The Armies Of The Night: History As A Novel, The Novel As History (1995) - Plot & Excerpts
A Novel HistoryThis loosely "fictionalised" account of the 1967 anti-Vietnam war March on the Pentagon won both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award.While many of Mailer's political and philosophical concerns could be said to have dated (like much of Sixties culture), I really enjoyed re-reading it.I suspect that many of my own views about Sixties politics (particularly the relationship between the Old Left and the New Left) were shaped by my first reading.To that extent, it's had a lasting effect on me, despite its flaws.History as a NovelThe work is divided into two parts:* History as a Novel; and* The Novel as History.Part I is New Journalism in which the author is inserted into the action. Except he is cast as a semi-fictional third person protagonist, hence it is just as much post-modernist metafiction as journalism.Mailer was both a speaker and a demonstrator at the events described in the novel. This is how he justifies the choice of himself as protagonist:"An eyewitness who is a participant but not a vested partisan is required, further he must be not only involved, but ambiguous in his own proportions, a comic hero...Mailer is a figure of monumental disproportions and so serves willy-nilly as the bridge...into the crazy house, the crazy mansion...Once History inhabits a crazy house, egotism may be the last tool left to History."Despite his overt and unashamed egotism, Mailer also paints himself as a clown in a vaudeville or burlesque show.Running late for his speech, he can't find the lights in the venue toilet and accidentally urinates on the floor, which event he builds into an extended impromptu metaphor in his speech a few minutes later. Inevitably, he both takes a piss and takes the piss.The sense of humour doesn't quite balance the egotism, but at least it broadens his rhetorical palette.The Novel as HistoryPart II dispenses with this artifice. However, it also quotes liberally from other contemporary accounts of the March on the Pentagon, illustrating the point that, if they had formed the factual basis of History, it would have been erroneous:"...the mass media which surrounded the March on the Pentagon created a forest of inaccuracy which would blind the efforts of any historian; our novel has provided us with the possibility, no, even the instrument to view our facts and conceivably study them in that field of light a labor of lens-grinding has produced."In this light, Part I proves to be an equally valid contribution to History, even if it's a subjective account of what went on in the mind of a minor protagonist:"His history of the Pentagon...insisted on becoming a history of himself over four days, and therefore was history in the costume of a novel."The two parts are therefore equally contributions towards a History that might be derived from an aggregation of different perspectives.Stormin' NormanMailer's favourite stance on any issue (moral, political or otherwise) is adversary or contrarian:"The clue to discovery was not in the substance of one's idea, but in what was learned from the style of one's attack (which was one reason Mailer's style changed for every project)."However, in pursuit of a "theatre of ideas", he does give ample airtime to his adversaries, and his accounts of their views are often sufficiently fair to allow you to embrace their views in preference to his. His own views might not always be reliable or persuasive. However, at least he tells you both sides of the story, unlike much contemporary journalism or historical analysis, which frequently contains an unacknowledged but transparent bias.Moral Action, Not Just CalculusUntil the March, Mailer was content to express his political opposition to the Vietnam War and the social and political culture that generated it, by way of his writing.The March presented to him both an opportunity and a challenge to go beyond his writing and actually participate in political action. The Novelist became a Participant, as well as a Protagonist in his metafiction.There comes a time when a moral calculus might not be enough. If you genuinely care about your subject matter, sooner or later it has to be translated into moral or political action on an individual and/or group level.No matter how small his contribution to the March (he was one of the first ten to be arrested and jailed), he contributed to a tangible, if symbolic, political action.This action was significant in its own right, quite apart from his documentation of it in novel form.Unlike some current moral commentators, he was not content simply to describe the predicament of people who might be seen as victims, he sought to do something political about it.Morality is not just about thinking, it's also about action.A writer who fails to acknowledge this risks entrapment in the world of art for art's sake. This is not to denigrate the pure artist, only to caution against hagiography of the inactive.The Theatre of IdeasMailer's own politics were difficult to define at most points in his career.In 1967, if not the whole time, they were in a state of flux and transition.At no point did he ever really throw his hat in with one Weltanschauung. He remained individualistic, to the point of egotism.However, the March highlighted the fact that he found himself sandwiched between two adversaries.The first was the Old Left, the second the New Left.To some extent, the March was a unique rainbow coalition of the two (plus Mailer, to the extent that he stood outside both camps), and these are genuine rainbow stories. However, the two movements coexisted like two aspects of a dialectic, that would both preserve the old and give rise to something new.The Old LeftWhatever its goals, the Old Left represented rationality and logic. Mailer refers to its adherence to the "sound-as-brickwork logic of the next step in some hard new Left program". To the extent that it was Marxist, it belonged to the tradition of Scientific Socialism. However, the excesses of Soviet Communism had undermined both Socialism and confidence in its rationalism. In its Totalitarian manifestation, it was more oppressive than Capitalism. Understandably, the children of the Old Left were seeking an alternative.Mailer had been on the Board of the Socialist magazine, "Dissent", before finding that he too had moved away from the other members politically (he refers to himself as a "quondam Marxist"), despite remaining "fond" of them personally.The New LeftThe New Left was less dependent on a faith in rationality and logic. The Old Left logic was almost too dull and boring for the children of the New Left:"The new generation believed in technology more than any before it, but the generation also believed in LSD, in witches, in tribal knowledge, in orgy, and revolution. It had no respect whatsoever for the unassailable logic of the next step: belief was reserved for the revelatory mystery of the happening where you did not know what was going to happen next..."It adored Che Guevara and modelled its politics and political aesthetic on him. The primary goal was to embrace Revolution as a political strategy. However, Revolution had ceased to be a means to an end. It had become an end in its own right.Nobody could know what would replace the current economic, social and political order, until the Revolution had succeeded and we saw how all of the cards had landed.Spontaneity was the primary impulse: "Trust the authority of your senses...If it made you feel good, it was good." If it made you feel good, do it. There was no desire to subject the Revolution to rationality and logic and five year plans.For the Old Left, this was infantile, dangerous and counterproductive. Why support such a movement if you couldn't tell whether it would simply replace one form of oppression with a reign of terror? Mailer was more sympathetic to the vision of the New Left than was the Old Left. However, his analysis of the New Left agenda doesn't dig particularly deep, and as a result it suffers from its superficiality. In fairness, the New Left had only just formed and hadn't yet started to focus primarily on Identity Politics. Thus, it's difficult to say what it represented in 1967.Nihilism and AuthorityMailer doesn't expressly use the "A word" (Anarchism) to describe the New Left. Its advocates are hippies. He often suggests that they believe in Nihilism, not in the sense that it might oppose chaos to order, just that they believe that something has to be torn down, before something can be (re)built in its place.What the Nihilists and hippies oppose is "the Authority": "their radicalism was in their hate for the Authority". Mailer doesn't refer to it as the State. It seems to be broader than the institution of government. The Authority encompasses the military-industrial complex as well. Within the Capitalist system, there is a conspiracy of the State and Business. Society must conform or be oppressed.Mailer discovers that he has some nuanced sympathy for these views. He sees in the March "a confirmation of the contests of his own life."Equally, there are differences. Historically, his drug of choice has been speed (supplemented by whiskey, marijuana and seconal). The hippies' preference is LSD.Mailer actually suspects that acid enhances the prospects of survival of the Authority, by destroying the minds of the next generation.Totalitarian AccelerationAt times, Mailer's description of the plight of this generation seems to foreshadow Pynchon and De Lillo:"The nightmare was in the echo of those trips which had fractured their sense of past and present...nature was a veil whose tissue had ben ripped by static, screams of jet motors, the highway grid of the suburbs, smog, defoliation, pollution of streams, overfertilisation of earth, anti-fertilisation of women, and the radiation of two decades of near blind atom busting..."Still, Mailer was prepared to overlook this difference, on the basis that the Revolution might be a vital part of a twenty year war that, if won, would result in some economic, social and political alternatives that he was prepared to try out. If the hippies didn't last the distance, well, that was their bad luck.On the other hand, "nothing was worse than a nihilism which failed to succeed - for totalitarianism would then be accelerated."The BeastMailer's worldview is not restricted to a battle between the individual and the Authority (and its "oncoming totalitarianism").He describes one of his personae as "the Beast". He doesn't elaborate on this concept in this work. However, it represents his animalistic nature, perhaps an irrational or non-rational Self that is opposed to the oppressiveness of society.There is little discussion of Freud in the novel (apart from a veiled reference of Marcuse in terms of "the Freud-ridden embers of Marxism"). However, it's possible that the Beast is the Ego and potentially the Id, and that its adversary is the Super-Ego.Sexuality and GuiltMailer raises these issues in the context of his discussion of sex (a subject upon which his ideas now seem to be the most perverse).Mailer's adversary, Paul Goodman, believes that all forms of sexuality (including homosexuality and onanism) are equally valid. He strives for a choice of sexualities, none of which should be associated with guilt.On the other hand, Mailer, despite his apparent support of libertarianism, advocates only one valid sexuality (heterosexuality):"Mailer, with his neo-Victorianism, thought that if there was anything worse than homosexuality and masturbation, it was putting the two together."He also regards guilt as a vital part of the pleasure derived from sexual activity.If sex wasn't somehow sanctioned, he believes there would be no drama involved in sexual activity. It would become dull (the worst of all possible crimes). The prospect of guilt introduces an element of theatre and dramatic tension. Individuals need guilt and social sanction, so that they have something with which to do battle and win. Great Balls of DefianceMailer's philosophy requires an adversary which it can defy.He is not so much interested in harmony as the type of creativity that emerges from conflict. Without a dialectical opposition, there is no excitement, there is no life.This is how he describes the symbolic battle between demonstrator and soldier:"I will steal your elan, and your brawn, and the very animal of your charm, because I am morally right and you are wrong and the balance of existence is such that the meat of your life is now attached to my spirit, I am stealing your balls."Beauty and the BeastMailer's ideas descend further into idiosyncrasy when he addresses the role of women, particularly in the act of sex. Mailer's philosophy is very male-oriented. Women are the object upon which the male subject acts. Sex is the vehicle for the expression of male dynamism and power. Women are mere passive vehicles or conduits for male self-expression. There is no sense of a personal or sexual relationship as mutual or other than an Hegelian Master/Servant relationship (in which the male is always the Master and the female is always the Servant).Interestingly, men need to go on a journey to discover and realise their version of Mailer's Beast. Men are not born men or beasts. Paraphrasing Simone de Beauvoir, men become men or beasts. Men have to earn their beastliness:"Nobody was born a man; you earned manhood provided you were good enough, bold enough."Masculinity and sex are sporting activities, perhaps even blood sports. Just as professional sport puts men to the test, so does sex. Only women are just the playing field upon which the sport is played or acted out.We Can Be HeroesIf Mailer wanted to portray modern or post-modern life as some sort of heroic encounter between the individual and the State or the Authority or the Big Other (or perhaps even Death itself), he effectively shot himself in the foot by his rampant sixties misogynist, homophobic machismo. As Mailer says of himself in the third person:"He would have been admirable, except that he was an absolute egomaniac, a Beast - no recognition existed of the existence of anything beyond the range of his own reach."Regardless, I think there is something to be salvaged from his writing in terms of his focus on dynamism and activism, if not necessarily the constant quest for dialectical opposition or conflict (as a proof of manhood).Besides, the quality of his prose is consistently excellent, if you forgive him his penis obsession and his peculiar ideological bent. A Private MixtureFor all his flaws, it's also possible that this work can now be read more fruitfully by later generations.Ultimately, Mailer defines his political views as "a private mixture of Marxism, conservatism, nihilism, and large parts of existentialism."This mix might not have made much sense at the time when people tended to occupy one camp or another, but not two or more. Many of these old differentiations don't resonate any longer. Now, it's possible that the inconsistencies between the different camps can potentially be reconciled into one comprehensible worldview or temperament, at least on an individual basis.Whatever, it's refreshing to read a moral calculus and a primer for action that's comprehensive, well-written and less than 300 pages long.
Pulitzer Prize winner, Norman Mailer. I’m reading through this book with much difficulty, straining to see the brilliance in it others have seen, and of course how it justifies its prize winning hype. Okay, it’s the same conundrum I faced in art school when they tried to convince me Jackson Pollock was an artistic genius. The very same! In fact, Mailer seems to be the Jackson Pollock of writing; the difference being instead throwing paint on canvas, he’s thrown words on a page.After posing the question to our class last week, “Why all the Pulitzer Prize hype?” One reply was Mailer wrote about what was ground breaking at the time, however, you can say that for just about anything because the times themselves were actually ground breaking for that time, and “The times they are a-changin’.” Many of the names Mailer drops throughout the book were writing about the times intertwined with their experiences. They’re especially speaking about them, including Mailer. In fact, speech was the new medium. It had farther reach, and reel to reel tape, 8 track’s precursor, was widely accessible, even preferable in the absence of video. Where we see Mailer trying to establish himself as an iconoclast among “the new journalists,” I’d argue that Armies of the Night, along with other works we’ve read under the genre, creative nonfiction, are nothing more than autobiographical or chronicles in the life and times of ____, fill in the blank. In fact Mailer rides the tide of his success with Advertisements for Myself, The White Negro, and The Naked and the Dead,” right into Armies of the Night, using for each, the same meandering pontifications and shock n’awe in his “prose.”Anecdote: In high school, 1975, my teacher invited a fellow teacher from the same school to speak to us students about…I don’t remember exactly (roughly something to do with social studies and activism). The speaker’s point became unimportant because he force fed it to us so heavily peppered with profanity and racial epithets that it had been choked to death long before it could be made. To add insult to injury, we, fifteen/sixteen year olds, were asked our opinion of the speech after he left. Most teens I know don’t have enough personal history to form opinions, nor have they the words to express them even if they did—instead, feelings were abound (lots of them) and few words—that’s why teens infamously act out. But there I was, bated to be teen spokesperson for oratorical decency (and my race) and feeling ticked off about being put in this position by dozens of eyes focused in my direction.“He shouldn’t have used nigger and that other “language” to get his point across. Relying on this stuff to keep our attention made him a weak speaker, not to mention he lost me—lost his audience.”I had little to say other than this, and that I thought he should be confronted. Two of my Chicana classmates chimed in with equal sentiment but were somehow able to stand clear of the heat emanating from our facilitator’s discussion, I mean interrogation lamps. Inside, I was more than angry—I was outraged—but not in the way the speaker had intended, and not only at the speaker. It was an epic fail to see teachers unleash on us an unvetted idiot with an agenda. Maybe he was also drunk, like Mailer. Anyway, My reward for speaking up was that the teacher responsible for the invitational asked me if I was political. She blasted her eyes suggesting I should go confront him. Okay, root problem revealed. There was more than one teacher that needed to be confronted; exactly why I have zero nostalgia for the 1960s\70s. Fast forward forty years.To my dismay, Mailer triggers my PTSD --“Thursday Evening: Toward a Theatre of Ideas”— dragging through approximately twelve pages beginning with his urge to micturate, satisfying his urge (against the dark restroom’s wall), then fomenting on how he might share it, peppered with four letter folly, in front of an audience. Mailer does. ”…’I’m trying to say the middle class plus shit, I mean plus revolution, is equal to one big collective dead ass.’ Some yells of approval, but much shocked curious rather stricken silence. He had broken the shank of his oratorical charge. Now he would have to sweep the audience together again…”1“’I had an experience as I came to the theatre to speak to all of you, which is that before appearing on this stage, I went upstairs to the men’s room as a prelude to beginning this oratory so beneficial to all…’and it was dark, so—ahem—I missed the bowl’…”2Mailer’s crudity, obscenities, insecurities, megalomania, vacillations, obsessions and what not are a constant distraction from his book’s topic, the 1967 march on Washington. He invests a lot of time in these distractions too—page after page, in fact. We only truly see his commitment to be an all-in Washington marcher half-way through the book by the chapter, “The Rhetoric,” where Mailer decides,“’Yes, we have to get arrested today. No alternative for it.’ If technology land had built Global Village, well shank it up technology land, let Global Village hear today that America’s best poet? And best novelist?? And best critic???? had been arrested in a protest of Uncle Sam’s Whorehouse War. And if Paul Goodman had been here, Mailer supposed he could have been ranked as America’s best inspiration to the young??????”3I think Mailer is referring to himself as best novelist, question marks included, to which my response is, Really!?!, infinitely more question marks included.1 pg. 372 pg. 493 pg. 97
What do You think about The Armies Of The Night: History As A Novel, The Novel As History (1995)?
It was fine. There are some passages that I found funny and/or enlightening. Overall though, it felt a bit too much like a chore for me to finish. Maybe it was just not what I was in the mood for, most likely it had much to do with the fact that I needed to look up people and places every ten minutes. That's totally all my fault for being a bit dumb when it comes to history. I did learn quite a lot, which was in itself worth the read. However, I did not feel very "moved", in any way, and I found that disappointing. Mailer does this thing where he uses double negatives, often, like, way too often for my taste. "She was not unattractive" "He was not unhappy" "It was not unlike the time..." etc... I get it, really I do. But it became so overdone that I wanted to punch him.
—Emerald Guildner
I read this book because it won the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize. I also thought that since Mailer was a novelist that this "History" might be more compelling than something written by a dry, academic historian. Well, I was very disappointed. Mailer's egomania is not nearly as charming or interesting as he believes it to be. For me, Mailer did not make a particularly good protagonist because I didn't really care for him and therefore was not all that concerned about what would happen to him as a result of participating in the October 1967 March on the Pentagon in protest of the war in Vietnam.Some of it is well-written; I especially liked the way Mailer detailed just how fragmented the anti-war movement was, with the various groups and their sometimes conflicting agendas. Explodes the myth that the 60s anti-war movement was unified. But, that is about the only positive thing I have to say about this book.
—Bill
I'm not a big Mailer fan. I finally brought myself to read this book because I had worked with some of the principal people in the book later (71-72) when VVAW was really active in the peace movement and I wanted to see how Mailer treated their personalities since I knew them. Also, I sometimes teach a class on the war and the anit-war movement and I'm always looking for good literature of the period. I was pleasantly surprised with Mailer's self-deprecating and honest voice. He admits to being an asshole personally, which he was, and owns up to his own self-serving motives beyond his true belief that the war was wrong. Like most of us, his interest in poltical movements was complex and multi-layered. The language is lyrical and the imagery excellent. Much of the account is also very accurate, minus Mailer's penchant for hyperbole. The second section read more like a history text in some spots and didn't hold my emotional interest as well as my intellectual focus. But, all in all, I think it's his best work and deserved the awards received (i.e. Pulitzer, National Book Award).
—Jim McGarrah
