Fame & Folly (14 page)

There followed a dustup over Chester’s having requested Hortense Powdermaker for a lift in her car, which, according to Chester’s account, she refused, deliberately allowing him to stand futilely in the road in the dark on a summer’s night.

After an official dressing-down, he was asked to leave MacDowell. He was, as he put it in a telegram, “flung out.” He announced that Gus, the cook, and Gus’s wife, were departing with
him, along with Chester’s two rambunctious dogs, Columbine and Skoura, who had sunk their teeth into assorted mattresses and the body parts of other residents. (He had been given special permission to bring the dogs with him to MacDowell. He was also supplied with a new typewriter and “a full-length mirror for my yoga.”) “And he is lovely,” he said of himself. “I love him. He is sweet and cute.… O I’m so much gladder to be me than all these pathetic silly other people.”

Half a decade later, he was similarly flung out of Morocco, where he had been living since 1963, invited there by Paul Bowles. A young Arab fisherman named Dris, who practiced sympathetic witchcraft and genial conning—the Larbi of “The Foot”—became his lover, factotum, and dependent. “It is traditional in Morocco,” Chester remarks in a story (“Glory Hole,” subtitled “Nickel Views of the Infidel in Tangier”), “to pay for sex. There are nicer, but not truer, ways of putting it. The lover gives a gift to the beloved: food, clothing, cash. The older pays the younger.” It was not because of his sexual conduct that Chester was expelled from Morocco. Tangier was, one might say, a mecca for “Nazarene” homosexuals from the States, who were as officially welcome as any other dollar-bearing visitors. As far as anyone can make out, Chester’s landlord complained to the authorities about the savagery of Chester’s dogs, and of Chester’s own furies, his fits of quarreling with the neighbors over the racket their numerous children made. At MacDowell he had brought in booze to supplement the bland fare in the dining room. In Tangier he turned to pills and kif, a local hallucinogen, and fell into spells of madness. Bounced out of Morocco, he fled to New York and then to London, where he was deranged enough to be tended by a psychiatric social worker. He repeatedly attempted to be allowed back in, enlisting Paul Bowles to intervene for him. Morocco remained obdurate.

In 1970 I was in Jerusalem for the first time, to read a literary paper at a conference. I had published, four years earlier, a very long “first” novel that was really a third novel. It was sparsely reviewed, and dropped, as first novels are wont to do, into a ready oblivion. In Jerusalem, though, I was surprised by a fleeting celebrity: my
essay—many thousands of words, which had taken nearly two hours to deliver—was reprinted almost in its entirety, along with my picture, in the weekend book section of the English-language
Jerusalem Post
. All this I saw as fortuitous and happy bait.

Chester was now living in Jerusalem. The moment I arrived in Israel I tried to find him. I had been given the address of a poet who might know how to reach him, but the poet was himself inaccessible—he was sick and in the hospital. I waited for Chester to come to me. I felt hugely
there
; you couldn’t miss me. The
Post
had published, gratuitously, the biggest “personals” ad imaginable. Every day I expected Chester’s telephone call. It had now been fourteen years since he had winnowed on behalf of the Princess, and more than two decades since I had looked into his bleached and lashless eyes. I longed for a reunion; I thought of him with all the old baby tenderness. I wanted to be forgiven, and to forgive. In contemplating the journey to Israel, my secret, nearly single-minded, hope had been to track him down. In New York his reputation had dwindled; his name was no longer scrawled across the sky. An episodic “experimental” novel,
The Exquisite Corpse
(horrific phantasmagoria bathed in picture-book prose that Chester himself called “delicious”), appearing three years before, had left no mark. Even rumors of Chester’s travels had eluded me: I had heard nothing about the life in Morocco, or of his meanderings in Spain and Greece and Sicily; I had no idea of any of it. Jealousy, of Chester or anyone, had long ago burned itself out. It was an emotion I could not recognize in myself. I was clear of it—cured. The ember deposited on the cold hearth of Mr. Emerson’s ancient conflagration was of a different nature altogether: call it love’s cinder. It lay there, black and gray, of a certain remembered configuration, not yet disintegrated. Chester did not turn up to collect it.

He did not turn up at all. He was already dead, or dying, or close to dying—perhaps even while I was walking the curved and flowering streets of Jerusalem, searching for the ailing poet’s house, the poet who was to supply the clue to Chester’s whereabouts.

Why had Chester come to Jerusalem? In 1967, back in Paris
again, he put on a new English fedora over his now exposed and glossy scalp, and plunged into the byways of the Marais to seek out a synagogue. Not since his boyhood in the yeshiva had he approached the Hebrew liturgy. Despite this singular visit, his habits continued unrestrained and impenitent. He drank vodka and bourbon and cognac by the quart, smoked kif and hashish, took barbiturates and tranquilizers, and was unrelentingly, profoundly, mercilessly unhappy.

In Jerusalem he set to work on a travel report, never published, called “Letter from the Wandering Jew”—a record, really, of personal affronts, most of them provoked by loneliness in quest of sensationalism. In it he purports to explain why he had left Europe for Israel. “No roads lead to Israel,” the manuscript begins. A parenthesis about the opening of a “sex-aids” shop in Tel Aviv follows. And then:

This faintly sentimental opening (not counting the sex-shop parenthesis) misrepresents. The rest is bitter stuff, bitter against father and mother, against going to school, against childhood and children, against teachers and rabbis and restaurants and waiters, against God (“that pig called Jehovah”), against France and the French, against Arab hotels and Jewish hotels, against Arabs, against Jews, against traffic noise, even against the scenery. Once again there are the rows over the dogs, flocks of urchins teasing,
exasperated neighbors, bewildered policemen. There are forays after eccentric houses to rent; unreasonable landlords; opportunistic taxi drivers. There are rages and aggression and digression and jokes in the mode of sarcasm and jokes in the mode of nihilism. Satire wears out and reverts to snideness, and snideness to open fury. Eventually vodka and Nembutal and little blue Israeli tranquilizers take charge of the language—now gripping, now banal, now thrilling, now deteriorated, now manic, now shocking. At moments it is no more than pretty, a make-do remnant of what was once a literary style:

“Letter from the Wandering Jew” was Chester’s last performance. A paranoid document, it is not without self-understanding. The Promised Land is always over the crest of the hill, and then, when you have surmounted the hill and stepped into the lovely garden on the other side, you look around and in ten minutes discover that everything has been corrupted. The truth is that the traveler himself, arriving, is the corrupter. Chester, in his last words, fathomed all this to the lees:

Chester wrote these sad cadences, I learned afterward, less than a block from my Jerusalem hotel. He never looked for me; I never found him. I never saw him alive again. (His dogs, I heard, were discovered locked in a closet, ravenous.)

He lives in my mind, a brilliant boy in a wig.

V
ERY FEW
are familiar with Chester’s work or name nowadays, not even bookish people of his own generation. He counts, I suppose, as a “neglected” writer; or perhaps, more to the point, as a minor one. To be able to say what a minor writer is—if it could be done at all—would bring us a little nearer to defining a culture. The tone of a culture cannot depend only on the occasional genius, or the illusion of one; the prevailing temper of a society and a time is situated in its minor voices, in their variegated chorus, but above all in the certainty of their collective presence. There can be no major work, in fact, without the screen, or ground, of lesser artists against whom the major figure is illuminated. Or put it that minor writers are the armature onto which the clay of greatness is thrown, pressed, prodded. If we looked to see who headed the bestseller list the year
The Golden Bowl
came out, the likelihood is that not a single name or title would be recognizable. Minor writers are mainly dead writers who do not rise again, who depend on research projects—often on behalf of this ideology or that movement—to dig up their forgotten influence. Minor writers are the objects of literary scholarship—who else, if not the scholars, will creep through archives in search of the most popular novelists of 1904?

Quantity is not irrelevant. A minor writer may own an electrifying gift, but a trickle of work reduces power. In the absence of a surrounding forest of similar evidences, one book, no matter how striking, will diminish even an extraordinary pen to minor status. There are, to be sure, certain blazing exceptions—think, for
example, of
Wuthering Heights
, a solo masterwork that descends to us unaccompanied but consummate. By and large, though, abundance counts. Balzac is Balzac because of the vast thick row of novel after novel, shelf upon shelf. Imagine Balzac as the author only of
Lost Illusions
, say, a remarkable work in itself. Or imagine James as having written
The Golden Bowl
and nothing else. If
Lost Illusions
were to stand alone, if
The Golden Bowl
were to stand alone, if there were no others, would Balzac be Balzac and James James?

Sectarianism also touches on minorness. There is nothing in the human predicament, of course, that is truly sectarian, parochial, narrow, foreign, of “special” or “limited” or “minority” interest; all subjects are universal. That is the convenience—for writers, anyhow—of monotheism, which, envisioning one Creator, posits the unity of humankind. Trollope, writing about nineteenth-century small-town parish politics, exactly describes my local synagogue, and, no doubt, an ashram along the Ganges. All “parochialisms” are inclusive. Sholem Aleichem’s, Jane Austen’s, Faulkner’s, García Márquez’s villages have a census of millions. By sectarianism, for want of a better term, I intend something like monomania—which is different from obsessiveness. Geniuses are obsessive. Kafka is obsessive, Melville is obsessive. Obsessiveness belongs to ultimate meaning; it is a category of metaphysics. But a minor writer will show you a barroom, or a murder victim, or a sexual occasion, relentlessly, monomaniacally. Nothing displays minorness so much as the “genre” novel, however brilliantly turned out, whether it is a Western or a detective story or
The Story of O
, even when it is being deliberately parodied as a postmodernist conceit.

Yet minor status is not always the same as oblivion. A delectable preciousness (not inevitably a pejorative, if you consider Max Beerbohm), or a calculated smallness, or an unstoppable scheme of idiosyncrasy, comic or otherwise—or simply the persnickety insistence on
being
minor—can claim permanence as easily as the more capacious qualities of a Proust or a Joyce. The names of such self-circumscribed indelibles rush in: Christina Rossetti, Edward Lear, and W. S. Gilbert out of the past, and, near our own period,
Ronald Firbank, Ivy Compton-Burnett, A. M. Klein, Edward Dahlberg, S. J. Perelman, James Thurber. Perhaps Beerbohm above all. (There are a handful more among the living.) Minor art is incontrovertibly art, and minor artists, like major ones, can live on and on. Who can tell if Alfred Chester—whose fiction and essays are currently tunneling out into the world again via new editions—will carry on among the minor who are designed to survive, or among those others who will be lost because, beyond their given moment, they speak to no one?