My appreciation of Evelyn Waugh's The Loved One is authentic, sure, but at the same time a little reserved because, try as I might, I can't convincingly revise my initial impression of it as a cheap shot at American life and values -- which isn't to say that it isn't funny or compelling or entertaining, but rather that in the considerable chunk of time separating us from the initial publication of The Loved One (this time marking the ascendancy of the United States on the global stage both politically and culturally) these satiric portrayals of the American ethos -- and particularly that of 'Hollywood'/Southern California -- have become somewhat rote and reflexive.
True, it isn't Waugh's fault that he belonged to an early generation of such satirists, but likewise it isn't my fault that I was born too late to appreciate The Loved One for the freshness of its satirical takes on American life (specifically, golden age 'Hollywood life').
But never mind all that. I'm quite prepared to commit a grave sin of literary criticism; I am going to medically separate the conjoined twins of content and style and chuck my minor qualms with the content of The Loved One into an incubator while I maternally coo over the very much healthy and appealing style of Evelyn Waugh's prose. I realize I have birthed an atrocious natal analogy here, but it's too early in the morning and my self-criticism is too insufficiently roused to correct it. Live with it. Please.
Back to the point. Waugh's writing is so graceful and entertaining that I'll very likely forgive him anything -- even his characterization of Americans as cultureless semi-morons.
In discussing this book with a friend, it was brought to my attention that umbrage at Waugh's treatment of Americans might be inappropriate when one considers that his main character Dennis Barlow, an Englishman, is a fairly loathsome human being. This led me to recall a previous discussion I had many years ago (and have repeated with alterations many times since) about the nature of men and women. Before anyone rises up in wrathful indignation at what I am about to say, please also read the clarification which follows the initial statement. Thank you.
In my late teens and early twenties, I was fond of saying that men were evil and that women were stupid. Of course, this was only a shorthand (and foolish) way of expressing a more complex idea. In the politics of gender, that is, men obviously still enjoy greater power (socially), and power, as we know, corrupts. Thus, there is a tendency for men at their weakest to approach 'evil' in their relationships with women because they retain some semblance of power. Meanwhile, there is a tendency among women at their weakest to 'put up with' the evil of men -- sometimes even to encourage it. If we were to characterize this behavior glibly and overly simplistically, we might call it stupidity.
Of course this evil/stupid dichotomy isn't limited to gender politics. It can be reasserted in almost any dual-variable relationship in which one term exerts power or precedence over the other. In other words, Israelis are evil, and Palestinians are stupid. The Catholic leadership is evil, and the Catholic rank-and-file is stupid. Heterosexuals are evil, and homosexuals are stupid.
Written in black-and-white, these statements may seem unfortunately provocative and categorical, but if set aside our desire to be outraged, we will easily comprehend their meaning.
In Waugh's The Loved One, I think it's pretty clear that the British are evil and the Americans are stupid. Realizing this then, we might be tempted so say, 'Well... that's good then. There's no (or at least less) moral culpability in being stupid, and being evil is most definitely a far worse judgment.' Yes, but... evil, since it concerns morality, is a choice, and stupidity may not be. Or if stupidity is a choice (and is more correctly understood as ignorance), it's a far more difficult choice to decipher. (Can one be too stupid to realize that one chooses stupidity?) Therefore, while the moral judgment might be in favor of the Americans, the British retain their superior understanding of the world and their ability to 'choose' other than what they are.
Am I overstating this? Yes, very much so. Am I inventing the terms of debate (evil/stupid) and then arriving at conclusions on that basis, as if the terms were already universally conceded? Oh, yeah, definitely. Am I making unfair intimations about Waugh's intentions? Yup, yup, yup. I make no claims for fairness or validity... I just wanted to follow this line of thought wherever it might lead me.
But yes. Read this book. If you have qualms about the satirical 'content' (and you probably don't), compartmentalize them and just enjoy the wry prose. The story itself concerns an Englishman living in Hollywood with little success (in the sense of 'success' usually defined by Hollywood). He works at a pet funeral home but becomes involved with a cosmetician at a cultish, new-agey (human) funeral home -- which, in its bombastic artifice, seems to represent everything peculiar about the local culture and spirit. Aimee (the cosmetician) is torn, romantically, between the cynical, duplicitous Englishman and an earnest, masterful mortician (Mr. Joyboy) she works with. And thereafter, as they say, hijinks ensue.