Tag / books

by Edward Champion

Parade’s End (Modern Library #57)

Ford Madox Ford’s introspective tetralogy has been held up as a major work of literature for decades, but Ford’s leaden dialogue and one-note characters are embarrassingly regressive in the 21st century.

(This is the forty-fourth entry in The Modern Library Reading Challenge, an ambitious project to read the entire Modern Library from #100 to #1. Previous entry: The Age of Innocence.)

Very few people read Ford Madox Ford (née Ford Madox Hueffer) these days and there are salubrious and soul-preserving reasons why this is so. He’s the rare “great writer” who has as much relevance in the twenty-first century as some huckster trying to sell you an anti-garroting cravat. Parade’s End is ostensibly about the psychological effects of World War I, but, even on my second read of this plodding tetralogy, I found myself revisiting Ernst Jünger’s Storm of Steel, Richard Aldington’s Death of a Hero, Paul Fussell’s The Great War and Modern Memory, and even Rebecca West’s underrated The Return of the Soldier — all far more poignant and perspicacious volumes into how the Great War shaped human history. If anything, Parade’s End is an unwelcome reminder that the crusty white dudes who concocted the Modern Library canon were more motivated by what certain insiders deemed “great literature” rather than bona-fide literary standards.

Of course, I am merely one man on a literary journey — perhaps, more accurately, an asshole on the Internet with an opinion. Even so, when I posted a photo on my Instagram story of me wincing while holding up the Ford omnibus (complete with the unanticipated aesthetic touch of a bandage taped to my forehead, the result of a shaving accident rather than a sustained session in which I repeatedly banged my noggin against a stop sign pole, although my head often felt more like the latter while reading Parade’s End), a friend pointed out that she had indeed suffered with me when she had taken a stab with Ford. Her surprise revelation, delivered in a dramatic “Luke, I am your father” timbre, helped me to feel less alone. Yes, Ford Madox Ford had been dead for a good eighty-seven years and was thus an easy target for a cranky middle-aged bald dude like me who really wanted to write about Kerouac or Faulkner rather than this guy. But our bond of friendship became tighter, cemented in some shared reading agony that we had not hitherto known about. We shook our fists into the air and condemned the dreaded surname “Tietjens.”

You see, only the stodgiest tastemakers imaginable would have the stonecold cruelty to recommend this dull and insufferable perorater to some starry-eyed young reader hoping to secure a foothold in the daunting Modern Library canon. It’s especially aggravating that I have to deal with Ford not once, but twice, on this infernal list. Yes, I am fated to suffer through The Good Soldier when we get to ML 30.  I am not happy about this. But I did take a ridiculous literary oath fifteen years ago and I am a man of my word. This slimmer and more potent novel is admittedly a bit better than Parade’s End — “better” in the way that getting swiftly kicked in the balls is preferable to having a limb sawed off.

But as a graying though exuberant Gen Xer, I am duty-bound to tell any enthusiastic Zoomer or tap-dancing millennial that they would be better off watching Sam Levinson’s exploitative television series Euphoria than reading Ford Madox Ford. It can be sufficiently argued that the only reason that the 2012 BBC television adaptation of Parade’s End was memorable at all is because the brilliant Tom Stoppard (may he rest in peace) rearranged the events and added new scenes and dialogue — most tellingly taking on an “unfaithfully faithful” approach.

Who reads this man today? Perhaps a few superannuated Ford stans can be found whispering “Tietjens” as they slap their fading chits onto lonely numbers in moribund bingo hall parlors swarming with smoke. But I cannot in good conscience join this gloomy coterie of literary losers. These Ford boosters have so deluded themselves into blinkered advocacy that even Julian Barnes had the startling temerity to declare that Ford made Graham Greene, who rightly called out Last Post as “an afterthought,” look old-fashioned. Seriously bro?

Gentlemen don’t earn money. Gentlemen, as a matter of fact, don’t do anything. They exist. Perfuming the air like Madonna lilies. Money comes into them as air through petals and foliage. Thus the world is made better and brighter.

Compare this with Greene in The Quiet American and you see a significant difference between dowdy bloviating and taut observational precision:

A man open to bribes was to be relied upon below a certain figure, but sentiment might uncoil in the heart at a name, a photograph, even a smell remembered.

Christopher Tietjens — intended to reflect the dying gasps of an Edwardian age only now appreciated by husky buzzards pinching tobacco in glum dens boxed by dowdy leatherbound walls — is surely among the least interesting protagonists in 20th century literature. He is the “last Tory” — a clumsy, blunt, physically gargantuan, and very rude statistician incapable of a jocular remark or a jolly jolt in his gait. Ford banged out pages and pages of leaden dialogue from this insufferable mansplainer. And his observations possess all the pleasure of a two hundred pound steel weight being thrown repeatedly into your solar plexus, presumably with some automated Peloton instructor shrieking into your eardrums with the unsettling tenor of an ICE agent preparing to murder someone in broad daylight. “You betray your non-Anglo-Saxon origin by being so vocal…And by your illuminative exaggerations!” “Little nippers like you don’t stop things….Besides, feel the wind!” The ellipses falsely suggest a free associative genius, but only succeeded in reducing me to unintended laughter. (How else was I supposed to soldier through this book? With a stern and self-immolating chin?) Ford actually presages many of these hokey lines with a breezy “Tietjens said:” in the paragraph before just so he can pad out his pages with the unpersuasive momentum of an undergrad trying to hit the 1,000 word minimum on the essay due the next morning.

Tietjens is often outlined as brilliant, but Ford’s descriptive approach is all tell and no show:

The fly that took them back went with the slow pomp of a procession over the winding marsh road in front of the absurdly picturesque red pyramid of the very old town.

Now even someone with a particularly acute case of ADHD will look to such a sentence and see that it is trying way too hard to sound “literary” when it doesn’t say much of anything at all. What are we supposed to dwell on here? The putter of the prewar Smith Flyer? Well, we don’t actually feel its spurts or its undulations in this sentence. But we do have the sense that the fly here is in “slow pomp,” or on display. Which doesn’t really conjure up a distinct image. Okay. Fine, Ford. You do you. But how does the “winding marsh road” contribute to the imagery? Does it serve in some juxtaposition to the fly? Of course not. The road image is used to get us to “an absurdly picturesque red pyramid” that stands in apparent counterpoint to “the very old town.” But what kind of red pyramid? How is it picturesque? Again, we don’t know. And it’s utterly maddening. Ford never describes this “pyramid” again. This isn’t poetic at all. It’s word salad. Ford delivers elegant variations that aren’t even interesting in the manner by which they fail — such as “an extraordinary Falstaff’s battalion of muddy odd-come shorts.” Ford stitches together random phrases, but he only succeeds in giving us disorienting incongruities that read more like some well-read guy tagging along with you on a drunken night in Vegas, though without the pleasure of slot machine clinks or a comely stranger you accidentally hook up with. (Hey, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas!)

And there’s more hapless syntax where that came from, folks! Should I mention the shadow “falling across the bar of light that the sunlight threw in at his open door” or how a fellow named McKechnie “swallowed as men are said to swallow who suffer from hydrophobia”?

By contrast, here is P.G. Wodehouse describing a golf course at the beginning of “A Woman is Only a Woman”:

It is a vantage-point peculiarly fitted to the man of philosophic mind: for from it may be seen that varied, never-ending pageant, which men call Golf, in a number of its aspects. To your right, on the first tee, stand the cheery optimists who are about to make their opening drive, happily conscious that even a topped shot will trickle a measurable distance down the steep hill. Away in the valley, directly in front of you, is the lake hole, where these same optimists will be converted to pessimism by the wet splash of a new ball. At your side is the ninth green, with its sinuous undulations which have so often wrecked the returning traveler in sight of home. And at various points within your line of vision are the third tee, the sixth tee, and the sinister bunkers about the eighth green⁠—none of them lacking in food for the reflective mind.

This is infinitely more enjoyable than Ford — and not just because Wodehouse is almost always a delight to read. Wodehouse maps out the territory and the types to be found in his setting and he somehow turns golfing — which I myself have never enjoyed outside of the brilliantly designed miniature courses that you find all throughout Ocean City, Maryland — into a joyfully absurd reverie for optimistic philosophy. Where Ford is muddled and confused, Wodehouse is clear and specific, complete with phrases like “wet splash of a new ball.” It is the difference between being stuck at a party with a bitter and rambling old man who gave up on finding felicity at least two decades earlier and a giddy eccentric who plans to cut the rug well into old age — or, at least, as long as his legs will two-step.

Ford Madox Ford was all influence and overhyped “talent.” It’s certainly no accident that the great Jean Rhys devoted her ferocious (and far more gifted) energies to savaging this bombastic tyrant in Quartet — revenge from Rhys after a protracted carnal entanglement. You see, there’s an undeniably skeeze quality to Ford both on the page and in his life. While serving as editor of The Transatlantic Review, Ford used his outsize literary influence to serve as a “literary mentor” to young writers (ahem, young women) decades younger than him. He would publish their early stories and exact a boudoir form of remuneration. This was a less enlightened time in which literary men in positions of power could not be held accountable. And these poor women had to endure Ford’s selfish clit-ignorant thrusts while lying back and thinking of publication. After Ford was rightfully spurned by Violet Hunt (she spent eight ghastly years with Ford; Ford, meanwhile, was cheating on his wife), Ford ruthlessly caricatured her not once, but twice — as Florence Dowell in The Good Soldier and, with evermore preposterous misogyny, as the philandering Sylvia Tietjens (Christopher’s wife) in Parade’s End. Sadly, this was what passed for eminence grise among writers in the early 20th century.

It’s safe to say that, like many clueless male authors who preceded him, Ford could not write women especially well. And this extends to Valentine Wannop, the young suffragette who Tietjens falls for. At the beginning of A Man Could Stand Up–, the third book of Parade’s End, Ford not only has Valentine confused about how to use the telephone, but portrays her dreaming of doing nothing more than eating “pomegranates beside an infinite washtub of Recklitt’s blue.” Recklitt’s Blue, for those of you who aren’t familiar with 19th century household items, was a laundry whitener that helped brighten the hues of your clothes. Despite the fact that we are introduced to Valentine as a free-spirited suffragette in the first volume (unsurprisingly, her best moments in the tetralogy), she not only longs to perform domestic duties, but she complains that she is so alone and lives a “nunlike” existence (“And no one had ever wanted to marry her….No one even had ever tried to seduce her.”).

Now anybody even remotely familiar with the suffragettes knows that they were hardly reticent when it came to passion and sex, either with the men who dated them, with each other, or, quite frequently, as they learned to “control their passions” through the power of theoretical abstinence. (You’d honestly be better off hearing about the suffragettes from Diane Atkinson’s Rise Up, Women than from Ford Madox Ford the chronic mansplainer.) But in reading Parade’s End, we don’t get any real sense of the richer life that Ford was perhaps too incurious or incompetent to draw from. James Longenbach has observed that Ford “took pleasure in feeling more qualified to diagnose the problems with women than women themselves.” (And for anyone who wants to do a deep dive, Reconstructionary Tales, a blog run by Paul Skinner, has a great overview of Ford’s conflicted feelings about the suffragettes.)

My eyes winced with incredulity as Tietjens berated Valentine Wannop for being slightly inaccurate quoting a passage. My soul plummeted into a protective crouch as I realized that Tietjens’s knowledge of the world was largely gleaned from memorizing passages in books with lifeless exactitude and even by reading the encyclopedia in alphabetical order. Almost every time a man showed up in a scene dominated by women, he would flap his lips and I felt very much like Fiona Apple trapped in a bar with the coked out and garrulous egotist Quentin Tarantino.

And here’s the thing. Valentine sees very clearly what a fool Tietjens is:

She knew that his poor mind was empty of facts and of names; but her mother said she was of great help to her. Once provided with facts his mind worked out sound Tory conclusions — of quite startling and attractive theories — with extreme rapidity. This Mrs. Wannop found of the greatest use to her whenever — though it wasn’t now very often — she had an article to write for an excitable newspaper. She still, however, contributed to her failing organ of opinion, though it paid her nothing.

Since I’ve been lambasting the man at length, I’ll give Ford a few modest props for this more clear-eyed passage, but this still circles back to one of my primary gripes about Parade’s End. Obviously, Ford possessed enough cognizance to understand how “modern” women of that era were juggling love and career. But Ford, like many mediocre men before him, is largely incurious about the latter and vitiates what talent he possessed by saturating himself in the former. Hell, even Samuel Richardson’s Clarissa — a massive masterpiece that happily occupied weeks of my reading time last year — showed far more curiosity about the inner life of a young woman than Ford did in Parade’s End. And that’s also accounting for the 18th century’s comparatively more atavistic genuflection to the patriarchy.

Furthermore, activists are fiercely loyal to their causes, particularly if they protest (as Valentine does) on a daily basis. Near the end of Some Do Not…, there is a lengthy section in which Valentine agrees to become Tietjens’s “mistress” — although nothing is consummated — and we are beholden to what is arguably the most pathetic male fantasy on the Modern Library list: namely, Valentine’s fawning admiration for the “poor mind” of this hopeless dullard.

* * *

The first of the Parade’s End books was published two years after Ulysses and T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land, a year before Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway, and while Proust was five books into In Search of Lost Time. These modernist geniuses served up poetic passages about consciousness. They used abstract prose in thrilling and experimental ways to unpack the crags and nuances of human existence. Ford, by contrast, has merely given us clunky prose in which the reader is randomly deposited into a new time and location. Upon solving any “riddle” that Ford presents us, the answer itself proves to be disappointingly pedestrian. It really doesn’t help that Ford is fond of having his characters repeat the title of his novel. “No more parades” obviously means that the pomp and circumstance of established social routines derived from the old social order aren’t exactly going to be practiced after machine guns, mustard gas, and trench warfare demonstrated the truly monstrous possibilities of humankind. And the Groby Great Tree cut down at Tietjens’s estate is more of a blunt and obvious metaphor of the old order collapsing rather than anything especially profound. Ford then commits the grave sin of not only believing himself to be much more clever than he really is, but in giving us a clunky journey in which we increasingly do not care about the destination.

Those who have praised Ford have done so on the basis of what I would deem “consciousness presented through continuous partial attention.” Yet they hold their tongues at the extremely contrived setups throughout the work. Mr. Duchemin, for example, goes insane without any specific reason. There is one particularly awful scene in Some Do Not… in which the “brilliant” Tietjens dukes it out with a banker over a series of overdraft charges.

Oh, but all the confusion and contradiction! The stuff of true literature! It’s why Parade’s End is on this list! Well, I see these more as significant liabilities rather than virtues. I simply cannot believe that Parade’s End was carefully designed as an invaluable modernist contribution — in large part because Ford, at times, doesn’t seem to know Tietjens. We learn, for example, that Christopher has two brothers (one that appears on page) in Some Do Not…. By the time we get to No More Parades, Christopher conveniently has a sister, who has previously been unmentioned. If this is the “inner life” meant to hammer home the conflict between the old and the new social orders, then I’d rather soak in a season of Bridgerton. But, hey, at least I’m now free of this dreadful opus. Don’t worry. I’m quite fond of the next few titles and I’ll behave myself slightly better in future installments!

Next Up! Dashiell Hammett’s The Maltese Falcon!

by Edward Champion

The Strange Career of Jim Crow (Modern Library Nonfiction #70)

The great C. Vann Woodward not only offered a vital and far more sophisticated view of Jim Crow and the South than most of the historians who came before him, but he also demonstrated the dangers of how unjust laws and corrupt institutions can galvanize the most repugnant qualities within Americans when their natural instincts lean into the very reverse.

(This is the thirty-first entry in The Modern Library Nonfiction Challenge, an ambitious project to read and write about the Modern Library Nonfiction books from #100 to #1. There is also The Modern Library Reading Challenge, a fiction-based counterpart to this list. Previous entry: The Rise of the West.)

All historical reconsiderations have to start somewhere. And before C. Vann Woodward combed fastidiously through newspapers to change our perception of Jim Crow, he had to unseat a formidable (and wrongheaded) standard.

In 1941, a journalist by the name of W.J. Cash published a strange book called The Mind of the South and then hanged himself. This volume, aloof and offensive by 2020s standards, nevertheless reflected a good faith effort to attempt to document the Southern region of America: namely, the strains of thought and sensibilities that contributed to its distinctive character.

The problem was that Cash, more seduced by the filigree of writing in the assumed voice of a racist Southern white man rather than offering a coherent, inclusive, and well-sourced anthropological breakdown, was keen on wrapping the unruly region in a mighty blanket of generalizations. Cash believed that the South had no mind, was driven by a romantic instinct boxed into an inflexible historical continuity, and that this was all largely fueled by hedonism and paralogia. This is obviously extremely inaccurate when one considers, oh say, the birth of the blues, the fiction of Jesmyn Ward, Zora Neale Hurston, and William Faulkner, the fact that you will find some of the world’s best gumbo in Louisiana, or, even more importantly, the evolution of civil rights. Cash conveniently elided a great deal of the odious imperialism that jumpstarted the Civil War and, perhaps most criminally, he glossed over slavery (“a vastly wasteful system,” focusing on “the white victims of slavery” rather than Black people, lip service to the aristocrats occasionally huffing about “moral indefensibility,” et al.).

While Mind serves up occasionally smart insights into farmers and class loyalty, it is a largely unsatisfactory volume when it comes to the class and race divides. It is a bit too pat and conveniently poetic for Cash to say that the dominant mood of the South was “one of well-nigh drunken reverie — of a hush that seems all the deeper for the far-away mourning of the hounds and the far-away crying of the does” (and I could quote more from this ridiculously prolix passage, but you get the picture).

Cash’s most unpardonable characterization of the South is his failure to consider the origins and nuances of systemic racism. Black people are nigh invisible through large sections of the book. Yet his highly flawed study became the textbook tendance for postwar intellectuals because there were few other Mencken-endorsed volumes measuring up Southern identity at the time.

* * *

That’s when C. Vann Woodward — a Southern historian who had established himself as an expert on naval history and who quietly wrote recommendation letters for more Blacks to be appointed into academic positions — entered the picture with his excellent volume The Strange Career of Jim Crow. He introduced a vital thesis that was to challenge understanding of racial integration in a deeply important way: In the immediate decades after the Civil War, there were natural moments of social inclusion in which Blacks and whites lived and intermingled together. But these vital steps forward were completely overturned by a group of 19th century white supremacist “influencers” turned lawmakers who ensured that the evils of Jim Crow, which separated public facilities by race, were on most of the state law books south of the Mason-Dixon line and enforced by sinister men perhaps best epitomized by the likes of Bull Connor unleashing German Shepherds upon Black protesters in 1963.

It’s extremely important to understand that there were moments in the 19th century’s waning years in which Jim Crow legislation (which actually originated in the North) was mocked and ridiculed in major Southern cities. One can, in fact, make a persuasive argument that Southerners, in some cases, were willing to put aside their bigotry. Prior to Woodward, the dominant view held by historians was that racial segregation emerged rapidly as Reconstruction began to implode. But a close examination of the sources dredged up by Woodward reveals that his thesis of racial integration emerging in unanticipated spots, which was by no means Panglossian and certainly didn’t erase the repugnant racial violence of that postbellum epoch, holds up in 2026.

* * *

Woodward observed that, as late as 1885, T. McCants Stewart, a Black lawyer and journalist and a close friend of Booker T. Washington, journeyed to his homestate of South Carolina to see how life was shaking out after not stepping foot there for ten years. (Stewart’s extraordinary reporting, published on April 18, 1885 and April 25, 1885 and titled “Rambles in the South,” can be read in its entirety at the Library of Congress.) As he was traveling by rail, Stewart discovered much to his surprise that the car was full and white people were sitting on their luggage and he had a seat. But he was not asked by the conductor to give it up. If anything, the conductor had been gentle and courteous to Stewart when requesting him to move his luggage to accommodate a white passenger. He sat in a dining car in the same room as whites.

Perhaps most remarkably, Stewart said that he actually experienced more racism in Wilmington, Delaware than he did in Virginia and South Carolina. Indeed, white Southerners — in 1885 — made small talk with him. Stewart wrote (and this is not quoted by Woodward): “In the South it is no unusual thing for a man to ask the distance to the next point, to borrow your paper, to remark about the weather, to enter into conversation.” Stewart further remarked, “I feel about as safe here as in Providence, R.I. I can ride in first class cars on the railroads and in the streets. I can go into saloons and get refreshments even as in New York. I can stop in and drink a glass of soda and be more politely waited upon than in some parts of New York.”

* * *

On January 25, 1898, the Charleston News and Courier published an item of devilish satire in response to a Jim Crow law then under consideration by the South Carolina Legislature. Much like people in 2024 never believing that ICE would become a massively budgeted paramilitary force randomly shooting American citizens and kidnapping taxpaying immigrants without due process, it then seemed unthinkable to call for railroad cars to be segregated by race. And so a shit-stirring editor by the name of James C. Hemphill, who had an extremely impressive mustache and who had written many editorials against lynching, had this to say (Woodward quotes some of it, but when I found the entire piece on Newsbank, I couldn’t resist offering more of it):

There should be a Jim Crow section in the jury box, and a separate Jim Crow deck and witness stand in every Court — and a Jim Crow Bible for colored witnesses to kiss. It would be advisable also to have a Jim Crow section in county auditors’ and treasurers’ offices for the accommodation of colored taxpayers. The two races are dreadfully mixed in these offices for weeks every year, especially about Christmas, and just afterward, when the time for making returns and paying taxes, without penalty, is about to expire. The cars are provided with seats, so that everybody can sit down and keep separate from everybody else. It is not so in the county offices. There the crowd stands together in a bench, or is strung out in a waiting and highly variegated line. There should be a Jim Crow “department” for making returns and paying for the privileges and blessings of citizenship.

Unfortunately, the Charleston News and Courier was taken over by a different editor (Robert Lathan, who did not have an amazing mustache or a sense of humanism), where the Jim Crow stance shifted from high 19th century snark to bona-fide xenophobia.

On September 26, 1906, in response to a massacre in Atlanta, one that was as vile and as forgotten as the 1921 Tulsa riots, in which whites murdered dozens of Black people because the Georgia gubernatorial race between then candidates Hoke Smith and Clark Howell stoked racist fears about a Black upper class, the News and Courier blamed racial integration on this:

As long as the negroes [sic] persist in the commission of the crime which caused the terrible outbreak in Atlanta this week, so long will the mob do its fearful work. Separation of the races is the only radical solution of the negro problem in this country. There is nothing new about it. It was the Almighty who established the bounds of the habitation of the races. The negroes were brought here by compulsion; they should be induced to leave here by persuasion. There is no room for them here, living on terms of political and social equality with the white people.

The item also notes that the “problem” “is worse now [1906] than it was ten or twenty years ago.” Never mind that only eight years before, the same newspaper roundly ridiculed any application of Jim Crow laws. But Lathan had no problem leaning into racism, concluding, “[The problem] can be settled effectively only by the separation of the races. The sooner it is settled the better for both races and for the sake of all humanity.” Fortunately, Lathan had the decency to drop dead at the early age of fifty-six before he could blow more racist dog whistles.

Woodward’s salient point still resonates today. Would some of these Jim Crow laws have been abandoned if the people had stood up to the racist lawmakers? Would some of the terrible violence in the aftermath of the Civil War and extending into the 20th century — the East St. Louis riot in 1917, the “Red Summer” of 1919, et al. — have been mitigated? Then and now, it takes only a handful of hateful demagogues delivering repugnant sermons from the mount to make a terrible idea stick.

* * *

Like any pithy historian with his finger firmly on the pulse of institutional ills, Woodward has had a few scholars challenge his thesis. In Bind Us Apart, Nicholas Guyatt observed that some abolitionists in the early 19th century (notably William Short) stumped for racial segregation (what Short called “amalgamation”) because they feared interracial sex. Interracial love could only be tolerated by covertly racist Jacksonian Democrats like President Andrew Johnson if it involved non-whites passing as white. Some ostensible “liberals” even argued that freed slaves should be sent off to Africa. (Lincoln himself was keen on sending freed slaves to Liberia in 1854. He also tendered famously abhorrent remarks against racial inequality in his 1858 debates with Douglas.)

These are all fair and unsettling observations, but it doesn’t entirely overturn Woodward’s thesis, particularly since Guyatt is vague about the timeline in his book. Woodward was explicitly talking about how Jim Crow laws were put onto the books and how this codification galvanized more whites to endorse what they had previously either disregarded or countered with high-caliber badinage, not hypocritical whites who professed to stick up for Blacks even as they simultaneously promoted versions of segregation. Unlike Woodward, Guyatt mentions “segregationist Jim Crow laws that had swept through southern legislatures after the collapse of Reconstruction in 1877,” but never cites the states, the dates these laws were passed, or, perhaps most importantly, the severity of these statutes. Woodward, by contrast, is far from ambiguous about what states did what:

Up to 1900 the only law of this type adopted by the majority of Southern states was that applying to passengers aboard trains. And South Carolina did not adopt that until 1898, North Carolina in 1899, and Virginia, the last, in 1900.

In 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson created the conditions for these “separate but equal” iniquities to flourish at the state level until Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka overturned this interpretation in 1954, leading to what Woodward fairly describes as a volatile time.

Racism certainly did flourish after the Civil War. But Woodward’s more important point is that laws helped to enable white supremacy — to give Southern racists who were on the fence some terrible ideas about accepting Black people into their regular lives. It’s not unlike the way that Trump emboldened racists with his false claims that Haitian immigrants were “eating cats and dogs” during the September 2024 debate with Kamala Harris. And people, who often long to be law-abiding citizens, are more inclined to believe such racist malarkey, capitulating their natural ability to get along with each other, if an institution or a significant person in power tells them that bigotry is not only okay, but very much something enforced by malevolent legislation. This was why Martin Luther King adamantly declared in Why We Can’t Wait that “one has the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

But it isn’t just statutes we need to worry about. If there is no accountability for the manner in which well-meaning institutions operate, then these can also become enablers of regressive policy. Historian Eric Foner, in his great and massive volume on Reconstruction, noted that Woodward later observed that postbellum “progress” was, much like most of the Democratic Party in the 2020s, “essentially nonrevolutionary and conservative.”

Foner cited two later Woodward volumes — (1) 1960’s The Burden of Southern History, in which Woodward proposed that a “third war aim” (that is, racial equality) had been practiced by Union soldiers and (2) 1971’s American Counterpoint, in which Woodward retracted this. The Freedmen’s Bureau — a federal agency which existed from 1865 to 1872 to help integrate nearly four million formerly enslaved Blacks and poor whites — became a pale shadow of its lofty intentions. Union General Oliver Howard, in cahoots with President Andrew Johnson, went well out of his way to subvert the radical policy that had initiated the bureau. Howard sought to remove “virtually every subordinate who sought to fulfill the original mission of the Bureau and help the freedmen.”

C. Vann Woodward didn’t confine his studies to how the tyranny of law encouraged racism to triumph over equality and decency. He was also deeply worried about how well-meaning federal agencies become corrupted, neutered of their original purpose. Various editions of The Strange Career of Jim Crow became less optimistic with every new revision. Perhaps this is because a great historian always remembers that, even when he exhumes the vital scholarship revealing a more sophisticated understanding of the past, we are always contending with odious loudmouths in the present manipulating a potentially more humane population to settle for the worst.

(Next Up! Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions!)

by Edward Champion

The Age of Innocence (Modern Library #58)

Edith Wharton’s classic novel is a more somber and often breathtaking warning about the dangers of conforming with the upper crust. But the reading experience is not made easy by Newland Archer, the dudebro of his time, being Wharton’s most insufferable protagonist.

(This is the forty-third entry in The Modern Library Reading Challenge, an ambitious project to read the entire Modern Library from #100 to #1. Previous entry: Zuleika Dobson.)

Newland Archer — the “hero” of Edith Wharton’s most celebrated novel (and the first book written by a woman to win the Pulitzer Prize) — is the 1870s answer to some privileged techbro half-heartedly trading crypto out of some Sand Hill Road office rental split with an AI slop merchant, leaving the finer details of regular cash flow to a hungrier underling living paycheck to paycheck. Yes, he’s a lawyer, although we never see him drafting a brief or appearing in court. (He does review “unwelcome documents,” the Mingotts ask him to persuade Ellen Olenska to talk her out of a divorce, and there is an off-stage lawsuit mentioned near the end of the book, but that’s about it.)

He has everything and more. If you ran into him today, he’d probably be bragging about his kitchen renovation or his Duolingo streak. Fortunately, he is confined to the atmospheric pages of Wharton’s novel, where we witness Newland attending friendly parties at Highbank and living in that dreaded conformist manner that even Emerson associated with the living dead in “Self-Reliance.” He has boxes containing the newest books. Yet all this privilege is just not enough for this foppish and artless staple slacking in nigh high society just before Gotham became the center of the universe. Oh sure, he’s got a fetching fiancée named May Welland who is nearly as vapid as he is (until she comes touchingly alive with an act of genuinely moving generosity during one particularly poignant moment halfway through the book, which naturally made me abhor Newland more). May has a cousin named Countess Ellen Olenska, a hot piece of ass who stirs Newland’s languorous Johnson into an upward bolt by way of her putative cosmopolitan experience. Thus, in The Age of Innocence, it’s hello Ellen, goodbye May, without the decency of Roger Hodgson’s high tenor singing “Will we ever meet again?” over cheerful keyboards in A♭ Major.

You may be thinking that I hated the book. But that’s not true. Wharton’s prose and storytelling craft in Age is as delicately crafted as any of the other high watermarks of her awe-inspiring career, frequently saddled with that understated sardonic quality of hers that I love so much. She notes that a woman’s hair “had tried to turn white and only succeeded in fading.” Her description of Ned Winsett also crackles when she notes how he “moved his arms with large pawing gestures, as though he were distributing lay blessings to a kneeling multitude.” And even though Wharton notes, during a hubba hubba moment, how Newland and Ellen’s “vain terrors [shriveled] up like ghosts at sunrise,” a brilliantly evocative image conjuring those last chance pangs that feel more immediate with oxytocin hits, I don’t buy for a second that Newland truly loves or cares about anyone.

In case I haven’t been subtle enough, it’s Newland Archer I hate. It’s a hell of a thing to hang a subtle evisceration of hoary societal virtues on such a cipher. I’m fine with reading books about unlikable characters, but it’s another thing when they are uninteresting. Sure, Wharton walks the walk in executing a narrative momentum despite such an unremarkable upper-crust zero at the cynosure. But I’m not going to lie. Newland Archer such a subtly obnoxious prick on the page that I would happily orchestrate one of the bloodiest ass-beatings known to humankind if I had the power to enter classic works of literature like the characters in Jasper Fforde’s Thursday Next series. Newland is, essentially, the mediocre man of his time and his infuriating entitlement is captured agonizingly well by Wharton:

…there were always two or three young men, fairly well-off, and without professional ambition, who, for a certain number of hours of each day, sat at their desks accomplishing trivial tasks, or simply reading the newspapers. Though it was supposed to be proper for them to have an occupation, the crude fact of money-making was still regarded as derogatory, and the law, being a profession, was accounted a more gentlemanly pursuit than business.

Marriage, for Newland, is little more than a medium with which to pass a substantial chunk of years. Early on in the novel, when Countess Olenska responds to one of his messages, he is smitten by the first three words “I ran away.” Like most young men who refuse to understand that moving to a new city or taking up a new job aren’t going to rid you of your preexisting problems, Newland is intoxicated by amorphous flight. And instead of asking Olenska what in the sam hill she means by “running away,” he instead imagines “some dark menace from abroad.” Newland’s limited imagination seems to be the very impetus that kickstarts his patriarchal desire to dominate her.

Newland’s indolence and his First World problems are probably the primary reason why I’m not as hot on this Wharton volume as I’d like to be. At least with “New Year’s Day” (contained in Old New York), Wharton demonstrated great craft on the affair between Henry Prest and Mrs. Lizzie Hazeldean, revealing how society’s understanding of this ostensible series of horizontal hookups did not quite live up to the reality. But there is no such disparity with Newland Archer. Newland is exactly who he appears to be: a chin-scratching slab of meat with an ADHD approach to women and a lack of curiosity matching some lonely mansplainer complaining about the mythical “male loneliness epidemic” when the truth of the matter is that he doesn’t know how to shut up and listen to women. All that spare time and no ambition to guide it. Excuse me while I bust out the world’s smallest violin.

Wharton’s best biographer, Hermione Lee, has astutely observed that The Age of Innocence, of all of Wharton’s books, represented the widest gap between the time Wharton was writing (a remarkably swift six months ending in March 1920) and the time she was writing about (1871-1873), although I don’t fully buy her thesis that Innocence represented an autobiography. For one thing, Innocence is far more muted and guarded (but also more exquisitely understated) than The House of Mirth, which takes place a good two decades later. (With greater permissiveness allowed by later folkways, the characters will obviously dance to a slightly more liberated groove.)

At times, this remote detachment makes Innocence feel more like a work of history than fiction — even more so than Wharton’s Old New York novellas, which all contain far more zest than they get credit for. Age has a more subdued approach than the exuberance on display in Mirth. Lee rightly notes that Wharton had this tendency to leap away every time the characters revealed anything intimate, which suggests that the unpredictable vagaries of human agency are at odds with the fixed nature of history. So it should probably come as no surprise that a blunt and irreverent type like me was more passionate about Mirth than Age and that Wharton’s detached legerdemain proved a little too similar to the mannered logorrhea of her good friend Henry James — a writer whom I largely despise and whose novels I am sadly fated to write about. (Join the fun of watching a bald man lose his mind when we get to ML32, ML27, and ML26!) Still, I cannot gainsay Wharton’s great achievement here.

This is the New York of the 1870s: the onset of the Gilded Age and the tail end of Tweed. It is a little over two decades before the five boroughs consolidated, marching with mad passionate unity to forge a motile metropolis in which iron stalagmites sprouted into the sky with feverish chaotic glee. It is three decades before the sleek beatific curves of City Hall Station inaugurated a new subterranean mode of travel and Wharton’s great heroine Lily Bart lost it all. We are reminded all throughout Age that New York, despite its impressive development, is still something a runt on the world stage. But it is a metropolis blissfully unaware (truly innocent?) of the corruption and grift that will eventually define it. As Wharton writes with muted irony, “New York was inexorable in its condemnation of business irregularities. So far there had been no exception to its tacit rule that those who broke the law of probity must pay.”

Yet even at this premodern nascent point, Gotham’s class aspirations feel preordained. Newland remarks that The Shaughraun, a wildly popular melodramatic play of that pre-Broadway epoch, is as good as anything in Paris or London. Much later in the book, when Newland does find himself in London on his honeymoon, he cluelessly asks, “But don’t Englishwomen dress like everybody else in the evening?” Wharton also reminds us near the end of the novel that this is also the New York before the North River Tunnels carried trains to Penn Station (and one vital takeaway is that Newland doesn’t want these tunnels to be built):

there were people who thought there would one day be a tunnel under the Hudson through which the trains of the Pennsylvania railway would run straight into New York. They were of the brotherhood of visionaries who likewise predicted the building of ships that would cross the Atlantic in five days, the invention of a flying machine, lighting by electricity, telephonic communication without wires, and other Arabian Night marvels.

When Newland considers one of Madame Olenska, he observes that “the things she took for granted gave the measure of those she had rebelled against.” Could this not likewise be the beginning of the New York temperament?

Of course, you can’t gainsay The Age of Innocence‘s prose style. Some of the snarky imagery in the juicier Wharton novels does bubble up in Age from time to time, such as May Welland’s face wearing “the vacant serenity of a young marble athlete.” And Wharton’s glorious eclat for punchy noun-modifier rhythm is admirably fierce when she describes May “looking her loveliest under a wide-brimmed hat that cast a shadow of mystery over her too-clear eyes.”

It’s a pity then that Newland Archer is far flatter than the women, especially since Newland is the dude we have to spend time with while reading this. I get what Wharton was trying to do in sending up society with a doe-eyed meatbag of no great distinction as the protagonist. Stanley Kubrick’s best film, Barry Lyndon, succeeds in part because of the juxtaposition of Michael Hordern’s wry narration against the bland opportunism of Ryan O’Neal playing the titular character. (I suspect that Martin Scorsese’s film adaptation of Age was trying to recapture Kubrick’s stylistic approach to period-piece social critique with Joanne Woodward’s narration.) But after a certain point, shouldn’t exhuming the past like this offer a corresponding set of virtues? A nimble evisceration of the upper crust needs to have a few characters who remind us why life is worth living. And Age, despite numerous mesmerizing passages, will never hit me in the way that The House of Mirth and The Custom of the Country do. Even Pride and Prejudice, for all of its brilliant lunges at snobbery and reputation, still reminds us that marriage, if one is to do it, should be taken seriously and be predicated upon mutual respect rather than whether or not you meet the right people who can get you courtside seats for a Knicks game. And I feel that this is Age‘s fatal flaw. The emotional distance that Wharton demands of us deadens the journey.

On the other hand, the manner in which Newland and Madame Olenska gradually transform into “exhibits” of their time as the book leisurely moves to its end is legitimately brilliant. At one point, the adulterous couple visits the Wolfe collection at the Met and Newland remarks, “Some day, I suppose, it will be a great Museum.” Shortly after that, May remarks on exhibits that don’t matter being put under a label reading “Use unknown.” Newland’s confidence in the future becomes sad and absurd and his fate is sealed in the novel’s haunting final moments:

It was little enough to look back on; but when he remembered to what the young men of his generation and his set had looked forward—the narrow groove of money-making, sport and society to which their vision had been limited—even his small contribution to the new state of things seemed to count, as each brick counts in a well-built wall

It is a stern warning about the dangers of neutering your existence while conforming to patrician dipsticks. Sometimes being true to yourself, rather than avoiding “anything melodramatic and conspicuous” to fit in, is the very life choice you must make to ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself.

Next Up: Ford Madox Ford’s Parade’s End!

by Edward Champion

Kate Tuttle: The Talentless Corporate Husk Who Bangs Out Hollow Platitudes About Books

Kate Tuttle has called me a “noted asshole.” That may or may not be true. But her reliance on generic corporate language for her “reviews” makes her a pathetic bore who is more than a little dead inside.

Kate Tuttle is an unremarkable corporate windup doll who writes about books much in the same way that moribund losers sign up for macramé classes to make friends: namely, deadening the room with dull and desiccated sentences, life-sucking generalizations, and all the lack of adventure that you see in some uptight and hopelessly white suburbanite who upturns her nose at any dinner entree with a touch of paprika. I’ve stayed silent about this toothless husk for many years. There was really no reason to care. Because I tend to ignore those who couldn’t write an original thought to salvage their sad and spent lives. Indeed, my only contact with this miserable batbrain over the great epoch of my Molotov-throwing existence was to ask her to pass along my thanks to her far more accomplished husband for mentioning me in his truly excellent book, Bunk. But that was only because I didn’t have the dude’s email. I don’t think that is the sign of an “asshole” — I’m sorry, “noted asshole,” to evoke Tuttle’s panache for unoriginal vitriol. Then again, the literary world is so dull and gutless, so casually resentful towards any talent who sticks out, that they feel an overwhelming and deranged need to summon me every so often — despite all the long debunked canards about me — into the role of the dependable heavy.

Well, now that Tuttle has called me a “noted asshole”– this when I tend to be kind and congenial if you meet me in the streets — I feel that I have a responsibility to live up to the ridiculous moniker by finally exposing this hideous charlatan, who is better suited to banging out press releases in between suicidal ideations. Largely because I very much subscribe to what Sean Connery once identified as “the Chicago Way” when it comes to settling scores with insignificant and unsmiling fuckwits who write with the absent gusto of someone who is permanently dead inside. If she had simply said nothing, the fireworks you are about to see would not have been written. Consider this a caveat to any other corporate media dullard who wants to start shit with me.

To get a sense for how this desperate gasbag pads out her “pieces,” one can look no further than her review of Abigail Thomas’s Still Life at Eighty:

She does worry about the state of her memory, as perhaps everyone her age does. “My memory is full of holes,” she notes, and later asks, “Does losing memories presage losing my mind?”

Yes, Tuttle really does thinks this little of her readership. Despite the cited quote already establishing that Thomas worries about her memory, Tuttle feels the need to spoon-feed this in the most insultingly condescending terms, even though anyone with a sixth grade level of education could decipher this obvious point on his own. And Tuttle is so artless a writer that the word “worry” appears seven times in an 800 word review.

Tuttle’s proclivity to repeat herself like someone suffering from palilalia is also prominently featured in this Mina Javaherbin profile:

Children’s book author Mina Javaherbin is an architect as well as a writer, and her latest book was largely inspired by the architecture of her father’s hometown, Isfahan, Iran.

Kate Tuttle is a critic who criticizes books in works of criticism! (Uses of “architect” or “architecture” appear five times here. And this senseless snippet is under 400 words.) Was there some internal memo within the Globe ordering its staffers to repeat words like this to court the departing eyeballs?

In fact, Tuttle is such a careless hack that she can’t even match proper tense in a lede: “but everywhere she turns there’s another obstacle — including some that might be deadly.” Boston Globe, this is the “editor” you’ve kept on board to run your books section? Indeed, Tuttle is such an incurious bean counter that a thoughtful dude like Alex Segura is reduced to spouting generalizations hammered in by media training: “It felt like an interesting challenge.” And in interviewing Jodi Picoult on the vital topic of book bans, Tuttle never once brokers anything other than general questions, which is a significant insult and a trivialization toward an author needlessly censored by fascist (and often sexist) zealots. In rightly commending Rebecca L. Davis’s fearless work, Tuttle describes her “well-turned and crystal clear explanations.” (Tuttle can’t seem to pick a lane when only one modifier offering the same meaning will do.)

And if you think that Kate Tuttle is a champion for women writers, consider the crass way in which she belittles Jami Attenberg for writing “a longer timespan than she’d used in previous novels.” Now I’m obviously no fan of Jami Attenberg. But I would never denigrate a writer like this. A writer who flexes her wings and attempts ambition shouldn’t be singled out like this. Would Tuttle have made the same pronouncement if Attenberg were a man? Perhaps this was an aloof attempt at gender parity. But three women who I read this passage to on the phone this afternoon (I did not tell them that a woman wrote this until after they answered) all told me that this came across as patronizing.

I may or may not be an asshole, “noted” or otherwise. But I can tell you this much. I actually write in a voice that you’ll fucking remember. Kate Tuttle will continue banging out these hopeless platitudes and lackadaisical gaffes, but she has failed to grasp that well-behaved women never make history.

by Edward Champion

The Worst Book of 2024: Jeff VanderMeer’s ABSOLUTION

A motherfucking review

Hey, you fucking motherfuckers! I am Jeff Fucking VanderMeer, a certifiable fucking genius and fucking wildly arrogant fuckface who shits on anyone who doesn’t suck my fucking cock! Oh fucking yeah, you fucking bitches! In fucking fact, I’m such a fucking tough guy (or at least I fucking think I am in my fucking head; I’m a gym rat, you fucks!) that I fucking compensate for my fucking lack of fucking talent by fucking using the fucking word fuck a fucking lot in the third fucking part of my latest fucking book. Oh fucking yeah!

Fuck you if you fucking can’t fucking handle it!

I am Jeff Fucking Motherfucking Fuckerfucking VanderMeer, you fucking bitches! Lick my fucking asshole. I fucking know you fucking will. Because I’ve fucking gotten a fucking fuckadoodle fuck my giddy fucking aunt fair fucking pass for so fucking long. But fucking now, you’re finally starting to fucking grasp that I am the greatest fucking pain in the motherfucking ass to my motherfucking editors, who won’t fucking talk because I gamed social fucking media and created a fucking army of MAGA-like lemmings to fucking hang on to my every fucking word. And they fucking like it! Because I am fucking Jeff Fucking VanderMeer, Fucking Genius. Oh fucking shit! Am I a fucking failure because even the fucking Goodreads crowd constantly fucking rates my motherfucking books very fucking low? (3.38 for fucking Annihilation, which is supposed to be my fucking classic? 3.25 for Hummingbird Salamander, which nobody fucking read? 3.22 for A Peculiar Peril?) Oh my fucking god! My fucking non-Southern Fucking Reach novels ain’t fucking selling. Ain’t fucking rating! So I better fucking write a fucking new one and bamboozle the ever living fuck out of all these stupid fucks who I have fucking conned. Oh fucking yeah!

I was so fucking happy when Abigail Fucking Nussbaum rimmed my motherfucking ass in The Guardian. Oh fucking yeah! I mean, she fucking used the fucking word Nabokovian! When all I fucking did was randomly insert the fucking word “fuck” into the third fucking part. And well, you fucking know, it’s so fucking difficult for a Fucking Literary Genius like fucking me to fucking write in any vaguely fucking coherent way. But, hey, Fucking Abigail, I fucking appreciate the fawning ass munch!

I hope you won’t fucking mind if I fucking quote from my motherfucking novel, because I fucking am, at the end of the motherfucking day, a Fucking Literary Genius!

Shit. It smelled so good and nary a fucking small woodland creature he’d manage to bag, even since free of the Southern Reach’s fucked-up policy on the matter. A good broth on a winter’s day. The way the broth would bubble with those golden bubbles, each one on the surface breaking open to add to a salivating scent.

Did you fucking see what I fucking did there? You fucking see? I dropped a “nary” to make my fucking hackery sound a little fucking literary. And you all fucking bought it! And if I drop an “ever since free,” you’ll fucking believe that all of these fucking gratuitous fucks I fucking drop are actually fucking intentional. When, you fucking know, I’m just pulling all this out of my stinky nearing-IBS fucking asshole! And if I fucking repeat myself with the fucking “bubbles,” the greater solipsism and complete lack of fucking craft in my shit-flavored fucking prose won’t be fucking exposed, amirite?

But even fucking before all this “fuck” business, I was fucking conning you motherfuckers the entire fucking time!

It irked the locals who liked birding to be in pursuit of a rare vermillion flycatcher, only to gaze through binoculars … at what turned out to be a biologist wearing a red bandana, staring back through her own binoculars.

You see, I’ve edited so many fucking anthologies that I fucking know that if you drop a ten fucking cent word like “vermillion” (Gene Fucking Wolfe move, motherfuckers! but without the fucking craft!) and I fucking mindlessly repeat the fucking phrasing like fucking “binoculars” — well, fucking then, motherfucker, I’m certainly fucking going to continuing fucking conning you motherfuckers while fucking laughing my fucking way to the fucking midlist fucking bank!

In fucking fact, I am so fucking secure in my Motherfucking Literary Genius that I can fucking boast like a fucking teenybopper signing on for a fucking record label that my fucking willful catastrophe has gone into a third fucking printing.

In fucking short, I fucking cheated you. You probably didn’t fucking read my horseshit. But that’s fucking okay. Because I’m a Fucking Literary Genius who has gone into a third fucking printing, simply because I had the fucking wisdom to pad out the fucking word count of my fucking shitty novel with the word “fuck.”

Fuck me! You fucking books people are so fucking easy to fucking fool!

[12/28/24 UPDATE: A few readers who thought this little satirical piece was hilarious have pointed out that Jeff VanderMeer has won awards. And they are completely right. He did win the Nebula for Annihilation, proving that even a middling scumbag can win the rodeo if he angles his Stetson the right way. Thus, I have revised this slightly in the interest of accuracy.]