Culture 31 October 2013 What we should take from the second volume of Mark Twain’s cantankerous autobiography The Twain who steps out of the Autobiography is more sceptical and negative than the Twain of the novels but still very much the same character. Print HTML Though renowned for his aphoristic wit, Mark Twain could be mightily long-winded. At over 700 pages, the second volume of his Autobiography (University of California Press, £29.95) shows him at his most discursive. Newspaper clippings, passing remarks, casual stimulus from letters or visitors – anything could get him going. As he rummages through a huge ragbag of topics (reminiscences, reflections on religion, thoughts on suicide and death), you wonder if he’s ever going to stop. Not for some time, apparently: a third volume is already planned. Superficially, the reason for the book’s prolixity was its mode of composition. In his last years, Twain employed a stenographer to take down his day-to-day musings. Rambling (in every sense) for two hours a day, he poured out stories, memories and ideas. Dictated between April 1906 and February 1907 (he died in 1910), the ramshackle results are both tedious and fascinating. They offer not a coherent memoir but the sound of improvised speech. That makes them quite similar to his novels, which – though written rather than dictated – pioneered a style of vernacular narrative (colloquial, jokey, unpretentiously eloquent) that peaked with Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Twain always wrote spontaneously. Embarking on Tom Sawyer, he had no idea how it would end. Halfway through Huckleberry Finn, his tank ran dry and he dropped the book for two years. His mordant satire on slavery, Pudd’nhead Wilson, only emerged when, by “a kind of literary Caesarean”, he removed a comic subplot about conjoined twins. His documentary works were equally makeshift. His 1869 bestselling travel book, The Innocents Abroad, was originally a series of newspaper articles. So was Life on the Mississippi, an important source for Huckleberry Finn. All these books were written in fits and starts and rivet you with the sound of Twain’s voice. What is new about the Autobiography is the intensity and savagery of his reflections. Twain used it to manage a conflict that had dogged his entire career. Perpetually torn between defiance and conformity, he was instinctively a critic and outsider, a satirist with violent and anarchic fancies – yet his public success depended on submission to the norms of a censorious society. His natural home was the world of his twenties, the boisterous male enclaves of the silver mines and riverboats: as he put it in Life on the Mississippi, “A pilot, in those days, was the only unfettered and entirely independent human being that lived in the earth.” Writers, by contrast, were “manacled servants of the public”. Making headway as a writer meant, for Twain, complying with (and even marrying into) a restrictive world of piety and patriotism, of good manners, high morals and polite speech. From early on, he let his work be censored – first by his mentor Mary Fairbanks, who scanned his manuscripts for vulgarity and irreverence, and later by his wife, Olivia, of whom he said: “She not only edited my works, she edited me!” In the Autobiography, he quotes from an account, written years before by his daughter Susy, of how Mamma “expergated [sic]” Huckleberry Finn: “. . . I remember so well, with what pangs of regret we used to see her turn down the leaves of the pages, which meant that some delightfully dreadful part must be scratched out.” Twain outwardly complied and prospered as a writer but his wealth and celebrity failed to make him content. Like Huck Finn, he hankered after some means of escape from the pressures of “civilisation”. One favoured escape route was the past (where all his major novels are located): perhaps the Middle Ages (A Connecticut Yankee at the Court of King Arthur) or the Tudor period (The Prince and the Pauper) or, more personally, his rambunctious young manhood or his boyhood in Hannibal, Missouri (a time when you could fight and smoke and play hooky and still retain adult affection). Yet his commonest manoeuvre for shaking off the shackles was to split himself into two in fiction. His work is full of doubles, alter egos and disguise. A recurrent device is that of reversed identity: Edward Tudor and Tom Canty in The Prince and the Pauper; the exchanged babies in Pudd’nhead Wilson. His interest in conjoined twins resurfaced in a short story in which one (drunk and disreputable) is forced to coexist uncomfortably with another (sober and respectable). Supposedly hilarious, the story is revealing about an author who spoke elsewhere of “my double, my partner in duality, the other and wholly independent personage who resides in me”. Tellingly, Twain’s last recorded words were about Jekyll and Hyde. For his Autobiography, he created a new double: a garrulous corpse. Requesting that sections be held back for a century, he imagined himself as already dead. Thus liberated, he could say what he thought, rather than what he wished people to think he thought. He could lay about him without fear of social reprisal. He could also cast off his status as America’s most feted author. The whitehaired, white-suited older Twain was lionised all over the world: in America he was invited to testify before congressional committees; he recalled chats with the British prime minister and dinner with the German kaiser in Europe. In the Autobiography, shrugging off the constricting mantle of fame, he was free to speak his mind. Unfortunately, many of those he chose to attack scarcely deserved his lofty contempt. Just as the first volume of the Autobiography shocked readers with its intemperate onslaught on his personal assistant Isabel Lyon (“thief, drunkard, traitor and salacious slut”), so the second might prove startling with its endless diatribes against former colleagues – lawyers, publishers, journalists – who allegedly let him down. Among names filed under just one letter of the alphabet, you can find memorable strictures on Charles H Webb (“a poor sort of creature, and by nature and training a fraud”), Charles L Webster (“one of the most assful persons I have ever met”) and Daniel Whitford (“endowed with a stupidity which by the least little stretch would go around the globe four times”). Some hate figures will be familiar to students of Twain – James W Paige, for one (“a descendant of Judas Iscariot”); Twain had lost a fortune by investing in his typesetting machine. In the case of his rival writer Bret Harte, the fulminations begin with a rumble (“He hadn’t a sincere fibre in him”) and build up to a thunderclap (“a born bummer and tramp . . . a loafer and an idler”). In the 200 pages of notes to this volume, the scrupulous editors include warnings (“one-sided and in many instances erroneous”, and so on) not to take Twain’s charges on trust. Where his eruptions are likely to have more impact today is in the realm of religion. His portrait of God rivals that of Richard Dawkins: “In the Old Testament His acts expose His vindictive, unjust, ungenerous, pitiless and vengeful nature constantly . . . It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere.” Twain’s novels are often laced with mild religious mockery but contain nothing like his withering comments (to be held back, he said, until 2406) on “any and every god among the two or three millions of gods that our race has been manufacturing since it nearly ceased to be monkeys”. On politics, the Autobiography might disquiet his more conservative admirers. Perhaps his invectives against men who “get down in the gutter and frankly worship dollars” can be taken with a pinch of salt, given Twain’s obsession with profit and addiction to calamitous investments (he sank money in a steam pulley, a new engraving process, a new cash register and a spiral hatpin). Yet a passage about the arms race (each country going “one battleship better”) still reads cogently, as do his warnings about imperialism. Just as he described US soldiers abroad as “uniformed assassins” in the first volume, here he asserts that praising Anglo-Saxon expansionism amounts to saying: “The English and the Americans are thieves, highwaymen, pirates, and we are proud to be of the combination.” The Twain who steps out of the Autobiography is more sceptical and negative than the Twain of the novels but still very much the same character. He continues to function in all his doubleness: folksy and cosmopolitan, idealistic and cynical, the warmest champion and most blistering critic of mainstream American values. David Grylls is a fellow of Kellogg College, Oxford, and the author of “Guardians and Angels: Parents and Children in 19th-Century Literature” (Faber & Faber) › Google Glass user arrested while driving, is oblivious about why On with the show: Susy and Papa in am dram at their holiday cottage in Onteora, New York, 1890. Image: Copyright Mark Twain Papers, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley This article first appeared in the 23 October 2013 issue of the New Statesman, Russell Brand Guest Edit More Related articles Twice bottled grief: the defiant life of Tony Garnett Walking while female: how Flâneuse encourages its reader to take to the streets The tolerant philosopher: why Pierre Bayle is the forgotten figure of the Enlightenment
Show Hide image Music & Theatre 15 August 2016 Reversing the muse: musician Laura Marling on her quest for more women studio engineers The singer-songwriter is campaigning for more female representation behind the scenes in the music industry. Print HTML It has often been said that Laura Marling is wise beyond her years. Her debut album, Alas, I Cannot Swim, came out days after her 18th birthday to immediate critical acclaim. Just eight years down the line, she has released five albums, experimenting with influences from folk, country, indie rock, jazz and Indian raga. But when I meet her in north London, she is more preoccupied with gender roles in the music industry than which genre she will dabble in next. The Hampshire-born musician is in the midst of working on a project called Reversal of the Muse, which is born out of a series of conversations with female musicians and professionals she has had, and aims to highlight the stark lack of women working as studio engineers in the industry. For Marling, it’s simple: “Reversing the muse means taking away the subjugating role of being the object.” A conversation in her adopted home of America with the Haim sisters led her to talk to the band’s engineers. In turn, she spoke to Vanessa Parr, a rare female in-house engineer at Village Studios, Los Angeles. Reels of these conversations – taking the form of interviews – are due to be released as podcasts this week. These discussions are at the heart of the Reversal of the Muse project. Back across the Atlantic, Marling has put her experiment into action, arranging sessions in Urchin Studios, Hackney, where she recorded her 2015 album Short Movie. Each day a different female sound engineer has been in to record with all-women acts including current successes Shura, Marika Hackman and The Big Moon. Marling will later tell me that fiery indie four-piece The Big Moon are one of the few contemporary bands she is currently listening to. “They haven’t actually spent much time in a studio, but they are making their [debut] record with Catherine Marks, which is really unusual. They’ve only ever worked with a woman, and that’s so cool.” I ask what the outcome of this time spent recording in a female-dominated environment is. Any breakthrough gender theories? Marling laughs. “The funny thing was that, in my mind, I thought we would discover that there was some great big hole in female creativity that’s been missing from the studio environment,” she says. “But actually, with the engineers that we’ve mostly been focusing on, we discovered that women are obviously just as capable as men at doing that exact job.” Marling seems amused at this rather unexciting outcome. She continues: “It seems really silly because it was a comfortingly mundane result. It’s not like we discovered something huge. It’s just like ‘uh!’, we did it. It was really easy. Simple.” But gender isn’t simple. It’s a topic Marling has been focusing on for a while now, reading, admiring the works of and listening to interviews with a succession of inspirational female creatives. Beaming, she tells me “Lou Salomé, Anaїs Nin and Leonora Carrington – they are my Holy Trinity.” Lou Andreas-Salomé was the first female psychoanalyst in a male-dominated industry; she worked alongside the likes of Sigmund Freud and Friedrich Nietzsche. She was a woman who took control over her own sexuality and “used it to expand her academic and intellectual work”, according to Marling. Anaїs Nin was the first woman to, from the 1940s onwards, write extensive works of erotica. The explosion of the 1960s feminist movement made Nin’s published writings important feminist works. But it was Leonora Carrington who inspired the title of the project. The surrealist British painter, who had fallen in love with the German artist Max Ernst before the outbreak of war, ended up in Mexico after fleeing mental asylums. Marling insists on Carrington’s genius. “She wasn’t insane; she was just really far-out. Her whole thing was: ‘I have no time to be your muse’. She was obsessed with becoming the most capable painter possible.” Marling has long toyed with the idea of the muse. In fact, the first track on 2011’s A Creature I Don’t Know is “The Muse”. On “Saved These Words”, the final number on 2013’s Once I Was an Eagle, Marling bellows: “He was my next verse”. It is a lyric that considers those surrounding Marling as her calculated artistic inspiration. Has she had a muse herself? “I don’t know if I’ve done it consciously. But sometimes you just meet people who are extraordinarily vibrant, in some way. And you don’t have to possess them, you can just observe them.” She recalls Carolee Schneemann’s 1964-67 short film, Fuses. “It’s a piece of art that I saw quite young, maybe too young, because it’s quite saucy. It’s her making love to her partner. They’re being witnessed by a cat,” she says. “Quite a lot of the camera is focused on them both: it doesn’t fetishise the female body in any way. It’s not at all sexy. It’s definitely not pornographic but you can’t really put your finger on why. “I remember there’s a scene where she’s kind of looking towards the camera, or past the camera, and there’s a possessiveness over her lover. I always found that image really intriguing and I’ve sort of subconsciously embodied that in my writing quite a lot because, well – Leonora Carrington was the one who put it into words, but I was never interested in being anyone’s muse either.” More Related articles A new generation of pop stars is queering and subverting the high school music video trope How tour merchandise became high fashion Has the Mercury Prize become so alternative that we can guess which musicians won’t win?