|
Norman Mailer
Author
In conversation with Barbara Lane, Good Lit Series Director
Answers to Written Questions from the Floor:
Barbara Lane: Were you surprised by the CIA failure to anticipate 9/11?
Norman Mailer: Not at all. Not at all. First of all, even if they'd been an extraordinary organization, they might not have anticipated it because in an intelligence agency you receive so much information all the time. But the great problem is interpretation. If you're a terrorist or you belong to a group who wishes, in one way or another, to confuse the enemy, you manage to send out all sorts of double information. In other words it's the old question of turning spies. So, if you capture a spy from the other side and turn them to your side, you give them false information to send back. And so, what happens: I'm sure there are any number of informations of 9/11, plus 10 times, 100 times more information in the other direction. So, in that sense, no I don't blame the CIA at all. The point is, the CIA for the last 10, 15, 20 years has been giving all its energy, all its resources to technological ways of obtaining information. They're like the National Security Agency now much more than they were in the beginning. And they have let the human intelligence slide, because it's much too difficult to get spies. You can work and work for years, you think you get a spy, and then you don't get him; something ridiculous happens. Or you get a spy and he's turned, and he does you more damage than good. So at a certain point the CIA came to the conclusion that they were going to depend on technological information much more than they would human information. And so, of course, they were not at all in shape to have intelligence on the ground with Muslim people. And, on top of that, as I've said many times, as a good American, I can say it: We're just not good at languages. And Arabic is, well, beyond the pale. That's why I really think that the power that Sharon has on Bush when Bush tells Sharon to do something and Sharon says, "I won't," it comes from the fact that, my guess is - this is just a guess - that our intelligence depends enormously on the Mossad and Israeli intelligence. And of course that means they stay awake at night wondering if the Mossad is lying to them for their own ends. Intelligence is a very tricky business.
Lane: The newest poll showed that 58 percent of Americans still support President Bush. How do you explain his continuing support?
Mailer: Well, he's good-looking enough to be - just like Ronald Reagan - he's good-looking enough to be the second juvenile in a movie: the one who doesn't get the girl, but you end up liking him. And, for some reason, Americans wouldn't trust a number one juvenile. A lot of them were always suspicious of Bill Clinton even though he was popular. But Reagan and Bush do have this charming quality that maybe won't get the girl, but they're good guys. And, of course, my personal opinion, for what it's worth, which is very little, is that both of them are much more significant as shells than as spirits.
Lane: There are several questions about impeaching George Bush, but here's one that says, Who can and should defeat George Bush in 2004?
Mailer: There's no one around at the moment. But, you know, in politics, the rashest thing you can do is to predict who is going to be president two years before an election. I remember all the way back in 1964 - everybody thought Bill Scranton of Pennsylvania was going to be the Republican candidate. But of course it ended up being Barry Goldwater. Things turned inside out in the last eight months. And so, there's no telling now who can come though. So much of it is luck, too. I wouldn't even make a guess. If you were to ask me if I had a preference - oh, I don't know - Kerry, perhaps.
Lane: Have we seen the end of Bill Clinton as a nationally elected figure?
Mailer: You know, it would be foolhardy to predict what Bill Clinton is going to do because all we know is that Bill Clinton wants to do something very big again, but he doesn't know yet, probably. He might end up being head of the UN or first general in NATO. Stranger things have happened.
Lane: Several questions refer to your two bids to become the mayor of New York. What type of mayor would you have been for the citizens of New York, and how's the current mayor doing?
Mailer: Let's take a negative scenario first. It could have been a disaster. The reason was that New York went broke one year after that election. And, if I had been the mayor, everybody would have said, "You see what happens when you elect guys like that?" But if it had gone well, it would have been chaos from the word go, because we wanted to change everything. I knew nothing about politics at the time, but when I came out of it I said, "The one thing I've learned is that a freshman cannot become president of the fraternity." And then came Jimmy Carter. So even the one thing I learned proved of no value.
Lane: Please comment on the nature of celebrity in the second millennium?
Mailer: Oh that's out of my competence. You mean second millennium? Up to 2000?
Lane: The year 2000 and beyond, I think.
Mailer: Isn't that the third millennium?
Lane: Yes, it is. There you go. I knew you were sharp.
Mailer: I have nothing to say about the third millennium yet, other than what I've said tonight. Celebrity I don't think has taken a turn in the last few years that I can detect. Celebrity is our own form of, how would I put it? If I were a medievalist, I would say that celebrity is the ragtag of royalty, of nobility of the Middle Ages. In other words, we look upon them with the same respect that peasants used to have for some of the lovely and some of the awful people who ride roughshod over them. But celebrity itself is an extraordinary state because a celebrity is almost always living in the middle of an identity crisis. Particularly if they're movie stars and their fortunes go up and down every few years, they never know who they are. Which, by the way, you can work in a dull job, and it can be awful for you. But, nonetheless, the one advantage to a dull job, which is why some people never quit it, is it does give you at least two of the three legs you need as a tripod in order to have a seat. In other words, there is a certain stability to sameness. If everything is changing all the time, and you end up in the most peculiar positions where you don't know who you are. Not only do you not know if you're good or bad, you don't even know if you're tall or short.
Lane: Who are your enemies at age 80?
Mailer: At age 80? Well, on the evidence of tonight, George Bush.
Lane: Any others literary or otherwise?
Mailer: Literary? Yes. Yes. Yes. Certain reviewers, who I would describe as posterior apertures.
Lane: Not naming names?
Mailer: Well, if I were called a posterior aperture, I'd hate to have my name attached to it. Actually, I know one reviewer who is possessed of a power tool up the posterior aperture whenever she has to review one of my books.
Lane: Does she write for The New York Times?
Mailer: You got it.
Lane: What do you consider the best book review ever written about your work?
Mailer: Oh, there've been a few. I really don't recall at the moment. I can tell you the best sentence that was ever said about my work. Alfred Kazin years ago once said, "Mailer is as fond of his style as an Italian tenor of his vocal chords." And I like that because it's not only funny and well-turned, but it also was useful to me. Once in a while when I was writing I would say, "Am I exercising the vocal chords?"
Lane: Speaking of all this, one of our members wants to know, Why didn't you hit Gore Vidal harder?
Mailer: I never hit him. What happened is - you know it's not easy to hit someone cold. People have a mistaken notion of pugnacity. People very often need to get very pugnacious in order to be able to throw one punch. It's hard to throw a punch. Particularly if you've grown up with any attachment to the middle class. So, I was warming up. I wanted to hit Gore, but it hasn't come yet. You see, punching is a species of inspiration, when all is said. So, I was warming up, and I wasn't getting there. I had a heavy tumbler in my hand and it was filled with ice cubes and drink, and I threw the drink into his face and then bounced this heavy tumbler off his head. And that was what he thought was the punch. He spoke later, with his wonderful wit, of, "I saw this tiny fist coming at me." It was in fact an ice cube. But I never punched him. It was very mean to take a heavy tumbler and bounce it off his head.
Lane: There was also a head-butt?
Mailer: That was another occasion. Actually, Gore and I, we can never say we're friends because there has been such bad blood over the years, but we can work together. We did "Don Juan in Hell" in Provincetown this fall. He was a marvel. He's a marvelous devil. He really was almost as good as Charles Laughton in playing that role. I had to work in his wake. I didn't enjoy it much.
Lane: You said women have totally taken over the book publishing world.
Mailer: I didn't say totally, I'm sure, Barbara. I probably said they've taken it over.
Lane: Question - for better, or for worse?
Mailer: I'll put it this way: I wouldn't say it's their fault.
Lane: How diplomatic.
Mailer: No, it's just that publishing has become very corporate. So, with the nature of corporations, the bottom line dips to green the more and more and the middle of publishing workers' nightmares. If there were men there, publishing would also be in trouble. But I think it's in trouble. One of my favorite remarks, I utter it every opportunity I get, is that people always complain about how much money young, ignorant athletes get. But at least they're the best in their profession. Whereas in literature, it's the mediocrities who make the most money. And that's all right. If you're really a serious writer, money should only be your second, third or fourth preoccupation, not your first. So that's all. But it irks you. I'd be happier if nobody made an enormous amount of money, but made enough to live on. That'd be more of an ideal literary world. The moment that tremendous money starts coming in, publishers naturally have to start letting go of little standards all the time - until finally it gets away from them.
Lane: Who are the contemporary novelists who should be celebrated today, who should making the money, if that's the standard?
Mailer: There are a lot of them. Let me start with the women first, since my reputation is so bad in that direction. Joan Didion, Joyce Carol Oates. There's a wonderful new book coming along by a writer named Ingrid Bengis who's written a book called Metro Stop Dostoevsky. It's about Russia from 1990 to the present. It's remarkable book and wonderfully written. Toni Morrison doesn't need any help from me. I can think of a few more. Of course, among the men, there is any number of good ones. There's the old four Bellow, Roth, Updike and Mailer. There's Don DeLillo. There's Bill Kennedy, a wonderful writer. There's Kurt Vonnegut. You can go on and on and on. There's Ed Doctorow; any number of very good ones.
Lane: When will you complete and publish the sequel to Harlot's Ghost?
Mailer: Probably never. I was about to start the second volume about two years ago, and something happened that never happened before, which is a new muse came into the room just as I was on the altar. And said, "Come here." And I left the second volume of Harlot's Ghost at the altar and ran off with the new muse. I've been working on a novel that I'm going to either finish it or it is going to finish me, because it's a long book that will come out in pieces. But I don't think I'll ever get back to Harlot's Ghost. Also, the CIA has changed so much that I'm not sure that what I was interested in is still there.
Lane: Can you tell us anything about the new novel?
Mailer: Not a thing. I don't even tell my wife. She guessed because she's very bright. But I didn't tell her. I'll tell you why. It's not just to be cute, which is one of my virtues and vices. It's also because if I started to tell you about it, we'd be talking about nothing else for hours, and I would talk the book away.
Lane: Unfortunately, we only have time for one more question. You did mention your wife, so please talk about, on the sixth attempt, finally finding contentment in marriage.
Mailer: You, know I didn't hear that… You swallowed your words.
Lane: Please talk about, on the sixth attempt, finally finding contentment in marriage.
Mailer: There's no such thing as contentment in marriage. There are relatively good confrontational relationships that humans lead. I once said that to me marriage was an excrementitious relationship. What I meant by that was that we go along through life looking for someone who we can dump on in such a way that we won't hurt them too grievously. And they, in turn, have to have the right to do it back to us. That's a good marriage. We're all too timid to get rid of our ugliest emotions in public because there are such consequences. So, as a result, what we need is someone up close who we can be bad, mean, ugly and stupid with. But, in turn, you have to be ready to receive that stuff. The mark of a good marriage is that you're fond of each other after a strop fight. That demands wit on both sides. You've got to be able to appreciate your opponent's wit. It's really analogous to boxing. Very often you'll see a ferocious fight for 10 rounds, 12 rounds, and in the end they embrace each other. They embrace each because they've both learned so much in the fight. They learned a lot about their own courage. They learned a lot about the surprises you can get from another human being. They learned a great deal, and they're truly fond of each other for that little bit. But, in any event, yes, the marriage has gone on for 28 years. I am, in effect, an old married man.
Marwan Muasher
Arianna Huffington
Ben Stein