Alchymic Journals

by Evan S. Connell

Capturing the spirit of arcane writing, Evan S. Connell delivers spectacular and esoteric prose as he imagines the journals of seven alchemists. The first is Paracelsus, the famous sixteenth-century alchemist, who is followed by an array of distinct physicians, historians, alchemists, and philosophers. Each employs a unique personality and point of view in a world of pre-scientific thought, of the western world about to step into modernity.

Though this historical recreation is medieval in style, Connell succeeds in infusing his diarists with alchemic wisdom, ancient appeal, and felt humanness. A work of rigid art and astute mimicry, Connell’s work is intelligent and remarkable, medieval yet applicable to modernity. Alchymic Journals is, at its core, a study of humanity from the mind of one of America’s greatest writers.

Genres: Fiction, Historical Fiction, Fantasy, Alchemy, Literature, Historical

240 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 1991

About the author

Evan Shelby Connell Jr. (August 17, 1924 – January 10, 2013) was a U.S. novelist, poet, and short-story writer. His writing covered a variety of genres, although he published most frequently in fiction.

In 2009, Connell was nominated for the Man Booker International Prize, for lifetime achievement. On April 23, 2010, he was awarded a Los Angeles Times Book Prize: the Robert Kirsch Award, for "a living author with a substantial connection to the American West, whose contribution to American letters deserves special recognition."

Connell was born in Kansas City, Missouri, the only son of Evan S. Connell, Sr. (1890–1974), a physician, and Ruth Elton Connell. He had a sister Barbara (Mrs. Matthew Zimmermann) to whom he dedicated his novel Mrs. Bridge (1959). He graduated from Southwest High School in Kansas City in 1941. He started undergraduate work at Dartmouth College but joined the Navy in 1943 and became a pilot. After the end of World War II, he graduated from the University of Kansas in 1947, with a B.A. in English. He studied creative writing at Columbia University in New York and Stanford University in California. He never married, and lived and worked in Sausalito, California for decades.
(Wikipedia)

Reviews

[Lissa Notreallywolf · Rating 2 out of 5]

Lyrical, more like reading poetry than any sort of coherent discussion of the topic. I recall both Canfora on the Alexandrian library, Ginzburg's The Cheeese and the Worms. Canfora is sort of poetic history, but very well written; Ginzburg is about the problems of reception, if you don't have the same references as the documents, and read in seclusion.
I was hoping for a more biographical coverage of Paracelsus, see next post, but this was a novel about the varying reception of Paracelsus, an iconoclast physician who challenged Galen, et alia. Paracelsus had some amazingly prescient views, including an understanding of occupational illness in miners. "He" might be an advised term-there are rumors of Paracelsus being a eunuch, contradicted by baldness in his portraits. A grave reputed to be of Paracelsus revealed a skeleton with ambiguous features-time to read Middlesex. Regardless, Paracelsus was known to be a celibate, perhaps because he treated so many cases of syphillus with a drug competing with the Fuggers, who had a monopoly on some useless bark from America. They suppressed Paracelsus' experimental findings against the bark. Paracelsus' cure was mercury, a cure which lasted until the time of Lewis and Clarke expeditions, to the point that their encampments can be traced by mercury found in their privies. Paracelsus was known to sleep with a sword, perhaps to ward off the many enemies he made denouncing standard medical practices in Europe. To put Paracelsus in historical context, he was a contemporary of Erasmus and contended with Luther, many of whose followers were quite fond of Paracelsian teachings. My first introduction to Paracelsus was at 14, reading Henry Pachter's Magic into Science, The Story of Paraclesus, which is sort of like scaling the literary Himalayas. One gasps for breath at the length of the sentences, the repercussive logic, etc. Good training for anyone who reads source documentation in alchemy, and also for anyone who studies period documents-take a long walk before writing, lest your prose reflect the source.

[Bonnie Wilson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I think this book is a joke. A well-known and highly regarded (judging from back cover quotes) author decides to write a totally unreadable book and see what happens. The only words I could use to describe this narrative are too unpleasantly scatological, so I'll leave it at that. I don't usually read reviews before posting my own, but I was so dumbfounded by the fact that this had even been published that I had to see how it was received. I only found two, but they are rather telling:

Publishers Weekly writes:

"...sometimes overwrought prose that seems to have sprung from the late Middle Ages. If his novel comes off as hermetic, a failed alchemical experiment"

Michael Harris in the LA Times writes

"a novelist whose previous books have been highly accessible can try something experimental ...readers who follow are likely to emerge from this book dazed ... written richly and densely, as if translated from 16th-Century documents, with few concessions to the present day and hardly any plot. Helpfully but ominously, North Point Press supplies a 21-page booklet outlining the historical context and defining obscure words."

Overwrought prose ominously requiring cliff notes to even attempt to read. And "hardly any plot" is way too generous. Make that no plot, not to mention no characters. And "dazed" should be "stupified with boredom." Don't pay attention when Publishers Weekly says it still "commands thoughtful attention." It does not. Just skip this.

[Kylie Briggs · Rating 1 out of 5]

Couldn't even make it to page 10.

[Angie · Rating 4 out of 5]

So I don't usually write reviews but as this one has only 6, and they are quite divided, here goes...
I think I understand what Connell is doing here but it definitely is not for everyone. The prose seems meant to be a kind of translation into a modern conception of medieval language. The first sections especially are dense and full of vocabulary that is clearly true to the subject matter but the meanings can only be found with a JSTOR search. Definitely not for everyone. Unless you are committed to understanding by rereading sentences and paragraphs multiple times, I would just keep moving.

That said, if you are ok to wade waist deep through lost in time syntax, there is a lot to enjoy here. It is as if Connell was given one of those high school assignments that says, 'write a letter in the voice of a WWI soldier in the trenches to demonstrate your understanding' but it is various persons associated with alchemy and he really ran with it. It would have been helpful to have each person's role outlaid in the text but as it was written on the back of the book for me, that is neither here nor there. It just would have thrown the reader a bone.

The good stuff: there is so much to glean here. People often tend to believe that people of the past were somehow less intelligent or belittle the ideas and practices of the past. This makes the case that that is not true, just that views were different and the first section lays out the philosophical underpinnings of alchemy. It also makes the case that the ideas for many modern scientific discoveries were already kicking around hundreds of years ago. Here I will have to take Connell's word for it but the way he lays it out is compelling. There is no real narrative, be warned. There are lots of interesting meditations and thoughts on what is and was mankind, truth and being. It is a successful window into a time that is little understood and often dismissed. If you have ever wondered about the what and the why of alchemy, this could be for you.

[Priscilla · Rating 3 out of 5]

Beautiful writing, a compelling and complex project exquisitely wrought....bored the hell out of me. Points for language and what Connell has taken on; minus-points for being something I had to force myself to get through (over a period of about a year). At least I learned, during the process of enforced reading, that I apparently need narrative more than I thought I did in order to give a crap about a book. (Joyce's "Finnegans Wake" is rife with narrative by comparison.) Was a painful slog through to a bitter end.

But the language really is gorgeous. And the scope of the project and the skill with which Connell completes it are impressive. So, while I technically didn't actually LIKE it, I respect and admire it enough to still give it three stars. ...so....boring....

[stig · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can get why some people wouldn't enjoy this. It's pretty obscure, doesn't have a clear narrative, etc. Not unlike Connell's two prose-poem/fractured fictions, Points for a Compass Rose and Notes from a Bottle Found on the Beach at Carmel, it offers a lot of anecdotes, facts/non-facts/pseudo-facts, and historical weirdness; all of which is fine with me. In lieu of a "story", there's a historical scenario, a tradition of thought, and a central figure around which the writing revolves in shifting perspectives. All in all, it deals with something in which I'm already interested and does so in a manner with which I'm already comfortable, therefore I quite enjoyed it. [edited, should read this stuff before posting, haha]

[Gemutlichkeit · Rating 2 out of 5]

Points for creative conceit! Points removed for being a bit of a chore to read.