Of the half-dozen or so fellow readers I know who have attempted to scale the 800-page Matterhorn that is Dhalgren, none have succeeded. Still, when I tackled it myself last month, I kept encountering people in parks and coffee shops and on the subway who would glance down at the jacket, blurt, “Great book,” and then vanish into the urban landscape. It is the kind of oddity to which Dhalgren attunes us: the protagonist whose name we may or may not learn; the abandoned city as densely populated as a Victorian novel; the story-within-the-story that is at the same time the story-outside-the-story.
Dislocations, discontinuties, and ontological entanglements are clearly central to Samuel R. Delany’s design. The novel’s setting (and, arguably, main character) is a bombed-out Midwestern metropolis called Bellona – a spatial, temporal, and psychosexual labyrinth in which our Theseus, an amnesiac poet-adventurer known as Kid, will or won’t find himself. And as it embodies the instabilities of institutions, identities, and power relations, Bellona may be the metaphor par excellence for the 1960s. Indeed, though the book sold a million copies as science-fiction, it seems at many points no more distant from our own reality than that other trippy whopper from the mid-’70s, Gravity’s Rainbow. For Bellona, read Detroit.
The comparison to Pynchon is not made lightly. On the surface, Kid’s wanderings in Bellona look as loosely strung together as that other Kid’s wanderings in Purple Rain. His poetics tend toward the Beatnik, his observations toward the dreamy and spontaneous: the flashbulb-red that keeps appearing in the eyes of certain characters; the holographic exoskeletons in which the book’s street gangs armor themselves… But in the monologues by various Bellonians that punctuate and comment on the action, we can feel Delany synthesizing history, mythology, aesthetics, epistemology, systems theory, and the philosophy of language into a singular vision of the human condition on the cusp of postmodernism. It should also be said that Delany’s sinuous prose, by turns fragmentary and efflorescent, is a major attraction.
Elements of his conception, however, will prove difficult for the casual reader. First, there is the purposeful, high-modernist obscurity of the stream-of-consciousness voice that periodically recurs. The book opens with a half-dozen pages written in the mind-voice of an amnesiac, possibly schizophrenic Kid; the thought of eight hundred more pages of this may lead some readers to jump ship. The novel quickly modulates, however, into the more straightforward third-person that is its main register.
A more persistent difficulty is the book’s pointed pointlessness. My favorite of Dhalgren’s seven sections, “House of the Ax,” has an actual plot, as does, broadly speaking, the first half of the novel. But in the back half, as the context Kid has constructed for himself begins to crumble, the narrative devolves into sketchy, repetitive vignettes of kinky sex and random violence. Delany may be posing important questions about mimesis and perception, but “Palimpsest” and “Creatures of Light and Darkness” tried my bourgeois patience.
Finally, after so much work, the novel doesn’t resolve, but folds back into itself. It is famously a circular text, in the manner of Finnegans Wake. And yet, unlike that book, Dhalgren generates a fair amount of suspense out of questions of “what really happened.” That answering those questions would compromise the book may not excuse the omission – at least, in the eyes of my friends who never finished. For those Dhalgrenites in the cafes and subways, however, the novel’s radical open-endedness seems to have been a virtue.
The best analogue I can offer for the singular experience of reading this novel is a video game where any teleology, any notion of progress or levels to be mastered, has been stripped away. Dhalgren is pure world, and as such, it represents an enormous disruption on the generally orderly map of postwar literature, as Bellona does to the orderly map of the 20th Century U.S. The scale of the disruption alone will not justify it to everyone. Then again, it’s not a novel that cares to justify itself. I can think of no better way to honor its ambitions than to invoke that koan-like and recursive New Yorkism, “It is what it is,” and to encourage you to give it a try.
at 7:01 am on June 29, 2010
[...] Lês fierder by The Millions [...]
at 9:01 am on June 29, 2010
I read Dhalgren when I was a teenager, and didn’t have too much trouble with it. Gravity’s Rainbow is 50 times more complex and detailed. I would never compare the two.
at 9:32 am on June 29, 2010
Having finished this last summer, I think you’re right on the spot, being honest about its attractions and the occasionally tiresome 2nd half. Have you read Divine Days, by Leon Forrest? I’m thinking of your take on Women & Men here–they strike me as being kind of bookends of their own shelf. There’s an informative review by Sven Birkerts in the New Republic years ago.
at 1:19 pm on June 29, 2010
Very nice overview of Dhalgren, one of the great novels from that too-brief science fiction new wave of the sixties and seventies that also included some of the best writing from J. G. Ballard, Anthony Burgess and Philip K. Dick. I also want to echo Dan Whatley’s praise for Divine Days, a brilliant book that is indeed an appropriate companion for Women & Men.
at 6:51 pm on June 29, 2010
Delany in Silent Interviews: “But Gravity’s Rainbow is a fantasy about a war most of its readers don’t really remember, whereas Dhalgren is in fairly pointed dialogue with all the depressed and burned-out areas of America’s great cities. To decide if Gravity’s Rainbow is relevant, you have to spend time in a library, mostly with a lot of Time/Life book, which are pretty romanticized to begin with. To see what Dhalgren is about, you only have to walk along a mile of your own town’s inner city. So Dhalgren’s a bit more threatening–and accordingly receives less formal attention.”
at 10:20 pm on June 29, 2010
I should add that I don’t agree with Delany’s read of Gravity’s Rainbow. But the claim that Dhalgren is threatening makes sense: I was spontaneously approached by a guy in a bookstore once who just wanted to denounce Dhalgren; and a couple of my friends have had similar experiences. I wrote a little about Delany’s thoughts on why the novel is threatening in this profile of the author a few years ago.
at 11:35 am on June 30, 2010
I still have my first printing of Dhalgren. I was a teenage sf fan when it came out. I recall a particularly vicious review by, I think, Lester Del Rey in Analog magazine. It was a very threatening book to the older writers who made up institutional sf — many of them defined sf as consisting of things that could be possible — the impossible was the purview of fantasy literature. (Of course, this was bunk — many of the same writers used literary hand waving to justify things like faster-than-light travel in their own fiction.) Plus, there was all that sex sex sex in Dhalgren.
After the ’70s, the genre regressed a lot and has never quite recovered. Some blame Star Wars, which caused the genre to look backwards to capitalize on the commercial potential.
at 1:25 pm on June 30, 2010
Glad to see the Difficult Books series back, but please in the future not so long between entries!
at 11:11 pm on June 30, 2010
[...] maybe this: there’s a feature on The Millions called Difficult Books which returned this week featuring Dhalgren by Samuel R. Delany and, well, yes it’s a hard [...]
at 8:19 am on July 2, 2010
I read Dhalgren around my freshman year of high school, and it took me two tries to get through it. While the first time was a struggle to get even half-way through, the second time I read it, I fell in love with it. It was the first book of truly good 20th century fiction that I read outside of class, and it was one of the books that has had a lasting impact on me. As much as I love it, I always am hesitant to recommend it because of the the things that were mentioned.
However, this post reminded me that I couldn’t get into Gravity’s Rainbow when I initially tried it, so maybe I’ll give that one another try.
at 6:33 am on July 9, 2010
[...] Dhalgren: a difficult book? [...]
A Year in Reading 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005
Best of the Millennium; Readers' List
A new way to browse The Millions! Books and Reviews
Bookmark these links to stay on top of the hottest books:
Hot 100 | Awards | Movers & Shakers | Bargain Books | Kindle Bestsellers
More From Difficult Books
Other Recent Articles
Recent Comments
2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005
Readers' List
© Mmix The Millions. Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a cc attribution-noncommercial-Sharealike 2.5 License.