Vivian Gornick’s ‘Unfinished Business’ reads deeply into memory

Acclaimed critic Vivian Gornick rereads the books that shaped her life and muses on reencountering the person she was at the time. 

Courtesy of Macmillan Publishers
“Unfinished Business: Notes of a Chronic Re-reader” by Vivian Gornick, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 161 pp.

“Curiously enough, one cannot read a book: one can only reread it,” Vladimir Nabokov wrote 40 years ago. “A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader.”

Since this is Nabokov, it’s of course a fatuous bit of overreaching – plenty of “active” and “major” readers seldom or never reread – but it underscores the weird and vital pull rereading can have. “We read to recapture the thrill of a book first encountered twenty years earlier, and the thrill has mysteriously vanished,” writes Patricia Meyer Spacks in her terrific 2011 book “On Rereading.” “We remember a wonderful story, and the story has turned into a cliché. The change may attest to our maturity, but it feels like loss.”

That you-can’t-go-home-again melancholy haunts the endeavor of rereading. Will your treasured memories survive? And if there are flaws that now seem glaring, will you think less of your younger self for missing them the first time? It’s the kind of strange high-stakes tension that only inveterate readers will understand.

“Unfinished Business: Notes of a Chronic Re-reader,” from acclaimed writer Vivian Gornick, is a slim and surprisingly heartfelt foray into that high-stakes reading territory. In these chapters, she revisits a handful of authors and books that made strong impressions on her at different points in her life, from Colette’s “The Vagabond” to Marguerite Duras’ “The Lover” to the work of the great Elizabeth Bowen.

“Like Montaigne, she is fearless about using herself as the specimen par excellence,” Gornick writes about Natalia Ginzburg, “tracing her own development away from the very faulty sense of human solidarity that she has seen at work in herself, even as she first began thinking seriously about the behavior of others.” And readers will think the same thing about Gornick herself as she delves into these old books and the old selves who read them.

One book leads to another in the organic and unpredictable fashion. Reading about Billy Prior, a character in a World War I hospital in Pat Barker’s “Regeneration” trilogy, sends her to J.L. Carr’s novel “A Month in the Country,” about another man scarred by war. The “very particular achievement of this jewel of a book was the indelible portrait of a man returned from the war that had most resembled hell with a spirit that is permanently stunted.” She perfectly highlights the ways her appreciation has changed over time. “Passion, passion, passion: hard, mean, wracking: neither sensual nor romantic, only boiling,” she notes about D. H. Lawrence’s “Sons and Lovers.”  “...how could I have forgotten this – passion that is more like war than love.”

Her non-bookish asides are likewise uniformly entertaining, such as her assessment of the inimitable Broadway star Ethel Merman. “In her performance there was no nuance, no complexity, no second thoughts,” Gornick writes. “She was like a natural force, crude and overwhelming: fierce, ignorant, a killer.”

But the focus is on books, specifically the books that helped to shape and guide her. “The companionateness of those books! Of all books. Nothing can match it,” she writes. “But above all, it’s the sheer relief from the chaos in the head that reading delivers.” Every passionate reader will be nodding in sympathy with such thoughts, whether they’re fond of her chosen authors or not. I myself have disliked Duras’ little books, detested the inept fiction of Lawrence, and considered Ginzburg wildly overrated, and yet I was enthralled watching Gornick re-encounter these works.

“The real secret of re-reading is simply this: It is impossible,” Verlyn Klinkenborg wrote in a 2009 New York Times column. “The characters remain the same, and the words never change, but the reader always does.” In “Unfinished Business,” Gornick is engrossingly frank about charting that inner process of metamorphosis. And as all readers know, that process is ongoing.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.