• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

I Will Never Be a Ranter

November 10, 2011, 6:09 pm

I realized the other day that I’m not qualified as a ranter. I used to think I was, but I was wrong. I’m just a bland, easy-going guy. Things are just great, everyone’s OK, have a nice day. I changed my mind when I chanced on a real piece of rant, on a level I will never attain.

It’s a fairly well known passage, though I happened not to have seen it before. It appeared as an unsigned comment about Oscar Wilde in a column headed “Prattle” in a satirical magazine called Wasp on 31 March 1882. It is known to have been written by Ambrose Bierce (as Ellmann’s biography of Wilde confirms, though without quotation). And quite frankly, after reading it I don’t think I can ever rant ever again. I can’t compete. I am never going to make it as a ranter. Bierce wrote it before Oscar ever had a play on the stage, but it’s hard to believe that a fun evening at The Importance of Being Earnest would have mollified a man with opinions as over-the-top negative as this slab of utterly assassinative prose:

That sovereign of insufferables, Oscar Wilde has ensued with his opulence of twaddle and his penury of sense. He has mounted his hind legs and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck, to the capital edification of circumjacent fools and foolesses, fooling with their foolers. He has tossed off the top of his head and uttered himself in copious overflows of ghastly bosh. The ineffable dunce has nothing to say and says it — says it with a liberal embellishment of bad delivery, embroidering it with reasonless vulgarities of attitude, gesture and attire. There never was an impostor so hateful, a blockhead so stupid, a crank so variously and offensively daft. Therefore is the fool enamored of the feel of his tongue in her ear to tickle her understanding.

The limpid and spiritless vacuity of this intellectual jellyfish is in ludicrous contrast with the rude but robust mental activities that he came to quicken and inspire. Not only has he no thoughts, but no thinker. His lecture is mere verbal ditch-water — meaningless, trite and without coherence. It lacks even the nastiness that exalts and refines his verse. Moreover, it is obviously his own; he had not even the energy and independence to steal it. And so, with a knowledge that would equip an idiot to dispute with a cast-iron dog, and eloquence to qualify him for the duties of a caller on a hog-ranch, and an imagination adequate to the conception of a tom-cat, when fired by contemplation of a fiddle-string, this consummate and star-like youth, missing everywhere his heaven-appointed functions and offices, wanders about, posing as a statue of himself, and, like the sun-smitten image of Memnon, emitting meaningless murmurs in the blaze of women’s eyes.

He makes me tired. And this gawky gowk has the divine effrontery to link his name with those of Swinburne, Rossetti and Morris — this dunghill he-hen would fly with eagles. He dares to set his tongue to the honored name of Keats. He is the leader, quoth’a, of a renaissance in art, this man who cannot draw — of a revival of letters, this man who cannot write! This little and looniest of a brotherhood of simpletons, whom the wicked wits of London, haling him dazed from his obscurity, have crowned and crucified as King of the Cranks, has accepted the distinction in stupid good faith and our foolish people take him at his word. Mr. Wilde is pinnacled upon a dazzling eminence but the earth still trembles to the dull thunder of the kicks that set him up.

Great Caesar’s ghost. I don’t ever again want to hear anyone telling me that H. P. Lovecraft’s prose is a bit florid and overwritten. And taste the venom! People really let their hostility hang out back in those days. Today we have Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as the pinnacle of nastiness; but once there was Ambrose Bierce.

This entry was posted in Style, Writing. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • electronicmuse

    Bierce: ya gotta admit the man had a way with words . . . I found his rant more hilarious than anything else. “Criticism” that features this kind of vitriol could never be taken seriously, and therefore tends to be less pernicious than some “reasonable” approach at character assassination. That is, to paraphrase Will: ” . . . methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.” Such verbiage calls into question the ranter’s motives . . . and actually directs attention away from the target, toward the critic. (Isn’t this what Bierce actually wanted, after all?)

    Too bad Oscar Wilde lived before Eric Clapton’s time, for he would have benefitted from Clapton’s retort when told of some critic’s complaint about his guitar playing: ” . . . critics’ opinions of me are none of my business.”

    Great fun, and I have to concur that compared to Bierce’s rant, anything I’ve ever attempted makes me look like Little Lord Fauntleroy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Marrou/100001026744729 Chris Marrou

    Every time I read anything by Bierce, I think it’s a shame Prozac wasn’t invented in 1885. Somebody was seriously short of serotonin.

  • droslovinia

    I stand in awe of a true master of the art!

  • jffoster

    An alternative rant, or maybe in this case a “cant”, which many, including Oscar Wilde’s biographer, though was inspired by him, is in the 1st Act of Gilbert & Sullivan’s PATIENCE, or BUNTHORNE’S BRIDE.The lines are those of the fleshly poet Reginald Bunthorne. 

    Recitative:
    Am I alone, and unobserved? I am! Then let me own I’m an aesthetic sham! This air severe Is but a mere – Veneer! This cynic smile Is but a wile – Of guile! This costume chaste Is but good taste – Misplaced!

    Let me confess! A languid love for lilies does not blight me! Lank limbs and haggard cheeks do not delight me! I do not care for dirty greens By any means. I do not long for all one sees That’s Japanese. I am not fond of uttering platitudes In stained-glass attitudes. In short, my mediaevalism’s affectation, Born of a morbid love of admiration!

    Aria:
    If you’re anxious for to shine in the high aesthetic line As a man of culture rare, You must get up all the germs Of the transcendental terms, And plant them everywhere. You must lie upon the dasies And discourse in novel phrases Of your complicated state of mind, The meaning doesn’t matter If it’s only idle chatter Of a transcendental kind.

    And every one will say As you walk your mystic way, “If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me, Why, what a very singularly deep young man This deep young man must be!

    Be eloquent in praise Of the very dull old days Which have long since passed away, And convince ‘em,if you can, that the reign of Good Queen Anne Was culture’s palmiest day. Of course you will pooh-pooh,whatever’s fresh and new, And declare it’s crude and mean, For Art stopped short at the cultivated court Of the Empress Josephine.

    And everyone will say As you walk your mystic way, “If that’s not good enough for he which is good enough for me, Why,what a very cultivated kind of youth This kind of youth must be!

    Then a sentimental passion Of a vegetable fashion Must excite your languid spleen, An attachment a la Plato for a bashful young potato Or a not-too-French French bean! Though the Philistines may jostle, you will rank as an apostle In the high aesthetic band, If you walk down Piccadilly with a poppy or a lily In your medieval hand.

    And everyone will say, As you walk your flowery way, “If he’s content with a vegetable love Which would certainly not suit me, Why, what a most particularly pure young man This pure young man must be!”

  • rrhersh

    I would have to go back and check, which is probably more effort than is merited, but I think some of John Simon’s language rants might hold up to this standard.

    • jffoster

      Right I’ll bet you are.  And many of Simon’s rants were about English and language in general and he knew almost nothing about them.

  • goeswithoutsaying

    A good ranter has a fantastic vocabulary, a fine and nuanced of the extreme, some good sense about what is right (in the senses of correct and just), an arsenal of “things wrong” ready and waiting to be strung together and lightning-quick mind that can make those connections for the delight of others.  Cherish the person with this rare combination of talents.

  • dank48

    Whew. Hard to believe that’s from the man who defined “incompassible. adj. Incapable of existing at the same place and at the same time, as, for example, the poetry of Walt Whitman and God’s mercy to man.”

    But even if you eschew rants, you still have a future as a surgeon. It’ll be a long time before I see a more apt comment than “Dan Brown does things to the English language that would be illegal if done to an animal.”

  • ulyssesmsu

    This seems to me to be more of an INSULT than a rant. A personal attack–ad hominem. Insults are bad. Rants are good, sometimes.

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037