One of the
pleasures of writing and reading private correspondence is the refuge
it affords honest thought. Faux-sensitivity is pandemic and seldom shy about
publically imposing its strictures on the private realm. The sentiment above is
self-evident but probably should be uttered with some degree of caution. Only
family and trusted friends are likely to offer sanctuary for truth-telling. Distant Intimacy: A Friendship in the Age of
the Internet (Yale University Press, 2013) collects a year’s worth of
emails exchanged by two friends who have never met nor spoken to each other –
Joseph Epstein, the American essayist and man of letters, and Frederic Raphael,
the American-born English novelist and screenwriter. Together they puncture
such overinflated reputations as Gore Vidal, Susan Sontag, George Steiner,
Edward Said and J.K. Rowling. Of the latter’s best-known creation, Epstein
writes: “As for Harry Potter, I dislike the little fucker intensely.” Now
that’s my idea of literary criticism.
The
judgment at the top is written by Epstein in response to Raphael asserting that
“one could compose a pitiless anthology of what will be left of our literary giants,
once time’s erosions have worked on them for a few centuries.” Hemingway he
distills into “`Grace under pressure’ (the primal scene revisited?).” Between
friends, profanity and irreverence can assume their rightful place. In reply,
Epstein says Papa was “a stupid man, deeply prejudiced and vastly
self-deceived, with a talent for lyrical description but not much else.” As
Raphael wrote earlier: “I am not very ashamed of a certain kind of malice, as
long as it comprises accuracy.” That characterizes much of Distant Intimacy – accurate malice, much of it pun-filled and very
funny. One doesn’t have to agree with every critical conclusion. Both are wrong
about Saul Bellow, Philip Roth and Kingsley Amis, but one feels no offense.
Even their missteps amuse. Here’s a common-sensical Epstein sampler drawn from
the book:
On recent
fiction: “My general line is that our great contemporary novelists have
abandoned the great themes in favor of declaring `Look at Me! I’ve just had a
fucking epiphany!’”
Of Sir
Walter Scott, whom he calls “a genuinely dear man,” Epstein writes: “He also
had a true novelistic sensibility, and understood that nothing pleases so much
in literature as the creation of solid characters and that facts always come
before ideas.”
After
describing the pleasure he takes in reading the stories of the wonderful
Francis Wyndham, Epstein says: “To give pleasure is a fine thing, n'est-ce pas? Some of the writers dearest to me -- Max Beerbohm,
Sydney Smith -- are minor writers. Proust may have set out to be a minor writer
but somehow slipped off the track and became almost in spite of himself,
capital M Major. I wonder if I mayn’t be a minor writer myself, though I may
write too damn much to qualify.”
And here, a tour-de-force of
invective on a favorite Epstein theme: “I happen to think the writing of poetry
in our time has descended to the level of stamp-collecting or acquiring antique
cars -- it is, in other words, not much more than a hobby in which only fellow
collectors (or, in the case of poetry, fellow scribblers) are in the least
interested…But in the end it all means nothing, nada, zilch, because, to play
upon the words of the federale in Treasure
of the Sierra Madre, no-one needs their stinking poems. Because, too, with
a few notable exceptions – Larkin is the only one I can think of at the moment –
no-one not in the poetry biz can cough up a single line or phrase from a poem
in the last half century.”
If the prospect of spending a few
hours in the company of two smart, well-read, worldly, plain-speaking, enthusiastically
funny friends sounds attractive, please read Distant Intimacy. You’ll laugh and you might, for a moment,
entertain the hope that literary culture is not quite extinct.
1 comment:
Seven years on, and I finally acted on your recommendation.
Many laughs and learnings.
Thanks!
Post a Comment