On writing about Venice

“’I envy you, writing about Venice,’ says the newcomer. ‘I pity you,’ says the old hand.  One thing is certain.  Sophistication, that modern kind of sophistication that begs to differ, to be paradoxical, to invert, is not a possible attitude in Venice.  In time, this becomes the beauty of the place.  One gives up the struggle and submits to a classic experience.  One accepts the fact that what one is about to feel or say has not only been said before by Goethe or Musset but is on the tip of the tongue of the tourist from Iowa who is alighting in the Piazzetta with his wife in her furpiece and jeweled pin.  Those Others, the existential enemy, are here identical with oneself.  After a time in Venice, one comes to look with pity on the efforts of the newcomer to disassociate himself from the crowd.  He has found a ‘little’ church—has he?—quite off the beaten track, a real gem, with inlaid colored marbles on a soft dove grey, like a jewel box.  He means Santa Maria dei Miracoli.  As you name it, his face falls.  It is so well known, then? Or has he the notion of counting the lions that look down from the window ledges of the palazzi? They remind him of cats.  Has anybody ever noticed how many cats there are in Venice or compared them to the lions? On my table two books lie open with chapters on the Cats of Venice.  My face had fallen too when I came upon them in the house of an old bookseller, for I too had dared think that I had hold of an original perception.

“The cat= the lion.  Venice is a kind of pun on itself, which is another way of saying that it is a mirror held up to its own shimmering image—the central conceit on which it has evolved” (13).

–Mary McCarthy, Venice Observed (1963)

The Venice Quiz (redux)

I had so much fun with this when I first posted it back in 2007 that I had to run it again. The idea (tongue-in-cheek, people, tongue firmly in cheek) was that in order to save La Serenissima from its various enemies foreign and domestic, Venice in Peril ought to dedicate some of their efforts not only to restoring the buildings but to instituting some kind of tourist diversionary barrier– siphon off some of the flow and redirect them somewhere else, and tell them they’ll like it just as much as Venice– and they will.  Because they don’t actually care about Venice or anything it contains. They’ve just heard they should go there, so they go.

So ok, how do you decide who gets to go and who doesn’t? We could institute a tax, but that’s not fair because not everyone can pay it, and I don’t think Venice ought to become some kind of exclusive resort for rich people.  So I thought of something much more egalitarian: there should a pop quiz to get into Venice. If you don’t get at least 60% of the answers right, you have to get back on the boat and go visit some other Italian city– try Padua!–  instead.

Here is my suggestion for the Venice in Peril Pop Quiz.

1. Venice was once ruled by the Doge.  A doge is a______
a. car
b. duke in a funny hat
c. group of men in funny hats

2. Bellini, Titian, Tintoretto, Veronese, Canaletto.  These names refer to:
a. cocktails
b. cities in Italy
c. artists

3. The Accademia is:
a. a school
b. a museum
c. a sports stadium

4. True or false: a canal is an acceptable substitute for a garbage can.

5. Do you and/or your family own and wear fanny packs [UK visitors: bum bags]? (Y/N)

6. Do you think it is acceptable to eat potato chips whilst riding in a gondola? (Y/N)

7. Do you believe that if you don’t videorecord every moment of said gondola ride it’s like it didn’t happen? (Y/N)

8. Are you likely to buy a sparkly mask as a souvenir? How many?

9. Please define the following terms in your own words and to the best of your ability: mosaic, vaulted ceiling, gothic arch, Byzantine.

10.  If told you that you were to be staying in a hotel in Venice that was built in 1890, which of the following most closely would match your response?
a. 1890? So it’s a new building. That’s disappointing.
b. 1890? Holy shit, that’s like a hundred years ago! Dude, this place is old!
c. Whatever, as long as it’s clean.

Contre Venise

« Venise n’est pas une ville mais la représentation d’une ville.  Et de même qu’au théâtre italien tout le dispositif pivote non sur la scène ou la salle mais sur la rampe qui les sépare, car s’il y avait plain-pied il n’y aurait pas spectacle, le décisif de Venise d’est pas Venise mais la lagune qui la sépare du monde profane, utilitaire et intéressé.  Cette tranche d’eau fait office de ‘coupure sémiotique’.  Pourquoi l’initié de Venise proscrit-il l’avion au catéchumène ? Parce que, parachuté au milieu de la scène sans s’être donné préalablement la peine d’y monter, ce dernier se priverait en partie (car heureusement il y a du bateau entre l’aéroport Marco Polo et le cœur urbain) de la jouissance du franchissement, de la transgression de frontière (que les plus exaltés transforment en sécession mystique d’avec l’immonde extérieur)

(…)

« Loup et domino invisibles, guidé par les rails d’itinéraires fléchés, chacun s’en va par campi et calli fredonnant son petit air d’opérette, déguisé comme il convient (c’est encore lors du carnaval, où la pantomime s’avoue le plus, qu’on joue le moins).  La fête est programmée, encadrée, répétée, Marinière et chapeau de paille à ruban rouge, le gondolier joue à donner la sérénade ; le facchino, à porter les valises ; le camerière, à nous servir en sifflotant scampi et calamaretti ; et nous, entre l’Arsenal et les Prisons, à espion en mission, à Casanova en cavale, à l’entremetteur, au dandy dégoûté ou à l’ambassadeur déchu.  Touriste, on peut même jouer au touriste ».

–Régis Debray, Contre Venise

La folie vénitienne

« Il n’est pas rare de voir de grandes émigrations de peuples inonder un pays, en changer la face et ouvrir pour l’histoire une ère nouvelle; mais qu’une poignée de fugitifs, jeté sur un banc de sable de quelques cents toises de largeur, y fond un état sans territoire; qu’une nombreuse population vienne couvrir cette plage mouvante, où il ne se trouve ni végétation, ni eau potable, ni matériaux, ni même de l’espace pour bâtir; que de l’industrie nécessaire pour subsister, et pour affermir le sol sous leurs pas, ils arrivent jusqu’à présenter aux nations modernes le premier exemple d’un gouvernement régulier, jusqu’à faire sortir d’un marais des flottes sans cesse renaissantes, pour aller renverser un grand empire, et recueillir les richesses de l’Orient; qu’on voit ces fugitifs tenir la balance politique de l’Italie, dominer sur les mers, réduire toutes les nations à la condition de tributaires, enfin rendre impuissants tous les efforts de l’Europe liguée contre eux: c’est là sans doute un développement de l’intelligence humaine qui mérite d’être observé ».

–Daru, Histoire de la République de Venise (1819)

Paris, London, Venice

Toute existence est une lettre postée anonymement; la mienne porte trois cachets: Paris, Londres, Venise; le sort m’y fixa, souvent à mon insu, mais certes pas à la légère. –Paul Morand, Venises

[All of life is a letter posted anonymously; mine bears three stamps: Paris, London, Venice. It was fate that took me there, though I often didn't realize it, but certainly not casually.]

Perhaps it’s some belated fin-de-siècle fates that have assigned me to these three Jamesian cities, but for better or worse they’re where I’m linked; they are my subjects and my backdrops and my milieux. It seems somehow appropriate, then, that my first novel, about Venice, is being published in Paris before anywhere else, just as I prepare to move to London, at least part-time for now.

Morand, in his wonderful book-length essay Venises, reflects on his career as a diplomat and his relationship to history, to literature, to his family, and to place, writing lyrically about his connection to Venice, but also his tendency to find “Venices” elsewhere– in Paris, London, and even Bangkok. Anywhere there is unpredictable water, canals, waterways, watervistas, there is another Venice. And he reads back these cities onto Venice, where “every street is the Seine.”

Paris, as I have said, is where I taught myself to write, sitting in cafés imitating Ernest Hemingway, but as Paris became my new everyday, I moved indoors from the cafés, and developed the writing habits that are, by now, inseparable from the work itself. (That’s a fancy way of saying I can only write on my couch.) But spending more and more time in Venice gave me a space away from my everyday life– even in a beautiful city like Paris, daily life becomes humdrum– to measure the effects moving to a foreign country were having on my psyche.  To set my first novel in Paris seemed too obvious, and potentially limiting– I didn’t want to typecast myself as someone who could only write about her own experiences, and expatriates in Paris is a subject that I believe has to be approached with either sheer innocence or advanced cynicism, neither of which I had at the time. So I turned to Venice, which seemed the perfect metaphor for the act of building your home in a place where you have no foundation to do so– no land to build on, only bits of mud.

The result, in English, is Floating Cities, but for now– and as of today!– the book is out (only) in French under the title Une Année à Venise. To have my first book come out in the city where I became a writer seems the sweetest of coincidences.

 


 

 

Dreaming in French

My latest review, of Alice Kaplan’s Dreaming in French: The Paris Years of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, Susan Sontag, and Angela Davis, is up at The Daily Beast:

Dreaming in French is, above all, an attempt to validate an undervalued aspect of American culture: the study abroad narrative. The stories of girls overseas have not often been part of the canon of American expatriate writing, Kaplan points out. We have a wealth of material from Norman Mailer, George Plimpton, Saul Bellow, James Baldwin, et al, from their own days on the GI Bill, their Guggenheims, or their Fulbrights. Young American men in Paris were intent on “embrac[ing] irresponsibility,” as James Baldwin put it, producing work that is “gritty, irreverent, macho, [and] frequently alcoholic.” Their female peers, on the other hand, were determined “to embrace a new language and master a highly coded way of life.” Kaplan, a deft historian, avails herself of a range of sources in order to reconstruct their experiences, talking to their classmates and the families who housed them, reading their letters home, looking at the photos they and their friends took, watching the available footage of them speaking French, and reading the newspapers they would have read.

I was once a student at Columbia’s Reid Hall in Paris and a professor at New York University’s Paris campus—I can confirm that the experience of studying abroad marks you for life, forcing you to interrogate your identity as you reconstitute it in a foreign setting. You are not simply “translating” yourself into that language; you are building your identity within it. “True philosophy,” Kaplan quotes Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “means learning to see the world anew.” In their time in the City of Lights, Kennedy, Sontag and Davis didn’t just get an education. They acquired a worldview, and one that would leave an inarguable imprint on history.

(Read more)

In his review for the New York Times Book Review, Dwight Garner wrote that “Alice Kaplan’s ‘Dreaming in French’ is an easy book to admire but a hard one to muster much enthusiasm for.” I couldn’t disagree more– I haven’t felt so enthusiastic about a book in quite some time.

“The obstacle that Ms. Kaplan confronts,” he says, “is that these women did not leave a great deal behind in terms of written accounts of their Paris years. What little there is can seem larval. (…) [Kaplan] dilates on the books these women read, the plays they saw, the shifting French intellectual climate. She is forced to utter broad generalizations, like, ‘France gave each of these women a deep and lasting confidence, confirmed their spirit of adventure and guaranteed their freedom from home constraints.’ That’s a pleasant enough sentence, but it could be written about a summer spent with Outward Bound.”

Garner’s clearly never been a twenty year-old American woman discovering Paris for the first time. In fact, Kaplan’s book is a serious contribution to feminist historiography, unearthing– through material that is thin for obvious reasons– a parallel female experience abroad during a period which we have understood largely through male expatriate accounts.

I love this anecdote, about the way in which adopting a French identity allowed Davis to circumvent the “violent dialectic of inheritance and disinheritance” in which she grew up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama.  When Davis and her sister were teenagers, Kaplan recounts, they proved this by going into a shoe shop in Birmingham and pretending to be from Martinique, speaking only French and broken English. The shoe salesmen treated them with deference and catered to them in the front of the store, whereas American blacks would have been escorted to the back. After keeping the ruse up for awhile, they finally burst out laughing and told the staff in flawless English: “‘All Black people have to do is pretend they come from another country and you treat us like dignitaries’” (150).