In his
introduction, titled “A Little Book,” to Max
Beerbohm: A Kind of Life (Yale University Press, 2002), N. John Hall brings
up another reader who seldom had compunctions about telling others what they
should and should not read:
“In reading
Max we might also take a cue from Harold Bloom on reading, even while we
acknowledge that Bloom holds no special brief for comedy, is himself not a Maximilian,
and has become something of a crank. Yet his aesthetically driven words on reading
seem pertinent.”
Hall quotes
Bloom quoting Dr. Johnson: “Clear your mind of cant, i.e. of sectarian thinking,” and then quotes Bloom himself (from
How to Read and Why – a title that
has always offended me): “[H]e urges, Do not
attempt to improve your neighbor or your neighborhood by your reading.”
For once,
Bloom is right on the money. I would add to his proviso: “and by your writing.”
Leave people alone. Most are not stupid. Let them make up their own minds. We
don’t want to be sermonized. We're not children. Such presumption is an ugly vice. In a review published in First Things, John Wilson correctly
notes that “didacticism in fiction is all the rage.” Didacticism, in fact, is
the enemy of not just fiction but most of literature. Also its enemy is humor, as exemplified by two of its masters, Mencken and Beerbohm. Hall writes in his
introduction:
“A caveat, if
you will, about reading Max or looking at his caricatures: you and I must try
not to be lulled into acceptance of the received idea that because a thing is
amusing, or light, or comic, it is not serious or important.”
3 comments:
In my experience, Fanon is the Prius of young Lefties (the rarer sort that reads books): A portable symbol of self-virtue and, if not seriousness, knowingness.
Bloom's admonition calls to mind Bierce's characterization of a Christian as "One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor."
Richard Wright on reading Mencken: "I was jarred and shocked by the style, the clear, clean, sweeping sentences. Why did he write like that? And how did one write like that? I pictured the man as a raging demon, slashing with his pen, consumed with hate...yes this man was fighting, fighting with words. He was using words as a weapon, using them as one would use a club...I read on and what amazed me was not what he said, but how on earth anybody had the courage to say it."
Clearly Wright was more open-minded than many today who would profess to revere him.
Post a Comment