SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Mailer Unleashed

THE PLANK OCTOBER 10, 2007

Mailer Unleashed

BY TNR STAFF AND TNR STAFF

A man is yelling outside my window:

My understanding is that God and the Devil are often present in our actions. When we work with great energy it's because our best motive and our worst motive--or, to put it another way, God and the Devil--are equally engaged in the outcome and so, for a period, working within us. There can be collaboration between opposites, as well as war. This collaboration can consist of certain agreements--"The rules of war will be..." And of course, the rules can be broken. The Devil can betray God. Once in a while, God also breaks the rules--with a miracle. But my argument is that when we act with great energy, it is because God and the Devil have the same interest in the outcome. (Their differences will be settled later.) Whereas when we work with little energy, it's because They are not only at odds but are countermanding each other's impact upon us.

He isn't stopping:

I would expect God creates new spiritual lives. God may say, "I've been reconsidering the terrible propensities of the Devil. Let us see if we can conceive of a soul who will be able to war with the Devil a little more effectively, a new soul who will have many of the qualities of the Devil but can transmute them, transform them, elevate our sense of spirit even in the dirtiest, ugliest, foulest places. God may have decided that an iota of goodness in an evil soul can be immensely important."

Okay I'm lying: The crazy man isn't outside my window--he is being interviewed in a New York magazine cover story. And, alas, the man is Norman Mailer, and he goes on and on (and on) in this vein for pages; apparently these ideas appear in (even) longer form in his new book. It's completely mystifying that a first-rate publication chose to run this piece; Mailer is clearly a bit gone, and so by the end I felt bad for the guy. It's unclear whether the intent is to make Mailer look bad, or, rather, that because he has written some of the century's best books, someone thought his ideas here made any sense whatsoever.

--Isaac Chotiner

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 25 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

25 comments

without having any desire to read the NY piece I see nothing crazy about the piece you mentioned, it just seems like some dime store musings, not profound but certainly not raving either. What is the harm? And why the snarky attitude?

- blackton

October 10, 2007 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is the harm? A major magazine publishes an interview by a major intellectual figure, giving him a soapbox to spout inane, utterly unfounded theological nonsense. At the very least, it gives slight credibility to an otherwise outlandish argument. (For example, Andrew Sullivan linked approvingly to the interview.) At some point, one needs to dismiss William James, and realize that the "will to believe" shields stupidity from criticism. Why the snarky attitude? Just how should one respond to the claim that God and the Devil go to "war" to give one a certain amount of energy? This deserves snark, pity, and ridicule. (Unless, it's all just a metaphor...)

- medan

October 10, 2007 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is the harm? A major magazine publishes an interview by a major intellectual figure, giving him a soapbox to spout inane, utterly unfounded theological nonsense. At the very least, it gives slight credibility to an otherwise outlandish argument. (For example, Andrew Sullivan linked approvingly to the interview.) At some point, one needs to dismiss William James, and realize that the "will to believe" shields stupidity from criticism. Why the snarky attitude? Just how should one respond to the claim that God and the Devil go to "war" to give one a certain amount of energy? This deserves snark, pity, and ridicule. (Unless, it's all just a metaphor...)

- medan

October 10, 2007 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- medan

October 10, 2007 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I reserve the right to snarkily trash as "utterly unfounded theological nonsense" any musings about God and the Devil, other Deities, miracles and the relationship of man to these phenomena, offered by anyone at any time. The only theological nonsense that will be tolerated is that endorsed by our Founding Fathers who were all-knowing in such matters and quite correct in establishing Christianity as the official church of this great nation. Norman Mailer should shut up -- and don't get me started on the Mormons...

- purcellneil

October 10, 2007 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

. . . a new soul who will have many of the qualities of the Devil but can transmute them, transform them, elevate our sense of spirit even in the dirtiest, ugliest, foulest places. God may have decided that an iota of goodness in an evil soul can be immensely important." Well, maybe without the iota of goodness

- dubyadoubte

October 10, 2007 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"At the very least, it gives slight credibility to an otherwise outlandish argument." Possibly. But media outlets across this great country give lots of credibility to outlandish ideas on a daily basis. At least Mailer's ideas are relatively harmless. Anyway, the man's a loon, everyone knows that. He sure wrote some amazing novels, though. I think a few interviews here and there are a small price to pay.

- ratnerstar

October 10, 2007 at 1:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, medan, it is a major harm to society that New York magazine has strayed so far from its traditions of rigorous empiricism. Whatever shall become of us? blackton -- I'm inclined to say, maybe Mailer is crazy, but even if he is, that doesn't mean that God and the Devil don't war on the terrain of human souls. Who knows! "Dime store musings" seems a little harsh. I'd put it more in the category of weird-but-interesting musings.

- John Gould

October 10, 2007 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mailer has never been sober--Goddess bless him. That he may now be a few kernels short of a cob shouldn't concern us. What concerns me is that our society's current fetish with sobriety may be catching up with him, that he is now unwittingly in a formaldehyde-filled jar like the cyclops fetuses at the National Museum of Health and Medicine for all who pay the entrance fee to gawk and point at. We gaze upon bell curves like they're J.Lo's buttocks. But those occasional outliers--pesky, incomprehensible--go on gobbling up stultitude and excreting serendipity and wonder, composting our minds like eager, blessed nightcrawlers.

- williamyard

October 10, 2007 at 1:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And in with outliers. Pro yard on this. btw, Naomi Wolf got Jesus too these days, and is a lot more interesting as a result. Maybe she's dating Mailer?

- teplukhin2you

October 10, 2007 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

where the best thing to do is give him a lifetime bar tab and engage him in sports talk. The guy knows his boxing. I would love to sit with him and cue him up for old stories about Louis, Marciano, Ali, and others. After all, he is, what, about 85 or so? It seems like a pretty unreasonable expectation to expect an old fart like him, especially after a lifetime of pickling his liver, to still be able to compete in a high intellectual velocity discussion about anything other than.... sports, politics, and...yardy and tep...you know the rest...

- MrCookie1

October 10, 2007 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

weird-but-interesting musings it is. yeesh Medan, relax. This is the type of crap high school students and college freshmen read, the same kind of crap like Ayn Rand, and these are the only kind of people who take this kind of thing seriously. My 20 year old nephew is walking around with a copy of Atlas shrugged like it is the bible. I know it makes him feel serious and mature so I cut him some slack, he is a bright kid, in a few years he will outgrow it, no need for me to rip into him about it. since it is inane it is harmless, regardless if it is in the pages of NY or not.

- blackton

October 10, 2007 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mailer, in horndog/boozehound years is, what, about 142? Shit, when my old drinking buddy George was half Mailer's age, he was sitting with his arms around a tree on 24th Street, telling everybody it was his "date." Damn whippersnappers oughta give the old geezer some respect. On the other hand,...what was the question?

- williamyard

October 10, 2007 at 2:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay...maybe I overreacted. But only "high school students and college freshman...take this kind of thing seriously?" Really? Transubstantiation seems like something that a lot of people take seriously. I don't see any reason to deem it any less ridiculous.

- medan

October 10, 2007 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way, "Who is John Galt?" heh

- medan

October 10, 2007 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John Galt pollutes the pages of Atlas Shrugged and once was, about a year ago, a poster here at tnr. He hated me.

- MrCookie1

October 10, 2007 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

medan- how about "people who enjoy the kind of things that high schoolers and college freshman enjoy" take it seriously. Transubstantiation is not less ridiculous- it is probably much moreso, especially because on could, if they were feeling charitable, read Mailer's stuff in a secular sense. It isn't how he meant it, but you could say that he was implying that we are, all of us, nothing more than the sum of our contradictions and the battle between them. But think about it- what would happen if Atlas shrugged? Really man- it is freaking deep. Blackie, det your nephew straight, now. Don't give him any leeway. Would you say "he will learn" if he was shooting heroin or killing hookers or listening to Maroon 5 or whatever kids do? Of course.

- boneill

October 10, 2007 at 3:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hyped up on horse, the young man savagely stabs the hooker in the throat over and over, while "This Love" blasts in the background on continuous repeat. Bone looks, shakes his head sadly, and walks away.

- ratnerstar

October 10, 2007 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And as I walked away, the kid started shouting about the virtues of selfishness and how altruism is for the weak. That I found most offensive of all.

- boneill

October 10, 2007 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know, sounds like he's describing a spiritual Doji bar, which is to say he's more relevant now than ever. I never got past "The Fight" but then again I've a fairly short attent... William, I agree completely. Isaac, surely you can fill your verbage quota without Britneyizing Mailer? "We gaze upon bell curves like they're J.Lo's buttocks." How true.

- The Ignorant Populist

October 10, 2007 at 4:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

= Mailer's next

- teplukhin2you

October 10, 2007 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe I haven't read New York magazine recently enough, but the last time I did (1980s?) I would not have called it a first-rate publication. I would not put it on the plane of Harper's, The New Yorker, the Atlantic (do they capitalize their "the"?), or even that other one, the New, New...something.

- nancyirving

October 10, 2007 at 10:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, I'm sure the pay is right up there, which may have biased the poster.

- nancyirving

October 10, 2007 at 10:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A couple of years back The Nation published a weird essay by Mailer in which he put forward the risible thesis that what is missing from Sartre's existentialism is belief in God! Well, obviously, belief in God is missing from Sartre's existentialism which is, you know, ATHEIST, almost by definition. And, if Mailer imagines that Sartre's invoking God would have added something to his philosophy, rather than completely undermining it, then he plainly knows nothing of Sartre. The Sartre piece in The Nation is worth looking up, in connection with the interview cited here. I agree with Chait: Mailer has clearly lost it. Some time ago. And he's not getting better.

- wmsberry

October 10, 2007 at 10:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As someone observed earlier on the thread, the guy's 85 y.o. He's earned the right to embarrass himself. I think he started doing that, though, some decades ago (see infamous talk show appearances).

- wmsberry

October 10, 2007 at 10:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close