An old friend and former blogger in England has been reading Anthony Hecht and detects what he calls “a very faint ghost of Hart Crane at times.” It’s not a connection I have ever made but I recognize a certain lushness of diction in both of them.
“[I]t's a
similar sense of being suddenly hooked & exalted by the sound of the lines,”
he writes, “though he's much more concrete, deliberate, intellectual, than
Crane. Crane is kind of the adolescent version of Hecht, I love them both but
am unsure how my love of HC will stand up to a re-reading.”
Mine hasn’t.
As a high-school student I was initially drawn to Crane’s work because we
shared a Cleveland, Ohio connection. He is fundamentally a young person’s poet –
a young person with a taste for sometimes overripe language. A poet friend and
I in the Seventies turned a pub crawl into a pilgrimage, drinking at Crane’s
favorite watering holes in downtown Cleveland. Our tour guide was a biography
of Crane. Today, his work no longer interests me, which is not the same as
saying he is a lousy poet. He is for others to enjoy. People often like and
dislike writers for extra-literary reasons, including fashion and a desire not
to be considered unsophisticated. My friend writes:
“Unlike you,
I never really turn against old literary loves, but I have cooled against some
books I loved in my youth; I suppose age brings context, it's as if a little
treasure I once contemplated in a small chamber is now set in the middle of a
vast dark hall, and long shadows fall about it: it seems okay, fine for what it
is, but that’s all.”
Well put. It’s
true: I have often shed once-passionate devotions to writers, books and genres.
I had a brief but all-consuming infatuation with science fiction, Doc Savage and
the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs around the ages of twelve and thirteen. To me,
that sounds age-appropriate. A little later came my crush on Thomas Wolfe,
especially Look Homeward, Angel. I
went so far as memorizing him: “Which of us is not forever a stranger and
alone?” That’s a pure distillation of adolescent angst. Plus, I hadn’t yet shed
a taste for overwriting.
I’m
convinced that the works of certain writers are best appreciated by readers at
certain ages. I first read Proust at age twenty – twenty years too soon. A handful
of writers I have read early and often, and they have aged proportionally with
me – Bunyan, Swift, Defoe. Then I think of the Crane-like good writers I’m
unlikely to read ever again, starting with James Joyce, which leaves me feeling
a little wistful but with good memories.
My English
friend adds: “Incidentally, in German Hecht
means pike (the fish). Were I a
poet, I would write a poem called ‘The Pike and the Crane,’ but I lack that
gift.”
3 comments:
Back in 1957, sci fi fan Peter Graham said "The Golden Age of science fiction is 12"
And yet one of the heroes of this blog, Robert Conquest, had a high (and quite adult) regard for the best sf. No ear can hear all harmonies.
As for Look Homeward, Angel, I read it in my early twenties and even then I thought that it was simultaneously one of the best and one of the worse books I'd ever read.
I read everything by Thomas Wolfe in print before I was out of high school. Revisiting him some 35 years later, I was not at all ashamed of my infatuation. Made me feel young again.
Post a Comment