Outwardly, Saul Bellow had little reason for bitterness—he won every literary award under the sun, including the Nobel. But he seems to have spent the last decades of his life under a perceived siege. The tradition of which he saw himself as beneficiary and steward was under threat.
“It isn’t contemporary literature alone that is threatened,” Bellow told an interviewer in 1991. “The classics themselves are shooting, not drifting, Letheward. We may lose everything at this rate…[I feel] anger, contempt, and rage, by this latest betrayal by putty-headed academics and intellectuals.”
Bellow spent much of his life among these putty-headed academics and intellectuals. Like many writers who came up in the first half of the last century, he started off a Marxist. Bellow’s parents immigrated from Russia to Montreal in the early 1910s, and Lenin and Trotsky were nightly discussed at the Bellow dinner table. We learn in the essay "Writers, Intellectuals, Politics: Mainly Reminiscence" that Bellow was scheduled to meet Trotsky in Mexico in August 1940, on the day that Trotsky was assassinated. The Russian Revolution hangs heavy over these pages
“There was the revolutionary myth that the masses had taken things into their own hands in 1917, and destroyed the power of capitalist imperialism,” Bellow writes. “It took me a long time to get over that.”
The Soviet Union’s failure to live up to its promises seems to have permanently disillusioned Bellow on any movement that took as its aim the realization of a better world; he famously drifted rightward in later years, and took umbrage with those who, unlike himself, were unable to divest themselves of leftist political orthodoxies.
It is not surprising, then, that Bellow sounded so often like a reactionary (a charge he rejected). He dismissed those he saw caught up in the daily political squabbles (politicians, the media, polemicists, activists, and, again, intellectuals and academics) as contributing to the “crisis chatter,” the “moronic inferno” (a term he borrowed from acolyte Martin Amis) of the age.
“Atomic energy, environmentalism, women’s rights, capital punishment...such are the daily grist of newspapers and networks,” he writes. “And this, let’s face it, is the action; this is where masses of Americans find substance, importance, find definition, through a combination of passion and ineffectuality.”
He is, by turns, tone-deaf, out-of-step, a defender of the status quo, a person whose views often run (in my judgment) in the wrong direction. But his larger, more important point is that the ideas of the day—the prevailing ideologies and dominant systems of thought—distract and disorient us, disfigure our “first soul” (as Bellow called it), obscure from us what Tolstoy and Proust called our “true impressions”; together with the “crisis chatter” with which we’re daily confronted, the modern individual is placed under tremendous pressure. Academics, polemicists, intellectuals, the bien pensant liberals—all these elements contribute to these conditions.
“This society...but cannot absolutely denature us,” Bellow writes. “It forces certain elements of the genius of our species to go into hiding.”
He elaborates elsewhere:
“My case against the intellectuals can be easily summarized: Science has postulated a nature with no soul in it; commerce does not deal in souls and higher aspirations—matters like love and beauty are none of its business...Intellectuals seem to me to have turned away from those elements in life unaccounted for in modern science and that in modern experience have come to seem devoid of substance.”
Bellow inhabits and observes the world as a writer, not just chiefly but solely, and, though he addresses a reader who is general, his admonitions are meant primarily for fellow writers and artists, whose job it is (per Bellow) to stand athwart the chaos.
And, even if engaging with politics is, for an artist, in Bellow’s view, a mostly dead-end proposition, that's not to say he feels writers shouldn’t be passionately moral. (He references Tolstoy, who said a writer must take a moral view—this meant, above all, giving intense attention to one’s subject and characters; or, per Henry James, being “one of those people on whom nothing is lost.”)
"If the remission of pain is happiness, then the emergence from distraction is aesthetic bliss,” Bellow writes. “I use these terms loosely for I am not making an argument but rather attempting to describe the pleasure that comes from recognition or rediscovery of certain essences permanently associated with human life. These essences are restored to our consciousness by persons who are described as 'artists.’"
For Bellow, literature is not an agent of change (as W.H. Auden famously said, “Poetry makes nothing happen”); nor is it meant to explain “the roots of this, the causes of the other, the history, the structure, the reasons why." Rather, it’s autotelic; it represents the living moment and, in so doing, temporarily releases us from the object world of ideas in whose grip we’re caught; it restores our natural knowledge; it “raises the soul through the serenity of form above any painful involvement in the limitations of reality.”
The New Yorker’s Richard Brody wrote of Bellow, in 2015 (upon publication of another collection of essays, There Is Simply Too Much to Think About, of which there is significant overlap with this collection): “[His] most enduring conflict is the one at the very heart of modernity—between the visionary vortex of the inner voice and the turbulent volume of worldly experience, between the freely unhinged life of the mind and the irrefutable life of the times.”
“Can so much excitement, so much disorder, be brought under control?” Bellow asks in his 1990 essay ‘The Distracted Public.’ “Such questions must be addressed to analysts and experts in a variety of fields—prediction is their business. The concern of tale-tellers and novelists is with the human essences neglected and forgotten by a distracted world.”