The Little Review, December 1915 (Vol. 2, No. 9)Various
General
The Little Review, December 1915 (Vol. 2, No. 9)
Various
Literature, Modern -- 20th century -- Periodicals
I have been getting curious, and at times interesting, opinions of such
readers. I hope to receive more, and acquaint the _Little Review_ family
with them. On the whole, there prevails a note of depression and
uneasiness. One writes: “I had hoped to be left alone on a mountain peak
in a blaze of light and in the stress of wind; instead there is a
sardonic laugh, and I am again hurled into the maelstrom of a world that
cannot rise above suffering from its own passions.” A feminist remarks
sadly that the book demonstrates “the limit of man’s penetration. The
women are women still—not even women of the transition.” An incurable,
hopelessly struggling Puritan rages and curses both me and the author; I
give a few gems: “I’ve read your devilishly wonderful book!... It did
many things to me, which, thank God, have passed like a drunken
dream.... For three days I’ve been hideously torn up, slashed into
tatters, savage and fundamental. But you want my opinion! How can I tell
you, divorce it from myself, tear it out of my living flesh, when it has
become imbedded. That terrible, wonderful Falk! It makes you shudder
away from all temperamental people with experimental souls in their
fingers, and few convictions.... I became paralyzed with horror. At last
I cried out, writhed on the floor and prayed to some Power, any Power,
for pity, not to see myself, not to see life beneath the superficial
surface.... Go away, take your Slav fingers out of my soul! They force
me to look at truth, when I want to deal in lies. They force me to climb
the heights and peer into the hideous crevasses, when I want to browse
fatuously on the hillocks.” More such “drunken dreams,”
and the comfortable blinders will fall off the eyes of the
happiness-by-all-means-fiends.
I submit two letters of friends who have read my article and wished to
supplement my views. I humbly think that what they say is included in my
“reflections”; but I am also conscious of my inherent fault—conciseness
which borders on obscurity. Hence clarification is gratefully welcome.
I.
What you say about Przybyszewski I also think. But what you do not say
about _Homo Sapiens_ is what I feel most of all. There is something very
definite about _Homo Sapiens_, the book. It rises out of the mass of
flaming gibberish, dissected nerves, and poetical slashings. It rings in
the ears long after the book is closed. It is the most poignant cry of
the dying nineteenth century, and it comes out of lower depths than the
cry of Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov,—shriller, madder, and more
penetrating....
Eric Falk is not a nuance. He is the whole of Stanislaw Przybyszewski,
the whole of modern wisdom and introspection, which is another word for
degeneracy.
Come now, pretend I am not reviewing it. Pretend I am something of a
clairvoyant.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account