Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil
A fast, enjoyable read, easy to get right into. Berendt has just the right touch for the material, too, which focuses on the kookier citizens of Savannah and is therefore in danger of going to that Welty/O’Connor place where every character is a humorous eccentric. It’s not a trope that belongs solely to “Southern writing,” the substitution of funny hats or “relatively” harmless check-kiting or obsessive watching of birds for more quotidian character traits, but it’s one I notice more in “Southern writing” because Southern writing often makes a point of mentioning that everyone else in the narrative is too polite to point out or censure these traits. But it’s not a Southern-writing thing, in the end, so much as it is a reasonably natural instinct on a writer’s part to describe the fringes, because you don’t have to shade them as subtly as you do if you want to bring out a portrait of the center.
Berendt nimbly avoids that trap in any case, by inserting himself into the various accounts as a skeptical observer. The card club is a perfect example of a contrived-seeming social situation that Welty would have bathed in loving late-afternoon light; Berendt reports its existence, manages not to spike an eyebrow at its various anachronistic strictures, and uses it to set up later events with care. It doesn’t hurt that he’s writing about real people, of course, but we’ve seen that sort of anthropological reporting done, and it can easily get hokey in an irretrievable way. Berendt’s crisp, dry prose doesn’t allow that to happen; he doesn’t let the Savannahians he writes about become a hook. Sometimes it’s what you don’t read that impresses you.
Tags: books
I think I read this book for the first time about 11 years ago, and I still rave about it. I loved that the chapters were short, so I could read it in quick bursts at bedtimes, but then I got so drawn into the story that I found myself fighting to stay awake to read more. I loved all of Berendt’s “character” descriptions – they were so rich and detailed, even if it was just a brief encounter. I wanted the book to be so much longer, so he could go spend more time with some of them!
I HATED the movie adaptation (oh, look, something else John Cusack shat on), because it took away the snappy, witty, skeptical point of view and Berendt’s storytelling style, and became exactly the “Drawling Southern Eccentricities Exhibition” he managed to avoid. While still cutting out several of the most eccentric locals! Spacey was OK as Jim Williams, but they just couldn’t convey properly (to me, anyway), the real sort of relationship with him Berendt developed during the course of his research. Also, I know Allison Eastwood needed work and exposure, but seriously? That romance storyline was brutal.
Huh. I think I need to go read this one again. Thanks for the reminder!
Definitely a fave — I own it, and in hardcover. I’m notoriously picky about which books I buy and honor with a place on my many bookshelves.
As someone from the South (with relatives in Savannah no less) I was a little leery when this came out but I was pleasantly surprised. I have to say that the “too polite to say anything” southerner is something I have a day to day run in with. Seriously. When my husband first met my family he almost died (literally) rather than interrupt a meal to explain that their dog was giving him a near fatal asthma attack. He didn’t want to be rude. !!!! Trust me when I say that my eyes are rolling as I type this. He’s 6th generation Atlanta, to which I say whatevs. His mom didn’t even want us to get married because I never had a debut. Again, seriously. They are crazy down here.
But yes, the book it was good! ;)
On a semi-related note, here’s an interesting (I think, anyway) tidbit about the Bird Girl, aka, the statue on the cover: http://tinyurl.com/5bnhvd
It’s at the Cliff Dwellers Club in Chicago.
I read it before I moved to the South. After living here for 7 years, I expect I’m due for a re-read. I loved the book but expect I’ll appreciate it even more, knowing what I know now.
I loved this book – it is readable and enjoyable for all the points mentioned. But as non-fiction, it really bothered me how much of the conversations and thoughts of the people/characters were a little fudged. I think that the second printing contained an author’s note on that point after some criticism of Berendt. So I don’t consider it a true non-fiction, real crime account but it is great read.
The movie stunk.
Well, the movie had Kevin Spacey stinkin’ it up, mostly by letting his mustache do all the heavy lifting. It also had Jude Law, playing Jude Law Stock Character #2, “Sexy” (Ew) Ruffian (there are only three in the whole set).
John Cusack had a funny line reading or two, I’ll give him that.
I love this book. I re-read it a lot, because I love the characters.
@Sandman: THAT’S who played that guy? Yeesh. I haven’t seen the movie — it looked like a load, so I skipped it — but I’d have gone with Puck from Real World SF for that casting, myself.
I loved this book, and Berendt’s writing in general, especially his characterizations and imagery. I also really enjoyed his other book “The City of Falling Angels” wherein he gives Venice the same treatment as he does Savannah.
Awesome book, ergh film, keep meaning to read his more recent book, about the Venice Opera House. But please Sars, tell me, what does “check-kiting” mean? Is this some sort of Americanism?
It means passing bad checks — forging a signature, usually, but you can see also “paper-hanging” (writing a check you know is bad, then blowing town).
Darn it, I loaned this book to a friend and never got it back. (The same friend who’s also lost one of my DVD’s and several CD’s. She has a somewhat chaotic life, so I’m not really surprised. She’s also not getting any more of my stuff…) I need to track down another copy; it’s been years since I’ve read this. And I’ll second everybody’s comments about the movie sucking. I walked out of it with fifteen minutes to go, because it was a choice between seeing the end of the movie, or catching a rerun of a SouthPark episode.
loved the book so much I stole it from my mom. then she met the author at a publishing event, and he was so cool to her that he signed a copy for me with the inscription to give my mom her copy back. the only point in seeing the movie is that Lady Chablis plays herself.
Sars, a quibble: O’Connor’s are *terrifying* eccentrics. The reader may find them humorous at first but will get slapped for laughing, in the end. O’Connor, at least, was not interested in depicting the center, because she wanted to use the freakish and the outrageous like a fulcrum for the reader’s spiritual engagement not only with her story but with the world and, literally (for her), Jesus.
Of course not all Southern writing that showcases quirks and freaks has such an explicitly serious purpose — most Southern writers are not devout Roman Catholics hoping to impart the Mysteries to their readers — and a lot of it can be hokey. On the other hand, I thought Berendt’s story read a little like a travelogue and shared Sherry Lynn’s irritation with his fudging.