But
these are the cities of Italy. You read about them in brochures. You contrast
the brochure with the reality you are sure is there. These are not cities you
know about via history, modern literature and anecdote. These are the cities
that you read about in old books – and all of them seem traceable not to Venice
(as is supposed to be the case) but to the descriptions of the heavenly
Jerusalem. You cannot imagine events going on in these cities, one does not see
them as having independent, living cultures of their own. The objectification
of these cities disallows anything much beyond a visionary sense of them – and
in that only is any meaning invested. Are these cities all arid, even the
maritime ones? They have the meaning that the two characters Marco Polo and
Kublai Khan invest in them. As for what we think of these two cerebral
conversationalists, their modes of communication and their existences are even
more remote than the cities they consider. Like ‘If on a winter’s night a
traveller’, this book is a grid: it can be read straight through, or you can
follow the two men’s dialogue, or the special aspects of cities numbered
throughout. Oulipo at work. So why am I dissatisfied? Why do I want to run back
to Jan Morris? Perhaps because everything is too easily accounted for.
Entry
in Notebooks, 11th December 1989
Comments
Post a Comment