Scan barcode
A review by mdmullins
The Authentic Swing: Notes from the Writing of a First Novel by Steven Pressfield
4.0
As with many things, my relationship to this book is complicated at best. Over the course of a few of his books on literary theory, Pressfield's voice grinds consistently in that 'aw-shucks' gear which I associate with the 1940's or 50‘s. But the problem is greater than just tone. At heart, is a philosophy. Actually two. And here is where the complications arise.
From the book, about 16% of the way in:
Which is not an uncommon philosophy. People have been justifying killing and war since killing and war began, which is to say, since we evolved the capacity to articulate these concepts in language.
All good writers eventually stumble on their heritage, the vast body of text that proceeds them. The problem here is that, as with so many, Pressfields awareness is cirmcumscribed by a particularly destructive parochialism. Contrast this with another well-know philosopher:
Which is actually one of this philosopher's more tepid responses to violence. Consider:
…or…
And lest you think I'm cherry-picking philosophers here, choosing an obscure philosophy designed to support my position, understand that the above quotes come from the second-most translated book on the planet. I'm speaking of the Tao Te Ching.
And what of Pressfield's second philosophy? This is his theory of art, which he gets right more than wrong. And it is the reason that this is a review of a four-star book and not a one-star book, because ultimately we have to judge a book of philosophy — which this one is — on it's philosphies alone.
The author's problem is that he conflates the two philosophies. An artist doing battle with his art is an artist involved in a noble stuggle. It is ultimately a battle of self-conquering. But this must not be confused with batttling others. This leads to the glorification of force, of trying to conquer others. This path leads one direction and one direction only: to destruction, violence and mourning.
From the book, about 16% of the way in:
The Gita is not like the Old or New Testament or any Buddhist or Confucian or Native American scripture I have read. It advocates killing. “Slay the enemy without mercy,” Krishna instructs the great warrior Arjuna. “You will not be killing them, for I have slain them all already.”
Which is not an uncommon philosophy. People have been justifying killing and war since killing and war began, which is to say, since we evolved the capacity to articulate these concepts in language.
All good writers eventually stumble on their heritage, the vast body of text that proceeds them. The problem here is that, as with so many, Pressfields awareness is cirmcumscribed by a particularly destructive parochialism. Contrast this with another well-know philosopher:
A master of the art of war has said, 'I do not dare to be the host (to commence the war); I prefer to be the guest (to act on the defensive). I do not dare to advance an inch; I prefer to retire a foot.' This is called marshalling the ranks where there are no ranks; baring the arms (to fight) where there are no arms to bare; grasping the weapon where there is no weapon to grasp; advancing against the enemy where there is no enemy.
There is no calamity greater than lightly engaging in war. To do that is near losing (the gentleness) which is so precious. Thus it is that when opposing weapons are (actually) crossed, he who deplores (the situation) conquers.
Which is actually one of this philosopher's more tepid responses to violence. Consider:
Now arms, however beautiful, are instruments of evil omen, hateful, it may be said, to all creatures. Therefore they who have the Tao do not like to employ them.
[…]
He who has killed multitudes of men should weep for them with the bitterest grief; and the victor in battle has his place (rightly) according to those rites.
…or…
Wherever a host is stationed, briars and thorns spring up. In the sequence of great armies there are sure to be bad years.
And lest you think I'm cherry-picking philosophers here, choosing an obscure philosophy designed to support my position, understand that the above quotes come from the second-most translated book on the planet. I'm speaking of the Tao Te Ching.
And what of Pressfield's second philosophy? This is his theory of art, which he gets right more than wrong. And it is the reason that this is a review of a four-star book and not a one-star book, because ultimately we have to judge a book of philosophy — which this one is — on it's philosphies alone.
The author's problem is that he conflates the two philosophies. An artist doing battle with his art is an artist involved in a noble stuggle. It is ultimately a battle of self-conquering. But this must not be confused with batttling others. This leads to the glorification of force, of trying to conquer others. This path leads one direction and one direction only: to destruction, violence and mourning.