Straws and prayer-books; dizain des diversionsCabell, James Branch
Philosophy
Straws and prayer-books; dizain des diversions
Cabell, James Branch
Authorship
For censorship of our reading matter, as I granted even when
_Jurgen_ was yet lying under arrest in Mr. Sumner's[5] cellar,
may, in pure theory, be--just possibly--advisable. In practise, though,
I can imagine no persons or class of persons qualified to perform
this censorship. Speaking here with all, if only, the respect due to
the Society for the Suppression of Vice, I must none the less insist
there is a difference between pornography and fine literature, if but
the difference that everybody enjoys the first where few care one
way or the other about the second: and certainly the two should be
appraised by diverse and appropriate standards. A work of art should
therefore, in theory, be judged entirely as a work of art, by a jury of
practitioners of the art concerned.
Yet, since every self-respecting author at bottom abominates his
competitors, despises his inferiors, and is frantically irritated by
the writings of those who differ from him in æsthetic canons, such an
arrangement would, in practise, only fling open more conspicuous fields
wherein to flaunt the mutual spite and miscomprehension common to us
creative writers. Besides, it is not difficult to forecast what sort of
writers might, and would, be chosen for the judiciary, as representing
pre-eminence in letters by the happiest combination of mediocrity and
senility. Thus, in the end, an attempt to establish a purely "literary"
tribunal would result in setting over American art a death-watch of
genial clergymen and decrepit college professors: and I despondently
question if their decisions would be a whit less imbecile than the
present arbitraments of the Society's hired spies.
It remains, moreover, the defect of every method of legal "suppression"
that magistrates and courts of law are unable really to suppress any
book. A book, once printed, either suppresses itself or else stays,
as things human fare, immortal. And that always appeared to me the
very silliest feature of the _Jurgen_ imbroglio. Irrespective
of any possible legal decision, as I patiently pointed out, over and
over again, when _Jurgen_ lodged in Mr. Sumner's cellar, the
book existed in a sufficient number of unarrestable copies to place
it beyond destruction by anything except its own inherent faults. If
_Jurgen_ contained the right constituents it would live; and if it
lacked the stuff of longevity it would in due course die: either way,
the outcome was to be decided neither by me nor by vice commissioners,
nor even by a judge and a grand jury.
Nobody disputed this logic: nobody in fact paid any attention to it.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account