You are here:   Civilisation >  Critique > Writers, Visible and Invisible
 
Perhaps there remains, contrary to received opinion, an eleemosynary strain among publishing pundits, by which they are impelled, on rare occasion, to rise to a magnanimity only a little lower than that of the angels: they will publish a writer not merely against the odds, but even when a negative outcome is positively predictable. Since this, I observe, is not the lot of most invisibles, it may serve as inspiriting if, for the moment, I give up the ghost, materialise into visibility, and tell a long-ago confessional tale.

Like tricky though hapless Jacob in the Bible, I first wooed Leah while desiring Rachel. The wooing of Leah took seven years, the wooing of Rachel another seven years. Leah was my first first novel. Far too ambitious, it was abandoned after 300,000 words. Rachel was my second first novel, even more afflicted by ambition, and was completed at more than 800 pages. The wages of frenzied gluttony – 14 years had flown away. One afternoon, on the very day I finished typing the last sentence, I posted my second first novel to an editor who plied his trade in a New York skyscraper. Back came the manuscript in the mail, with 100 pages all marked up in red pencil – and a note. The note read: “If you do everything my red pencil suggests, and of course there will be more in this vein, we will accept your novel for publication. But if you decline to follow my red pencil’s indispensable advice, then we will decline to publish.”

Fourteen years gone! Outrun by the cohort of my generation, I lusted for print as Jacob panted after Rachel. To the editor I wrote: “Seven years have I labored for these words, and yet another seven years; so I say unto you, Nay, not one jot or tittle will I alter or undo.”

To which the blessed editor replied: “OK, we’ll take it anyway.”

He died suddenly and young, at 42 – I have survived him by decades – and by then I had praised him a thousand times over. And a thousand times over he admonished me: “You think I’m a great editor only because I never edited you.” It is axiomatic, I am obliged to add, that my second first novel (balances zero) has never once met the eye of another living mortal.

And that is how one diffident, obsequious, self-effacing writer became ferociously invisible, at home among the ghosts. And so she remains.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
lee johnson
January 14th, 2009
3:01 PM
I was googling around to find out if anyone other than me had written about the relation of the visible to the invisible in Henry James . I have published a book on James structured around two pairs of interlocking terms; language is to silence as the visible is to the invisible. I am trying to show, with close reading and microscopic precision how James is able to render visible silence in words. The book is entitled, "Finding the Figure in the Carpet: Vision and Silence in the Works of Henry James," by Lee McKay Johnson. I am hoping Cynthia Ozick reads this post. Lee Johnson

Janbandhu Sir
October 16th, 2008
3:10 PM
I bow down to the immeasurable eloquence and lofty language employed by Ozick. The bravura article on visibility as well as against invisible nonentity allures me. Simple yet deceptively pregnant lexemes decisively planted throughout this article mesmerize me. The lust and panting for the nostalgic past is wonderful.

Jagdish
October 10th, 2008
5:10 AM
I could hardly understand the implication of this matriarchal article. However, the resonance it reverberates is a laudable matter often steeped into the Jewish Power and eminence. Being one of the most loved authoress', more because of her literary output and less but distinct for her the dimple on her cheek, I have been always eloped into the uncanny shawl of my own attire.

CMP
September 23rd, 2008
8:09 PM
Brings to mind Morley Callaghan's "That Summer in Paris," his memoir of Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Joyce, Lewis among others in 1929. One notes that the greater the writer, the less time seems to have been spent among the cafe society.

Jimmy Show
September 12th, 2008
1:09 PM
Thank you, Ms. Ozick. My first first novel lasted five years and nearly 400,000 words. All trashed. From Gao Xingjian's Nobel acceptance speech: "I can say that literature is inherently man's affirmation of the value of his own self and that of the writer's need for self-fulfillment. Whether it has any impact on society comes after the completion of a work and that impact certainly is not determined by the wishes of the writer."

Anonymous
September 9th, 2008
9:09 PM
Writers are made otherwise. Massive vomit on this noisy bit of petulance from Ozick, she who speaks for all Writers, she who mocks Fame but praises Lastingness as if the judgment of Academe -- de facto jury of what lasts and what doesn't -- were somehow free of faddishness and arbitrariness, she who regards a brief span of a couple centuries as, apparently, eternal. What shit. Thankfully fame-hungry writers like the Mailer she scoffs at are a lot more fun and a lot more loved than plaintive elitists like her.

Anonymous
September 8th, 2008
4:09 PM
I have to admit, I found this pretty thick. I read it aloud and wondered if it sounded any better when performed, but it actually got worse. I certainly agree with the sentiment, but I found this overwritten. I mean, look at that second paragraph...how semi colons and colons in the same sentence...enough already! Maybe it's a personal preference, but I'd rather hear Chekhov or Carver on writing. Then again, she's the one who won the award. So she can write whatever she wants!

mike hudson
September 5th, 2008
4:09 PM
a beautiful thing, cynthia.

wabi sabi
September 5th, 2008
8:09 AM
eloquent, elegant, and true.

SR
September 4th, 2008
10:09 PM
Mrs Ozick, you are a great woman. I wish you infinite happiness.

Post your comment

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