MR wrote:

 

Perhaps someone has made this point already (I've been away  from the list for a couple weeks), but it seems to me that  both verbose and concise writers appear in great, if not equal,  numbers everywhere, and the examples and counter-examples  might never end.

 

It  _may_ be more productive to talk about prolixity as it relates to literary traditions, which span nationalities. The Romantics  (British and American) and Victorians were expansive writers  because of their philosophy, not their nationality.

 

Matthew’s reasonable remarks almost persuade me that I’m pursuing a concept of national literary identities that is too elusive ever to be chased down. Almost, but not quite. Having mentioned Sandburg in the previous posting, I thought I’d better find out a bit more about him, since I can’t say he has figured much in my earlier reading. This comment appeared in Wikipedia: H. L. Mencken called Carl Sandburg "indubitably an American in every pulse-beat."

 

This led on more page-flipping in pursuit of Mencken, with whom I am really totally unfamiliar. It seemed to me these two figures actually exemplified what I was dimly trying to get at.

 

Looking at Sandburg’s poem Chicago I felt that it expressed everything that I would regard as truly American: even more American than April in Arizona. Its rhetoric is very powerful, and highly rhythmical. Although short, it sprawls, and consists of a succession of semi-biblical, repetitious, descriptive periods, rolling adjectives, and rough consonants.  I don’t think it would ever be called witty, erudite, humorous or elegant, and it’s anti-elitist in every possible way.

 

In fact, it’s about as unlike anything written by VN as could possibly be imagined. It is this kind of composition which makes me think of VN as profoundly un-American, and unshakably European. European society has been, and maybe still is, to an extent, hierarchical and pyramidal: American society, in spite of its skyscrapers, is still flat. VN, although not (I believe) technically an aristocrat, was certainly a patrician, and displayed patrician attitudes throughout his life. I submit. The only American literary patrician I can think of, who even approaches this position, is Gore Vidal.  

 

Matthew mentions Digressionism,  Romanticism, Realism, Naturalism, Imagism, Surrealism, and although I recognize the need for literary academics to categorize literature in this way, I would say that if anything is consistent about VN it is his adamantine rejection of all –isms; starting with Totalitarianism, and continuing on to encompass Fascism, Communism, Anti-Semitism, Socialism, Freudianism, and any other –ism, literary or otherwise, one might think of. I would regard this as the only acceptable position of a true artist, but I have to say that it is also elitist, proud and self-sufficient. I find these things admirable.

 

I would also suggest that literary theory means very little to genuine practitioners; and the same goes for truly great practitioners in any field. Theory is for observers and teachers, not for doers.

 

Charles