“You either fell under his spell and loved the wild ride of his prose, or you shunned or ignored it.”
Infatuation of the
literary sort is likely possible only among the young. That’s my experience. I
have discovered good writers in recent decades – Yvor Winters, C.H. Sisson – but
the attraction was more balanced. I could see their weaknesses while continuing
to read and admire them. While still in my teens and twenties, I would fall
hard for certain writers and almost subconsciously rationalize their failings.
I think of Thomas Pynchon and Sherwood Anderson, an unlikely pair. But my
hardest fall was for Edward Dahlberg, a writer unknown to most readers.
Dahlberg (1900-77), an American,
defied categories and most literary expectations. Between 1929 and 1934 he
published three novels usually labeled “proletarian.” If that had been all he
published, I would never have fallen for him. He knew all the Modernists in
Paris, including Joyce and Ford Madox Ford. By 1941, when he published Do
These Bones Live (retitled Can These Bones Live when republished in
1960), Dahlberg had transformed himself into -- what? In the words of Jules
Chametzky, a writer of “[a] wildly baroque, some would say ornate and affected
high style.” Dahlberg wrote prose in the manner of Sir Thomas Browne, John
Donne and Robert Burton, writers I was reading around the same time.
I wrote my name and the
date of purchase in my copy of Can These Bones Live: “8-6-75.” Much of
the text is underlined and annotated. Here’s a typical marked passage, from a
chapter titled “Randolph Bourne: In the Saddle of Rosinante”: “All dogmas lead
men to the Abyss; doctrine is the enemy of vision and the denial of the past.”
By Dahlberg’s customary standards, that’s both thoughtful and moderate. He
could be a real crank, like one of his heroes, Henry David Thoreau, of whom he
writes:
“Great lives are moral
allegories and so soon become deniable myths because we cannot believe that such
good men could have existed in such an evil world.”
The guy who first introduced me to Dahlberg, in 1974, was Mike Phillips. Eighteen years ago I wrote a post on this blog asking if anyone knew Phillips or his whereabouts. So far, silence. I’ve read most of Dahlberg’s published work. Especially good is his 1964 autobiography, filtered through the unhappy life of his mother, Because I Was Flesh. Dahlberg’s essential theme was himself. The memoir works because the focus is shifted to his mother. I’ve shed my infatuation and can value him for his best work. Here is another underlined passage accompanied by my half-century-old exclamation point: “There are no abstract truths—no Mass Man, no proletariat. There is only Man.”
[The two quotes, including the one at the top, are taken from Jules Chametzky’s Out of Brownsville: Encounters with Nobel Laureates and Other Jewish Writers: a Cultural Memoir (2012).]
No comments:
Post a Comment