When
young, I was too hip to have heroes, or at least to admit having them. Pride
extinguishes natural impulses, including admiration. To admit you have a hero
is to suggest they possess something you don’t, that you perhaps envy them – an
admission intolerable to our swollen sense of self-importance. Dr. Johnson
writes in The Rambler #180: “Envy,
curiosity, and a sense of the imperfection of our present state, incline us to
estimate the advantages which are in the possession of others above their real
value.” With age ought to come some measure of “down-sizing,” accepting one’s
self more realistically and acknowledging that we’re pretty much stuck with who
we are. Now I have heroes, all writers, all gifted, all flawed, all admired
more deeply for their flaws because the essence of heroism, perhaps, is overcoming
them: Swift, Dr. Johnson, Henry James, Chekhov, Whittaker Chambers, Yvor
Winters, Beckett.
Besides
writing well, all were courageous, all knew occasional rejection and scorn, and
all remained indelibly themselves. Those are the qualities I most admire today.
I found an epigram by Walter de la Mare titled “Jonathan Swift” (Inward Companion: Poems, 1950):
“That sovereign mind;
Those bleak, undaunted eyes;
Never to life, or love, resigned—
How
strange that he who abhorred cant, humbug, lies,
Should
be aggrieved by such simplicities
As age, as ordure, and as size.”
1 comment:
I think I know what admired flaws you are referring to when it comes to Johnson and Swift, maybe even Henry James. But -- what are the flaws of Chekhov and Beckett, outside of the usual human failings? And if Whittaker Chambers is to be admired, isn't it despite his flaws rather than because of them?
Post a Comment