“These
men wrote in different ways and on different subjects—not always easy subjects
by any means. But there is one trait they all have in common: they are
unfailingly interesting. That makes one suspect that they have at least one
other trait in common, and with a little reflection one finds it: what they
wrote is saturated with feeling.”
I
thought immediately of a book blogger I know, a partisan of the avant-garde,
whose prose is unfailingly leaden. His writing embodies the flat-affect school
of composition. He has honed an earnest, inexpressive drone. I think, however,
we have to be careful about calling for writing that is “saturated with
feeling.” Too easily that’s interpreted to mean hysteria, adolescent self-indulgence and "sincerity." Blanshard writes (and keep in mind that he is a philosopher):
“Readers
want their writers to make them feel alive, and when they can sit with their
authors and jeer and laugh and scold and rejoice and admire with them, they
feel intensely alive.”
I’ve
devoted a lot of time lately to Philip Larkin, who will never be mistaken for a
cheerleader but whose best poems and much of his prose make this reader feel “intensely
alive.” Readers and writers alike mistake stridency for animation. A few pages
later, Blanshard admits that he likes “in my philosophers, some responsiveness
of mood to matter.” Cookie cutters are useful in baking but not in crafting
sentences. Each sentence, each word, is brand new, a freshly minted thought and
sound. The right sort of mind finds that invigorating. Blanshard writes near
the end of his little book:
“The
more perfectly one’s style fits the inner man and reveals its strength and
effect, the clearer it becomes that the problem of style is not a problem of
word and sentences merely, but of being the right kind of mind.”
No comments:
Post a Comment