|
As They Look to the Reader (1930-1) Cecil begins by examining why the Victorian novelists have fallen into disrepute and concludes, "to appreciate the art of another period one must, to a certain extent, enter into its spirit, accept its conventions, adopt 'a willing suspension of disbelief' in its values. For if we have no sympathy for what it is trying to say, we shall not be able to judge if it says it well" (4). It is time to top dismissing them for being Victorian. That is like ignoring Chaucer because he is "medieval". Cecil then examines the form of the novel and its strengths and weaknesss. He points out that most of the emotions of novels are inherently false and artificially constrained by the very form of the English novel. He does not extend it to those of other countries, such as Russian. Novels are read and reread because, "mankind, like a child, wanted to be told a story" (10). The Victorian novelists tended to cover a wider range of settings and subject matter than modern novels. A sweeping set of moods and ideas where modern writing tends to be very specific and confined. He compares it to a schoolboy hamper -- "sweets and sandwiches, pots of jam with their greased paper caps, cream and nuts and glossy apples, all packed together in a heterogeneous deliciousness" (12). There is a lot more imagination involved in the Victorian novel -- an almost haphazard collection of items. They were not trying to invoke realism and therefore had less restrictions in their writing. Most of the good Victorian novelists also had a wonderfully fresh sense of humour, especially in the way they wrote or named their characters and dialogue. The novel was to the Victorians, " in some degree, regarded in the same way as the cinema is now, as a frivolity, a relaxation an entertainment" (18). He concludes by again drawing the parallel with Elizabethen Drama.
Charles Dickens (1930-1) The most classic example of VIctorian novelists, Cecil admits there is not much new to say about him. His books have almost too much plot and intrigue. Dickens can be melodramatic and uses pathos a good deal, but not always effectively, "if he[the reader] once suspects that his emotions are being exploited, his tears made to flow by a cold-blooded machination on the part of the author, he will be nauseated instead of being touched," (29). He creates situations that are moving and interesting on their own, but surrounds them with words and phrases, "no Hollywood film director, expert in sob-stuff, could more thoroughly vulgarize" (30). He doesn't let the scenes speak for themselves but throws in every cliche tear-jerker he can think of. He had a tendency to form his characters to be grotesque and distorted, " exaggeration is a sign that Dickens' imagination was working" (34). Many people accuse him of being exaggerated, but that is how it was supposed to be. They are, ironically, accusing him of succeeding where he was trying to go. The main part of Dickens that is effective is the setting, "the plots of his dramas are often bad, the scenery is always admirable," (37-8). You feel as though you are there, and the descriptions are rich and create an atmosphere and mood. He was a master of the individual. While his characters in themselves were not well-rounded as some might like to call it, they were almost like an embodyment of a specific individual idea that is found in mankind. Like a magnifying glass rather than a photograph. His humour is sometimes saterical but mostly it springs from the moment and is not forced but rather flows naturally from him. One of Dickens' main problems is that, unlike Jane Austen, he does not stay within the range he is best at. He tries to bring in things that he has no experience with and, of course, it doesn't work. Cecil believes that Dickens wrote best from the point of view of a child, since he had not a grasp of form and tended to view things in that way, and thus the first halves of a lot of his books are the finest. "THe whole episode of Mr. Creakle's school is an illustration of the inadequacy of mere realism," (56). Characters like Steerforth would have seemed dull if painted "correctly" rather than from the point of view of a younger child looking up to him. The morality of his books, "comes from conviction born in experience, not in abstract thought," (60) and that is the main reason he is loved as a novelist.
William Makepeace Thackeray (1930-1) Unlike Dickens, Thackeray does not have a large loyal following in modern times. He has been rather completely forgotten. But, "ten minutes' steady reading is enough to teach one that Thackeray's novels are living works of art, not dead period pieces." (67). The difference is that they are more firmly established in their period and you have to have some a priori knowledge of the period to fully grasp them. The main difference between Dickins is that Thackeray is not obsessed with individualism, but rather what people have in common. "Thackeray liked people, and for the most part he thought them well-intentioned. But he also saw very clearly that they were all in some degree weak and vain, self-absorbed and self-deceived" (69). He carefully goes through the various faults in people and arranges them in a symmetrical sort of way. He was one of the first to use his novels as a sort of commentary on life in general, and in particular, the people. His novels have a sense of unity and purpose that are not found in those of Dickens. Cecil spend some time discussing Vanity Fair and the significance of its various characters. Thackeray is a master at shifting scenes easily and without a jolt to the reader in a way that makes sense. His voice and personality come through his novels quite clearly. His irony is ever present in the books. There are no heroic characters, although he acheives a beauty of style that some authors fall short on. Thackeray has a set group of characters he draws upon, and merely gives them different names and settings for the various novels, unlike Jane Austen for whom each person in each book is unique. To put it directly, "Thackeray can be a bore" (95). But his more serious fault lies in occasional inconsistencies with the characters he has created. They will act in a way contrary to what had been clearly set out and thus disrupts the novel and confuses the reader. Sometimes this is a result of the overall pressures of the time period, and sometimes simply from a slip up. Cecil believes basically, "he was born in the wrong period...his genius, in fact, and his age, were always pulling him different ways. And he yielded to the age" (104).
Charlotte Brontë (1930-1) She is quite unlike the typical Victorian Novelists, her world is that of "the inner life, the private passions" (110>. The story is dominated by a hero/heroine and the world is seen through their eyes. The characters do not analyze, but rather simply experience what they are feeling. Her books are all about the same person, though they are told in different settings and characters. There is not variety in them, but that one concept is so different from anything else people have written about that it makes it interesting even retold over and over. Her books tend to be put together rather loosely, there is not enough structure and a sense of randomness. Her books tend to be split into a series of independant books, as though books within books with no clear transitions. There are too many coincidences in her books that make them completely unbelievable. But her main defect is her, "lack of humour" (118). Sometimes she tries to be humourous but never succeeds and it comes out ridiculous. Her dialogue tends to be too heavy-handed, which sometimes can accidentally cause a serious scene to come out humourous. She also has a problem with her male characters. They come out too wild or too feminine, which is something she never solves. She lets her emotions drive her and the characters, although she did try to have some sort of moral purpose in a vaguely confining way. The main problem is her simplicity, "she does not see much, and what she does she sees black or white" (126). She allows herself to be upset or obsessive about the smallest things, much like a child. She prefered the natural beauty, her heroines are in greys and browns. She valued "sincere austerity" (128). All that could lead to a very dull book, but it was balanced by her overwhelming passion. Yet her plots tend to be simple and, for the most part, unsensational. Her settings, though on the outer part ordinary, are given an otherworldly sensation. Creepifying almost. Her books have a sense of atmosphere and of spirituality not present in most novels. Solitary emotion is what she is best at, particularly when the situation has augmented them such as Jane Eyre lost on the moor. Her style tends to be a bit ragged going from truely bad writing to inspired quite randomly. But it was her creative imagination that runs through it all.
Emily Brontë and Wuthering Heights (1930-1) The main reason she is not appreciated is that, "we take for granted that an author writing a novel in the Victorian age is trying to write an orthodox Victorian novel; and we estimate it accordingly" (148). This is not true of her, she has her own mood and purpose. She is grim and cut off from the world, she did not write to entertain her age or the people around her. She deliberately looks at concepts that are untouched by time and location, she asks the 'deep' questions. She is interested in the cosmic, in the meaning of life, of its relationship to the universe, not in man's petty concerns or social conduct. She sees the world as a mixture of good and bad, not one or the other, there is not the conflict between right and wrong in her books. Her characters could be described as "elemental" in their emotions and passions. She, "does not see human conflict as ending with death" (158) but that the soul is eternal even now. She did not choose a conventional novel form. It is not a "clumsy improvisation" but a well thought out artistic structure. It is a storm in the literal and symbolic sense. It is a logical story, but it is not photo realistic. There is no irony in her work, it is, however, original. It is intense to the point where we accept the impossible, but it has a freshness and substance to it as well. She has a grasp of hereditary traits as well which passes on to the children. She is also extremely poetical, more so than any other Victorian novelist. She had a sense of form, but she "was as independent artistically as she was intellectually. She did not take her form from other authors," (185). Interestingly as well, the novel begins with a scene from the middle, right into the climax of the story. Then she goes back to the beginning, with occasional breaks. This is quite different from the typical chronological form of the average novel. It is alien in the world of Victorian novels, but no less genius because of it.
Mrs. Gaskell (1930-1) Mrs. Gaskell is primarily feminine, "she was all a woman was expected to be: gentle, domestic, tactful, unintellectual, prone to tears, easily shocked" (198). She is a Victorian writing Victorian novels in the fullest senses of the word. She did not write in a passionate or violent way, and could not. Her books are in a confined arena, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Her writing is never awkward, and always discrete, although occasionally a bit dull. She tends to be miniature in her details, and ironic in her observational skills. But for all that, she is fresh and caring, not stuffy and sophisticated, "the young girl's eager-eyed response to the world" (207). She, like other women novelists, cannot write men very well. But fortunately, most of the time her world never particularly came into contact with them. She describes the different social levels quite well and in character, and is primarily character-driven. Her characters are alive in the pages, not dull or types and often unique and human even with the conventions of the time. However, there are more minor characters that are the comic character actors of most English novels. Yet even those are alive enough not to be overdone. She is, "primarily a domestic novelist. Confined to the drawing room" (225). Her novels are like the Spring, where the Gothic tends to be like the winter. Her books are tidy in their arrangement, although perhaps a little too long. Her style is elegant and pleasant. It is in her women that she shines, the men, when they appear, are woefully bad. She cannot really construct a bad person in her books, and when she attempts it in order to moralize it never works and we come out loving them. Her books are, "gleaming, delicate-hued little bits of lustre pottery, unlike anything else in the varied museum of English letters" (240).
Anthony Trollope (1930-1) Trollope was liked during his time, and people didn't think he'd live as a novelist, but he is probably the most read Victorian novelist today. The man himself was as perfectly Victorian as you could get, though his books were not so, he lived in an age of "industrious, unaffected, manly men" (246). His books are conventional in structure and he openly writes simply to entertain. His books have an incredible sense of realism to them, but of the respectable Middle Class sort of realism. He is an incredible observer of humanity. He himself had access to many different levels of society which translated well into his works. Trollope did not rely on imagination or moral aspects or social criticism. He looked at what there was and wrote about it-- his are factual novels. He does not insert emotion or pathos where it is not needed, and is often more moving as a result. Trollope does not do melodrama, "Trollope's characters are solid, daylight figures, the reverse of melodramatic; and for the most part they live very placid lives" (251). There are not comic and serious characters, there are just people. They are also not good or bad, and even Mrs. Proudie has her human characteristics that make it difficult to completely hate her. Trollope does not idealize either, his heroines can have tempers and weaknesses. The plots might be drawn out and almost always have a happy ending, but they are logical and constructed well. But, "the modern reader never has to adjust his mind to a Victorian angle in order to enjoy it. He can sit back and take the book just as it comes to him" (254). Because people, fundamentally, don't change, and Trollope's people are based upon fact and observation rather than artistic construction. In fact, they can be a lot like reading a newspaper rather than a novel. There isn't an idea or purpose driving the book, rather simply a pleasant experience as a reader so they books lack the drive of some. Trollope doesn't particularly have a style. He has an honest, open sort of writing that is believable, but there isn't anything significant in it. He also tends to be slow, "he takes a long time to tell us about anything" (264). As an artist, Trollope falls short. As a novelist, he is brilliant. Cecil spends some time discussing the Barsetshire series. His books are good-tempered and pleasant to read with a generally cheerful outlook and "he is, when he tries to be, unfailingly amusing. When all is said and done, his humour is his greatest glory" (278).
George Eliot (1930-1) She took careful trouble to learn from the other novelists and had a scholarly approach. They were a product of her mind, always analyzing and discovering. Her books are driven primarily by story-- the characters and locations follow. She was concerned with abstract theology and philosophy. She began with an idea and formed a plot around it, so it was not always conventional. There isn't always a 'hero' or pair that the story revolved around. She chose more ordinary and older people to center the book. They tend to be deeper and more general in their outlook to the other Victorians. She is confident, and successful when she stays to what she is familiar with. Her historical novels fall flat. The humour is more limited, she does not let it have free reign in the books. Her settings are vivid in that they capture the essence of the place and what makes it different from any other place. She falls prey to saturating her works with pathos, though occasionally also with irony which works better. Her country characters tend to be there for humourous purposes, but "her portraits are all primarily portraits of the inner man" (301). Her thinking was typical of the "high-brow" of the time, but she, "admired truthfulness and chastity and industry and self-restraint" (302). She thought that life was just to the virtuous and these become fundimental to her novels. She sees right into people and brings out their motivations. She is an extremely discerning writer and this comes out in her characters. She is able to have them subtly change without jarring it in a way that makes sense. She has complete grasp of the inside of people, both alone and in company. She is also able to successfully portray men and young men because they come out of mind not from passing impression. But people do not read or enjoy her novels any longer. This is because, "we find her point of view even more alien" (319) than other Victornians. They are acutely moral, and very Puritan. They are mature works, not ardent, and not always very imaginative either. But this is not fair, she writes as well as any other of the novelists. She shouldn't be tossed aside because her moral views are different than those commonly held today. She was not a grand author, but she was good and intellectual, "her insight, her integrity, her sad, mature wisdom, lifted her to the region of major art" (328). |
|
- BACK - |