MobileRead March 2016 Discussion: The Night Life of the Gods (spoilers)

[WT Sharpe]

The time has come to discuss the March 2015 MobileRead Book Club selection, The Night Life of the Gods by Thorne Smith. What did you think?

[issybird]

One of my early reactions was that while I knew this was published in 1931, it read 1920s to me, that is, pre-Depression. But then I realized that it fit right in with the pre-Code movies of the early 1930s, before people got moral and never had sex or drank. Like the early talkies, I think Nightlife combined elements of escapism and nihilism, reflecting the desperation of the time.

[WT Sharpe]

I've been thinking of cromag's description of Thorne Smith as "subversive" in this post, and the more I think about it, the more apt I think his description is. Smith seemed to be on a gentle crusade to rock the status quo to its foundations. His was the "Playboy philosophy" decades before Playboy. His consistently ridicules the existing social norms and extols the virtues of being free from their influence.

Here's a typical example, enclosed in spoiler tags for length:

Spoiler:

When after several fluttering attempts Megaera succeeded in lifting the long lashes from her heavy eyes some hours later she found herself gazing up at no less a personage than the outraged Alice Pollard Lambert. ...

'What are you doing in bed with that man?' she demanded in a voice of chilled reproof.

'What do you usually do under the circumstances?' Megaera asked lazily.

'I don't go to bed with men,' said Mrs. Lambert, her chin elevated virtuously.

'For goodness' sake,' said Meg with innocent interest. 'What do you go to bed with?'

'Don't be low and ridiculous,' replied Mrs. Lambert.

'Well, if you think it's ridiculous,' remarked the girl, 'you've got something on me. I think it's the most natural thing in the world.'

'Perhaps you do,' said Mrs. Lambert. 'I repeat my question. What are you doing here?'

'I wouldn't like to say,' replied Megaera with one of her wickedest smiles.

'How did you manage to get yourself in?' Mrs. Lambert continued inflexibly.

'If you must know,' said Megaera, indulging in a small but frank yawn, 'your son deliberately dragged me in here last night and threatened to strangle me if I screamed.'

Mr. Hawk's disorderly head popped up from the pillow as if suddenly jerked by a wire.

'Oh, what a lie!' he exclaimed.

'Furthermore, he's not my son,' said Mrs. Lambert, whose indignation at this reflexion cast on her age had for the moment made her forget the moral issue involved.

'Sorry,' said Megaera, 'but how was I to know? Perhaps he's your lover. If he is, I'm sorry for him.'

'He's neither my son nor my lover,' Mrs. Lambert announced with great dignity.

'Then who is your lover?' asked Meg. 'All this puzzles me.'

'I want you to know I have no lover,' Alice Lambert hurled at the girl in bed.

'I'm very sorry about that,' replied Megaera. 'But why do you want me to know it? I can't help you out.

'That besmirched creature on the bed beside you is my brother,' said Mrs. Lambert.

'Well, madam, all I can say is, you've got some brother.'

'Oh!' breathed Mrs. Lambert.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I've been thinking of cromag's description of Thorne Smith as "subversive" in this post, and the more I think about it, the more apt I think his description is. Smith seemed to be on a gentle crusade to rock the status quo to its foundations. His was the "Playboy philosophy" decades before Playboy. His consistently ridicules the existing social norms and extols the virtues of being free from their influence.

Here's a typical example, enclosed in spoiler tags for length:

I'm not so sure I think it's subversive as much as it's just one expression of the zeitgeist, but that we're more likely to impute stricter morals to our grandparents. What about the popular perceptions of the 20s, flaming youth, jazz, bathtub gin and the rest? Morality comes and goes. The Regency period was highly licentious followed by a period of religious revival, just as one example. I also think contradictory elements can exist in tandem. *cough*Now*cough*

Philip Larkin famously said:

Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three

but that's both true and not true.

I mentioned pre-Code movies. I think the morality implicit in those was of a kind with that of Thorne Smith's and that he wasn't an outlier.

[WT Sharpe]

I have to admit those pre-code films could be kind of racy.

[issybird]

I'd even be willing to argue that Smith was subverting the subversive. In the end, a life of drinking and sex and general carousing without limitation staled, to the point that existence as statues was seen as preferable. Maybe Smith was advocating a life with purpose instead of the mindless pursuit of pleasure? Hunter Hawk was arguably happier and more fulfilled while pursuing his end, rather than after he succeeded with his invention. Otherwise, I'd say that it's the ultimate in nihilism, where even the gods find existence meaningless.

[fantasyfan]

Originally Posted by issybird

I'd even be willing to argue that Smith was subverting the subversive. In the end, a life of drinking and sex and general carousing without limitation staled, to the point that existence as statues was seen as preferable. Maybe Smith was advocating a life with purpose instead of the mindless pursuit of pleasure? Hunter Hawk was arguably happier and more fulfilled while pursuing his end, rather than after he succeeded with his invention. Otherwise, I'd say that it's the ultimate in nihilism, where even the gods find existence meaningless.

I really like the idea of "subverting the subversive". After all the Gods are idiotic and irresponsible. They can hardly be seen as moral, intellectual, emotional, or social exemplars! At the same time, their opposites--Hawk's family--don't offer much either. In fact, there is a current of nihilistic pessimism running through the novel.
Speaking more generally, I find the writing variable in quality. Often Smith is wickedly funny but just as often the humour is laboured--even tiresome. He reminds me most of Oscar Wilde though never quite matching the consistent brilliance of the latter.

[CRussel]

I confess, I'm having trouble with this one. I've started it several times, and managed to get about 5 chapters into it. But I keep putting it down for something else. I strongly suspect I'd enjoy this far more as an audio book (much as I prefer PG Wodehouse as a well read audio book, or even better with Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie as a TV presentation.) But unlike Wodehouse, there are no audio versions, and I wasn't able to find the movie version that Tom referred to.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by fantasyfan

Speaking more generally, I find the writing variable in quality. Often Smith is wickedly funny but just as often the humour is laboured--even tiresome. He reminds me most of Oscar Wilde though never quite matching the consistent brilliance of the latter.

Originally Posted by CRussel

I confess, I'm having trouble with this one. I've started it several times, and managed to get about 5 chapters into it. But I keep putting it down for something else. I strongly suspect I'd enjoy this far more as an audio book (much as I prefer PG Wodehouse as a well read audio book,

I've seen several comparisons of Thorne Smith to P.G. Wodehouse and that's just not on.

I was initially charmed by this. I love interwar jeux d'esprit and the crackling dialogue and social commentary delighted me. But I'm with both of you; it was uneven at its best. The MacGuffin of turning animate objects to stone and reversing it got old, very, very quickly. I see its necessity, if the gods were to live, but really? Very early on, my credulity was strained beyond entertainment. I like comedies of manners, but whimsy can't be sustained with interest, for me.

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by issybird

I've seen several comparisons of Thorne Smith to P.G. Wodehouse and that's just not on.

Couldn't agree more. I enjoy P.G. Wodehouse a lot, even in print. Can't say the same for this.

I was initially charmed by this. I love interwar jeux d'esprit and the crackling dialogue and social commentary delighted me. But I'm with both of you; it was uneven at its best. The MacGuffin of turning animate objects to stone and reversing it got old, very, very quickly. I see its necessity, if the gods were to live, but really? Very early on, my credulity was strained beyond entertainment. I like comedies of manners, but whimsy can't be sustained with interest, for me.

I started out hoping and expecting to like it, but the premise was just a step too far, and, as you say, old very quickly.

Not my favourite read this year, shall we say? But hey, I've nominated a good one for next month.

[WT Sharpe]

Thorne Smith was a U.S. writer, but his humor often strikes me as British. I had no problem with the absurdity of the novel or the far-fetched things that happened, but evidently the film did, as the producer chose to make the entire thing, from the explosion in the lab to the final trick of turning Meg and Hunter Hawk into statues, into a dream sequence.

As for the comparisons to P.G. Wodehouse, I can see some, but Smith is his own man. This was my second time reading this, and I found myuself laughing out loud both times.

As for the DVD of the movie, the only place I could find a copy was on eBay, and from the DVD's quality I strongly suspect it was a bootleg.