The World Broke in Two
Bill Goldstein
Bloomsbury, £25
Review by Nick Major
IN academe, 1922 has long been accepted as high modernism’s annus mirabilis. Bill Goldstein, in the subtitle to this enlightening if misconceived book, calls it The Year That Changed Literature. Insert an indefinite article for that definite one and he might be on to something. In all seriousness, his claim comes from an essay by Willa Cather, who identified 1922 as when “the form of storytelling she prized, and had excelled at, was no longer of signal importance.” As all modernist sympathisers know, the reigning style of the time was summed up by Ezra Pound’s proclamation “make it new”.
It was Pound, that practised noise-maker, who contributed most to the appraisal of that year as ‘the’ year. Although, as Goldstein points out, Pound thought the night of October 29-30 1921 was when the real sea change occurred. That was when James Joyce finished Ulysses. Pound would, on January 3, 1922, orchestrate the famous Paris dinner with Joyce, TS Eliot and the US publisher Horace Liveright (whose name should have been Liverwrong; he was an indefatigable boozer). The next month Ulysses was published by Sylvia Beach of Shakespeare and Co; Eliot’s The Waste Land was published in October.
For all this, Goldstein’s book is not about modernism per se, which doesn’t do much for his premise, but means we are not weighed down with known arguments about the subject. His main achievement is in his careful use of the private correspondence and diaries of four writers to navigate his way through the period. He follows, with quotidian delicacy, Eliot, Virginia Woolf, EM Forster, and DH Lawrence. Goldstein’s reason for choosing these authors (why not Joyce or Pound, for instance?) is that they were “writers in deep despair, privately confronting an uncertain creative future…none of these pillars of 20th century literature could foresee the work just ahead that was to transform them as writers.”
There are many synchronicities across the main coterie and their associates. Most people are desperately ill. Virginia Woolf spends three months in bed with successive bouts of influenza; Eliot is recovering from a fiscal and personal breakdown (Elizabeth Bowen described his first marriage as “‘two highly nervous people shut up in grinding proximity’”) and Forster is both love sick (his Egyptian lover, Mohammed Adl, was coughing his way out of existence) and particularly wordless; the prevailing joke of the time was that Howards End (1910) was Forster’s End.
As for DH Lawrence, he was mad and poor from cradle to grave, so 1922 was nothing new. His inclusion here is an anomaly. Yes, he wrote his novel Kangaroo in a desperate burst of energy during a trip to Australia, but it is a minor work. His two earlier novels, Women in Love and The Rainbow, and their delving free indirect style did more to advance forms of storytelling. What Lawrence did have in common with the time was that he and Joyce were both enraging the censors. In July 1922 John Sumner’s the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice raided publisher Thomas Seltzer’s offices and confiscated copies of Women in Love.
It is Joyce’s Ulysses that highlights the intellectual differences between the three other writers. When Eliot visited Woolf on the last weekend in September he told her Joyce’s novel would “‘be a landmark, because it destroyed the whole of the 19th century…it showed up the futility of all English styles.’” Woolf disagreed. She recognised its greatness, but maintained that it was written by a “pretentious and egotistic ‘self-taught working man’”. She and Forster instead turned to Marcel Proust, who galvanised and informed them to finally put some words on the page. The two writers corresponded about the first volume of A La Recherche Du Temps Perdu, and Woolf started trying out for herself “what Forster noted as Proust’s breakthrough: to use memory and experience to illustrate a character’s state of mind.” Proust, of course, died in November 1922.
Goldstein has done tremendous and valid work here to find the small but crucial changes in these writers’ lives that resulted in their various attempts to capture consciousness on the page. By the end of 1922, Woolf was at work on her defining novel, Mrs Dalloway, and Forster was underway on his final one, A Passage to India; Eliot was vainly happy that the literati were in a state of high excitement about The Waste Land and his new journal, Criterion. But DH Lawrence, who was far away from all this, galloping around America, had the best year of the lot. Why? All the publicity surrounding the obscenity trial against Women in Love meant sales were on the up.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here