*sigh*
All right, I took a nap. A four hour nap. But I'm still going to get outside during regular daylight hours. Really.
Was perusing the list of new e-books over on BlackMask and noticed a work (and author) I'm not familiar with: Definitions: Essays in Contemporary Criticism by Henry Seidel Canby. Authored in 1922, it's a critique of literary writing in America (Canby was apparently an "Editor of The Literary Review of The New York Evening Post, and a member of the English Department of Yale University") and looks quite interesting.
Here's an excerpt from a section titled "Out with the Dilettante":
Two kinds of expository writing are natural for Americans. The first is a hard-hitting statement, straight out of intense feeling or labored thought. That was Emerson's way (in spite of his expansiveness), and Thoreau's also. You read them by pithy sentences, not paragraphs. They assail you by ideas, not by insidious structures of thought. The second is an easy-going comment on life, often slangy or colloquial and frequently so undignified as not to seem literature. Mark Twain and Josh Billings wrote that way; Ring Lardner writes so to-day.
When the straight-from-the-shoulder American takes time to finish his thought, to mold his sentences, to brain his reader with a perfect expression of his tense emotion, then he makes literature. And when the easy-going humorist, often nowadays a column conductor, or a contributor to The Saturday Evening Post, takes time to deepen his observation and to say it with real words instead of worn symbols, he makes, and does make, literature. More are doing it than the skeptical realize. The new epoch of the American essay is well under way.
But the desire to ?make literature? in America is too often wasted. The would-be essayist wastes it in pretty writing about trivial things?neighbors' back yards, books I have read, the idiosyncrasies of cats, humors of the streets?the sort of dilettantish comment that older nations writing of more settled, richer civilizations can do well?that Anatole France and occasional essayists of Punch or The Spectator can do well and most of us do indifferently. We are a humorous people, but not a playful one. Light irony is not our forte. Strength and humorous exaggeration come more readily to our pens than grace. We are better inspired by the follies of the crowd, or the errors of humanity, than by the whims of culture or aspects of pleasant leisure. And when we try to put on style in the manner of Lamb or Hazlitt, Stevenson or Beerbohm, we seldom exceed the second rate.
When the newspaper and magazine humorists of democracy learn to write better; when the moralists and reformers and critics of American life learn to mature and perfect their thought until what they write is as good as their intentions?then the trumpets and drums may sound again, and with justification. Many have; may others follow.
And perhaps then we can scrap a mass of fine writing about nothing in particular, that calls itself the American literary essay, and yet is neither American in inspiration, native in style, nor good for anything whatsoever, except exercise in words. Out with the dilettantes. We are tired of the merely literary; we want real literature in the essay as elsewhere.
Jeez. Canby would have totally hated the blogging phenomenon.
