`Literature,' he says, `never was,
is not, and never will be, in the ordinary sense of the term, a
profession. You can't teach it as you can the professions, you
can't succeed in it as you can in the professions, by dint of mere
diligence and without special aptitude . . . I think all this
chatter about the technical and pecuniary sides of literature is
extremely foolish and worse than useless. It only serves to glut
the idle curiosity of the general public about matters with which
they have no concern, a curiosity which (thanks partly to American
methods of journalism) has become simply outrageous.'
Into chatter about the pecuniary aspect of literature the Lecturer
need hardly say that he did not meander. It is absolutely true that
literature cannot be taught. Maupassant could have dispensed with
the instructions of Flaubert. But an `aptitude' is needed in all
professions, and in such arts as music, and painting, and sculpture,
teaching is necessary. In literature, teaching can only come from
general education in letters, from experience, from friendly private
criticism. But if you cannot succeed in literature `by dint of mere
diligence,' mere diligence is absolutely essential.
Pages:
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61