“It is extraordinary how jargon intimidates; how prone we are to dismiss as irrelevant or dated that which comes unpackaged in the cellophane of current phraseology and images, and has nevertheless to represent those of a totally different era.”
Another symptom of “presentism”:
unwillingness to acquire at least a working knowledge of a new language by a
writer from the past. “Acquire” is misleading. It’s not like learning Russian
as an adult. “Adapt to” or “become comfortable with” are closer. A lazy reader
will object to anything he is unable to instantaneously comprehend. More than
fifty years ago one of my English professors complained that most of her
students were unable to read anything written before Hemingway’s arrival. This
came in the context of reading Tristram Shandy, which several classmates
were complaining about.
The passage quoted above
was written by the American poet Josephine Jacobsen (1908-2003) in "The Masks of Walter de la Mare," published in the Fall 1978 issue of The Sewanee
Review. I take her observation personally because for many years I ignored
the work of de la Mare in poetry and prose largely because of the language and
his interest in the mutedly uncanny. His sentences often seemed fey, fuzzy
and whimsical. After all, he wrote for kids, didn’t he? I wanted hard, flinty
language. Jacobsen concentrates on de la Mare’s stories, which I now
acknowledge as among my favorites:
“What is De la Mare's
primary -- and forever relevant -- premise?” she asks. “It is the premise of
strangeness, and of its creature, the stranger. That stranger is the one who is
suddenly caught peering at us as we pass in a dim room before an unexpected
mirror.”
De la Mare treats
strangeness realistically. That’s not a gratuitously cute paradox. His world is
strange and his people are sensitive to it. It’s not like the gorefests in
contemporary horror movies. I don't ever recall encountering overt violence in a de la
Mare story. It’s a matter of atmosphere, of quietly puzzling, barely perceived
events. Often the main character is more confused than frightened. His stories
seldom feel like genre-based slumming. Jacobsen articulates this quality:
“De la Mare has essayed
the difficult task of catching that strangeness, of examining it in its
effects, of relating it to what we know and what we do not. He has done it in
ghost stories (if something as ambiguous as the ghostly element in these tales
can be so crudely classified); by a lovely and acid sort of fairy tale; but
more often and more characteristically by his stories of those who dwell on the
edge--that line which divides (or does not) reality and appearance, life and death,
which he has taken for his precarious foothold.”
De la Mare’s language delicately
delineates events our rational minds ignore or safely categorize as “odd” and
then forget. Jacobsen writes:
“It is the truly vital,
the greatly endowed with life, who are most acutely aware of death, as witness
the graves, plumes, hearses, and skulls of the Elizabethans; and the bland
timidity of the dreadful vocabulary tailored for Our Senior Citizens, with its
Rest Homes, Golden Age Clubs, Loved Ones, and Memorial Parks. De la Mare's
world -- far from being that of the sugar-spun pixies with which his nonreaders
often tend to associate him [that was me] -- is one of a grim and terrifying
beauty, mined by abysses, peopled with the sleepwalkers of a trustful
materialism, the constant borderline of the assaults of an unknown, powerful,
and awful truth.”
[See the late Jane Greer’s
2023 essay “‘A poet, dangerous and steep’: reintroducing Josephine Jacobsen.”]
No comments:
Post a Comment