"Nothing is 'right.' Only denial of instinct is wrong."
There is a great and epic, operatically tragic story of gay desire in The City and the Pillar and it is this:
Jim Willard is uncertain and confused in his adolescent sexuality. One perfect summer night by the moonlight, he and his best friend Bob Ford, are romping about in the nude by the lake, splashing and shouting and reveling in their youthfulness. They begin to wrestle and suddenly the urge takes hold and they make out and make love. For Jim, it is the perfect and defining moment of his life, and he wants more of it. But, of course, the two boys live in a world where what they have just done is simply not done, or discussed. They chalk up what they had just done as "kid stuff." But, that doesn't seem to square with Jim's true feelings. Unfortunately, it is the waning days of summer, and life has different plans for the two and they are forced to go their separate ways.
For the rest of the novel, Jim loses complete touch with Bob Ford for all those intervening years and obsesses over him during hopeless travels of the world in search of him -- an epic journey that takes him to various ports of call as a civilian seaman, and then across the US and Mexico as a Hollywood tennis instructor, a private in the air force in World War II and more. During this time, he meets a succession of male lovers who for him can never match the ideal of his first love and that first encounter, and thus all of these relationships are empty for him, reminding him of what he doesn't have and so desperately wants.
And then, finally -- courting heartbreak or ecstasy -- he meets Bob again.
I don't consider any of this description to be a "spoiler" because I've only provided a plot outline, not details and resolutions. But what I have described is the main story arc of the book, and it's a tremendous and promising story. It's not an "uplifting" story, and the apparently one-sided nature of the desire is poignant. There is a vast chasm between its initial lovely moment of ecstasy and its potentially promising renewal. The key is how it gets there, and in the getting there whether it is interesting and emotionally valid.
Unfortunately, I'm saying no. In my opinion, Vidal fails to realize the heart-wrenching potential of this material, and the book, by and large, is bland and boring.
Even Vidal himself, in his later years, while immodestly heralding his book as a heroic effort in publishing and in the world in general in 1948 (which he was correct about), also admitted that the book suffered from its penny plain Hemingway-esque blocks of grey prose, a literary style popular among young writers at the time -- which he was also correct about.
But before I cite specific justifications for my judgment, there is an overarching issue about the book that concerns me, and that has to do with the existence of two versions of it. Not quite satisfied by the stark and brutal ending of the original 1948 version and other aspects of the narrative, Vidal revised the book in 1965, completely changing and softening the ending. I'm certain his reasons for doing this were valid -- he had matured as a man and a writer, after all -- but what this means is that today most copies of the book in circulation and all copies that have been printed for the last 50 years are of the revised version. In other words, if you want to get a sense of how shocking the book must have seemed to people in 1948 when it first arrived -- rather unexpectedly to an unready public -- you are kind of out of luck. I have no idea how much different the two versions are, or how forceful or how much softer the more overtly gay love passages are in the original book. Reviews and the introduction in the revised version simply say that Vidal revised it, while Vidal himself has said he completely rewrote it (which I doubt). This is a problem in terms of gauging historical perspective.
I read the 1965 revised version, so I felt out to sea in trying to replicate in my mind the experience of the typical 1948 reader.
All of this notwithstanding, the book gets off on a bad footing from the get-go. Vidal begins the book with a dissolute and drunken Jim, slouching about and playing with his spilled drink in a dim gin joint, like Humphrey Bogart mewling over Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca. The scene is a flash-forward from the main story, and I think its a tonal mistake. It telegraphs too much of the eventual emotional fallout at the very beginning of the story, and it smacks too much of movie-stylistic gimmickry. Vidal was a huge movie fan as a youth, and it shows. He saw practically every film ever made at the time, and this device seems to have been lifted straight from one of his cherished screen melodramas. It reminds me of what I've read in Haruki Murakami, and I reserve the same critique for that author.
As in Murakami's South of the Border, West of the Sun, Vidal has to take his narrative from point A (or B, since when have to get past the flashforward) -- the epiphanous love scene -- to the resolution of point Z (or Y, since the "flashforward" thread is circled back to at the end). The problem is that all the points between, from B to Y, feel like forced labor. Almost of the characters, including Jim, are cardboard. The journey does allow Vidal to explore the nature of "empty" sex lives in a time when searching for same-sex love was especially challenging, yet little of this contains any true introspection as the narrative plods along in its boring particulars. Vidal grew up in elite circumstances, so when he talks about life in Hollywood or about tennis and cocktail parties he knows some things, but when it comes to detailing the life of a seaman he is, no pun intended, out to sea. Many of the dialogues feel, literally, like four-square conversations from an old movie.
Because Jim is not an introspective character, we have a hard time feeling the intensity of his anguish. This might be partially intended by Vidal, since the nature of Jim's desire is somewhat nebulous due to his confusion. But it forces Vidal to find external plotting strategies to make his points, and they often seem forced and wrenched about inelegantly. For instance, to make a point about Jim's sexual identity confusion, Vidal creates a scene in which he and a shipmate, the heterosexual Collins, go into Seattle and pick up two girls at a bar. Based on what we are told about the girls, Annie and Emily, the dynamic of this bar scene pickup are not convincing, but the whole scene is a setup so that Vidal can have his character, Jim, be pressured into identifying publicly as heterosexual. This is not a trivial point, and is the kind of situation many gay men have confronted in a hostile society, but in Vidal's hands it feels transparent and lumpen.
By creating a somewhat blank-slate protagonist, Vidal has created a somewhat correspondingly insoluble conundrum. There is nothing wrong with Jim being an inarticulate, non-cerebral character -- after all, even dummies can love and desire deeply. But Vidal has to fill an entire novel with this guy, and the sense of his maturation does not match the life experiences he goes through in the story. Jim has a love affair, he's unsatisfied. He has another, and is still unsatisfied, and on and on. There are moments of surface introspection (if that's not an oxymoron) but, barring Jim's ability to intelligently parse his feelings, Vidal could have solved this problem by spending more time giving us a sense of the confusions in Jim's brain, because, after all, we the readers deserve this if we're going to invest our time and emotions. There is a way to get at confused inner thoughts, but Vidal rarely takes the time to reveal them. I'm not sure if this is because Vidal feared making his character and situation too florid, or if it was simply a function of not being too explicit during a time when the book would undoubtedly be controversial, as it was.
What the book needed was the French touch, not the Hemingway touch; instead of leaden plot, more poetic feeling. The penny plainness of it all saps the mystery.
Sociologically, though, there are merits therein. The Hollywood and New York parties Vidal describes are fascinating for the explanation of gay codes and the descriptions of the various subsets of gay men: the manly gays versus the more flamboyant queens (the latter being so repugnant to Jim). Also interesting is the desire by many of the gay men to seduce and conquer the straight man, to smoke out the presumed bisexuality that he denies.
While trotting along with yawn-inducing Jim on his adventures, we are introduced at the halfway mark in the book to a jaded young writer named Paul Sullivan -- clearly patterned after Vidal himself -- and all of a sudden the life-essence missing heretofore springs up. Paul is a cerebral, interesting character who has thought profoundly about his situation as both an outsider artistic soul and gay man. In characterizing Paul's plight Vidal hits pay dirt, and I kept saying to myself, "Here's the damned book Vidal should have written! Paul is interesting. Paul thinks interestingly."
The concept of unrequited yearning, longing, of love held in abeyance, of creating and holding an ideal of someone that may or may not jibe with reality; these kinds of feelings expressed in adult fiction are among the primary reasons I read novels. In this book, the idea of futilely sought and elusive happiness is certainly a noble and worthy one, but given its preference of incident over thought during the longueurs, I was not persuaded or moved.
This book was a first and admirable attempt at waking people up, and Vidal chose not to wear his heart on his sleeve too much in writing it -- and it undoubtedly sent a signal to people that they were not alone in the world. That is fine, and even commendable, and the book is a landmark. But landmarks serve a purpose quite apart from art, and acknowledging the importance of the milestone does not make the art immune from criticism. It's a historically interesting book, but for me it is an unsatisfactory work that didn't resonate.
(KR@Ky 2016)