Customer Reviews

The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice Among the Literary Intelligentsia, 1880-1939

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

John Carey's "The Intellectuals and the Masses" is an eye-opening account of the fear and loathing many English writers had for ordinary people during the early days of Modernism. The intellectuals of the time hated and feared the growing power of the newly expanding middle class. Many famous and prominent writers came to dislike democracy and capitalism, because they thought they were losing influence. Carey theorizes that Modernism was invented in order to shut out the common reader of the day; to prove the elite's superiority and to put the upstarts in their places. Wyndham Lewis, a man with an amoral personal life, worshipped Hitler. D.H. Lawrence noted the efficiency of poison gas and imagined a large execution chamber where all the stupid people could be killed. Virginia Woolf sneered at the banality of the conversations she overheard from the women in the lavatory. The Bloomsbury set was especially guilty of the worst class-consciousness.

Some writers did battle with their impulses and the intellectual fashions of those years. George Orwell wrote with a minimum on condescension about "the proles" in his early novels and "1984." H.G. Wells seemed to advocate mass extermination of his inferiors in his non-fiction, but in his fiction his imaginative sympathies were usually with the failures and "losers" of the world. James Joyce's masterpiece was "Ulysses", a tribute of sorts to the common man (although written in a Modernist style that made it impossible for the common man to read it.) But on the whole the snobbery of most of the intellectuals of the day was unforgivable.

This book is an excellent companion to Modris Eksteins' "Rites of Spring" his cultural history of World War I. Both books argue that Modernism was in part responsible for the horrors of the 20th century, with its ruthless elitism and emotional coldness. Shaw, Pound and Forster dreamed of ridding the world of "superfluous" people; did this make it possible for Hitler and Stalin to actually attempt it? The necessary ideas were in the air. And they still are. Carey notes that, as the masses began to catch up in sophistication, post-modernism and literary theory was invented to create a new elite artistic language for its aristocrtatic initiates to revel in. The Modernist loathing for the mass media of newspapers was replaced by hatred of television and America, the middle-class nation par excellance. (And I would add, they really hate the Internet.) If you want to know why so many celebrities seem so sour and cynical about everything but themselves, read this book.

Strange to think that a well-chaired professor at Oxford, that ancient bastion of academic elitism (still, despite the sun setting on its hallowed but crumbling halls), would have so much criticism to level against the dawn of modern intellegentsia. But upon reading the first part of this concise and well-documented book, it became clear to me just how rotten at heart our intellectual heroes truly were. Carey finds a wealth of unnerving evidence that the great figures (self-appointed "greats," as this book shows us) of the modern literary canon festered with hatred of the common man, so much that they advocated (oftentimes straightforwardly) wiping out all of humanity. Moreso, the various case studies in the book's second part uncover further details about just how much these great writers loathed the "masses," and the strange, selfish reasons behind their disdain.

This is an excellent read for anyone struggling through "Ulysses," "To the Lighthouse," or even "The Wasteland." Carey's thorough research and well-argued points shed much-needed light on the dark side of our past century's most celebrated authors: why they wrote in such an unreachable voice, why they crafted their themes to be so alien to most people, why they lived where they did, and (most importantly) how much worthier they took themselves as human beings. I did groan a bit during the final chapter, which was about Wyndham Lewis and Hitler. Dropping the "H-bomb" can make anything seem evil and was therefore too easy a potshot for Carey to take at the intellectuals. Also, the two back-to-back case studies on H. G. Wells were somewhat redundant; Carey would have done better to write two case studies on two separate writers. Still, this book gives the reader an exciting, enlightening, and shocking view at the world of the intellectuals between 1880 and 1939 (and, in the Postscript, a look at similar currents in today's postmodern world), and I highly recommend it to any fan of modern literature who is not afraid to explore the ugly side of the great writers.

The Intellectuals & The Masses: Pride & Prejudice Among The Literary Intelligentsia, 1880-1939 by John Carey is an informed and informative analysis of the elitist views of respected and influential literary icons during the late 1800's and early 1900's, including H. G. Wells, D. H. Lawrence, G. B. Shaw, Ezra Pound, James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, T. S. Elliot, and others. A scathing and iconoclastic account attacking the negative side of intellectual views (such as a running thread of contempt for common humanity that allegedly intertwines with the philosophy of Nietzsche and an environment that brought about Adolph Hitler and World War II), The Intellectuals & The Masses does not shirk from its stringent stand or its unflinching scrutiny of smart people's biggest flaws. Highly recommended for academic Philosophy and Literary Criticism reference collections and supplemental reading lists.

This book does an excellent job of showing the links between elitist, obscurantist art, political elitism and the pervasive contempt for popular culture which still infects much of the intelligentsia today. Especially interesting are the sections where Carey shows how much of this arose from panic on the part of many intellectuals at the burgeoning populations in the major Europeans countries.

I note that some reviewers regard Carey's documentation of the broad appeal of fascism among pre-WW II intellectuals as a cheap shot rather than a serious point. This is both fallacious and unhistorical. Those who enjoy their literary works might like to forget T.S. Eliot's anti-semitism (which is why After Strange Gods has never been reprinted), or to skate past Ezra Pound's pro-Fascist sympathies. But both were typical of their time. It's understandable that many authors who flourished in those days were anxious, post Auschwitz, to forget a lot of the things they said before 1939; and many of those who like the work of such authors would also like to forget words that praise eugenics and idolize political figures like Mussolini. But such things were said by some of our most respected poets, novelists and thinkers - and it is an injustice to pretend that they were not. The Great Silence on this matter must end.

Carey's book is a first step towards explaining why there has been so profound a disconnect over the past hundred years between intellectual elites and the broader reading and thinking public - a disconnect that thinkers in the middle years of the nineteenth century would have found shocking and almost incredible. Let us hope that others will follow in his footsteps.

_The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice Among the Literary Intelligensia, 1880 - 1939_ (1992) by populist critic John Carey presents an interesting study of the role of the "masses" in the writings and thought of the literary intelligentsia. The intellectual elite set themselves off from the crowd by virtue of their upper middle class social standing and intellectual abilities. Fears of over-population and the rise of modern mass democracy caused many of these individuals to lament the rise of the "masses" and their crass cultural sympathies. The intellectual elite saw the masses as vulgar and base, lacking in culture, and materialistic. Many of those among them embraced fascist and totalitarian tendencies as a means to prevent the mass man from gaining power. In fact, the author is to claim that Nazism arose out of the same concerns of intellectuals. Many of the elite hoped for the extermination of large groups of people or even the death of mankind. Similar concerns are expressed by modern "progressive intellectuals" in our own age.

This book includes the following chapters -

Preface - explains the role of the intellectual elite in Britain and explains how fear of the masses related to the rise of a modern mass-reading public brought about through educational reforms. Relates this opposition of the elite and the masses to the Christian opposition of the elect and the damned in the thinking of individuals such as St. Augustine.

Part I: Themes.

The Revolt of the Masses - notes the importance of over-population and the rise of the "mass man" in the thinking of Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset. Explains how these concerns echoed those of elitist thinker Friedrich Nietzsche in his opposition to the herd, "hyperdemocracy", and the rise of socialism. Notes how such concerns were reflected in the writings of many authors including H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Knut Hamsun, Thomas Mann, Hermann Hesse, Gide, and others. In particular, intellectuals feared a mass reading public and opposed popular education. In addition, intellectuals lamented the rise of mass newspapers and advertising as well as the role of "tinned food" (echoing the concerns raised by "fast food" of modern intellectuals). The author contrasts the role of newspapers in the writings of Conan Doyle and Lord Northcliffe with the elitist posturing of the modernists including T. S. Eliot, Evelyn Waugh, James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, and others who attempted to make their writings purposefully abstruse so as to avoid mass readership. In fact, individuals such as Aldous Huxley were to lament the rise of the "New Stupid" who they feared from a modern reading public. The author explains how fears of the masses caused many of the elite to advocate eugenics (promoted by Francis Galton) as a means for breeding a superior race and eliminating the unfit.

Rewriting the Masses - explains how the mass was re-written by philosophers such as Ortega y Gasset as unambitious and "common" while at the same time lamenting the brutality of the mass and arguing against mass democracy. Such fears were echoed in the writings of Le Bon and Canetti showing the brutality and irrationalism of the "crowd". The author considers Thomas Hardy's fear that the crowd would rise up and overwhelm him and notes the intellectuals opposition to cameras and "fact-addiction". The author notes how the dirtiness of the lower classes came to serve as obsession in the writings of George Orwell.

The Suburbs and the Clerks - explains how the rise of a new commercial class which composed the clerks served as a particular dislike for the intellectuals. Notes how the suburbs where the clerks lived were seen as vulgar where hypocrisy, wanton sexual appetites, and religious fanaticism were given free expression. Explains how the tastes of the clerks were seen as vulgar and materialistic. Notes how the rise of the suburbs was contrasted with the old peasantry and pastoralism who were seen as wholesome by intellectuals.

Natural Aristocrats - examines the notion of a natural aristocracy of intellectuals in the thinking of D. H. Lawrence, W. B. Yeats (who joined the elitist Society of the Golden Dawn), T. S. Eliot, and Ezra Pound (who supported Mussolini). Notes the prominence of this thinking in the thought of Nietzsche (who was revered by many intellectuals), especially in his atheism and opposition to Christianity and socialism who came to see an aristocracy of blood. Explains how this sort of aristocratic thinking was expressed both by atheists such as Nietzsche and cultural Catholics such as Graham Greene. Notes that such thinking could be progressive appealing to the concerns of left-wing intellectuals or reactionary. Also, explains the opposition of many intellectuals to the role of women and feminism (though in the recent times intellectuals have come to embrace feminism).

Part II: Case Studies.

George Gissing and the Ineducable Masses - explains the role of the masses in the writings of George Gissing and notes his belief that popular education would largely be a failure and that the masses were thus ineducable. Explains Gissing's opposition to democracy and English "philistinism" (a concern echoed by many intellectuals) as well as his extreme anti-feminist views.

H. G. Wells Getting Rid of People - explains how fear of the masses came to occupy a prominent role in the thinking of H. G. Wells who advocate for progressive causes as a means to temper the role of the masses including eugenics. Explains how Wells frequently felt that people must be gotten rid of and advocating mass extermination. Notes the opposition of Wells to the vulgar and common in his stories as well as his apocalyptic stories and belief in the "gas chambers".

H. G. Wells Against H. G. Wells - explains the condescension of H. G. Wells and his opposition to the tastes of the mass man and the vulgar. Notes that while Wells expressed such beliefs that frequently in his stories he allowed outcastes to take on prominent roles.

Narrowing the Abyss: Arnold Bennett - explains how in the stories of Bennett the masses were not viewed in such a negative light and how he dismembered the intellectuals case against the masses in his promotion of the average individual.

Wyndham Lewis and Hitler - explains the role of the intellectual and love of the aristocracy in the thinking of Wyndham Lewis. Notes the extreme opposition to feminism as well as the support for Hitler and totalitarianism. Notes how Lewis hated the "melting pot" and believed in Anglo-Saxon supremacy as well as his views of Marxism. Examines the thinking of Adolf Hitler maintaining that Hitler's beliefs were not crass, vulgar, and disgusting as is commonly maintained but were those of many of the other intellectuals. Notes Hitler's early life as a young intellectual student who lamented the vulgarization of the press and masses. Explains how Hitler's fear of the masses came to take on biological tones in _Mein Kampf_ and led to his advocacy of eugenics and his use of the gas chamber to eliminate the unfit. Notes how many of the intellectual elite supported Hitler and fascism generally.

Postscript - explains how notions such as eugenics were discredited after the rise of Hitler but notes how intellectuals still opposed the "philistinism" of the masses. Examines how in modern times the "post-structuralist" thinking of individuals such as Derrida has been further used by intellectuals to deceive the masses. Notes how concerns of over-population have resurfaced in a world that is radically changed from the time period discussed in this book. Presents a doomsday scenario based on over-population trends in which certain people must be eliminated as "vermin".

This book offers an important examination of the role of the masses in the thinking of the intellectual elite and the decline of culture. The author explains how in modern times a new form of progressive intellectual has arisen in opposition to the tastes and vulgarity of the masses. The author examines opposition to mass consumerism as a continuation of this trend. One thing that the author does not mention is the rise of the internet which continues the intellectual fear expressed over newspapers and the decline of culture. I feel that these same concerns are very valid today as the situation has only become worse since the time period discussed in this book.

A great book. It sheds a whole new light on a number of modern "thinkers". In particular the parrallel between Hitler's writting and that of a number of modern intellectuals is impressive to say the least. Also the book is very accessible and I found it very readable without extensive literary background. This goes to show that John Carey at least makes an effort to be read by the masses! Note also that although the title claims to address 1880-1939, there is a section at the end putting more recent authors into a whole new perspective, which imho is one of the highlights of the book. Literature student should be forced to read it.

Please, Mr. Publisher, re-print this book!

John Carey is the Merton Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford, occupying one of the most prestigious chairs in the academic world today. From this Olympian height, Professor Carey conducts a battle, on behalf of the general public, against most of the writers and thinkers of the Modernist movement. Why can't we understand modern art and literature? The answer is simple: these major intellectuals both hated and feared the masses, i.e. us; and consciously isolated themselves, in life and in art, from the general public. Thus spake Professor Carey. And why would these modern intellectuals hate us? Again, the answer is simple. Because they were influenced by that evil couple of thinkers so influential around the beginning of the century--Nietzsche and Freud. Nietzsche, according to Professor Carey, despised the masses and yearned for the coming of a superman to enslave the rest of mankind. Therefore, he is responsible for Fascism. Freud, similarly, made up psychological theories to explain the herd behavior of the masses. Make no mistake about it, Professor Carey is for the people and against Fascism, Totalitarianism, etc, etc. On the other hand, those of us--from the masses-- who have actually read the books from down below find it hard to agree with Professor Carey's sweeping condemnation. Of course we lack the mountain air and bird's-eye-view of the Merton Professor, but we happen to detect in this book, in the all-too-easy answers given on every page, a trace of what Nietzsche would call ressentiment. Towards the intellectuals that he condemns Professor Carey seems to have a I-hope-you-rot-in-hell attitude; and his chief method is to pick any and every quote from any and every book--out of context--that would prove his wonderfully brutal hypothesis. In the end, our professor seems to be the one out of touch with reality, with paranoid delusions about the descendents of modernism taking over the contemporary world. Who's afraid of Derrida? Read this book to find out.! One final note, today the works of the modernists condemned in this book are studied by all who care about humanity, in all major languages, and in every corner of the world--i.e. by the masses. And as to our Oxford Professor who doesn't even tutor undergrads anymore...

Scandal about the congress between modernist intellectuals and nazis rubs against our enlightened grain. It's embarrassing to think that, say, Martin Heidegger, an otherwise clever fellow, was a nazi, to boot. What's more embarrassing, though, is to consider that much of the hubris from modernist intellectuals--their loathing of ugliness and poor people and democracy--was driven by the same cultural discontents that fueled the death camps. We have our sacred literary cows--D.H. Lawrence, Virginia Wolfe, E.M. Forster, to name a few. Nietzsche, of course, was their teacher. We don't like to think that these modernist "greats" also harbored mass murder in their hearts. After all, strip malls are not a good thing! Nor are Thomas Kinkade paintings and surburban sprawl--just those things intellectuals really don't care for, still, truth to tell.

This is, no doubt, one of the reasons Carey's book strikes a nerve. It hits intellectuals between the eyes, by reminding them that their all-too-contemporary passions, those they still carry in their hearts, murdered millions. It's a Catch 22. You can live with the book, and you can't live without it!

It speaks to our condition, today, as much as it speaks about the early 20th century. And it has the power to jar those literary sentimentalists who would wish to stick to the STRUCTURE of LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER!

Stephen Gatlin

I have just read John Carey's text, "The Intellectuals and the Masses," and am very glad to have done so.

This is a thought-provoking, accessible text that offers the reader one perspective of the literary intelligentsia in early twentieth century England. Having not read any works of, for example, George Bernard Shaw, Ezra Pound, Arnold Bennett, or Stevie Smith, I have no idea whether Carey's observations and arguments are valid. This book, however, lays the groundwork for further inquiry. I am left with an intense desire to read these authors and investigate these topics more thoroughly.

"The Intellectuals and the Masses" is a text worthy of consideration by anyone who is interested in getting a general overview of modernist thinkers. The language is eloquent, the format concise, the content and opinion daring and controversial. Though the use of quotations is at some points questionable and Carey's attempt to liken D.H. Lawrence and Virginia Woolf's disdain of popular culture to that of Adolph Hitler's genocide of millions is at best ambitious, this book at the very least opens the table for discussion and dialogue.

When I adjudicated secondary-school debating competitions, there was always one dependable red flag that signalled a crumbling argument: the comparison with Hitler. Hitler was the teenager's favourite: if you could infect your opponent's argument with just a touch of Hitlerism, the crowd was instantly on your side and your opponent now had to climb a mountain of odium to win them back. The biggest and most facile cliche was always the favourite amongst the weak speakers for knocking down an argument with one brute blow. All that was required to make it work was the unthinking presence of a large crowd.

With this in mind, it is disturbing to discover that an Oxford Professor of Literature is able to do no better. Carey has written an entire book that appeals to the masses (for its dishonest nature similarly requires an unthinking audience for its success). It confirms from on high the masses' most vulgar sterotypes about some of our most well-respected intellectuals and writers: their snobbery, elitism, wilful esoterica and even their supposed personal problems. Given this fact, it's no surprise that a comparison with the lowest common denominator of villains crops up - yes, Hitler.

The most objectionable aspect of the book is that instead of examining the validity of the selected writers' ideas on their own merit, Carey focuses mainly on their personal shortcomings. In attempting to appeal to a not especially bright readership, Carey certainly knows what he's doing: after all, once you are made to think that Nietzsche was resentful and unfulfilled, that H.G. Wells had sexual problems, that Virginia Woolf was annoyed by bland banter because she was approaching madness, and that Wyndham Lewis had similar thoughts about art and culture to Hitler, it's difficult to warm to their ideas, whether right or wrong. The chapter on Lewis and Hitler is particularly funny since on the basis of the incidental similarities Carey finds between the two, thousands of other writers could be accused of Nazism.

Why would an academic take on such a mission? Why write an entire book deliberately quoting the top writers out of context and classifying them as maladjusted fools? Why stoop to such such low-bred ad hominem attacks? If the Professor feels that literature suffers from a lack of popular appeal, demonising some of its finest luminaries is hardly going to help.