‘Texas’ buried by own weight

Press, 19 April 1986, Page 20

‘Texas’ buried by own weight

Texas. By James A. Michener. Seeker and Warbug, and Heinemann, 1985, 1000 pp. $29.95. (Reviewed by Hugh Stringleman) James A. Michener said recently in an interview published by “The Australian” newspaper that he had the kind of help in writing “Texas” that he was alleged to have had for "Tales of the South Pacific,” “Hawaii,” “Poland,” “Chesapeake,” “Space,” and so on. In fact he had only ever employed researchers for his non-fiction works such as “Centennial” and “Kent State.” For the three years of “Texas” in the making, Michener had help from a committee of university-trained researchers, his own personal staff, and literally thousands of Texans, great and small. It shows in the 1000page finished block-buster which spans the period from the sixteenthCentury Spanish discovery to the 1980 s.

“Texas” is an impressive collection of easy-to-swallow data, or predigested information, spat out and pasted up so that the principals accumulate as a sort of character collage. The profusion of maps and digressions to explain natural features and non-human inhabitants of the Texan landscape would certainly be expected in a non-fiction work on the state. That they should occur among the narratives of the half-a-dozen major characters of the book may disconcert the more traditional reader who likes his or her fiction to be fiction, and non-fiction to be down the other end of the library.

It is easy to imagine that Texans just loved it — from the Governor who initiated the project down to the thousands of school children in every county which was mentioned.

Many Americans in other states would have bought the book also because of a horrible fascination with the people and pride of the “greatest,” “biggest,” or “richest” state. But that kind of drawing power would be weak outside the United States and the author would be relying on his reputation. He insisted in “The Australian” article that every word of “Texas” was his. But then he explained that his committee made suggestions to characters and consistency of style which he frequently incorporated. One close confidant, for example, prevented him from using sexist terms, such as co-ed. Perhaps herein lies a clue to the over-all feeling of discomfort or wasted effort after wading through “Texas.” Anything which could be offensive to a pressure group has been removed by the committee and the sheer weight of

what remains, while technically and factually correct, fails to excite. As an experienced reporter gets to understand, the steady accumulation of facts and figures can eventually kill a good story. Yet the weight of material acquires a wealth of time invested and insists on being included in the finished work. “The really great writers are people like Emily Bronte who sit in a room and write out of their limited experience and unlimited imagination. “But people in my position also do some very good work. “I’m not a stylist like Updike or Bellow and I don’t aspire to be. “I’m not interested in plot or pyrotechnics, but I sure work to get a steady flow. If I try to describe a chair, I can describe it so that a person will read to the end,” he said. Ah, Mr Michener, will they? And will they buy the next one — “Alaska” — which is in the pipeline?