Eternally fooled (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)

All The King’s Men is the 1947 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about an enormously vulgar, crudely powerful and grossly corrupt Southern politician loosely inspired by Louisiana Democrat Huey P. Long. It is an epic portrait of a demagogue who is, by turns, likeable, comical, riveting, loathsome, heroic, and human. The main characters are said demagogue (Willie Talos), and a journalist (Jack Burden) who first covers him, then comes to work for him as an all-purpose go-to guy, followed by a rich secondary cast, including the crew of vital schemers and obsequious creepers that make up Talos’s retinue.
The plot is, of course, thick with political machinations: back-room deals, betrayals, varieties of patronage (i.e. the many ways people come to be manipulated and finally owned) and power-plays (i.e. the many ways people come to be destroyed, sometimes literally) in order that the Boss may ride high on the hog and win the adoration of the People while he’s at it. And yet Robert Penn Warren wrote, in the introduction to the Modern Library edition of his novel, that: “The book… was never intended to be about politics. Politics merely provided the framework of the story in which the deeper concerns, whatever their final significance, might work themselves out.” This must have sounded to some like authorial BS, but I think it’s true. For all the juicy complexity and drama of the political story, there is something more raw and mysterious supporting it, like the ocean supports a ship and makes it move.
Thematically, it has been written (on Wikipedia!) that the underlying story of ATKM is about the endless impersonal rippling of consequences and the connectedness of all actions. Or, as Willie Talos says about an underling he’s just brutally humiliated:
“My God, you talk like Byram was human! He’s a thing! You don’t prosecute an adding machine if a spring goes bust and makes a mistake. You fix it. Well, I fixed Byram. I fixed him so his unborn great-grandchildren will wet their pants on this anniversary and not know why. Boy, it will be the shock in the genes, and their teeth will be set on edge.”
So, yeah, that’s there. And then there is the deeper step down into Jack Burden’s completely apolitical idea near the book’s end that life is nothing but instincts and impulses or “the dark heave of the blood and the twitch of the nerve”. This is closer to how I sense the book’s inner workings except that, based as it is on Jack’s experience of heartbreak, his “insight” is too cynical and simple.
To me, the subtle inner “story” of the novel is in the oceanic dimension of Warren’s language, his wide-angle perception of the human and inhuman world where the characters fuss, fight and fuck each other over. To me this “story” is sensed in the outer reaches of this world, the sheer unknowability of it, the mysteriousness of how it reveals itself in faces, voices, the miasma of human personalities and wants, driven by the igneous force that Jack tries to define as the “twitch”.
One of the first things I noticed about the novel is the extremely close and lengthy attention Warren pays to character’s faces, to the set and shape of their lips, the way their hair falls or the colour and expressive quality of their eyes; how they look at each other. This is, of course, on one hand an old-school method of characterisation — in another writer’s hands it might be that only. But Warren uses it in such a way that we are constantly reminded of how we are each formed in physical detail by elements we don’t understand, except by wordless recognition; by extension we are reminded that, however important politics is to us, it too is shaped, through the agency of human hands by these elements which we don’t understand.