“Does
there, I wonder, exist a being who has read all, or approximately all, that the
person of average culture is supposed to have read, and that not to have read
is a social sin? If such a being does exist, surely he is an old, a very old,
man, who has read steadily that which he ought to have read sixteen hours a
day, from early infancy.”
The
question, comical even in 1896, sounds ponderously ironical today. One can’t
imagine it being asked with serious intent in 2014. Failure to read as a “social
sin?” The reverse is more likely, even among the chattering classes. Bennett
goes on: “I cannot recall a single author of whom I have read everything --
even of Jane Austen.” He admits not having read “large tracts” of some thirty
prominent English writers, including Shakespeare, Spenser, Chaucer, Dryden,
Pope, Swift, Sterne, Johnson, Lamb, Wordsworth, Tennyson and George Eliot. He
adds, wryly, “A list of the masterpieces I have not read would fill a volume…With
only one author can I call myself familiar, Jane Austen. With Keats and
Stevenson I have an acquaintance. So far of English. Of foreign authors I am
familiar with de Maupassant and the de Goncourts. I have yet to finish Don Quixote!”
An
extraordinary admission by a major writer, but one uttered neither in shame nor
reverse snobbery. Only in the subsequent paragraph does Bennett squirm a
little, as though taking Virginia Woolf seriously:
“Nevertheless
I cannot accuse myself of default. I have been extremely fond of reading since
I was 20, and since I was 20 I have read practically nothing (save
professionally as a literary critic) but what was `right.’ My leisure has been
moderate, my desire strong and steady, my taste in selection certainly above
the average, and yet in ten years I seem scarcely to have made an impression
upon the intolerable multitude of volumes which `everyone is supposed to have
read.’”
We
hear this mea culpa often among readers, those for whom books are trophies, not what the critic Kenneth Burke
called them: “equipment for living.” In a curious little volume he published in
1908, Literary Taste: How to Form It --
a sort of Miss Manners guide for strivers after an air of bookishness -- Bennett
is still concerned with the status conferred by reading. After admitting
that “literary taste thus serves two purposes: as a certificate of correct
culture and as a private pastime,” Bennett adds:
“People
who regard literary taste simply as an accomplishment, and literature simply as
a distraction, will never truly succeed either in acquiring the accomplishment or
in using it half-acquired as a distraction; though the one is the most perfect
of distractions, and though the other is unsurpassed by any other
accomplishment in elegance or in power to impress the universal snobbery of
civilized mankind. Literature, instead of being an accessory, is the fundamental
sine qua non of complete living.”
1 comment:
I have thought with some envy of times when taste was still a desirable acquisition and wondered how it could be restored... I enjoyed this.
Post a Comment