the art of familiar essays

this week i came upon a gem of a book: "at large and at small: familiar essays by anne fadiman" (author of ex libris). what refreshed me was her renewal of the "familiar essay" (aka charles lamb and william hazlitt). stemming from the early nineteenth century, this type of essayist didn't speak to the millions, his audience was one reader. his viewpoint was subjective, but although he wrote about himself, he also wrote enthusiastically about a subject with which he was familiar.

examples, often beginning with "on". "on the custom of hissing at theaters", "on gusto", or "on the melancholy of tailors".

i've noticed two extremes on today's bookshelves. one one hand there is the esoteric academic--even technical--writing that can only appeal to 3% or less of the population (dissertations on theories about theorists's relative theories of atom-splitting?) and then, there are millions of felled trees devoted to somewhat narcissistic memoir that doesn't even have to be true as long as it's gut-wrenching or dramatic. we call it "honest and authentic" but after reading what anne here has to say, it got me wondering if, in fact, the latter doesn't just come down to an "it's all about me" generation suffering from ennui who spews verbal vomit in the name of literature. (as always, feel free to heartily agree or disagree in the comment department--the more conversation the better).

in the familiar essay there are brains as well as heart. they are neither too cold nor too mushy, but ah! just right quoth this goldilocks. i admittedly tend towards both extremes at times, depending on life events i need to process or new academic concepts i'm excited about. but this gives me some purposeful practice in the writing department. i shall try to do justice to the style in forthcoming missives by sharing information with a warm, conversational tone. it's exciting to know they aren't mutually exclusive. for now let's call it "on blogging".