Mencken: The American Iconoclast, by Marion Elizabeth Rodgers

Summary

Title: Mencken: The American Iconoclast
Author: Marion Elizabeth Rodgers
Publisher: Oxford University Press
ISBN: 0195072383

Pro:
• Draws on extensive original material, more than most biographies of Mencken

Con:
• Not enough critical engagement with Mencken’s less savory opinions

Description:
• Definitive, comprehensive biography of H.L. Mencken
• Covers his personal life, his politics, his activism, and his journalism

Book Review

Given H.L. Mencken’s stature in American history, quite a few biographies have been written about him. The most definitive, comprehensive, and detailed is from Marion Elizabeth Rodgers: Mencken: The American Iconoclast. True to the title, much of Rodgers’ focus is the various ways in which Mencken ran contrary to public opinion. People favored biblical creationism and he treated it with contempt. People were racist while he defended blacks against social injustice. People thought women were inferior, yet he argued that they were superior in some respects. People were viciously anti-German in World War I, but he defended Germany.

One could almost get the impression that he chose positions precisely *because they ran counter to what most people believed. He seemed to revel in cynicism, and with more than a touch of smugness about how dumb most people could be. He was furthermore a dedicated journalist who committed himself to the principles of disseminating information in a manner that would afflict the comfortable while at least occasionally comforting the afflicted.

Mencken’s role in the Scopes Monkey Trial receives its share of attention in Rodgers’ book, but I must confess to being most engaged by his relationship with Germany during the two world wars. How could someone so committed to liberty turn a blind eye to the crimes being perpetrated under Hitler and the Nazis? Rodgers helps explain this through her sympathy for the subject and the comprehensive nature of her work.

Mencken’s family was German in origin, something he always valued highly. He felt a strong connection to Germany and German culture, predisposing him to think better of Germany than might otherwise be justified. Perhaps more importantly, though, he was in Germany during World War I, right up until the time America entered the war. He was a personal witness to how the anti-German propaganda put out by the Western Allies could often be filled with flat-out lies. This incensed him — not just because of his pro-German sympathies, but also because of his strong commitment as a journalist to publish the truth.

There was a lot of negative press about the Nazis as World War II drew close, but after his experiences in World War I, Mencken simply didn’t believe that it was all true. He visited Germany and insisted that everything was generally fine, though there are indications that he knew something was wrong — that the situation for Jews and Germans alike wasn’t as good as he pretended. It wasn’t much later that he personally intervened in order to help as many Jews get out of Germany as possible, demonstrating that he did know for sure that things were bad, even if he couldn’t quite acknowledge it fully.

Mencken: The American Iconoclast, by Marion Elizabeth Rodgers. Publisher: Oxford University Press

This is what makes this aspect of his life, and his life in general, so interesting: the conflicting emotions, dispositions, and information prevent his life from being easy to understand just as they prevent his biographers from presenting his positions in a neat, encapsulated form. His life can’t be readily summarized and still do justice to how he lived, which may be why Rodgers’ biography is so long — longer than most people will care to read, unless they are already interested in the subject.

Nevertheless, taking the time to read this book is rewarding and worth the effort. More critical engagement with his life and his failings would have been welcome, but that’s not sufficient reason to dismiss the book entirely. Mencken may have lived during first half of the 20th century, but people and government have changed little enough that his cynical outlooks remains relevant during the 21st.