Closure in the post-postmodern masterpiece

[Daniel]

After exposure to Delany's Dhalgren, my strongest reaction concerns the open ending. Many books have been written that leave the final mystery open to the reader's imagination. But, Dhalgren does not quite follow the same path. Rather than establishing an important question and offering not the exact outcome but the possible outcomes, Delany never truly establishes the question. Although several subjective mysteries appear throughout the novel, some pondered by the character, some by the author, and some by the reader, none of these is singled out as superior or "most important". Additionally, Delany never implies that he is going to give us the answer. In fact, the title's importance is not revealed until the book is almost complete, and the result is probably a letdown for most readers. Delany weaves the questions in with all of the other complex webs of the novel so that the mysteries become just as important as his commentary. Among the many things we never learn at the end: the Kid's real last name; the importance of William Dhalgren; whatever happened to Lanya/Denny/everyone; what caused the strange celestial apparitions; did June and George ever hook up again; did Eddy reunite with his family; what is the importance of Tak's dream in relation to the second disaster at the conclusion; did the Kid really have sex with a woman who transformed into a tree or is he crazy; what happened during those days that Kid can't remember; what is the shape of Kid's light shield; who wrote the original entries in the notebook; was the Kid a patient in Bellona's mental hospital; what does Roger Calkins look like; is Mrs. Richards still alive; is the Father a good man?
But, of all of these questions, the last rang the loudest for me personally. It is clear that Kid is not religious. And, religion does play an important part in the story. Granted, the state-of-nature has led more liberal characters to abandon teh church, but there are still many who feel strongly about it. Reverend Amy's church is commonly compared and contrasted with the unnamed Monastery that is headed by "the Father". Some would say that the essential difference is that Amy's church seems more liberal and open. It seems to possess a strong sense of modernity. That is not to say that Amy lacks passion. We see her at her pulpit in George's night club, shouting and ranting about God and the city and the giant sun that passed over it and many other far stranger topics. She is comfortable revealing what her religion is all about. However, the monastery is very secretive, requested in fact that Roger Calkins draw attention away from it. It appears to be, if anything, an order of Catholic monks. Although they also seem somewhat progressive (no shaved heads, etc), one cannot help noting their strict rules. The only monk that the Kid meets wears the traditional robe and, although his head is shaved for health reasons, this fact still smacks of Catholic monastic dogma (but also Buddhist and Toaist practice, to be fair). Calkins tries to convince Kid that the Monastery is much more progressive than it seems. But, he says this through a stone grill that reminds us of confession. So, as the two religious orders in Bellona are meaningful (as are their locations) so their leaders are also very important to this topic within the story. When Kid asks three times if the Father is a "good man", Calkins first makes a few very shifty answers that sound somewhat artificial to our hero. On the third inquiry, Calkins does not reply as his spiritual training demands he not address any questions that emotionally compromise him or affect him deeply. The Kid is quick to pick up on this and leaves, not allowing Calkins the chance to answer but forcing him to ponder what the answer MIGHT be. In this way, Kid mirrors the personality of his creator. Delany brings up questions many times, some explicit, some more complicated or even buried in the text. But, it is rare for him to answer anything important. And, what is more important to Calkins than the ethical (or otherwise) reliability of his new mentor?
I find this to be very satisfying, this disinterest in bending the story unnaturally until it leaks out answers to what the readers ponder most. This is perhaps why I never liked mystery or cop stories/books/movies. I feel as if with the mystery as the focus, the more important themes (or at least potential for themes) disappears, gets crowded out. And, when you solve the mystery for the reader, or give them too many clues to come up with their own interpretation, you have forfeited the glory and lasting impression of great literature for a good feeling of closure. Delay's will to not bend or break the rules to simply utter and breathy "Fuck 'em" is gutsy, unorthodox, daunting, impressive.
To cap, I have no ill words for this book. I think that it is not easily-accessible, but then that just limits its audience to those who will truly come away changed and appreciative. Philip K Dick said that he hated the book so much, he stopped reading it. Well, then Dick has done nothing but admit defeat. Whatever monster Delany crafted in his laboratory has come to life and not only loosed itself from its shackles but devoured them in the process. It has come to

[Daniel]

Also, for those who did not go reading Dhalgren only because of the genre it is most commonly found in but simply enjoy those farthest reaches of literature and those greatest of works, you might enjoy another book that I have read. It recently was made into an excellent film adaptation. It's called Revolutionary Road. It is a commentary on the fifties, on marriage, children, family life, the suburbs, America, capitalism, theater, insanity, abortion, etc. It is easily as good as Dhalgren and just as complex (but somewhat shorter). It isn't scifi, but it is still worth reading. Also, it is easier to recommend because there is no homosexual group sex to scare away your conservative friends.

[Tina]

Thanks for that (your summary of questions) and the recommendation of Revolutionary Road.

I really enjoyed Dhalgren but I have no one to discuss it with. Reading someone's analysis (and questions) really helped bring me back to the specific things I wanted to ponder but couldn't remember (there are just so many unanswered questions)!

What do you think about Kid being a kind of Diogenes (the Diogenes who lived in the bathtub and who believed that virtue was revealed in action)? Near the end someone (I can't remember who) refers to Kid directly as Diogenes. Kid seems to share a lot of traits with him, what with moving to a new place and living the opposite to what the rest of the country lives like. He also is the leader of the scorpions, but he doesn't actively lead them or control them, but they follow him because they perceive him to be great due to his actions. From what I remember from philosophy courses year ago, Diogenes was also about living a simple life, which is exactly what Kid does, lifestyle wise at least, when he's not wandering around searching for answers, which also mimics Diogenes. I can't remember too much else about the philosopher or his philosophy, but maybe learning more about him would help unravel some more of the mysteries of Dhalgren? There are other examples where Greek mythology/philosophy was helpful in undressing the situations in the novel, though I can't remember any off the top of my head.

Thanks!

[[deleted user]]

I'm not quite sure why it's called a "post-postmodern" when "postmodern" comfortably fits the bill. Dhalgren as a novel seems to be interested in deconstruction and semiotics. Unless you mean "postmodern" as a periodizing category. But then if that was true, you'd say "postmodernity" as opposed to "postmodernism".

Anyway, good analysis. I wasn't interested in the religious stuff too much as I'm interested in the semiotics of the novel.

[Icmajik]

I will post this short and sweet - I love this book; always have; I have read it at least twenty times. Great sic-fi without any neat wrapping up the loose ends and answering all your questions at the end. There are some great write ups here, thanks!

[[deleted user]]

Just a thought. The critical reactions to Dhalgren were often quite wide of the mark as far as Delany was concerned. So much so that, 18 months after it was released, he posted his own review under his critical identity K. Leslie Steiner. It is published in "The Straits of Messina."

The gist of it is that Dhalgren is written, not in a circular fashion, but is rather a necker cube (http://wisebytes.net/illusions/necker...).

Either: Kidd really entered the city at the beginning and is sane [everything is happening to him], or he really left at the end and is an escapee from the local asylum [most of what he experiences are hallucinations]. Only one of the incidents actually happened.

Throughout the novel, events seem to take place twice, once that Kid experiences and once that he hears/reads/writes/ about. One account is Kid=sane the other is Kid=insane.

The entire novel is the contents of his notebook.

Delany set out to "de-privilege" three forms of the written word: 1) journalism [the newspaper with the funky date/time and very little real journalism]
2) poetry [the whole fuss over Kids poems + not one line of finished poetry is presented in the book]
3) the journal [the notebook contains truth, hallucination, and deliberate fabrication]

Hope that helps clar up a few mysteries. it certainly did for me.

—Gideon

[Tina]

Oooh - I really like that sane/insane concept. Once I learned in the novel that Kidd had previously experienced psychotic breaks, I began to wonder whether the action described was actually occurring or whether Kidd was just sitting in a cell imagining it all/wandering around in society and perceiving things in a different light from everyone else. Glad to see that it wasn't just me.

Interestingly, Bellona is the Roman goddess of war, the equivalent of Enyo, the Greek goddess of the same, but often paired/confused with Eris, the goddess of chaos. Perhaps Bellona refers to Kidd's mind - which, if he is insane, is in a constant state of turmoil/chaos. Instead of physically visiting a city, as the novel posits, Bellona is actually describing Kidd's mind's descent into a void where nothing makes sense and everything in fragmented.

Anyway, I'm just rambling now. I'll definitely give the article a read shortly. Thanks Gideon!

[[deleted user]]

Bellona was actually called the Waster of Cities. Delany originally intended the book to be 7 smaller stories, each dealing with a different aspect of Urban decay. In the 70s inner urban neighborhoods looked a lot like Bellona. Most of the action he writes from personal experience in NYC in his youth. FYI, he was only 26 when he started writing it.

There are many mythic motifs in the book (the woman who turns into a tree is the Daphne myth--Delany even calls her that). None of them are supposed to have any hidden meaning, according to Delany; thy're just part of the atmosphere.

This novel remains my absolute favorite of all time. I read it once a year, or so.

[Tina]

The Waster of Cities - I like that.

That's another interesting perspective to take - the historicist approach. I don't know enough (or anything really) about 70s urban neighborhoods to have made that connection when reading it.

I think what I really enjoy about it is that you don't have to unearth hidden meanings to enjoy it, but it is fun to try and tease out connections and references, even if Delaney didn't intend them. Then again, I tend to over-analyze everything I read.

It's such a fascinating novel.

[Keith]

Yeah, it's really helpful to know that the late 1960s and the 1970s were a particularly notorious period of urban decay and blight in this country. Combine that with Delany growing up in the spectre of the counterculture of the 1960s, which opened up all sorts of lifestyle and ideological doors, and you sort of have the basic blueprint for what sort of environmental influences helped shape Dhalgren at the time Delany was writing. The counterculture movement had begun to liberate sexual and social mores for some people all the while their cities and economic standing continued to decline.

[Peter]

I read Dhalgren back in the mid-seventies, '75 I think and it struck a chord. I purchased a new copy not to long ago and plan to re-read it. There was something Gideon wrote in his post (6/6/12)that brought it all back to me. I lived in the east village of NYC back then, a couple blocks from Alphabet City (Ave's A,B,C...)Derelect buildings, smoking piles of rubble, people looking at you with suspicion.Some times I wondered if I had been transported to Beruit or Belfast. There were pockets of the city that would remind me of Bellona and for good reason. It was during a time when President Ford told NYC to "drop dead." It made headlines. Reading the book in such a milieu made it all the more impressionable. When I re-read it again I'm sure the book's intensity and its effect will still resonate.

[Scott]

I've read Dhalgren at least three times but would never claim that I knew what Delany was up to. Most of his books (that I've read, anyway) are loaded with mythological motif. I'm thinking of Triton and more especially The Einstein Intersection. If I had to characterize Dhalgren, I'd call it a moebius trip.