Scan barcode
quinndm's review against another edition
3.0
Mailer's mastery of the word is astounding, but his style... his books leave me in inspired awe and, at the same time, exhausted and frustrated.
This book -- his firsthand account of the 1967 March on the Pentagon -- reminds us about how important, and dangerous, those times were and how vital it was for more people to stand up and speak out. And, now, almost 50 years later, the book is more relevant than ever.
This book -- his firsthand account of the 1967 March on the Pentagon -- reminds us about how important, and dangerous, those times were and how vital it was for more people to stand up and speak out. And, now, almost 50 years later, the book is more relevant than ever.
jackb_93's review against another edition
Finally finished the goddamn thing as even though it isn't very long, my patience flagged halfway through and I put it down for a while. It was worth getting to the end though, as that's where the thing comes together and the poetic insights start coming thick and fast. There are sentences that knock you out all the way through, but when Mailer gets on his sustained stretch of greatness like he does in the last 20 pages of this, he really starts to live up to his reputation. Mailer posits that in 1968 America was pregnant with possibility, and could either birth a new world of compassion or a new style of totalitarianism in which corporation-land wages daily war on the human condition. Reading this from the vantage point of 2020, it's a rather heartbreaking ending. The lessons from the war in Vietnam are very much unlearned
laurelinwonder's review against another edition
3.0
Mailer's writing style in this book is very fast and pulled me through the first section quickly. I can easily see how Mailer’s book has been compared to Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood, which was the first non-fiction novel, whereas Mailer has created here an early example of historical and fictional journalism; which seems to combine novel style with reporting. The book reads as split between two sections, in "History As A Novel," Mailer uses the third person to describe his own experience participating in a anti-Vietnam war rally. By using the third person Mailer himself becomes just as much a part of the subject matter, as the march he participated in. In the second section, "The Novel As History," Things slow down in this section, but not because the subject matter is slower. Mailer focuses on the historical perspective on the march. Including why it happened, who was involved, and then describes the march as it might have been seen by some sort of an unbiased reporter. It was an interesting read, and Mailer’s opinionated voice is a never separated from the subject matter. I was mostly intrigued by the self-awareness Mailer was able to portray through writing in the third person. Since this move allowed him to step outside of himself and observe, he used this to the full potential.
jamesvw's review against another edition
4.0
This book is a fascinating picture of a seminal moment in the early anti-war movement of the 1960s. But I actually would recommend it more to explore the structural problems of the New Left and as a way of understanding the slow turning radius that many of these radicals, including Norman Mailer, had to include broader understanding of race and class impact on mid-century war capitalism.
To begin with a comment on the writing style, the reader is forced to go through the struggle of take-off with the writer. The book is written with Norman Mailer as the main character - but written in 3rd person - and it seems (to use a term that fits with his scatological proclivities) thematically constipated to start. While Mailer's writing style is filigreed, each sentence wrought with intentional wit, odd analogies and intentional digressions, it takes him a long time to get going. He is self-aware of his narrow scope of understanding by writing a book about himself, but that doesn't mean that at times his long winded inner dialogue didn't cause me to space out and have to reread passages. His digressions at the beginning often are absurd - well written to be sure, but going nowhere. For example, a particularly lengthy overwrought sentence, smart if you keep focused, though hardly relevant to the surrounding paragraphs ...
On the political merits of the book, the largest problem that emerges is in the way the New Left, through the lens of Mailer, treats race and the Black radical activists involved in the anti-war and anti-racism movements at the time. The language Mailer uses to talk about African-Americans is dated, somewhat surprisingly so for a writer theoretically steeped in the radical civil rights movement of the late 1960s. But this lends credence to the reluctance of Stokley Carmichael, the Black Panther party and other Black activists to fully trust their white counterparts – if even Norman Mailer could not be trusted not to make sweeping generalized statements such as “Was a mad genius buried in ever Negro? How fantastic they were at their best – how dim at their worst.” (115), surely it was correct to draw some delineation from complete integration with white anti-war activists. Their causes seem clearly distinct from what Mailer, who proclaims himself a "Left Conservative" in the book, is preaching. To read this today added an insight to the weaknesses of the left-wing white protest movement, failing to cleave away the linguistic racism of the time.
These seem like large criticisms - perhaps I overstate based on my level of surprise at finding such problems in the book - but overall it is a smart, agile book that gets better as it moves along. The ending section, "a novel written as history", is also particularly well crafted and fills in gaps in a style that I can imagine was revolutionary for journalistic writing at the time. I do recommend it but be ready to fight with Mailer. Though frankly he comes across as the kind of writer who would take great pleasure in any intellectual battle he could enter, much more so perhaps than the physical battles he endured getting arrested at the Pentagon.
To begin with a comment on the writing style, the reader is forced to go through the struggle of take-off with the writer. The book is written with Norman Mailer as the main character - but written in 3rd person - and it seems (to use a term that fits with his scatological proclivities) thematically constipated to start. While Mailer's writing style is filigreed, each sentence wrought with intentional wit, odd analogies and intentional digressions, it takes him a long time to get going. He is self-aware of his narrow scope of understanding by writing a book about himself, but that doesn't mean that at times his long winded inner dialogue didn't cause me to space out and have to reread passages. His digressions at the beginning often are absurd - well written to be sure, but going nowhere. For example, a particularly lengthy overwrought sentence, smart if you keep focused, though hardly relevant to the surrounding paragraphs ...
“If the novelist had never heard of Hell’s Angels or motorcycle gangs, he still would have predicted, no, rather invented motorcycle orgies, because the orgy and technology seemed to come together in the sound of 1200 cc’s on two wheels, that exacerbation of flesh, torsion of lust, rhythm in the pistons, stink of gasoline, yeah, oil as the last excrement of putrefactions buried a million years in Mother Earth, yes indeed, that funky redolence of gasoline was not derived from nothing, no, doubtless it was the stench of the river Styx (a punning metaphor appropriate to John Updike no doubt) but Mailer, weak in Greek, had nonetheless some passing cloudy unresolved image no of man as Charon on that river of gasoline Styx wandering between earth and the holy mills of the machine.”
On the political merits of the book, the largest problem that emerges is in the way the New Left, through the lens of Mailer, treats race and the Black radical activists involved in the anti-war and anti-racism movements at the time. The language Mailer uses to talk about African-Americans is dated, somewhat surprisingly so for a writer theoretically steeped in the radical civil rights movement of the late 1960s. But this lends credence to the reluctance of Stokley Carmichael, the Black Panther party and other Black activists to fully trust their white counterparts – if even Norman Mailer could not be trusted not to make sweeping generalized statements such as “Was a mad genius buried in ever Negro? How fantastic they were at their best – how dim at their worst.” (115), surely it was correct to draw some delineation from complete integration with white anti-war activists. Their causes seem clearly distinct from what Mailer, who proclaims himself a "Left Conservative" in the book, is preaching. To read this today added an insight to the weaknesses of the left-wing white protest movement, failing to cleave away the linguistic racism of the time.
These seem like large criticisms - perhaps I overstate based on my level of surprise at finding such problems in the book - but overall it is a smart, agile book that gets better as it moves along. The ending section, "a novel written as history", is also particularly well crafted and fills in gaps in a style that I can imagine was revolutionary for journalistic writing at the time. I do recommend it but be ready to fight with Mailer. Though frankly he comes across as the kind of writer who would take great pleasure in any intellectual battle he could enter, much more so perhaps than the physical battles he endured getting arrested at the Pentagon.
kristinlynn24's review against another edition
1.0
I understand that this novel is new journalism, and through that a lot of Mailer's personality will be encapsulated in the novel -- but since I thought he was egotistical and arrogant, I really couldn't stand this book. I love this era in history and felt Mailer really lost his opportunity to express the importance of this major event because he was so focused on self-promotion and creating an image of himself.
grantsharpies's review against another edition
dark
reflective
slow-paced
3.25
Content Warnings
Moderate: Misogyny, Racial slurs, Racism, Police brutality, and War
lavvynder's review against another edition
3.0
I disliked the book but I must admit the Mailer addressed some very interesting and important points in relation to post-modernism and America's establishment of history and journalism.
gregbrown's review against another edition
2.0
What a weird mixed bag of a book, one that jumps too often between moods and styles to really feel cohesive (or purposeful in that jumping).
The opening is sort of fractionally amusing in how Mailer seems to have a pseudo-paranoid grievance against everyone, but mostly just comes off an irritating portrait of a jackass. Once Mailer starts participating in the march itself he tones it down a bit, with help from anecdotes about the various sideshows throughout the route and at the Pentagon. Once he's arrested and jailed, it takes the time for some interesting but brief character portraits, as well as more of a pensive tone. And in the final section (The Novel as History), Mailer removes himself and zooms out to show how the march was developed, engineered, and the larger course of events those days—which is great and would have been way more valuable and interesting earlier in the book.
It's very difficult for me to separate a judgment of the book from a judgment of Mailer himself—and I'm not even sure that such a separation would be advisable. Mailer himself seems trapped in the cycle where he dumps a ton of himself in the books, is personally unpleasant, gets bad reviews for those books which he takes personally because he's in them a lot, and then uses that as fuel to become even more personally unpleasant. (Does he moderate any between this and The Executioner's Song?) And his politics are a fuckin' mess; I'm kinda astonished he didn't become one of the sixties intellectuals who took a rightward turn as the decades went on. As is it seems like he really wants to be a prudish conservative but is held back by an anti-authoritarian streak, admission of the force of Marx's logic, and a desire to not be disinvited from the liberal social scene. Seems like a real fucko to me, exactly the kind of guy who would stab his own wife twice at a party.
All in all, I'm kinda astonished that this book won both the Pulitzer and the National Book Award, and suspect that both committees were more endeared by the novelty of the style. This was just a year or two after In Cold Blood kicked off the "non-fiction novel" trend, after all. Might still read Miami and the Siege of Chicago eventually, but I've had my fill of Mailer for quite a while.
The opening is sort of fractionally amusing in how Mailer seems to have a pseudo-paranoid grievance against everyone, but mostly just comes off an irritating portrait of a jackass. Once Mailer starts participating in the march itself he tones it down a bit, with help from anecdotes about the various sideshows throughout the route and at the Pentagon. Once he's arrested and jailed, it takes the time for some interesting but brief character portraits, as well as more of a pensive tone. And in the final section (The Novel as History), Mailer removes himself and zooms out to show how the march was developed, engineered, and the larger course of events those days—which is great and would have been way more valuable and interesting earlier in the book.
It's very difficult for me to separate a judgment of the book from a judgment of Mailer himself—and I'm not even sure that such a separation would be advisable. Mailer himself seems trapped in the cycle where he dumps a ton of himself in the books, is personally unpleasant, gets bad reviews for those books which he takes personally because he's in them a lot, and then uses that as fuel to become even more personally unpleasant. (Does he moderate any between this and The Executioner's Song?) And his politics are a fuckin' mess; I'm kinda astonished he didn't become one of the sixties intellectuals who took a rightward turn as the decades went on. As is it seems like he really wants to be a prudish conservative but is held back by an anti-authoritarian streak, admission of the force of Marx's logic, and a desire to not be disinvited from the liberal social scene. Seems like a real fucko to me, exactly the kind of guy who would stab his own wife twice at a party.
All in all, I'm kinda astonished that this book won both the Pulitzer and the National Book Award, and suspect that both committees were more endeared by the novelty of the style. This was just a year or two after In Cold Blood kicked off the "non-fiction novel" trend, after all. Might still read Miami and the Siege of Chicago eventually, but I've had my fill of Mailer for quite a while.