It’s a young
writer’s sin to over-write, to show off and embellish what probably ought to be
left plain and self-reliant. I find Beckett’s early work, though much valorized
by certain critics and readers, largely unreadable. He writes like the kid who
raises his hand to every question asked by the teacher and says, “Me! Me!” He
confuses architecture and gingerbread. Beckett didn’t hit his stride as a
writer until Watt and the trilogy.
Don’t confuse my point with minimalism. I love a rich style that has earned its
richness – say, Sir Thomas Browne or late Henry James. It’s the cheaply,
self-indulgently sophomoric I object to.
Anne Atik is
writing about her friend in How It Was: A
Memoir of Samuel Beckett (Shoemaker and Hoard, 2005). She’s right about passing
on a love of reading, especially to one’s children. If you read, they are
likely to do the same. It’s not a matter of lecturing. Kids model their
parents, whether good or rotten. The point Atik makes that most interests me is
this: “One may even wonder if there have ever been great readers who did not go
on to write in one form or another.” For me, writing started out as a form of
envy. I recognized early how much pleasure I derived from a good book. Creating
such a thing – a machine for manufacturing pleasure -- looked like a lot of
fun. Why not give it a try? Yet the first formidable reader I ever met – a contemporary;
like me, a university dropout – dabbled with poetry but soon gave it up and
moved on to other pastimes. He never shared his reasons with me, but I suspect
they had to do with having read too much. He knew what a gifted writer could do
with words and recognized that such accomplishments were beyond his capacities.
A bitter but healthy lesson to learn early.
No comments:
Post a Comment