Clive James died
on the same day, and my friend writes: “He was an old-fashioned writer, one
with superlative talent . . . a supremely intelligent man with manifold
interests, an abiding curiosity about the world, blessed with talent but at the
same time dressed in the trappings of a regular guy.”
Their deaths
leave some of us suspended in midair. I’ve been reading Simon for fifty years. He
defined that almost extinct species, the man of letters. He would never be
mistaken for “a regular guy” but his criticism, especially of movies, was always
amusing and acute, even when you disagreed with him. This is excerpted from his review of Bring Me the Head of Alfredo
Garcia, a film I enjoy more than Simon ever could:
“As one who
touted and defended The Wild Bunch
and Straw Dogs, I am particularly
disheartened: Peckinpah clearly doesn’t lack talent; what he lacks is brains.
Every one of his dubious old chestnuts resurfaces here (civilization is just
corruption of instinctual nobility, simple Mexican peasants are the salt of the
earth, even the best women crave rape by beasts, a man with a mission can mow
down dozens without, etc.) and there is nothing sadder than watching so much
technique at the service of ideas which, for all their rehashing, remain
half-baked.”
All true,
and yet I periodically watch it and all of Peckinpah’s preceding films except for
Straw Dogs. The subsection of Simon’s
criticism that seems to get the least attention is books. Some of it is collected
in The Sheep from the Goats: Selected Literary
Essays (Weidenfeld
& Nicholson, 1989) and Dreamers of
Dreams: Essays on Poets and Poetry (I.R. Dee, 2001). In his introduction to
the latter, Simon writes a sort of critical credo:
“It may
sound presumptuous, or even preposterous, to assert that there can be music in
the review of some humdrum movie or run-of-the-mill play. But if you choose
your words lovingly, pay attention to rhythm and cadence, know how to use
simile and metaphor—not to mention other tropes—you can enrich and enliven your
prose. What you write may still be hogwash, but at least it will be attractive
hogwash.”
James had a
more populist sensibility. He seemed capable of reading and evaluating almost anything
in print (or on television). Some of us still cherish his review of Judith
Krantz’s potboiler Princess Daisy
(1980), which he describes as “a work of art [that] has the same status as a
long conversation between two not very bright drunks.” James is aware that criticizing
such a novel is too easy, and he goes on to defend its readers:
“Princess Daisy is not to be despised.
Nor should it be deplored for its concern with aristocracy, glamour, status,
success and things like that. On the evidence of her prose, Mrs. Krantz has not
enough humour to write tongue-in-cheek, but other people are perfectly capable
of reading that way. People don’t get their morality from their reading matter:
they bring their morality to it. The assumption that ordinary people’s lives
could be controlled and limited by what entertained them was always too
condescending to be anything but fatuous.”
The Krantz
review is collected in From the Land of
Shadows (Jonathan Cape, 1982), about a third of which is devoted to Russian
and Soviet literature (James taught himself Russian in order to read Pushkin). In
his introduction to that volume he writes:
“Most of the
criticism that matters at all has been written in essay form. This fact is no
great mystery: what there is to say about literature is very important, but
there just isn’t all that much of it. Literature says most things itself, when
it is allowed to.”
My friend,
after grieving the loss of Simon and James, expresses my thoughts precisely: “Is
Joseph Epstein the last great critic left, the last sublime man of letters, the
last defender of excellence and taste?”
It sure
looks that way.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteSome time in the late '70s I wrote a fan letter to Simon. He replied with a critique of my letter--a favorable one, I'm pleased to report. He reviewed the letter both for quality of writing and cogency of the points made. I doubt very much that he would have hesitated to light into me if he had found the letter wanting, notwithstanding that its sole purpose was to praise him. The man seems to have been constitutionally incapable of relaxing his critical disposition. But whatever. I learned more from Simon about high critical standards, the need for them, and how they should be applied than from any other critic of that period. I will miss him. As your friend suggests, Epstein is probably the only critic left who does the hard work of judging a work of literature, in Edmund Wilson's phrase (or was it T.S. Eliot's?), "under the aspect of eternity."
Best,
Joel Gershowitz