Vidal is hardly the name dropper Barra makes him out to be, and he's never pushed the Jackie connection—she pushed the connection, until he got drunk one night at the White House.

Barra's also clueless as to his literary worth. An early novel, The Judgement of Paris, is still one of his best, as is the early fifties Huxleyesque Messiah. And Myra Breckinridge, unappreciated though it is these days, is still side-splittingly funny, not to mention a great novel. But then, you could say the same about the Satyricon (which is the tradition Vidal's writing in), and no one reads that much, either. There isn't much encouragement with lit crits like Barra around, whose ruling emotion seems to be "We're so over that." Apparantly, once something isn't "jaw-dropping" anymore, it's over. Thank goodness child-abuse groups still rail against Lolita, or it would be tossed in the trash bin, too.

Nor did television make Vidal famous. He was a name before he joined the talk show circuit, back in the days when, as he correctly said, a novelist who sold well was recognized by the general public. He did not say all novelists were famous, so Faulkner's low-income status has an explanation. But people then knew Hemingway, Steinbeck, John O'Hara and James M. Cain, and even Mary McCarthy (who was the center of a small dedicated following rather than a mainstream literary star) while most people today haven't a clue about supposed giants in the field like Jonathan Franzen or David Foster Wallace. It isn't just that the faces aren't familiar, but the names don't have any resonance for most Americans.

On the other hand, Point to Point Navigation is a terrible, lazy book. Palipsest went into great detail about his life and his formation as a writer. This new one is a series of squibs, with barely an insight into his writing process. Myra Breckinridge might well be his best novel, and is one of the funniest of the 20th century, but its creation gets no more than a cursory glance.

I wonder if his health problems got in the way, or if there's some sort of block? His writing career essentially stopped in the 50's, so he can look back on that period as another life, and sum it up. But starting with Julien, he was onto a second career, and has kept at it ever since. Maybe summing up the life he has now is too close to saying it's over?

Well! Good thing poor Allen got that off his chest. Otherwise, he might explode in fury at the excesses of another writer who's darker moments our critic seems quick to imitate.

And welcome back.

It's no surprise that the preening narcissist Hitchens loves Gore Vidal. Hitch after all, loves to write about the betrayal of the Kurds--I mean, the fact that Hitch Stood by the Kurds When All Abandoned them. He even calls himself a "great friend of the Kurds."

Back to the point. I was watching the documentary The Celluloid Closet the other night and there was Vidal, rambling on about his decision to make Ben Hur a gay fest and how Charlton wasn't to be told, blah blah blah. This is the sort of thing that is charming if you haven't seen or read Vidal at all for ten years.

Thank you for noticing that there is no liberal or conservative or any other philosophical thread running through his political writing. He's all over the map and frequently makes stunningly ignorant and offensive statements, in addition to sometimes stumbling upon a nugget of truth. In that way he's very much like Camille Paglia, another sometimes entertaining, ultimately narcissistic "social critic" who has no recurrant theme unifying all her opinions. One only needs to read the last few interviews with her on Salon to see that.

What is sad about Vidal is that he was a fine novelist and he should be given credit for that, but he demands to be seen as one of the giants, which he isn't. I agree that bringing Calvino to prominence in America was a great service. But I think we are deservedly suspicious when old crones (sorry Gore) declare the novel "dead". That does the many brilliant writers of today such a grand disservice--all in the service of the books written by the old timers. I appreciate Barra's ability to slice through the conventional wisdom, just like the Salon letter writers are doing in the discussion thread about Gerald Ford.

..but the article starts getting a little bit unfair.

Quote:

Would any self-respecting liberal or conservative have written, as Vidal did in a 1979 issue of Playboy, "Many Christers and some Jews don't like poor white people very much, the old Puritan ground that if you are good, God will make you rich"?

Uh, yes they would, because it's true. Of course it's also true of many an atheist/agnostic who can't quite shake his prejudices. This particular puritan prejudice does exist in this country and manifests itself in many ways. Should we just ignore it?

Here is how the "familial" connection between Gore Vidal and Jackie Kennedy Onassis works:

Gore's mother and Jackie's mother had been married to the same rich guy (at different times, of course). So, said rich guy was the stepfather of both Gore and Jackie (at different times, of course).

That's quite a coincidence, but it's also a matter of public record, so it can't be refuted by jealous literary critics.

But I think we are deservedly suspicious when old crones (sorry Gore) declare the novel "dead".

He never said that. Myra did. It was a joke. What he has said is that the novel is no longer central entertainment for most people, that novelists have gone the way of the poets. I think this is sadly true.

Thank you for noticing that there is no liberal or conservative or any other philosophical thread running through his political writing.

He’s clearly to the left, far to the left of most people in our political discourse. Not sure what he's "all over the map" about. Did he praise the Reagans somewhere and I missed it? Or support Ollie North? Where has he suggested building a wall to keep out foreigners or committing ourselves more completely to the War on Drugs? He's pretty consistent as far as I can tell.

I agree that bringing Calvino to prominence in America was a great service.

Don’t forget single-handedly bringing Dawn Powell back to people’s attention.

I appreciate Barra's ability to slice through the conventional wisdom

Are you joking? His opinions are echoed in every piece the New York Times ever did on Vidal. They are the conventional wisdom. Right down to the "ignore the novels, look at the articles" approach to Vidal's work.