As is my habit in my neverending search of insight and
understanding, I ”remoted” the appropriate numbers to “Non-Fiction Sunday” on C-SPAN2 –“202” on Time Warner Cable – hoping that my immersion in the programming
would serve the dual purpose of educating me, as well as immunizing me against
my conscription into more rigorous – and less desirable – activities
outdoors.
(The latter is an identifiable, if
unfortunate, lifelong habit; one sparkling autumn afternoon in my youth, I
passed up an excursion to the country to witness Ontario’s magnificent “turning
of the leaves” in favor of watching syndicated reruns of The Cisco Kid. “Brought to
you by Blue Seal Bread – the freshest
thing in town!”)
As luck would have it, I discovered an event featuring the
acclaimed novelist, Philip Roth, who had recently announced his retirement from
book writing. As I tuned in, the eminent
Mr. Roth, seated behind a desk, was in the middle of rattling off an extended
list of behaviors from which his departure from the fiction-writing racket had now
liberated him.
As Roth ran down the lengthy litany of “I’m finished with
that’s”, other than “I will no longer be talking about breasts” which for some
reason caught my attention, what stuck with me most was his assertion/slash/regretful
acknowledgement that, by curtailing his career as a novelist, Roth was simultaneously
putting an end to the appropriation of characteristics of those around him to
enrich and enliven his manufactured creations.
An option, which, for the most part, I have personally refrained
from, primarily by not writing fiction. Even in “non-fiction
mode”, I have maintained a reluctance to include others, declining especially –
the exceptions being when I was settling a score – from delineating people in
an unfavorable light.
Though this is my 1328th blog post, I can
currently report that I have gone about my business in such a manner that I
have been required, to date, to delete only two blog posts, because they had offended
the feelings of the people I had written about.
(And one of those
complainants, I continue to believe, was unnecessarily hypersensitive.)
In any case, let us keep in mind then, that, concerning one
thousand three hundred and twenty-six
blog posts, nobody got upset. Tangible evidence
of me and my consequent output being either thoughtfully considerate. Or punchlessly tame.
I would not rule out “tame”, as my, what was deemed, “soft
writing” got me booted out of show business (for not writing “edgy” enough.
Still, since here
I can write any way I choose, and I have proceeded in a manner that has
offended only twice in one thousand and twenty-eight outings, one can
justifiably categorize my “selection process of choice” as “Considerate.” (Though I may arguably be being considerate
to myself by doing so.)
There is one other
possibility, which one might critically though not inaccurately call the “Don’t
hit me” rationale.
Living in congenital fear of a beating – of an either
physical or psychological nature – it is possible that I deliberately choose a
writing approach that will save face – concerning secret shameful attitudes, as
well as my face.
“Do no harm, and no harm shall be done unto you.”
That is not in the Bible, but it could be. With the
qualifying though less mellifluous addendum:
“Or at least it’s less likely.”
Setting explanations aside, the consequence of my selected
approach is a lot of stories about me.
Why? Because you don’t hit yourself – at least, rarely with a
closed fist – so it’s safer. Of course,
there is not necessarily one reason
for a proclivity. It could also be that
more benevolent explanation as well.
I am not a big fiction reader, so I don’t know if, not unlike
my cousin Herschel’s silly joke: “There are two kinds of bald people – those with hair, and those without hair” – there are two kinds of
writers – those who write about others, and those who write about themselves. But if you think that I annoyingly frequently
locate myself at the center of the universe – and then write about it –
consider the more generous possibility:
I am not being “me-gotistical.” Or cowardly.
I am simply being nice.
Well, now of course, your readers are obsessed with exactly which two posts had to be deleted and what are the names of the people who were offended...
ReplyDelete