There’s nothing new about
people presuming to tell writers how they ought to write. A good critic never does
that. He never says: “This is how you should have written it.” Yet the bookish precincts
of the internet are overloaded with such diktats, often anonymous and always
rude and impertinent. On this date, October 24, in 1924, Willa Cather cleaned
the clock of a certain “Mr. Miller,” whose identify is otherwise unknown:
“I am so sorry my writing
vexes you, and it will continue to vex you! I do not in the least agree with
your assumption that one kind of writing is right and another kind is wrong. I
write at all because it pleases and amuses me -- and I write in the way that
pleases and amuses me.”
By 1924 she had already published
O Pioneers! (1913), The Song of the Lark (1915), My Ántonia
(1918) and A Lost Lady (1923), among other books, and was well on her
way to becoming the finest American novelist of the twentieth century (if we
leave out Henry James).
“Again, there is one kind
of story that ought to tell itself -- the story of action. There is another
kind of story that ought to be told -- I mean the emotional story, which tries
to be much more like music than it tries to be like drama -- the story that
tries to evoke and leave merely a picture - a mood. That was what Conrad tried
to do, and he did it well.”
As did Cather. Her “action”
is secondary, yet her fiction is never inward-gazing, à la Virginia Woolf. She
writes: “I think the two greatest writers of fiction in modern times were Count
Tolstoi and Ivan Turgenev, and I think they were equally magnificent in their
achievement.” She neatly closes her letter with yet another jab at the presumptuous
Mr. Miller, masked in graciousness: “You see, I pay you the compliment of
coming back at you with some spir[i]t.”
Last week, after recounting yet another outrage at work, a friend concluded her email to me with this: “I’m on a Willa Cather jag right now, which helps considerably.”
No comments:
Post a Comment