This Living Hand: And Other Essays
By Edmund Morris
(Random House, 500 pages, $32)
IN A PIECE APPEARING in TAS in 1993, and included in
this collection, Edmund Morris, a Kenyan educated in South Africa
who had made his living as an advertising copywriter before writing
an award-winning biography of Theodore Roosevelt, lauded Ronald
Reagan for publishing “an extraordinary essay, ‘Abortion and the
Conscience of the Nation,’ in the Human Life Review.”
The president’s essay, written to commemorate the 10th
anniversary of Roe v. Wade, was later reprinted in a book
published by Thomas Nelson, along with contributions by C. Everett
Koop and Malcolm Muggeridge. “Taken together,” Morris wrote, “the
three pieces read today as eloquent but dated testimonials to a
time when—for a shining moment even briefer than Camelot-—it seemed
that the Constitution might be amended (or reinterpreted) in
defense of our least articulate, most vulnerable minority.”
Morris believes the premature death of Ronald Reagan’s daughter
Christine, born to his first wife, Jane Wyman, and dying nine hours
later, intensified his abhorrence of abortion. “Whatever the cause,
one has to admire, in these days of presidential pusillanimity, the
courage with which Mr. Reagan confronted a fundamental human
problem.”
Then, half a dozen years later, Morris’ biography of Reagan
appeared, and Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan (as has
been noted by many, an odd use of the term “memoir”; also somewhat
odd was the dedication to Christine Reagan) brought on a storm of
critical denunciation (except from anti-Reagan liberals, who loved
it), perhaps best summed up by the splendid if caustically honest
New York Times reviewer Michiko Kakutani, who called it
“bizarre, incomprehensible and monstrously self-absorbed.” (Morris
called her review a “hissy fit.”)
The book featured a fictional narrator, and criticism was
intense among those who believed that such techniques had no place
in biography. One of the milder responses came from a reviewer in
Library Journal, who cautioned librarians to think twice
before cataloguing Dutch as nonfiction.
But Morris didn’t back down. “I see no reason why [biographers]
should not broaden our technique to employ those of arts more fully
developed than ours—fiction above all,” he writes. Whether fiction
is “more fully developed” than biography is open to argument. But
that aside, to many it seemed that Morris had taken the precepts of
New Journalism as practiced by Tom Wolfe and Gay Talese one step
further—instead of applying fictional techniques to writing
nonfiction, he just fictionalized his subject.
What happened? A Pulitzer Prize biography of Theodore Roosevelt
in his back pocket, a demonstrated talent, a huge publisher’s
advance, the run of the White House, unprecedented access to
papers, people, and the president himself—how could he fail? But as
the years ticked by, the rumors began to swirl; the word in the
writing/talking/publishing world was that Morris’ production was
sputtering, and his publisher was getting nervous about that
advance.
And as is often the case in Washington, the rumors turned out to
be true. The problem, as borne out by the final product, was that
Morris just couldn’t get a handle on his subject. Morris, an
intellectual and literary man of high attainment, was unable to
believe that Ronald Reagan was exactly what he seemed to be: a
strong, principled man who knew exactly who he was and what he
believed, and who never for a moment doubted the rightness of his
cause.
But where’s the irony in that? Where’s the conflict between base
and noble motives? Where are the kinks and quirks? The hidden
weaknesses? The buried secrets? Not there? Not possible. He’s
human, after all, and all humans are flawed.
“[A] couple of years of observation and research,” he writes,
“compelled me to admit (if only to myself) that the orthodox
presidential biography I had begun was likely to be stillborn.”
And so, compelled by conscience (and no doubt the prospect of
having to return some of that splendid advance), he started over,
making Ronald Reagan into a fictional character, inventing a
ubiquitous character named Edmund Morris and a female gossip
columnist, and turning it all into something very much like a
second-rate historical novel, with a flawed central character. And
in the process, his admiration for the man he once praised in these
pages for his forthright stand on abortion appeared to fade into
active dislike.
IN THE BEGINNING, there was a touch of romance, a Chris Matthews
moment. Because of his biography of Theodore Roosevelt, Morris and
his wife were invited to a state dinner in 1981, at which he
briefly spoke to Reagan on the receiving line (and assumed, of
course, that Reagan had read his book cover to cover). Later in the
evening, he writes, Michael Deaver told him that if he wanted “to
apply to become the president’s authorized biographer, he and Nancy
would probably say yes.”
At first Morris chose not to. But then, “Over the next few years
it became obvious that Reagan was becoming a seriously important
president…the balance of world power was dipping in Reagan’s
direction, and that his was the muscle forcing the change.” Then
came the controversial visit to Bitburg, preceded by a stop at the
concentration camp of Bergen-Belsen, where he laid a wreath and
made a speech on the Holocaust. Morris watched on television:
What he [Reagan] saw in there [Bergen-Belsen] put an expression
on his face of such anguish that I felt my heart constrict. A
skylark sang out, its trill vibrating across the Atlantic and into
my living room. At that moment, I was overcome with literary
desire.
astorian| 12.19.12 @ 8:21AM
I think Edmund Morris faced a problem that historians and biographers of an earlier time didn't.
In the past, it was enough for historians and biographers to lay out the facts, and interpret them. But now? We live in the Age of Oprah! Readers expect a biography to give us a psychological portrait of their subjects, to get inside their heads and reveal their innermost thoughts and feelings. Well, let's face it- if THAT'S the kind of biography you want to write, Ronald Reagan is bound to be a frustrating subject. He wasn't a deeply introspective man and he wasn't given to grand public gestures or dramatic shows of emotion. Hence, even people who worked closely with him often admit they STILL don't really know what made him tick.
Morris knew he couldn't sell an old-fashioned "just the facts, ma'am" story of Reagan's life, so he felt compelled to resort to gimmickry.
Jim Adcox| 12.19.12 @ 8:57AM
Ah, to bask in the glow of Morris' self-importance, little Ronnie said, as he read his (Morris' or Reagan's, he wasn't sure), and to learn at the feet of a true fictional genius, thought little Ronnie, as Edmund beamed down from Olympus on the world that he had created out of whole cloth. It is the only way to tell the truth, he declared, knowing that only the truly enlightened would understand him . . .
Sorry, I was channeling the hubris of the great Edmund. I'm better now.
C. Vernon Crisler | 12.19.12 @ 9:31AM
Brilliant review....
Jim Adcox| 12.19.12 @ 11:19AM
I omitted the word "masterpiece" in my previous entry. But it's not my fault! (Wait, now I'm channeling the spirit of Barack Mussolini!) Thankfully, hubris makes all things bright!
Petronius| 12.19.12 @ 11:48AM
In this, our age of no longer knowing what " is, is," it matters not. And must need stay on our meds so it remains that way. After all; the Truth hurts and nobody wants that.
"And the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wandering back to the fire."
obadiah| 12.19.12 @ 1:15PM
common nouns do not describe a unique personality
cicero| 12.19.12 @ 4:45PM
A large part of the probleem with our journalist class is that their reach exceeds their grasp. They really want to DO improtant things, but they lack the ability. As a result, they try to make themselves the story, attached to some important person or happening. Of course, in order to boost their own importance, they think they can do so by deminishing those whom they write about. Maybe it can work if your subject is really a lightwieght, or horribly flawed. That was not the case with Ronald Reagan.
Maybe he should try his technique with. . . hmmm, let me see . . . Clinton (both of them), Obama, Pelosi, Kery, Reid, .... I could go on and on.