obscurity

THE NOTEBOOKS OF MALTE LAURIDS BRIGGE BY RAINER MARIA RILKE

I don’t imagine that I will always read. I hope not, anyway. For someone who is so scared of death it is rather perverse, or certainly absurd, that I spend so much of my time amongst the dead, instead of engaging with the world around me. Indeed, that is why I started reading heavily, it was, I’m sure, a way of turning away from a world that I so often felt, and still feel, at odds with, towards another that I could control and which did not challenge me. With books I can pick and choose a sensibility, an outlook, that chimes with my own and I can guarantee company and conversation that I don’t find alienating or dispiriting. To this end, I have read The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge three times. As a novel it is something of a failure, but large parts of it resonate with me as much as, if not more than, any writing ever set down on paper.

“My last hope was always the window. I imagined that outside there, there still might be something that belonged to me, even now, even in this sudden poverty of dying. But scarcely had I looked thither when I wished the window had been barricaded, blocked up, like the wall. For now I knew that things were going on out there in the same indifferent way, that out there, too, there was nothing but my loneliness.”

The Notebooks is essentially the thoughts, memories and impressions of Malte, a twenty-eight year old Dane who has recently moved to Paris. There are a number of well-known but now dated novels that deal with the ex-pat experience, such as Cortazar’s Hopscotch and Miller’s Tropic of Cancer, novels that are invariably marred by machismo and pretension. The Notebooks, however, contains none of that. Rilke’s Paris isn’t a playboy’s playground, littered with booze and whores; it is a ‘great’ city, full of ‘curious temptations,’ but there is nothing glamorous about it and no sense that Malte is living some kind of mock-heroic existence. Indeed, in the opening line of the novel he states that Paris is a place where, it strikes him, one does not go to live, but where one goes to die; it is a place that smells of pommes frites and fear.

That Malte is the last, or one of the last, in his family line is trebly significant, for he is preoccupied with death, with solitude, and with nostalgia. One notices that, again in contrast with many other similar novels, there is not one living character with whom he regularly engages or communicates. In Paris he is an observer, making notes about ordinary citizens, but never interacting with them. For example, he sees a pregnant woman ‘inching ponderously along by a high, sun-warmed wall’ as though ‘seeking assurance that it was still there,’ he watches a man collapse, and then another who has some kind of physical ailment that causes him to hop and jerk suddenly. He appears to be drawn to the eccentric and lost, the suffering and down-trodden, no doubt because he identifies with them, but he remains alone and isolated himself. Towards the end of the novel he states that he once felt a loneliness of such enormity that his heart was not equal to it.

However, when he is surrounded by people, such as when there is a carnival, he describes it as a ‘vicious tide of humanity’ and notes how laughter oozes from their mouths like pus from a wound. Malte is the kind of man who lives mostly in his head, who, although he encourages his solitude, is scared of losing his connection with the world, of withdrawing and parting from it. At one point he goes to the library, and praises it as a place where people are so engrossed in their reading that they barely acknowledge each other. He spends his time strolling to little shops, book dealers and antique places, that, he says, no one ever visits. Once more, we see an interest in obscure things, in things that have been forgotten or neglected. One of my favourite passages is when he comes upon a torn down building, and he states that it is the bit that is left that interests him, the last remaining wall with little bits of floor still visible. It is the suggestion of something once whole, once fully functioning that grabs his attention.

rilke-and-rodin

[Rainer Maria Rilke  – left – and Auguste Rodin in Paris]

As noted, much of the book is concerned with Malte’s memories regarding his family, specifically in relation to his childhood. One understands how this – his upbringing and family situation – may have gone some way to making him the man he is. He is taciturn, he says, and then notes how his father was too. His father was not fond of physical affection either. Later, in one of the more autobiographical anecdotes, Malte talks about his mother’s mourning for a dead child, a little girl, and how he would pretend to be Sophie [the name of Rilke’s own mother] in an effort to please her. It is therefore not a surprise that he is highly sensitive, inward-looking and ill at ease with himself. Indeed, there is much in The Notebooks about identity and individuality. There are, Malte says, no plurals, there is no women, only singularities; he baulks at the term family, saying that the four people under this umbrella did not belong together. Furthermore, at one stage he fools around, dressing up in different costumes, in which he feels more himself, not less; but then he tries on a mask and has some kind of emotional breakdown.

All of these things – ruins, obscurity, deformity, ailments, nostalgia, the self, loneliness – come together in what is the book’s dominant theme, which is that of death. Only Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilych and Lampedusa’s The Leopard contain as much heartrending insight into the subject. There are numerous passages and quotes I could discuss or lift from the text, but, not wanting to ruin your own reading, I will focus on only one. When writing about individuality, Malte bemoans the fact, as he sees it, that people do not die their own deaths anymore, they die the death of their illness, they become their illness and their passing, therefore, has nothing to do with them. In sanatoriums, he continues, people die ‘so readily and with much gratitude’; the upper classes die a genteel death at home, and the lower-classes are simply happy to find a death that ‘more or less fits.’

“Who is there today who still cares about a well-finished death? No one. Even the rich, who could after all afford this luxury, are beginning to grow lazy and indifferent; the desire to have a death of one’s own is becoming more and more rare. In a short time it will be as rare as a life of one’s own.”

Malte contrasts these predictable, unheroic deaths with that of his uncle, Chamberlain Christoph Detlev Brigge. The old Chamberlain died extravagantly; his death was so huge that new wings of the house ought to have been built to accommodate it. He shouted and made demands, demands to see people – both living and dead – and demands to die. This voice plagued the locals, keeping them in a state of agitation; it was a voice louder than the church bells…it was the voice of death, not of Christoph, and it became the master, a more terrible master than the Chamberlain had ever been himself. The point that Malte is making seems to be that one should not go gentle into that good night, that one should not accept the death that most pleases others, that causes the least amount of fuss. You will die, there is no escape, it is within you, your death, from the very first moment, you carry it with you at all times, but you do not have to go out with a whimper.

One might also argue that in looking to the past, in tracing his memories, Malte is running away from death, or that he is attempting to give death the finger, by turning back the clock and keeping these people alive in his own mind and on paper. In any case, it is not difficult to see how for someone so introspective death would be a major concern, for death robs you of that, it prevents everything, it brings everything to a stop, including the ability to think. You cease to be, and what truly makes you yourself is not your appearance, but your thoughts and your experiences. I wonder if this is why, towards the very end of the novel, Malte suddenly begins to write about Christ and God, even going so far as to write to them. Is this a final, cowardly bid to convince himself that death is not the end? I don’t know, but it is fair to say that The Notebooks does lose its way in the final ten or twenty pages.

I wrote at the beginning of this review that The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge is a failure as a novel and this probably warrants further explanation. Rather like Pessoa’s The Book of Disquiet, which it resembles in many ways actually, I imagine that some readers will find it difficult to read the book cover-to-cover. There is absolutely no plot, and many of the entries do not follow on from the previous one. Moreover, after a few pages about Paris, which I would guess serve to draw in a number of people, the focus abruptly shifts, and the book then becomes increasingly strange and elusive, with a relentless interiority. None of this bothers me, however. While I do hope to give up reading one day, I will, without question, carry this book around inside me for the rest of my life, rather like my death.

ILLUMINATIONS BY ARTHUR RIMBAUD

When you’re transported back, in your memories, to gaze, Scrooge-like, through a window at your weekend, and what you see is yourself singing Stick Wit U by The Pussycat Dolls [the game was what’s the worst song you know all the words to?] you know it took a wrong turn somewhere. They say alcohol kills truckloads of braincells, and you have to wonder if it’s worth it. I had intended this review to be my own version of Rimbaud’s Illuminations, a series of short prose-poems about the work and its author. The first one, which was written before any alcohol was imbibed is below:

O sweet poems – all prosed; all read – all sweet unknowing!

Pigeoned in apprehension, he strove with his inexactitude, then was lost amidst the shallow lapping of his years.

I quite like that. It’s not great, but it’s passable. It’s not particularly Rimbaudean [is that right?], because to be strictly Rimbaudean [I’m sure that’s not right] you would have to give up on reviewing the book altogether, his work being wholly personal and esoteric. Anyway, I’ve been unable to bring the thing to completion. My head, my mind, refuses to play ball; whatever ability I might have had to complete [P]’s Illuminations has seemingly died at the bottom of a toilet bowl, was thrown up into that toilet bowl – along with my liver, spleen, kidneys – sometime early this morning.

So, I’m going to have to piece something together off the cuff; apologies if it’s a bit weak. How to start, then? For a long time I was suspicious of Rimbaud; I approached him with some prejudices. The enfant terrible! The precocious teenager! The first modern man-boy! Ah. I must admit that his age was a bit of a problem. Could someone really be that good at 15? I didn’t think so. I was of the opinion that one could show promise but not create something truly worthwhile at an age when most people’s greatest achievement is not being caught jacking off by their parents. And to some extent that opinion is valid, in that my favourites of his works are the final two [including this one, which was the very last thing he published].

My other problem with Rimbaud was, in all honesty, not about the man but a certain kind of person who likes him. I don’t know if these characters exist in other parts of the world, but here in England there is a breed of boy [it’s not exclusively boys, but mostly] who are, well, pretty unclean, and who consider themselves to be libertines and decadents, and so wibble on about French poetry [a volume of which they’ll have with them, because they’re, like, sensitive and interesting] and their own excruciatingly abysmal poetry, and their music [because they’re always in bands too, crap ones that sound like The Brian Jonestown Massacre or The Birthday Party], and they’ll usually also be holding a flower [another symbol of their sensitivity]…well, those boys always fucking love Rimbaud. And, listen, I’m generally pretty tolerant; my attitude is each to their own, as long as you’re not hurting anyone [or trying to get me to read your poetry or watch your band], it’s just that I can’t take these people seriously, and so that sense of ridiculousness left a stain on Rimbaud too.

It wasn’t until a year or so ago that my attitude changed. I had come back to live in the north of England, and there are less of those boys up here, and so the stain started to fade. I was aware, at that point, that a fuss had been made of Ashbury’s translation of Illuminations, and periodically I’d catch a review or a mention of it somewhere. So, eventually, feeling more well-disposed towards Rimbaud and a little excited by the growing hype, I bought a pretty hardback version of the book. Yet, I didn’t immediately love the poems; reading the book cover-to-cover in one sitting my attention started to waver, my concentration flag; the most I could say was that I had enjoyed it, but hadn’t been particularly moved. However, as I returned to the book over the following weeks certain images and lines jumped out at me, demanded my attention; lines like:

A hare paused amid the gorse and trembling bellflowers and said its prayer to the rainbow through the spider’s web

Which is kinda silly, yes, but lovely nevertheless.

The more I got to know the poems, the more I liked them. I think it’s natural to read prose and demand meaning from it, or recognition, and that isn’t something you’ll get consistently from Illuminations. This isn’t Proust; it’s not a simple matter of accustoming yourself to the rhythm of the sentences in order for the meaning to reveal itself. Nor is it Ulysses, which with the required knowledge [although possessing all of that knowledge is unlikely] would open up to you many of the its mysteries. Illuminations isn’t difficult in terms of its language or references, it is merely obtuse; it is the intensely personal vision of one man. To some extent one could criticise the work for that; one could legitimately ask: if something is so personal as to render it almost inaccessible to anyone but that person then what is the point of publishing it? I’m sympathetic to that, which then begs the question: if I don’t buy into the legend of Rimbaud, the poet as man, and if the work doesn’t speak to me personally, doesn’t say anything to me about my life, why do I rate it so highly? Well, what I like about it is the idea that one man can see the world in this way, can turn his senses to the world, a world all of us have access to, and see these often strange and beautiful things in it. Ultimately, its alien and isolating nature is actually a virtue, is what I value about it.

Clues to the meaning of the individual pieces are often to be found in the titles, and through them is revealed a preoccupation with cities. For someone who is often described as the first modern man, it is interesting that he isn’t very complimentary about them; in cities he sees “morality and language reduced to its most basic expression.” In contrast, when he writes about woods or forests he is at his most lyrical [some would say ridiculous]:

I walked, waking living and warm breaths, and jewels looked on, and wings arose noiselessly.

The first undertaking, in the pathway already filled with fresh, pale sparkles, was a flower which told me its name.

In fact, I would point the reader to this quote from another of his works as a way of illuminating [geddit!] this collection and Rimbaud’s preoccupations:

For a long time I … found the celebrities of modern painting and poetry ridiculous. I loved absurd pictures, fanlights, stage scenery, mountebanks’ backcloths, inn-signs, cheap colored prints; unfashionable literature, church Latin, pornographic books badly spelt, grandmothers’ novels, fairy stories, little books for children, old operas, empty refrains, simple rhythms.

It is that interest in marginalia and obscurity, and the referencing of fairy-tales, that best gives one a sense of what is great about Illuminations and the poet’s vision.

_______________

A brief note: In terms of Ashbury’s translation, it reads well. I would say, however, that it’s probably further from the original that some other translations. It doesn’t feel authentically French either, there being some glaring Americanisms, such as the title of one poem as Clearance rather than, say, Sale. Ashbury can’t have been unaware of this, and it irks me slightly that he wasn’t respectful of the source material enough to avoid these jarring words and phrases.