Apologia Judt

Do note that I mistakenly linked to Judt's "Edge People" in my previous post, instead of "Girls! Girls! Girls!" as I meant. This has been remedied. "Girls!" is more a piece of narrative journalism than "Edge People," but the latter gives a better sense of who Judt is. If you do not already know about Tony Judt, read "Edge People" and then "Girls!".

I myself hadn't heard of Tony Judt until I learned he was dying. It is a tragedy I am particularly familiar with, to go on unaware of a great contemporary writer until they are dying or dead, to stumble upon a person I Should Have Read. The same happened with Art Hoppe, whose "Execution, 1957" is a phenomenal piece of narrative journalism and about which I would be writing except that it requires no defense. Jon Carroll, who writes about Judt here, is to blame and to thank for both bittersweet introductions.

Tony Judt is dying. He has Lou Gerig's disease. He writes about it in "Night," (which is quoted in Carroll's article but I will link to it in full here as if I have not given you enough to read already) which also serves as the introduction to a series of reflective articles that have been appearing both in the New York Review of Books and on the NYR blog. The NYR labels it as "memoir," and indeed it does not strictly qualify as narrative journalism as Judt is not a journalist. He is an academic, a scholar, a "public intellectual," as he derisively indulges the label. But I feel that "Girls!" in particular (and "Revolutionaries," to a lesser extent) incorporates enough storytelling in its non-fiction to be worthy of examination as a piece of narrative journalism. This particular kind of journalism is about writing from within the story, after all, and in "Girls!" Judt writes about sexual harassment in the academic world from the deepest point of immersion possible--his own life.

The elements of story necessary to narrative journalism are present and clear; there is a lede which relies on Judt's own unorthodox position--both as history chair at NYU and the only unmarried man under 60--for its grabbing power. It carries on to compound the intrigue with an attractive graduate student (the reaction being: he's the chair of history at a prestigious university--a sensitive position during a senistive time-and he goes for her? What?) and that constitutes the beginning. The end is similarly identifiable. The middle is, appropriately, in the middle. Beginning, middle, end: bam, it's a story.

But the reason "Girls!" is a good piece of narrative journalism and does not merely suffice as one is that there is an element of investigation--both of self and of the subject--wrapped up in the self-reflection. Judt is not just telling us about this one time he was chasing tail in 1992 and Oh Boy, is there a knee-slapper at the end of this one; we are going on the hunt for the Why with him.

And the reason "Girls!" is not just a good piece of narrative journalism but is in fact a great one is because when the piece departs from the immediate storyline we do not depart from Judt. After introducing his graduate student crush, he takes us straight to the 1960's as the beginning of the hunt. But we don't just go back to the 60's; we go back to Tony Judt, circa early 60's--hormones and all (and probably a way less cool pair of glasses). From there we can go on to cultural critique, indictment, and the typical Judt soapboxing, and when we start to wonder Hey, where'd that hot ballerina graduate student go, Judt drops an ancedote to bring the piece back to earth, to remind us what we're getting all red-faced about up in the zero-visibility cloud cover of abstract intellectualism. It makes a point, it tells a story, it leaves the reader's mind buzzing.

Oh, plus he totally gets the girl at the end.