Ackroyd and Mishima
Sir: Why did Peter Ackroyd write so vituperative a review of Yukio Mishima's The Decay of the Angel?
Those of us who have read the preceding three volumes of the tetralogy, The Sea of Fertility, are surprised to find that in the fourth volume Mishima has produced a work which supports epithets like "novelettish", "simple-minded", "ludicrous", "tatty", ' "over-written", "adolescent", "imperfectly melodramatic", "signifying nothing", "self consciously and phonily masculine", "portentous and empty".
For in all his other works (especially in the essay Sun and Steel) Mishima reveals himself as a profound literary artist, possessed of an absolute commitment to his style and to his art. It is impossible to think of any writer in the west who is the equal of Mishima in his dedication to the written word. Very often (as in the short story 'Patriotism') Mishima reminds English readers of D. H. Lawrence, only Mishima is spiritually cleaner and purer than Lawrence who also, we recall, attracted intensely emotional hostility. Somewhat overreaching himself in the middle of his review, Peter Ackroyd cites Barbara Cartland as morally superior to Yukio . Mishima. Who, on being acquainted with the works of both, could agree with this?
So it would be instructive to hear the real reasons for Peter Ackroyd's spluttering, off-target abuse. Could it be that a racial repugnance for all things Japanese powered Peter Ackroyd's posioned pen?
Rodney Gold Wyndcott Hotel, Martlet Road, Minehead
Previous page
