Sisyphus by Franz Stuck |
Writers
spend long years arduously composing their literary works, then devote
themselves, in what is often a comparable length of time, to subsequent
revisions, edits, polishes, and scrubs until the fictional narrative emerges
from its literary washing sleekly pristine – or at least as best as we are able
to render it. In my limited experience, of both biological as well as literary
offspring, some dirt always lingers behind the ears in those hard-to-reach
places – which is when one brings in an incisive editor or an equally resolute
grandparent.
And
then? The progeny is freshly scrubbed to pinkness, attired in its Sunday best,
and presented to society, with the last-minute authorial effort to comb the
unruly cowlick into respectability. Like the debutantes of eighteenth century
England who were conveyed to London for the ‘Season’, they are subsequently
paraded in frills and feathers in hope of procuring a marital/literary partner.
And there are a number to pick from, parading the dance floor: the ubiquitous
vanity presses, glamorously attired and available for a hefty price, the
literary agent who hovers on the peripheries, assessing each with a practiced
eye, and the haughty mien of the publishing giants who recline in the other room
(they seldom attend such gatherings). For those who seek a friendlier
reception, there are a promising number of small, independent presses who love
to dance. Ideally, the writer fills their dance card and in the process of an
enchanted evening decides upon the prospect best-suited. Of course that
particular ‘prospect’ must also concur (barring the vanity presses who will
obligingly embrace all and sundry) and the process itself is far from done. If
aforementioned progeny waltzes off into the sultry night with a fetching
literary agent, that agent must still convincingly sell the product to a
publishing house with a highly discerning economic nose. My point is, whether
the debutante is whisked away by an aristocratic Charming, of the male or
female variety, the wedding is still far off.
Once
the glow of evening festivities have subsided, regardless of whether a partner was
acquired or no, the writer must begin again, summoning all available neurons to
the task (however many have survived the onslaught of the previous year’s
‘Season’), confronting the blank page with a determined optimism and
vigor. For beginning is imbued with optimism, pregnant with the
possibility of all that is to come. And so it is that the wheel turns and the
literary cycle repeats itself, the new novel emerging like tender shoots of
green beneath the snowbank. The number of revolutions in the writing rotation
are defined by the human life span, providing the writer retains the requisite
stamina, focus, and sanguinity (although I am increasingly of the opinion that
writers are instinctively inclined – that they can no more cease to write than
they can forgo food – that the steady composition of sentences is a dogged
thing, perhaps even, at times, an unwilling thing). When deep in the throes of
such cyclical endeavors of unforeseen intensity and unknown duration, knowing
as one does that the literary offspring might not prove sufficiently alluring
to particular aristocratic publishing tastes, a writer might be forgiven for
thinking of their task as a Sisyphean one.
Sisyphus,
according to Greek tradition, was a fairly nasty fellow; as king of Ephyra, he
defied Zeus, seduced his niece, deceived Hades, and contrived to murder his
brother. His punishment for these transgressions consisted of pushing a weighty
boulder up a steep hill; the rock, enchanted, rolled away from Sisyphus just
prior to reaching the summit, consigning Sisyphus to an eternity of futile
labor and perpetual frustration. Interminable activities have since been
described as Sisyphean. This metaphor finds some similarity with the writing
task; while the endeavor seems a ceaseless one, I do not however presume to
liken my fellow scribes to such an unpalatable fellow, nor would I ever condemn
the vocation to the realms of futility.
Camus
in his philosophical essay, Myth of Sisyphus, offers an intriguing perspective. While
we strive to better understand the world, seeking to ascribe some measure of
meaning to the human endeavor, Camus would tell us (as is ominously proclaimed
above the gates to Hades): ‘Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.’ For the fiery
collision of this human quest for meaning with the quiet unfathomability of the
world results, according to Camusian doctrine, in a contradiction that results
in the absurd where true knowledge is impossible, where rationality and science
cannot reveal the impenetrable world, and “If the world were clear, art would
not exist.”
For
the artistic endeavor seeks to make sense of external things, to cast a glance
darkly across the murky expanse that so thwarts our understanding. But truth
eludes us and writers, according to Camus, are confined merely to the
conveyance of experience. And to achieve authentic absurdity, one must not only
abandon all hope, but refrain from even alluding to the possibility of such a
tantalizing carrot. But Camusian hope is a futile yearning for a resolution of
the prevailing contradiction. Camus does (reluctantly?) allow us a form of
contented acceptance once one acknowledges the certainty of one’s fate, the
futility of one’s task, and the concomitant realization of situational
absurdity. But one is not allowed to relinquish the endeavor, voluntarily slip
beneath the waves; one must ceaselessly confront the absurdity. Camus concludes: “The struggle itself […] is
enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”
This statement is so
profound, with marvelous implications for the writing metaphor I am painfully
trying to explicate, that I must repeat it: ‘One must imagine Sisyphus happy.’
And this, for writers, is the answer!
One must befriend Sisyphus and love the rock. The journey is everything and if
your literary progeny turns out to be a bit of a wallflower, fret not! There
are, increasingly, a number of options for the dedicated writer; the important thing
is to find happiness in the process, in shoving one’s shoulder to the boulder
and hefting it uphill. For even if the rock is heavy and the path forbidding,
the view from the heights gladdens the heart and the ‘Season’ rolls around with
reliable regularity. And with each uphill foray, the muscles of leg and back
are strengthened, fortified and
increasingly equipped for the task; as is the case with each subsequent literary
work: our pen becomes ever more refined, our voice emphatically our own. And
how can one achieve this without the continuum of literary labor?
Post Script: And insofar as the
tantalizing carrot is concerned, unlike Camus I cannot entirely eschew hope.
For while the French philosopher laments our inability to find inherent meaning
in the understanding of everything, I find myself rather satisfied with
understanding a little bit. Can we not be content with incremental growth? To further our humble
comprehension in fits and starts by the variety of mechanisms open to us? Is there
not hope in this?