Review: Memory


He had been on the very edge of losing his identity completely, of falling into the hole between the tick and the tock, of falling out of space and out of time and down into gray mindless emptiness, and not even knowing that anything had happened to him.

“That’s what a zombie is,” he told himself.   “That’s what a zombie is.”

My reviews, you may have noticed, are not reviews in the sense of “Hey, this book just came out, and here’s what I think of it, so you can decide whether to read it or not.”  I assume my readers are primarily dedicated Westlake readers as well.   Westlake’s books have all been heavily reviewed in the other sense of the word, so I’m gearing this blog towards people who have read the books, and are simply interested in reading a more detailed analysis, and seeing how their own reactions match up to mine.

Point is, I don’t want to have to run a disclaimer at the top of every single review saying “Be warned, spoilers below.”   And I want to discuss what happens in the books in a fair amount of detail (not every last detail), because it’s the story and the character development that interest me most–the stylistic aspects much less.   It’s what’s underneath that counts, much more than the surface gloss–the package, not the wrapping.    Well, of course the ability to use language well and express yourself in an original way matters greatly to a writer, but without a story worth telling, what’s the point?    Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And what I’m building up to here is that I’m about to review a book, and give away the ending (and much of what comes before), and if you haven’t read the book first, it’s going to affect your experience of it when you do.  Much more than the usual Westlake mystery/thriller/comic caper/etc.   Because this is a novel that doesn’t follow any formula, any genre, any established form I can think of.   It’s a rather unique piece of work for Westlake–so much so that it wasn’t published until after he had died, though it certainly could have seen print before then if he’d wanted it to.   Unique enough to be worth approaching with a mind relatively free of preconceptions and expectations.   You’ll get a lot more out of it if you don’t know where it’s going.

So as long as we’re clear about that.   You have been warned.   And one more warning–reading this book hurts.   Writing it must have hurt a lot more.

Memory was written sometime in 1963, perhaps the most fateful year in Westlake’s career.   Yes, more than 1960, when his contract with Random House began with The Mercenaries, more than 1962, when 361 and The Hunter established him as a noir fiction writer of the first rank–and the latter of the two provided him with his most important series character.   Because before 1963, Westlake’s career could still have gone in a lot of different ways.   He hadn’t completely decided yet what kind of writer he was going to be, and the proof of that is the book manuscript that was found among his papers after he died, that he had only shown to a handful of people, and which could quite easily have been lost forever.

Westlake had a lot of decisions to make in 1963–he had to decide whether to cut the umbilical cord between himself and the profitable but time-wasting and soul-killing erotic potboilers he’d been cranking out to make ends meet, the last of which came out that year–though for all I know they’d been written before then, and were just coming out in ’63.   He still had to decide once and for all not to write any more of them, which given his domestic situation, was a big decision.

He had already ended his long flirtation with science fiction the year before (or so he thought–that corpse went on twitching a long time), and was focusing more and more on the crime genre, and realizing more and more that he’d rather write from the perspective of the criminal than the cop.

But he had one other option open to him–he could be a ‘serious’ (ie, non-genre) writer.   He once compared two writers most people wouldn’t have connected–Dashiell Hammett and Vladimir Nabokov–the plot-driven scribbler of hard-boiled detective fiction for the pulps (based heavily on his own experiences as  a detective) who burned out after a short but seminal careerand the lauded yet controversial literary aesthete who was frequently accused of being all about style, and is mainly remembered for one book, featuring an unreliable narrator suffering from severe mental health issues.

Perhaps alone among his peers, Westlake saw parallels between the two men, particularly in the way they approached character development.   But they had obviously taken radically different directions, each of which had its advantages and drawbacks.   It’s easier to write for an established market (perhaps harder than most for Hammett, since he did more than anyone to establish that market), but you tend to be remembered longer if you break with formula and write something more sui generis–assuming you’re really good.   Only a handful of writers in a generation are that good (if any), and you need a great deal of luck, as well as talent–plus you may lead a fairly penurious existence if you’re discovered late in life–or posthumously.  Being discovered after you’re dead is probably not something any writer aspires to.   Yes, let’s have a brief moment of silence for John Kennedy Toole.

The “writer’s writer” is one term we hear–but those are mainly read by other writers.  Nabokov managed to become a best-selling and famous author, as well as a critically and professionally admired one, by profoundly shocking the public consciousness.   A neat trick, rarely pulled off.   Then again, Hammett more or less single-handedly created a new genre, and had an almost incalculable impact on popular culture.   He’s remembered for many stories, many characters.  And he’s loved by his readers, to this very day, in a way Nabokov probably never will be.    Nonetheless, the higher position in the echelon belongs to Nabokov, now and forever.   That’s just the way it works.   Genre gets less respect.   And there are some good reasons for that, as well as a lot of bad ones.

So Westlake had mainly taken the route of Hammett up to this point, writing for popular magazines, publishing novels and short stories dealing in sex and violence (though when you get right down to it, doesn’t Lolita deal in the same commodities?), but he still had to wonder–was it too late to turn the other way, chart a different course?   Or somehow combine the two?     Was there a via media?     Could I get any more ostentatiously pseudo-intellectual here?   Let’s find out.

To a great extent, Memory follows a pattern Westlake had already established in three of his four previous novels written for Random House’s mystery division.   It features a young male protagonist, raised in upstate New York, who had spent a few aimless years in the military during peacetime, and is now trying to find his place in the world.   These protagonists are all somewhat drawn from Westlake’s own life and experiences, as well as people he had met along the way, we may safely assume.

But there’s something else going on here–this protagonist is a professional actor.   Westlake had spent a short time working as an actor himself, though his description of himself as a ‘spear-carrier’ indicates he was never leading man material (which a look at the few surviving photos of him from this period would have told you just as well).   Some of those early erotic novels he wrote in the 50’s are set in that theatrical world, featuring randy young male thespians making their way through a sea of willing female flesh, and I really do need to read a few of those sometime, but copies of those books are not cheap.   This is the first ‘legitimate’ book he wrote featuring an actor as the protagonist.   The first of many.

Paul Cole is that rising young star, and the novel begins much the way we’d assume some of those steamy backstage novels did, with him having a purely sexual encounter with another man’s wife, in some dreary little town somewhere in the Midwest, where his touring company has been performing.   The cuckolded husband bursts in, and Paul can’t help but see this as a terrible dramatic cliche, but the guy is not acting here.   He picks up a chair and skulls Paul with it.   This is in the second paragraph of the first chapter–the third paragraph is Paul waking up in the hospital, and having no idea how he got there (yes, it’s quite reminiscent of what happens to Ray Kelly in 361).

Though he doesn’t find this out until close to the end of the novel, Paul has a concussion, which is not properly diagnosed and treated, because he’s got no money, and the cops want him out of town ASAP, and the doctor is a smalltown money-grubbing hack–or something that rhymes with hack.   There are large and growing gaps in Paul’s memory of life before the chair made contact with his head.   He is also having a hard time remembering things happening to him after the attack.   Meaning he has both retrograde and anterograde amnesia, but it’s of the progressive variety–it isn’t clear at first just how serious and quite possibly permanent the condition is.

He seems to be making memories, but is not able to directly access them for very long afterwards (and a memory you can’t access is no memory at all).  Exactly what caused the problem is never explained, but if it was, Paul wouldn’t remember the explanation for very long after he heard it.   Some memories hold on longer than others, but without constant reminders, via written notes and other devices, they will all eventually sink down into some Marianus Trench of the mind, where not even drugs or hypnotherapy will ever reach them again.

Hounded by one police detective in particular (who envies Paul’s amatory success, though he pretends it’s because he’s disgusted by it), Paul is pressured to get the next bus out of town, and having little money left after paying his hospital bills, he can’t get all the way back to New York City.   He is not thinking clearly at all–his lack of memory leads inevitably to a lack of good judgement, or he’d know he should be seeing a lawyer, as well as another doctor.   He simply buys a ticket for the town furthest away from this frightening policeman that he can afford to pay for–and that town is Jeffords, a small and smelly burg whose only real source of employment is the local tannery (hence the smell).

He fumbles his way around there, living in cheap hotels, burning through the few bucks he has left, unable to get in touch with anyone he knows (because he doesn’t know who he knows), and ends up working at the tannery–which is a union shop–clearly Westlake is drawing on his research for Killy here–or his own memories of working life after the military?   Probably both.

He just wants to make enough money to get back to his apartment in Greenwich Village–he has enough personal data in his wallet to know that’s where he lives.   He figures once he gets there, it will all come back to him.   But he has to borrow from a small time loan shark at the tannery, so that delays him a number of weeks.   He doesn’t trust anyone there enough to tell them what’s going on, but he doesn’t mind the work, and he makes some friends, including a colorful fellow named Black Jack Flynn (and his smaller more volatile friend, Little Jack Flynn), who he hangs out with sometimes at the local bar–Cole’s Tavern.   The coincidence is much remarked upon.

He finds a surrogate family with the people he’s renting a room from–and a girlfriend named Edna, a shy plain thin girl with little in the way of education or self-esteem, who thinks Paul might be The One–he comes very close to seducing her, but she’s not ready to go that far, and he feels enough of a sense of guilt to not want to pressure her–but he likes her, more than he is able to admit.   His feelings for her are not purely sexual, as they were for the woman he got his head bashed in for.  Perhaps he’s never had a relationship like this before.   Perhaps the only thing he’s ever been in love with is himself.   But he has no way of comparing what he has with Edna to what came before.   He’s going on sheer instinct, and instinct isn’t enough.

He keeps forgetting this isn’t really his home, his family, his girl, his life–and then he remembers, and feels a sense of horror that everything he was could be lost forever.   That he might have to accept this life of pleasant humdrum mediocrity.   He doesn’t really know who he was before, but he knows it was more than this.    He knows there must be more than this.   He watches soap operas with Mrs. Malloy, his landlady, and wonders if he was on some of them–and we later learn that he was, but she never recognizes him.   He’s just a nice young man who is taking the place of her son in the army.   The charisma he could once project on the stage or screen is gone.   Another trait of memory.

The man of the house, Mr. Malloy, works at the same tannery, is a devoted union man, and something of an amateur philosopher–when he learns Paul is going to leave (the locals assume he took advantage of Edna and is now making his escape), he takes him aside for a few words of advice–not knowing that Paul will be unable to remember them, or how sadly ironic they are–

“Every once in a while in a man’s life he comes to a crossroads, you might say, a place where he’s got to make a decision about his whole future life.   But like the fella says, all roads lead to Rome.  The scenery might be a bit different on each road, but after a while they all come back together again.  And then one day you say to yourself, it didn’t matter a damn bit of difference which way I picked back there.  You’ll look back at the different girls you went with back when you were young, and you’ll say to yourself , it didn’t matter a particle which one of them I married.”

“All decisions aren’t like that,” said Cole.

“No, they don’t look it,” Malloy told him, “not up close.   Like what you’re deciding now.   Whether you’re going to live in this town here or in New York City.  It looks like a hell of a difference in that one, don’t it?  But what is this town but a bunch of jobs and a bunch of neighborhoods and a bunch of people?  And what is New York City but a bigger bunch of jobs and a lot more neighborhoods and a great big bunch of people?  So twenty-five years from now you’ll take the subway to work instead of walking or driving, but how much difference is that?  Maybe you’ll live in an apartment house instead of a house like this, but on the inside it’s all the same.  And a job is a way to make money to pay the bills, so what difference does it make what the job is or where it is?  Twenty-five years from now you’ll live in a neighborhood and you’ll go to a job and your kids’ll be growing up, and that’s just the way of it.  The place you live might be here or New York City or San Francisco, but who you are and what you are and what you’ve got to look back on will be all the same thing”

Cole shook his head.  “I don’t think so”, he said.

Malloy is talking sense, up to a point, but he doesn’t know who he’s talking to.   He’s talking to two people–the Paul Cole that used to be, and the Paul Cole that is, who half-remembers what he used to be, and figures he has to try and get back to that.   Not all jobs are just to make money, but not all people are going to get that kind of job.  Not enough jobs like that to go around.  A  union man, a factory worker, believing in equality to his very core, isn’t going to get that there are other things that can drive a man’s ambitions besides money and family.

Still, what he’s saying is good advice, and contains genuine wisdom–for the person Paul Cole has become.   Except there’s no way this Paul Cole is ever going to be able to look back at his choices twenty-five years from that moment–or even twenty-five days.   And there’s no way the Paul Cole he’s talking to can be made to truly understand what he’s saying, because he has no memory of his past life by which he can assess the very limited choices open to him now.   Paul gets on the bus, and leaves Jeffords.   And although Malloy says he’s welcome to come back anytime if he regrets his choice, it never occurs to Paul to write down the information that would lead him back there.   In just a few weeks, Jeffords has become his home, but just like the Paul who left Troy NY to become an actor, he heads off for the big city–to become what he was before.   Or so he thinks.

Paul manages to find his Greenwich Village apartment, and miraculously he still has his keys  (though not his wallet), and after throwing out the slob he sublet it to,  he tries to settle back into his old life.   His tax forms remind him he’s an actor.   He’s got an address book full of phone numbers, including that of his agent.   He’s got books and records, but they don’t appeal to him at all, as hard as he tries to enjoy them the way he knows he must have done in the past.   Much of what we think of as our natural tastes are actually acquired tastes–Paul doesn’t even like the serious movies he used to go for, Italian Neo-realism and such–he’d rather go see a musical–which doesn’t require him to know anything.

This is not how amnesia is usually portrayed in fiction–usually the amnesiac is shown to have the same basic tastes and behaviors overall, but he doesn’t remember how he got them.   Here, Paul knows how he got them–he knows who he used to be–but he can’t be that person now, hard as he tries.   Personality IS memory.   They are, to a very great extent, the same thing.   Without the memory of past experiences, you simply can’t be the same person anymore.   Paul is a blank slate, that keeps getting wiped clean, over and over.   But he thinks that if he keeps forcing himself into the old mold, his memories will come back, and he’ll be who he was.

He goes to see a priest, somebody he can trust with his secret, and the priest is mainly tickled by what a strange theological conundrum Paul is–doesn’t know what religion he belongs to, if any–does he need to be baptized or confirmed all over again?   Can he confess to sins he doesn’t remember committing?   The old man is still geeking out over it as Paul leaves in confusion.  Paul should have probably gone to the Catholic Worker house on 3rd Street, but how’s he supposed to know that?

He meets his friends from the acting world, the artsy Village scene (which going by Westlake’s description, has not changed all that much in the last half-century or so, though the rents sure have), and they find out what’s happened to him–and at first they’re sympathetic, and try to include him in their activities.  But as it becomes clear that he really doesn’t remember them, except for the odd few fleeting impressions, they begin to cool towards him.  Then they just start to actively shun him.

It’s not that they’re bad people–really not so different from the people back in Jeffords, as Malloy said (which would probably horrify them to know, as much as it would many of the people in Jeffords).   But without his memory, Paul has nothing to contribute to their world anymore.   They resent him for reminding them how fragile life is, how easily everything can be taken away from you.   It’s one thing to see it in some Italian Neo-realist movie about a stolen bicycle, and another to see it happen to someone you know–someone who had talent, a future, cocky self-assurance, sex appeal.   And now he’s got none of that.   So what good is he?

Paul meets Rita, his New York girlfriend, and she’s a stunning black-haired bohemian bombshell, the kind of girl most men fantasize about–and they can’t connect.   Paul desires her, but he has no particular feeling for her, and she finds him upsetting, disturbing.   Even when he’s with her, he can’t stop thinking about Edna, and he can’t understand why.   It sounds very much like if the amnesia hadn’t happened, this relationship wasn’t going to last anyway.   Neither of them expected it to.   They were just marking time–though probably Rita had more feeling for Paul than Paul had for her–it was an affair, not a romance.

Paul, we realize more and more, had been living a restless self-centered existence–a pretty common though not universal way of life for actors, who can’t usually afford to get too rooted in one place, and who must constantly cultivate new relationships, take on new personas.  So he never formed the kind of relationships that would hold up under the strain of his current condition.   If one of his friends, or Rita herself, had developed the condition he has, he’d have dropped him or her like a rock just as quickly.   No hard feelings.  He just isn’t in the club anymore.  He can’t pay the membership dues–or his his actors union dues.

He goes to see his old acting coach, a strange mixture of perception and self-delusion, who tells him you either are an actor or you’re not–and Paul had been a born actor, one of the few–but now he isn’t anymore–something’s gone.   So Paul had chosen the right road for him–but then he got forced off it.   His teacher seems mainly depressed that Paul won’t be thanking him on television, while holding a statuette.

The most solid relationship he had was a business one, with his agent Helen.   She gets Paul to a doctor, has him over for dinner, fusses over him, but her motives are strictly selfish–she wants to protect her investment in somebody she’d pegged as a future star, and she figures in his current vulnerable state, she can finally get Paul into bed.   She figures wrong, both ways, and when Paul badly screws up a small TV job she gets for him, she drops him as a client.   She’s done her best, such as it is, but her doctor’s evaluation is grim–Paul could get his memory back, but he probably won’t.

He gives Paul ‘truth serum’, and asks a number of leading questions, but even with his unconscious mind laid open, Paul can remember very little of his past–he thinks he can remember something of a parent’s funeral, but he’s not sure which parent it was.   That’s how bad it is.  The only things that are still vivid for him are Edna and the Malloys.   His new family, in Jeffords.   The family he ran away from.   The doctor gently suggests he might be better off there with them, and he can’t accept it.

Because Paul refuses to accept his old life is gone, part of us refuses to accept it as well.   He is well aware his situation is desperate, but he hopes against all reason that he can find a way back–and we’ve been hoping along with him, because after all, don’t we all wish for a more exciting varied exceptional life? So it’s genuinely shocking when we realize, along with Paul, that he made the wrong choice.   That he should never have left Jeffords.  That the reason Edna hasn’t disappeared from his memory is because some part of him won’t allow her to.

He was thinking the thoughts now that had been trembling on the brink of consciousness for weeks, that he had been all unwittingly forcing down out of sight–because he’d been so mistaken about who and what and why he was–and which had finally become so strong that they had to force their way to the surface.

He needs to get back there, to the place where the new Paul Cole belongs.   But he doesn’t remember how.  He doesn’t even remember the name of the town–he gets the name of the last town he worked in as an actor from an annoyed and distant Helen, and buys a bus ticket there, thinking that must be where the tannery is, the town Edna and the Malloys and Black Jack Flynn live in–when in fact it’s the town he was run out of by the cops, just a few months earlier; the town where Paul Cole the actor was murdered by a jealous husband, and his corpse bought a ticket for Jeffords, where he was born again.

The bus station clerk remembers him–but doesn’t remember what town he bought a ticket for.   He gambles hopelessly, buying a ticket to a town that has a tannery in it–it’s the wrong town.   If he had his memory, he’d know he could go to a library, and research which towns within a certain radius have tanneries, and he could go to each of them–but then he’d remember where the town was.   Actually, if he had his memory back, would he even want to go back there?   Catch-22.

So within perhaps a hundred miles or less of his goal, he gives up.   He throws away the last few clues to his past existence.  He’s already accepted Paul Cole the actor is dead–now he accepts the Paul Cole who was born in Jeffords, had friends he met in a tavern with the same name as him, and loved a plain girl named Edna, is gone too, or will be soon.   He’ll just stay in this town, work in the plastics plant (since the tannery isn’t hiring), forget everything that happened to him before, everything he was before, and make a new self out of his experiences in this new town, “the way barnacles gradually build up on a keel.”   He’s accepted that his identity now is to have no fixed identity, no real home.  “I wouldn’t have been happy there anyway”, he thinks.   But he’s been wrong so many times before, we just don’t know whether to believe him or not.

Yeah.   It’s pretty dark.   Normally, when I’ve finished synopsizing a book here, I start to explain why this is a story about identity, but that’s hardly necessary in this case, is it?   It’s the most terrifying identity puzzle Westlake ever crafted, and it keeps you guessing all the way, but from very early on it’s plain as day that’s what this story is about (he’s not usually this obvious about it).   It’s not a crime novel, even though there’s a crime in it (two, if you count adultery).   It’s not a mystery, per se, though there is a mystery in it–or rather, a MacGuffin.   Back in Jeffords, Paul was pulled in by the local police, who are suspicious of this stranger–they’re just as vicious and caustic as the cops in Killy (I have to ask–what happened to Westlake to make him fear policemen as much as he clearly did–what memory did that spring from?).

Paul can’t tell them much of anything about himself, naturally, and they assume he’s holding out on them, so they bring in a shiny flat square piece of metal, and ask him to hold it, and tell them if he recognizes it.   All he sees is his own distorted reflection.  That’s the other thing he remembers most vividly, along with Edna.  He has nightmares about it.   He sees it everywhere, that piece of metal, with his face on it.  But in that last town he winds up in, he asks a policeman what it could have been, and turns out it was just a trick to get his fingerprints, so they could find out if he had a record without scaring him away.  They wanted to find out who he was.   He thinks that’s pretty funny, when he finds out.   But he’s not laughing.

So here’s the real mystery–why didn’t Westlake ever publish it?   Obviously it wasn’t a great fit for Random House’s mystery division–where Westlake was publishing his more serious hardcover stuff.   It was hardly going to work for Pocket, where he was publishing his Parker novels.   It isn’t a crime novel, and it isn’t science fiction either–though it shares some points in common with Richard Matheson’s The Shrinking Man, that was made into a powerful film back in the 50’s.   In both books, the protagonist gradually fades away to nothing, but instead of ending with a defiant affirmation of existence as in Matheson’s book and screenplay, Memory closes with a dull moan of resignation.   Identity is a construct that can be broken like an egg by some cliche brandishing a chair.   All that’s left afterwards is the habit of living–though there is a certain courage, all the same, in the way Paul decides to go on living, no matter what.

Donald Westlake published over a hundred novels of many types in his life–and a few that are damned hard to type.   I have to believe if he’d really wanted to, he could have gotten this book into print.  He could always have published it under a pseudonym, as he did so many others–though somehow, this is a Westlake.   And once he became an established name, a beloved figure, with a devoted fanbase–then it would have been dead easy to find a buyer.   Once the manuscript was discovered, it took almost no time at all for it to find a home at Hard Case Crime, which was more than happy to make an exception to its normal fare for one of the supreme masters of noir–and honestly, if this isn’t noir, what IS noir?   Seriously, I’ve never been quite sure what the hell noir is.   But if Memento is noir, surely this is too.   Just a lot less romanticized–in fact, almost entirely de-romanticized.   The part of Westlake that was Richard Stark must have hated it.

So given that Westlake clearly didn’t want it published, why didn’t he want that?  And if he didn’t want it published, why did he keep the manuscript?   It would have been so easy for this Memory to be lost, forever.

As I said up above, Westlake had reached a point in his career where he had to start making some pretty critical choices of his own.   To decide who and what and why he was as a writer.  Memory, I think, was written as a way for him to decide if he could be another kind of writer–more along the lines of Nabokov, but still with a very large dose of Hammett–the thing he admired most in both men was their ability to tell you what’s going on in a character’s mind without coming out and saying it.

But in Memory, as we’ve seen, he was forced to come out and say, in third person omniscient narrator form, exactly what’s going on in Paul’s mind.   He couldn’t very well write it as a first person narrative, given Paul’s condition, even though the entire book is from Paul’s POV.   Paul would be an unreliable narrator, like Humbert Humbert, if he could be the narrator, but he can’t.   So that’s part of it, possibly–Westlake felt unsatisfied with the results.  He had failed to hit the goal he’d aimed for.   But he’d published other books he felt the same way about (Killing Time was one)–so there must be more to it than that.

It has occurred to me that maybe he’d put too much of himself into it–maybe there were some painful memories of his own youth in there, and some people he’d known and cared about, and he didn’t feel right about putting them out there in such a relatively undisguised form–much easier to cloak them in the raiments of the crime genre, so even if a few of them happened to see Westlake’s name on the cover and read the book, they’d no more recognize themselves than Mrs. Malloy recognizes Paul as a former actor on her favorite soap.

It’s worth noting that Paul’s middle name is Edwin, same as Westlake’s–and although before his misfortune, he had the acting talent, the looks (and the consequent success with women) that Westlake himself had only fantasized about.   Still, in choosing a creative path, rejecting the pull of the ordinary life, saying over and over in his work that life choices do matter a great deal (as the fatherly Mr. Malloy insisted they didn’t), Paul does seem to be Westlake’s contemplation of a life without talent–because after all, nobody could be a writer without memory either.

So is this book somewhat autobiographical at points, as Killy might have been?   Perhaps.  But again, there are other novels, like Killy, that he did publish that seem to be a bit more personal as well.   Could be there was a real Edna out there somewhere–or that her name refers to Westlake’s middle name as well.   Certainly a lot of Westlake’s friends (and enemies, and frenemies) from the Greenwich Village scene must be  in the book.   But again, not enough to explain him never publishing it, even towards the end of his life.

Here’s my idea, for what little it’s worth–I think he was ashamed of the way he’d treated Paul Cole–that’s why he didn’t publish the book, and that’s why he couldn’t destroy the manuscript either.   Okay, why would that be?   Hadn’t he basically killed off two protagonists already?   Aren’t his books one long succession of horrible things happening to people?  Yeah, but maybe they were not so real to him–in the crime genre, you have to expect a few casualties.  In ‘serious’ books too, of course, but you feel it more there.   In many ways, we read crime books to be less afraid of death and make the various hazards leading to it seem less frightening, more exciting.   There’s nothing glamorous about Paul Edwin Cole’s slow sad mental demise.

And here’s the thing–he’d given all his other protagonists, successful or otherwise, an out.  If they failed, they failed because they made the wrong choices–but they could have possibly made the right ones.   Because they had their memories to guide them.   If they failed to figure out who and what and why they were in time, that was on them–he listened to them, and let them speak through his fingers into the typewriter, and sometimes they chose wrong (though it must be said, most of his heroes eventually chose right).

But he’d deliberately taken away Paul’s ability to make the right choice.   He’d blinded him like Oedipus, left him to moan helplessly in the dark, because–well, because he wanted to see what that would be like.  He wanted to gaze into the abyss, and see the abyss gaze back at him, and say “I’m not afraid of you.”  But I think he was.   The book smells of fear.   That may be another reason he didn’t like it.

But in writing it, then putting it aside, he’d come to a decision.    He would be a writer who gave his protagonists a chance.   He’d tried this strange melding of elements–Dashiell Hammett meets Vladimir Nabokov meets Oliver Sacks meets Franz Kafka meets Jean Giraudoux–and it wasn’t who he wanted to be.  He wanted to write about people who had a chance–who could make the right choices if they chose to, overcome the odds, find out who they were (or in Parker’s case, just know it).   Maybe they wouldn’t all make it.   But it wouldn’t be because he hadn’t given them a fair shot.

He wasn’t going to write about the Humbert Humberts of the world, doomed before they start by self-delusion and inner weakness.  He was going to write about people who take their destinies in their hands, and meet the world on its own terms, and (more often than not) triumph, or at least survive.   That’s who and what and why he was as a writer.

But he didn’t abandon Paul entirely.   He left him there, in a drawer, waiting–for a time when we could look back and see the road not taken.   And Paul Cole could remind us more vividly than George Santayana ever did that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.   Only not the good parts.

Still, Paul’s condition does come with one positive trait–robbed of memory, he’s also robbed of preconceptions, and in many ways he sees people more clearly than he ever did before.  “–in every contact he made with others of his species there was always a wall of either indifference or self-concentration that couldn’t be surmounted.”   Yes, he learns a lot about us.  He just can’t remember it long enough to be of any use.

But as 1963, that most fateful year of all in Westlake’s career unfolded, he would publish not one, not two, not three, but four novels about a protagonist whose perceptions are just as unclouded–but whose memory is quite functional.   In fact, he doesn’t forget much of anything.  Unfortunately for some people.   And if he saw his face reflected in a piece of metal, he wouldn’t care what it looked like.   It’s what’s underneath that counts.




Filed under Uncategorized

17 responses to “Review: Memory

  1. When you’re starting to read this book with the knowledge of the previous Wetslake’s works, you can clearly see how he borrowed some parts from his books and planted them in his other books. Unions and small towns and factories are from Killy, hospital and violent accident are from 361, returning to NYC is from The Hunter, acting scene is from Pity Him Afterwards, police interrogation is also from Killy. Westlake wrote a lot, in different styles, but some elements were in all of his books.
    I see your point in Westlake trying Nabokov, but I don’t see the influence. I read only that Nabokov’s stories and novels which are of his Russian period. I can say for sure that Nabokov was a better stylist. Westlake tries hard here, and he’s not always successful in his trying. Some parts are clumsy, and the novel could have been shorter. In the middle it becomes a drag. Westlake tried his hand at the third person, and in the next novel he used the same third person, to a limited success again. (Though Memory is a better novel than PHA.)
    I haven’t read Westlake’s other non-genre books, and I can’t compare, but I might say this is his best work outside genre (oh, how I don’t like divide literature on genre and non-genre). Despite being non-genre work, the novel is sure pure noir with a fair amount of twists. I guessed that in the finale Westlake either let Paul kill himself or take him back to Jeffords. I guessed wrong.
    I liked very much your theory on why Westlake didn’t publish this novel in his lifetime. In his first five books he killed his three protagonists (if count Clay). And all of them really had a choice (psycho from PHA to a lesser degree). But Paul hadn’t. He already died when he lost his memory, he couldn’t die twice.
    Very powerful novel indeed. How would Boucher like it?

  2. I think the general consensus is that Nabokov was one of the best stylists ever, if not the very best–Westlake certainly thought so. I don’t think he’s trying to emulate the style here. He’s trying to see if he can do what Nabokov did, in his own less graceful but more direct fashion. And if he’d been happy with the results, he’d have published the book. I’m stretching a lot with this comparison, I know–but clearly this was an experiment to see how far outside established genre he could go and still remain himself, and it makes sense that he’d look to his greatest non-genre influence when doing that. It’s how the book ends, most of all, that reminds me of Lolita. That note of dignified despair. The protagonist has failed, but he has failed on his own terms. His obsession with obtaining something beyond his reach has destroyed him, but he’s accepted that.

    Also–please note–Lolita ends with a jealous lover killing a man who is, if nothing else, an actor. Published in America around five years before Westlake wrote Memory–it must certainly have been in his mind a lot during this period.

    Suppose he’d published Memory under a pseudonym, and gotten rid of a few of the more recognizable Westlake trademarks. How long would it have taken for people to guess it was him, I wonder? As we both remarked, what happens to the protagonist is completely unique among his work. I also just could not believe it was ending that way. But the ending didn’t feel forced at all. That’s how it came out, and he didn’t like it, but he couldn’t do anything about it. A suicide or a reunion with Edna are both hinted at throughout the book, and either would have made the manuscript a lot more saleable. He had to let the book be what it was. But he didn’t want to see it printed in that form. He could be quite perverse that way.

    The reborn Paul Cole wants to be an actor, but he can’t. Westlake might have dreamed of being an American-born Nabokov, but he can’t be that, anymore than he could be the famous actor he must have sometimes fantasized about being. You can only be what you are. You have to find a way to be okay with that. To make it work for you.

    Much as I rebel against your statement that the book drags in the middle, I must acknowledge that my review certainly does. This is one of his longest novels–with rare exceptions, he did his best work at a shorter length. It’s the longest article I’ve done to date for this blog, and I sincerely hope it remains so.

  3. Oh sorry. I didn’t respond to your query about Boucher.

    It’s been so long since I read anything by him (over 30 years, I think), I must confess I haven’t the foggiest notion what he’d have thought of this. My memory just isn’t that good. 😉

  4. If we carefully read the novel written in the third person that close to the first, we may find some slips, when Westlake remarks something that the protagonist couldn’t know. I guess Nabokov wouldn’t let that happen.
    Beside the question why DEW didn’t publish Memory, there is a question why HCC published it. Yes, Ardai liked Westlake and was a friend. But this novel is a long way from usual HCC path. I think 80% readers that are fans of HCC line after finishing Memory said: WTF? Look at Amazon ratings and reviews. Lots of ones and twos. It’s not a pulp or even pulp-ish novel. It could’ve been publish by FSG, for god’s sake.
    Yesterday I browsed through stacks of books on my bureau and found a copy of Memory. A second copy that I own. I think I forgot that I owned one and then ordered another. My memory just isn’t that good as well.

  5. Westlake makes the odd few mistakes in his books–I remember once he mentioned how the Navajo rug-weavers are capable of weaving a perfect pattern, but always deliberately make an error, so as not to anger the gods with their presumption. And I always wonder if the mistakes I do find in his books were made (in some cases) for the same reason. Because if I can spot them, they’re pretty damn obvious. I don’t remember any from Memory, though. If there are any, they’re pretty well-hidden.

    Memory is written entirely in the third person, with a seemingly omniscient narrator, and yet the narrator never takes his gaze off Paul–we never see events from anyone else’s perspective–a rather long book to be written entirely from one POV. I would assume Westlake toyed with trying to find some way to do it in the first person, but of course the problems are insuperable. Paul does keep a diary for a short time, at the doctor’s suggestion–but if he had kept one from the beginning, things would have turned out very differently. Flowers For Algernon had been a big hit in 1958 (same year Lolita was published here), but the protagonist there has a different sort of memory problem.

    Amazon is good for a lot of things, but when it comes to books and movies, I pretty much ignore their ratings–still, good point. Hard Case definitely took a gamble with this one, but who’s going to pass up the last unpublished Westlake novel? Or so it was thought to be at the time.

  6. Amazon is good when you need to see how a “casual” reader receives a book. It’s a more sociological and marketing matter, rather than a mechanism advising what to read. I sometimes use it for work, when recommending this ot that book for translation.
    I doubt HCC made money off Memory. They probably made more off Comedy is Finished. It even had HC edition. Westlake under his own name wan’t published in paperback. I might be mistaken. Paperbacks were for Stark (and Edwin West and Alan Marshall).

  7. I think that’s correct, though of course nearly all of Westlake’s hardcovers were reprinted as paperbacks at some point. HCC reprinted Somebody Owes Me Money in paperback, because it just seemed like a paperback kind of book. I’d rather have that edition than the original, actually–and do. When I get around to reviewing that one, I’ll probably try to feature both of those covers.

    How much money does HCC ever make off any of their books? I honestly don’t know–I do know that no publisher figures every book’s going to be a top-seller. I have to figure Memory was far from the worst-selling book they ever released, simply because there were so many Westlake collectors out there who had to have it, whether they liked it or not. I mean, you actually have two copies–you just automatically bought it, then put off reading it–but from a publisher’s POV, it’s the buying part that matters most. For a major publisher, the sales would probably be pretty small, but by HCC’s standards, simply having so many people who would normally not be buying their books getting this one out of curiosity was worth the investment. Also, because of Westlake’s reputation, they got a lot of reviews in places they wouldn’t normally get reviewed. No such thing as bad publicity. Particularly when the reviews were good, and honestly–who was going to pan this? Leaving aside the fact that it’s a very good book indeed, it’s from a beloved author who just died.

    It seems to have a higher Amazon ranking (among HCC editions) than The Comedy is Finished or Lemons Never Lie. About the same as 361–and the best rated Westlakes released by HCC are The Cutie and Somebody Owes Me Money–both good books, but hardly in the same league as 361 and Lemons.

    However, they happen to be the ones that feature hot noir chicks on the cover art. Even though in the case of The Cutie, the hot noir chick isn’t remotely IN the book. 361 and Lemons both have excellent cover art, that doesn’t play to sex (though the latter of the two books has a sex scene, albeit between Grofield and his wife–this being the one and only Grofield novel–and one of only three appearances overall, I believe–where he doesn’t cheat on Mary). The Comedy is Finished has a naked woman on it, but she’s kind of scary, and the man is tied to a chair. That’s a very specific type of male readership you’re appealing to there. 😉

    And what’s on the cover of Memory? Over in the corner, a hot blonde wearing a sheet, while a half-naked muscular guy cowers before a big man brandishing a chair. This doesn’t PROVE anything, but it’s certainly–suggestive. It is not, of course, a very accurate depiction of a scene that takes up exactly two short paragraphs of the first chapter. HCC know who they’re selling to. Maybe some of the disgruntled reviews you read are really about false advertising. Aside from the very first paragraph, the only sex scene in Memory is Paul getting to second base with a girl who isn’t the least bit hot.

    I think that, right there, is where most of the bad Amazon reviews come from–make Edna hotter, and let Paul score with her and Rita in the book, and it wouldn’t hurt if his agent was some lithe 40-ish cougar who he sleeps with as well. Hey, I’d read that book. But Westlake had already written that book–possibly over a hundred times, according to some sources–he didn’t feel like writing it again. That was part of the choice he was making in 1963.

    Point is, the crime paperback audience IS often heavily male, and seeking their daily dose of sex and violence–that’s why the Quarry books published by Hard Case get higher rankings than any of the HCC editions of Westlake books. Lots of sex, lots of violence. Over at The Rap Sheet recently, Max Allan Collins had to defend his putting a large dose of fairly explicit sex into the Quarry books. Personally, it’s not something I’d ever complain over. I’ll take procreation over extirpation any day. But it has nothing to do with how well written the books are–I look forward to reading some of the Quarrys, but are any of them as good as 361 or Lemons Never Lie? Mr. Collins simply understands his audience.

    Mr. Westlake did too, and Lord only knows he served his time in the fleshpots of literature, but I think the further he went, the more he wanted to help his audience better understand themselves. Whether they liked it or not. But with Memory, he must have felt he’d gone a bit too far down that road. He would try to find the balance between a good read and a good book. Not the same thing at all. As I think we both know.

  8. You made reference to the Phil Crawford books in your review, but I would go even farther and theorize that Westlake had intended this as an unofficial sequel to the Crawford series. Not only are the protagonists stage actors and womanizers, but Paul Cole (same initials) begins this book in roughly the same place professionally as Crawford at the conclusion of SIN PROWL.

    Obviously this book has greater literary ambitions, but I can imagine Westlake placing the Crawford character into a completely different story as an experiment, then changing the name and backstory to distance it from the sleaze books. If you read MEMORY immediately after SIN PROWL (as I did), the comparisons really stand out.

    Just a theory!

    • Damned interesting theory.

      Not quite a sequel, official or otherwise, but you only have to read Adios Scheherazade to know how much Westlake hated writing those sleaze books. And much as he might have realized it was silly, he would have felt a certain disdain for the lusty leads he had to keep dreaming up. (Crawford isn’t much of a character, based on the one book in that series I read).

      So he creates a new version of the same character–and skulls him with a chair. Puts him through hell. And again, I think he ended up feeling guilty about it. He didn’t give the guy a fair chance. Without memory, you can’t be responsible for your choices, because you can’t learn from your mistakes. Those who forget the past…….

      Paul Cole is a fascinating protagonist. He has more depth and perception as a brain-damaged amnesiac than he ever did as a rising star. Like the protagonist in Adios, he’s lost the whole world and gained his immortal soul.

      Grofield is yet another Crawford clone, and look what happens to him in the final Stark novel he appears in–I’m sure Westlake went back and forth over how to end that subplot. Perhaps Paul Cole was in his mind when he decided. But that was it for Grofield, except for the alternate universe version in the Dortmunders.

      I doubt, however, that Westlake was ever going to make any explicit connection between Paul Cole and Phil Crawford. There could have been legal issues with his using the name. Paul did sometimes sleep with married women. Well, that was part and parcel of the form–Herman Wouk did the same thing in Youngblood Hawke, and that was a huge bestseller that became a movie (and not a sleaze, but quite sleazy, all the same).

      It’s a bit like Secret Agent and The Prisoner–is John Drake Number Six? He is and he isn’t. The connection between the two is self-evident, but a bit on the meta side. Same clothes, same speech patterns, same mannerisms, but does John Drake really live in a universe where something like The Village could exist? (He doesn’t even live in a universe where color exists, except in that last extended episode set in the Orient). There is no yes or no answer to that question. McGoohan was expanding on something he’d done before, revisiting it, and subverting it.

      Difference is, Secret Agent is really good in its own right, absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. And as Westlake knew better than anyone, the Crawford Trilogy is pulpy nonsense cranked out for a fly-by-night publishing house. Probably not even among the best of his sleazes. But I have to read the other two. The originals keep getting more expensive, and not enough have been made evailable. For what it’s worth, all the Westlake sleazes I’ve seen have been very readable, and full of interesting bits of prose. And, you know, stimulating. :\

      And I still have made no progress in locating Sleaze Parker. That is to say, the cameo appearances by Parker that Westlake told D. Kingsley Hahn he would write into sleazes credited to the pen names of friends of his, who would run into a block, and he’d come over and help them meet those merciless deadlines. If I could find just one of those books, I’d feel I’d made my mark as a literary scholar. With very low standards. 😉

      • The Crawford books have their moments. I like that Westlake covered different types of theater in each one (summer stock in BACKSTAGE LOVE, off-Broadway in ALL THE GIRLS WERE WILLING, the traveling company in SIN PROWL) and gets into the specifics of stage production. You could tell he really had an interest in theater, and his interest and attention to detail make the books more readable than they would have been from another writer working in that genre.

        I wonder when, exactly, MEMORY was written (the best guess has been early ‘60s, which isn’t very helpful). I’m tempted to think that Westlake finished SIN PROWL and thought – as you speculated – “let’s hit this character over the head with a chair and see what happens.”

        • Maybe more like “Let’s show this self-satisfied SOB what life really is.”

          See, the world of the Crawford books is interesting, absolutely. But Crawford himself isn’t, or at least not in the first book. He’s a picaresque hero, of course–but not of the comic variety. Really, he’s just our entry point into that world, and as he rises in his profession, we get to meet all these other people through him. It’s a pretty standard device, and he’s a pretty standard device himself.

          Paul Cole does the same thing, but he himself is interesting, because of his amnesia–and he’s introducing us to all different kinds of worlds, and a darker side of the acting profession. (Thing is, of course, any actor worth a damn would give ten years off his life to play someone with a mental disability. They live for that kind of role. But suppose you got stuck in it?)

          He always put more into the sleazes than he had to. I think probably all the name writers who made rent writing these things did that. It’s a kind of freedom writers don’t get very often. “Make it this long, put a lot of sex in it, get it in on time, we don’t care what else you do.” No editors, and they could get away with nearly anything (except showing happy fulfilled gay people, though there were the odd exceptions). But the downside, as Westlake saw it, was that you were on a treadmill that was hard to escape from. The money was good–while the niche lasted.

          This review says it was written sometime in 1963, but you should probably ask the reviewer where he got that from.

          Hopefully he’ll remember.


          • Maybe from Paul Westlake’s page? (

            1963 it is then (sorry I missed that).

            • Probably. You don’t really need to be hit over the head with a chair to have a bad memory.

              1963 makes sense because he had more time to stretch out as a writer, once he had contracts with both Random House and Pocket–two reliable revenue streams. He probably had stopped writing sleazes entirely by then, though a few he’d already written came out that year. None after that, that we know if. He’d burned his bridges with the SF mags in ’61.

              Now who is he? What’s he going to write? Does it have to be just crime fiction? Can he come up with enough of a mystery angle for this more ambiguous narrative to pass muster? And can he use his experiences with theater people–and his experience writing about them–to create something different?

              And he did, but nobody would buy it for almost half a century.

              So I guess that covers the science fiction angle. Paul Cole became a time traveler to boot. 😉

  9. Hello. This is my first commentary here and I see that the last time someone commented here was three years ago. I just discovered this blog and I complement you on your brilliant and thorough work. And the excellence and creativity of your analysis and commentary. I discovered your blog when I was doing some research on Millers Crossing and read your excellent piece on The Glass Key.

    I read Memory when it was first published by Hard Case. I had a subscription with Hard Case and received the book as part of that…I did not choose it. I had not read much Westlake prior to it, but had read the whole Parker series and loved it, so I thought I would love this novel as well. I really enjoy the obscure writings of authors I like ( i used to like the EP’s where bands would do alternative versions of their songs almost more than the LP). Boy was I confused when I read Memory. I was thoroughly depressed but also fascinated by it. I had to keep going. Something good had to happen but never did. But in the journey, i really learned a lot about personality and perceptions. And about myself and my personality and perceptions. It was a painful book to read and as you mentioned, must have really hurt him to write it. As always, your review and analysis are spot on.

    I don’t have anything to contribute here except for a theory of why it was not published. My theory seems very obvious, and maybe has been mentioned already (although I diligently read through all the comments) and I missed it but here it is. My theory is that he did submit it for publication and it was rejected. And it was rejected in a way that—for whatever reason— caused him to bury it. The evidence for my theory is the book itself. It is too complete, too polished, too ready for publication to have been a private experiment.

    The Twilight Zone had been on the air since October, 1959. This book has a very TZ kind of a feel to it. I can see him taking it to Random House with a great deal of pride And satisfaction in his craft and work, and them telling him no. We can only speculate at the reasons. And I agree with you about how he felt about the main character as a deeper reason. However, in this situation it seems apt to apply the Occam’s Razor test. The simplest answer. And he hung on to it, in ready to publish form, just because it was a private triumph for him.

    I’m not going to speculate or analyze this further. Just throwing this out there to see what you think. Thanks again for all your great work. It is truly amazing.

    • I think I did mention somewhere that at the time he couldn’t find a publisher for it–possible I was too indirect about that. Let’s take it as a given that he did submit it, and it was rejected, at least once, possibly several times.

      And you could be right–just having had it rejected could have made him bury it. Since his death, several novels he couldn’t get published have appeared, this being the first of them. It’s a defensible notion that rejection was a bitter pill for him to swallow, and that his response to it was often to just put the book aside and never return to it.

      However, there is a flaw in that theory–The Hunter was rejected by two different publishers–Gold Medal and Dell–before he sent it to Pocket Books, and it fell under the appreciative gaze of Bucklin Moon. And he wrote this book around the same time. At this stage, he was much more likely to keep trying to get a book published–it was later in life, when he was more established, that he tended to pick his fights more, and let things go. And I don’t believe for one minute he thought this book was a failure, as he might have thought about some of the later efforts that went unpublished until after his demise.

      There’s no reason to assume it was just one thing that made him stick it in a drawer and (you should pardon the expression) forget about it. Except we both know he never forgot it.

      So I stick to my guns–he never did this to a protagonist again–many other things, but never to render that protagonist incompetent. If one of his heroes or antiheroes failed, it would be through bad choices. In order to make good choices in the future, you must remember your past. If the past is stolen from you, there is no hope.

      And all around me, I see people desperately trying to erase the past. Much good may it do them.

      • I could not agree more with your comments about erasing the past. I am in a heated argument with my 21 year old niece who is applauding the tearing down of the stonewall Jackson statue in Richmond, virginia. I love the line that was part of this discussion earlier: “People who have no memory or past are not responsible for the decisions they make.” I don’t mean to take this to a political tangent, but I think that one factor is what has gotten us exactly where we are today. And I will add that the erasure of history and thoughtful consideration of the past has been a deliberate and intentional effort. I don’t really know by whom, but the pattern and the actions are clear.

        Back to the “burying” of Memory, the book: not to argue with your conclusions, but to submit additional support to my theory, I want to pitch this concept about what might have happened (which is complete conjecture). Authors are rejected all the time for many different reasons, so they are used to it, getting the Hunter rejected would be a pretty easy one to keep trying until he found the right publisher, which is what happened. My theory about the “memory” rejection was that it was done maybe by Random House or by a particular person (agent or editor) who he had a lot of respect for, and that is was somehow “final” in ways other rejections are not. Too bad he is not around to ask what happened…

        • I support removing most of those Confederate statues from public places, because they were intended not to teach us about the past, but to create a misleading image of it–and to remind black people in the south of their permanent second class citizenship (the Jackson statue was put up in 1929).

          That was, you might say, a false memory. It was hardly ‘thoughtful consideration’–the statue wasn’t even a good likeness. They always put him on a horse, but he was not much of a rider. The great equestrian of that war was Grant–the best overall general as well–but Grant was just flawed mortal clay, like everyone else (still probably the most honest and decent man who ever held the office of President–which wasn’t always a good thing–he had a tendency to assume everyone was as honest as him).

          Good history isn’t about deifying people. Jackson and his comrades should be remembered, but warts and all. Not as demigods–or demons. I cannot in good conscience say that I admire anyone who fought for the permanent enslavement of fellow humans, but I can understand why they might have thought they had to do so.

          When James Connolly (a better class of rebel) was about to be shot, he was asked by a priest if he would pray for the men of the firing party. “I will say a prayer for all brave men who do their duty. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” That about sums up my feelings about the men who fought for the CSA. Remember them–and learn from their mistakes. You can’t do that if all you know of them is an idealized image.

          However, when mobs tear down statues of those who did genuine good with their lives–out of a blind desire to erase the past entirely–that I oppose. That is quite a different thing.

          And anyway, we all cheered when all those Lenin statues came down. Not that it fixed anything in Russia. Lenin is still part of Russian history. Nobody has forgotten him. If you need a statue to be remembered, you’re probably not very memorable.

          There is evidence for your theory–much later, when Westlake wrote the book that is now known as Forever and a Death, he was told by his agent (and his wife) that it wasn’t up to his standard–and he shelved that as well.

          But Forever and a Death is not nearly as good or personal a book as Memory, and Westlake would have known that. Nobody would have told him it wasn’t good enough to be published–just that it wasn’t right for the publishing niche he was in (a trap many fine writers have entered, with varying degrees of willingness). He could have gotten it published later on, when there was no risk to his career. I think the book itself frightened him. And I think he realized that if he went on writing books like that, he might be better regarded by critics–but would burn himself out much sooner. For Westlake, to write was to live, and to live was to write. He didn’t want to be J.D. Salinger. He wanted to go on writing for as long as he went on breathing.

          I don’t think there was just one reason for him putting it away. Nobody knew better than him how complicated and contradictory human motivations can be. So we could both be right. And we could also both be wrong. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s