Subject
Re: Millhauser (fwd)
Date
Body
About three years ago, I posted here an excerpt from a piece on
"Edwin Mullhouse" that appeared in the Voice Literary Supplement. The
author is Jim Lewis.
"With that twist in mind it's fair to surmise that 'Mullhouse' was
written with at least a sidelong glance at Nabokov's 'Pale Fire'; it's a
parody of a parody. But of the two, Millhauser's is easily the better
book--subtler, creepier, more clever and perverse, funnier, and line for
line more beautifully written."
Following that I went on to read the novel and some of the stories.
Although I do not now remember any of the stories in much detail, what
reminded me of Nabokov was not the odd detail but the broader view of
Art. These stories often seemed like allegories about Art. His
protagonists are artists, building ever more elaborate worlds--much like
Martin Dressler with his fantastic hotels. I recall one story about a
puppet maker whose creations become more and more realistic, with
clockwork mechanisms that allow them to move and speak. These artists
come up against others who are interested in selling, in tailoring the
work to appeal to a broader audience. But the artist's only true
interest is in the creations themselves, in taking the next step
according to the logic of the art, not anyone's reaction to it. Human
relationships are so much bothersome interference. Perhaps that is why
these characters seem themselves a bit schizy, not quite fully human.
It's as though we had Pinocchio or the Velveteen Rabbit in reverse.
It seemed to me that in the later fictions, Millhauser was more
interested in the creations than in the characters, and that was the
great difference between him and Nabokov. "Mullhouse," an earlier
work, avoids this trap because the narrator must use real human material
(the life of his friend) in creating his own reality, and the relation
between the narrator and Mullhouse, between biographer and subject, must
remain part of the story--a more human angle that becomes attenuated in
Millhauser's later fiction.
"Edwin Mullhouse" that appeared in the Voice Literary Supplement. The
author is Jim Lewis.
"With that twist in mind it's fair to surmise that 'Mullhouse' was
written with at least a sidelong glance at Nabokov's 'Pale Fire'; it's a
parody of a parody. But of the two, Millhauser's is easily the better
book--subtler, creepier, more clever and perverse, funnier, and line for
line more beautifully written."
Following that I went on to read the novel and some of the stories.
Although I do not now remember any of the stories in much detail, what
reminded me of Nabokov was not the odd detail but the broader view of
Art. These stories often seemed like allegories about Art. His
protagonists are artists, building ever more elaborate worlds--much like
Martin Dressler with his fantastic hotels. I recall one story about a
puppet maker whose creations become more and more realistic, with
clockwork mechanisms that allow them to move and speak. These artists
come up against others who are interested in selling, in tailoring the
work to appeal to a broader audience. But the artist's only true
interest is in the creations themselves, in taking the next step
according to the logic of the art, not anyone's reaction to it. Human
relationships are so much bothersome interference. Perhaps that is why
these characters seem themselves a bit schizy, not quite fully human.
It's as though we had Pinocchio or the Velveteen Rabbit in reverse.
It seemed to me that in the later fictions, Millhauser was more
interested in the creations than in the characters, and that was the
great difference between him and Nabokov. "Mullhouse," an earlier
work, avoids this trap because the narrator must use real human material
(the life of his friend) in creating his own reality, and the relation
between the narrator and Mullhouse, between biographer and subject, must
remain part of the story--a more human angle that becomes attenuated in
Millhauser's later fiction.