“There are
few of us, I should imagine, who would care very much to have their thoughts at
the age of twenty about life, literature and the world, exposed to public view
and widely disseminated.”
I can’t speak
for Michael but Dalrymple’s assessment is accurate in my case. At twenty I was
a well-read fool and fancied myself quite the sophisticate. Most of the judgments
I spouted off were superficial, unexamined and often intended to hurt someone.
In short, I was insufferable. Dalrymple continues:
“Our
thoughts at that age, though no doubt essential to our personal development,
were hardly worth having, or at least not worth communicating to others. In
short, our thoughts were callow, shallow, hackneyed and unoriginal in the
extreme, often uttered with that youthful combination of arrogant certainty and
underlying insecurity which manifests itself as a kind of inflamed prickliness
whenever challenged.”
He nails me,
circa 1972-73. I was a junior in college when I turned twenty. An
English professor was kind enough to enroll me in his graduate seminar in
Joyce. I’ll skip the specifics but I wasn’t shy about sharing my vast knowledge
of the subject. I dropped out of college after that year without a degree and
would not earn one for another thirty years. Michael, too, has a know-it-all strain
but also the discipline to check its advance. Only occasionally is he a smart-ass,
and usually on subjects about which he is knowledgeable – computer engineering
and Russian, his major and minor, respectively. One of the qualities that
distinguishes him from many of his contemporaries (and from me at age twenty) is
a historical sense, without a trace of presentism. We’re no better, and in many
ways much worse, than our forebears. Combine respect for tradition with a
heathy dose of skepticism and you’re on your way to maturity. Hazlitt puts it
like this in his essay “On Reading New Books” (1828):
“I have been
often struck by the unreasonableness of the complaint we constantly hear of the
ignorance and barbarism of former ages, and the folly of restricting all
refinement and literary elegance to our own. We are, indeed, indebted to the
ages that have gone before us, and could not do well without them. But in all
ages there will be found still others that have gone before with nearly equal
lustre and advantage, though, by distance and the intervention of multiplied
excellence, this lustre may be dimmed or forgotten.”
No comments:
Post a Comment