Nicholas Mosley (1923–2017)

In my continuing search for books published in 1951, I had Nicholas Mosley's "Spaces of the Dark" on my list and gleefully turned up on the net a copy of [Look at the Dark]. I started reading and it was perhaps on the third page that the seemingly autobiographical author was concerning himself with being "politically correct". Was there such a thing in 1951 I wondered? A quick flip back to the front of the book revealed that I was reading Look at the Dark published in 2005 and not Spaces of the Dark 1951. I was enjoying the style of writing and so carried on with a feeling of being set free from my list addiction.

Look at the Dark is not an autobiography: it is a novel written in the first person. An elderly man popular on television as a pundit and an anthropologist by trade, receives a grant for a lecture tour in America. On his first night in New York, he is run over by a truck and his wallet is stolen. He wakes up in a hospital bed and has all the time in the world to think about his past life; along with how he is going to pay his hospital bill. He traces back his life with his two wives and occasional lovers. His first wife has married again and is now living in America, her current husband is extremely rich, having made money from new technology; he has dark, right wing conspiracy theories about the state of the world and the narrator wonders if the accident he has suffered was a botched assassination. The narrator does not only think about the partners in his life, but also if he, himself has served any useful purpose. He is joking about the assassination attempt, but his view of the world is the other side of the spectrum, his son works for an aid agency and his step daughter is working with poor people in Jerusalem. He himself made arrangements to help a young woman flee from Iran when the Shah was in power, but did not pass up the opportunity to take her virginity. He is on good terms with his wife and ex-wife, who seem to be prepared to indulge his whimsical view on life, but the accident has set his cogs whirring.

Flashes of conversations with friends and colleagues come back to him. Circular arguments are reiterated with the narrator either saying "I see" or admitting that he doesn't know. The question of what differentiates us from animals keeps cropping up, with thoughts like:

'one of the main differences is that humans have a compulsion, to accuse to blame, to demand retribution and the power of language is only used as a tool for humans to deceive one another. Perhaps the best thing would be for humans to be killed off and another species be given a chance to develop.'

No problems are solved from his hospital bed, nor are they when his wife comes to collect him, but the narrator realises he is running out of time.

The book has undeniable charm, the circular nature of some of the arguments are brief and amusing, even if they are those that might be uttered by a wealthy upperclass British subject. We never learn his name, but we do learn of his struggles to make a place for himself in the hierarchy and in other peoples lives. The narrator can afford to be humorous and if the reader is happy with this approach then it is an enjoyable read 3.5 stars.… (mais)

This is a novel of first-person stories interspersed with what seem to be jumbled thoughts; yet, the whole thing hangs together quite well. I was time and again impressed by the circles that I only noticed when they were completed, and by the common threads that run like highways through the thing.

I think that if a man had written this in the last thirty years or so, I might be concerned for him, might think it expressed an unhealthy view of men and women. Written in the 1960s, however, I think that "Impossible Object" is a compelling and expert address on the issues of love in a particular time and place.

Mosley's voice is outstanding. I'll be reading more of his work.… (mais)

October revolution was a surprise to everyone, especially to Lenin and his bolsheviks. They were surprised that they ended up in power and they got surprised by the fact they met no serious opposition.

Comprised of what might be called theoretical politicians (who prided in scientific approach - sounds familiar right?) that were fighting for a common man but lived much better than common man (they all lived in London, Switzerland, Germany and all other exotic locations in Europe not by a lone coin but by pretty good money - again, sounds very similar to modern day politicians) this intellectual force came back to Russia where they managed to win (to their own bewilderment) and managed to stay in power (by defeating some even truly progressive movements).

As time went on Lenin soon started to become an obstacle for rising bureaucracy. Same happened to all and every old guard politician. Reason? Simple - being theoretical in nature they established all of the mechanisms of iron rule (machine is always right!) but when they started seeing that they might have been wrong and changes need to be done - oh, man, didn't you read the latest political manifesto, there is absolutely no way we can come back or change anything. Because we cannot be wrong (you said it day ago and said it is ultimate truth) then you are wrong! Machine cannot be wrong! So you are wrong and we cannot tolerate it (activism eh - again maybe too close to heart today)! And so they had to go out into exile or end up dead.

So we follow our humble Trotsky in this book as he goes from Siberia to living in the Europe and finally settling in the Mexico. During his exile Trotsky was fighting against the Stalin .... to a degree. You see, only problem Trotsky had with Stalin is that Trotsky is not ruling instead of Stalin. All the explanations Stalin gave, Trotsky seemed to confirm and accept - there must be no doubt, state machine is always right! He did not like the fact he was now targeted but he understood it because this is how things should be. Proletariat cannot take the responsibility, it needs the iron hand to rule it. And this is my problem with Trotsky - he is not that different from Stalin. It is just that he was put on high ground because he was the only one openly critiquing Stalin in these turbulent years. For everything else it was like Behemoth saying to Kraken how monstrous he is!

Author obviously supports Trotsky and has great sympathy for him. Unfortunately I dont share this sympathy because I had opportunity to see this kind of sleazy "scientific" politician practically doing nothing but always be ready for exercises in futility through long quasi philosophical discourse - for a single goal, to prove how smart he is! But this does not take away anything from the book itself. Author manages to interweave turbulent years of Revolution with Trotsky's years in Mexico and portray people he lived with and finally how GPU organized several attempts on his life. In the end sad story - because man was murdered - but also something of a let down because Trotsky was glorified for causes that are actually far away from his core politics - his goal is eternal revolution, eternal angst and eternal strife (where his [Trotsky's] machine is always right!).

For those interested in final years of Trotsky this book will be interesting. For any more details on his person there are much better and more detailed books.… (mais)