Book review: Manhattan Transfer, John Dos Passos



Manhattan Transfer is a modernist classic, full of streams of consciousness, shifting points of view and a huge cast of characters that drift in and out of the narrative. It's a story of New York City in its birth as a world metropolis, and American capitalism by inference.

I liked it because it fuses this exposition with a fierce humanism. The characters are never ciphers, even when they only appear for a few pages. They're representatives of their social class, certainly. But in the best tradition of social realism, this adds to their humanity, rather than detracting from it. Dos Passos has a deep empathy with his characters struggling to survive, from the drifter who goes crazy from hunger and guilt, to the actress trapped by her gender into exploitative relationships with powerful men. His barely-repressed contempt for the ruling class is expressed all the more clearly through his portraits of them: the bankers & politicians are scheming, cold and emotionally damaged. At no point does he step back and denounce them - he doesn't have to. Their actions - their disregard for workers' rights & livelihoods - speak for themselves.

Manhattan Transfer, 2002 - how can such a shitty band be named after such a good book?

Does this make for a good read? That depends if you like modernism. I loved Ulysses, and I like this for the same reason: the details, inconsequential in themselves, create an overall impression of a society. Dos Passos smears enough paint on the canvas that a clear picture emerges, apart from the individual brushstrokes. Like 100 Years Of Solitude, the narrative demands your attention to the big picture; if you put the book down for a few weeks, you'll be lost. But if you let it draw you in, you'll be hooked.

Dos Passos was a radical, and his book is filled with people who fight to change society, or who simply don't fit in: a crusading journalist; socialists, anarchists and trade unionists; a gay man. Manhattan Transfer was written in 1925, and its sympathetic portrayal of the latter is far ahead of the deranged/psychopathic homosexual trope so common in American literature for decades after.

Dos Passos has been accused of portraying an exclusively white working class. I think that's an unfair criticism. He has few black characters, and his white ones occasionally pass off racial slurs. However, most of characters were non-white by the standards of the day: Irish, Jews and Eastern Europeans figure greatly. Here's a passage from a confrontation between a racially abusive boss and his Indian servant. The boss is deathly ill, and screams epithets at the servant, demanding a drink. The servant knows the drink will kill him, and gives it to him:

"Yes Sahib," said the Hindu with a bow.

Blackhead mimicked him, "Yes Sahib... You always say yes, Achmet, isn't that funny?" He began to laugh with a choked rattling laugh. "I guess that's the easiest way." He laughed and laughed, then suddenly he couldn't laugh any more. A perking spasm went through all his limbs. He twisted his mouth in an effort to speak. For a second his eyes looked about the room, the eyes of a little child that has been hurt before it begins to cry, until he fell back limp, his open mouth bating at his shoulder. Achmet looked at him coolly for a long time then he went up to him and spat in his face. Immediately he took a handerkerchief out of the pocket of his linen jacket and wiped the spittle off the taut ivory skin.

That's not just giving it to the Man; that's killing the Man and spitting on his dead face. Which is, paradoxically enough, a beautiful image. My one complaint is that Dos Passos offers no way out at the end, other than escape. I would've liked to see his characters band together and fight the epic struggles of the day. But that's me - the book doesn't suffer for its ambiguity. I wish we had more portraits of human resistance to capitalist degradation in print.