F. Scott Fitzgerald-The Works, The Life discussion
Biographies, Letters, Life
>
Biographies, Letters, Gossip!
date
newest »
newest »
A Short Autobiography
I checked this out of the library without much hope. I glanced through it, and it's not an autobiography at all, it's a collection of various articles, the last written in 1940 and not published until "Esquire" put it out in 1968, apparently. I rather, cynically, assumed A Short Autobiography was a collection put out by FSF's estate to preserve literary rights, and maybe it was.
But it's quite astounding. I get the feeling that these are "throwaways," pieces FSF wrote without thought of an audience, particularly the later pieces. Throwaways in the sense that he dashed them off without, hmm, editing them to protect himself. There's one in particular called "Author's House" from 1936 that's almost a stream-of-consciousness one would expect to hear from someone musing from an analyst's couch.
FSF writes about what a generation is, what the loss of a dream is. What hope is.
The earlier pieces about himself and Zelda are more stylized, funny, sarcastic.
Many notes about the writing process.
Worth reading, to my great surprise.
I checked this out of the library without much hope. I glanced through it, and it's not an autobiography at all, it's a collection of various articles, the last written in 1940 and not published until "Esquire" put it out in 1968, apparently. I rather, cynically, assumed A Short Autobiography was a collection put out by FSF's estate to preserve literary rights, and maybe it was.
But it's quite astounding. I get the feeling that these are "throwaways," pieces FSF wrote without thought of an audience, particularly the later pieces. Throwaways in the sense that he dashed them off without, hmm, editing them to protect himself. There's one in particular called "Author's House" from 1936 that's almost a stream-of-consciousness one would expect to hear from someone musing from an analyst's couch.
FSF writes about what a generation is, what the loss of a dream is. What hope is.
The earlier pieces about himself and Zelda are more stylized, funny, sarcastic.
Many notes about the writing process.
Worth reading, to my great surprise.
Mod
It's interesting. My review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Gary, great review. You caught so many of the undercurrents in FSF's life. I love that he couldn't spell his way out of paper bag, but could construct novels and short stories we still read.
I'm going to add this book to this group's shelves, which are meant to be sort of a resource. Thanks!!!
I'm going to add this book to this group's shelves, which are meant to be sort of a resource. Thanks!!!
Mod
It's very interesting to see writers' work "unedited" and unadulterated by a publisher, and revealing in many ways. I'm always impressed by guys like Stephen King who offer up their early drafts, warts and all, for public consumption when putting together a book like his On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, and their correspondence is equally interesting--if for other reasons.
Anytime anyone writes anything ever they are offering up more information than the text itself proscribes. I'd argue that even a shopping list is never just a shopping list. For instance, FSF was a drunk. Did he pen a little note to Zelda:
Eggs
Bread
Milk
Gin
Apples
Whiskey
Tomatoes
Vodka
Butter
More whiskey
Even that would be an interesting thing to examine.
Gary wrote: "Very welcome, AL.
It's very interesting to see writers' work "unedited" and unadulterated by a publisher, and revealing in many ways. I'm always impressed by guys like Stephen King who offer up th..."
Ha! I'm not aware of any extant grocery lists. He did write a Post article in 1925 where he wrote about their grocery bills mysteriously ranging between $60 something and twice that, depending on how closely they watched the kitchen.
But to widen upon your term "shopping list," he never stopped writing about money. Never enough, and he had serious demands on his income. Right up to the very, very end, he was writing to Zelda, asking if she needed anything, he could only send her $30, did he owe mother anything for Zelda's expenses? Don't use the $150 he sent her last month to pay the hospital bill, he'd do that, use it for something she needed, a new coat, a trip to see family.
Had there been a MacArthur Genius Fellowship back then, we'd have a different body of work.
It's very interesting to see writers' work "unedited" and unadulterated by a publisher, and revealing in many ways. I'm always impressed by guys like Stephen King who offer up th..."
Ha! I'm not aware of any extant grocery lists. He did write a Post article in 1925 where he wrote about their grocery bills mysteriously ranging between $60 something and twice that, depending on how closely they watched the kitchen.
But to widen upon your term "shopping list," he never stopped writing about money. Never enough, and he had serious demands on his income. Right up to the very, very end, he was writing to Zelda, asking if she needed anything, he could only send her $30, did he owe mother anything for Zelda's expenses? Don't use the $150 he sent her last month to pay the hospital bill, he'd do that, use it for something she needed, a new coat, a trip to see family.
Had there been a MacArthur Genius Fellowship back then, we'd have a different body of work.
Mod
It's not bad. (The book, that is.) The focus is a little broad where authors are concerned. Any one of those writers could easily merit his own compilation (and do) but there's some good stuff in there, particularly if one doesn't want to wade through every bit of correspondence between writer/editor.
Gary wrote: "This is the book I referenced recently in that abysmal "Is Nick Carraway gay?" thread: [book:The Sons of Maxwell Perkins: Letters of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Thomas Wolfe, and Their E..."
I saw that with great interest, indeed. I'll have to get one. I'm glad you mentioned it.
I saw that with great interest, indeed. I'll have to get one. I'm glad you mentioned it.
Gary wrote: "This is the book I referenced recently in that abysmal "Is Nick Carraway gay?" thread: [book:The Sons of Maxwell Perkins: Letters of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Thomas Wolfe, and Their E..."
Let me add, I sat at Wolfe's grave summer before last, where he lies buried next to his mother (his mother!), his brothers, his father. No big carved angels to be seen. It's so moving. To be a part of the river. I have so many authors, it seems, in my life. I have to devote more time to some I've neglected lately.
Let me add, I sat at Wolfe's grave summer before last, where he lies buried next to his mother (his mother!), his brothers, his father. No big carved angels to be seen. It's so moving. To be a part of the river. I have so many authors, it seems, in my life. I have to devote more time to some I've neglected lately.
Gary wrote: "This is the book I referenced recently in that abysmal "Is Nick Carraway gay?" thread: [book:The Sons of Maxwell Perkins: Letters of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Thomas Wolfe, and Their E..."
Gary wrote: "This is the book I referenced recently in that abysmal "Is Nick Carraway gay?" thread: [book:The Sons of Maxwell Perkins: Letters of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Thomas Wolfe, and Their E..."
Gary, nothing to do with previous posts here. Just read a pretty reprehensible post on TGG re why LGBTQ people are different from everyone else. Just started me thinking about Zelda and thus Daisy and thus Tom.
I wondered if you'd made any foray into Zelda's father and the Scottsboro Boy trials. I know he died in 31, and the Alabama Supreme Court probably didn't hear the case on appeal until he was off the bench, but I wonder what Anthony D. Sayer's racial politics were? The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision by 7-2, the underlying cases (there were 4 separate trials, I think), had to have been discussed by jurists everywhere and even ill, Sayer probably had strong racial opinions. His and Z's mother's families had strong Confederate ties. I wonder if Buchanan's white supremacist views came from anything in Zelda's life, from her father? I have no idea whatsoever, just asking. Tired of the gay issue. But the racial/class question touches Tom, Myrtle, and Daisy. Everyone, really.
EDIT: The underlying case, the events, the rape, may even have occurred after Sayer died, but the climate was there. I've been unable to locate online any opinions of the Alabama Supreme Court from that period, which might give a sense of Sayer's racial politics.
Gary wrote: "This is the book I referenced recently in that abysmal "Is Nick Carraway gay?" thread: [book:The Sons of Maxwell Perkins: Letters of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Thomas Wolfe, and Their E..."
Gary, nothing to do with previous posts here. Just read a pretty reprehensible post on TGG re why LGBTQ people are different from everyone else. Just started me thinking about Zelda and thus Daisy and thus Tom.
I wondered if you'd made any foray into Zelda's father and the Scottsboro Boy trials. I know he died in 31, and the Alabama Supreme Court probably didn't hear the case on appeal until he was off the bench, but I wonder what Anthony D. Sayer's racial politics were? The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision by 7-2, the underlying cases (there were 4 separate trials, I think), had to have been discussed by jurists everywhere and even ill, Sayer probably had strong racial opinions. His and Z's mother's families had strong Confederate ties. I wonder if Buchanan's white supremacist views came from anything in Zelda's life, from her father? I have no idea whatsoever, just asking. Tired of the gay issue. But the racial/class question touches Tom, Myrtle, and Daisy. Everyone, really.
EDIT: The underlying case, the events, the rape, may even have occurred after Sayer died, but the climate was there. I've been unable to locate online any opinions of the Alabama Supreme Court from that period, which might give a sense of Sayer's racial politics.
Mod
I'm afraid I don't know anything much about Zelda's family. I did a little searching around just now and found that Anthony Dickinson Sayre died in '31 and apparently served on the court until his death. (Didn't find a cause of death.) The Scottsboro Boys trial was also in '31, but I don't know if the appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court happened before or after he passed. He was, it seems, well-respected in the state, for whatever that might be worth....
Most of what I know about Zelda's family is that they weren't happy about her marrying a Catholic, so I'd imagine they wouldn't be all that open-minded a group of folks.
Mod
Anthony Dickinson Sayre died on November 17, 1931, according to this site: http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/...
And there's this timeline of the Scotsboro Boys legal events:
June 22, 1931 - Executions are stayed pending appeal to Alabama Supreme Court.
March, 1932 - Alabama Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-1, affirms the convictions of seven of the boys. The conviction of Eugene Williams is reversed on the grounds that he was a juvenile under state law in 1931.
From this site: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects...
So, it would seem her father was around for the stay, but not the decision. His death is right there in the middle of events, so he may or may not have heard arguments; I haven't found when written/oral arguments were presented to the Alabama Supreme Court.
It would appear to have been pretty sudden, but I haven't yet found a cause of death for her father. If anyone would care to look themselves, be aware that Zelda's brother, Anthony Dickinson Sayre, Jr., committed suicide in 1933, so it'd be best not to confuse the two: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg....
It's difficult to credit that he would not have heard of the case before his death, or that he would not have commented on it, given his involvement in the law and the notoriety of the case. However, whether that kind of thing will have been committed to paper or not is much more chancey. He does appear to have been a very well respected lawyer/judge. Arguably his biggest claim to fame (legally) is never having had a decision overturned by a higher court.
Mod
Gary wrote: "I just ordered Candles and Carnival Lights: The Catholic Sensibility of F. Scott Fitzgerald. Curious about what the author of that book has to say about Fitzgerald's rather haphazard ..."
That's a very interesting and unknown portion of his life. I never got any catholicity out of him, but everyone's moral concepts are formed somewhere. I think The Beautiful and Damned is where he said farewell to codified morality and brought it down to the individual human interaction. I think Gatsby had a very codified moral outlook, informed by his belief not in anything outside himself, but belief that one could recreate the past. That's the direct opposite of living for the future, let alone the other-worldly future, that most of us have. This is the future, this moment. It's how I think about his standing watch outside the Buchanan house that night, it's what I think he's thinking about floating in the pool the next morning. What is this new future? Fitzgerald isn't godless; he's post-god, he's internalized good and evil. And in that sense, Gatsby is all that is great in us, and Buchanan all that is evil. Simplistic, that may sound, but I believe it's the depths of profound human thought.
That's a very interesting and unknown portion of his life. I never got any catholicity out of him, but everyone's moral concepts are formed somewhere. I think The Beautiful and Damned is where he said farewell to codified morality and brought it down to the individual human interaction. I think Gatsby had a very codified moral outlook, informed by his belief not in anything outside himself, but belief that one could recreate the past. That's the direct opposite of living for the future, let alone the other-worldly future, that most of us have. This is the future, this moment. It's how I think about his standing watch outside the Buchanan house that night, it's what I think he's thinking about floating in the pool the next morning. What is this new future? Fitzgerald isn't godless; he's post-god, he's internalized good and evil. And in that sense, Gatsby is all that is great in us, and Buchanan all that is evil. Simplistic, that may sound, but I believe it's the depths of profound human thought.
Mod
From what I've read up to now, Fitzgerald struggled with his Catholicism as an adult in weird ways. After leaving Princeton, I don't think anyone (himself included) could call him devout, but being born and raised Catholic does seem to have been something that he carried around with him throughout his life.
I read recently, for instance, that he wanted to be buried with his family, but was deemed an apostate by the Catholic administration of the church, and denied a Catholic burial. The funeral was conducted by a Protestant who claimed he'd never heard of him. (Kind of hard to believe.) A few years back, the powers that be in the Catholic church decided his corpse had done its time in Protestant Purgatory, so his body was disinterred and buried where he'd asked to be.
But I'm curious about this one because I'm looking for references that might relate to the comments from Catherine, Myrtle's sister, in The Great Gatsby having to do with Daisy being Catholic as an excuse for her not granting Tom a divorce.
Incidentally, regarding biographies of Fitzgerald: this book The Real F. Scott Fitzgerald Thirty-Five Years Later Sheilah Graham, Fitzgerald's lover later in life (she struggles herself a bit with how to characterize herself--not liking the term "affair" much...) is up in its entirety on-line at: http://fitzgerald.narod.ru/bio/graham...
Ms. Graham was a gossip columnist, and she was writing long past that relationship. Further, she was very much a Gatsby-esque character herself having invented a lot of her own persona ranging from her accent to her own faith. Her account should be taken with at least those two additional portions of salt along with the usual salty goodness of biography from someone cashing in on a past relationship, and just biography in general. Nonetheless, it's an interesting text to have a look at.
Gary wrote: "Catholicism seems to have a kind of psychological staying power for those raised in the faith that (being a middle class, suburban WASP cum agnostic) I don't really get. Even latter day atheists wh..."
Sheilah was very much a well-known personality when I was a kid, in the 50's, so I remember her well. It's at my library, I might look at it sometime. My guess is that he never outgrew his experience, that women were not to be trusted. I'd always heard that she cared for him, but I think he pretty much took her for granted. There is something fundamentally misconceived in a relationship with an alcoholic, anyway, I can't help but believe, but I'll take a look.
Yeah. Ex-catholics who don't reject the entire thing as a dictator state retain some sense of fear. Francis is starting to reveal, bit by bit, the money-making underworld the church still is today, long after Luther. I was raised Catholic, but never bought it. Dismissed it at my first communion when I realized Jesus hadn't come to me. Oh, well, this is interesting, I thought. Vicious nuns and dictator priests. But I'm Irish; we've never trusted the church, not when you get deep enough. Joyce catches that so well.
Sheilah was very much a well-known personality when I was a kid, in the 50's, so I remember her well. It's at my library, I might look at it sometime. My guess is that he never outgrew his experience, that women were not to be trusted. I'd always heard that she cared for him, but I think he pretty much took her for granted. There is something fundamentally misconceived in a relationship with an alcoholic, anyway, I can't help but believe, but I'll take a look.
Yeah. Ex-catholics who don't reject the entire thing as a dictator state retain some sense of fear. Francis is starting to reveal, bit by bit, the money-making underworld the church still is today, long after Luther. I was raised Catholic, but never bought it. Dismissed it at my first communion when I realized Jesus hadn't come to me. Oh, well, this is interesting, I thought. Vicious nuns and dictator priests. But I'm Irish; we've never trusted the church, not when you get deep enough. Joyce catches that so well.
Mod
http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/20...
Paris Review a year ago on the sexuality of Hemingway and FSF.
I have to say I've never been attracted to Hemingway's male characters. I'm more interested in his "string of submissive wives" mentioned in this article than I am in anything this journalist puts forward regarding his sexuality. Anyone who wants anyone else to be submissive has some issues. "Garden of Eden" was, to me, unpublishable without the benefit of the author's moniker, little more, sexually speaking, than the lesbian menage a trois (but very, very tame) that's been described more than once as a fantasy of some men. What's more interesting than the lesbian angle of "Garden" is that the male character submits to the truly odd dictates of his wife's control, which seem to be driven by her manic episodes -- cutting and dying his hair to match hers, for example -- and the sexuality that is fluid is hers, not his.
And Fitzgerald is described as being "feminized" by Zelda's illness. Zelda's illness has always struck me as bipolar, as it came and went (not that bipolar comes and goes, but the mood swings do), and rage and hypersexuality are two classic symptoms. I can see both putting any partner in a subordinate role, but I think what's key to Fitzgerald, from the time he was a child, is social/class perception, I find him extremely sexually tolerant, actually, which was, at the time, a very moneyed and very European view.
I think this article is, and you can argue me out of this if you choose, one more foray into the money that's to be made from commercializing the "new" multipolarity of sexuality, the multi-colored rainbow has a pot of gold at the end of it. "A Little Life" is my best example of that. Let's tell a gay story, let's make it really sad, let's do it so it's politically incorrect to criticize anyone in the entire story, let's put child abuse in it, let's have everybody die, just like a "bad" woman in a 1940 movie had to die before the movie ended because then everybody gets what they deserved after what they desired had made them happy, then let's cast two gorgeous hetero males in the parts and the women will go nuts.
Why does everyone look into the writer and not into the reader? Why do men lionize Hemingway? I'd love to see a series of articles, maybe a new genre of writing entirely, where readers analyze their own reactions, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, word by word, to what they're reading, with honesty and without fear.
I guess my question is why are readers not addressing themselves when they read? Why are they questioning the writer? Why is it not more interesting to say, as one reads, why does this please me, hurt me, excite me, frighten me? What experience of mine is pulling at me now, is it something I've forgotten?
Reading is about me. Me me me me me. I suppose the author is interesting, but I never confuse the writer with my personal experience of a book. Isn't that the first step to becoming a stalker? I don't much care, unless I sense I've being used, as in "A Little Life."
Venting. And thanks for your time, if you've gotten this far.
Paris Review a year ago on the sexuality of Hemingway and FSF.
I have to say I've never been attracted to Hemingway's male characters. I'm more interested in his "string of submissive wives" mentioned in this article than I am in anything this journalist puts forward regarding his sexuality. Anyone who wants anyone else to be submissive has some issues. "Garden of Eden" was, to me, unpublishable without the benefit of the author's moniker, little more, sexually speaking, than the lesbian menage a trois (but very, very tame) that's been described more than once as a fantasy of some men. What's more interesting than the lesbian angle of "Garden" is that the male character submits to the truly odd dictates of his wife's control, which seem to be driven by her manic episodes -- cutting and dying his hair to match hers, for example -- and the sexuality that is fluid is hers, not his.
And Fitzgerald is described as being "feminized" by Zelda's illness. Zelda's illness has always struck me as bipolar, as it came and went (not that bipolar comes and goes, but the mood swings do), and rage and hypersexuality are two classic symptoms. I can see both putting any partner in a subordinate role, but I think what's key to Fitzgerald, from the time he was a child, is social/class perception, I find him extremely sexually tolerant, actually, which was, at the time, a very moneyed and very European view.
I think this article is, and you can argue me out of this if you choose, one more foray into the money that's to be made from commercializing the "new" multipolarity of sexuality, the multi-colored rainbow has a pot of gold at the end of it. "A Little Life" is my best example of that. Let's tell a gay story, let's make it really sad, let's do it so it's politically incorrect to criticize anyone in the entire story, let's put child abuse in it, let's have everybody die, just like a "bad" woman in a 1940 movie had to die before the movie ended because then everybody gets what they deserved after what they desired had made them happy, then let's cast two gorgeous hetero males in the parts and the women will go nuts.
Why does everyone look into the writer and not into the reader? Why do men lionize Hemingway? I'd love to see a series of articles, maybe a new genre of writing entirely, where readers analyze their own reactions, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, word by word, to what they're reading, with honesty and without fear.
I guess my question is why are readers not addressing themselves when they read? Why are they questioning the writer? Why is it not more interesting to say, as one reads, why does this please me, hurt me, excite me, frighten me? What experience of mine is pulling at me now, is it something I've forgotten?
Reading is about me. Me me me me me. I suppose the author is interesting, but I never confuse the writer with my personal experience of a book. Isn't that the first step to becoming a stalker? I don't much care, unless I sense I've being used, as in "A Little Life."
Venting. And thanks for your time, if you've gotten this far.
Interesting. The only time I think of the author is when he (or she) so obviously inserts himself as a main character in the writing (Bukowski and Capote come to mind). Even then, I wonder how skewed the character is from the person. I've never liked Hemingway, the man or his books. I admire his ability to bring an experience to the reader with few words. But I never finished one of his books. And listening to a writer (or actor or musician, ...) talk outside his writing rarely interests me. The words on the page are all that matters.
James wrote: "Interesting. The only time I think of the author is when he (or she) so obviously inserts himself as a main character in the writing (Bukowski and Capote come to mind). Even then, I wonder how skew..."
Yes, Interesting, but authors who insert themselves don't always insert themselves objectively. Capote didn't, Mailer didn't, Proust didn't. They just use themselves as characters, and maybe they're fictionalized, or sanctified. We're all fiction to ourselves, aren't we? Legends, myths, giants, monsters, in our own heads? True or not? The only one I can think of at the commencement of a FRIDAY in another week of CRIME IN AMERICA (so extraordinarily exciting that I can hardly breath -- two days free of it) is Anthony Powell. I don't know enough about Bukowski, not because I didn't read every single novel and poem he wrote back in the day -- not in his new revival (his widow (yes, the great solitary man left a widow) is his literary executor, along with a friend, and he's not around himself to query, laying bets at that Great Racetrack in the Sky) -- but because that was in the time before the author mattered more than the work. Reality TV. It's ruined literature, elections, relationships. My take. We need to be reading by firelight again and doing our sums with our fingertips, writing in the ashes coating the back of a fireplace shovel. (Thank you, Carl Sandberg.) (And who did he sleep with, by the way?) (Joke.)
Yes, Interesting, but authors who insert themselves don't always insert themselves objectively. Capote didn't, Mailer didn't, Proust didn't. They just use themselves as characters, and maybe they're fictionalized, or sanctified. We're all fiction to ourselves, aren't we? Legends, myths, giants, monsters, in our own heads? True or not? The only one I can think of at the commencement of a FRIDAY in another week of CRIME IN AMERICA (so extraordinarily exciting that I can hardly breath -- two days free of it) is Anthony Powell. I don't know enough about Bukowski, not because I didn't read every single novel and poem he wrote back in the day -- not in his new revival (his widow (yes, the great solitary man left a widow) is his literary executor, along with a friend, and he's not around himself to query, laying bets at that Great Racetrack in the Sky) -- but because that was in the time before the author mattered more than the work. Reality TV. It's ruined literature, elections, relationships. My take. We need to be reading by firelight again and doing our sums with our fingertips, writing in the ashes coating the back of a fireplace shovel. (Thank you, Carl Sandberg.) (And who did he sleep with, by the way?) (Joke.)
F. Scott Fitzgerald-The Works, The Life
Books mentioned in this topic
Candles and Carnival Lights: The Catholic Sensibility of F. Scott Fitzgerald (other topics)The Real F. Scott Fitzgerald Thirty-Five Years Later (other topics)
Candles and Carnival Lights: The Catholic Sensibility of F. Scott Fitzgerald (other topics)
The Beautiful and Damned (other topics)
Candles and Carnival Lights: The Catholic Sensibility of F. Scott Fitzgerald (other topics)
More...
But the letters among the writers and editors, they are just stunning, aren't they? Humbling, exciting, moving.