You are here:   Civilisation >  Critique > Writers, Visible and Invisible
 
What is the true meaning of “the madness of art”? Imposture, impersonation, fakery, make-believe – but not the imposture, impersonation, fakery or transporting make-believe of inventive story-telling. No: rather, art turns mad in pursuit of the false face of wishful distraction. The fraudulent writer is the visible one, the crowd-seeker, the crowd-speaker, the one who will go out to dinner with you with a motive in mind, or will stand and talk at you, or will discuss mutual writing habits with you, or will gossip with you about other novelists and their enviable good luck or their gratifying bad luck. The fraudulent writer is like Bellow’s Henderson: I want, I want, I want.

If all this is so – and it is so – then how might a young would-be writer aspire to join the company of the passionately ghostly invisibles? Or, to put it another way, though all writers are now and again unavoidably compelled to become visible, how to maintain a coveted clandestine authentic invisibility? Don’t all young writers look to the precincts of visibility, where heated phalanxes of worn old writers march back and forth, fanning their brows with their favourable reviews? Isn’t that how it’s done, via models and mentors and the wise counsel of seasoned editors? “I beg you,” says Rilke, addressing one such young writer, “I beg you to give all that up. You are looking outwards, and of all things that is what you must now not do. Nobody can advise you and help you, nobody. There is only one single means. Go inside yourself. Discover the motive that bids you to write; examine whether it sends its roots down to the deepest places in your heart, confess to yourself whether you would have to die if writing were denied you. This before all: ask yourself in the quietest hour of the night: must I write? Dig down into yourself for a deep answer. And if this should be in the affirmative, if you may meet this solemn question with a strong and simple ‘I must’, then build your life according to this ­necessity.”

Thus the poet Rilke, imploring the untried young to surrender all worldly reward, including the spur, and sometimes the romantic delusion, of Fame, in order to succumb to a career in ectoplasm. Note that he speaks of “the quietest hour of the night”, which is also the darkest, where we do what we can and give what we have. The madness of art – and again I willingly contradict Henry James – is not in the art, but in the madding and maddening crowd, where all manner of visibilities elbow one another, while the ghosts at their writing tables sit alone and write, and write, and write, as if the necessary transparency of their souls depended upon it.

If you detect in these paragraphs a tone of confident authority, it is because I am myself an invisible of long standing. If you have read this far, the thought may have occurred to you: that you have never before seen anything else by this writer, and why? I put in evidence a letter, received only today, from my cherished London literary agent – a royalty report, no cheque attached, all advances unearned, all balances zero. (Ah, the airy, ineffable zero! Not for nothing did the philosophical Greeks snatch out of the void this numberless nullity!) I am fortunate enough to be tolerated: no agent or publisher has yet decided to dump me, as any persistent, consistent drainer of profits deserves.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Anonymous
September 4th, 2008
7:09 PM
I am not sure I understood all of this. I am a long-time reader and admirer of Cynthia Ozick, both her fictional work and her critical essays. But no one is always right about everything, and I am reluctant to accept 'generalizations' regarding what all writers seek. The greatest writer the English language and perhaps world- literature as a whole has known wrote for his words to be played- and did not have a book to his name. Was it 'recognition' he sought, or rather simply to create as Borges said of him 'more than anyone else other than God'? Samuel Johnson said he wrote first of all for money, and only a fool would do otherwise. But of course his greatest work he did not write. His greatest work he lived and spoke and had written down by his faithful lackey Mr. Boswell. Hemingway certainly wrote for Fame and for much else including capturing the exact sense of action in life. He himself knew he did not 'beat old Tolstoy' in doing so. There is much to be said about the silent struggle of the writer in darkness. But what about Applefeld and Sartre writing in their favorite cafes, and feeling more at home with themselves when surrounded by bustling others? A SMALL MAN/ WRITES A SMALL POEM A small man writes a small poem alone - Whether the world listens or not- The poem is written.

Sarah A. Stevens
September 4th, 2008
6:09 PM
Advice to a young writer indeed! Thank you.

Ramesh Raghuvanshi
September 4th, 2008
5:09 PM
Fame celebrity is curse to genuine writer.Many writers ruined themselves from this flase fame. Genuine wrter must know his writeen word is truly live foreever if that one is honest

Malcolm R. Campbell
September 4th, 2008
5:09 PM
No one could possible have said this better.

Anonymous
September 4th, 2008
11:09 AM
I've never read any of Cynthia Ozick's work, until this. I am gladdened.

Ron
September 4th, 2008
9:09 AM
I am breathless in wonder and gratitude at your words.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.