"It seems to me indisputably true that a good many people, the wide world over, of varying ages, cultures, natural endowments, respond with a special impetus, a zing, even, in some cases, to artists and poets who as well as having a reputation for producing great or fine art have something garishly Wrong with them as persons: a spectacular flaw in character or citizenship, a construably romantic affliction or addiction - extreme self-centeredness, marital infidelity, stone-deafness, stone-blindness, a terrible thirst, a mortally bad cough, a soft spot for prostitutes, a partiality for grand-scale adultery or incest, a certified or uncertified weakness for opium or sodomy, and so on, God have mercy on the lonely bastards. If suicide isn't at the top of the list of compelling infirmities for creative men, the suicide poet or artist, one can't help noticing, has always been given a very considerable amount of avid attention, not seldom on sentimental grounds almost exclusively, as if he were (to put it much more horribly than I really want to) the floppy-eared runt of the litter. It's a thought, anyway, finally said, that I've lost sleep over many times, and possibly will again."
Seymour - An Introduction
J.D. Salinger
2 comments:
to have something garishly Wrong with oneself as a person is kind of a virtue in my book. really, what is there to learn from, or find amusing in, a person who is simply correct? or even just ordinarily wrong?
if you are considering reading something new, and haven't read anything by michel houellebecq, please allow me to put forth my strongest possible personal recommendation that you do so.
i did indeed read Atomised (the UK name) a few years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it - in a very bleak my-life-all-of-a-sudden-feels-much-much-better-in-comparison sort of way.
i particularly liked your use of "ordinarily" above, Melinda.
Post a Comment