Thanks to
Barton Swaim for reminding us today is the centenary of Murray Kempton’s birth.
Swaim captures the essence of Kempton’s charm, especially for those of us with
little or no interest in politics:
“His word
choice is never quite what you would have predicted; his sentences are like
little excursions, sometimes resolving in the ordinary way, sometimes fading
into grammatical uncertainty or trailing off into a marathon dependent clause.
It doesn’t always work, but it’s evidence of a mind steadfastly refusing to
think or express anything in the usual tired old way.”
That’s close
to the lesson I learned incrementally from Kempton. To imitate his prose would
be fatal, but the notion of systematically thinking through each sentence,
assaying word choice, keeping the rhythm in mind, avoiding the lazy and
predictable word or phrase without resorting to cheap tricks – those are the
lessons absorbed. Kempton was never afraid to be articulate, despite warning
that newspaper subscribers read at the fifth-grade level. His goal was
precision, a quality that in itself is elegant. I once worked for a newspaper
editor who described Kempton as “flowery” and “too literary.” He preferred
Jimmy Breslin. We have grown so accustomed to journalists who are unable to
write and do so at great length that Kempton reads like Gibbon.
Starting in
the eighties I clipped and saved Kempton’s three-times-a-week column in Newsday and his occasional pieces in the
New York Review of Books. I still have thick stacks of them in a file cabinet.
Here is a favorite piece from 1990 on Chekhov, Conrad and the fall of the
Soviet Union:
“Chekhov had
been dead for eighty-five years when first I took notice of his credentials as
an analyst of Soviet society. I had glimpsed his authority earliest when I read
`My Life,’ the long story whose protagonist learns that he has been abandoned
by his wife in a letter in which she tells him that she has prepared herself to
begin again by buying a ring like the one that King David had engraved `All
things pass.’
“If I wanted
a ring myself,” Chekhov’s hero reflects, “the inscription I should choose would
be ‘Nothing passes away.’”
In
conclusion Kempton writes:
“The cruelty
and indifference of misgovernment explain the bandits of Conrad’s Costaguana,
and perhaps the same things explain the FMLN in El Salvador’s hills today. We
must look to the novelist if we hope to understand. His is the matter of fact.
Social science and intelligence reports are the mere poor stuff of an unadorned
imagination.”
Here is Kempton
on the pointless question of whether Duke Ellington was “the twentieth
century’s greatest composer”:
“There are
representative lives and they are generally deplorable. There are also
exemplary lives like this one. They are lived without lament or self-pity. They
neither meditate alone nor unite with support groups in search of self-esteem.
They just build it on the road in the community of work. It is a waste of
breath to argue whether Duke Ellington was more or less than Bach or Beethoven
or Haydn. All that counts is that he was like them in knowing what matters, and
that, when all are dead who heard those horns live, there will be children to
discover and hear them again.”
In a column
written in the waning days of the 1960 presidential campaign and collected in America Comes of Middle Age: Columns
1950-1962 (1963), Kempton musters sympathy for a dispirited Richard Nixon:
“He is not a
man I cherish, but there is in the sight of him the painful recognition that
something human somewhere is being cruelly violated and humiliated. The gestures
are the gestures of someone trapped five fathoms deep; when he stands on a
platform and makes a fist, it is a piece of mush; the forearm no longer jabs
for emphasis; it merely flounders. There are the movements of a drowning man.”
Kempton knew
Alger Hiss was a liar and Whittaker Chambers was an unfashionable, unphotogenic
truth-teller, and wrote movingly of both men in the first chapter of Part of Our Time: Some Ruins and Monuments
of the Thirties (1955). Fifteen years later, in his review of Chambers’ letters to his friend William F. Buckley Jr., Kempton not only sympathizes with
Chambers but finds amusement in his enigmatic personality:
“Perhaps it
was Chambers’s loneliness, the experience of having to begin life again so
often as a stranger in new surroundings, which explains his need always to
carry the aura of an ambassador from some Other Shore: the Hisses, he says,
were drawn to him because they thought him a Russian, which, to the extent that
the will could conquer an origin in Lynbrook, L.I., he certainly was and
remained.”
No comments:
Post a Comment