Monthly Archives: April 2005

I’m Chast-izing myself

for not buying this sooner: The Party, After You Left, the latest collection by Roz Chast. A cartoon by her always improves the magazine by a good ten percent, so a whole book of them…it’s delightful.

One of the things I like about Chast is that she can be nonchalantly naughty even within, say, her household-of-neurotics model; in Dream Remote, it’s no surprise to see “Comb your hair” and “Change that awful shirt,” but why “Faster” and “Slower”? Hmm, I wonder. She also cartoons about death a lot more often than you’d think, considering how funny she makes it (she says Charles Addams was a major early influence, and it shows). Chast works somewhere between Ed Koren and Lynda Barry/Matt Groening, maybe with a dash of the underworshipped Sandra Boynton thrown in for dry but zesty wit.

She gives a witty interview, too; from a conversation with Adam Wasserman in MediaBistro a few years back:

I got some weird responses to a “Written Test on Gun Control” that ran on The New Yorker‘s back page—multiple-choice questions and essay questions, like, “When I have a gun in my hand, I feel…”

There were a few people who filled it out for real with some pretty horrible things, like [in a heavy Southern drawl], “I feel like blowing the head off of every cocksucker I see!” [Laughs.] It was just unbelievable. People were crawling out of the woodwork and you think, “Why are they reading The New Yorker?”

Read more of that. There’s good stuff about the magazine’s famously scarring art meetings, and this about one of her “Mixed Marriage” riffs, several of which are printed in The Party, After You Left:

What is your favorite cartoon that never got published?

I’ve got a few that I have submitted over and over again. I don’t know if I have one favorite. I have one that is basically a mixed marriage one. It’s about a bathing suit. A wife is showing the husband this bathing suit, and he makes a comment about it being gaudy and not liking it. They’ve never published it, but I hope that someday they will. Some I’ve submitted four or five times. I know they have seen it before. I just hope that they will just suddenly see it in this brand new hilarious way or they will buy it and it will never be seen again. [At least] to pay me off. Some hush money.

I also—blissed out on inky nostalgia from being in Coliseum Books (even if it was the newer 42nd St. one)—got New York: The Movie Lover’s Guide, by Richard Alleman. It is very, very well done, nicely put together, crisply written, and so far I’ve seen only one inconsequential error in the update from the ’88 edition (Kim’s Video on Bleecker is, semi-sadly, no more; it had an even sillier ordering system than the other one, but I miss it anyway). This is a book you’ll want. Buy both.

“The Party After You Left” by Roz Chast (Bonus Audio!) [Andertoons]
The Art of Pysanka [Chast demonstrating gorgeous egg-painting; NYT via Suite101]
Roz Chast [Planet Cartoonist; cool profile]
Roz Chast is my personal savior [BookofJoe, via Blogcritics; actually about Maira Kalman and Rick Meyerowitz]

[A note on the Cartoon Bank: Sometimes they let you blow up images so you can actually read the text on them, which is essential to enjoying a Chast cartoon. The two images linked above are not readable, and only “Dream Remote” has a staffer’s caption. I hope they’re working on this; it’s a real hindrance.]

Categories: , , , ,

(3.28.05 issue) The strength of ten ordinary men

Thank goodness for Greg Allen and “This Week in the New Yorker”! He does it, quite quite often, so I don’t have to. Yes, there’s a new issue out soon. You’re telling me you finished 3.28 already? Right, me neither.
Speaking of the current issue, everyone may be talking about John Updike’s rousing non-verse-form Kierkegaard essay, but don’t let that distract you from reading the Spamalot review by the dazzling John Lahr, who has the sublime taste to let Jack Gilbert have the last word. Lahr has so much class he sends Spamalot profile-writers Dave Eggers (also in The New Yorker) and New York magazine’s Bill Zehme to the corner with dunce caps for letting fandom get in the way of reason. You know I’m all for enthusiasm, but there’s no reason to sound like Us Weekly unless you’re writing for Us Weekly. Heartbreaking work, indeed.
This Week in the New Yorker (3.28.05) [Greg.org]
Jack Gilbert, “A Brief for the Defense” [Poetry Daily]

Holy Dada doodads, Batman!

Theresa Bernstein,
The Baroness.

In today’s Newsday, I review the fascinating Holy Skirts, a novel by René Steinke about the turmoil, longing, aesthetic leaps, and no-goodnik husbands of Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven—the best-dressed radical nude model ever.

Newsday logo

A Singular Sensation

HOLY SKIRTS, by René Steinke. Morrow, 360 pp., $24.95.

Sophisticated readers like to think that nothing can shock them. But they also tend to forget about periods more shocking, artistically speaking, than their own. The 1910s and ’20s were such times, when everything—from art to industry to politics—exploded into brilliant and unpredictable fireworks. At the center of one of those explosions, and the igniter of some of the blasts, was Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven, the German-born poet-model-sculptor-scene-maker whose life is the heart of René Steinke’s new novel, “Holy Skirts.”

Holiness is the topic here, but not the angelic kind. The Baroness (as she was known after her marriage to a shifty nobleman) and her friends worshipped novelty, inappropriateness, audacity, not piously but with ferocious abandon. They advanced those things, too; her friends and associates eventually included Man Ray, Peggy Guggenheim, Mina Loy, Edna St. Vincent Millay, William Carlos Williams and Marcel Duchamp.

Her loyal editor, Jane Heap, whose magazine risked publishing Elsa’s agitated and impudent poems (not to mention a chapter of “Ulysses”), described Baroness Elsa as “the only one living anywhere who dresses Dada, loves Dada, lives Dada.” Steinke has called her a “proto-punk rock female artist.” A sexual radical, Elsa knew well how to barter her looks—or else mess with them by, say, shaving her head and painting it purple.

In the novel, Steinke retells a good deal of Elsa’s story, from her dismal childhood to a wild Berlin life as a nude “living statue,” which included training in both acting and quasi-prostitution and led to a serious stint as an artist’s model. Then—after three marriages to scoundrels—her manic, radical glory in the streets, galleries, little magazines, bars, bedrooms and women’s prison cells of New York City.

Still, in life and in “Holy Skirts,” for every great fashion spectacle (teaspoon earrings, tomato-can bra, gilded porcupine-quill eyelashes, a birdcage hat with a live canary in it, postage stamps as beauty marks) and truly avant-garde act (regularly reciting surrealist poetry at the top of her lungs at a rough saloon), Elsa made a lot of bad decisions. Ridiculing potential patrons was just one of them; a penchant for unworthy men another.

Steinke, an American writer and literary magazine editor, spelunks the darkness of the writerly consciousness (and the state of a woman whose sanity is often in question) extremely well. It’s perplexing, though, why she chose to write in a faux non-idiomatic English, even when Elsa is still in Germany or thinking, e.g. “She went man-crazy up to her ear tips.”

In the book’s final section, as Elsa enters a sort of trance state of poetic creation, romantic obsession and self-destruction, Steinke’s prose crystallizes and floats, and every detail seems exact and urgent. All of Elsa’s personae and mysterious half-truths fall away; the Baroness, all lust and gum-wrapper necklaces, becomes braver and more purposeful even as she crashes and burns.

Except for the distracting idiom and some overdone scene-setting, “Holy Skirts” is a mighty book, as grand and peculiar and off-kilter as the Baroness’ found-object sculptures. After you read it, you’re likely to find yourself not only wanting to do and make daring things, but actually doing it. Now that’s a legacy, and a literary coup.

A Singlar Sensation [Newsday]
The Dada Baroness [Artnet]
A Short Biography of the Baroness Else von Freytag-Loringhoven, Including Some of Her Writings [Christopher Lane]

Categories: , ,

Will the new Gladwell theory stick?

The whole world is tipping and blinking because of rockstar MG, and who am I to deny his powers of encapsulation? Since he’s been manufacturing theories faster than the JustBorn factory makes Peeps, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that there’s a brand-new one ready to blow the minds of Oprah and C.O.O.s alike. I’ll see if I can convey it coherently to you—I feel so tippy already! (Tipping-pointy takes too long to say, and it always makes me think of the Steve Martin poem: “O pointy birds, o pointy pointy/Anoint my head, anointy nointy.”) OK, this is the gist. The blinky thing works pretty well for initial relationship judgments, e.g. I know a louse when I see him. But after you’ve been involved with someone for a while, it’s awfully hard to tell if it’s going to last; we’re all prone to (as he likes to say) mind blindness. Leave it to Gladwell to pinpoint a technique we’ve all been using but didn’t know it: discerning commitment via concrete physical signals.

This isn’t the body language code we had so much fun with in the seventies. It’s simpler than that (but, this being Gladwell, infinitely more complex as well, natch). Say you’re wondering if the person you’ve been seeing is interested in more than a casual affair. How do you know? Drawing on cutting-edge neuroscience and psychology once again, Gladwell breaks it down instinct by instinct. You might be tempted to trust your sweetie’s gaze, for instance; eyes may be windows to the soul, but they have deceptively patterned curtains. Same goes for his visage generally, not to mention those theatrical exhalations and comforting hugs—charisma ain’t devotion.

Basically, you can’t really go by the way someone acts toward you; ultimately, humans need to judge each other by a single standard, another “adaptive unconscious,” if you will, and it may be a surprising one. It’s the ultimate thin-slicing: the locus of affection is in oscular delivery. I can’t do it justice, though; you’ll have to take it from him, particularly because, somewhat surprisingly, he repeatedly expresses concern that his message is not being properly listened to.

Look for Gladwell’s newest epidoozy on the special table at superstores near you—judging from the galley, it’s going to be as massive as the other two. It’s called Shoop…catchy.

The Spin Myth [New Yorker, via Gladwell.com]

Categories: