some thoughts on norman mailer

It's fascinating to read Norman Mailer talking about himself at 80- his easy aquiesence at loss of memory- which of course we know is a result of not challenging or changing one’s environment, of actually not learning anything new and merely processing information and by golly he was good at that. His lie that he thought himself 5’ 8’’ when in fact he was never more than 5’ 6’’ maximum; but his total aggression and self belief as a fighter is admirable- his belief that he is a top athlete something he was probably embarrassed about when he was younger but then grew to thinking was OK to say, his almost illiterate sensibility, sort of like Hemingway if Hemingway had never been abroad, that strange combination of parochialness and hugeness – which you get in the Victorians – and yet the aim is always to be a ‘great writer’ which is OK if you are harnessing the ego to some purpose, to spur you on but by identifying with this role, this ego position – being an alpha-writer- is fine as long as, as long as what? It’s fine- it’s all part of the game. So, to be a great writer in the Mailer mould:

1.  Write a huge novel involving war and violence.

2.  Write about huge themes- shy away from nothing.

3.  Butter up all other famous writers. Be on first name terms with them, and insult them to their faces whenever possible.

4.  Review other writers work from an Olympian stance.

5.  Write about current events in your own grand demonic way.

6.  End up with a novel as silly as Hitler being the Devil- I mean childish or what?

And one is tempted to conclude that since the object of being a great writer is to get as much favorable attention as possible it is rather more insecure than being the richest writer where the object is to sell as many books as possible. But why be so down on the insecure?