'Before Lena Dunham, there was Anaïs Nin – now patron saint of social media' diff viewer (0/1)

This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on April 07, 2015 18:48 (UTC). It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/apr/07/anais-nin-author-social-media

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Previous version 1 Next version

Previous version 1 Next version

Version 0	Version 1
Before Lena Dunham, there was Anaïs Nin – now patron saint of social media	Before Lena Dunham, there was Anaïs Nin – now patron saint of social media
2015-04-07 18:51:03 UTC	2015-04-08 01:40:51 UTC (about 7 hours later)
“We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.”	“We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.”
This little soundbite circulates dozens of times a day on the ~~Internet.~~ It is variously attributed to the Talmud, to sales guru Herb Cohen, to whoever is responsible for inspirational quotes on instagram, and sometimes to its actual author, Anaïs Nin. The quote has become a staple of what’s called “glurge”: essentially, the viral-content version of a Hallmark card.	This little soundbite circulates dozens of times a day on the internet. It is variously attributed to the Talmud, to sales guru Herb Cohen, to whoever is responsible for inspirational quotes on instagram, and sometimes to its actual author, Anaïs Nin. The quote has become a staple of what’s called “glurge”: essentially, the viral-content version of a Hallmark card.
In this case, the quote was taken from the 1958 novel Seduction of the Minotaur. At the time, Nin was an unfashionable underground author receiving almost no attention from the mainstream press. And if it’s strange that a line from an experimental novel is ubiquitous in 2015, what’s stranger is what that line has done for its author’s reputation.	In this case, the quote was taken from the 1958 novel Seduction of the Minotaur. At the time, Nin was an unfashionable underground author receiving almost no attention from the mainstream press. And if it’s strange that a line from an experimental novel is ubiquitous in 2015, what’s stranger is what that line has done for its author’s reputation.
“I think these quotes on the internet are really important,” author Tristine Rainer, a personal friend of Nin’s, told me over the phone. “They give people the sense that Anaïs was a philosopher. The internet has sort of turned her around.”	“I think these quotes on the internet are really important,” author Tristine Rainer, a personal friend of Nin’s, told me over the phone. “They give people the sense that Anaïs was a philosopher. The internet has sort of turned her around.”
Alongside the proliferation of Nin quotes online, there is a growing sense of her relevance, too. She’s now referred to as a “style muse”; Swedish indie artist Lykke Li name-checked her as an influence on her 2014 album I Never Learn (the album cover even echoes some of the best-known photographs of Nin). Even better, authors and actors are bringing her back into the fold of acceptable reference points.	Alongside the proliferation of Nin quotes online, there is a growing sense of her relevance, too. She’s now referred to as a “style muse”; Swedish indie artist Lykke Li name-checked her as an influence on her 2014 album I Never Learn (the album cover even echoes some of the best-known photographs of Nin). Even better, authors and actors are bringing her back into the fold of acceptable reference points.
This is all well-deserved, but it’s also nothing short of a miracle. The idea that Nin could be widely regarded as an inspirational figure – rather than a fraud or, as one memorable headline called her, “a monster of self-centeredness whose artistic pretensions now seem grotesque” – would have been unthinkable even a few years ago.	This is all well-deserved, but it’s also nothing short of a miracle. The idea that Nin could be widely regarded as an inspirational figure – rather than a fraud or, as one memorable headline called her, “a monster of self-centeredness whose artistic pretensions now seem grotesque” – would have been unthinkable even a few years ago.
In her lifetime, Nin was an oddity: for one thing, she was a woman who wrote explicitly about sex from a female point of view. Her work included frank portrayals of illegal abortions, extramarital affairs and incest, all of which Nin wrote about without judging her female characters. That’s brave in 2015; in 1940, it was career suicide.	In her lifetime, Nin was an oddity: for one thing, she was a woman who wrote explicitly about sex from a female point of view. Her work included frank portrayals of illegal abortions, extramarital affairs and incest, all of which Nin wrote about without judging her female characters. That’s brave in 2015; in 1940, it was career suicide.
Even more polarizing, though, was Nin’s insistence that she was by far her most fascinating character, and that her diaries ought to be treated as a major work of literature.	Even more polarizing, though, was Nin’s insistence that she was by far her most fascinating character, and that her diaries ought to be treated as a major work of literature.
It’s tempting to portray Nin as a sort of proto-Lena-Dunham – a woman who spun a career out of dramatizing her own life, including her sex life. Like Dunham, she’s been accused of narcissism, sociopathy and sexual perversion time and again. Yet even that comparison undercuts the strangeness and bravery of her work, for Nin was the first of her kind. And, like all truly unique talents, she was worshipped by some, hated by many, and misunderstood by most.	It’s tempting to portray Nin as a sort of proto-Lena-Dunham – a woman who spun a career out of dramatizing her own life, including her sex life. Like Dunham, she’s been accused of narcissism, sociopathy and sexual perversion time and again. Yet even that comparison undercuts the strangeness and bravery of her work, for Nin was the first of her kind. And, like all truly unique talents, she was worshipped by some, hated by many, and misunderstood by most.
In a way, Nin’s transformation into a harmless self-help icon is nothing new. During her time in the public eye, Nin has been at least four different writers.	In a way, Nin’s transformation into a harmless self-help icon is nothing new. During her time in the public eye, Nin has been at least four different writers.
First came Nin, the failure. Starting in the 1930s, she was a fixture on the literary scenes of Paris and New York, known as a flamboyant personality, and better yet as a source of funding, thanks to her wealthy husband, Hugh Guiler.	First came Nin, the failure. Starting in the 1930s, she was a fixture on the literary scenes of Paris and New York, known as a flamboyant personality, and better yet as a source of funding, thanks to her wealthy husband, Hugh Guiler.
Henry Miller was the most famous recipient. She met him when he was middle-aged, unpublished and almost homeless. For no reason that anyone could see, Nin decided his profane rants were the work of a genius. She paid his rent and living expenses for the next 10 years so that he could write, during which time he published Tropic of Cancer and became a darling of the avant-garde. Young writers, eager for a taste of his good fortune, flocked to Nin’s door, and many walked away with full hands.	Henry Miller was the most famous recipient. She met him when he was middle-aged, unpublished and almost homeless. For no reason that anyone could see, Nin decided his profane rants were the work of a genius. She paid his rent and living expenses for the next 10 years so that he could write, during which time he published Tropic of Cancer and became a darling of the avant-garde. Young writers, eager for a taste of his good fortune, flocked to Nin’s door, and many walked away with full hands.
Yet, even as she made the careers of other writers possible, Nin’s own writing was ignored: of the nine books of fiction she published in her lifetime, four were self-published, and only one, her short-story collection Under a Glass Bell, received any critical acclaim. Most were roundly mocked. Elizabeth Hardwick, in the pages of the Partisan Review, called her “vague, dreamy, mercilessly pretentious” and “a great bore.”	Yet, even as she made the careers of other writers possible, Nin’s own writing was ignored: of the nine books of fiction she published in her lifetime, four were self-published, and only one, her short-story collection Under a Glass Bell, received any critical acclaim. Most were roundly mocked. Elizabeth Hardwick, in the pages of the Partisan Review, called her “vague, dreamy, mercilessly pretentious” and “a great bore.”
In later years, this time spent battling it out on the margins would become part of her legend. Author and Nin fan Melissa Gira Grant recalls the impact of a photo of Nin at her press, printing her own work on a machine roughly twice her size:	In later years, this time spent battling it out on the margins would become part of her legend. Author and Nin fan Melissa Gira Grant recalls the impact of a photo of Nin at her press, printing her own work on a machine roughly twice her size:
“That photo of her at a printing press, that’s always with me. I don’t think her subject matter was so daring, and I bristle when people say writing about sex itself is daring. It’s not. It’s doing it anyway, when it’s not wanted or shut out or mistreated or dismissed. It’s Nin at the press, for however many hours she set type.”	“That photo of her at a printing press, that’s always with me. I don’t think her subject matter was so daring, and I bristle when people say writing about sex itself is daring. It’s not. It’s doing it anyway, when it’s not wanted or shut out or mistreated or dismissed. It’s Nin at the press, for however many hours she set type.”
Still, by 1954, Nin believed the entire publishing industry saw her as a joke. When she hosted a party at the British Book Center for her novel Spy In The House of Love, none of the invited critics came. “America tried to kill me as a writer, with indifference, with insults,” she wrote.	Still, by 1954, Nin believed the entire publishing industry saw her as a joke. When she hosted a party at the British Book Center for her novel Spy In The House of Love, none of the invited critics came. “America tried to kill me as a writer, with indifference, with insults,” she wrote.
Perhaps it did. But when she was 63 years old, it made her a star. In 1966, The Diary of Anaïs Nin was published by Harcourt Brace. The existence of the diary, a monumental life’s work that Nin was completing in secret – even when radically edited down for publication, it spanned seven volumes and 50 years – had long been speculated about in literary circles.	Perhaps it did. But when she was 63 years old, it made her a star. In 1966, The Diary of Anaïs Nin was published by Harcourt Brace. The existence of the diary, a monumental life’s work that Nin was completing in secret – even when radically edited down for publication, it spanned seven volumes and 50 years – had long been speculated about in literary circles.
It contained the expected anecdotes about famous friends: Henry Miller, Antonin Artaud, Gore Vidal. Yet these were outnumbered by long, introspective passages about the nature of the self, which proved to be the diary’s biggest draw. Reviews were amazing, and sales were too.	It contained the expected anecdotes about famous friends: Henry Miller, Antonin Artaud, Gore Vidal. Yet these were outnumbered by long, introspective passages about the nature of the self, which proved to be the diary’s biggest draw. Reviews were amazing, and sales were too.
So began the age of Anaïs Nin, feminist icon: worshipped by young women who believed she had provided the first real account of how a woman could thrive in the male-dominated world of literature. She toured the country, giving readings and speeches. Young fans, eager to learn at her feet, gathered at her Los Angeles home. She was the subject of a documentary, Anaïs Observed.	So began the age of Anaïs Nin, feminist icon: worshipped by young women who believed she had provided the first real account of how a woman could thrive in the male-dominated world of literature. She toured the country, giving readings and speeches. Young fans, eager to learn at her feet, gathered at her Los Angeles home. She was the subject of a documentary, Anaïs Observed.
Anaïs Nin died in 1977, at the peak of her fame, beloved by a generation and assured of her place in history.	Anaïs Nin died in 1977, at the peak of her fame, beloved by a generation and assured of her place in history.
Fifteen years later, she was one of the most loathed women in literature. It began with a mistake in her obituary – one tiny loose string that, when pulled, unravelled Nin’s entire persona. In the New York Times, she was listed as being survived by her husband, Hugh Guiler. In the Los Angeles Times, she was listed as being survived by her husband, Rupert Pole.	Fifteen years later, she was one of the most loathed women in literature. It began with a mistake in her obituary – one tiny loose string that, when pulled, unravelled Nin’s entire persona. In the New York Times, she was listed as being survived by her husband, Hugh Guiler. In the Los Angeles Times, she was listed as being survived by her husband, Rupert Pole.
As it turned out, both accounts were correct.	As it turned out, both accounts were correct.
After her death, Nin was variously portrayed as a spoiled, upper-crust adulteress who used her husband’s money to keep dozens of lovers dependent; a liar, whose published diary is more like a very convincing novel than anything approaching autobiography; a bigamist, who married Pole while still married to Guiler and spent the last half of her life deceiving both men; a pornographer, whose only worthwhile work is the erotica she wrote for a dollar a page; a madwoman, who had a consensual affair with her own father.	After her death, Nin was variously portrayed as a spoiled, upper-crust adulteress who used her husband’s money to keep dozens of lovers dependent; a liar, whose published diary is more like a very convincing novel than anything approaching autobiography; a bigamist, who married Pole while still married to Guiler and spent the last half of her life deceiving both men; a pornographer, whose only worthwhile work is the erotica she wrote for a dollar a page; a madwoman, who had a consensual affair with her own father.
These portrayals were constructed slowly, through a long series of betrayals and bad decisions. First came the decision to publish the erotica, which Nin herself only consented to in order to provide for her husbands after her death.	These portrayals were constructed slowly, through a long series of betrayals and bad decisions. First came the decision to publish the erotica, which Nin herself only consented to in order to provide for her husbands after her death.
“She was conflicted about Delta of Venus,” Rainer remembers. “I thought it was wonderful. She didn’t really want to publish it. She thought if she published the erotica no-one would ever remember her for anything else.”	“She was conflicted about Delta of Venus,” Rainer remembers. “I thought it was wonderful. She didn’t really want to publish it. She thought if she published the erotica no-one would ever remember her for anything else.”
In this, Nin was correct. The book was her first bestseller, and became emblematic of her writing legacy.	In this, Nin was correct. The book was her first bestseller, and became emblematic of her writing legacy.
Following the success of Venus came Pole’s insistence on publishing her “unexpurgated” diaries – sex very much included. The thought that it would damage Nin’s reputation does not seem to have occurred. Henry and June, published in 1986 and detailing her affair with Miller, was well-received enough to be adapted into a popular 1990 movie of the same name. Incest, from 1992, which covers exactly what the title tells you to expect, was not. The decision to publish Incest sparked bitter enmity between Pole and Nin’s surviving brother, Joaquin Nin-Culmell. Her friends and fans were devastated.	Following the success of Venus came Pole’s insistence on publishing her “unexpurgated” diaries – sex very much included. The thought that it would damage Nin’s reputation does not seem to have occurred. Henry and June, published in 1986 and detailing her affair with Miller, was well-received enough to be adapted into a popular 1990 movie of the same name. Incest, from 1992, which covers exactly what the title tells you to expect, was not. The decision to publish Incest sparked bitter enmity between Pole and Nin’s surviving brother, Joaquin Nin-Culmell. Her friends and fans were devastated.
“It is a continual battle to restore her name to the status it once had,” says Paul Herron of Sky Blue Press. Since the death of Nin’s editor and lifelong champion Gunther Stuhlmann in 2002, Herron has taken over the task of publishing A Cafe in Space, a journal devoted to Nin scholarship. In addition to assembling definitive editions of her novels, Herron edited and published 2013’s Mirages, the fifth “unexpurgated” volume of Nin’s diary. Herron is doing this, in part, because no one else wants the job.	“It is a continual battle to restore her name to the status it once had,” says Paul Herron of Sky Blue Press. Since the death of Nin’s editor and lifelong champion Gunther Stuhlmann in 2002, Herron has taken over the task of publishing A Cafe in Space, a journal devoted to Nin scholarship. In addition to assembling definitive editions of her novels, Herron edited and published 2013’s Mirages, the fifth “unexpurgated” volume of Nin’s diary. Herron is doing this, in part, because no one else wants the job.
Still, most Nin defenders – Herron included – trace the ultimate destruction of Nin’s reputation to 1995, when award-winning biographer Deirdre Bair published her account of Nin’s life. Bair’s biography is painstakingly researched, compellingly written, and an essential resource for anyone wishing to study Nin’s life or work. It is also one of the more deadly literary hit pieces in memory.	Still, most Nin defenders – Herron included – trace the ultimate destruction of Nin’s reputation to 1995, when award-winning biographer Deirdre Bair published her account of Nin’s life. Bair’s biography is painstakingly researched, compellingly written, and an essential resource for anyone wishing to study Nin’s life or work. It is also one of the more deadly literary hit pieces in memory.
In it, Bair is continually scathing. An abortion Nin had in 1932, for example, was apparently not accompanied by enough self-recrimination: Bair describes Nin’s attitude as being one of “monstrous egotism and selfishness, horrifying in its callous indifference”. Every mistake, flaw and dirty secret of Nin’s life was laid bare at once, by an author who seemed so dedicated to humiliating her subject that she took the trouble of reproducing Nin’s typos.	In it, Bair is continually scathing. An abortion Nin had in 1932, for example, was apparently not accompanied by enough self-recrimination: Bair describes Nin’s attitude as being one of “monstrous egotism and selfishness, horrifying in its callous indifference”. Every mistake, flaw and dirty secret of Nin’s life was laid bare at once, by an author who seemed so dedicated to humiliating her subject that she took the trouble of reproducing Nin’s typos.
Critics demolished Nin in their reviews of Bair’s work. The Philadelphia Inquirer – the paper that called her a “monster” in the headline – proclaimed: “Nin lied and fornicated the way the rest of us breathe.” Claudia Roth Pierpont, in a New Yorker piece since collected in her book Passionate Minds, described Nin as “the wife of a banker, a woman known for her literary aspirations”, and “Madame Bovary sitting down with a pen and the notion: ‘Flaubert, c’est moi’”. Review after review focused on Nin solely as a sexual object: someone who’d had too much sex, and the wrong kind of sex, and should therefore be punished.	Critics demolished Nin in their reviews of Bair’s work. The Philadelphia Inquirer – the paper that called her a “monster” in the headline – proclaimed: “Nin lied and fornicated the way the rest of us breathe.” Claudia Roth Pierpont, in a New Yorker piece since collected in her book Passionate Minds, described Nin as “the wife of a banker, a woman known for her literary aspirations”, and “Madame Bovary sitting down with a pen and the notion: ‘Flaubert, c’est moi’”. Review after review focused on Nin solely as a sexual object: someone who’d had too much sex, and the wrong kind of sex, and should therefore be punished.
In 1995, there were no feminist blogs, no Twitter. There was no Girls, no Broad City, and not much in the way of making popular entertainment by fictionalizing sexual encounters. Crucially, the word “slut-shaming” simply did not exist.	In 1995, there were no feminist blogs, no Twitter. There was no Girls, no Broad City, and not much in the way of making popular entertainment by fictionalizing sexual encounters. Crucially, the word “slut-shaming” simply did not exist.
Without it, no one could concisely identify what was happening to Nin, or why: how a woman who’d spent decades on the bleeding edge of American intellectual life, a woman who had been a respected colleague of male writers who pushed the boundaries of acceptable sex writing – Miller, with Tropic of Cancer; Gore Vidal, with his groundbreaking treatment of gay men in The City and the Pillar – and were called geniuses for it, was now being publicly reduced to, essentially, a stupid slut.	Without it, no one could concisely identify what was happening to Nin, or why: how a woman who’d spent decades on the bleeding edge of American intellectual life, a woman who had been a respected colleague of male writers who pushed the boundaries of acceptable sex writing – Miller, with Tropic of Cancer; Gore Vidal, with his groundbreaking treatment of gay men in The City and the Pillar – and were called geniuses for it, was now being publicly reduced to, essentially, a stupid slut.
Meeting no resistance, the character assassination had the expected result. “The bio came out in 1995,” Herron says, “and by the following year, Harcourt dropped Nin from their list.”	Meeting no resistance, the character assassination had the expected result. “The bio came out in 1995,” Herron says, “and by the following year, Harcourt dropped Nin from their list.”
Twenty years after the great trashing of 1995, the landscape is different. The world of 2015 is, essentially, Nin’s world to claim.	Twenty years after the great trashing of 1995, the landscape is different. The world of 2015 is, essentially, Nin’s world to claim.
To blur the boundaries of life and fiction, as Nin did, has gone beyond being an acceptable tactic of experimental writers, and is now practiced by reality-television producers and popular novelists alike. Similarly, for a woman to write about her sex life hasn’t been shocking since the invention of Blogspot. Self-publication, too, has lost nearly all of its stigma, thanks to the fact that “real” writers and civilians alike are expected to do it.	To blur the boundaries of life and fiction, as Nin did, has gone beyond being an acceptable tactic of experimental writers, and is now practiced by reality-television producers and popular novelists alike. Similarly, for a woman to write about her sex life hasn’t been shocking since the invention of Blogspot. Self-publication, too, has lost nearly all of its stigma, thanks to the fact that “real” writers and civilians alike are expected to do it.
Her polarizing personality, too, would have been at home in 2015: Nin was once called a “narcissist” for gadding about in eye-catching thrift-shop costumes and dramatic makeup. Nowadays, that’s the day-to-day work of celebrities. The close personal connection Nin sought with her fans – toward the end of her life, she abandoned writing so that she could answer every one of her thousands of fan letters – is now the entire purpose of social media.	Her polarizing personality, too, would have been at home in 2015: Nin was once called a “narcissist” for gadding about in eye-catching thrift-shop costumes and dramatic makeup. Nowadays, that’s the day-to-day work of celebrities. The close personal connection Nin sought with her fans – toward the end of her life, she abandoned writing so that she could answer every one of her thousands of fan letters – is now the entire purpose of social media.
“She would have loved the Internet!” Rainer exclaims when I bring this up. “She would have been a star of the Internet … She would have rejoiced in the human connections it made possible.”	“She would have loved the Internet!” Rainer exclaims when I bring this up. “She would have been a star of the Internet … She would have rejoiced in the human connections it made possible.”