In Pursuit of Power: Heinrich von Kleist's Machiavellian Protagonists by William C. Reeve (review)

Book Reviews117 Ozick, the only two women interviewed. I exaggerate when I say that all these interviews have nothing in common. The answers may vary widely, but there is, of course, a common question which can be summed up as "What does it mean to be a writer?" The contrast between these two women's answers is startling and almost comic. Brookner first tried her hand at the novel because she "wondered how it was done and the only way to find out seemed to be to try and do it" (327). This respected art scholar and teacher at the Courtauld Institute writes her novels during the summer recess, one per summer, and but for sometimes tinkering with the last chapter always submits her firstdraft manuscript (337-38). Compare this seemingly cavalier attitude with that of Ozick, who "never conceived of not writing a novel . . . was born to write a novel" (200): "Lately I think of this given condition [of being born a writer] as a kind of curse, because there is no way out of it. What a relief it would be to have the freedom of other people! Any inborn condition of this sort is, after all, a kind of slavery. ... I know that I will never stop until . . . disability or the grave" (201). Conference organizers take note: these two probably will not mix well. Variety is ever the keynote. Here is Elie Wiesel, whose work is fueled by a kind of mystical rage, and Joseph Brodsky, who confesses that his internal exile in Siberia, far from being a punishment, gave him "some exhilarating sense ofbeing with the rest ... a certain insight into the basics oflife" (389-90). And these people rattle around together in the same world. Brodsky feels that in Derek Walcott "we have a giant on our hands" (393), while John Irving is, one senses, most grateful to the interviewer for the chance to expose J.P. Donleavy's rude behavior in darkest Iowa, behavior especially reprehensible because Donleayy snubbed Irving's friend, John Cheever (433-35). I repent of the red herring I raised at the outset: this is a commendable book. In fact, the beauty is that one can wander in and out of it at will. JEROME SHEA University of New Mexico WILLIAM C. REEVE. In Pursuit ofPower: Heinrich von Kleist's Machiavellian Protagonists. Toronto: University ofToronto Press, 1987. 236 p. William C Reeve's study is meticulously researched, carefully argued, and exceptionally well written. Many readers will undoubtedly regard this study as an example oftextual criticism at its best. Reeve wisely restricts his focus to four plays, a decision that allows him to give his full attention to a close reading ofeach. He makes character the key to his interpretative effort, arguing that Kleist was attracted to the Machiavellian protagonist as a vehicle for calling into question the optimistic eighteenth-century view of man. Reeve's analysis in turn calls into question the usual classification of Kleist as a Romantic and suggests that the dramatist is more nearly a pragmatist in matters ofsocial and political motivation. His Machiavellian protagonist "plots 118Rocky Mountain Review the social or political elimination of a rival and by stealth and skilful manipulation of others determines the direction the action takes at almost every turn" (7). The presence of this figure, in both primary and secondary roles in half of Kleist's plays, suggests to Reeve that the Machiavellian protagonist is an unacknowledged source ofpsychological unity and motivation and therefore should figure prominently in our understanding of Kleist's dramatic world. In the first chapter and introduction to his study, Reeve is careful not to insist upon any direct influence. He does not claim, for example, that Kleist actually read Machiavelli's Il Principe, only that "there is a remarkable meeting ofminds across some three centuries" attributable to "[the writers'] proximity through birth to the ruling class," and thus to "their first-hand knowledge . . . of how power is achieved, exercised and maintained effectively" (4). Reeve postpones until his sixth and final chapter his discussion of the degree to which Machiavelli's ideas may have influenced Kleist through Shakespeare and Napoleon. His first concern, however, is to establish...