“He was, in
matters that concerned himself, the most perceptive man I ever knew. He knew
not merely who loved him, but who loved his jokes and his work, who was charmed
by his personality and his poses. Like most people who have much to give, he
demanded in return appreciation, but unlike so many other people, he hated
adulation. To please him it was necessary to laugh spontaneously and at the
right moment, while if one wished to speak of his work one had to make some
particular and pointed comment.”
Hardly a
description of a sociopath. To be “charmed by his personality and poses” recalls
Philip Larkin’s treatment by self-righteous critics. It was Joseph Epstein who
noted that readers scandalized by Larkin’s political-correctness deficit were “people
who, along with being impressed with their own virtue, cannot stand too much
complication in human nature (“Mr. Larkin Gets a Life,” Life Sentences: Literary Essays, 1997).” Slowly, with the
assistance of sympathetic readers and biographers, we are revising our
understanding of both men. Both reveled in poses, in writing and in person,
which is behavior confusing and offensive to the literal-minded. Donaldson goes
on to analyze writerly ego, hardly a quality unique to Waugh:
“There is a
saying that every man can be bought if one can discover his price. In my
experience almost every man can be flattered if one can discover the strength
at which the balm may be safely applied. Not Evelyn. One could not treat him
casually or without the deference his talents deserved, but the deference had
to be felt, the appreciation had to be real. It had also to be instinct in one’s
manner, not considered or in any way underlined.”
After
reading such a passage, we naturally reflect on our own sensitivities. To be human
is to fancy one’s importance, but our duty is to observe and regulate such an illusion. Being a decent human being is hard work. Here is one of Donaldson’s passing
tributes to her neighbor:
“Evelyn was
so lavish, so unjealous with praise of any writer whose work he could approve.
Young novelists of talent seldom appealed to him for words of introduction to
the public without receiving an unexpectedly generous response, while
faithfully over the years he took every opportunity to explain the claims of
writers who had not found a wide public but whom he regarded as having
exceptional merit. . . . Anyone who knew him at home can testify that some of
the happiest days of his life were those on which he received a book he could
read with enjoyment, and he seldom failed to repay this with a public tribute
to the writer.”
1 comment:
Larkin the man was different than Larkin the poet. Larkin the man wrote that he had to stop going to test matches because there were "too many f****ing n****rs about." Not much need to reassess that nor do I think it's a matter of political correctness. Plenty of people can and have managed not to be horrible racists. Larkin wasn't a good man but to be honest that doesn't matter and as little to do with his poetry.
Post a Comment