Jennifer Homans' biography of Balanchine

[cobweb]

After delaying for months and months, I finally forced myself to get through the entirety of Mr. B. Given my intense interest in the subject matter, and the fact that I'm a reader in general, it was striking how difficult I found this book to get through. On the positive side, it was informative about Balanchine and New York City Ballet, and I appreciate that. That's what got me through, the feeling that I was learning about someone important to me. There were many down sides. I found the tone uneven and baffling. She never finds her particular voice, or a consistent stance toward her subject. There were endless statements like (I paraphrase): "Balanchine's artistic integrity was in danger, and he knew it." "He knew that Tanny was the only real wife he ever had." "Jerry knew..." & etc. Since these are not footnoted (from a letter or interview or something), I assume it's Homans' interpolation. Endless referring to people by their first name: "George," "Georgi," "Tanny," "Jerry," "Milly," even "Jack" for President Kennedy! What in the world. Someone up-thread said she mainly did this to women, but I don't think that's so. Instead, I wonder (haven't read enough current biography to know) if it's mainly women authors who refer to people by their first name. More generally, I had the feeling that Homans didn't entirely have control of the material, but that she was including topics or incidents because she happened to have the material at hand. A difficult book. She's more a historian than a writer. 

[vipa]

28 minutes ago, cobweb said:

 There were endless statements like (I paraphrase): "Balanchine's artistic integrity was in danger, and he knew it." "He knew that Tanny was the only real wife he ever had." "Jerry knew..." & etc. Since these are not footnoted (from a letter or interview or something), I assume it's Homans' interpolation. 

To my way of thinking these are examples that illustrate Homans tendency for mind-reading. I agree with @Cobweb that the tone is uneven and baffling. Homans also drew some odd conclusions. At one point she stated that Balanchine's ballerinas were a quirky bunch. (paraphrasing). I would guess that if you looked into any group of highly creative, artistic, accomplished, ambitious people, in any field you'd find quite a bit of quirk, so I'm not sure what she was implying. The book can be a slog, and it's not the final word on Balanchine, but it has a lot of interesting information . Bottom line is that we have his ballets, and I'm thankful for that.

[cobweb]

I wanted to add, that I also found Homans' descriptions of the ballets to be tedious. I tried to read, but wound up doing a lot of skipping, the sections where she dissects Agon, Serenade, Don Quixote, etc. Maybe it's just that dance is hard to write about, I don't know, but I found her analyses ponderous and not adding anything to what I already know of these pieces. Balanchine Variations is way better as an introduction to the ballets. 

It happens that the next book on my pile of books to read was Witold Rybczynski's biography of Frederick Law Olmsted, A Clearing in the Distance. Totally excellent. He has control of the material, is easy to read, and makes the past come alive. In And rather than write "Olmsted knew he wasn't coming back," he makes it clear this is his impression -- he writes, "Olmsted knew -- so I believe -- that he wasn't coming back." Highly recommend this book!

[dirac]

On 6/19/2023 at 6:57 PM, cobweb said:

After delaying for months and months, I finally forced myself to get through the entirety of Mr. B. Given my intense interest in the subject matter, and the fact that I'm a reader in general, it was striking how difficult I found this book to get through. On the positive side, it was informative about Balanchine and New York City Ballet, and I appreciate that. That's what got me through, the feeling that I was learning about someone important to me. There were many down sides. I found the tone uneven and baffling. She never finds her particular voice, or a consistent stance toward her subject. There were endless statements like (I paraphrase): "Balanchine's artistic integrity was in danger, and he knew it." "He knew that Tanny was the only real wife he ever had." "Jerry knew..." & etc. Since these are not footnoted (from a letter or interview or something), I assume it's Homans' interpolation. Endless referring to people by their first name: "George," "Georgi," "Tanny," "Jerry," "Milly," even "Jack" for President Kennedy! What in the world. Someone up-thread said she mainly did this to women, but I don't think that's so. Instead, I wonder (haven't read enough current biography to know) if it's mainly women authors who refer to people by their first name. More generally, I had the feeling that Homans didn't entirely have control of the material, but that she was including topics or incidents because she happened to have the material at hand. A difficult book. She's more a historian than a writer. 

I found the use of first names most disconcerting with regard to Kirstein, who is consistently referred to chummily as "Lincoln." I think the topper for me was when she kept calling Nelson Rockefeller as "Nelson," even in contexts where there was unlikely to be any confusion with his brother David, who also figures briefly in the book.

vipa writes:

Quote

I thought her treatment of Von Aroldingen oddly and unnecessarily unsympathetic.

Some of what Homans writes about von Aroldingen tallies with what others have written (cf. Moira Shearer's "Balletmaster). She does go into more unflattering detail. However, she is generous to von Aroldingen as a dancer, I think. And she does give credit to von Aroldingen for being there when Balanchine needed her most.

I was more puzzled by the treatment of Farrell, who is accused of "wily manipulations" that go undescribed and with "unerring instinct" helps herself to a choice place at the barre occupied by a "rising young dancer," which readers of Merrill Ashley's "Dancing for Balanchine" will identify readily, since Ashley complained therein that when Farrell came back she took Ashley's favorite spot at the barre. (Farrell says in her own book that she just wanted to stand next to her old comrade and partner d'Amboise for support, as they had always stood together, a perfectly reasonable explanation.) 

[pherank]

17 hours ago, dirac said:

I was more puzzled by the treatment of Farrell, who is accused of "wily manipulations" that go undescribed and with "unerring instinct" helps herself to a choice place at the barre occupied by a "rising young dancer," which readers of Merrill Ashley's "Dancing for Balanchine" will identify readily, since Ashley complained therein that when Farrell came back she took Ashley's favorite spot at the barre. (Farrell says in her own book that she just wanted to stand next to her old comrade and partner d'Amboise for support, as they had always stood together, a perfectly reasonable explanation.) 

All of which could have been cleared up with a few words of explanation to Ashley. Certainly lends credence to the old assumption that dancers aren't great communicators (with words).

Edited June 25, 2023 by pherank

[vipa]

It seemed to me that who stood where at the barre, and who felt upset belongs in an individual dancer's autobiography, to give his/her perspective.  A place in a Balanchine bio, not so much, particularly with the author drawing conclusions. 

[dirac]

On 4/21/2023 at 5:31 PM, BalanchineFan said:

One thing I loved about the book, which I hadn't considered, even with all the other Balanchine material I've read, is Homans' idea that he swallowed up dying cultures right before their demise, and got out before they fell. Russia and the Russian Imperial School - he left before Stalin cracked down and made that impossible. Berlin at the height of the Weimar era - she goes through many artistic influences there. Paris in the late 1920's and early 1930's and again, by the time Nazi-ism came to the fore to end that golden era Balanchine was in NYC. It was a great device to place him in the twentieth century and show how the major events of the century shaped his life and career.

 

I agree. I had also not thought of that, and it's interesting that what seemed like an awful blow at the time - losing the Paris Opera job to Lifar - meant that he was out of Europe before the war. He might have departed anyway, but he also might have been trapped or misguidedly refused to leave. Other writers may well have pointed this out previously but I don't remember it.

Unfortunately, for every insight it seems like there's another distracting boo-boo. I haven't encountered such a misuse of fulsome since Gelsey Kirkland's reference to "fulsome breasts."

[pherank]

4 hours ago, dirac said:

I haven't encountered such a misuse of fulsome since Gelsey Kirkland's reference to "fulsome breasts."

LOL. It's the little things in life.
I just finished reading Paulette Jiles' News of the World, and there it was the insistence on using no punctuation (other than sentence-ending periods) that really threw me. Punctuation in English is a reader's aid, and sometimes you just have to have it. Trying to distinguish narrative text from character dialogue is pretty hard without any punctuation. An otherwise excellent book though.

Edited July 2, 2023 by pherank

[BalanchineFan]

On 7/1/2023 at 5:56 PM, dirac said:

Unfortunately, for every insight it seems like there's another distracting boo-boo. I haven't encountered such a misuse of fulsome since Gelsey Kirkland's reference to "fulsome breasts."

Doesn't fulsome also mean 2. of large size or quantity, generous or abundant? 

1. 1.

   complimentary or flattering to an excessive degree.

   "they are almost embarrassingly fulsome in their appreciation"

    
    
2. 2.

   of large size or quantity; generous or abundant.

   "a fulsome harvest"

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dirac]

OT: It's a reasonable question, BalanchineFan, and you'd be correct if a) we were speaking in purely descriptive terms, since the word is frequently used in the second meaning of if 2) Homans (and Kirkland) were writing in Middle English, since the word did originally mean "generous" or "abundant," as in a "fulsome harvest." However,  today the first usage remains the "correct" one for careful writers. IMO it's a useful word to have around for the first meaning and not terribly necessary for the second.

The American Heritage Dictionary is particularly helpful in these matters because of their "Usage Notes." It outlines the issue well, I think. The Cambridge Dictionary takes a firmer line. You will note that the American Heritage usage note suggests, sadly/wisely, that the word be omitted where it may cause ambiguity.

I think in a book of this quality it's a mistake (describing Betty Cage as having a "fulsome body"). There are many other adjectives you could use that aren't going to distract your reader (or maybe you could just not even refer to Cage's curves at all (?)).

 

[nanushka]

OED definition A.1.b (with examples given from 1447 to 1664 and from 1952 onward):

Quote

Chiefly of a person or (a part of) the body: full and plump; fleshy, corpulent; oversized, overfed; (in later use) full-figured; voluptuous. Also in extended use.Revived in the 20th century.

Failure to adhere to the preferences of certain conservative usage opiners does not constitute misuse.

[Helene]

I only knew the definition that @nanushka cites from OED.

[dirac]

You know, if it didn't make you giggle when you read it or otherwise present a distraction for you, I envy you. But I do not withdraw the word "misuse."  I certainly wouldn't recommend Homans' or Kirkland's usage, or the selected cite from the OED, to a  writer in search of guidance on the matter. I would send them to the American Heritage note so they could make an informed choice, either to use the word as they think best, or perhaps not use it at all.

 

[Orel Protopopescu]

Today, Nov 1, is World Ballet Day, and also the anniversary of the 2022 publication of the newest Balanchine biography, Jennifer Homans's Mr. B. As the author of Dancing Past the Light: The Life of Tanaquil Le Clercq (UPF, 2021), I had a lot to say about Homans's book.  You can read my review, published on author Joel Lobenthal's blog, by clicking on the link below, or, if that doesn't work, by copying the link and pasting it into any search engine:

http://lobenthal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Mr.-B-reviewed-by-Orel-Protopopescu-10-_15_-23-1.pdf

Another review you may have missed, by dance critic, Mindy Aloff (author, most recently, of Why Dance Matters), was posted on the website of Yale's Best American Poetry series:

https://blog.bestamericanpoetry.com/the_best_american_poetry/2023/02/george-balanchine-mindy-aloff.html#more

The dance critic and poet, Jay Rogoff, has a review forthcoming from Salmagundi's Spring, 2024 issue. Alas, most of the reviews in print were not written by dance specialists. I welcome any comments on the above.

 

[BalanchineFan]

Hi Orel,

Thanks for the links. I'm going to ask for your book on LeClerq for Christmas. And I'm loving your talk about her life.

 

[dirac]

Thank you so much for the link to your review, Ms. Protopopescu. I bought and loved your biography of Le Clercq (we have a thread here for the book, for those who are interested). I look forward to reading your poetry as well.

[Orel Protopopescu]

Thanks to all who responded to my last post.

It was good to hear that you appreciated my biography of Le Clercq as well.

I'm grateful to have the warm and generous thoughts/feelings of such attentive readers. 

[Orel Protopopescu]

I just read some prior posts on Homans's Mr. B and saw that the issue of first names came up in April. Some connected it to her disparagement of women, although she does this to men as well (Lincoln, Jerry, Nelson).

This was a thorny problem for me, too, as Tanaquil Le Clercq preferred the nickname "Tanny" to her legal first name (which few who knew her used, unless with playful irony) and Le Clercq seemed unduly formal. So I chose to mix the names, trying to refer to the performer as Le Clercq, for the most part, except where it seemed too awkward, and the woman as Tanny. Using Le Clercq consistently seemed unduly formal to me, which she was decidedly not. I'm not sure that Homans used first names in a way that's anti-feminist, since Jerry is most often Jerry, not Robbins. It's also a matter of how seriously people took themselves, or others did. There was a tendency to separate dancers from choreographers, using last names for the latter (as in Tudor and Hugh, as was common at ABT and in its prior incarnation as BT), so I tended to use that as a guide. Personal preference. But I did mention that in my text, in order to explain the idiosyncrasy for readers less familiar with ballet than those who post on this site. Choreographers and composers, etc., seemed to be viewed as a higher order than dancers. I'm not sure why. Is that still true?

[Quiggin]

First naming became an issue for me in "Ninth Street Women," about the New York School painters Lee Krasner, Elaine de Kooning, Grace Hartigan, Joan Mitchell, and Helen Frankenthaler. I'd not be able to keep up with which Joe it was: Joe LeSeur or Joe Hazan? Only with Edwin Denby did I feel I was on solid ground.

For me there is a bit too much intimacy in a biographer calling their subject by their first name. The biographer and subject are not really equals and first naming implies that. The distance between them should be established in some graceful, or amusing, way (Shakespeare's first biographer called him "this William").

With Homans, I sort of accepted the first names basis, as if everyone were in a big rehearsal room. What I objected to were the quick Homeric thumbnail sketches of each person she introduced, their ethnic background, their often absent father or mismatched parents, etc. It was too digressive and not that interesting.

4 hours ago, Orel Protopopescu said:

Choreographers and composers, etc., seemed to be viewed as a higher order than dancers. I'm not sure why. Is that still true?

With composers and writers I like last names if they're no longer alive and first and last if they are – at least in the first reference. The sound of the name might figure in – you say Hemingway, last name, but also F Scott Fitzgerald, first and last, Suzanne Farrell than Farrell. Igor Stravinsky might be the composer whereas Stravinsky seems to me, less respectfully, the brand. You could be formal for a while, then break it as if coming in for a close up. The LeClercq / Tanny performer / woman (long shot / close up?) variation seems like a really good solution.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Quiggin

[dirac]

All excellent points, Quiggin, although I'd add "not usually acquaintances or intimates" to "not really equals."  So much depends on context. There are times when I will think, "Well, that's a little free and easy" and other times when it seems fine. When the topic is the subject's childhood, it would seem odd to me to use a surname:

And of course with married couples who share a surname you don't really have an option, as with "Eleanor and Franklin" and "Scott and Zelda."

Thank you for sharing your own experience, Ms. Protopopescu. I thought you handled the issue well in your book.

Returning to your review, I appreciated among other things your discussion of the influence of Elizabeth Kendall's work on Homans' account of Balanchine's early years.

[Orel Protopopescu]

Thank you all for the thoughtful comments. By reviewing this thread I just learned about the Ulrich dissertation (Berlin) on early Balanchine and look forward to reading it. I'm particularly interested in the influence of Fokine on young Balanchine, since F. was one of Nora Kaye's teachers and I'm currently working on a biography of her. If anyone has insights/references or memories of NK in performance, or any personal memories, please contact me. Easier by email, via my author's guild website. www.orelprotopopescu.com

[pherank]

9 hours ago, Orel Protopopescu said:

Thank you all for the thoughtful comments. By reviewing this thread I just learned about the Ulrich dissertation (Berlin) on early Balanchine and look forward to reading it. I'm particularly interested in the influence of Fokine on young Balanchine, since F. was one of Nora Kaye's teachers and I'm currently working on a biography of her. If anyone has insights/references or memories of NK in performance, or any personal memories, please contact me. Easier by email, via my author's guild website. www.orelprotopopescu.com

Ulrich's dissertation should still be available as a free PDF online, but let me know if you can't find it.

[Orel Protopopescu]

I found it, thanks.

[BalanchineFan]

I mentioned to a friend of mine that the picture on the cover of Homan’s book had been cropped. She has never seen the original, where Arthur Mitchell looks on as Balanchine and Farrell dance Slaughter on Tenth Avenue. 
Are you all familiar with the original photo ? It can be seen here:

https://1960sdaysofrage.wordpress.com/2021/09/30/balanchine-the-teacher-i-pushed-everybody/

I can see why one might crop Mr. Mitchell out, but the context completely changes, imo. 

[Quiggin]

Henri Cartier-Bresson, who took the series of pictures, famously did not allow his photos to be cropped (except for Alexei Brodovitch, editor of Harper's Bazaar, to whom he allowed the privilege). He believed in catching the whole thing in one throw. H C-B:

Quote

If it’s not correct, it’s not by cropping in the darkroom and making all sorts of tricks that you improve it. If a picture is mediocre, well it remains mediocre. The thing is done, once for all.

Lincoln Kirstein:

Quote

Editing and manipulation is in the choice of the Moment itself; the press, the click. Cartier-Bresson knows and accepts these limitation not as strictures but as possibilities. Liberty for him ... is a discrete frame, in which there are infinite variations and chances."

HIs approach was a huge influence on post war Amercian photographers such as Gary Winogrand, William Eggleston and Nan Goldin.

No, the picture should not have been cropped.

Added: I'll have to amend my comment to say that I'm not sure if the Arthur Mitchell photo was part of the series taken by Cartier-Bresson (there's no vignetting at corners of frame from the particular Leica lens H C-B used), though his ideas of cropping could still apply.

Edited January 22 by Quiggin