He went on after a moment’s reflection: «Now painting is a little different, to my way of thinking. It takes more to appreciate a good painting than to appreciate a good book. People seem to think that because they know how to read and write they can tell a good book from a bad one. Even writers, good writers, I mean, aren’t in agreement about what is good and what is bad. Neither are painters about paintings, for that matter. And yet I have the notion that in general painters are more in accord about the merits or lack of merit in the work of well-known painters than writers are with respect to writing. Only a half-assed painter would deny the value of Cezanne’s work, for instance. But take the case of Dickens or of Henry James, and see what astounding differences of opinion there are among capable writers and critics as to their respective merits. If there were a writer to-day as bizarre in his realm as Picasso is in his you’d soon see what I’m driving at. Even if they don’t like his work, most people who know anything about art agree that Picasso is a great genius. Now take Joyce, who’s fairly eccentric as a writer, has he gained anything like the prestige of Picasso? Except for a scholarly few, except for the snobs who try to keep up with everything, his reputation, such as it is to-day, stands largely on the fact that he’s a freak. His genius is admitted, I agree, but it’s tainted, so to speak. Picasso commands respect, even if he isn’t always understood. But Joyce is something of a butt; his fame increases precisely because he can’t be generally understood. He’s accepted as a freak, a phenomenon, like the Cardiff giant… And another thing, while I’m at it—no matter how daring the painter of genius may be, he’s far more quickly assimilated than a writer of the same calibre. At the most, it takes thirty or forty years for a revolutionary painter to be accepted; it takes a writer centuries sometimes. To come back to Melville—what I meant was this: it took him sixty or seventy years, say, to make the grade. We don’t know yet whether he’ll stick it out; he may fall into the discard in another two or three generations. He’s holding on by his teeth and only in spots, as it were. Conrad’s dug in with toes and fingers; he’s got roots already, everywhere; that’s something you can’t easily wave aside. As to whether he deserved it, that’s another thing. I think if the truth were known, we’d find that lots of men were killed off or forgotten who deserved to be kept alive. It’s hard to prove, I know, but I feel that there’s some truth in what I say. You have only to look around you in every day life to observe the same thing happening everywhere. I know myself, in my own field, dozens of men who deserve to be on the Supreme Court bench; they lost out, they’re finished, but what does it prove? Does it prove that they wouldn’t have been better than the old fluffs whom we’ve got sitting on the bench now? There can only be one President of the United States elected every four years; does it mean that the man who happened to get elected (usually unfairly) is better than the ones who were defeated or than thousands of unknown men who never even dreamed of running for office? No, it seems to me that more often than not the ones who get the place of honor turn out to have been the least deserving. The deserving ones often take a back seat, either out of modesty or out of self-respect. Lincoln never wanted to become President of the United States; it was forced on him. He was practically rail-roaded in, by Christ. Fortunately he turned out to be the right man—but it could just as well have been otherwise. He wasn’t chosen because he was the right man. Quite the contrary. Well shit, I’m getting off the track. I don’t know what the hell started me off…»
He stopped just long enough to light a fresh cigar, then went on again.
«There’s just one more thing I’d like to say. I know now what started me off. It’s this—I feel sorry for the guy who’s born a writer. That’s why I razz this bird so much; I try to discourage him because I know what he’s up against. If he’s really any good he’s cooked. A painter can knock out a half dozen paintings in a year—so I’m told. But a writer—why sometimes it takes him ten years to do a book, and if it’s good, as I say, it takes another ten years to find a publisher for it, and after that you’ve got to allow at least fifteen to twenty years before it’s recognized by the public. It’s almost a lifetime—for one book, mind you. How’s he going to live meanwhile? Well, he lives like a dog usually. A panhandler leads a royal life by comparison. Nobody would undertake such a career if he knew what lay in store for him. To me the whole thing is cock-eyed. I say flatly that it’s not worth it. Art was never meant to be produced this way. The point is that art is a luxury nowadays.; I could get along without ever reading a book or looking at a painting. We’ve got too many other things—we don’t need books and paintings. Music yes—music we’ll always need. Not good music necessarily—but music. Nobody writes good music anymore anyway… The way I see it, the world is going to the dogs. You don’t need much intelligence to get along, as things go. In fact, the less intelligence you have the better off you are. We’ve got it so arranged now that things are brought to you on a platter. All you need to know is how to do one little thing passably well; you join a union, you do as little work as possible, and you get pensioned off when you come of age. If you had any aesthetic leanings you wouldn’t be able to go through the stupid routine year in and year out. Art makes you restless, dissatisfied. Our industrial system can’t afford to let that happen—so they offer you soothing little substitutes to make you forget that you’re a human being. Soon there won’t be any art at all, I tell you. You’ll have to pay people to go to a museum or listen to a concert. I don’t say it’ll go on like that forever. No, just when they’ve got it down pat, everything running smooth as a whistle, nobody squawking any more, nobody restless or dissatisfied, the thing’ll collapse. Man wasn’t intended to be a machine. The funny thing about all these Utopian systems of government is that they’re always promising to make man free—but first they try to make him run like an eight-day clock. They ask the individual to become a slave in order to establish freedom for mankind. It’s rum logic. I don’t say that the present system is any better. As a matter of fact, it would be difficult to imagine anything worse than what we’ve got now. But I know it’s not going to be improved by giving up what little rights we now have. I don’t think we want more rights—I think we want larger ideas. Jesus, when I see what lawyers and judges are trying to preserve it makes me puke. The law hasn’t any relation to human needs; it’s a racket carried on by a syndicate of parasites. Just take up a law-book and read a passage (anywhere) aloud. It sounds insane, if you’re in your right senses. It is insane, by God, I know it! But Jesus, if I begin to question the law I’ve got to question other things too. I’d go off my nut if I looked at things with a clear eye. You can’t do it—not if you want to keep in step. You’ve got to squint as you go along; you’ve got to pretend that it makes sense; you’ve got to let people suppose that you know what you’re doing. But nobody knows what he’s doing! We don’t get up in the morning and think what we’re about. No sir! We get up in a fog and shuffle through a dark tunnel with a hang-over. We play the game. We know it’s a dirty lousy fake but we can’t help it— there’s no choice. We’re born into a certain set-up, we’re conditioned to it: we can tinker with it a little here and there, like you would with a leaky boat, but there’s no making it over, there’s no time for it, you’ve got to get to port, or you imagine
