control him. So, he has a series of fantasies about either escape or domination, meaning dominating others. Those seem to be the two options. But escape and domination are both fake ways out of the impasse and expose another set of problems.

INTERVIEWER

Field Glass brings up an aspect of your work we haven’t talked about yet, at the far end of the spectrum from romance novels—actual, non-pseudo theory. What place does theory have, in Field Glass and in your work overall?  ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

RUOCCO

Joanna Howard and I wrote that book together, mostly long distance, and it’s a record of our correspondence with each other and also our interactions with certain works of poetry and theory, by René Char and Virilio, for example. We used the texts to invent a story-world, a boarding house between hedges within the unlivable space of perpetual war. We imagined we were sending out “dispatches,” and our series of dispatches became the emotional core of the book. I always write with or alongside other books. Some theory I find really difficult, so reading it feels like active study, in a good way, and some theory I find I connect with more intuitively and it feels more like reading poetry. I’m always looking for models that help me see the world from different angles, and theory can lend fresh descriptive and constructive powers.

INTERVIEWER

Earlier I half seriously suggested that heteronyms might offer the freedom to be multiple. Now I’m wondering what sort of freedom you find collaboration offers.

 RUOCCO

I’ve had some spectacular failed collaborations—could insert lengthy anecdotes that involve copious amounts of blood and chutney—and spectacularly awesome collaborations—everything with editing and making Birkensnake. This new collaboration, with Joanna, has transformed my relationship to writing because we really are multiple, two Joannas, producing language and responding to language simultaneously. We didn’t cowrite particular pieces, we each wrote discrete passages. But we sometimes wrote toward each other in ways that meant I was writing as her and she was writing as me, and when we edited the book, we couldn’t tell from the syntax or the content who’d written what part. Sometimes a particular word would give it away, but even then, we couldn’t be sure if I’d used French to respond to her French or she’d described a weed to respond to one of my pastoral images. It was such an exciting process. You have to be more accountable when you’re collaborating. You’re responsible not only for the writing but for the person you’re writing with, but you also feel a stronger sense of possibility and play because you’ve found a friend who’s real and imaginary, a friend in writing. It helps if you share a name. I met a woman the other day who said she used to write letters as a child to an imaginary friend named Joanna. Dear Joanna began each letter. Collaborating with Joanna Howard has been like having the day start, Dear Joanna … We’re going to write more books together—maybe under a pseudonym!

INTERVIEWER

Your enthusiasm, the spirit with which you proceed, is, maybe more than anything else, what draws all of these projects together. Your books aren’t always particularly joyful, but whether comic or dystopic or rated “Sensuality Level: Sensual,” it seems to me they are written with joy.

RUOCCO

I don’t know about joy, but I often feel like a merry maniac writing. I eat fruit constantly, so it may be the mania produced by simple sugars. I am fueled by simple sugars, from fruits into fructification. Maybe it’s not joy I feel exactly, but a sense of play? Play is a kind of open-focus, magical absorption. It’s what made all our childhood games of make-believe and invention so vital and important. If I’m lucky, I’m playful in that way when I write. It doesn’t mean all the projects have to be silly—some of them are silly, silliness is good. They can be dystopic or nightmarish or “Sensuality Level: Sensual.” The products of play produce any number of effects. Maybe because play takes you out of yourself and there’s that element of openness, you’re more likely to produce different kinds of writing or painting or casserole or whatever you make? It’s funny, I love play because it’s so open, and I love constraint because it’s so closed. I love to change my relationship to language by finding new ways into book projects, and I love to repeat the romance-novel form again and again with slight variations. The through line is love? It’s all pretty fun? It’s the new moon tonight! I think we get to make a wish.

 

Martin Riker’s fiction and criticism have appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, London Review of Books, Conjunctions, and The Baffler. His novel Samuel Johnson’s Eternal Return will be published next year.

Degas’s Model Tells All

$
0
0

Edgar Degas, Sulking, ca. 1870, oil on canvas.

 

Chrissakes, Pauline! No one would have been more horrified than Edgar Degas at the thought of a model taking up the pen. Not a fan of working-class literacy in general, he might well have died of apoplexy at the very idea that a model might dare not only to write about art but about his art. And from the very first words, we know that Alice Michel’s memoir is not going to be a typical hagiography of a great dead artist. This Degas is not the elegant gentleman, proud member of the Parisian haute bourgeoisie and scion of a well-to-do and diasporic family, with branches running banks in Naples and plantations in New Orleans. Nor is he the grand habitué of ballets, café concerts, and the opera, haunting the loges alongside his one-time friend librettist Ludovic Halévy. Not the cultivated disciple of Mallarmé who tried his hand at the occasional sonnet, not the obsessive aesthete who co-organized the exhibitions that made Impressionism an art-world phenomenon, and certainly not the purveyor of cutting, perfectly formed witticisms at exhibitions and dinner parties. 

When the Mercure de France published the two installments of Degas and His Model in February of 1919, the artist’s legacy was nearing apotheosis. Begun early the previous year, the ongoing auctions of his atelier and private collection had already set new records. Bidders braved active German bombing campaigns to crowd into the Galerie Georges Petit on rue de Sèze in the hopes of taking home a pastel dancer or two of their own. The international press lavished attention on the sales, which were even reported in wartime Germany after a sympathetic Swiss citizen offered himself as a stringer. Back in Paris, Le Figaro devoted columns to Degas’s genius alongside long lists of works sold and the eye-watering prices they’d fetched, prices that even Degas’s dealer, Paul Durand-Ruel, thought perfectly insane. At the same time, colleagues and friends of the artist published dozens of eulogies, remembrances, and collections of anecdotes testifying to his artistic inventiveness and indefatigable drive. Paul Lafond’s 1918 two-volume Degas, the first book-length monograph, is a typical case, presenting the artist as a totally unprecedented original genius and the logical conclusion and summation of French painting going back to Poussin.

In contrast, Michel’s Degas is an almost systematic inversion of the reverent testimonials current in the French press in the years after the artist’s death in 1917. Degas, as seen by the model Pauline, is no stoic devotee of the Muses but a curmudgeon subject to sudden bouts of theatrical self-pity, always on the verge of collapsing into melancholy ruminations over his failing sight, his oncoming death. The artist famous for his deft public quips becomes, in private, a mealymouthed, repetitious prattler, retailing twenty-year-old anecdotes for the two-hundredth time. Instead of zingers (e.g., Gustave Moreau is “a hermit who knows what time the trains leave”), the model is obliged to de-escalate incoherent rants about Jewish conspiracies and feign interest in foggy reminiscences of trips to Italy and bouts of pubic lice. This Degas is not only tedious company but a volatile and occasionally violent taskmaster, liable to punch Pauline in the back or threaten her with a hammer when the session isn’t going as well as the artist would like, and perfectly capable of firing her for reading a book or—virulently anti-Semitic as he was—posing for a Jew. But perhaps the most cutting feature of Michel’s portrait is that “old Father Degas” is artistically impotent. He can finish nothing, and statuettes that represent years of work over hundreds of sessions crumble to dust before his eyes, to be begun again, and again, in a cycle broken only by his death. Instead of a prolific visionary, Michel’s Degas more resembles a Beckett character retrofitted for Third Republic melodrama.

*

Who was Alice Michel, and who was the model who provided the evidence for this thoroughly demystified version of Degas? There is no other record of a woman by that name writing for the Mercure de France, which, in any case, very rarely published women at the time. Nor is there a trace of her in any of the other contemporary French newspapers and literary journals, and her name isn’t to be found in the archives of the Bibliothèque nationale de France. While there are presumably documents in the journal’s own archives that would allow one to follow the manuscript’s receipt, editing, and publication, including payment made to someone with an ascertainable identity, those records are privately held and closed to the public. As for Pauline, three models by that name are listed in a handful of pages in one of Degas’s notebooks, where he was in the habit of jotting down models’ addresses: Pauline Fournier, Pauline Lansart, and Pauline Friese, three candidates for the source of Degas and His Model. But Degas used the notebooks haphazardly over the course of his career, making individual entries impossible to date, so there is no way to know when any of these three models posed for him, nor whether one of them did so in December of 1910, when Michel’s Pauline claims to have posed for a version of the sculpture Dancer Looking at the Sole of Her Right Foot.

The handful of art historians and curators who have drawn on Michel’s text to establish chronologies for specific sculptures, or for information about Degas’s late studio practice, otherwise sparsely documented, have typically assumed that the text is authentic. The editors of the 2012 French edition issued by L’Échoppe come to similar conclusions, asserting that Michel and Pauline are pseudonyms for the same individual, a model relating her firsthand experience. But there are certainly reasons to suspect that the real nature of the text is not so straightforward. In its original publication in the Mercure de France, it was presented without commentary, and no explicit claims were made for its authenticity. Nowhere does Michel state that she is Pauline or that the events she uses Pauline to narrate constitute a “firsthand view.” The model herself remains a cipher: we learn nearly nothing of her family life, of how she came to modeling, of what she does when she’s not posing. She serves instead to establish a perspectival framework that allows Michel to string together anecdotes about Degas, a format typical of accounts of artists’ lives in the period. And those anecdotes often seem carefully considered to hit on aspects of his personality that were, to some degree, commonly known—his political conservatism, his gruff manner—as if Michel were making an effort to hew just closely enough to testimonials by individuals known to have been intimate with the artist. Finally, the decision to begin Pauline’s account in medias res, with Degas’s light curse almost a distant echo of Alfred Jarry’s famous “Pschitt,” is certainly a literary touch. If Pauline is not necessarily Michel and vice versa, who could have been behind all this? An unknown individual capitalizing on the spate of interest in Degas? An associate of the recently deceased artist, male or female, writing under the cover of a pseudonym to slightly deflate his skyrocketing posthumous reputation? A journalist working from interviews with a model or models to produce a synoptic account?

Are the intricate descriptions of the artist’s studio and apartment sufficient evidence to demonstrate a kernel of authenticity somewhere in the text’s nested pseudonyms? Despite the artist’s notorious reclusiveness, previously published memoirs revealed at least some of this supposedly intimate information. But Michel provides one detail that might inspire confidence, precisely because of its seeming inconsequence: Pauline reports two sessions in the course of which Degas drinks an infusion of cherry-bark tea prepared for him by his maid, to ease a bladder disorder that forces him to get out of bed a half dozen times a night to urinate. It’s a microscopic detail that Vollard, in his own subsequently published book on the artist, also mentions: “He was walking about with a bowl of cherry bark tea in his hand and suddenly he looked up absently and said: ‘Do you have trouble urinating? I do, and so does my friend Z.’ ” Homeopathic infusions and troublesome nocturia were not, as might be expected, common features of testimonials about Degas.

My own belief, which I cannot prove, is that Pauline was indeed a professional model who worked for Degas, as Michel presented her, but that Michel herself was a pseudonym adopted by Rachilde, the pioneering decadent novelist who cofounded and edited the Mercure de France with her husband, Alfred Vallette. Traveling in progressive and protofeminist circles in early twentieth-century Paris, and occupying a significant position in an overwhelmingly male industry, Rachilde would likely have been sensitive to issues of women’s labor. Perhaps just as importantly, she had the institutional power to see that such an extremely unusual document found its way into print.

*

Whoever Michel was, she left us, if not a first-, then at least a secondhand view not only on Degas’s late work but on the work of the model herself. As interviews with models published by turn-of-the-century journalists like Alfred Dollfus and Marie Laparcerie demonstrate, no matter where you posed, the work was guaranteed to be precarious: the winter high season alternated with months of unemployment when commissions fell off and artists left Paris for their country homes. It was also relatively stigmatized: Dollfus, for instance, often seems to suggest there’s only the thinnest line between modeling and unregulated prostitution. But if you posed for Degas, conditions were perhaps notably worse. He paid poorly, at a rate of five francs a session, the same amount a model working two decades earlier could have expected. The atelier was cold and perpetually filthy, and, perversely for a man who spent so much of his life depicting bathing women, models were not permitted to wash themselves. And Degas had a mania for strenuous poses that left the women who assumed them cramped and numb. But since he often hired models for four or five sessions a week, the one thing that could be said for it was that it was regular.

Michel’s account also makes clear just how much of Pauline’s energy went into the affective labor of managing Degas’s mood swings, a delicate task that required her to show interest in the artist without him becoming suspicious that she might be having anything like an idea of her own. “Now there are even models who come around wanting to talk to you about art, painting, literature, as if it were enough simply to know how to read and write to really understand anything.” The slightest hint of working-class intelligence makes him rant until he drools. Pauline holds her tongue, knowing that any objection will get her fired on the spot. She held it for almost a decade, until Alice Michel helped her have her say.

 

This introduction is excerpted from Alice Michel’s Degas and His Model, translated by Jeff Nagy and forthcoming from David Zwirner Books. Nagy is a translator, critic, and historian of technology based in Palo Alto, California. His research focuses on networks pre- and post-Internet and the development of digital labor. 


Degas’s Model Tells All

$
0
0

We’re away until January 3, but we’re reposting some of our favorite pieces from 2017. Enjoy your holiday!

Edgar Degas, Sulking, ca. 1870, oil on canvas.

 

Chrissakes, Pauline! No one would have been more horrified than Edgar Degas at the thought of a model taking up the pen. Not a fan of working-class literacy in general, he might well have died of apoplexy at the very idea that a model might dare not only to write about art but about his art. And from the very first words, we know that Alice Michel’s memoir is not going to be a typical hagiography of a great dead artist. This Degas is not the elegant gentleman, proud member of the Parisian haute bourgeoisie and scion of a well-to-do and diasporic family, with branches running banks in Naples and plantations in New Orleans. Nor is he the grand habitué of ballets, café concerts, and the opera, haunting the loges alongside his one-time friend librettist Ludovic Halévy. Not the cultivated disciple of Mallarmé who tried his hand at the occasional sonnet, not the obsessive aesthete who co-organized the exhibitions that made Impressionism an art-world phenomenon, and certainly not the purveyor of cutting, perfectly formed witticisms at exhibitions and dinner parties.

Read More >>

Fernando Pessoa’s Unselving

$
0
0

Pessoa in 1934. From Os Objectos de Fernando Pessoa | Fernando Pessoa’s Objects by Jerónimo Pizarro, Patricio Ferrari, and Antonio Cardiello. Courtesy of the Casa Fernando Pessoa and Dom Quixote.

On July 11, 1903, a long narrative poem called “The Miner’s Song” by Karl P. Effield appeared in the Natal Mercury, a weekly newspaper in Durban, South Africa. Effield—who claimed to be from Boston—was actually none other than the Portuguese writer Fernando Pessoa, then a high school student in Durban. This was the first of Pessoa’s English-language fictitious authors to appear in print—the beginning of Pessoa’s unusual mode of self-othering. The adoption of different personae allowed him to go beyond a nom de plume, and take on unpopular, controversial, and even extreme points of view in both his poetry and prose.

While in South Africa, where Pessoa lived between 1896 and 1905, he sent another work to the Natal Mercury under the name of Charles Robert Anon, attempting without success to publish three political sonnets about the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905. Pessoa’s early fictitious authors wrote in English, French, and Portuguese—the three languages he continued to use until he died, at age forty-seven. These first invented writers, which he would go on to call “heteronyms,” composed loose texts mostly in the form of first drafts; but others, like Bernardo Soares (whom Pessoa created around 1920) or the major heteronyms (Alberto Caeiro, Álvaro de Campos, and Ricardo Reis in 1914), produced a very solid body of work. By the time Pessoa was twenty-six years old, he had already invented a hundred literary personae.

Alberto Caeiro was the central fictitious figure of Pessoa’s literary universe. Born in Lisbon on April 16, 1889, Caeiro died of tuberculosis in 1915. Pessoa said that Caeiro poetically arrived in his life on March 8, 1914—which in a famous letter to the Portuguese literary critic Adolfo Casais Monteiro he described as a “triumphal day.” The poet and novelist Mário de Sá-Carneiro was one of Pessoa’s closest friends in Lisbon, and Caeiro (perhaps a pun on Sá-Carneiro’s name) seems to have come into being as a joke: “I thought I would play a trick on Sá-Carneiro and invent a bucolic poet of a rather complicated kind,” wrote Pessoa in the same letter. Caeiro’s “death” seems to have been influenced, in retrospect, by Sá-Carneiro’s suicide in Paris on April 26, 1916. As Pessoa wrote in the review Athena in 1924, “Those whom the gods love die young.” By that time, he had produced the body of poems for which Caeiro would be remembered—The Keeper of Sheep.

Courtesy of Tinta da china.

Then there was Álvaro de Campos, the most prolific and eccentric of Pessoa’s heteronyms. In the aforementioned letter to the critic, we find the most complete description of him: “Campos was born in Tavira, on October 15, 1890…. He is a naval engineer (by way of Glasgow)…, tall (5 feet, 74 inches—almost one more inch taller than me), thin and a bit prone to crouching…. [He is] between white and dark, vaguely like a Portuguese Jew; [his] hair, however, is smooth and normally pushed to the side, [he wears a] monocle…. He received an average high school education; then he was sent to Scotland to study engineering, first mechanics and then naval.” Álvaro de Campos was a self-indulgent and bisexual dandy who celebrated the modern world with its roaring of machines and the hustle and bustle of city life.

Courtesy of Tinta da china.

Pessoa links Campos to an array of literary influences, “in which Walt Whitman predominates, albeit below Caeiro’s,” and wrote that he had decided Campos to produce “several compositions, generally scandalous and irritating in nature, especially for Fernando Pessoa, who, in any case, produces and publishes them, however much he disagrees with such texts.” Undoubtedly Campos was Pessoa’s most sardonic and fierce of the heteronymic voice, sharing biographical facts with Nietzsche (also born on October 15) and affinities with Blake (“Like Blake, I want the close companionship of angels”)

The literary works of Campos may be split into three phases: the decadent (dandy) phase, the futuristic phase, and the pessimistic (existentialist) phase. Campos shows mixed affinities with Whitman and the Italian futurist F. T. Marinetti, mainly in the second phase: poems like “Triumphal Ode,” “Maritime Ode,” and “Ultimatum” praise the power of rising technology, the strength of machines, the dark side of industrial civilization, and an enigmatic love for machineries. In the last phase, Pessoa qua Campos reveals the emptiness and nostalgia that may come in the winter of one’s life. This was when he wrote poems such as “Lisbon Revisited” and “Tobacconist’s Shop,” the long, nihilistic poem of defeat written in 1928 and published five years later in the review presença. Considered one of the monuments of modernist poetry, it opens thus:

I’m nothing.

I’ll always be nothing.

I can’t even hope to be nothing.

That said, I have inside me all the dreams of the world.

Although Campos wrote poetry and prose in Portuguese, he also used English and French in some of his lines and titles. Among his most noteworthy prose writings we find “Notes in Memory of My Master Caeiro,” published in the Presença journal in 1931. In these notes, Campos offers an elucidating description of himself:

I am exasperatingly sensitive and exasperatingly intelligent. In this respect (apart from a smidgeon more sensibility and a smidgeon less intelligence) I resemble Fernando Pessoa; however, while in Fernando, sensibility and intelligence interpenetrate, merge and intersect, in me, they exist in parallel or, rather, they overlap. They are not spouses, they are estranged twins.

In the same letter to Casais Monteiro from 1935, Pessoa provides a detailed description of Ricardo Reis, his third major heteronym—defining him as a doctor from Porto, born in 1887, educated in a Jesuit college, and living in Brazil since 1919, out of fidelity to his monarchical ideals. Pessoa also adds to this portrait that Reis learned Latin through someone else’s education—probably with the Jesuits—and Greek by himself. These details serve to humanize the classicist Reis, the serious, measured, and semi-indolent Reis, who should embody a neoclassical theory opposed to “modern romanticism” and “neoclassicism in the manner of [Charles] Maurras.” Reis wrote epigrams and elegies, in addition to odes, and his poetry is largely characterized by the use of specific meters (especially the regular use of decasyllabic verses alternating, or not, with hexasyllables). Pessoa-cum-Reis wrote a substantial body of poetry and prose. Among the latter we find texts on paganism as well as the oft-cited essay “Milton Is Greater Than Shakespeare.” In his prose Reis makes a vehement claim to Hellenism and issues a firm condemnation of Christianity. He criticizes Matthew Arnold, Walter Pater, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Oscar Wilde, among others—a kind of predecessor to contemporary neo-pagan aesthetes and theorists who are not entirely freed from Christian sentimentality.

Courtesy of Tinta da china.

***

Fernando Pessoa’s modernist epic is the result of a radical displacement of the subject, which he described as a “drama in people”—made up of the poetic trio and his other aliases who Pessoa gradually crafted between languages, a vast collection of books, and Lisbon—the beloved city of his birth.

Following the publication of The Book of Disquiet in 2017, I met with the New Directions vice president and senior editor Declan Spring in New York City suggesting that we bring out Pessoa’s major heteronyms in the same order that Pessoa himself had birthed them. Thus, we started with Alberto Caeiro, master of the coterie. While The Complete Works of Alberto Caeiro came out in the summer of 2020, The Complete Works of Álvaro de Campos is forthcoming on July 4, 2023. These three Pessoa books—all including some facsimiles from the Pessoa papers held at the National Library of Portugal—will be followed by The Complete Works of Ricardo Reis.

In translating Pessoa’s heteronyms, one thing we see clearly is the influence of reading on Pessoa’s plural and inquiring mind. I have no doubt that reading more than writing was his primary and long-lasting literary occupation. His marginalia are of great interest; so are his many influences. This is to say that the more we know about what Pessoa read and when, the better equipped we are as translators of his works—especially to see more clearly his poetical diction, meters, and rhythms at the core of each heteronymic voice.

Courtesy of tinta da china.

On November 29, 1935, while lying in bed at the Hôpital Saint Louis des Français, Fernando Pessoa wrote his last words: “I know not what to-morrow will bring.” In the translation of an epigram by Palladas of Alexandria, published in the first volume of the Greek Anthology and still in his private library, we read the following pencil-marked closing line: “To-day let me live well; none knows what may be to-morrow.” Whether this depicts the consummation of a life consecrated to literature or the memory of Pessoa, it reconfirms the fact that Pessoa’s writings emerged from an intense contact with a vast array of books. His work has reconfigured literature, including the way we look at literature. May our century be one for such multitudinous Pessoa.

 

The Complete Works of Álvaro de Campos by Fernando Pessoa, edited and introduced by Jerónimo Pizarro and Antonio Cardiello, and translated from the Portuguese by Margaret Jull Costa and Patricio Ferrari, will be published by New Directions in July. Ferrari has translated Fernando Pessoa, Alejandra Pizarnik, and António Osório, among others. He is a polyglot poet, translator, and editor, resides in New York City, and teaches at Sarah Lawrence College. Ferrari is currently working on “Elsehere,” a multilingual trilogy. 

Poetry and prose quoted from The Complete Works of Álvaro de Campos (2023) and The Complete Works of Alberto Caeiro (2020) by Fernando Pessoa. Used with permission of New Directions Publishing.  





Latest Images