Giles Goat Boy (2 page)

Editor A

I am quite sensible that fashions have changed since my own tenure as editor-in-chief: marriage has lost its sanctity, sex its mystery; every filthiness is published in the name of Honesty; all respect for law and discipline is gone—to say nothing of
propriety
and
seemliness
, whose very names are sneered at. Cynicism is general: the student who eschews cheating like the young girl who eschews promiscuity or the editor who values principle over profit, is looked upon as a freak. Whatever is old—a man, a building, a moral principle—is regarded not as established but as obsolete; to be preserved if at all for its antiquarian interest, but got rid of without compunction the moment it becomes
in the way
. In the way, that is, of self-interest and the tireless sensualism of youth. Indeed fashions change, have always changed, and there’s the point. Granted that every generation must write its own “New Syllabus” or re-interpret the Old one, rebel against its teachers, challenge all the rules—all the more important then that the Rules stand fast! Morality like motion has its laws; each generation takes its impetus from the resistance of its forebears, like runners striving against the ground, and those who would abolish the old Answers (I don’t speak of restating or modifying them, which is eternally necessary) would turn the track underfoot to quickmire, with fatal consequences for the race of men.

This
Revised New Syllabus
is nothing new, but as old as sickness of the spirit; not a revision of anything, but a repudiation of all that’s wholesome and redeeming. It is for us to repudiate
it
. Publishing remains despite all a moral enterprise, and is recognized as such in its heart of hearts even by the public that clamors for gratification of its appetites. The sensational, the vulgar, the lurid, the cheap, the hackneyed—there is an innocence about these things in their conventional and mass-produced forms, even a kind of virtue; the novelists everyone purchases do no harm as they line our pockets and their own. They are not difficult; they do not astonish; they rebel along traditional lines, shock us in customary ways, and teach us what we know already. Their concerns are modest, their literary
voice and manner are seldom wild, only their private lives, which make good copy: in straightforward prose they reveal to us how it is to belong to certain racial or cultural minorities; how it is to be an adolescent, a narcotic, an adulterer, a vagabond; especially how it is to be the Author, with his particular little history of self-loathings and -aggrandizements. Such novels, I conceive, are the printed dreams of that tiny fraction of our populace which buys and reads books, and the true dwelling-places of art and profit. In serving the dream we prevent the deed: vicariously the reader debauches, and is vicariously redeemed; his understanding is not taxed; his natural depravity may be tickled but is not finally approved of; no assaults have been made upon his imagination, nor any great burden put on his attention. He is the same fellow as before, only a little better read, and in most cases the healthier for his small flirtation with the Pit. He may even remark, “Life is absurd, don’t you think? There’s no answer to anything”; whereafter, his luncheon-companion agreeing absolutely, they have another cocktail and return to more agreeable matters.

Consider the difference with
R.N.S
.: here fornication, adultery, even rape, yea murder itself (not to mention self-deception, treason, blasphemy, whoredom, duplicity, and willful cruelty to others) are not only represented for our delectation but at times approved of and even recommended! On aesthetic grounds too (though they pale before the moral), the work is objectionable: the rhetoric is extreme, the conceit and action wildly implausible, the interpretation of history shallow and patently biased, the narrative full of discrepancies and badly paced, at times tedious, more often excessive; the form, like the style, is unorthodox, unsymmetrical, inconsistent. The characters, especially the hero, are unrealistic. There never was a Goat-boy! There never will be!

In sum it is a bad book, a wicked book, and ought not—I will say
must
not—be published. No computer produced it, but the broodings of an ineffectual megalomane: a crank at best, very possibly a psychopath. As the elder, if no longer the ranking, member of this editorial group I urge that we take this opportunity to restore a part of the moral prestige that was ours when our organization was more dedicated and harmonious, if less wealthy; to reverse our lamentable recent policy of publishing the esoteric, the bizarre, the extravagant, the downright vicious. I urge not only that the manuscript in question be rejected forthwith, but also that the “Author’s” superiors, his Dean and Department Chairman, be advised what they are exposing undergraduate minds to. Would the present editor-in-chief, I wonder, permit his own daughter to be taught by such a man? Then in the name of what decent principle ought we to make his scribbling available to all our sons and daughters?

Editor
B

I vote to publish the Revised
New Syllabus
and agree with the Editor-in-chief that
Giles Goat-Boy
is a more marketable title for it. We all know what [A’s] objections to the manuscript are; we also know why he’s not
editor-in-chief any more, after his rejection of ———
†
on similar “moral” grounds. What I must add, at the risk of “impropriety,” is that in addition to his predictable bias against anything more daring than
Gay Dashleigh’s Prep-School Days
, he may have a private antipathy for this particular manuscript: his own daughter, I happen to know, “ran off” from college with a bearded young poetry-student who subsequently abandoned her, pregnant, in order to devote himself to sheep-farming and the composition of long pastoral romances in free verse, mainly dealing with his great love for her. Her father never forgave her; neither has he, it seems, forgiven bearded heterosexuality or things bucolic, and it is a mark of his indiscrimination that he makes a goat-boy suffer for a sheep-boy’s sins. Much as I respect your request that these statements remain impersonal, and hesitate as a new employee to criticize my colleagues in addition to disagreeing with them, I must argue that the “personal” and “professional” elements are so bound together in this case (indeed, are they ever separable in literary judgments?), that to take a stand for or against
Giles Goat-Boy
is to do likewise on the question whether this organization will prosper in harmonious diversity or languish in acrimonious dissension. In choosing to publish or reject a manuscript, one oughtn’t to bear the burden of choosing professional friends and enemies as well. Where such has become the case, the new man’s only choice is to follow his best judgment, laying his future resolutely on the line; and I respectfully suggest that the responsible administrator’s best hope for curing the situation is to turn any threatening ultimatums (like A’s) into opportunities for revitalizing and reharmonizing the staff.

The fact is, I happen to agree—I think we all do—that
Giles Goat-Boy
is tough sledding in places, artistically uneven, and offensive (we’ll call it
challenging
, of course) to certain literary and moral conventions. Personally I am no great fan of the “Author’s”; like [Editor C, whose opinion follows] I found his early work lively but a bit naïve and his last novel wild and excessive in every respect. I frankly don’t know quite
what
to make of this one. Where other writers seek fidelity to the facts of modern experience and expose to us the emptiness of our lives, he declares it his aim purely to
astonish;
where others strive for truth, he admits his affinity for lies, the more enormous the better. His fellows quite properly seek recognition and wide readership; he rejoices (so he says) that he has but a dozen readers, inasmuch as a thirteenth might betray him. So far from
becoming discouraged by the repeated failure of his novels to make a profit, he confesses his surprise that no one has tarred and feathered him. Apparently sustained by the fact that anyone at all has swallowed his recentest whopper, he sets about to hatch another, clucking tongue at the compass and bedazzlement of those fabrications.
Plot
, for the young novelists we applaud, is a naughty word, as it was for their fathers;
story
to them means invention, invention artifice, artifice dishonesty. As for
style
, it is everywhere agreed that the best language is that which disappears in the telling, so that nothing stands between the reader and the matter of the book. But this author has maintained (in obscure places, understandably) that language
is
the matter of his books, as much as anything else, and for that reason ought to be “splendrously musicked out”; he turns his back on what
is the case
, rejects the familiar for the amazing, embraces artifice and extravagance; washing his hands of the search for Truth, he calls himself “a monger after beauty,” or “doorman of the Muses’ Fancy-house.” In sum, he is in a class by himself and not of his time; whether a cut above or a cut below, three decades ahead or three centuries behind, his twelve readers must decide for themselves.

My own net sentiment comes to this: the author in question has, I’m told, a small but slowly growing audience, more loyal than discerning or influential, of the sort one needs no expensive promotion to reach, as they have their own ways of spreading the word around: penniless literature students, professors in second-rate colleges, and a couple of far-out critics.
Giles Goat-Boy
isn’t likely to make anybody rich, but if we can saturate this little group it should at least pay its own way, and may even redeem our losses on the man’s other books. One day those penniless students may be pennied enough; those professors may rise to more influential positions; the far-out critics may turn out to have been prophets … Alternatively, the author’s luck may change (rather,
our
luck, as he seems not to care one way or the other): by pure accident his
next
book might be popular, stranger things have happened. Meanwhile we may write off our losses to that tax-deductible sort of prestige associated with the better publishing houses; the thing to do is keep the advance and advertising expenses as low as possible while holding him under contract for the future, in the meantime exploiting whatever ornamental or write-off value he may have.

Editor
C

I vote against publishing the book called
The Revised
New
Syllabus
, not for reasons of morality, law, or politics, but simply on aesthetic and commercial grounds. The thing won’t turn us a profit, and I see no ethical or “prestigial” justification for losing a nickel on it. Publishing may be a moral enterprise, as [A] likes to claim, but first of all it’s just an enterprise, and I for one think it’s as unprofessional to
publish
a book for moral reasons (which is what young [B’s] enthusiasms amount to) as to reject one for moral reasons. [A] quite obviously has personal motives
for rejecting the book; I submit that [B] has motives equally personal, if more sympathetic, for pushing its acceptance. He’s new to our profession, and knows very well that discovering fresh talent is a road to success second only to pirating established talents from the competition. He has a young man’s admirable compassion for lost causes, a young scholar’s sympathy for minor talents, and a young intellectual’s love of the heterodox, the esoteric, the obscure. Moreover he’s a writer of fiction himself and no doubt feels a certain kinship with others whose talents have brought them as yet no wealth or fame. Finally, it’s no reflection on his basic integrity that on the first manuscript he’s been asked his opinion of, he might be less than eager to oppose the known judgment of the man who hired him; but that circumstance probably oughtn’t to be discounted—especially since his vote to publish is a “net sentiment” by his own acknowledging, arrived at over numerous and grave reservations.

I think I may say that my own position is relatively objective. I agree that there are inferior books which one does right to lose a bit of money on in order not to lose a superior author, and there are superior books (very rare!) which one publishes, regardless of their commercial value, merely to have been their publisher. But the book in question I take to be neither: it’s a poor-risk work by a poor-risk author. It wants subtlety and expertise: the story is not so much “astonishing” as preposterous, the action absurd. The hero is a physical, aesthetic, and moral monstrosity; the other characters are drawn with small regard for realism and at times lack even the consistency of stereotypes; the dialogue is generally unnatural and wanting in variety from speaker to speaker—everyone sounds like the author! The prose style—that unmodern, euphuistic, half-metrical bombast—is admittedly contagious (witness [A’s] and [B’s] lapses into it); even more so is syphilis. The theme is obscure, probably blasphemous; the wit is impolite, perhaps even suggestive of unwholesome preoccupations; the psychology—but there is no psychology in it. The author clearly is ignorant of things and people as they really are: consider his disregard for the reader! Granted that long novels are selling well lately, one surely understands that mere bulk is not what sells them; and when their mass consists of interminable exposition, lecture, and harangue (how gratified I was to see that windy old lunatic Max Spielman put to death!), it is the very antidote to profit. Indeed, I can’t imagine to whom a work like
R.N.S
. might appeal, unless to those happily rare, more or less disturbed, and never affluent intelligences—remote, cranky, ineffectual—from whom it is known the author receives his only fan-mail.

What I suggest as our best course, then, is not to “protect our investment” by publishing this
Revised New Syllabus
(and the one after that, and the one after that), but to cut our losses by not throwing good money after bad. My own “net sentiment” is a considered rejection not only of this manuscript but of its author. He has yet to earn us a sou; his very energy (let us say,
inexorableness
), divorced as it is from public appeal, is a liability to us, like the energy of crabgrass or cancer. Despite some praise from questionable critics and a tenuous repute among (spiritually)
bearded undergraduates—of the sort more likely to steal than to purchase their reading matter—he remains unknown to most influential reviewers, not to mention the generality of book-buyers. In the remote event that he becomes a “great writer,” or even turns out to have been one all along, we still hold the copyright on those other losers of his, and can always reissue them. But no, the thing is as impossible as the plot of this book! He himself declares that nothing gets better, everything gets worse: he will merely grow older and crankier, more quirksome and less clever; his small renown will pass, his vitality become mere doggedness, or fail altogether. His dozen admirers will grow bored with him, his employers will cease to raise his salary and to excuse his academic and social limitations; his wife will lose her beauty, their marriage will founder, his children will grow up to be ashamed of their father. I see him at last alone, unhealthy, embittered, desperately unpleasant, perhaps masturbative, perhaps alcoholic or insane, if not a suicide. We all know the pattern.