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
 
 
 
 
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.