The People who go to California to die

In Nathanael West's The Day of the Locust (1939), the character at the focus of the novel, if not quite its hero, is Tod Hackett, an artist who has come to Los Angeles to design sets and costumes for the movies. Hackett is fascinated by a character type he finds there—"the kind of person who comes to California to die"—who seems to be the clay out of which an American fascist could be modeled. Here's his first description of the species:

Scattered among these masquerades were people of a different type. Their clothing was somber and badly cut, bought from mail-order houses. While the others moved rapidly, darting into stores and cocktail bars, they loitered on the corners or stood with their backs to the shop windows and stared at everyone who passed. When their stare was returned, their eyes filled with hatred. At this time Tod knew very little about them except that they had come to California to die.

When, in preparation for writing my New Yorker article "It Happened One Decade," I began reading around in the literature of the nineteen thirties, I had the impression that the idea of going to California to die was metaphoric. I was surprised to discover in Edmund Wilson's American Jitters (1932) that it wasn't. Wilson wrote that at the time, San Diego led the United States in suicides, perhaps because "a great many sick people come to live in San Diego." If one allows for the poetic license of substituting Los Angeles for San Diego, it seems probable that West was inspired by Wilson's description:

The climate of Southern California, so widely advertised by Chambers of Commerce and Southern California Clubs, but probably rather unhealthy with its tepid enervating days and its nights that get suddenly chill, brings invalids to San Diego by the thousand. If they have money to move about and have failed to improve in the other health centers, the doctors, as a last resort, send them to San Diego, and it is not uncommon for patients to die just after being unloaded from the train. In the case of "ideational" diseases like asthma—diseases which are partly psychological—the sufferers have a tendency to keep moving away from places, under the illusion that they are leaving the disease behind. And when they have moved to San Diego, they find they are finally cornered, there is nowhere farther to go. According to the psychoanalysts, the idea of the setting sun suggests the idea of death. At any rate, of the five-hundred-odd suicides during the period of fifteen years mentioned above [i.e., between 1911 and 1927], 70 per cent were put down to "despondency and depression over chronic ill health."

I'm quoting here from the revised 1957 version of Wilson's essay "The Jumping-Off Place," because that's the version I happen to have access to at the moment, but the quotes of Wilson in my article come from the original American Jitters, which Wilson published in 1932, when his youthful vitriol was not yet tempered and his faith in Marxism still intact.

My Review of Morris Dickstein’s “Dancing in the Dark”

Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn, Holiday (1938) "It Happened One Decade," my review-essay focusing on Morris Dickstein's Dancing in the Dark: A Cultural History of the Great Depression, is published in the 21 September 2009 issue of The New Yorker. The book under review is a genial and comprehensive guide to the literature, film, and music of the nineteen thirties. Though I often post an online bibliography of my New Yorker articles, there's not much call for one in this case, since almost all the books that I refer to in my review are cited by author, title, or both. Instead, in the next couple of posts, I'll try to write about oddments that I couldn't find a place for.

Park Slope Democratic Primary Voters’ Cheat Sheet

If, like me, you live in Park Slope, Brooklyn, and are rash enough to have voted in previous Democratic midterm municipal primaries, you will have been so bombarded by campaign literature and robocalls in the past few weeks that you will be suffering from information glut. In other words, you will have felt obliged to immediately recycle all campaign fliers, you will have deleted without listening to them the lengthy voice messages left to you by Ed Koch, Mario Cuomo, Charles Rangel, and a cast of thousands, and you will have told innumerable cheerful people with clipboards that you are on deadline and can't talk right now.

Unfortunately, you will still feel obliged to vote on Tuesday, and now, thanks to your own cussedness, you don't know anything about the candidates. I herewith offer my cheat sheet, just compiled. Please note that I'm not offering my endorsements, because I'm not knowledgeable enough to dare.

The purest information source seems to be the impartial New York City Campaign Finance Board's 2009 Primary Election Voter Guide, which gives brief resumes of all candidates, in a consistent format, and presents their answers to a few simple questions. I live in Council District 39 of Brooklyn, but this particular voter's guide is useful for all districts in all boroughs.

Specific to Council District 39, the Brooklyn Paper ran a brief Q&A this weekend with all of the City Council candidates: Brad Lander, Bob Zuckerman, John Heyer, Josh Skaller, and Gary Reilly. The Brooklyn Paper has itself endorsed Heyer, which seems a somewhat odd choice for this community, given Heyer's opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

I usually resort in such circumstances to the crib sheet printed by the New York Times in its City section the weekend before an election . . . but the City section is no more, and I saw no crib sheet today in the Metropolitan section, which replaces it. After dutiful searching, however, I can report that the New York Times endorses Brad Lander for City Council, Bill de Blasio for public advocate, and David Yassky for comptroller. The Times has also published answers by candidates for public advocate to a standard battery of questions. They have also published in the printed paper a similar table of Q&As for the comptroller's race, but I can't find it online.

Update, Sept. 14: The New York Times has added a short primer to the races for public advocate, comptroller, and city council.

X marks the spot

Pirate scholarship approaches the problem of buried treasure with a dour mien, as I discovered while reading for my New Yorker review-essay "Bootylicious." Here's Patrick Pringle, representatively dispiriting:

Presumably people believe in pirate treasure because they want to. There is no other reason for the belief. Pirates did not bury their treasure. They shared out their loot as they got it. This hardly needs to be explained. The pirates did not trust one another sufficiently to leave the plunder in a common hoard once they left the ship. Besides, each man wanted to use his share, either to invest in a business or, more generally, to spend.

Pirates facing execution sometimes hinted that they had stashed something away for a rainy day, but historians for the most part suspect them of fibbing in order to encourage the greedy to spare their lives. Are we to deprived of all our illusions? At most, the skeptical Pringle concedes that the buccaneer Bartholomew Sharp once mistook a large quantity of silver for tin and heaved it overboard, only to regret the error afterward. Perhaps that silver remains undisturbed.

But the pirate Samuel Bellamy's vessel, the Whydah, was found, along with some treasure, off the coast of Cape Cod in 1984. And now new hope is held out by the blog of the Rhode Island Historical Society, which reprints from the society's archives a set of directions for retrieving a buccaneer's buried treasure, dating from the early eighteenth century. Once you locate a certain old hollow oak with one limb missing, a ruby, a silver candlestick, and 2200 pieces of eight, among other riches, will be yours.

(Actually, the hope isn't perfectly new. Evidently the society has reprinted the directions once before—in its ink-on-paper historical journal back in 1949.)