MR wrote:
Perhaps someone has
made this point already (I've been away
from the list for a couple weeks), but it seems to me that both verbose and concise writers appear
in great, if not equal, numbers
everywhere, and the examples and counter-examples might never end.
It _may_ be more productive to talk about
prolixity as it relates to literary traditions, which span nationalities. The
Romantics (British and American)
and Victorians were expansive writers
because of their philosophy, not their nationality.
Matthew’s reasonable remarks almost
persuade me that I’m pursuing a concept of national literary identities that is
too elusive ever to be chased down. Almost, but not quite. Having mentioned
Sandburg in the previous posting, I thought I’d better find out a bit more about
him, since I can’t say he has figured much in my earlier reading. This comment
appeared in Wikipedia: H.
L. Mencken called Carl Sandburg "indubitably an American in every
pulse-beat."
This
led on more page-flipping in pursuit of Mencken, with whom I am really totally
unfamiliar. It seemed to me these two figures actually exemplified what I was
dimly trying to get at.
Looking at
Sandburg’s poem
In
fact, it’s about as unlike anything written by VN as could possibly be imagined.
It is this kind of composition which makes me think of VN as profoundly
un-American, and unshakably European. European society has been, and maybe still
is, to an extent, hierarchical and pyramidal: American society, in spite of its
skyscrapers, is still flat. VN, although not (I believe) technically an
aristocrat, was certainly a patrician, and displayed patrician attitudes
throughout his life. I submit. The only American literary patrician I can think
of, who even approaches this position, is Gore Vidal.
Matthew
mentions Digressionism, Romanticism, Realism, Naturalism,
Imagism, Surrealism, and although I recognize the need for literary academics to
categorize literature in this way, I would say that if anything is consistent
about VN it is his adamantine rejection of all –isms; starting with
Totalitarianism, and continuing on to encompass Fascism, Communism,
Anti-Semitism, Socialism, Freudianism, and any other –ism, literary or
otherwise, one might think of. I would regard this as the only acceptable
position of a true artist, but I have to say that it is also elitist, proud and
self-sufficient. I find these things admirable.
I would also suggest that literary
theory means very little to genuine practitioners; and the same goes for truly
great practitioners in any field. Theory is for observers and teachers, not for
doers.
Charles