Archives for 2004

W. H. Auden’s A Certain World: A Commonplace Book, which I am lately rediscovering, has one entry each under “Sparrows” and “Swallows.” The sparrows are John Clare’s:

3 sorts The common house Sparrow The Hedge Sparrow & Reed Sparrow often calld the fen sparrow The common sparrow is well known but not so much in a domesticated state as few people think it worth while bringing up a sparrow When I was a boy I kept a tamed cock sparrow 3 years it was so tame that it would come when calld & flew where it pleasd when I first had the sparrow I was fearful of the cat killing it so I usd to hold the bird in my hand toward her & when she attempted to smell of it I beat her she at last woud take no notice of it & I ventured to let it loose in the house they were both very shy at each other at first & when the sparrow venturd to chirp the cat woud brighten up as if she intended to seize it but she went no further than a look or smell at length she had kittens & when they were taken away she grew so fond of the sparrow as to attempt to caress it the sparrow was startld at first but came to by degrees & ventured so far at last as to perch upon her back puss would call for it when out of sight like a kitten & woud lay mice before it the same as she woud for her own young & they always livd in harmony so much the sparrow woud often take away bits of bread from under the cat’s nose & even put itself in a posture of resistence when offended as if it reckoned her no more than one of its kind. In winter when we coud not bear the door open to let the sparrow come out & in I was allowd to take a pane out of the window but in the spring of the third year my poor tom Sparrow for that was the name he was calld by went out & never returnd I went day after day calling out for tom & eagerly eying every sparrow on the house but none answerd the name for he woud come down in a moment to the call & perch upon my hand to be fed I gave it out that some cat which it mistook for its old favourite betrayed its confidence & destroyed it.

As the publication of Jonathan Bate’s biography last year made better-known, Clare was a Romantic-era English peasant-poet who found some fame in his lifetime but lived in poverty and eventually went mad, deteriorating and dying in obscurity in an asylum. The facts of Clare’s biography magnify the pathos of the remembrance above, with its discovery of the danger of mistaking the familiar social operations of one’s native locale for the less forgiving, sometimes inscrutable laws of the wider world. In the light of Clare’s unhappy life, it’s a sobering little brief for staying at home, letting natural enmities be, and trusting no one.

And there was always talk about books. He rarely left on a trip of more than 30 minutes without at least one paperback. He was a rapid and consuming reader. Long ago, in ’55, he had alerted me to Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, and I was gratified in the sixties to turn him on to Walker Percy. Paul said he found a lot of himself in The Moviegoer, that beautiful Percy book about loneliness and grace.

That’s a wonderful thing to find out about Desmond, a man whose wry, soft-spoken playing was by all accounts a mirror of his personality. I wish I’d met him, though I’ve listened to his recordings and read his witty liner notes often enough to feel that we might almost have have known one another. He famously remarked that “I think I had it in the back of my mind that I wanted to sound like a dry martini,” and on another occasion described himself as “the John P. Marquand of the alto,” a brilliantly apposite observation that no other musician in the history of jazz (except perhaps the well-read Bing Crosby, another Marquand fan) would have thought to make. As a longtime admirer of Marquand’s elegiac novel Point of No Return, I know just what he meant.

If you’ve never heard Desmond’s playing, either on his own or with the Dave Brubeck Quartet, you couldn’t do much better than to start with The Paul Desmond Quartet Live, a perfectly lovely solo album from 1975. Should that ring the bell, your next stop should be The Complete RCA Victor Recordings, a splendid five-CD box set that also features the great guitarist Jim Hall. Once you’ve gotten that far, I won’t need to tell you what to do next–you’ll be hooked.

As for The Moviegoer, I hope you’re already on the case….

Fiddler I liked very much, and also found unexpectedly timely:

This isn’t one of those self-consciously “dark” revivals of a famous musical: Mr. Leveaux’s unfussy, trickery-free staging lets the show speak for itself. But at a time when the world is blighted by a sickening recrudescence of anti-Semitism, “Fiddler”‘s tough-minded departures from musical-comedy orthodoxy cannot but be seen in the lurid light of current events. The first act ends with a brutal pogrom, the second with the forced emigration of the villagers of Anatevka. The Minskoff Theatre is a big house, but when the Russian constable called Tevye a “Jewish dog,” the audience grew so still that you could have heard an hourglass run out….

I also liked most things about Big Bill, especially Mark Lamos’ staging and John Michael Higgins’ performance in the title role, though I had some nagging doubts about the play itself:

As Tilden steers closer and closer to the brink of disaster, “Big Bill” shrugs off its deceptive patness and acquires a sharp, even ragged edge. Why, then, did I go home dissatisfied? Because the pitiful realities of Tilden’s life have been subtly but unmistakably sanitized by Mr. Gurney. We never hear directly from any of the boys he seduced, for instance, though we are treated to a brief speech of self-justification at play’s end: “You could say that if only I had lived in a more accommodating society, I might have met someone…someone I could have loved…someone with whom I could have shared my life, without fear or shame.”

I don’t need to have everything spelled out, but I wonder whether Mr. Gurney meant for the audience to recall that for Bill Tilden, that “someone” would presumably have been a teenager. If he didn’t, he should have, because that puts a different spin on the ball.

No link, so do yourself (and me) a favor and go buy a copy of this morning’s Journal, where you’ll find my drama column nestled in the “Weekend Journal” section among plenty of other good stuff.

We do things differently in England. We try not to let ideological disagreements disturb our social life or the ecumenical serenity of our clubs. Politics, let alone ideas, are not that important….We think people should come before ideas: it is our strength, as well (some would say) as our weakness.

I don’t know whether English intellectuals are really like that nowadays, but it certainly seems as if they were once upon a time, and I think Johnson is right to declare this tendency (however ambiguously) to be at once a strength and a possible weakness. For my own part, I’ve never broken with a friend over his personal beliefs, so long as he doesn’t become a monomaniac about them–but as any good statistician would immediately point out, that may say more about my friend-making practices than my friend-keeping practices. I don’t enjoy the company of humorless people, and the absence of a sense of humor tends to go hand in hand with belief-related monomania. Hence I don’t tend to seek out the kinds of people with whom I later might find myself inclined, even obliged, to break.

Not long after 9/11, I wrote an essay about overly earnest artists:

Alas, they have always been with us, especially in wartime and most especially in America, far too many of whose well-meaning citizens are allergic to the exhilarating fizz of high art with a light touch. It seems not to occur to them that life is such an indissoluble mixture of heartbreak and absurdity that it might be more truly portrayed through the refracting lens of comedy. Instead, they prefer what Lord Byron, who knew a thing or two about both life and art, would have crisply dismissed as “sermons and soda-water.”…

Of course there is a parallel case to be made for earnestness: surely it is people like Isadora Duncan who make the world go round. But who would want to go along for the ride if they also made all the art? Henry James, that wittiest of serious men, underlined the point in an 1893 letter to his friend Edmund Gosse. The occasion was the publication of “A Problem in Modern Ethics,” John Addington Symonds’ agonizingly earnest pamphlet calling for a change in public attitudes toward homosexuality. “I think,” said James, “one ought to wish him more humour–it is really the saving salt. But the great reformers never have it.” No, they don’t, but the greatest artists do, and never more than when falling skyscrapers threaten to make us lose sight of the crooked shape of man, absurd and preposterous and–yes–beautiful.

I still stand by those words, but I invite you to note that James–and I–were careful to distinguish between artists and reformers. Reformers, like saints, can be awfully awkward people. Their singlemindedness is no small part of what makes them effective, as well as uncomfortable to be with. I’ve known a few, but I’ve never tried to get close to them. No matter how friendly they may seem, I always get the feeling that they’d be perfectly happy to have me guillotined if they thought it necessary.

But, then, artists also incline to ruthlessness, don’t they? As William Faulkner once observed, “If a writer has to rob his mother, he will not hesitate: The ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ is worth any number of old ladies.” This is not, thank God, a universal rule. Most of my friends are artists, and most of them seem disinclined to rob their mothers. But most of the great artists I’ve known–and it’s a short list–have done things in the service of their art at one time or another (though never to me) that were so selfish as to make my hair stand up.

Again, the statistician in me speaks up: how big is my sample? And the answer is: not very. I’ve read enough biographies to know that some great artists are nice, others nasty. I haven’t known many great reformers, or any saints at all. And as for what Paul Johnson calls “ecumenical serenity,” I like getting along with people–though I wouldn’t pay any price for it. But the truth is that my inclination to companionability has never been put to anything like a severe test. I have good friends whose views I think silly, but none who seem to me downright evil (and I believe in the existence of evil). I sometimes wonder what I’d do if I were to learn that a friend of mine had committed a cold-blooded murder. I like to think that I wouldn’t have befriended such a person in the first place, and that’s probably true–but human nature is complicated enough that I can’t say so with certainty.

All I can say for sure is that I’ve never been intimate with anyone lacking a sense of humor, or truly loved a work of art by a humorless artist. That might just be the most revealing thing about me.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., letter to Harold Laski, October 30, 1930

During intermission at the Cecilia Bartoli concert I attended this weekend, I ended up talking to the woman two seats over. (She’d overheard me talking about the program with my friend T., who came with me.) Did I play anything, she asked. I said no. “You certainly seem to know a lot about music — I don’t know much of anything about it,” she replied. I said something about having an inexpert but occasionally obsessive interest. Then the guy on my other side, who’d leaned over to ask if he could borrow my opera-glasses from time to time during the second half of the concert, answered a question of T.’s about horn-playing in far more technical detail than I ever could have produced. I was somewhere in the middle — literally — between “I don’t know much about music” and “I can tell you all about crooks.” All of which is to say, I should get over my phobia of being seen as an amateur and actually blog about music every so often….

Read the whole thing here.

I couldn’t agree more. Please do. Intelligent amateurism is a big part of what blogging is all about. And the same goes for you, Mr. TMFTML.

Our Site Meter tells us a lot about worldwide traffic patterns at “About Last Night,” but there’s one thing we don’t know and would like to find out: exactly how do you read us?

Specifically:

Do you visit “About Last Night” daily? If so, is it at a regular time of day, or whenever the spirit moves you?

Alternatively, do you visit once or twice a week, and read the accumulated postings? If so, on what day or days do you come here?

Finally, do you read “About Last Night” directly, or do you subscribe to our postings via an RSS feed, or some other form of aggregator?

If you feel like it, drop us a line (using Terry’s mailbox, not Our Girl’s) and tell us how and when you read “About Last Night.” Please put the words READING HABITS in the subject line, so that we can cull out your responses from incoming e-mail on other subjects.

Many thanks.