A Novelist on Novels.
by W. L. George.
NOTE
The chapters that follow have been written in varying moods, and express the fluctuating feelings aroused in the author by the modern novel and its treatment at the hands of the public. Though unrelated with the novel, the chapters on "Falstaff," "The Esperanto of Art," and "The Twilight of Genius" have been included, either because artistically in keeping with other chapters, or because their general implications affect the fiction form.
A half of the book has not before now been published in Great Britain and Dominions.
A Deceptive Dedication
I
I have shown the ma.n.u.script of this book to a well-known author. One of those staid, established authors whose venom has been extracted by the mellow years. My author is beyond rancour and exploit; he has earned the right to bask in his own celebrity, and needs to judge no more, because no longer does he fear judgment. He is like a motorist who has sowed his wild petrol. He said to me: "You are very, very unwise. I never criticise my contemporaries, and, believe me, it doesn"t pay." Well, I am unwise; I always was unwise, and this has paid in a coin not always recognised, but precious to a man"s spiritual pride. Why should I not criticise my contemporaries? It is not a merit to be a contemporary.
Also, they can return the compliment; some of them, if I may venture upon a turn of phrase proper for Mr Tim Healy, have returned the compliment before they got it. It may be unwise, but I join with Voltaire in thanking G.o.d that he gave us folly. So I will affront the condemnatory vagueness of wool and fleecy cloud, be content to think that n.o.body will care where I praise, that everybody will think me impertinent where I judge. I will be content to believe that the well-known author will not mind if I criticise him, and that the others will not mind either. I will hope, though something of a Sadducee, that there is an angel in their hearts.
I want to criticise them and their works because I think the novel, this latest born of literature, immensely interesting and important. It is interesting because, more faithfully than any other form, it expresses the mind of man, his pains that pa.s.s, his hopes that fade and are born again, his discontent pregnant with energy, the unrulinesses in which he misspends his vigour, the patiences that fit him to endure all things even though he dare them not. In this, all other forms fail: history, because it chronicles battles and dates, yet not the great movements of the peoples; economics, because in their view all men are vile; biography, because it leads the victim to the altar, but never sacrifices it. Even poetry fails; I do not try to shock, but I doubt whether the poetic is equal to the prose form.
I do not want to fall into the popular fallacy that prose and poetry each have their own field, strictly preserved, for prose is not always prosy, nor poetry always poetic; prose may contain poetry, poetry cannot contain prose, just as some gentlemen are bounders, but no bounders are gentlemen. But the admiration many people feel for poetry derives from a lack of intelligence rather than from an excess of emotion, and they would be cured if, instead of admiring, they read. Some subjects and ideas naturally fall into poetry, mainly the lyric ideas; "To Anthea,"
and "The Skylark" would, in prose, lie broken-pinioned upon the ground, but the exquisiteness of poetry, when it conveys the ultimate aspiration of man, defines its limitations. Poetry is child of the austerity of literature by the sensuality of music. Thus it is more and less than its forbears; speaking for myself alone, I feel that "Epipsychidion" and the "Grecian Urn" are just a little less than the Kreutzer Sonata, that Browning and Whitman might have written better in prose, though they might thus have been less quoted. For poetry is too often _schwaermerei_, a thing of lilts; when it conveys philosophical ideas, as in Browning and in that prose writer gone astray, Shakespeare, it suffers the agonising pains of constriction. Rhyme and scansion tend to limit and hamper it; everything can be said in prose, but not in poetry; to prose no licence need be granted, while poetry must use and abuse it, for prose is free, poetry shackled by its form. No doubt that is why poetry causes so much stir, for it surmounts extraordinary difficulties, and men gape as at a tenor who attains a top note. However exquisite, the scope of poetry is smaller than that of prose, and if any doubt it let him open at random an English Bible and say if Milton can out-thunder Job, or Swinburne outcloy the sweetness of Solomon"s Song.
More than interesting, the novel is important because, low as its status may be, it does day by day express mankind, and mankind in the making.
Sometimes it is the architect that places yet another brick upon the palace of the future. Always it is the showman of life. I think of "serious books," of the incredible heaps of memoirs, works on finance, strategy, psychology, sociology, biology, omniology ... that fall every day like manna (unless from another region they rise as fumes) into the baskets of the reviewers. All this paper ... they dance their little dance to four hundred readers and a great number of second-hand booksellers, and lo! the dust of their decay is on their brow. They live a little longer than an article by Mr T. P. O"Connor, and live a little less.
The novel, too, does not live long, but I have known one break up a happy home, and another teach revolt to several daughters; can we give greater praise? Has so much been achieved by any work ent.i.tled _The Foundations of the Century_, or something of that sort? The novel, despised buffoon that it is, pours out its poison and its pearls within reach of every lip; its heroes and heroines offer examples to the reader and make him say: "That bold, bad man ... you wouldn"t think it to look at me, who"m a linen-draper, but it"s me." If, in this preface, I may introduce a personal reminiscence, I can strengthen my point by saying that after publishing _The Second Blooming_ I received five letters from women I did not know, who wholly recognised themselves in my princ.i.p.al heroine, of course the regrettable one.
The novel moulds by precept and example, and therefore we modern jesters, inky troubadours, are responsible for the gray power which we wield behind the throne. Given this responsibility, it is a pity there should be so many novels, for the reader is distracted with various examples, and painfully hesitates between the career of Raffles and that of John Inglesant. Thus the novel fires many a sanctimoniousness, makes lurid many a hesitating life. If only we could endow it! But we cannot, for the old saying can be garbled: call no novelist famous until he is dead.
It is a fascinating idea, this one of endowing the novel. In principle it is not difficult, only we must a.s.sume our capable committee and that is quite as difficult as ignoring the weight of the elephant. I wonder what would happen if an Act of Parliament were to endow genius! I wonder who would sit on the sub-committee appointed by the British Government to endow literature. I do not wonder, I know. There would be Professor Saintsbury, Mr Austin Dobson, Professor Walter Raleigh, Sir Sidney Lee, Professor Gollancz, all the academics, all the people drier than the drought, who, whether the G.o.d of literature find himself in the car or in the cart, never fail to get into the d.i.c.key. I should not even wonder if, by request of the munic.i.p.ality of Burton-on-Trent, it were found desirable to infuse a democratic element into the sub-committee by adding the manager of the Army and Navy Stores and, of course, Mr Bottomley. Do not protest: Mr Bottomley has recently pa.s.sed embittered judgments, under the characteristic heading "Dam-Nation," on Mr Alec Waugh, who ventured, in a literary sketch, to show English soldiers going over the top with oaths upon their lips and the courage born of fear in their hearts. I think Mr Bottomley would like to have Mr Waugh shot, and the editor of _The Nation_ confined for seven days in the Press Bureau, for having told the truth in literary form. I do not impugn his judgment of what it feels like to go over the top, for he has had long experience of keeping strictly on the surface.
No, our sub-committee would be appointed without the help of Thalia and Calliope. It would register judgments such as those of the famous sub-committee that grants the n.o.bel Prizes. That committee, during its short life, has managed to reward Sully-Prudhomme and to leave out Swinburne, to give a prize to Sienkewicz, whom a rather more recent generation has found so suitable for the cinema. It has even given a prize to Mr Rudyard Kipling, but whether in memory of literature or dynamite is not known.
So literary genius must, as before, look for its endowment in the somewhat barren heart of man, and continue to shed a hundred seeds in its stony places, in the forlorn hope that the fowls of the air may not devour them all, and that a single ear of corn may wilt and wither its way into another dawn.
II
The reading of most men and women provides distressing lists. So far as I can gather from his conversation, the ordinary, busy man, concerned with his work, finds his mental sustenance in the newspapers, particularly in _Punch_, in the ill.u.s.trated weeklies and in the journals that deal with his trade; as for imaginative literature, he seems to confine himself to Mr Nat Gould, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Mr W. W.
Jacobs, Mr Mason, and such like, who certainly do not strain his imaginative powers; he is greatly addicted to humour of the coa.r.s.er kind, and he dissipates many of his complexes by means of vile stories which he exchanges with his fellows; these do not at all represent his kindliness and his respectability. Sometimes he reads a shocker, the sort that is known as "railway literature," presumably because it cannot hold the attention for more than the time that elapses between two stops.
The more serious and scholarly man, who abounds in every club, is addicted to the monthly reviews, (price two-and-six; he does not like the shilling ones), to the _Times_, to the _Spectator_; that kind of man is definitely stodgy and prides himself upon being sound. He is fond of memoirs, rather sodden accounts of aristocrats and politicians, of the dull, ordinary lives of dull, ordinary people; when he has done with the book it goes to the pulping machine, but some of the pulp gets into that man"s brain. ("Ashes to ashes, pulp to pulp.") He likes books of travel, biographies, solid French books (strictly by academicians), political works, economic works. His conversation sounds like it, and that is why his wife is so bored; his emotions are reflex and run only round the objects he can see; art cannot touch him, and no feather ever falls upon his brow from an airy wing. He commonly tells you that good novels are not written nowadays; he must be excused that opinion, for he never tries to read them. The only novels with which the weary t.i.tan refreshes his mind are those of Thackeray, sometimes of Trollope; the more frivolous sometimes go so far as to sip a little of the honey that falls from the mellifluous lips of Mr A. C. Benson.
The condition of women is different. They care for little that ends in "ic," and so their consumption of novels is enormous. The commonplace woman is attracted by the ill.u.s.trated dailies and weeklies, but she also needs large and continuous doses of religious sentimentality, of papier mache romance, briefly, of novels described in literary circles as "bilge," such as the works of Mr Hall Caine, Mrs Barclay, Miss E. M.
Dell, and a great many more; if she is of the slightly faster kind that gives smart lunch parties at the Strand Corner House, her diet is sometimes a little stronger; she takes to novels of the orchid house and the tiger"s lair, to the artless erotics of Miss Elinor Glyn, Mr Hubert Wales, and Miss Victoria Cross. She likes memoirs too, memoirs of vague Bourbons and salacious Bonapartes; she takes great pleasure in the historical irregularities of cardinals. She likes poetry too as conveyed by Miss Ella Wheeler Wilc.o.x.
If that type of woman were not a woman the arts could base as few hopes on her as they do on men, but the most stupid woman is better ground than the average man, because she is open, while he is smug. So it is no wonder that among the millions of women who mess and muddle their way through the conservatories and pigsties of literature, should be found the true reading public, the women who are worth writing for, who read the best English novels, who are in touch with French and Russian literature, who reads plays, and even essays, ancient and modern. Hail Mary, mother of mankind; but for these the arts must starve!
That fine public cannot carry us very far. They are not enough to keep literature vigorous by giving it what it needs: a consciousness of fellowship with many readers. If literature is to flourish (of which I am not sure, though endure in some form it will), the general public taste must be raised. I feel that taste can be raised and cultivated, and many have felt that too. From the middle of the nineteenth century onwards, and especially since 1870, an ascending effort has been made to stimulate the taste of the rising artisan. Books like Lord Avebury"s _Pleasures of Life_, like _Sesame and Lilies_, collections such as the _Hundred Best Books_ and the _Hundred Best Pictures_, have all been attuned to that key. The only pity is that the selections, nearly all of them excellent, were immeasurably above the heads of the public for which they were meant. Two recent instances are worth a.n.a.lysing. One of them is _A Library for Five Pounds_ by Sir William Robertson Nicoll, (whom Mr Arnold Bennett delighteth to revile), the other _Literary Taste and How to Form It_, by Mr Bennett himself. Now Sir William Robertson Nicoll"s book is much more sensible than the funereal lists available at most polytechnics. The author does not pretend that one should read Plato in one"s bath; he seems to realise the state of mind of the ordinary, fairly busy, fairly willing, fairly intelligent person. A sign of it is that he selects only sixty-one works, and out of those allows twenty-seven novels. Of the rest, most are readable, except _Pilgrim"s Progress_ and _The Origin of Species_, a touching couple. The list is by far the best guide I have ever seen, but ... there is not a living author in it. It is not a library, it is a necropolis. The novelists that Sir William Robertson Nicoll recommends are Scott, Jane Austen, d.i.c.kens, Thackeray, Charlotte Bronte, George Eliot, Hawthorne, Trollope, Blackmore, Defoe, and Swift. All their books are readable, but they do not take by the hand the person who has thought wrong or not thought at all. When you want to teach a child history you do not dump upon its desk Hume and Smollett, in forty volumes; you lead it by degrees, by means of text-books, that is _according to plan_. That is how I conceive literary education, but before suggesting a list, let us glance at _Literary Taste and How to Form It_. In this book the author shows himself much more unpractical and much less sympathetic than Sir William Robertson Nicoll (whom Mr Bennett delighteth to revile). The book itself is very interesting; it is bright, intelligent; it teaches you how to read, and how to make allowances for the cla.s.sics; it tells you how you may woo your way to Milton, but, after all, when you have done, you find that you have not wooed your way an inch nearer. That is because Mr Arnold Bennett takes up to his public an att.i.tude more highbrowed than I could imagine if I were writing a skit on his book. Mr Bennett"s idea of a list for the aspirant to letters is to throw the London Library at his head; he lays before us a stodgy lump of two or three hundred volumes, many of them excellent, and many more absolutely penal. It is enough to say that he seriously starts his list with the Venerable Bede"s _Ecclesiastical History_. Bede! the dimmest, most distant of English chroniclers, who depicts the dimmest and most distant period of English history; once, in an A.B.C., I saw a shopman reading _Tono-Bungay_, which was propped against the cruet. Does Mr Bennett imagine that man dropping the tear of emotion and the gravy of excitement upon the Venerable Bede? And if one goes on with the list and discovers the _Autobiography of Lord Herbert of Cherbury_, _Religio Medici_, Berkeley"s _Principles of Human Knowledge_, Reynold"s _Discourses on Art_, the works of Pope, _Voyage of the Beagle_ ... one comes to understand how such readers may have been made by such masters. From the beginning to the end of that list my mind is obsessed by the word "stodge," and the novels do not relieve it much. There are a good many, but they comprise the usual Thackeray, Scott, d.i.c.kens ... need I go on?
Relief is found only in Fielding, Sterne, and in one book each of Marryat, Lever, Kingsley, and Gissing. These authors are admitted presumably because they are dead.
In all this, where is hope? How many green daffodil heads, trying to burst their painful way through the heavy earth of a dull life, has Mr Bennett trampled on? Is it impossible to find some one who is (as Mr Bennett certainly is), capable of the highest artistic appreciation and of high literary achievement, and who will, for a moment, put himself in the place of the people he is addressing? Is it impossible for an adult to remember that as a boy he hated the cla.s.sics? Has he forgotten that as a young man he could be charmed, but educated only by means of a machine like the one they use for stuffing geese? The people we want to introduce to literature are, nearly all of them, people who work; some earn thirty shillings a week, and ponder a great deal on how to live on it; some earn hundreds a year and are not much better off; all are occupied with material cares, their work, their games, their gardens, their loves; nearly all are short of time, and expend on work, transit, and meals, ten to twelve hours a day. They read in tubes and omnibuses, in the midst of awful disturbance and overcrowding; also they are deeply corrupted by the daily papers, where nothing over a column is ever printed, where the news are conveyed in paragraphs and headlines, so that they never have to concentrate, and find it difficult to do so; they are corrupted too by the vulgarity and sensationalism which are the bones and blood of the magazines, until they become unable to think without stimulants.
It is no use saying those people are lost. They are not lost, but they have gone astray, or rather, n.o.body has ever tried to turn their faces the right way. Certainly Mr Arnold Bennett does nothing for them. If they could read _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ they would, but they cannot. People cannot plunge into old language, old atmospheres; they have no links with these things; their imagination is not trained to take a leap; many try, and nearly all fail because their literary leaders go to sleep, or march them into bogs. No crude mind can jump into ancient literature; modern literature alone can help it, namely cleanse its _nearest_ section, and prepare it for further strain.
The limits of literary taste can, in each person, be carried as far as that person"s intellectual capacity goes, but only _by degrees_. In other words, limit your objective instead of failing at a large operation.
I am not prepared to lay down a complete list, but I am prepared to hint at one. If I had to help a crude but willing taste, I would handle its reading as follows:--
FIRST PERIOD
Reading made up exclusively of recent novels, good, well-written, thoughtful novels, not too startling in form or contents. I would begin on novels because anybody can read a novel, and because the first cleansing operation is to induce the subject to read good novels instead of bad ones. Here is a preliminary list:--
_Tony-Bungay_ (Wells) _Kipps_ (Wells) _The Custom of the Country_ (Wharton) _The Old Wives" Tale_ (Bennett) _The Man of Property_ (Galsworthy) _Jude the Obscure_ (Hardy) _Tess of the D"Urbervilles_ (Hardy) _Suss.e.x Gorse_ (Kaye-Smith)
and say twenty or thirty more of this type, all published in the last dozen years. It is, of course, a.s.sumed that interest would be maintained by conversation.
SECOND PERIOD
After the subject (victim, if you like) had read say thirty of the best solid novels of the twentieth century, I think I should draw him to the more abstruse modern novels and stories. In the first period he would come in contact with a general criticism of life. In the second period he would read novels of a more iconoclastic and constructive kind, such as:--
_The Island Pharisees_ (Galsworthy) _The New Machiavelli_ (Wells) _Sinister Street_ (Mackenzie) _The Celestial Omnibus_ (Forster) _The Longest Journey_ (Forster) _Sons and Lovers_ (Lawrence) _The White Peac.o.c.k_ (Lawrence) _Ethan Frome_ (Wharton) _Round the Corner_ (Cannan)
Briefly, the more ambitious kind of novel, say thirty or forty altogether. At that time, I should induce the subject to browse occasionally in the _Oxford Book of English Verse_.
THIRD PERIOD
Now only would I come to the older novels, because, by then, the mind should be supple enough to stand their congestion of detail, their tendency to caricature, their stilted phrasing, and yet recognise their qualities. Here are some:--
_The Rise of Silas Lapham_ (Howells) _Vanity Fair_ (Thackeray) _The Vicar of Wakefield_ (Goldsmith) _The Way of All Flesh_ (Butler) _Quentin Durward_ (Scott) _Guy Mannering_ (Scott)
Briefly, the bulk of the works of Thackeray, Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, and George Eliot. "Barry Lyndon" twice, and Trollope never.
Here, at last, the solid curriculum, but only, you will observe, when a little of the mud of the magazines had been cleaned off. Rather more verse too, beginning with Tennyson and Henley, pa.s.sing on to Rossetti and perhaps to Swinburne. Verse, however, should not be pressed. But I think I should propose modern plays of the lighter kind, Mr Bernard Shaw"s _Major Barbara_ and _John Bull"s Other Island_, for instance. One could pa.s.s by degrees to the less obvious plays of Mr Shaw, certainly to those of St John Hankin, and perhaps to _The Madras House_. I think also a start might be made on foreign works, but these would develop mainly in the
FOURTH PERIOD
Good translations being available, I would suggest notably:--
_Madame Bovary_ (Flaubert) _Resurrection_ (Tolstoi) _Fathers and Children_ (Turgenev) Various short stories of Tchekoff.
And then, _if the subject seemed to enjoy these works_,