Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Concert Review: The Beach Boys and the Righteous Brothers at the Minnesota State Fair


The current touring lineup of the Beach Boys, 2018.

On Monday night I saw the Beach Boys at the Grandstand at the Minnesota State Fair. The Beach Boys were one of the first musical groups I really got into, and seeing them at the State Fair sometime in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s was one of my first concerts. (They played at the Minnesota State Fair in 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, so I can’t pin down which year I saw them.) I’ve always loved the Beach Boys’ music, and I finally saw them again at Mystic Lake Casino in 2014, but the State Fair is just a perfect venue for their songs about cars, girls, and surfing. 

The Righteous Brothers opened the evening. Surviving group member Bill Medley has recently started touring again under the Righteous Brothers name, with Bucky Heard replacing Bobby Hatfield, who passed away in 2003. Bucky’s unusual name prompted my wife to quip, “That’s a sentence: Bucky heard Bill’s medley!” Medley’s voice has aged well, and hearing him in concert made me realize what an excellent voice he has. One of the highlights of the evening was a blues song he sang, “This Will Be the Last Time.” That song really showed his full range as a vocalist. The excellent band backing Medley and Heard did a great job of making the Righteous Brothers’ songs come to life. And McKenna Medley did a lovely duet with her father on “(I’ve Had) The Time of My Life.” I thought to myself during the show, Bill Medley should have written a thank you note to Patrick Swayze for Dirty Dancing and Ghost. Bucky Heard has an excellent voice, but he has a somewhat thankless task of having to replicate Hatfield’s stirring vocal performances on songs like “Ebb Tide.” He’s spared from carrying the burden of “Unchained Melody,” because Medley performed that song solo, as a tribute to Hatfield. I was pleased with the Righteous Brothers’ set, and they worked well as an opening actthey definitely had enough hits to fill their set, which lasted for about an hour, but I wouldn’t necessarily want to see them for two hours as the headliners. 

The Beach Boys were led by Mike Love and Bruce Johnston, so we got two original, or original-ish, Beach Boys. Johnston joined the group in 1965, replacing Glen Campbell in live performances. Campbell was the first replacement for Brian Wilson, who had tired of touring and wanted to spend more time in the studio. The rest of the musicians did an amazing job of recreating the Beach Boys sound on stage. The harmonies were fantastic, and the lead guitarist did an excellent job of nailing Carl Wilson’s Chuck Berry homages on the group’s early records. In the 1960’s, The Beach Boys took Chuck Berry guitar riffs, Four Freshman-style close harmony singing, and combined those elements with songs about cars, girls, and surfing to create a beautiful and original sound.

The opening song was “Do It Again” which even on its first release in 1968 must have seemed like a retro throwback to the group’s trademark hits. Mike Love’s vocals are the same as they were then, with his trademark elongated vowels. “Let’s geet together and do it ageeen.” It really amazes me how little Love’s voice has changed. It struck me most during “Be True to Your School,” maybe because of the incongruity of a 77-year-old man singing a song about high school sports. As I listened to Love sing the song I thought, “Wow, he’s still singing it in the original key, and he sounds just like he did on the record in 1963!” (Side note to Star Tribune music critic Jon Bream: the flute player’s musical quote from “On, Wisconsin!” wasn’t done to piss off Minnesotans, it’s part of the original song. Also, the fight song for Hawthorne High School, the alma mater of the Wilson brothers uses the same melody as “On, Wisconsin!”) 

Joining the Beach Boys was actor John Stamos, who played guitar and drums, and jumped around the stage a lot. Stamos joked that he forgot to wear the standard Beach Boys striped shirt, but I think that might be the subtle way the group is telling him he’s not actually a Beach Boy. Stamos didn’t really add anything to the show, other than the fact that he’s a Beach Boy fan, and he reminded all the 30-somethings of their youth watching Full House. 

As one might expect, the set list was heavily weighted towards 1966 and earlier Beach Boy songs, but that’s to be expected. I think of all the Beach Boy tapes I had when I was youngster, the latest song I knew was 1967’s “Heroes and Villains.” And of course, I knew “Kokomo,” from 1988’s Cocktail, and the 1989 album Still Cruisin’, which I had on CD. 

There were some newer songs, as Mike Love sang “Pisces Brothers,” his moving tribute to George Harrison, complete with awesome footage of Love and the Beatles in India in 1968, studying transcendental meditation with the Maharishi. There was also “Unleash the Love” and “All the Love in Paris,” both from Love’s 2017 solo album, Unleash the Love. Both songs were pleasant enough, and invoked the spirit of mid-1960’s Beach Boys songs, but many fans chose those songs to take a bathroom break or grab another beer. 

The evening came to a close with some of the best songs from Pet Sounds, “Sloop John B,” and “Wouldn’t It Be Nice?” followed by “Do You Wanna Dance?” “Barbara Ann,” “Good Vibrations,” “Kokomo,” and “Fun, Fun, Fun.” I wish I could say that the entire audience was on its feet by the end of the concert, but that wasn’t the case, despite a thrilling performance by the Beach Boys. Maybe everyone was just tired from a long day at the fair.

Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Book Review: Sandy Koufax: A Lefty's Legacy, by Jane Leavy (2002)

Paperback cover of Sandy Koufax: A Lefty's Legacy, by Jane Leavy, 2002.


Sandy Koufax pitching in Game 7 of the 1965 World Series, against the Minnesota Twins. Despite pitching on two days' rest and only using his fastball, Koufax shut out the Twins on three hits.

Author Jane Leavy.
Although Sandy Koufax only played professional baseball for twelve years, he still ranks as one of the most legendary baseball players of the 20th century. Koufax came up with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1955. He had a blazing fastball, but not much control over it. After the 1960 season, Koufax’s record was 36-40. His ERA was 4.10. From 1961 to 1966, Sandy Koufax simply dominated opposing batters. His record was 129-47, an incredible winning percentage of .733. His ERA had gone down to 2.76. 

Koufax won 3 Cy Young Awards, in 1963, 1965, and 1966, at a time when the award was given to just one pitcher, rather than one in each league. He was the unanimous winner each time. All three years Koufax won the Cy Young Award he also won the pitching Triple Crown, leading the league in strikeouts, wins, and ERA. Koufax was the NL MVP in 1963, and finished second in the voting in 1965 and 1966. He led the NL in ERA five years in a row, from 1962-1966. He led the league in strikeouts four times, setting a new single-season strikeout record of 382 in 1965. Koufax also set a record by pitching four no-hitters, including a perfect game in 1965. During Koufax’s 12 years with the Dodgers, they made it to the World Series six times, and he was the World Series MVP in 1963 and 1965.  

Diagnosed with arthritis in his left elbow, Koufax’s final two seasons, 1965 and 1966, were marked by extreme pain and super-human pitching performances. Rather than risk permanent damage to his elbow and arm, Koufax retired after the 1966 season, just weeks away from his 31st birthday. 

In her book Sandy Koufax: A Lefty’s Legacy, author Jane Leavy examines Koufax’s career, and his continued hold on the public’s imagination. Koufax has a reputation for being a very private person, and although Leavy communicated with Koufax during her writing of the book, he never sat down for an interview with her. 

Leavy deliberately didn’t try to pry into Koufax’s personal life, and thus she didn’t interview his two ex-wives or any of his former girlfriends. This begs the question: is it right to write a biography of someone without interviewing, or trying to interview, such key figures in someone’s life? It’s up to the individual biographer, I suppose, but anyone looking for dirt on Sandy Koufax won’t find it here. However, you shouldn’t get the impression that Leavy didn’t do her homework on this book, because she certainly did, interviewing 469 people who are connected to Sanford Koufax in one way or another. 

Because Leavy doesn’t closely examine Koufax’s private life, there isn’t much material on his post-baseball life, so the book is essentially about Koufax’s playing career. The book uses Koufax’s 1965 perfect game against the Chicago Cubs as a framing device, and chapters alternate between a chronological look at Koufax’s life, and the innings of his perfect game. Koufax’s perfect game was pretty incredible. At that stage of his career, Koufax basically only had two pitches: a blazing fastball and a devastating, swooping curveball. The only problem was that Koufax also inadvertently tipped his pitches, giving the batters a clue as to what was coming. Even with that knowledge, the Cubs batters, including future Hall of Famers Ernie Banks, Billy Williams, and Ron Santo, were unable to reach base against him that night. 

I learned a lot about Sandy Koufax from Leavy’s biography, and one of the most interesting things is that he didn’t play a lot of baseball in high school. His best sport was basketball, and Leavy tells the story of 17-year-old Koufax dunking when his high school team played the New York Knicks. For whatever reason, Koufax wasn’t scouted by the NBA, and after pitching one season at the University of Cincinnati, Koufax was already being scouted by the Brooklyn Dodgers, his hometown team. 

Koufax was signed by the Dodgers for a $14,000 bonus, and because his signing bonus was over $4,000, he had to spend two years in the major leagues before he could be sent to the minor leagues. The Dodgers never ended up sending Koufax down to the minor leagues, but Koufax only threw 100 1/3 innings for the Dodgers over those first two seasons. Sending Koufax to the minor leagues for more seasoning might have helped his overall development as a pitcher. 

I was surprised when reading the book to learn how muscular Koufax was. Wayne “Doc” Anderson, the Dodgers’ trainer in the 1960’s said Koufax had “extreme muscles, the largest I ever worked on, including Ted Kluszewski and Frank Howard.” (p.148) Maybe it was because so often Koufax was pictured next to his rotation mate Don Drysdale, who stood 6’5” that I never realized how tall and muscular Sandy Koufax was. But Koufax was listed at 6’2”, and numerous people throughout the book testify to his very muscular physique. 

One of the most famous things Sandy Koufax did in his career was to not start Game 1 of the 1965 World Series, because it fell on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Koufax’s longtime friend Tom Villante said, “When that happened, he transcended being a player and became a symbol.” (p.171) Throughout the book, Leavy highlights the devotion of Koufax fans. People who have just the tiniest shred of a connection to him come up to her, wanting to share their stories. 

From the beginning of his career, Koufax was thought to be different from the average baseball player. An article from March of 1955 carried the headline: “Koufax, Unorthodox, Reads Books.” (p.176) Koufax’s reluctance to seek out the maximum amount of publicity possible has garnered him the label of someone who is aloof. Red Adams, a scout and pitching coach for the Dodgers from 1959-1980, said of Koufax: “Sometimes people are misunderstood for being aloof when they’re really just quiet.” (p.248) I think this is a great point. Koufax’s shyness or aloofness is probably overstated. A recluse would not have worked as a minor league pitching instructor for the Dodgers for ten years, as Koufax did. In some ways, we want to make people like Sandy Koufax more distant than they really are. He doesn’t like publicity? Well, then, he must be an eccentric recluse. On the other hand, he might just be a regular guy who disdains the spotlight of self-promotionbut that’s not as interesting a story. 

There has always been something special about Sandy Koufax. I was born nearly a decade and a half after Koufax last pitched, but yet he’s one of the figures from baseball’s past that fills me with awe. There’s a grace and dignity that Sandy Koufax has had both throughout his baseball career and after his retirement. I remember the surge of emotion I felt when I saw Sandy Koufax in 2004, at the Hall of Fame induction ceremony in Cooperstown. I nearly teared up. Why? I can’t really explain it, other than to say there’s something special about Sandy Koufax. At one of my friend’s bar mitzvahs, there was a drawing for a signed photo of Koufax, and I happened to win it. It’s one of my favorite signed photos, even though I’ve never met Sandy Koufax. I’ve even had a dream about Sandy Koufax. It was sometime in the past year, and instead of a baseball player who hadn’t pitched since 1966, Koufax was a novelist who hadn’t written a book since 1966. Somehow I had tracked him down and found his office in the university where he taught. In my dream, Sandy Koufax looked just like he does today, and he was kind and smiled a lot. When I asked him where he had been since 1966, he laughed, spread his arms to indicate his office, and said, “I’ve been here the whole time!” Maybe that’s the secret to the “real” Sandy Koufaxhe’s been right in front of us the whole time.

Sunday, August 19, 2018

Book Review: The Beautiful and Damned, by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1922)

Original dust jacket of The Beautiful and Damned by F. Scott Fitzgerald, 1922.


F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, early 1920's.
After the overnight success of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s first novel, 1920’s This Side of Paradise, which I reviewed here, he published his second novel, The Beautiful and Damned, just two years later in March of 1922. The novel covers several years in the lives of Anthony Patch and his wife Gloria. Anthony has a sizable living allowance, intellectual pretensions, and not much talent or drive. Both of his parents are deceased, and he’s biding his time until he gets the huge financial windfall that will surely occur once his wealthy grandfather Adam Patch dies. The novel follows Anthony’s courtship of Gloria, and their travels as they drink, spend too much money, and wait for Anthony’s grandfather to shuffle off his mortal coil. 

At the end of the first chapter of the book, in an odd section entitled, “A Flash-Back in Paradise,” it is revealed that Gloria is the personification of Beauty, “who was born anew every hundred years.” (p.26) This is an odd choice for a novel that is otherwise committed to social realism, and highlights the fact that Fitzgerald actually wasn’t that committed to social realism as a style, which is one of the faults of the book. 

The Beautiful and Damned is filled with beautiful writing, but unfortunately it’s in the service of two main characters who soon become tiresome. Anthony has little with which to fill his days, which leads to this marvelous passage:

“His day, usually a jelly-like creature, a shapeless, spineless thing, had attained Mesozoic structure. It was marching along surely, even jauntily, toward a climax, as a play should, as a day should. He dreaded the moment when the backbone of the day should be broken, when he should have met the girl at last, talked to her, and then bowed her laughter out the door, returning only to the melancholy dregs in the teacups and the gathering staleness of the uneaten sandwiches.” (p.50) 

Gloria is defined largely by her beauty, which makes some sense; given that she’s apparently the personification of Beauty, but it makes her uninteresting and shallow as a character. 

Another main character in the book is Richard Caramel, a successful novelist who is Gloria’s cousin. I don’t think Caramel is meant to be a self-portrait of Fitzgerald, but there are some similarities between the two. Fitzgerald writes of Caramel: “His book was nearly ready, and as it grew in completeness it seemed to grow also in its demands, sapping him, overpowering him, until he walked haggard and conquered in its shadow.” (p.71) This would be an apt description of Fitzgerald a decade later, as he struggled to finish Tender is the Night. 

Anthony and Caramel have a conversation where they discuss an interview Caramel gave. Anthony says that he thought it was good: “Oh, yes; that part about the wise writer writing for the youth of his generation, the critic of the next, and the schoolmaster of ever afterwards.” (p.178) Fitzgerald actually said the same thing in a self-interview that was published just after This Side of Paradise was released in 1920. It’s a brilliant quote from a young writer, and of course it contains the prophecy of what happened to The Great Gatsby. Although Gatsby didn’t initially sell as well as This Side of Paradise and The Beautiful and Damned, after Fitzgerald’s death it was rediscovered by critics and the public at large, and of course now almost every high school student in the United States reads Gatsby

At the very end of the book, there’s a rather funny in-joke when Caramel says: “You know these new novels make me tired. My God! Everywhere I go some silly girl asks me if I’ve read This Side of Paradise.” (p.396)

In another similarity between Caramel and Fitzgerald, Caramel’s successful novel is titled The Demon Lover. Just after This Side of Paradise was accepted for publication in September of 1919, Fitzgerald started work on a new novel, provisionally titled The Demon Lover. (The Far Side of Paradise, by Arthur Mizener, p.98) However, it doesn’t seem as though any part of Fitzgerald’s The Demon Lover survived. Fitzgerald biographer Matthew J. Bruccoli wrote: “Nothing is known about its plot.” (Some Sort of Epic Grandeur, p.106)

Alcohol is one of the main themes of the book, which makes sense given Fitzgerald’s alcoholism. Anthony’s slide into alcoholic dissipation is a prelude to Dick Diver’s similar descent in Tender is the Night. Geraldine, Anthony’s proletariat girlfriend, says to him, “You drink all the time, don’t you?” Anthony replies, “Why, I suppose so. Don’t you?” Geraldine says: “Nope. I go on parties sometimesyou know, about once a week, but I only take two or three drinks. You and your friends keep on drinking all the time. I should think you’d ruin your health.” (p.81) 

In the second half of the novel, the Patches come to “the realization that liquor had become a practical necessity to their amusement.” (p.261) Not a good sign.

It’s hard to not just read The Beautiful and Damned as a chronicle of Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald’s marriage. I try not to read too much autobiography into Fitzgerald’s writings without hard evidence to back it up, but the novel feels very close to home, given what we know about Scott and Zelda’s lives.

Anthony and Gloria’s marriage, much like Scott and Zelda’s, is tempestuous from the very start. Anthony “felt often like a scarcely tolerated guest at a party she was giving.” (p.124) That’s maybe a sign that things aren’t going so well. 

Like Scott and Zelda, the Patches quarrel a lot: “Yet Anthony knew that there were days when they hurt each other purposelytaking almost a delight in the thrust.” (p.125) 

We can get some sense of what the early days of Scott and Zelda’s marriage was like from Andrew Turnbull’s biography of Fitzgerald. One of Turnbull’s sources is the diary of Alexander McKaig, a classmate of Scott’s at Princeton who saw them frequently during this time. 

April 12, 1920: “I do not think marriage can succeed. Both drinking heavily. Think they will be divorced in 3 years.” (Scott Fitzgerald, by Andrew Turnbull, p.119) This was less than two weeks after their marriage. 

October 12, 1920: “If she’s there Fitz can’t workshe bothers himif she’s not there he can’t workworried of what she might do…I told her she would have to make up her mind whether she wanted to go in movies or get in with young married set. To do that would require a little effort & Zelda will never make an effort.” (p.120)

December 11, 1920: “I told them they were headed for catastrophe if they kept up at present rate.” (p.121) 

Of course, Scott and Zelda were headed towards catastrophe, but the party would roll on for many more years. McKaig’s observation that Zelda could go into the movies mirrors Gloria’s friendship with Bloeckman, a movie producer who is always pestering her to make a screen test. At the end of the novel, Gloria finally does make a screen test, and, shock and horror; she’s told she’s too old to be a leading lady! She would have to settle for character parts! Rather than face the indignity of having to play something less than a leading role, Gloria doesn’t pursue acting. 

Like Scott and Zelda, Anthony and Gloria are terrible with money. Grandfather Adam says to Anthony about his income: “It ought to be plenty. If you have any sense it ought to be plenty. But the question is whether you have any or not.” (p.130) Like Scott and Zelda, Anthony and Gloria continually overspend and throughout the book Anthony is selling off bonds to tide them over. Scott did not have the family wealth that Anthony didalthough his mother’s side of the family did have money, there was no trust fund for young Scott to live off of. He would have to make his own way in the world, and he did. From the time he was 22 years old, Scott Fitzgerald supported himself entirely as a free-lance fiction writer. During the decade of the 1920’s, Scott made just under $250,000 from his writings. That would be roughly $3.4 million or so in 2018 dollars. That should have been more than enough for the Fitzgeralds. But it wasn’t, and Scott was always taking out advances from Scribner’s, his very generous publishers. In 1924, Scott wrote a very funny article entitled, “How to Live on $36,000 a Year.” The joke of the piece was that Scott and Zelda couldn’t live on $36,000 a year, despite their occasional attempts at financial management. In 1924, two-thirds of Americans earned less than $1,500 a year, and I wonder how funny those two-thirds of Americans found Scott’s article. 

Anthony quickly learns after his marriage to Gloria what his duties will be: “The management of Gloria’s temper, whether it was aroused by a lack of hot water for her bath or by a skirmish with her husband, became almost the primary duty of Anthony’s day.” (p.151) 

There are other connections to Fitzgerald’s other writings and to his own life throughout the novel. Alert Fitzgerald fans will notice a precursor to Gatsby’s famous line about repeating the past when Gloria says “You can’t ever quite repeat anything.” (p.159)

A line that a character has about non-fiction being “a sort of literature that’s half fiction and half fact” actually came from Fitzgerald’s 1920 story “The I.O.U.,” which was rejected by magazines and eventually published in I’d Die For You, a 2017 collection of previously unpublished short stories. (Quote from p.250) 

When Anthony joins the military after the United States enters World War I, he puts down “author” as his occupation, and then changes it to “student.” (p.309) This is the opposite of Fitzgerald’s own response to a 1919 survey of World War I soldiers: he wrote “was studentam now writer.” 

The Beautiful and Damned is overstuffed, and, clocking in at 420 plus pages in the most recent paperback edition, could have used some editing. It’s pretty amazing that Fitzgerald was able to go from the put it all in style of this book to the graceful economy of The Great Gatsby. 

Like This Side of Paradise, there’s not much narrative drive in The Beautiful and Damned. There’s no real tensionyou’re just seeing scene after scene of these people. As Fitzgerald writes, “There was nothing, it seemed, that grew stale so soon as pleasure.” (p.393) 

Fitzgerald conceived of The Beautiful and Damned and wrote it fairly quickly. In August of 1920, he wrote to Charles Scribner, outlining the plot: 

“My new novel, called ‘The Flight of the Rocket’ concerns the life of Anthony Patch between his 25th and 33rd years (1913-1921). He is one of those many with the tastes and weaknesses of an artist but with no actual creative inspiration. How he and his beautiful young wife are wrecked on the shoals of dissipation is told in the story.” (The Far Side of Paradise, p.135) 

Fitzgerald finished The Beautiful and Damned just before he and Zelda sailed for Europe in May, 1921. It was their first trip to Europe, and, ironically enough for two of the most famous American expatriates of the 1920’s, they didn’t like it. 

The Beautiful and Damned was serialized in Metropolitan magazine from September 1921 to March 1922. Scott and Zelda were back in Scott’s hometown of Saint Paul during that time, as Scott worked on the final proofs for the book. Unfortunately, the serialization may have harmed the book’s chances for success, as Carl Hovey, the editor of Metropolitan, “clipped and cut it up abominably,” according to a letter Fitzgerald wrote to his editor Maxwell Perkins. (The Far Side of Paradise, p.158) As James L.W. West III writes in his introduction to the 2008 edition of The Beautiful and Damned, “Much of Anthony’s dissolute behavior was excised; most of Gloria’s sexual allure was removed. Satire was blunted, criticisms of organized religion were deleted, and characterization was simplified.” (p.xi) 

Arthur Mizener’s comments on The Beautiful and Damned are insightful as to the faults of the book: “It is, compared to This Side of Paradise, a painstakingly thought-out book, and for that reason a much less effective one.” (The Far Side of Paradise, p.151) Both novels took a rather scattershot approach to their material, as Fitzgerald stuffed in as much as he could into both books, but for me This Side of Paradise had a youthful, off-handed charm that The Beautiful and Damned lacks. Perhaps that’s due to how Fitzgerald matured and changed in the intervening years. The Beautiful and Damned is also a darker book than This Side of Paradise, and bleaker in its worldview. 

Mizener also felt that Fitzgerald made a fundamental error in his handling of Anthony and Gloria: “Fitzgerald never made up his mind whether he wanted to stand apart from them and treat them satirically or enter into their experience with sympathy and understanding.” (The Far Side of Paradise, p.153-4) I agree with Mizener; it was never clear to me how the reader is supposed to feel about Anthony and Gloria. Matthew J. Bruccoli makes the same point in his Fitzgerald biography, writing bluntly: “The novel does not maintain a consistent attitude towards its characters.” (Some Sort of Epic Grandeur, p.151)

Zelda herself wrote a review of The Beautiful and Damned, which appeared in the New York Tribune in April of 1922, a month after the novel’s publication. Zelda’s review is quite funny, and she astutely noticed what Scott seemed to have missed: the fact that Gloria has birthdays in three different monthsFebruary, May, and September. The mystery of Gloria’s birthdays is addressed in the 2008 edition of the book, and while other errors in the book have been cleaned up, there was no way to change Gloria’s birthdays without seriously altering the chronology of the novel, so her three birthdays remain unchanged.

The most famous part of Zelda’s review is as follows:

“It seems to me that on one page I recognized a portion of an old diary of mine which mysteriously disappeared shortly after my marriage, and also scraps of letters which, though considerably edited, sound to me vaguely familiar. In fact, Mr. FitzgeraldI believe that is how he spells his nameseems to believe that plagiarism begins at home.” (Appendix 2, p.429)

Biographers of both Scott and Zelda have quarreled over the importance of this paragraph for years. To feminist critics and biographers, this has offered proof that Scott was using Zelda’s life as material for his own fiction, and it paints him as a domineering husband.  Matthew J. Bruccoli, probably Scott’s most sympathetic biographer, defends Fitzgerald from Zelda’s charges, writing: “None of Fitzgerald’s surviving manuscripts shows her hand, though Zelda’s manuscripts bear his revisions. She did play an important role in his workapart from providing him with a modelbecause he trusted her literary judgement and acted on her criticisms. But Zelda was never his collaborator.” (Some Sort of Epic Grandeur, p.162)

Of course, the truth could be somewhere in between. We can’t know Zelda’s intention behind the allegationsthe entire review is written in a very satiric, ironic voice, so is her plagiarism allegation a mocking joke that isn’t meant to be taken seriously, or is it a more pointed criticism? We also don’t know what Scott’s reaction to Zelda’s review was. Did Scott laugh it off as a private joke between the two of them, or was he angered when he read Zelda’s review? 

The fight between Scott and Zelda over who could fictionalize their own lives would explode again a decade later as Zelda was writing her novel Save Me the Waltz and Scott was at work on Tender is the Night. Scott felt that Zelda’s book would cover some of the same ground that his own novel would, and he tried to dissuade her from publishing it. Scott eventually edited Save Me the Waltz, but because no manuscript of the novel exists before his involvement, we don’t know how much of the material he changed. Scott’s behavior during this time was abhorrent, culminating in a May 1933 meeting between Scott, Zelda, her psychiatrist, and a stenographer, who typed out a 114-page record of the proceedings. It’s quoted in Bruccoli’s biography, and it’s not pretty. As Bruccoli writes, “The angry discussion ranged over many of the fissures in the Fitzgeralds’ marriage, but the crux was Fitzgerald’s insistence on the authority to veto Zelda’s writing plans.” (Some Sort of Epic Grandeur, p.345) Both Scott and Zelda talked of divorce during the meeting. That probably would have been the best thing for both of them. 

What may have been lighthearted teasing in 1922 had turned into hatred and resentment on both sides a decade later. 

In 1930, shortly after Zelda entered Malmaison Clinic for treatment after her first mental breakdown, Scott wrote her a painfully heartfelt letter. We don’t know if Scott ever sent the letter to Zelda or not. “I wish the Beautiful and Damned had been a maturely written book because it was all true. We ruined ourselvesI have never honestly thought that we ruined each other” (Dear Scott, Dearest Zelda: The Love Letters of F. Scott & Zelda Fitzgerald, Edited by Jackson R. Bryer and Cathy W. Barks, p.65) 

That seems like a fitting final word on The Beautiful and Damned.