Showing posts with label personal life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label personal life. Show all posts

19/06/2020

Learning From Hitchcock That Nightmares Can Be Real





Give them pleasure—the same pleasure they have when they wake up from a nightmare.
–Alfred Hitchcock

*

A summer night in Brooklyn. It is 1963. My father stands outside in the backyard, tending the barbecue near the rose of Sharon that grows along the fence separating our backyard from our neighbor’s. Next to him is a collie: what I called a “Lassie dog” as a child. Like the one that fanged my upper lip and cheek when I was in the first grade, so I needed stitches.

A disembodied voice beckons me. “Look over there—at the man in the window.” I glance over to see a shadowy profile in the ground-floor window of my parents’ bedroom.

It’s Alfred Hitchcock! His bald head and round belly. The same figure I see at the start of his TV show. In the semi-dark, lit up by street lamps that flicker burnt orange, all I can see is the head and upper torso of this darkened figure at the window.

“That man,” the voice whispers. “You see that man . . . He has no bottom half.”

At which point I wake myself up. In those first moments, in the dark, I don’t know where I am. Then I become aware of my sister asleep beside me. I sit up in bed until my breathing slows, and I look over to make sure there is no one at the window.

*

My Hitchcock dream is the only recurring nightmare I had as a child. Or the only one I remember having had. And don’t dreams rely on our remembering them?

“All the things one has forgotten scream for help in dreams,” wrote Elias Canetti. What things have I forgotten that this dream—Hitchcock’s truncated profile—wants me to remember?

Perhaps something about the absence of limbs or body parts, which always terrified me as a child. Or else it is a stand-in for other kinds of forgotten absences—amputations of memory. Memory itself being always partial and therefore, in a sense, amputated.

Or is Hitchcock, for me, the embodiment of fear itself?

Sometimes, dreamwork can take a very long time to begin. For me it has taken 50 years.

*

Now I see before me the wizened mother of our next-door neighbor in Brooklyn, where I grew up. I lived with my mother, my father, and my older sister on Glenwood Road in Flatlands from the time I was ten. A place where there was no glen, no wood, only roads and numbered streets with attached, two-family brick houses like the one we lived in, a cluster of apartment buildings nearby that we called the Projects, and a few faded green- or yellow-shingled homes like my neighbor’s, whose frail, elderly mother scarcely ventured outside. I saw her only a few times. She was tiny, with a fragile head like a bobble-head doll’s that might wobble and break.

She stands outside by the gate in front of her son’s house, as though that is all she has the energy for, always holding up a flowered handkerchief to cover her neck and chin. Each time I study her carefully without appearing to, and each time I wonder why she holds up that handkerchief.


Until the one time she does not.

What I see just once—and what I keep on seeing—is the absence of the bottom part of her face. She has no lower jaw. No chin.

I probably ran into the house. I am sure I never spoke to her; I am not sure she could speak. But the memory of her, or the memory of what I thought I saw, is indelible.

*

From Hitchcock I learned early on that nightmares could be made real. That we cover up an absence to suggest a presence. That a normal suburban family may have a serial killer for an uncle. Or that a neighbor across the way may kill his wife and dispose of the body in plain sight. Hitchcock understood absence. He understood the power of the partial view: that a profile, more than a full face, could haunt.

My childhood was filled with absence, haunted by partial views.

Is Hitchcock, for me, the embodiment of fear itself? Sometimes, dreamwork can take a very long time to begin. For me it has taken fifty years.
As a child, I watched Hitchcock’s movies with my parents, lying prone on their bed. My mother Selma was so drugged up with antipsychotics that I picture her mostly lying in bed. My father Irving was a traveling salesman who often acted like a kid to entertain us, telling jokes and dancing around the kitchen table. As a teenager I watched those movies with my older sister Marla in the bedroom we shared. As an adult, I watched them yet again. Hitchcock, whose TV program Alfred Hitchcock Presents entered my neighborhood through dreams.

Now I am returning to Hitchcock in order to make sense of the painful episodes in my life, which often feel as distant and oneiric as a movie. As though I were not only the creator of my story but also its nocturnal spectator in the darkened theater of memory. I have chosen Hitchcock as both lens and shield to help me face trauma: to touch the wounds that have, to reverse Shakespeare’s Romeo, never felt a scar.

Yet I know that no memory is fixed. That our memories are not static pictures we summon up from some mental filing cabinet. Memories, as we now understand, are creations we construct in the moment, influenced by context and motivation.

I am the director behind the camera each time I conjure up and reconstruct a scene from my past. Braiding together my reading of Hitchcock with my reading of my life, I hope the context of each scene will enrich and inform the other. Like Hitchcock, who stepped inside the frames of his movies, I am stepping inside the frame for more than a walk-on role in mine.

__________________________________

  
From Hitchcock Blonde: A Cinematic Memoir by Sharon Dolin. Reprinted with the permission of the publisher, Terra Nova Press. Copyright © 2020 by Sharon Dolin.



  
Learning Early From Hitchcock That Nightmares Can Be Real. By Sharon Dolin.  LitHub , June 18, 2020







Imagine a memoir that braids together insights about Alfred Hitchcock's movies with the narrative of a woman's life: scenes of growing up in Brooklyn in the Sixties and Seventies as the daughter of a schizophrenic mother and a traveling salesman father, adolescent sexual traumas, and adult botched marriages and relationships— all refracted through the lens of ten of Alfred Hitchcock's iconic movies.

In each chapter, the narrator—an award-winning poet—trains her idiosyncratic lens on a different film and then onto the uncanny connections they conjure up from her own life. A singular cliffhanging tale, reminiscent in style of Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran and Helen Macdonald's H Is for Hawk.

"Sharon Dolin's trademark quick-wit and candor are infused with an uncanny mix of flirt and fury." - Terrance Hayes

"Often startling, full of surprises, this one-of-a-kind memoir is both eerie and entertaining. It is a candid experiment in memory retrieval with the aid of Hitchcock movies, until finally what we get is a fusion, life recalled as a riveting dream film: part-horror, part-romance." - Phillip Lopate

"Sharon Dolin performs a miracle in her memoir, deconstructing Hitchcock films and using the shards to help build a mosaic of coming of age in 1960s and '70s Brooklyn and living a woman's life in landscapes as diverse as Hitchcock's own. Every chapter glimmers and surprises with its insights into Hitchcock's scenes and his personal obsessions, which Dolin then redirects to an exploration of identity, sexuality, gender roles, and mental illness. This is a rich American story!" - Bonnie Jo Campbell

"Sharon Dolin's candid memoir of mid-century working class Brooklyn (and beyond) is one only a poet could have written. Not because it is "poetic"—in fact it is sharply narrated, without gloss, even offering the hair-raising twists of a mystery novel. The echo of the Hitchcock movies that shapes the book's chapters is no mere literary device. It's an uncanny, captivating choral presence that brings depth of field to this history of family life and erotic urgency." - Patricia Hampl

Sharon Dolin is the award-winning author of six poetry collections, most recently Manual for Living and Whirlwind. She is the recipient of numerous grants and awards, including the Witter Bynner Fellowship from the Library of Congress, the Gordon Barber Award from the Poetry Society of America and her translation work has been supported by Institut Ramon Llull and the PEN/Heim Translation Fund. Her fourth book, Burn and Dodge won the AWP Donald Hall Prize for Poetry in 2008. Follow her on Twitter @SharonDolin and for more information visit her website: sharondolin.com. She lives in New York City.

Jacki Lyden is the author of the acclaimed memoir Daughter of the Queen of Sheba, about growing up with her mentally ill mother.   She is a former NPR correspondent and host of several decades.  She is also a Rosalynn Carter Fellow for Mental Health Journalism,  and founded the writers workshop “Love Comes in at the Eye” in Connemara, Ireland in 2017.  She is a board member of the Cheuse Writing Center at George Mason University.  She has won numerous journalism awards, interviewed scores of authors and poets,  and is working on her next memoir.

McNallyJackson, Independent Booksellers,  Presents: Sharon Dolin (Virtual Book Launch) In Conversation with Jacki Lyden.  June 16, 2020.






I was introduced to Sharon Dolin’s work by my thesis advisor while completing an MFA last year, so I was already a fan of her poetry before reading Hitchcock Blonde: A Cinematic Memoir (Terra Nova Press). A poet myself, I was particularly interested on seeing how her story unfolded in prose. It was an intense, yet rewarding, experience—seeing the similarities between our lives’ big catalytic absences, especially those brought on by a mother’s mental illness, dealt with such grace and emotional poignancy.

It’s easy to fall in love with this book. Ten Hitchcock films serve as the book’s framing device. She ingeniously weaves his filmography–a formative part of her childhood–and leading women into her own narrative, helping her paint a picture of what it was like to grow up in 1960s Brooklyn with a schizophrenic mother and traveling salesman father, and work through romantic and creative turmoil in her adulthood. Despite the difficult themes, Hitchcock Blonde is well-paced and engrossing, a vivid attempt at getting to the bottom of the “memory-wounds” that have shaped her art and who she is.

Amid this terrible pandemic and publisher deadlines, Dolin made the time to correspond with me via email earlier this year to discuss the memoir, the power of metaphor, and the relevance of Rear Window to our current way of living and connecting with others.



1. What called you to write a memoir at this particular moment in your career and life?

I have been writing poetry for many decades and I always like to set myself new challenges. When I began writing this memoir seven years ago, I was looking for a long-term project for writing about my life, but one that would, as Emily Dickinson advises, “[t]ell all the truth but tell it slant.” When the idea for writing a memoir through the lens of ten Alfred Hitchcock movies occurred to me, I leapt at the creative challenge it presented. I see my use of Hitchcock as akin to metaphor, where two things are compared that have similarities as well as differences. Of course there were formal challenges involved. How much should I switch back and forth between my discussion of the movie and my discussion of my life? I wanted to give readers two kinds of experience: intellectual as well as immersive. First, there is the aesthetic, intellectual experience of seeing, for instance, Miss Froy in The Lady Vanishes, as a metaphor for my vanishing mother. But then, I also wanted to give the memoir reader the emotionally immersive experience of being along with me the one time, as a child, I visited my mother in the psychiatric ward of a hospital and felt as though the mother I knew had vanished. Here, of course, both the aesthetic and the emotional should converge in the reading if I have been at all successful.

2. What were some of the most challenging and surprising aspects of writing this book, both during the thick of it and after having a completed draft?

I was most challenged and surprised in the act of writing this memoir by those parts of my life I had avoided facing: the infidelities of my father, for instance, and the cocaine use of my fiancé. In working on Rear Window, the challenge of having to face the truth of my dad’s infidelities shocked me into awareness when I realized that there were similarities between Thorwald the travelling salesman and my father the travelling salesman. It took the writing of the chapter for me to make these chilling connections, regardless of how many times I had seen this movie before. The same was true for Spellbound, where I had to face my fiancé’s cocaine addiction as being much more pronounced and probably responsible for what I had previously never understood as psychotic behavior. It was through watching the threatening, violent, unpredictable behavior of Dr. Edwardes that I was able to reach this unhappy realization.

After completing the book and in revising it, I also came to acknowledge how much my being the daughter of a schizophrenic mother had shaped me and had influenced my relationship choices. Of course, these moments of discovery are what every writer is in search of, no matter how painful. I write to discover what I had not noticed or known before. And it was through the lens of Hitchcock that I was able to make these discoveries. Oddly, I doubt I would have been able to see my life as clearly if I had only looked at it directly. I cannot overstate the power of metaphor (the slanting gaze) as a way to make us see clearly.

3. Did you share sections of the book with family or people you wrote about? What is your policy for writing about people close to you?

As a writer, I have always felt that I had the right to write about anyone, even the people closest to me. I have always exercised that level of freedom in my poetry, for instance, writing poems about my mother’s schizophrenia in my first poetry collection Heart Work. I don’t go out of my way to show my writing to anyone, or to get their permission. The most I have done for this memoir is ask if they would prefer a pseudonym and I have changed almost all of the names, aside from my parents’, to protect the living and the dead. Most people have a narcissistic streak, I have found, and feel flattered to have themselves appear in my writing, even if it is not in the most flattering light.

4. Who is Hitchcock to you now? Has your perception of him/his work or anyone else featured in the book changed after writing the memoir?

I have had to learn, over and over again in my life, that there is a huge difference between the person and the creator. I think Hitchcock is a genius when it comes to filmmaking, but I think he was a deplorable man, particularly in his behavior towards certain women, such as Tippi Hedren, which I mention in my chapter on The Birds. I don’t think my attitude toward Hitchcock the filmmaker has shifted. I love his movies. I have always loved his movies, and even after repeated viewings, I can return to them in the same way I return to certain paintings and songs that I love.

My favorite movie remains Rear Window. And now that we are all caught on Zoom or Webex or some other on-line platform where our hunger for human connection has all made us voyeurs to some extent, the movie seems as contemporary as ever. Here I am, sheltering at home in New York City, where I find myself peering into the windows of those in the same meeting with me—very much the way Jeffries, caught inside his apartment with his broken leg, peers inside the rooms of his neighbors across the way. I don’t expect to witness a murder, but I do acknowledge the minor titillation of catching someone slightly off-guard as I am watching. Of course, if my video is live, I continue to have to grapple with that somewhat uncomfortable feeling that eyes are also upon me.

5. Dreamwork and recurring nightmares are featured prominently in the book. Could you talk about the importance of these subconscious patterns and their role in your work as a whole?

Dreams are gifts to us from the subconscious mind, just as poems are. And when a dream recurs, I take it as a sign that something particularly potent wants to communicate itself to me. Thus, it became a natural when I had hit upon the idea of writing a memoir using Hitchcock that I return to the recurring childhood nightmare I used to have in which Hitchcock’s truncated body figured. Writing that opening section, “Hitchcock in Brooklyn,” allowed me to do dreamwork on that childhood nightmare, and to make the connection between Hitch’s truncated body and other kinds of truncated and partial views in my childhood, as well as to suggest the larger point about memory itself always being a truncated and partial view.

And of course there is something dreamlike—or, rather, nightmarish—about many Hitchcock movies. So I am doing dreamwork on Hitch as much as I am doing dreamwork on my own dreams and, by extension, on my own life. Life is a dream, wrote Calderón, as the memoir reminds us.

In the Spellbound chapter, I record the poem that emerged out of a dream, another gift from my subconscious mind, where my mother and dead lover were connected. I think the poem, more than prose, is better able to gesture at the rudiments of desire: first for the mother and then for the lover.

At this point in my life, I don’t often remember my dreams, so I was thrilled when, after working on this memoir for so long, and right after completing a draft of Vertigo, the final movie I discuss in the book, that I should gift myself with a dream—a rather positive one—which I describe in the coda “Hitchcock in Manhattan.” Like most memoirs, mine does not focus on the moments of joy in my life, so I am particularly happy that my dream allowed me to end on a note of hope.

6. Where do you go from here? What is your next project?

Aside from working on poems, my next prose project will be as different in style and tone from this Hitchcock Blonde as possible. My next project is a memoir about dogs, which I began working on last summer, with the growing awareness that my 14-year-old dog was nearing his last days. It is a book with much greater levity—one that allows me to write about my life with dogs and my life as a parent and to draw some unusual—even amusing—parallels.


Conversation with Sharon Dolin on her memoir Hitchcock Blonde. By Claudia Acevedo. 
Vesto PR & Books , June 10, 2020. 







1) “The Man Who Knew Too Much and the Girl Who Knew Too Little” (Vol. 17 No. 1) is an intricately braided essay about the fear of being kidnapped by your mother, your father-the-rescuer-who-may-yet-turn-abandoner and the role pop culture plays in triggering memories. Your title invokes all of these complexities and more. How did you come about it?

I had already decided I was going to write a book-length memoir using Alfred Hitchcock’s movies as the lens through which I examine my life. The idea for this essay came to me quickly: that it would focus on the early experiences I had of feeling like I was being kidnapped. I knew I had to start off with the earlier version of the movie and the mother’s shock at her daughter being kidnapped, then the viewer’s experience of seeing the look of terror on the face of the girl, adolescent and blonde, as she is being kidnapped. I knew the leap to my own experience would come after that. As for the part of the title “the Girl Who Knew Too Little,” it is true that the experience of childhood is often the experience of having little or no agency. Parents just do things for or to their children and make decisions without consulting them. In my case, the consequences were more harrowing because it was my schizophrenic mother who was making those choices. Or, my somewhat overburdened, simple-minded father. My use of pop culture? Hitchcock is in my blood the way, say, the poet Whitman is in my blood. They were mainstays in my youth and have continued to be so.

2) This essay in Five Points is the first chapter of your upcoming memoir Hitchcock Blonde. Can you share a little about the memoir with us?

Of course! Hitchcock Blonde: A Cinematic Memoir is my attempt to read my life through ten Alfred Hitchcock movies and to read Hitchcock movies through the lens of my life. No other director has been such an integral part of my life since childhood. Hitchcock gave me a way in to writing about my life by using this very large metaphor. Perhaps the braiding back and forth between discussing an aspect of Hithcock’s movie, discussing an aspect of my life, is what allowed me to handle some of my emotionally fraught memories. I needed distance. I also needed a different way in. Who needs to read or write another memoir about a schizophrenic mother? Of course, the memoir does move on to other chapters of my life, up to the present, though I suppose you could say my mother haunts all of them.

3) Did you always know this was going to be part of a larger work, or was it written as stand alone? In either case, how do you think that affected writing it?

I always knew it was going to be part of a larger work. I wrote it as a companion chapter to “The Lady Vanishes and the Absent Mother.” I knew that my memoir had to begin with my relationship to my schizophrenic mother. It seemed too difficult to cover all that ground in just one chapter, so I divided things up; the choice of which movies to use came to me almost instantly. In The Lady Vanishes, I focused on the times my mother disappeared into a mental hospital and then, from the time I was ten, her disappearance (sedation) under the influence of too much medication. In The Man Who Knew Too Much essay, I focused specifically on the terrifying experiences I had when my mother would have a breakdown and try to run away with me. In some ways, it was easier to write because I wrote it second. I gave myself permission to use the term “kidnapped” as loosely as possible, as a metaphor for my experience. Thus, the sections about my mother’s abductions of me, my time as a model, and the ending with my time at a Fresh-Air camp—in all of which I felt the way a kidnapped child might.




4) Your essay weaves in and out of both Alfred Hitchcock’s 1934 film The Man Who Knew Too Much and the 1956 American remake. In both versions, you identify with the kidnapped child. Did your mother ever watch these films? If so what was her reaction? If not, what do you think she would have thought of them? Your father?

I watched the Hollywood Technicolor version with my parents, I’m sure of it. By then, my mother was heavily sedated and didn’t react much at all. Nor did my dad. And it took me until the writing of this memoir for me to identify with the kidnapped child in more than a hypothetical way. That has been the amazing, sometimes painful, journey I have had in writing this memoir: I made connections that I otherwise would not have made to these movies because of the context in which I was viewing them. As soon as you rub two ideas up against each other, in this case my life against Hitchcock, the commonalities spring to the surface more and more readily. It is the same way we make metaphor, a basic human impulse.

5) I was fascinated by your concept of the ‘good-enough-mother’. In the essay, your sister Marla and you have an interesting relationship in the essay. She makes you cry and at one point you attack her with a hammer, yet you two sisters are allies when it comes to you mother, for instance when Marla runs to the police to report that “Our mother is running away with us.” Would you say there is such a thing as a ‘good enough sister/sibling’?

The good-enough mother is, of course, not my idea, but that of the famous psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott. It’s an interesting question to think about in terms of my sister. I suppose, in relation to what went on with my mother, she was. My sister protected me, she took care of me, she often allowed me to accompany her and her friends to the movies. I can remember riding down Kings Highway (on the sidewalk) in a line of bicycles, with the older kids like my sister up in front and the younger ones like me taking up the rear. So we played together with children of all ages. There was less segregation by age back in the Sixties, at least in my Brooklyn neighborhood. So, yes, I’d have to say she was a good-enough sister during my childhood, though I always felt keenly how different we were and still are from each other.

6) Has your sister read your essay?

She has read it. I was afraid of her reaction. Actually, she quite liked it but had no memory of the hammer incident. It confirms the idea that things happen to each of us differently, and we remember differently, even if we grew up in the same household.

7) At one point in the essay you say “Knowing too much and knowing too little.” One would think that it is always good to know too much. Would you agree? Or does knowing too little serve as a sort of cushion when it comes to unpleasant memories?

As a young girl, I knew far too little, and wished I had understood more. For example, I am sure no one asked me if I wanted to be a child model or explained to me that I might be in the company of grown-up strangers, that this was all make-believe, just for the sake of a photo, and I would get to go home with my own mother. Perhaps I would have been less frightened when I was suddenly thrust into the hands of a stranger or had water poured on my head. In a later chapter, the one on Rear Window (which is being published this spring in Witness), I struggle with knowing too much. Yes, I think it is possible to know too much. Not about political assassinations, which is what happens in The Man Who Knew Too Much; there, in both versions, the father and mother save a foreign diplomat from being assassinated because of their knowing too much. Knowing too much in terms of the family is possible. You’ll have to read that chapter to see what I mean.

8) What was the process of writing this essay? How did you tackle revision?

The best advice I got for writing prose was from another poet who has written several books of fiction. Victoria Redel said (and I’m paraphrasing here), just write one scene, one moment at a time. Then you can figure out afterwards how it all fits together. So that’s what I did. Revision is all a blur to me now. In looking back at the drafts of this chapter that I saved, I see it always began with a quick-paced description of the shots in the movie of the mother and then her daughter. Some times, my edits amounted to what to cut out, what to leave in. There’s so much more to my childhood than the part that focuses on my mother. The challenge was to remain focused on the way my memories were triggered by these specific movies. The biggest eureka moment for me in this essay was my decision to put together two memories: that of belting my sister in the stomach with a hammer and the one time my dad threatened to have me hospitalized. Frankly, I don’t remember when he made that threat, other than the fact that it was after I had been crying for too long a time, for him to take. It made sense to connect those two episodes. No memoir is entirely factual. I took my method from Vivian Gornick, who admits she condensed many walks with her mother into the one she describes in Fierce Attachments.

 9) You are such a prolific poet. How was the experience of writing an essay? Did the poetic form inform the essay’s structure in any way?

I’ve written literary essays, even an entire dissertation, but writing a prose memoir is an entirely different enterprise. I began the process by enrolling in a 4-session class on writing memoir with Wendy Salinger at the 92nd Street Y, where I taught poetry workshops for 20 years. The class gave me a structure. I understood I would have to write dialogue, probably the most unnatural thing for me to do. I had to push myself to write 10 pages. How was I going to turn it into 20? But I did, knowing I had an audience who would be reading it. I also knew where I would begin: with a recurring childhood nightmare, which still opens the book. The rest was a mystery and writing poetry made me comfortable with the unknown.

10) Which medium do you prefer?

Poetry. It is my native tongue. Prose will always feel a bit like I’m speaking a foreign language. A difficult one.

11) When did you know you wanted to be a writer?

I never wanted to be a writer. I just wrote. I never questioned what I was doing. It seemed as natural a thing for me to do, particularly writing poems, as skipping rope or playing stoopball.

12) Can you tell us about your typical writing day? Do you have a routine?

When I left a teaching job in order to finish up the memoir, I remember worrying about how I would structure my day. I read a book called Daily Rituals: How Artists Work, by Mason Currey to see what other artists did. It consists of very short chapters about lots of artists, writers, philosophers, scientists and their daily work routine. In about 90% of the examples, the artist has a very rigid schedule. For instance, every morning Flannery O’Connor had breakfast with her mother at 7 a.m. after morning prayers, then they both went to Mass, and then she came home and wrote from 9 a.m. until noon each day. Yeats wrote from 11am to 2 pm. Then there are the 10% who cannot stick to a schedule, like William James. What’s so laughable about that is that James felt one should have a regular schedule in order to be productive, yet he never could maintain one himself. I realized that I am like William James. I decided I should be kind to myself, not turn writing into a painful experience. It is difficult enough already. So being a rather disorganized person who abhors routine, I decided I’d come up with a minimum of two hours a day (except for Saturday, my Sabbath day, which is work-free). Most days I work for longer than two hours. But I can choose where those two hours occur. Some days I work for 6 hours and not at all the following day. Sometimes I start at 10 a.m. (never earlier). Other times I have errands to run, a class to prepare, my son to attend to, and don’t sit down until 4 in the afternoon. At other times, I write at night, like Kafka did. The important thing is to know one’s nature. As long as I’m getting the work done, who cares if I have a regular schedule? I try to keep in mind something Neil Gaiman said: Writing should not feel like work. It should be joyful.

13) A novel, short story, poem and/or essay you believe should be mandatory reading?

I think it’s important to read widely in the genre in which you’re working. We writers are sensitive, moody people. There’s a right time and a wrong time to read particular works. When I was an undergraduate at Cornell, for example, I could have been reading and studying with A. R. Ammons. But his poetry, at the time, didn’t speak to me, a Brooklyn girl from a working-class Jewish family. It took me until my late thirties before I was ready for his poetry. When I decided to write an essayistic memoir, I began reading many memoirs and essay collections. My favorites are the quirky ones: Helen Macdonald’s H Is for Hawk, Edmund de Waal’s The Hare with Amber Eyes, Geoff Dyer’s Out of Sheer Rage, Rebecca Solnit’s The Faraway Nearby, Mark Doty’s Heaven’s Coast and Firebird, Nick Flynn’s The Ticking Is the Bomb, Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran, Patricia Volk’s Shocked. While I admire the immersive memoirs of Mary Karr and Jeannette Walls, I knew I was trying to do something else.

14) Is there any classic novel you wish you’d pushed through in your teens?

 David Copperfield. I remember loving the book, but never finished it.

15) A book you wished you’d written?

That’s tantamount to wishing I’d lived another life.

16) Which writer and book has had the most influence on your work?

 That’s an impossible question. To be a writer is to be open to a constantly changing group of influences—from books, to art, to film. Here’s a dark answer: Franz Kafka. His story “In the Penal Colony.” I read it when I was about 14. It has haunted me ever since. I feel as though the words of it are written on my skin.

17) What role do you think literary journals play today in a writer’s life, as well as in the overall conversation about books and reading?

Literary journals are crucial for writers. As a poet, I always feel I have to publish individual poems in journals and to read as many as I can. Five Points is the first print journal to say “yes” to one of the essays from my memoir. It has been wonderfully affirming, and I am certain it helped convince my agent to represent me. Especially after Witness took yet one more essay.

Confab with a Contributor: Sharon Dolin. By Soniah Kamal.  Five Points : A Journal of Literature & Art, March 4, 2016.




You can read this essay ‘’ The Man Who Knew Too Much and The Girl Who Knew Too Little” on the website of Sharon Dolin. 






Reading Sharon Dolin’s memoir, Hitchcock Blonde, is like sitting in a theater next to the author as she watches a movie reel of her own life, and uses Alfred Hitchcock films to make sense of her memories. The author herself tells us she finds it easier to remember things by not thinking about them directly, and therefore the Hitchcock movies help her process the scenes that span her life including the complicated relationships, thoughts, and feelings carried within the episodes that she shares.

Each chapter is anchored with a Hitchcock movie and a synopsis of the plot while the author dissects the characters and even Hitchcock himself. Flowing between past and present, Dolin uses her insights into the film to tell us stories of her own life. This technique produces a memoir that is episodic and thematic versus a more traditional narrative, with themes of abandonment, fear, self-doubt, mental illness, desire, sexuality, regret and the heartache of wanting to save someone unable to be saved.

In part one, most of the five movies referenced involve a child in some sort of peril—taken hostage at gunpoint or kidnapped for ransom—which resonates with Sharon because she was often a child in peril, and recognized the familiar look of fear and anguish in their eyes. Sharon grew up with parents who struggled to afford much more than a bottom-floor rental in Brooklyn, New York. Her mother suffered through life as a paranoid schizophrenic, a sleepwalking burden to her husband and daughters. Sharon’s father, a mysterious and charismatic traveling salesman, protected her and her older sister but did not provide the sanctuary that all of us crave in a childhood home.

In part two, we move into adulthood where Sharon tries to make sense of her sexuality and her place in this world as a woman through five more films. She draws parallels between herself and the female characters that Hitchcock used to make his sadistic judgments about women and their carnal desires.

The author has struggled with Body Dysmorphic Disorder and doesn’t consider herself attractive to anyone, much less the opposite sex, and seems genuinely surprised when a man desires her. Not yet realizing that it is the desire itself that lures her to the men in her life, she is a sure bet for anyone interested in her regardless of the issues they bring to the relationship, such as bigamy and betrayal, addiction and tragic death, control and infidelity. Sharon’s intuition into the relationship with her controlling and ultimately unfaithful husband will resonate with anyone who has been in a relationship like this before— “Though there are probably more women whose voices might throw back an echo if I called out to them, I know I have to pull myself away. That I have heard enough to know I do not need to know more.”

It is obvious to the reader that Sharon Dolin, an award-winning poet, is a master of language and highly eloquent, but it was a few of her simplest lines that held the most power for me. In The Lady Vanishes, the author discovers similarities to the challenges of a mentally ill mother who was either away in a mental institution, having an episode where she was unstable and unpredictable, or drugged to the point of nothingness, all leaving a void that shaped her daughter’s life. At the end of this chapter, the author summarizes her relationship with her mother in one profound sentence that made my heart lurch—“She is my lady who vanished.”

For all the insight and revelations within this work, the author is also gentle with her memories and leaves room for the fact that her vision is cloudy. One of the major themes of this memoir is the conundrum of memory and truth and finding the balance of both in order to understand our past and make sense of our present. In Sharon’s own words, “Every one of us with a memory lives in briny water,” referencing the murky mixing of the past and present.

The most magical experiences are ones that stay with you long after the movie ends, or the curtain drops, or when you put the book down. Perhaps you are troubled or haunted by something and you’re not quite sure what it is, but you find yourself still thinking about what you saw or heard or what the characters may be doing next and where the story may lead. Hitchcock had that effect on his viewers. I’ve seen three Hitchcock movies in my life, and although I don’t consider myself a fan or a buff, the ones that I’ve seen have stayed with me. The Birds terrorized me as a child and produced a life-long suspicion of any winged creature.

A master class on Alfred Hitchcock, this memoir studies his motives, character choices and the filmmaking techniques that he used to produce the distinct viewer experience and psychological suspense he was known for. Sharon Dolin leveraged her discerning fascination with Hitchcock movies to produce a distinct reader experience that has remained with me. Once in the rhythm of this technique, I found Hitchcock Blonde enjoyable and haunting at the same time. It is a cinematic memoir, indeed.

Hitchcock Blonde by Sharon Dolin. By Kelly Bargabos. Mom Egg Review , May 13, 2020.








12/02/2020

The Bizarre Scheme That Led to Charles Dickens’s Burial in Westminster Abbey








When Charles Dickens died, he had spectacular fame, great wealth and an adoring public. But his personal life was complicated. Separated from his wife and living in a huge country mansion in Kent, the novelist was in the thrall of his young mistress, Ellen Ternan. This is the untold story of Charles Dickens’s final hours and the furore that followed, as the great writer’s family and friends fought over his final wishes.

My new research has uncovered the never-before-explored areas of the great author’s sudden death, and his subsequent burial. While details such as the presence of Ternan at the author’s funeral have already been discovered by Dickensian sleuths, what is new and fresh here is the degree of manoeuvring and negotiations involved in establishing Dickens’s ultimate resting place.

Dickens’s death created an early predicament for his family. Where was he to be buried? Near his home (as he would have wished) or in that great public pantheon, Poet’s Corner in Westminster Abbey (which was clearly against his wishes)?

“The Inimitable” (as he sometimes referred to himself) was one of the most famous celebrities of his time. No other writer is as closely associated with the Victorian period. As the author of such immortal classics as Oliver Twist, David Copperfield and A Christmas Carol, he was constantly in the public eye. Because of the vivid stories he told, and the causes he championed (including poverty, education, workers’ rights, and the plight of prostitutes), there was great demand for him to represent charities, and appear at public events and visit institutions up and down the country (as well as abroad – particularly in the United States). He moved in the best circles and counted among his friends the top writers, actors, artists and politicians of his day.



Dickens was proud of what he achieved as an author and valued his close association with his public. In 1858 he embarked on a career as a professional reader of his own work and thrilled audiences of thousands with his animated performances. This boost to his career occurred at a time when his marital problems came to a head: he fell in love with Ternan, an 18-year-old actress, and separated from his wife Catherine, with whom he had ten children.

Dickens was careful to keep his love affair private. Documentary evidence of his relationship with Ternan is very scarce indeed. He had wanted to take her with him on a reading tour to America in 1868, and even developed a telegraphic code to communicate to her whether or not she should come. She didn’t, because Dickens felt that he could not protect their privacy.

                                                           
                                                             Ellen Ternan
  
On Wednesday June 8 1870, the author was working on his novel Edwin Drood in the garden of his country home, Gad’s Hill Place, near Rochester, in Kent. He came inside to have dinner with his sister-in-law, Georgina Hogarth, and suffered a stroke. The local doctor was summoned and remedies were applied without effect. A telegram was sent to London, to summon John Russell Reynolds, one of the top neurologists in the land. By the following day the author’s condition hadn’t changed and he died at 6.10pm, on June 9.

Accepted wisdom concerning Dickens’s death and burial is drawn from an authorised biography published by John Forster: The Life of Charles Dickens. Forster was the author’s closest friend and confidant. He was privy to the most intimate areas of his life, including the time he spent in a blacking (boot polish) warehouse as a young boy (which was a secret, until disclosed by Forster in his book), as well as details of his relationship with Ternan (which were not revealed by Forster, and which remained largely hidden well into the 20th century). Forster sought to protect Dickens’s reputation with the public at all costs.


Last Will and Testament

In his will (reproduced in Forster’s biography), Dickens had left instructions that he should be:

   Buried in an inexpensive, unostentatious, and strictly private manner; that no public announcement be made of the time or place of my burial; that at the utmost not more than three plain mourning coaches be employed; and that those who attend my funeral wear no scarf, cloak, black bow, long hat-band, or other such revolting absurdity.

Forster added that Dickens’s preferred place of burial – his Plan A – was “in the small graveyard under Rochester Castle wall, or in the little churches of Cobham or Shorne”, which were all near his country home. However, Forster added: “All these were found to be closed”, by which he meant unavailable.

Plan B was then put into action. Dickens was set to be buried in Rochester Cathedral, at the direction of the Dean and Chapter (the ecclesiastical governing body). They had even dug a grave for the great man. But this plan too was scuppered, in favour of interment in Poets’ Corner, in Westminster Abbey – the resting place of Geoffrey Chaucer, Samuel Johnson, and other literary greats.


                                                                    John Forster


Forster claims in the biography that the media led the way in agitating for burial in the abbey. He singles out The Times, which, in an article of January 13 1870, “took the lead in suggesting that the only fit resting place for the remains of a man so dear to England was the abbey in which the most illustrious Englishmen are laid”. He added that when the Dean of Westminster, Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, asked Forster and members of the Dickens family to initiate what was now Plan C, and bury him in the abbey, it became their “grateful duty to accept that offer”.

The private funeral occurred early in the morning of Tuesday June 14 1870, and was attended by 14 mourners. The grave was then left open for three days so that the public could pay their respects to one of the most famous figures of the age. Details of the authorised version of Dickens’s death and burial were carried by all the major and minor newspapers in the English-speaking world and beyond. Dickens’s estranged wife Catherine received a message of condolence from Queen Victoria, expressing “her deepest regret at the sad news of Charles Dickens’s death”.

The effect that Dickens’s death had on ordinary people may be appreciated from the reaction of a barrow girl who sold fruits and vegetables in Covent Garden Market. When she heard the news, she is reported to have said: “Dickens dead? Then will Father Christmas die too?”

The funeral directors

My investigation has revealed, however, how Dickens’s burial in Poets’ Corner was engineered by Forster and Stanley to satisfy their personal aims, rather than the author’s own. While the official story was that it was the “will of the people” to have Dickens buried in the Abbey (and there were articles in The Times to this effect), the reality was that this alteration suited both the biographer and the churchman.

Forster could conclude the volume he was contemplating in a fitting manner, by having Dickens interred in the national pantheon where so many famous literary figures were buried. He thus ensured that a stream of visitors would make a pilgrimage to Dickens’s grave and spread his reputation far and wide, for posterity.


                                                                  Arthur Stanley

Stanley could add Dickens to his roll of famous people whose burials he conducted. They included Lord Palmerston, the former UK prime minister, mathematician and astronomer Sir John Herschel, missionary and explorer David Livingstone, and Sir Rowland Hill, the postal reformer and originator of the penny post.

The efforts of Forster and Stanley to get Dickens buried exactly where they wanted enhanced the reputations of both men. For each of them, the interment of Dickens in the abbey might be considered the highlight of their careers.

‘Mr Dickens very ill, most urgent’

The new evidence I have found was gathered from libraries, archives and cathedral vaults and prove beyond a doubt that any claims about the Westminster burial being the will of the people are false.

                                                                
                                                        Grave in Westminster Abbey
                                                        
What emerges is an atmosphere of urgency in the Dickens household after the author collapsed. Dickens’s son Charley sent the telegram to the author’s staff in London, requesting urgent medical assistance from the eminent neurologist, John Russell Reynolds:

    Go without losing a moment to Russell Reynolds thirty eight Grosvenor St Grosvenor Sqr tell him to come by next train to Higham or Rochester to meet… Beard (Dickens’s physician), at Gadshill … Mr Dickens very ill most urgent.

Dickens’s sister-in-law, Georgina Hogarth, who ran his household and cared for his children after the separation from Catherine, was clearly disappointed that the specialist could do nothing for her much-adored brother-in-law. She sent a note to her solicitor with the doctor’s fee: “I enclose Dr Reynolds’ demand (of £20) for his fruitless visit.”

Dean Stanley had met Dickens in 1870, after being introduced by the churchman’s brother-in-law, Frederick Locker, who was a friend of the novelist. Stanley confided to his private journal (now housed in the archives of Westminster Abbey) that he was “much struck” by his conversation with Dickens and appreciated the few opportunities he had to meet the author before he died.

Locker’s memoir also records an interesting conversation he had with Stanley before this 1870 meeting, which sheds light on the Dean’s attitude towards the novelist, his death and funeral. Locker writes about talking to Stanley “of the burials in the abbey” and they discussed the names of some “distinguished people”. Stanley told him there were “certain people” he would be “obliged to refuse” burial, on account of personal antipathies. But his attitude changed when the name of the author “came up” and he said he “should like to meet Dickens”. Then, to “gratify” Stanley’s “pious wish”, Locker asked Dickens and his daughter to dine. Thus even while Dickens was still alive, Stanley privately expressed a desire to bury him.


                                                           Frederick Locker

When the end came, Locker conveyed the news to his brother-in-law on that very day – June 9. The Dean wrote to Locker to say:

   Alas! – how soon we have been overtaken by the event which we were anticipating as so distant. I cannot amply thank you for having given me the opportunity of having met Charles Dickens while there was yet time. You will gather from what I have already said that I am quite prepared to raise any proposals about the burial that may be made to me.

The letter is fascinating. On the very day of the famous author’s death, the Dean was already thinking about burial in the Abbey. But there was a catch: Stanley could only entertain such a proposal if it came from the family and executors. He could not act unilaterally.

Locker quickly seized the opportunity hinted at in Stanley’s letter and sent a copy of it to Charley Dickens (the author’s son) on June 10. He wrote in his covering note: “I wish to send you a copy of a letter that I have just received from Dean Stanley and I think it will explain itself. If I can be of any use pray tell me.”

False claims and ambition

Meanwhile, the idea of getting Dickens to Poets’ Corner was growing in Stanley’s imagination. He wrote to his cousin Louisa on Saturday June 11 to say “I never met (Dickens) till this year… And now he is gone … and it is not improbable that I may bury him”. It’s interesting how quickly the plan crystallised in the Dean’s mind. Within the space of 48 hours, he went from hypothetical proposals from the family for burial, to foreseeing a key role for himself in the proceedings.

However, an answer from Charley Dickens wasn’t forthcoming. Stanley waited until the morning of Monday June 13, before seeking another way of making his wishes known to the family. He got in touch with his friend Lord Houghton (formerly Rickard Monckton Milnes – a poet, politician and friend of Dickens), reiterating his preparedness “to receive any proposal for (Dickens’s) burial in the Abbey” and asking Houghton to “act as you think best”.

It was at this point in the proceedings that Forster took charge of the planning. He had been away in Cornwall when Dickens died and it took him two days to reach Gad’s Hill. When he reached Dickens’s country home on Saturday June 11 he was overcome with grief at the death of his friend and clearly unprepared for the suddenness with which the blow was struck. His first thoughts, and those of the immediate family, were to accede to Dickens’s wishes and have him buried close to home. While the official account, in his Life of Dickens, claims that the graveyards in the vicinity of his home were “closed”, an examination of the records of the churches in Cobham and Shorne demonstrate this to be false.

The proposed burial in Rochester Cathedral was not only advanced, but in fact finalised, costed, and invoiced. The Chapter archives demonstrate that a grave was in fact dug in St Mary’s Chapel by the building firm Foord & Sons. The records also show that the Cathedral authorities “believed, as they still believe (after Dickens was buried in the Abbey), that no more fitting or honourable spot for his sepulture could be found than amidst scenes to which he was fondly attached, and amongst those by whom he was personally known as a neighbour and held in such honour”.

These views are reinforced by the claims of Hogarth, Dickens’s sister-in-law, in a letter to a friend:

                  We should have preferred Rochester Cathedral, and it was a great disappointment to the people there that we had to give way to the larger demand.

This “larger demand” came – at least in part – from a leader that appeared in The Times on Monday June 13. It concluded:

      Let (Dickens) lie in the Abbey. Where Englishmen gather to review the memorials of the great masters and teachers of their nation, the ashes and the name of the greatest instructor of the nineteenth century should not be absent.

Despite this appeal appearing in the press, Stanley’s private journal records that he still “had received no application from any person in authority”, and so “took no steps” to advance his burial plan.

Stanley’s prayers must have seemed answered, then, when Forster and Charley Dickens appeared at the door of the Deanery on that same day. According to the Dean, after they sat down, Forster said to Stanley: “I imagine the article in the ‘Times’ must have been written with your concurrence?” Stanley replied: “No, I had no concern with it, but at the same time I had given it privately to be understood that I would consent to the interment if it was demanded.” By this Stanley meant the letter he had sent to Locker, which the latter had forwarded to Charley. Stanley of course agreed to the request from Dickens’s representatives for burial in Poets’ Corner. What he refrains from saying is how much he personally was looking forward to officiating at an event of such national significance.

While it’s clear, from the private correspondence I have examined, that Stanley agitated for Dickens’s burial in the abbey, the actions of Forster are harder to trace. He left fewer clues about his intentions and he destroyed all of his working notes for his monumental three volume biography of Dickens. These documents included many letters from the author. Forster used Dickens’s correspondence liberally in his account. In fact, the only source we have for most of the letters from Dickens to Forster are the passages that appear in the biography.

But as well as showing how Forster falsely claimed in his biography that the graveyards near his home were “closed”, my research also reveals how he altered the words of Stanley’s (published) funeral sermon to suit his own version of events. Forster quoted Stanley as saying that Dickens’s grave “would thenceforward be a sacred one with both the New World and the Old, as that of the representative of the literature, not of this island only, but of all who speak our English tongue”. This, however, is a mis-quotation of the sermon, in which Stanley actually said:

   Many, many are the feet which have trodden and will tread the consecrated ground around that narrow grave; many, many are the hearts which both in the Old and in the New World are drawn towards it, as towards the resting-place of a dear personal friend; many are the flowers that have been strewed, many the tears shed, by the grateful affection of ‘the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and those that had none to help them’.

Stanley worked with Forster to achieve their common aim. In 1872, when Forster sent Stanley a copy of the first volume of his Life of Dickens, the Dean wrote:

      You are very good to speak so warmly of any assistance I may have rendered in carrying out your wishes and the desire of the country on the occasion of the funeral. The recollection of it will always be treasured amongst the most interesting of the various experiences which I have traversed in my official life.



For the ages

My research demonstrates that the official, authorised accounts of the lives and deaths of the rich and famous are open to question and forensic investigation – even long after their histories have been written and accepted as canonical. Celebrity is a manufactured commodity, that depends for its effect on the degree to which the fan (which comes from the word “fanatic”) can be manipulated into believing a particular story about the person whom he or she adores.

In the case of Dickens, two people who had intimate involvement in preserving his reputation for posterity were not doing so for altruistic reasons: there was something in it for each of them. Stanley interred the mortal remains of Dickens in the principal shrine of British artistic greatness. This ensured that his tomb became a site of pilgrimage, where the great and the good would come to pay their respects – including the Prince of Wales, who laid a wreath on Dickens’s grave in 2012, to mark the bicentenary of his birth.

Such public commemorations of this Victorian superstar carry special meaning and mystique for his many fans. This year, on February 7 (the anniversary of his birth), Armando Iannucci (director of the new film adaptation The Personal History of David Copperfield) is scheduled give the toast to “the immortal memory” at a special dinner hosted by the Dickens Fellowship – a worldwide association of admirers. The 150th anniversary of his death will be observed at Westminster Abbey on June 8 2020.

Whether it’s the remembrance of the author’s death or his birth, these public acts symbolise how essential Dickens is to Britain’s national culture. None of this would have been possible, however, had it not been for the involvement of Dickens’s best friend and executor, John Forster. Forster organised the private funeral in Westminster Abbey in accordance with Dickens’s wishes, and ensured that his lover Ellen Ternan could discreetly attend, and that his estranged wife would not. But he is also the man who overruled the expectations of the author for a local burial. Instead, through an act of institutionally sanctioned bodysnatching, the grave in Poets’ Corner bound Dickens forever in the public mind with the ideals of national life and art and provided a fitting conclusion to Forster’s carefully considered, strategically constructed biography. It ends with these words:

   Facing the grave, and on its left and right, are the monuments of Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Dryden, the three immortals who did most to create and settle the language to which Charles Dickens has given another undying name.

Charles Dickens: newly discovered documents reveal truth about his death and burial. By Leon Litvack. The Conversation,  February 3, 2020.