This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/18/return-renata-adler-quixotic-writers

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The return of Renata Adler, most quixotic of writers The return of Renata Adler, most quixotic of writers
(6 months later)
Renata Adler, whose two seminal novels, Speedboat and Pitch Dark, are being reissued this week by the New York Review of Books, is a fragile, uncertain, and often scattered presence. And yet, as a writer, she has some almost other-worldly fierceness, which has been directed at, among other things, the literary establishment. There may not ever have been as gifted and as lauded a writer who has so bit the hand responsible for feeding the careers of the gifted and lauded.Renata Adler, whose two seminal novels, Speedboat and Pitch Dark, are being reissued this week by the New York Review of Books, is a fragile, uncertain, and often scattered presence. And yet, as a writer, she has some almost other-worldly fierceness, which has been directed at, among other things, the literary establishment. There may not ever have been as gifted and as lauded a writer who has so bit the hand responsible for feeding the careers of the gifted and lauded.
Adler is 74. She is one of the most brilliant – that is, vivid, intense, astute, and penetrating – essayists in contemporary letters, and most contrarian: much of what you think she will passionately undo. And she is a novelist whose voice, even decades after her books were written, seems new and original, and, if you are a writer, one you wish were your own.Adler is 74. She is one of the most brilliant – that is, vivid, intense, astute, and penetrating – essayists in contemporary letters, and most contrarian: much of what you think she will passionately undo. And she is a novelist whose voice, even decades after her books were written, seems new and original, and, if you are a writer, one you wish were your own.
She was, from 1965 and for the next 15 years or so, a leading light in a particular brilliant period of American writing. She was an "it" girl, complete with iconic look and memorable pictures by Richard Avedon, provocative and fashionable. (I recall my parents, culture vultures in suburban New Jersey, discussing her with great awe.) She was Lena Dunham many times over.She was, from 1965 and for the next 15 years or so, a leading light in a particular brilliant period of American writing. She was an "it" girl, complete with iconic look and memorable pictures by Richard Avedon, provocative and fashionable. (I recall my parents, culture vultures in suburban New Jersey, discussing her with great awe.) She was Lena Dunham many times over.
In her twenties, she was a favored New Yorker writer – covering civil rights, Vietnam, and war in Biafra. And the New Yorker, then, was the equivalent of something similar to HBO now – you wouldn't have missed it, or her. In 1968, she became the New York Times film critic (the first woman in the job when being the first women was a miraculous transformation) at a moment when writing about film was, arguably, more influential than making them – and when the New York Times was the first and last critical word.In her twenties, she was a favored New Yorker writer – covering civil rights, Vietnam, and war in Biafra. And the New Yorker, then, was the equivalent of something similar to HBO now – you wouldn't have missed it, or her. In 1968, she became the New York Times film critic (the first woman in the job when being the first women was a miraculous transformation) at a moment when writing about film was, arguably, more influential than making them – and when the New York Times was the first and last critical word.
She went to Washington where she become a writer for the Watergate committee – at the epicenter of the most momentous public event of the era – secretly writing historic words for inarticulate lawmakers. Then came Speedboat in 1976 (early minimalism, early woman alone), followed by Yale law school for the intellectual hell of it, then Pitch Dark in 1983.She went to Washington where she become a writer for the Watergate committee – at the epicenter of the most momentous public event of the era – secretly writing historic words for inarticulate lawmakers. Then came Speedboat in 1976 (early minimalism, early woman alone), followed by Yale law school for the intellectual hell of it, then Pitch Dark in 1983.
Writer's careers, even ones that have reached a great height, are fragile things, and can go wrong for many reasons and as the result of many choices. Money, drugs, Hollywood, among them. And certainly, Adler, in this time, is balancing complex personal issues: she is torn, as her friend the novelist Harold Brodkey once explained to me about Adler's great opportunities and ambivalences, between an "interior writer's life and an exterior activist's life"; she is a single mother before the fashion; and she has a tortured writing pace.Writer's careers, even ones that have reached a great height, are fragile things, and can go wrong for many reasons and as the result of many choices. Money, drugs, Hollywood, among them. And certainly, Adler, in this time, is balancing complex personal issues: she is torn, as her friend the novelist Harold Brodkey once explained to me about Adler's great opportunities and ambivalences, between an "interior writer's life and an exterior activist's life"; she is a single mother before the fashion; and she has a tortured writing pace.
But Adler's career goes wrong, or at least astray, most of all for not being able to hold her tongue. Adler is a good demonstration of the boundaries of art, that even serious writing is harshly proscribed, that the literary life has hard rules, that politics must be carefully played, that renegades – and, no doubt, especially women renegades – who go past an undrawn line are cast out.But Adler's career goes wrong, or at least astray, most of all for not being able to hold her tongue. Adler is a good demonstration of the boundaries of art, that even serious writing is harshly proscribed, that the literary life has hard rules, that politics must be carefully played, that renegades – and, no doubt, especially women renegades – who go past an undrawn line are cast out.
In hindsight, the apostasies that Adler commits seem hardly "scarlet letter"-worthy. And yet, she surely managed to cross many of the mightiest and most thin-skinned cultural institutions and arbiters.In hindsight, the apostasies that Adler commits seem hardly "scarlet letter"-worthy. And yet, she surely managed to cross many of the mightiest and most thin-skinned cultural institutions and arbiters.
She offended the New York Times: first, writing far too scathing film reviews for the paper; and then, a worst sin than that, quitting the Times after a year.She offended the New York Times: first, writing far too scathing film reviews for the paper; and then, a worst sin than that, quitting the Times after a year.
Even now, with the Times having lost considerable power and clout, it is difficult to pursue a serious career in letters with its institutional disapproval shadowing you. And it has, literally for decades, pursued an odd, sour, spurned lover's vendetta against Alder (compounded and renewed by Adler's reflexive counter-attacks on it), which she dissects in her book Canaries in the Mineshaft: Essays on Politics and the Media. (The Times Book Review has, however, cordially reviewed the new release of Speedboat and Pitch Dark.)Even now, with the Times having lost considerable power and clout, it is difficult to pursue a serious career in letters with its institutional disapproval shadowing you. And it has, literally for decades, pursued an odd, sour, spurned lover's vendetta against Alder (compounded and renewed by Adler's reflexive counter-attacks on it), which she dissects in her book Canaries in the Mineshaft: Essays on Politics and the Media. (The Times Book Review has, however, cordially reviewed the new release of Speedboat and Pitch Dark.)
There is her famous Pauline Kael review. It is hard to remember what a cultural despot Kael, then the New Yorker's film critic, was when Adler took her down in 1980. Kael was bully, drama queen, suck-up, disciplinarian, hysteric, and – taking jobs and inducements from the people she promoted – a bit corrupt, too. Still, opprobrium yet attaches to Adler for her sweeping emperor's-new-clothes leveling of Kael; and it certainly earned her no points with the New Yorker, their mutual employer.There is her famous Pauline Kael review. It is hard to remember what a cultural despot Kael, then the New Yorker's film critic, was when Adler took her down in 1980. Kael was bully, drama queen, suck-up, disciplinarian, hysteric, and – taking jobs and inducements from the people she promoted – a bit corrupt, too. Still, opprobrium yet attaches to Adler for her sweeping emperor's-new-clothes leveling of Kael; and it certainly earned her no points with the New Yorker, their mutual employer.
But the rightness of Adler's view of Kael as nasty, self-promoting gasbag only become more obvious as Kael's reputation disappeared after she lost her New Yorker post and power. She was unreadable, said Adler; and indeed, Kael is unread now.But the rightness of Adler's view of Kael as nasty, self-promoting gasbag only become more obvious as Kael's reputation disappeared after she lost her New Yorker post and power. She was unreadable, said Adler; and indeed, Kael is unread now.
Then came Adler's libel book, one of the first works of media conglomerate criticism, in which she meticulously deconstructed the biases, omissions, contradictions, and general over-weening self-righteousness of those two titans of middle-brow culture, CBS and Time Inc, in Reckless Disregard: Westmoreland v CBS et al, Sharon v Time. Then, there is her Watergate view. She is one of the few – perhaps, the only – more-or-less liberal party to the proceedings to argue, heretically, that, all in all, it was a fairly weak case against Richard Nixon (and that the real reasons for his resignation were hidden from view).Then came Adler's libel book, one of the first works of media conglomerate criticism, in which she meticulously deconstructed the biases, omissions, contradictions, and general over-weening self-righteousness of those two titans of middle-brow culture, CBS and Time Inc, in Reckless Disregard: Westmoreland v CBS et al, Sharon v Time. Then, there is her Watergate view. She is one of the few – perhaps, the only – more-or-less liberal party to the proceedings to argue, heretically, that, all in all, it was a fairly weak case against Richard Nixon (and that the real reasons for his resignation were hidden from view).
Oh yes, and you should hear her on Bob Woodward and Deep Throat. I don't know anyone else who has pointed out that Mark Felt, who, years later, famously stepped forward to identity himself as Deep Throat, was widely briefing, dishing to, and confiding in, almost everybody involved in the investigation. He became, in other words, the happenstance name for what almost everybody believes to be a convenient composite – though, given Woodward's reach, few will say so.Oh yes, and you should hear her on Bob Woodward and Deep Throat. I don't know anyone else who has pointed out that Mark Felt, who, years later, famously stepped forward to identity himself as Deep Throat, was widely briefing, dishing to, and confiding in, almost everybody involved in the investigation. He became, in other words, the happenstance name for what almost everybody believes to be a convenient composite – though, given Woodward's reach, few will say so.
And there is her New Yorker grudge. It is both personal, because she lost her health insurance after Conde Nast bought the magazine from its original owners, and intellectual, because the unique magazine that was would come to bear no resemblance to the magazine Tina Brown turned it into. With self-destructive timing, Adler's attack on Brown's New Yorker came just at the moment when Brown was the most powerful figure in New York publishing.And there is her New Yorker grudge. It is both personal, because she lost her health insurance after Conde Nast bought the magazine from its original owners, and intellectual, because the unique magazine that was would come to bear no resemblance to the magazine Tina Brown turned it into. With self-destructive timing, Adler's attack on Brown's New Yorker came just at the moment when Brown was the most powerful figure in New York publishing.
And by the bye, Adler took the opportunity to make a fine meal of Adam Gopnik, a sappy, out-to-please-everybody wet noodle of a writer, who had become the leading voice of the renovated New Yorker. (A number of years later, James Wolcott in the New Republic would echo Adler's attack on Gopnik – without anything like the censure Alder received.)And by the bye, Adler took the opportunity to make a fine meal of Adam Gopnik, a sappy, out-to-please-everybody wet noodle of a writer, who had become the leading voice of the renovated New Yorker. (A number of years later, James Wolcott in the New Republic would echo Adler's attack on Gopnik – without anything like the censure Alder received.)
I can hardly tell you what kind of hot potato Renata Adler became in New York. There was a sense of fallen woman about her, and that, if you associated with her, you too would be tainted. Or if you got near her, she would morph from her protective cocoon into a venomous bug who would kill you.I can hardly tell you what kind of hot potato Renata Adler became in New York. There was a sense of fallen woman about her, and that, if you associated with her, you too would be tainted. Or if you got near her, she would morph from her protective cocoon into a venomous bug who would kill you.
Shortly before the publication of her broadside against the New Yorker, I was at a cocktail part at the home of a West Side New York Times cultural supremo, attended by a set of cultural Myrmidons of frightening standing and lockstep opinions. Following the whispered name "Renata", I literally intruded on a clucking circle of these reproachful men planning their counter-attacks against her: something must be done.Shortly before the publication of her broadside against the New Yorker, I was at a cocktail part at the home of a West Side New York Times cultural supremo, attended by a set of cultural Myrmidons of frightening standing and lockstep opinions. Following the whispered name "Renata", I literally intruded on a clucking circle of these reproachful men planning their counter-attacks against her: something must be done.
It is possible perhaps for an indomitable fighter to stand up, and even face down the cultural bishops of the moment. But Adler, except in her prose, is as indomitable as a mouse. And she largely retreated, fading from the cultural view and fight.It is possible perhaps for an indomitable fighter to stand up, and even face down the cultural bishops of the moment. But Adler, except in her prose, is as indomitable as a mouse. And she largely retreated, fading from the cultural view and fight.
But now, her great books are back. And she is rumored to have a new novel, finished, and waiting to be sent.But now, her great books are back. And she is rumored to have a new novel, finished, and waiting to be sent.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.