Creators

After an unjustifiably long hiatus, Jake has sent in another review, this one on Paul Johnson's newest book, Creators. We at TKR don't shy away from sharp critique, as is evident from what you will read below. - RD

As a token of homage to Paul Johnson, I am submiting a review on his most recent book Creators: From Chaucer and DüRer to Picasso and Disney (HarperCollins, 2006, 320 pp.). Although I have always enjoyed Johnson’s literature, having read almost a dozen of his books, I find myself wearied by his constant vituperations and curmudgeonly approach. His preoccupation with the weaknesses of history makers is cloyingly uncharitable and his polemical style, while fun to read in small doses, becomes annoying and heavy-handed.

If there were two highlights of this book, the first would be its elegant prose. Johnson’s turns-of-phrase, although often stained by jubilation over his own cleverness, still evoke visceral feelings of admiration for their writer’s mastery of the English language. He’s able to capture ideas and to turn them into artifice through his deft, yet flowery prose.

The second highlight would be Johnson’s characterization of Picasso. Picasso, long admired as an icon of egalitarianism, is in fact just the opposite. Johnson relentlessly impugns his character as a purveyor of fetid trash. This is so because his art stems from a heart that turned against nature, people, and tradition. Picasso chose not to condescend to these cardinal artistic conventions, but chose instead to create impressions in contradistinction to accepted artistic mores. This method of utter rejection, although an attempt to evoke a type of ersatz sentimentalism, was nothing less than an expression of the explicit loathing of people, nature, and tradition that his life reflected. He regularly raped, manipulated, and beat women, he littered, and he did not appreciate Michelangelo. Although Johnson doesn’t spell it out quite this clearly, he suggests that the feigning dilettante who “appreciates” Picasso is A) an idiot who doesn’t understand that Picasso intentionally tried to be an arrogant prick or B) a villain who commiserates with Picasso’s loathing.

In spite of the strength of his writing (particularly about Picasso), Johnson makes several egregious errors. For example, he makes the patently false statement that the Bible (with the episode of Hagar) records the first joke nearly five thousand years ago. He traces a legendary event, which at the earliest could have occurred during the 18th century, to the 28th century, erstwhile neglecting all ancient literature. This type of extraordinary laziness, completely erasing one fourth of the history of writing, betrays an appalling ignorance of ancient history and an elementary knowledge of the beginning of civilization. To makes matters worse for Johnson’s position, there are Sumerian and Egyptian documents that antedate the 18th century and include jokes. To put this in perspective, his argument is as false as if one were to argue that World War I was the first war because it happened in the 10th century.

In spite of my assessment of Johnson here, I still think he is one of the world’s foremost thinkers. Although much of his approach echoes back to his matriculation into Oxford, his deliberately old-fashioned moralism is reminiscent of any pre-Vatican II Jesuit institution where sloppy thinking is met with the type of discipline that makes even the Pentateuch appear charitable. But at least Johnson makes no pretenses: He summarizes his politically incorrect interpretations without apology. And he does so with mastery of the English language.

- Jake McCarty