I wasn't born in the Fifties (my parents were but not until they were half-over) so through my life I've been exposed more to the idea of what the decade was like as opposed to what the decade was actually like. And, don't get me wrong, there's a lot about the idealized version I find appealing, the whole Space Age/Jet Age attitude and aesthetic, the confidence that we'd all be living in colonies on the moon in another ten years, the prevalence of tiki bars. Heck, I even like Disneyland. I think we're more aware now that the "Leave It to Beaver"/"Andy Griffith Show" version of things, with proper nuclear families all gathering around for dinner after Dad's had a long day at work and everyone living in peaceful, blissful harmony was only a reality for certain people, a reality that greatly depended on your gender, color of your skin and sexuality, all underscored by an underlying fear of dying due to an atomic bomb, the mess that was the Korean War and fun romps like all those HUAC parties. Its safe to say that a nation afraid that Elvis' thrusting and swiveling hips would completely fray our moral fabric was a nation not being totally honest with how tightly wound it was wrapped.
Needless to say, the contrast between what was happening and what everyone told themselves was happening has fueled many, many books and films that have reveled in unpacking the myriad of tensions that can only come from the joys of rigid conformity. At this point I don't think you'd be crazy if you were under the impression that the idea of the Fifties consisting of hollow suburban wastelands filled with people desperate on the inside but smiling on the outside was the prevailing perception of the decade, with attempts to paint it in a retro-happy style coming across as more comedically ironic than anything else.
But there's nothing like a critique from someone who was actually there and with "Revolutionary Road", his first novel, Yates comes after the decade he had just left (it was published in 1961) with white-hot scalpel coated in anesthetic, so that you don't feel anything at all until all the guts are laid out before you on the table.
Like a lot of people I discovered through the book via the 2008 film featuring Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet, which was well regarded but a bit on the icy side emotionally. I remember liking it but did walk away with the feeling that I was watching two people very aware they were in a Serious Movie, even as Michael Shannon proceeded to blow away everyone else unfortunate enough to share the screen with him (and he's only in like two scenes!). The movie is no doubt why I even have this book in my possession, which also includes his later novel "The Easter Parade" and a short story collection "Eleven Kinds of Loneliness" (while I am sometimes of the "more book is better book" philosophy I suspect I was trying to avoid versions of the novel with movie-based covers, which is a weird pet peeve of mine, and this was what was available) but its telling how strong the story is that even having not seen the movie for over ten years I still remember the broad outlines of the plot pretty well.
Years later, its still a precision guided descent into tragedy, with all the inevitability of a lava flow oozing its way toward your house. It concerns Frank and April Wheeler, a young couple in 1955 living in a Connecticut suburb with their two children. Recently turned thirty, Frank works in NYC at a job he doesn't find very fulfilling, a feeling that extends to most of the rest of his life, including his conformist neighbors who all seem very satisfied with their safe and cozy lives. But Frank and April are convinced that they are young and vibrant and extraordinary, meant for more than maintaining a well-manicured lawn, attending community theatre and punching a clock daily. Like a lot of people who have overly high opinions of themselves and their abilities, they're incorrect but not quite aware of how incorrect they are. Unfortunately for them, they're inhabiting a novel that is determined to let events unfold in the worst horror movie fashion to introduce them to exactly how wrong they are.
It is a depressingly bracing read. For all the studied actorly mannerisms that brought the movie to semi-life, the book feels squirmingly alive, caught in its own undertow of barely contained rage and discomfort. From the start, where we watch April and their neighbors put on a pretty bad play, there's a certain level of unease that never abates as we're all too aware of the gap between the Wheelers' opinions of how amazing they are and what they're actually like, so as it gets clearer just how deluded they are you're in a constant state of waiting to see what form the other shoe dropping is going to take.
Even anticipating that doesn't exactly prepare you for how savage this book is. While everyone seems to be lounging around in khaki pants and sipping cocktails while listening to monotonously pleasant jazz, the book in unsparing in depicting just how empty this all is, where even the infidelities are just minor distractions from a pain you can't quite define. People ask themselves in several variations as they sift through comfortable and boring routines, "Is this all we're meant for?" and the frightening answer the book seems to have is that not only would all those people ultimately answer "yes" but that they're literally not capable of living any other way and any attempts to do otherwise are going to be a disaster because everyone is broken somehow in a way that can't be fixed.
The scenes featuring their neighbor's emotionally disturbed son (Shannon's scenes in the movie) tend to get the most attention because there's something compelling about the "crazy guy who's the only one able to see the truth about society and express it" concept but what are standout moments in the film are just one more bodyblow to the stomach here (and its not even clear if John Givings is "crazy" because of society's standards or if trying to live in this world has unhinged him to the point where he can't function). On every page Yates lays out devastating observations with the dispassionate distance of someone who's already come to the conclusion you're all doomed anyway and he's more interested in dissecting where it went wrong. And the frightening takeaway from the book was that it was always going to BE wrong as soon as these two got together, with Frank dazzling April as the most interesting person she's ever met, that they're two pieces of a puzzle that only shows a sucking black hole of emptiness even as they're convinced it shows nothing but endless, boundless skies. As decent as the movie was, it doesn't hold a candle to the lacerating control Yates exerts here, with every single aspect of the novel conspiring to go nowhere good. You want it to go differently than it does but the truth is there's no way that can happen without these people transforming themselves into something radically different than what they are, and what they are are perfect encapsulations of the world around them. The end result is like giving a bunch of Douglas Sirk films to Werner Herzog to direct (or John Frankenheimer, who was set to direct before he went with the comparatively more optimistic "The Manchurian Candidate" instead).
As good as Yates was, he was never quite commercially popular even if critics loved him, with the story going that most/all of his novels (never great sellers to begin with) were out of print by the time he died in 1992. Part of his problem is that with his first novel swiftly achieving classic status among critics, he had a high bar to clear for subsequent novels and it seems like he never did top that first peak. Indeed, the other novel in the collection, "The Easter Parade" shows you the difference between a good novel and a great one. His fourth novel (after two that were met with a more lukewarm reception) follows the story of two girls as they age from children to middle-aged adults. Sarah and Emily have separated parents and live with their mother "Pookie" in the 1930s. Sarah is the more conventional of the two, pretty and social, while Emily is more introverted and intellectual. And if you think the book is going to be the story of contrasts with the shallower sister having the emptier life or something then let's not forget who the author on the cover of the book is. Yates may be a lot of things but discriminatory he's not and so it shouldn't surprise you that life sucks for both sisters.
Most of the book is told from Emily's perspective, as she tries to find fulfillment both at work and with a succession of men, some of whom she marries (or at least stays with for a while). Her sister, meanwhile, marries a man from a more well-off family who turns out to be . . . less than a stellar human being. But then the same can be said for almost everyone Emily meets, as she develops a knack for zooming in on the one person out of a hundred in a room who will emotionally devastate her. Repeat over the course of forty years and you basically have the book.
That doesn't mean it’s a bad book, but it lacks the thematic heft and intense focus of "Revolutionary Road". Maybe its because Sarah and Emily aren't as compelling as the poor, delusional Wheelers, maybe because the book's broader range in geography and time dilutes the impact somewhat, or maybe because the outcomes of Emily's choices are in line what you'd expect in someone who spends most of her life exercising poor judgment and not the telescopically tragedies that envelop his first novel. His writing is as good as ever, which the more varied locations and eras help emphasize but there's a fixed intensity missing here that keeps the novel from catapulting itself from an interesting read to one that cuts. You feel bad for Sarah and Emily but ultimately you don't feel that their fates are partially shaped by the times they live in, how those times affect their perceptions of themselves, and so it winds up reading as two women who live less than satisfying lives without ever examining why they made bad choices. There's some sense of inevitable tragedy here but by the same token they start the book in a gentle dive and throughout don't make much of an effort to pull themselves out of it (and with so much time passing its not they don't have enough time for a course correction). So while it’s a good book from someone who didn't write "Revolutionary Road", it feels a little short of what he was actually capable of, which is the eternal curse of someone who writes a masterpiece out of the starting gate.
The last volume in the collection though, consists of his first collection of short stories "Eleven Kinds of Loneliness". Published a year after "Revolutionary Road" and presumably written around the same time, it has the best hope of recapturing some of the spirit of what made that novel great and for his part he definitely tries. Give him credit for truth in advertising because the title gives you exactly what it promises, eleven stories where losers who don't quite understand they are losers are confronted with life explaining to them exactly how they are losers. Most of them are sad in a quiet way, populated by grey people who are never going to happy except for moments where for a brief moment they can sort of grasp the shape of what happiness might look like. If you ever listened to "Eleanor Rigby" and thought "I want to be in a world where this song is happening all the time, constantly, forever," look no further.
The story titles should clue you into the experience: "No Pain Whatsoever", "A Glutton for Punishment", "Fun with a Stranger", "A Wrestler With Sharks", all of which are either titles of your LiveJournal posts circa your teenage years or invitations where people don't get what they want because that only happens in a world where people have a chance of being content. So whether it’s the lonely girl in "The Best of Everything", the lonely boy in "Doctor Jack-o'-Lantern" (for my money the most savage story here), the lonely wife in "No Pain Whatsoever" . . . you get the idea. All of them are good, if a bit monochromatic read after the other since they all hit about the same brutally despairing mood . . . the biggest surprises are when he changes the format slightly, with the military setting of "Jody Rolled the Bones" and the newsroom in "A Wrestler With Sharks" serving as backdrops to tales where the narrator is only a bystander to some real despair, the extent of which isn't even fully visible on the page. Two stories are set around schools and teachers, the second of which, "Fun With a Stranger", features a person who is so internally messed up they aren't capable of even articulating a need for a connection and every gesture just comes out wrong.
And so it goes. "A Really Good Jazz Piano" has two men struggling to grasp the myriad examples of how isolated from the world they are, "The B.A.R. Man" is just one constant snarl, while "Out With the Old" comes the closest to a vaguely hopeful note (its also one of two stories set in a TB hospital) even if you have to tread over some remarkably spiky territory to get there. It all ends on a story where a no-name writer is hired to ghost over a cab driver's stories, with the hope of something bigger always dangled just over the horizon. It lives in a world close enough that you can see the outlines from your house but it ends on a paragraph that shows the smallest glimpse of the "Revolutionary Road" Yates, the one where the weight of every word was perfectly etched. That it doesn't happen more often through the course of this is a shame but being a fine writer isn't a crime and Yates was an excellent writer that seemed to have one burst of pure genius before settling somewhere a step below, which isn't a bad place to be. That he never quite reached those heights again isn't a tragedy, and if there's some solace to be found its that throughout his career no one doubted he could get there once more. That he wasn't rewarded with anything better than fond obscurity for his efforts while he was alive is a shame but ten years after the movie of his most famous book his other novels are still in print, so if there's a progress to be found in that, for the moment it'll have to be enough.