Tarr is a novel at war with itself, with tensions raging at not only the level of style and content, but at the level of the book itself in that it exists in a few versions, being altered and revised by Lewis as it suited his fancy and his temper and his ever-mutating world view, and so even subsequent editors have been at war in their attempts to produce a definitive version. What emerged from these various levels of war is a book in many ways more revolutionary than Ulysses. The author of a study of Lewis and his works I have been reading in tandem with Tarr says that Ulysses was a revolution of style, but beneath the mind-boggling pyrotechnics of the stylistic surface there exist characters whose consciousnesses are essentially unaltered from 19th century norms. In Tarr, he argues, Lewis fused an experimental surface style with a comparably experimental and new consciousness in his characters. It seems accurate to me, and as an added plus it isn't nearly as "difficult" a read as Ulysses. Lewis was deeply involved in much of the intellectual ferment involved with creating a "new man" and a new consciousness around the time of his writing- from Nietzsche to Bergson to Freud - and marshaled the bulk of his immense and varied talents to infuse his works with a new way of seeing and being in the world, involving an unresolveable enmeshment in the physical world coupled with a Promethean artistic effort to be partially separate. And though his ultimate world-view was essential tragic and bleak he had a corruscating, chiefly satirical, humor.And here's where more wars come in. Wyndham Lewis was a very complex man, with natural urges sprouting out in many directions. He was part Dionysian wild-man, part Apollonian aloof-man, part introvert, part man of action, part tragic, part comic, as interested in the depths of being as the shallow and labyrinthine conflicts at the level of social life. He was also a born contrarian of monstrous proportions who thrived on conflict. To manage to embody his works with the multitude of inner and outer conflicts existing simultaneously in his being was part and parcel of his staggering abilities.The novel itself is titled "Tarr", and the first chapter follows Tarr, a painter, during his daily routine from cafes to friends' studios to a conflict with his fiance; but the main character is actually a German named Kreisler who could've stepped straight out of Dostoevsky - a tumultuous man of conflict, at once comic and violent. The novel is set in Montparnasse at the height of the artist's scene there and doesn't stray from that milieu. Kreisler is an artist, but within the confines of this book never actually produces any art. Instead he gets embroiled in a ridiculous affair prompted by his inability to get his dress coat out of hock so he can attend a party - which adequately illustrates the comic side of his character. He then gets embroiled in a sex conflict with a Pole (Lewis is fairly obsessed with race) who he attacks and eventually duels - which illustrates the violent side of his character.This is a novel that could be as interesting synopsized into its narrative essentials as analyzed at its stylistic level as probed beneath both to piece together a psychological/philosophical/aesthetic world view that is thoroughly authentic and resolutely centered on human life in its fullest potential.Wyndham Lewis is a neglected master of both paint and words, and if you're like me and would like to lessen this neglect you'll have to find this in a library, as it's out of print and used copies are outrageously priced. And I remember when this was in every used bookstore, for cheap! (note: prices have since come down and I now actually have my own copy)
Perhaps in reaction to the sometimes cardboard cut-out quality of the good guys and concomitant mustachio-twirling music hall melodrama villains in Victorian fiction, the early 20th century gives us a new kind of protagonist. Döblin's Franz Biberkopf and Céline's Ferdinand Bardamu are both anti-heroes who might have been modeled on Lewis's Kreisler. It is notable that Otto Kreisler is somewhat more developed as a character than the eponymous Tarr, whose appearances in the first part (called "Overture") and concluding chapters serve to bookend the story of Kreisler himself.Structure aside, Lewis's prose is rocky and doesn't allow the reader to go on auto-pilot - a sample description of a woman we are supposed to understand is powerfully attractive."Her lips were long hard bubbles risen in the blond heavy pool of her face, ready to break...Grown forward with ape-like intensity, they refused no emotion noisy egress if it got so far. Her eyes were large, stubborn and reflective, brown coming out of blondness. Her head was like a deep white egg in a tobacco-colored nest. She exuded personality with alarming and disgusting intensity."These kind of modernist books can be tough going if there is no real plot so it helps when this one gets quite gripping for 50 pages, centered around an anachronistic duel (the setting is the Parisian expatriate artist community of 1910 or so) which goes quickly from farce to as tragic as Lewis's unsentimental tone allows.
What do You think about Tarr (1990)?
The most memorable part of the novel was just the character formation: Kreisler, Anastasya, and other characters whom Lewis designs as stereotyped representations of Germans, Slavic peoples, and other nationalities. The novel is explosive and dramatic as each of the different characters, their headstrong philosophies, and their national stereotypes come into conflict with each other. I'm interested in the failure of marriage, friendship, or really any other form of bond or social contract to successfully hold these people, and the nations they represent, together in peace. Started in 1910 and completed in 1918, this book definitely represents some of the cynicism and protofascist racism that characterized World War I and the years shortly after. I apparently read the 1927 version, which was heavily edited and toned-down compared to the first edition. Grab the 1918 edition if you can.
—Alasdair Ekpenyong
I feel like Tarr is a book that keeps one wondering. Why are the characters so strange?Who is Tarr, and what does the title of the book has to do with the semi-protagonist?Another question that puzzles me is that the book starts of so hype, we get introduced to characters that are hard to analyze, and to understand. Lewis' "Tarr" is a good work of literature but also a very strange one. I feel that eventhough Lewis paints a picture of a delusional Kreisler, he Kreisler is the only charcter in Lewis story that I felt I understood. But yeah it's a must read nonetheless.
—Patrick
