Although The Magnificent Ambersons was first published in 1918, it was still admired and almost canonical in the 1950s when I was coming to awareness. It was the sort of unchallenging social realism novel in the Sinclair Lewis or John Marquand tradition that was then school-and-societyy approved. Did I read it then? I can't say for certain. I can swear that I read Tarkington's Penrod series which was specifically targeted to young people. I would have thought that this week's reading of The Magnificent Ambersons was a return to familiar territory, but it doesn't much matter because I didn't recognize a single word of it. All was newer than new -- and disappointing to boot.
Tarkington's reputation, once sky-high (two Pulitzer prizes), has plummeted since the 50s and I doubt that my grandchildren or their co-eval friends have ever heard his name. Strange to say, the edition that was on the shelf at the Boulder Public Library had all the marks of a high school text, with commentary, footnotes, and sample questions designed to challenge those dedicated young folks who were diligent enough to make it to the end. I suspect that students and their teachers will find themselves repelled not only by the superbly snobby, unattractive, and bratty central figure but also, and especially, by the frequent and offensive use of the slur "darkies." Mighty off-putting, I'm afraid.
The Tarkington mini-revival was precipitated by a viewing of Orson Welles' 1942 The Magnificent Ambersons - a film that deserves to be called "rivetting" -- but rather for the cinematography than for the disturbing, perverse family drama that it depicts. Welles thought it was his best work. Audiences will neither be able to concur or disagree with his assessment because some forty minutes of his completed film were cut and destroyed by a studio editor in order to make the work more commercial and more palatable. Moreover, a happy ending was sutured onto the film -- the original had been much "darker." Though how much darker is hard to imagine, because even as it stands it's a gloomy story of perverse values and gratuitous tragedy. In the edited and "improved" version, George Minafer survives his automobile accident and reconciles with attractive Lucy Morgan. In the novel and apparently in Welles' version, George dies of his injuries. In both novel and film, George is a self-centered prig and frankly, when the film came to conclusion, I myself would have been quite willing to let him die. In no way had he earned the favors of such a self-respecting and intelligent young lady as Lucy. Hadn't paid his dues, even though to make some money he had taken up a dangerous work involving "nitro-glycerine." I do wonder what might have been depicted in those purged Welles minutes because the film follows the novel closely, almost slavishly. What did Welles include that the novel passes over, or more suggestively, what did Welles invent and add?
I think that one of the reasons that Booth Tarkington has sunk without much trace is because of his exceedingly short-sighted and reactionary stance. The Magnificent Ambersons is anti-modern, but not out of any deep ecological, philosophical or psychological conviction. Tarkington idealizes the Indiana of his childhood and doesn't much like change. People are moving into his town (Indianopolis though he never uses the name) from Eastern Europe and they're outworking and displacing the good old solid Americans -- those established families with their shared values and small-town friendliness. These new arrivals make money and build large ugly house and instead of horse-drawn carriages they drive automobiles. The new auto industry is a particular bete noir for Tarkington. The Ambersons lose their money investing in it and George gets himself run over by a vehicle that was plunging down the street at 20 mile an hour. Autos bring speed and soot and social disruption.
At this moment, I do not feel a need to read any more novels by Booth Tarkington.