Silences (9 page)

            
There were things in the world, that like herself, were marred, did not understand, were hungry to know. . . . Her eyes quicker to
see than ours, delicate or grand lines in the homeliest things. . . . Everything she saw or touched, nearer, more human than to you or me. These sights and sounds did not come to her common; she never got used to living as other people do.

She never got used to living as other people do. Was that one of the ways it was?

So some of the silences, incomplete listing of the incomplete, where the
need and capacity to create were of a high order.

Now, what
is
the work of creation and the circumstances it demands for full functioning—as told in the journals, letters, notes, of the practitioners themselves: Henry James, Katherine Mansfield, André Gide, Virginia Woolf; the letters of Flaubert,
Rilke, Joseph Conrad; Thomas Wolfe’s
Story of a Novel,
Valéry’s
Course in Poetics.
What do they
explain of the silences?

“Constant toil is the law of art, as it is of life,” says (and demonstrated) Balzac:

            
To pass from conception to execution, to produce, to bring the idea to birth, to raise the child laboriously from infancy, to put it nightly to sleep surfeited, to kiss it in the mornings with the hungry heart of a mother, to clean it, to clothe it fifty times over in new
garments which it tears and casts away, and yet not revolt against the trials of this agitated life—this unwearying maternal love, this habit of creation—this is execution and its toils.

“Without duties, almost without external communication,” Rilke specifies, “unconfined solitude which takes every day like a life, a spaciousness which puts no limit to vision and in the midst of which infinities
surround.”

Unconfined solitude as Joseph Conrad experienced it:

For twenty months I wrestled with the Lord for my creation . . . mind and will and conscience engaged to the full, hour after hour, day after day . . . a lonely struggle in a great isolation from the world. I suppose I slept and ate the food put before me and talked connectedly on suitable occasions, but I was never aware of the
even flow of daily life, made easy and noiseless for me by a silent, watchful, tireless affection.

So there is a homely underpinning for it all, the even flow of daily life made easy and noiseless.

“The terrible law of the artist”—says Henry James—”the law of fructification, of fertilization. The old, old lesson of the art of meditation. To woo combinations and inspirations into being by a depth
and continuity of attention and meditation.”

“That load, that weight, that gnawing conscience,” writes Thomas Mann—

            
That sea which to drink up, that frightful task . . . The will, the discipline and self-control to shape a sentence or follow out a hard train of thought. From the first rhythmical urge of the inward
creative force towards the material, towards casting in shape and
form, from that to the thought, the image, the word, the line, what a struggle, what Gethsemane.

Does it become very clear what Melville’s Pierre so bitterly remarked on, and what literary history bears out—why most of the great works of humanity have come from lives (able to be) wholly surrendered and dedicated? How else sustain the constant toil, the frightful task, the terrible law, the continuity?
Full self: this means full time as and when needed for the work. (That time for which Emily Dickinson withdrew from the world.)

But what if there is not that fullness of time, let alone totality of self? What if the writers, as in some of these silences, must work regularly at something besides their own work—as do nearly all in the arts in the United States today.

I know the theory (kin to
“starving in the garret makes great art”) that it is this very circumstance which feeds creativity. I know, too, that for the beginning young, for some who have such need, the job can be valuable access to life they would not otherwise know. A few (I think of the doctors, the incomparables: Chekhov and William Carlos Williams) for special reasons sometimes manage both. But the actuality testifies:
substantial creative work demands time, and with rare exceptions only full-time workers have achieved it. Where the claims of creation cannot be primary, the results are atrophy; unfinished work; minor effort and accomplishment; silences. (Desperation which accounts for the mountains of applications to the foundations for grants—undivided time—in the strange bread-line system we have worked out for
our artists.)

Twenty years went by on the writing of
Ship of Fools,
while Katherine Anne Porter, who needed only two, was “trying to get to that table, to that typewriter, away from my jobs of teaching and trooping this country and of keeping house.” “Your subconscious needed that time to grow the layers of pearl,” she was told. Perhaps, perhaps, but I doubt it. Subterranean forces can make you
wait, but they are very finicky about the kind of waiting it has to be. Before they will feed the creator back, they must be fed, passionately fed, what needs to be worked on. “We hold up our desire as one places a magnet over a composite dust from
which the particle of iron will suddenly jump up,” says Paul Valéry. A receptive waiting, that means, not demands which prevent “an undistracted center
of being.” And when the response comes, availability to work must be immediate. If not used at once, all may vanish as a dream; worse, future creation be endangered—for only the removal and development of the material frees the forces for further work.

There is a life in which all this is documented: Franz Kafka’s. For every one entry from his diaries here, there are fifty others that testify
as unbearably to the driven stratagems for time, the work lost (to us), the damage to the creative powers (and the body) of having to deny, interrupt, postpone, put aside, let work die.

“I cannot devote myself completely to my writing,” Kafka explains (in 1911). “I could not live by literature if only, to begin with, because of the slow maturing of my work and its special character.” So he worked
as an official in a state insurance agency, and wrote when he could.

            
These two can never be reconciled. . . . If I have written something one evening, I am afire the next day in the office and can bring nothing to completion. Outwardly I fulfill my office duties satisfactorily, not my inner duties however, and every unfulfilled inner duty becomes a misfortune that never leaves. What
strength it will necessarily drain me of.

1911

            
No matter how little the time or how badly I write, I feel approaching the imminent possibility of great moments which could make me capable of anything. But my being does not have sufficient strength to hold this to the next writing time. During the day the visible world helps me; during the night it cuts me to pieces unhindered. .
. . In the evening and in the morning, my consciousness of the creative abilities in me then I can encompass. I feel shaken to the core of my being. Calling forth such powers which are then not permitted to function.

. . . which are then not permitted to function . . .

1911

            
I finish nothing, because I have no time, and it presses so within me.

1912

            
When I begin to
write after such a long interval, I draw the words as if out of the empty air. If I capture one, then I have just this one alone, and all the toil must begin anew.

1914

            
Yesterday for the first time in months, an indisputable ability to do good work. And yet wrote only the first page. Again I realize that everything written down bit by bit rather than all at once in the course of
the larger part is inferior, and that the circumstances of my life condemn me to this inferiority.

1915

            
My constant attempt by sleeping before dinner to make it possible to continue working [writing] late into the night, senseless. Then at one o’clock can no longer fall asleep at all, the next day at work insupportable, and so I destroy myself.

1917

            
Distractedness,
weak memory, stupidity. Days passed in futility, powers wasted away in waiting. . . . Always this one principal anguish—if I had gone away in 1911 in full possession of all my powers. Not eaten by the strain of keeping down living forces.

Eaten into tuberculosis. By the time he won through to himself and time for writing, his body could live no more. He was forty-one.

I think of Rilke who said,
“If I have any responsibility, I mean and desire it to be responsibility for the deepest and innermost essence of the loved reality [writing] to which I am inseparably bound”; and who also said, “Anything alive that makes demands, arouses in me an infinite capacity to give it its due, the consequences of which completely use me up.” These were true with Kafka, too, yet how different their lives.
When Rilke wrote that about responsibility, he is explaining why he will not take a job to support his wife and baby, nor live with them (years later will not come to his daughter’s wedding nor permit a two-hour honeymoon visit lest it break his solitude where he awaits poetry). The
“infinite capacity” is his explanation as to why he cannot even bear to have a dog. Extreme—and justified. He protected
his creative powers.

Kafka’s, Rilke’s “infinite capacity,” and all else that has been said here of the needs of creation, illuminate women’s silence of centuries. I will not repeat what is in Virginia Woolf’s
A Room of One’s Own,
but talk of this last century and a half in which women have begun to have voice in literature. (It has been less than that time in Eastern Europe, and not yet, in many
parts of the world.)

In the last century, of the women whose achievements endure for us in one way or another,
^*
nearly all never married (Jane Austen, Emily Brontë, Christina Rossetti, Emily Dickinson, Louisa May Alcott, Sarah Orne Jewett) or married late in their thirties (George Eliot, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Charlotte Brontë, Olive Schreiner). I can think of only four (George Sand, Harriet
Beecher Stowe, Helen Hunt Jackson, and Elizabeth Gaskell) who married and had children as young women.
^**
All had servants.

In our century, until very recently, it has not been so different. Most did not marry (Selma Lagerlof, Willa Cather, Ellen Glasgow, Gertrude Stein, Gabriela Mistral, Elizabeth Madox Roberts, Charlotte Mew, Eudora Welty, Marianne Moore) or, if married, have been childless
(Edith Wharton, Virginia Woolf, Katherine Mansfield, Dorothy Richardson, H.H. Richardson, Elizabeth Bowen, Isak Dinesen, Katherine Anne Porter, Lillian Hellman, Dorothy Parker). Colette had one child (when she was forty). If I include Sigrid Undset, Kay Boyle, Pearl Buck, Dorothy Canfield Fisher, that will make a small group who had more than one child. All had household help or other special circumstances.

Am I resaying the moldy theory that women have no need, some say no capacity, to create art, because they can “create” babies? And the additional proof is precisely that the few women who have created it are nearly all childless? No.

The power and the need to create, over and beyond reproduction,
is native in both women and men. Where the gifted among women
(and men)
have remained mute, or have
never attained full capacity, it is because of circumstances, inner or outer, which oppose the needs of creation.

Wholly surrendered and dedicated lives; time as needed for the work; totality of self. But women are traditionally trained to place others’ needs first, to feel these needs as their own (the “infinite capacity”); their sphere, their satisfaction to be in making it possible for others
to use their abilities. This is what Virginia Woolf meant when, already a writer of achievement, she wrote in her diary:

            
Father’s birthday. He would have been 96, 96, yes, today; and could have been 96, like other people one has known; but mercifully was not. His life would have entirely ended mine. What would have happened? No writing, no books;—inconceivable.

It took family deaths
to free more than one woman writer into her own development.
^*
Emily Dickinson freed herself, denying all the duties expected of a woman of her social position except the closest family ones, and she was fortunate to have a sister, and servants, to share those. How much is revealed of the differing circumstances and fate of their own as-great capacities, in the diaries (and lives) of those female
bloodkin of great writers: Dorothy Wordsworth, Alice James, Aunt Mary Moody Emerson.

And where there is no servant or relation to assume the responsibilities of daily living? Listen to Katherine Mansfield in the early days of her relationship with John Middleton Murry, when they both dreamed of becoming great writers:
^**

            
The house seems to take up so much time. . . . I mean when I
have to clean up twice over or wash up extra unnecessary things, I get frightfully impatient and want to be working [writing]. So often this week you and Gordon have been talking while I washed dishes. Well someone’s got to wash dishes and get food. Otherwise “there’s nothing in the house but eggs to eat.” And after you have gone I walk about with a mind full of ghosts of saucepans and primus stoves
and “will there be enough to go around?” And you calling, whatever I am doing, writing, “Tig, isn’t there going to be tea? It’s five o’clock.”