Showing posts with label MOUNT Gretchen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MOUNT Gretchen. Show all posts

Monday, October 28, 2019

Gretchen Mount Reviews The Dark Chamber

Gretchen Mount
I have so far been unable to source this review to its original appearance.  What I have is a four-page typed transcript, made by Cline, and headed "Gretchen Mount: for Detroit Free Press." It probably dates from around September 1927, for The Dark Chamber was published on August 15th, 1927. It is possible that the review was sent in advance to Cline by his old Detroit friend Gretchen Mount (1882-1931), who reviewed regularly for the Detroit Free Press [see here for a previous blog entry about her and her husband, Dick Mount]. Perhaps this review was never published, but it's worth resurrecting here for its insights into Cline's novel by an old friend. In making his transcription, Cline omitted a quotation and a synopsis of the novel, the former marked by [quote], the later by ellipses. I present the review here as Cline recorded it.

Here again (The Dark Chamber) speaks the author of God Head, who, in the opinion of some of us who genuinely admire his gifts, strayed a bit in his second novel. Of course, he is still speaking to a specialized audience—he is not likely ever to be a best seller—but this time his audience is a bit more diverse.

For instance, those who enjoy the Poe of “The Fall of the House of Usher” will find here the same terror and fascination; those who enjoy Huysmans will find here the same so-called decadent cataloguing of emotions translated into sound, odor and sight; those who enjoy Garnet’s Lady into Fox will find here the same fantasy, the same weird intermingling of animal and physical, beast and spirit; those who enjoy Conan Doyle (with especial reference to “The Hound of the Baskervilles”) will find here the same suspense and uncanniness; those who have delved into psychoanalysis, or self-hypnosis, or any other of those cults and beliefs which deal with the subconscious, will find here much material, both intentional and unintentional, upon which to exercise their favorite philosophy.

But above all, those who love a beautiful prose style; those who love phrases and words for their own loveliness, will find here a sensitiveness and a poetical verbal facility which rise above the macabre content of the novel to sing themselves to music and to the natural elements. For music and that thing we vaguely call “nature” have always been mingled in Leonard Cline's personal enthusiasms. The music of the spheres is continuously intelligible to him, and in this book the stars and the trees and the wind are no less important factors than the human characters. Even the opening paragraph bows to the powers of darkness:

[quote]

And at the end the dead body of Richard Pride, lying in defeat beside that dog whose name was death, is no more grisly than the “nest of ferns, crawling, vermiform,” upon which they lay in that “closet of damp shadow.”

Inasmuch as the relator of this grim tale is one Oscar Fitz­alan, a musician whose magnum opus is to be a ballet of the worlds, music is also present on every page—in every tree and hill and rivulet, in every wind that blows and every star that shines.

I am afraid that so far as this book is concerned, I shall have to confess that my vision of the town is a bit obscured by the houses. The haunting beauty of the individual paragraphs and phrases dwarfs for me the importance of the tale. Leonard Cline's prose, in this instance, as in God Head, makes me feel that I do not care what he says so long as he says it the way he does. But, briefly, the story is this:
 ….
In the end Richard Pride is dead with a gaping rent in his throat where the great tusk of the dog Death had ripped in. Miriam Pride is in her grave, and into the soft new loam above her a violet and a broken rock have been crushed carelessly by the spades of the diggers. Wilfred Hough has been found swinging from his chandelier, a black moth fluttering in circles about his dead face. Mordance Hall is looted, empty and leaking; its walls are dank with fungus and mildew; scurrying rats and looping snakes play about its broken floors. And the door of Richard Pride’s secret study is open—“open on those stacks where shelf on shelf were stored the moments of his life—the wind harrying them and sowing amidst them the seeds of mustiness and rot.”

Only Fitzalan and Janet escaped the virulence of this madness. And as I write that I have the feeling that Janet died, too, in those moments after her return and that her supposed depart­ure with her lover under the wings of Helion was only the wish-­fulfillment of a dream in his disordered brain. But that really does not matter.

What does matter is that Leonard Cline has done beautiful work in this tale of terror and death. He has succeeded in implant­ing in his reader’s mind with the first paragraph a sinister apprehension of evil which is never lifted until the end. The whole book feels like a stinking sinkhole with white slimy worms crawling in and out; and if that is, as I take it, the in­tention of horror stories, the goal is certainly achieved. And it is achieved with sentences so beautiful you want to read them aloud to someone; in images and similes so apt that you resolve to remember them forever, and with a sensitivity to scene and sound which arrest your progress in order that you may look once more with the author's eyes or hear once more with his ears.

No one in America today is writing more beautiful prose than Leonard Cline, and if his audience is limited it is because unhappily appreciators of beautiful prose are not so numerous as lovers of sentimentality.


Monday, July 22, 2019

Richard ("Dick") Mount

Dick Mount, who was mentioned in this blog's previous entry about Leonard Cline's son, was a friend and fellow newspaperman in Detroit.  He was more properly Charles Richard Mount (1883-1971), though he didn't use his first name, and signed his work as by "Richard Mount."  Around the time Cline knew him, he was married to the former Gretchen Crockett Mosshart (1882-1931), whose first husband had died in the influenza epidemic in 1918. Gretchen Mount also worked in newspapers, and many of her book reviews appeared in The Detroit Free Press.  Like Cline, Richard Mount published poetry in The Detroit News and fiction in The Smart Set.

At the publication of After-Walker: The Poems of Leonard Cline, a year and a half after Cline's death, Mount published the following review/memoir.

Posthumous Work of Leonard Cline Inspires Host of Tender Memories

Outside the moon is shining serenely in the sky and remote constellations creep slowly into the east. Inside there is a thin book of poems—rather surprisingly bound in lavender—and the ghost of a friend talking to me as he used to talk. And as I turn the leaves of the lavender book I hear, on some pages, only a waif of his voice, and on others, full-bodied, the old tones come back for me and for a moment my friend is alive again in the room.

For After-Walker is that posthumous books of his poems Leonard Cline’s friends never expected to see. It was rumored, yes: but what are rumors of the dead in this skeptical world? Books of poems aren’t published for profit—they are published for love, and it is generally assumed that poets who have not made a great reputation carry the verses they made and loved with them into their graves. So, now that he is dead, one may ask: for what love are these verses published? The answer to that is, of course, that they are published for love of Leonard. The poems are not, if the truth must be told, universal enough to be tremendously important. But the man was an original, a playboy with whom (as he laments in his “Bacchanale Solo”) nobody would play; a minor poet, a lover of faded musics, a master of truly important prose style, a gentle, lovable stray from the age of the trouveres, who lived feverishly as if with some tragic foreknowledge that his life was to be brief.

And with what authentic accents you come back to haunt me, charming hellion!
“I held my bottle firmly between my knees
And deplored the passing of Dionysus.
And I lamented that all the night
Was empty of flute music . . .”
Wine, women, song, Arcturus and Bach and street cars, hillsides and automobiles honking on the roads!

But I must take up the heavy business of reporting on your poems. How does one begin to do that for friends whose ears are clogged with dust, stopped alike to praise or blame?

It is hard, of course, for me to judge these poems objectively—to me, at least, they are not the echoant verses of a dead minor poet, embalmed in lavender. They are too personal to their author for that, which is both their strength and their weakness. They were his escape from a reality frequently too distressing to him and his interpretations of the events that had overwhelmed him. The title poem, “After-Walker,” comes straight from that Connecticut prison where he spent a year (though it seems a sort of atrocious myth now to think that gentle soul in prison) and he was his own “Mad Jacob.”

Indeed, rereading these verses tonight recalls Plato’s splendid figure of the man in chains who, unable to turn his head, faces the conjuror’s curtain, while behind him, on a raised roadway between the sun and the curtain, the activities of the world pass, throwing their shadows on the screen. Like that man in chains, I see the reflection of Leonard’s life, fantastic and distorted, thrown on the screen of his words. I see the reflection of events that were preposterous and sad, rational and embarrassing and gay—the varied chances of a life lived insecurely but, somehow, lived completely.

But will these be as significant to one not his familiar? It is not for me to say. They have the slightness of poetry that arises solely from the emotional moments of the poet’s own life; but beauty is its own importance and they are beautiful. The realities behind them are merely hinted in a paradox of evasion; but if they are not “strong” they have the strength of expressing entirely how one man reacted to his prison, the universe. They are neither philosophical nor metaphysical, but Leonard Cline was a fine poet for all that. He had a fancy that contracted space: Vega was his sun and Abydos was just around the corner. He had an imagination that negated time: Babylon was a teeming city to him still and Louhi, “that old crone,” whined in his chimney. Words were things to him and intuitions more actual than facts: nature was his reality and our civilization was his only myth.

Insofar as After-Walker represents the poet’s own selection, it is at his best. Of those added by other hands only “Snake” (a superb narrative bit) and “Tenebrae” justify inclusion. The occasional verse they have included is just occasional verse and the sonnet on St. Francis is more than indifferent. After all, Leonard pious was Pan in gaiters, Dionysus at a masquerade with the ends of his collar buttoned back. One misses, moreover, in this collection, two of his very finest pieces—one in its lightness and the other in its masterly narrative—to perish uncaptured fugitives, fled into faded ink and forgotten. But, alas, we shall probably never see them again. For both his here and now are timeless today and he himself is one with “yesterday’s sev’n thousand years.” So if none of these rescued verses quite equals the poetry of his prose Godhead (and which of his contemporaries has written a more beautiful novel?) what does it matter? We can only bid him adieu. But if he cried no “Vale!” back to us, we cannot let him go in silence. Let us repeat for him words his lips formed in happier days:
“I have strung stars upon my nubbin horns,
My little hooves are washed in moonlight,
My face is rinsed in roses;
And I call to them
And they do not answer. . . .”

From The Detroit Free Press, 29 June 1930.