Thursday, December 31, 2015

Professor Bercovitch Among the Puritans

Photo by Kris Snibbe. 
If you were an undergraduate at Columbia University a generation ago and interested in American literature, word on the street (College Walk, in this case) was that Sacvan Bercovitch was the man to see.

“Take Bercovitch’s class,” your fellow students urged. “He’s the best.” That class was “Foundations of American Literature,” semesters one and two. If you took the first, you’d be sure to take the second, because word on the Walk was true: Bercovitch, who died a year ago last December, was indeed the best, and the class he taught on the earliest American writers and their influence on the culture would not only change the way you think about literature, but how you forever thought of American society, politics, and your own still-developing self. It was one of those very rare classes that was genuinely transformative, and Sacvan Bercovitch was the seductive wizard who introduced you to the subject’s mysteries as he pulled aside the curtain to reveal what was truly going on inside.

At first blush, the material was not promising -- two thick volumes by American Puritan writers such as Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards -- poems, sermons, speeches -- were not the sexy stuff of postmodern literature. But once you were in the classroom, with Bercovitch leaning against the podium, a conjuror’s sly expression on his face, dark, saturnine eyebrows gently rising and falling as he looked down at a text and then gazed challengingly at the class, you were hooked.

Over the next several months, as fall turned to winter, Bercovitch would slowly lead you through the initially forbidding texts and make you realize that these apparently remote figures were not just talking about America in the early 17th century, they were talking about America right now; they were talking about you. Your own hopes and dreams and sense of self had been set in motion centuries before you were born. Bercovitch and his gang of Puritans were telling you who you already are.

“Literature is about myths,” he liked to tell his students. The best place to go for elaboration on this idea were his two seminal books, “The Puritan Origins of the American Self” and “The American Jeremiad.” Together, they were manuals that helped you break the code of American discourse. Whatever seemed new and cutting edge suddenly fit into a very old tradition. When Ronald Reagan spoke of America as “a city upon a hill,” he was merely repeating what John Winthrop had said back in his 1630 sermon. When a cultural prognosticator like Christopher Lasch -- whose bestselling critique of American life, “The Culture of Narcissism” had recently been published -- lamented the decline of American values, you could see he was but the latest in a long line of American Jeremiahs calling the country back to its original ideal conception of itself.


Suddenly, wherever you looked, you saw that Puritan myths were alive and well. Even your own adolescent self-interrogation, your desire for a sense of “calling,” your search for an “authentic” self -- all this had been laid down in the blueprint drawn up by the Puritans, who sprang from the brow of the Bible and Milton to land on these shores and create a new man (and woman), a new Jerusalem, the world’s “last best hope.”

Whether you were an ardent leftist, a staunch conservative (admittedly rare at Columbia) or a muddled centrist, in some way, deep inside, you believed in these ideas. And Bercovitch taught you to see that all along, you’d been thinking mythically.

Sacvan Bercovitch’s own name and life had more than a touch of myth. Though he didn't announce it, his first name was derived from Sacco and Vanzetti, two anarchists sentenced to death for murder -- unjustly, many felt -- in 1927. As a young Jew from Canada, Bercovitch had gone to Israel to work on a kibbutz -- both the rebirth of the Jewish state and the socialist ideals of the kibbutz were two mythic ideas the Puritans would have understood completely. (They regularly gave their children names drawn from the Old Testament and at one point even considered making Hebrew the language of the New World, a “second Jerusalem.”)

His intellectual drive brought him to the United States, and then to Columbia and later Harvard, where as an outsider to both American society and largely Christian culture, he explained both to generations of students, arguably better than anyone else had done before.

Bercovitch eschewed the conventional requirement for a term paper in that first class, asking instead that his students keep a journal, in the spirit of the Puritans themselves. It was a cunning pedagogical move. At first you jotted down quotations from the reading, along with Bercovitch’s sometimes cryptic comments about each selection. Then, as your confidence slowly increased, you added your own thoughts, finding comparisons between old sermons and modern arguments. Eventually, you were discovering yourself in the readings, slightly horrified that you might have a touch of the Puritan within you -- what contemporary college student wouldn't balk at the thought?

But Bercovitch urged you to be relentlessly honest, and his low-key yet intense interest in your life and intellectual development encouraged you to dig deeper and discover more than you thought was there.


“I may be a Puritan deep down after all,” I told Professor Bercovitch in his office one afternoon, after I'd asked him to become my adviser. He laughed but didn't tip his hand -- he wasn't going to affirm or deny your self-revelations, but simply encourage you to keep reading -- and keep thinking.

The second semester of his class took Puritan notions about selfhood, “election,” and America’s sense of being God’s chosen land and applied them to classic American writers from Hawthorne to Nathanael West.  Bercovitch wasn’t pushing a formula:  sometimes he’d read a passage from a novel, such as West’s “Day of the Locust,” pause, look up, and say quietly, “Now that’s good writing.”  Other times he would stop at a word and ask the class, “A ‘deadpan.’  Just what is a deadpan?”  His intent gaze at the assembled students suggested that there was a world of arcane knowledge contained in that single outdated term.

A lucky few were invited to his booklined apartment on Riverside Drive, with its expansive view of the Hudson River and all of America rolling on in the distance. Seated on his big Eames black leather wingback chair, he'd listen as a fellow scholar he had invited that evening read from a manuscript in progress. To many of us, it seemed the perfect life.

Bercovitch was one of those teachers. He made you feel that every class was a journey into the center of both American culture, past and present, and a journey into yourself. If you paid the least bit of attention, you couldn't help but have your understanding of both altered permanently.

Professor Bercovitch went on to teach at other places, write other books, and influence other students for many years; but for those of us who knew him at Columbia, it will be always be impossible to read an American novel, or even a blog entry, and not have our understanding of it influenced by memories of his teaching, his Cheshire cat’s smile, and of our own city on a hill on Morningside Heights, where many of us learned for the first time, to our great surprise, that we were, in fact, Americans.

Photo: Concordia's Records Management and Archives.

Friday, December 18, 2015

In a decade long ago and far, far away...

STAR WARS... isn't it about time somebody put a stake through the heart of this movie franchise and stuffed it with garlic so that it will never rise again? I confess I'm prejudiced. I saw the first STAR WARS film ("Episode 4," as it's cheekily referred to now) in the theater when it was released in 1977, and absolutely loathed it. Car chases in space, with swipes from the Lord of the Rings and Jack Kirby's Fourth World. In fact, parts of it bored me so much that I nearly fell asleep. This may come as a shock to STAR WARS true believers, but at that time Kubrick's 2001 was the gold standard for cinematic science fiction as far as I was concerned. (And yes, I know, other people claim to have fallen asleep during THAT.) But my first thought when I left the theater was a clever ad that used to run in the old GALAXY magazine. It presented passages from two different stories:

First Story
Jets blasting, Bat Durston came screeching down through the atmosphere of Bbllzznaj, a tiny planet seven billion light years from Sol. He cut out his super-hyper-drive for the landing…and at that point, a tall, lean spaceman stepped out of the tail assembly, proton gun-blaster in a space-tanned hand.
"Get back from those controls, Bat Durston," the tall stranger lipped thinly. "You don't know it, but this is your last space trip."
Second Story
Hoofs drumming, Bat Durston came galloping down through the narrow pass at Eagle Gulch, a tiny gold colony 400 miles north of Tombstone. He spurred hard for a low overhang of rimrock…and at that point a tall, lean wranger stepped out from behind a high boulder, six-shooter in a sun-tanned hand.
"Rear back and dismount, Bat Durston," the tall stranger lipped thinly. "You don't know it, but this is your last saddle-jaunt through these here parts."
The ad then somewhat redundantly made the obvious point:
Sound alike? They should—one is merely a western transplanted to some alien and impossible planet. If this is your idea of science fiction, you're welcome to it! YOU'LL NEVER FIND IT IN GALAXY!
Well, I found it in STAR WARS, in abundance. No doubt some will claim that there's nothing wrong with good old-fashioned space opera, filled with lots of adventure and excitement. But at the time it bothered me when the ending showed our heroes being honored at a ceremony that looked for all the world like a scene out of Leni Riefenstahl TRIUMPH OF THE WILL. Yeah, that fascist aesthetic grabs people every time. And it's bothered me over the years when people who know little about sf continued to confuse it with all that STAR WARS stuff. It's useless trying to explain to them that Star Wars is not representative of the best of SF, or even mediocre SF. Some people -- MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, for example -- admit they can tell the difference between STAR WARS and STAR TREK. After all, it's just more of that "crazy Buck Rogers stuff." right? Except that these folks don't even remember Buck Rogers.
I'm happy for all the people who are going to enjoy the new Star Wars movies and its various merchandise and tie-ins, and I'm happy for the lucky few who will be getting rich or richer off the proceeds. But count me out. I'll be spending this weekend reading a Barry Malzberg sf novel.
Cartoon by Brian Fairrington

Monday, August 10, 2015

Orson Welles Redux


Today's edition of The Weekly Standard carries my review of the new book by A. Brad Schwartz, Broadcast Hysteria: Orson Welles War of the Worlds and the Art of Fake News.  It's far and away the definitive history of Welles's infamous 1938 radio adaptation of H. G. Wells's The War of the Worlds.  Schwartz's meticulous research has uncovered some surprises that challenge much of the received wisdom about the broadcast and the national "panic" it supposedly caused.  To read the online version of my review, click on "When Earthlings Panic."

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Kasich Rising


Keep your eyes on Ohio Governor John Kasich.  I've been observing him for many years and been fairly impressed by his record as a congressman and governor.  Now he's beginning to show up in some presidential polls in fourth and third place.  This week I saw him on C-SPAN speaking at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, and I was again impressed -- he really knows how to connect with people, answer questions thoughtfully, and disagree with civility.  He's the son of a mailman.  Kasich may be too real to make it in the crazy-quilt world of a presidential campaign, but who knows?  I think he'll shine in the upcoming debate, if he manages to be one of the Chosen Ten.  He's a man to watch.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Il Duce, Il Donald?

Cartoon by Mike Luckovich.

Lately some political pundits have been asserting that it's not Donald Trump the man but Trump's message that is appealing to Republican voters, at least as reflected in the polls.  They're only partially right.  It's the message but also the man. 

Trump presents himself as a super dealmaker who can make America great again by making great deals with China, Mexico, and other rising competitors.  He's not unlike Mussolini in the way he holds himself out as a strong man who can face down the rest of the world.  His approach is grounded in a politics of personal charisma very different from Ronald Reagan's appeal.  Reagan avowed the essential goodness of Americans and the American system and campaigned on a promise to get government out of people's way.  By contrast, Trump sees the American people as dupes of greedy and incompetent politicians and offers himself as a strong leader with no need to enrich himself finacially from holding public office, someone who possesses the business skills to negotiate tough trade deals with tough foreign adversaries.


Of course, much of this rhetoric is Trump making extravagant promises without acknowledging -- or appreciating -- that making deals with foreign companies is not the same as making decisions as a president.  Yet 
a certain percentage of likely voters think the two roles are identical and that a President Trump can save us. Far too many people underestimate the importance of political skills, which are not the same as those of a businessman. They may overlap, but there is still a distinctive difference. It may be why America has never elected a businessman who never held political office to the presidency.  

(Victorious generals are another story -- it would appear that military command bears some resemblance to political leadership.  But anyone who makes the quick but facile connection between military leaders-turned politician and fascism should bear in mind that American presidents who were previously generals have a record of being more hesitant to rely on the military than presidents with little or no military experience.)

A conservative politician must always cut the Gordian knot which requires him or her to espouse limited government while at the same time presenting him or herself as strong and competent, someone who can inspire yet does not encourage a cult of personal charisma.


Trump is certainly no fascist.  But his own rather unique politics of personal charisma ought to concern us as his poll numbers continue to rise and his proposals for solving problems still bear closer scrutiny.



UPDATE -- 3/8/16:

On February 28th, candidate Trump quoted Mussolini in one of his early-morning tweets:

"It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep."

According to the New York Times, Trump was not aware that the quotation comes from Il Duce, but said he likes it anyway.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

"Alfred Hitchcock: The Man Who Knew Too Much"


On June 28th, The Wall Street Journal published my review of Michael Wood's new book, "Alfred Hitchcock:  The Man Who Knew Too Much."  You think you already know everything about Hitchcock?  Read "The Fine Art of Fear," by clicking here.  And my apologies to the late, great Joseph Cotten for spelling his last name incorrectly. 

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Orson Welles at 100


May 6th would have been Orson Welles's 100th birthday.  The great actor, director, writer, producer, magician, and world-class raconteur died 30 years ago but is still a vivid presence to those of us who cherish his films.  The Wall Street Journal has published my tribute to him a day early, so we'll all have more time to celebrate, just as Orson would have wanted us to.  My piece is a rather unusual take on the kid from Kenosha, and I'm sure it will inspire as many brickbats as hosannas, if not more.  Join the argument:  "On His 100th Birthday, Rethinking Orson Welles."