Selected Essays by Virginia Woolf – 2. Life-Writing

The Oxford World Classic edition of ‘Selected Essays by Virginia Woolf’, edited by David Bradshaw, brings together 30 of Woolf’s essays, reviews and miscellaneous prose pieces, and groups them under four headings:

  1. Reading and Writing
  2. Life-Writing
  3. Women and Fiction
  4. Looking On

Summarising each of the essays was taking so long that I broke my review up into parts, one for each section. This one addresses the four essays in the ‘Life-Writing’ i.e. biography section, being:

  1. The New Biography (1927) [review of Some People by Harold Nicholson]
  2. On Being Ill (1930) [fantasia]
  3. Leslie Stephen: The Philosopher at Home: A Daughter’s Memories (1932) [memoir of her father]
  4. The Art of Biography (1939) [specifically Lytton Strachey]

Woolf, her father and biography

Virginia’s father, Sir Leslie Stephen (1832 to 1904) was an English author, critic, historian and biographer. He was editor of the influential Cornhill Magazine. Virginia grew up in a house filled with books, and was given free rein to its large library with, crucially, the support and guidance of an extremely bookish parent. She grew up to believe and promote in all her essays the dazzlingly unoriginal idea that writing, literature and poetry, were the highest art and encapsulated indelible human truths. I wonder if anyone believes such a narrow simple-minded idea in our times. Literature quite obviously doesn’t represent any kind of truth. The case against it is similar to one of the arguments against the Bible being the word of God, simply that it expresses, with profound conviction, a vast array of completely contradictory and chaotic beliefs. In fact literature’s virtue is its lack of any one Great Truth, the whole point is its mad diversity and plurality.

The point is that young Virginia grew up in a hyper-bookish household, dominated by a hyper-bookish father, and went on to spend a career telling everyone that the most important thing in the world was books and writing, as the essays in the first two sections of this book demonstrate. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Anyway, in the early 1880s, the owner of the Cornhill magazine, the publisher George Smith, approached its editor, Stephen, to sound him out about creating an encyclopedia of notable people. This led to the creation of the Dictionary of National Biography or DNB, still with us 140 years later. Stephen was the dictionary’s founding editor, working on it from 1885 to 1891. His daughter, Virginia, was to give a special place to biography in the genres of writing. Her novel Orlando is a tribute to and critique of traditional biography. I was struck by how her powerful feminist polemic, Three Guineas, relies not on data, sociology or economics, but leans very heavy on the evidence of the innumerable literary biographies she’s read. Biography was very important to this daughter of the man who founded the country’s definitive encyclopedia of biography. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

When her father resigned as editor, he was replaced by Sidney Lee, Stephen’s assistant editor from the beginning of the project. Lee served until the first edition was completed in 1900, then returned to edit the first supplement which was published in 1912.

1. The New Biography (1927: 6 pages)

This is a book review of Some People by Harold Nicholson. It starts with a quote from Sidney Lee’s 1911 book, Principles of Biography, where he writes that:

The aim of biography is the truthful transmission of personality.

Almost any educated person could spot the flaws in this statement, starting with the idea that you can ever have a truthful transmission of anything, and going on to wonder whether the point of a biography is solely to convey personality. That’s a nice outcome but surely there are a lot of other aims as well, not least getting the facts right and setting the record straight about someone’s life.

Anyway, this quote allows Woolf to set up a dichotomy between truth and personality. On the first page she astonishes with an unironic and naive praise of The Truth, believing that such a thing exists.

There is a virtue in truth; it has an almost mystic power.

Here as in so many other places, Woolf shows herself a child of the deep Victorian era, whose intellectual traces lingered for a long time in the Stephen household, her attachment to Truth and Beauty deriving from Keats, Shelley, Coleridge and so on, nothing from the thinkers, writers and artists of her own time.

But partly it’s just a rhetorical device. She builds up Truth as a big concept so she can oppose it with Personality. According to her this emerged into the genre of biography with Boswell’s ‘Life of Johnson’. We hear and see Dr Johnson as no other figure before him. We hear him, we can argue with him.

Victorian biography contained more psychology, more delving into personality than its predecessors, but was constrained by the Victorian need to dwell on virtue and goodness. The result was huge biographies which resembled the Victorian tombs of Great Men lacking all sense of life and spontaneity.

But now, she claims, twentieth century biography represents a sea change, in two main ways. Modern biographies are no longer the ten volume tombstones of the Victorian era, but are short and swift. Alongside this, the biographer no longer considers themselves a lowly drudge beavering away in the footsteps of their giant subjects; the modern biographer considers themselves the equal of their subjects, and freely able to pass judgement on them.

And now, after this thoughtful if wrong-headed introduction, we come to the book under review, Some People by Harold Nicholson. Now Nicholson was a ridiculously over-talented posh man. He was a diplomat, politician, journalist, broadcaster, historian, biographer, diarist, novelist, lecturer, literary critic, essayist and gardener nowadays maybe mostly remembered for his candid, scandalous Diaries.

He had already written fairly conventional biographies of Byron and Tennyson when he produced Some People. It consists of nine chapters, each the biography of a different person but here’s the thing – all nine are imaginary. They are: being a sort of character sketch: Miss Plimsoll; J. D. Marstock; Lambert Orme; The Marquis de Chaumont; Jeanne de Henaut; Titty; Professor Malone; Arketall; Miriam Codd.

Nicholson joked that they were all entirely imaginary, abstract character sketches. But those in the know recognised some of them as combining traits from real living people, and a couple of them are straight portraits of real people just given fictional names.

As such it is a hybrid book, biographies, but of non-existent people, except they are real people, except they are treated as fictions.

It may be worth pointing out that Nicholson was married to the posh aristocrat Vita Sackville-West, with whom Woolf was having a lesbian affair. Woolf was especially interested in biography at this time because she was quickly writing her own fictional biography, Orlando, which was in the same ballpark as Some People and which is dedicated to Sackville-West. Orlando is in fact in many respects based on Vita, even including photos of her in the text and captioning them as portraits of Orlando.

Back to Nicholson, Woolf says his chief quality is his sense of humour. He laughs at his subjects and he laughs at himself. She makes the rather obvious point that the tenth subject who emerges from this sequence of nine portraits is the author himself, mentioned self-mockingly at various moments, and whose own life and opinions emerge from references scattered throughout the other sketches.

What makes all this new is ‘the lack of pose, humbug, solemnity’, ‘freedom from pose, from sentimentality, from illusion’. He has opened new ground by deploying the techniques of fiction to biography.

At the same time she points out its limitations, which that all the characters, deliciously mocked though they are, are small. They lack real depth or complexity and they can’t be allowed it or the delicate balancing act will be spoiled.

Caveat

As I wrote this out I thought, Hang on: surely a vast number of novels have been biographies of fictional people, starting with books like Moll Flanders or Tom Jones. When she says that Nicholson writes with delightful humour well, er, Henry Fielding, let alone Dickens, most of whose early novels purport to be biographies of named people (Oliver Twist, Nicholas Nickleby). Fiction and biography have always been closely aligned, haven’t they? Maybe Nicholson just seemed so new by contrast with the long dark shadows of the vast and pious Victorian biographer? Or maybe what was novel in his work was the pretence that his people were real? To us nowadays what Woolf finds so exciting in this book sounds to us pretty commonplace.

Or maybe what excited her was that she, also, at this very time, was writing a fantasy biography, an experimental biography, an experiment mixing fact and fiction, so it chimed with her own intense interest in this zone. As in her important essays about fiction, she is working through her own ideas in public?

Or that she was having an affair with the author’s wife. The literary world, eh?

2. On Being Ill (1930: 10 pages)

Wikipedia says:

‘On Being Ill’ is an essay by Virginia Woolf, which seeks to establish illness as a serious subject of literature along the lines of love, jealousy and battle. Woolf writes about the isolation, loneliness, and vulnerability that disease may bring and how it can make even the maturest of adults feel like children again. The essay was written in 1925, when she was 42 years old, while she was in bed shortly after experiencing a nervous breakdown.

Like most of Woolf’s essays, its premise, discussion and conclusions feel highly questionable. Take for a start her claim that that no serious writer had previously written about illness. Wikipedia points out that even when she was writing (1930), she had Proust’s extensive descriptions of illness in In Search of Lost Time (1913 to 1927) not to mention Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain (1924) set in an Alpine sanatorium, to refer to.

But facts aren’t what Woolf is about, here as in most of her essays. She mainly wants to get on and write, in a heightened poetic style, about the basic conflict between the mind and the body. And so she claims that most literature is about the mind and little attention is given to the demands, especially when ill, of the body. Partly this is due to the poverty of the vocabulary surrounding illness:

The merest schoolgirl, when she falls in love, has Shakespeare or Keats to speak her mind for her; but let a sufferer try to describe a pain in his head to a doctor and language at once runs dry. There is nothing ready made for him.

(Here, as everywhere, see how her mind, when considering almost any aspect of writing, immediately turns to Shakespeare as a reference point, something she does in virtually everything she wrote.)

Also, there’s the slight problem that her description of being ill bears no resemblance to actually being ill. I had flu for a week recently and Woolf’s extended and highly poetic fantasias about illness, fanciful and poetic though they are, bear no relation to the sense of exhaustion and lack of interest in anything at all which I experienced. Hers is a kind of over-literary person’s fantasy of what illness ought to be like.

In fact the whole text is really a fantasia, an imaginative extravaganza, often with no connection to the nominal subject. She describes how lying on a sick bed makes you look up into the sky and describes her impression of watching it for hours (the sky), how it continually changes like a vast open-air cinema. When I was lying sick in bed and looked up, I saw the ceiling.

Overwhelmed, as so often, by the intensity of her own sense impressions, Woolf shifts her attention to something smaller and closer to hand, roses in vases in her room. For some reason, this morphs into a fantasy about the heat death of the solar system, the sun going out and the earth being covered in ice. free-associating, she wonders whether there will be a heaven and immortality, and goes rambling on:

Surely, since men have been wishing all these ages, they will have wished something into existence; there will be some green isle for the mind to rest on even if the foot cannot plant itself there. The co-operative imagination of mankind must have drawn some firm outline.

But no. One opens the Morning Post and reads the Bishop of Lichfield on Heaven. One watches the church-goers file into those gallant temples where, on the bleakest day, in the wettest fields, lamps will be burning, bells will be ringing, and however the autumn leaves may shuffle and the winds sigh outside, hopes and desires will be changed to beliefs and certainties within.

Do they look serene? Are their eyes filled with the light of their supreme conviction? Would one of them dare leap straight into Heaven off Beachy Head? None but a simpleton would ask such questions; the little company of believers lags and drags and strays. The mother is worn; the father tired. As for imagining Heaven, they have no time.

Heaven-making must be left to the imagination of the poets. Without their help we can but trifle—imagine Pepys in Heaven, adumbrate little interviews with celebrated people on tufts of thyme, soon fall into gossip about such of our friends as have stayed in Hell, or, worse still, revert again to earth and choose, since there is no harm in choosing, to live over and over, now as man, now as woman, as sea-captain, or court lady, as Emperor or farmer’s wife, in splendid cities and on remote moors, at the time of Pericles or Arthur, Charlemagne or George the Fourth…

See what I mean by fantasia? There’s no point trying to process or assess this rationally: all you can do is relax and go with the flow of her rather delirious mind…

She eventually veers back into the world of sense when she makes the point that when we’re ill, the rational controlling mind is weakened and so, with your defences turned down, you respond more directly to sense impressions.

In illness words seem to possess a mystic quality. We grasp what is beyond their surface meaning, gather instinctively this that, and the other—a sound, a colour, here a stress, there a pause—which the poet, knowing words to be meagre in comparison with ideas, has strewn about his page to evoke…

Incomprehensibility has an enormous power over us in illness… In health, meaning has encroached upon sound. Our intelligence domineers over our senses. But in illness, with the police off duty, we creep beneath some obscure poem by Mallarmé or Donne…

This may or may not be true. When I had flu I was too ill to read anything, to do anything, to care about anything at all, even eating. So this seems to me yet another of her poetic fantasies, it is a bookish account of what being ill ought to be like. And how characteristic that her first example of the conscious mind lowering its guard and being more susceptible, is that it be more susceptible to poetry and the Great Classics of Poetry in particular.

This dogged return of so many essays to her obsession with Poetry made me reflect that, although Woolf’s best novels are really great, in all other respects her imagination was horribly constricted. Essay after essay after essay praises the same handful of Great English Poets and, above all, Shakespeare, again and again and again. It’s like listening to a tame parrot repeat its half dozen catchphrases all day long. And lo and behold, in the very next paragraph, here is the Bard of Avon, yet again.

Rashness is one of the properties of illness—outlaws that we are—and it is rashness that we need in reading Shakespeare. It is not that we should doze in reading him, but that, fully conscious and aware, his fame intimidates and bores, and all the views of all the critics dull in us that thunder-clap of conviction which, if an illusion, is still so helpful an illusion, so prodigious a pleasure, so keen a stimulus in reading the great. Shakespeare is getting flyblown; a paternal government might well forbid writing about him, as they put his monument at Stratford beyond the reach of scribbling fingers. With all this buzz of criticism about, one may hazard one’s conjectures privately, make one’s notes in the margin; but, knowing that someone has said it before, or said it better, the zest is gone. Illness, in its kingly sublimity, sweeps all that aside and leaves nothing but Shakespeare and oneself. What with his overweening power and our overweening arrogance, the barriers go down, the knots run smooth, the brain rings and resounds with Lear or Macbeth…

Is she seriously claiming that being ill helps you read Shakespeare better? This is not a sensible remark because it’s quite the opposite. You need your wits about you when reading such wonderfully complex, multi-levelled works – the multi-levelled complexity of plot, character, psychology and diction are key to the deep sensual but intellectual pleasure Shakespeare gives.

The last few pages of the essay follow through on Woolf’s idea that when you’re ill you’re not up to reading the Great Works of Literature and fancy something lighter. In Woolf’s case this is biography, which she goes out of her way, in essay after essay, to emphasise is not an art on the same level as writing a novel (see ‘The Art of Biography’, below).

At which point the essay takes an unexpected turn to look at a very specific author. The last couple of pages of this little essay stop being about illness at all and turn into praise for the Victorian writer, painter and raconteur, Augustus Hare (1834 to 1903). Specifically, it turns out Woolf is a big fan of Story of Two Noble Lives, Hare’s big biography of two sisters and artists, Countess Canning and the Marchioness of Waterford. Woolf gives us an extended summary of these ladies’ lives, of the extended Victorian families they lived in, of their marriages, children, careers and whatnot and then, after this brisk impressionistic summary of this now-obscure work, her favourite sick-time reading, the essay simply stops, leaving you puzzled and (pleasurably) disorientated.

Thoughts

1) Being ill is nothing like Woolf describes. This is just a literary fantasia.

2) Her obsession with Great English Literature and, above all, with Shakespeare Shakespeare Shakespeare, is enough to make you scream. English literature is huge and varied and strange but hardly any of this comes over from Woolf who makes everything, all English literature, sound like one thing, like the same, high-minded and lyrical seeking after Poetry.

3) It is symptomatic that she ends not with a novel but a biography. Biographies are easy to read, serious novels often very hard. Hence my mild criticism of the way so much of her powerful polemic Three Guineas was based on biography, anecdote and extensive newspaper cuttings rather than serious research into history or sociology. I knew medics and scientists at university who never read novels but loved a good biography. This is because reading a biography is easy, reading the biography of a writer is a lazy copout: at the risk of sounding schoolmasterish, you should always read the original works – because it’s there that the unexpected, the strange and the marvellous reside, not in biographical summaries, no matter how interesting.

4) Ten thousand critics have labelled Woolf a modernist but, in my opinion, underlying the technique of drifting, free-associating consciousness which she developed for her great novels, there actually lurks an extremely conservative, backwards-looking mentality. ‘Poetry, darling, seeking The Truth of Life. Keats and Shelley. And above all, the Master, Shakespeare!’ My reading of her novels and essays is that Woolf wasn’t the first of the moderns, she was the last of the Victorians who carried a kind of purified, quintessential Victorian aestheticism on into the troubled culture of the post-war era.

3. Leslie Stephen, The Philosopher at Home: A Daughter’s Memories (1932: 5 pages)

Woolf’s father was an eminent biographer, who helped found and develop the definitive encyclopedia of biographies of notable British people. He was also a noted essayist. And so she became… a noted essayist with a lifelong fascination in biography. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

This brief text isn’t anything like a biography or an obituary for her famous father. It’s more a eulogy but of a highly personal and limited nature. Woolf’s stock-in-trade wasn’t so much analysis but ‘memories’. Compare and contrast the way the supposed introduction to the book about the English Women’s Co-operative Guild (see my next blog post) is called ‘Memories of a Working Women’s Guild’, and proceeds not by rational argument, not by logical structure, but through the highly personal medium of her own memories, dwelling on her own responses and feelings.

Back to this essay, it’s a relatively brief collection of memories of her famous father:

  • how Leslie Stephen’s adventurous days – as a rower, mountaineer and even author – were over before his children were old enough to know him
  • he liked to go on huge walks across the Cornish moors, rarely speaking more than a few words to anyone who accompanied him
  • he wrote lying almost horizontally in an old rocking chair, picking up and dropping source books as he needed them, with a thump which could be heard downstairs
  • he unconsciously doodled animals in the margins of his books as he read
  • he had a magical ability to make animal shapes out of sheets of plain paper
  • he didn’t speak much but even his briefest remarks were freighted with meaning
  • he disregarded conventional values, frequently embarrassing the family, such as when he wondered aloud whether people who had dropped in for tea were ever going to leave
  • he loved clear thinking and hated sentimentality
  • he hated wars
  • he was paranoid about running out of money and going bankrupt
  • he liked going for brisk walks from the family home at Hyde Park Gate, up to Kensington Gardens and round the Serpentine to the Marble Arch and back
  • his children regularly heard the story about him and his brother encountering Queen Victoria in the Park and bowing low to which the Queen curtseyed, and as a boy once seeing the great Duke of Wellington
  • he smoked a pipe continually
  • he worse clothes till they became shabby
  • like so many industrious Victorians, he hated idleness
  • he didn’t give his daughters higher education but when Vanessa expressed the wish to become a painter he promised to do everything in his power to help her
  • as for Virginia, he gave her free run of his large library when she was just 15 and taught her to be true to her own opinions, to be honest, never to pretend to admire something she didn’t

At the end is a flurry of tributes to him from the writers of his time. Woolf quotes a few lines by Thomas Hardy about Stephen. She quotes the novelist George Meredith saying her father was the only man worthy of her mother (who Meredith knew and admired).

You’ve heard of Simone de Beauvoir’s autobiography, Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter? Well, this little sliver feels like Woolf’s Memories of a Dutiful Daughter. You’d never know from this pious recital, that she based the character of the occasionally malicious and hurtful Mr Ramsay in To The Lighthouse on her father. Scholars claim that Mr Ramsay is a much more subtle and nuanced depiction of some of her father’s complex and difficult character. By contrast, this reads like the official version.

4. The Art of Biography (1939)

Divided into four sections.

1.

On any given topic Woolf tends to revert to the same handful of ideas. Here she repeats the idea stated in ‘The New Biography’ that it was only in the 18th century that Westerners developed sufficient interest in other people to write really flavoursome biographies, with Boswell’s vast ‘Life of Johnson’ epitomising the new interest, while in the Victorian century biographies grew vast and ponderous and worthy.

Belleletterist writing often proceeds by asking rhetorical questions. Here she asks: Is biography an art? despite being well aware that ‘the question is foolish perhaps.’ In fact it’s such a fatuously pointless question that nobody cares about the answer and Woolf doesn’t answer it.

Instead she moves onto another question: Why do so few biographies endure? Because the novelist is free to write what they want, whereas the biographer is bound by friends and family, by legal restrictions, libel, slander and so on.

The novelist is free; the biographer is tied.

With the result that ‘the art of biography is the most restricted of all the arts.’

2.

She now goes on to discuss the significance of (her friend) Lytton Strachey, author of the volume ‘Eminent Victorians’ (1918), notorious in its day for its warts-and-all portrayal of four Victorian heroes: Cardinal Manning, Florence Nightingale, Thomas Arnold and General Charles Gordon. (Victoria Glendinning’s biography of Leonard Woolf tells me that they weren’t just friends but that the flamboyantly gay Strachey actually proposed to Virginia only to be turned down, a season or so before his Cambridge friend, Leonard Woolf, proposed, and was accepted.)

She knows from personal acquaintance that Strachey wanted to be a writer but lacked the skills required for poetry or plays, whereas in 1918, after the immense disillusionment of the Great War, a new mood was abroad in biography. The plaster saints and stuffed effigies of the Victorian period were ripe for debunking and Strachey found his metier as a debunker and Eminent Victorians was his most famous debunking. That said, the examples Woolf gives of the controversial questions he raised seem ridiculously trivial.

Once more they were the centre of a buzz of discussion. Did Gordon really drink, or was that an invention? Had Florence Nightingale received the Order of Merit in her bedroom or in her sitting room?

Nowadays in our oversexed era, no biography can be published which doesn’t dwell at length on the subject’s sex life, whether they are abused as children or survived all the other horrors life can offer, a melodramatic concern which gave rise a generation ago to the mocking term misery porn. We’ve come a long way from politely wondering if a great military hero might have enjoyed a glass of wine too many.

Anyway, after this early success Strachey went on to write two massive and authoritative biographies of Britain’s queens, Queen Victoria (1921) and Queen Elizabeth I (1928). Woolf has an interesting point to make about these. Basically, the Victoria was a great success (winning prizes) while the Elizabeth was a relative failure. Why? Woolf thinks the answer tells us something about biography ‘as an art’, namely that when he wrote the Victoria he accepted the limitations of biography as a form, its need to stick to verifiable facts, documents, eye witness accounts and so on, and so he worked as a craftsman, assembling his materials. But when he wrote the Elizabeth he got cocky, he tried to make it a work of art, he wanted the book to have more of Woolf’s shibboleth, Poetry, ignored the form’s intrinsic limitations, and failed.

Strachey wanted to invent events and dialogue and motives, specifically in the mysterious relationship between Elizabeth and one of her favourite courtiers, the Earl of Essex. What he found out the hard way is that you can’t add fiction into biography in small doses. To work, fiction must have a free hand to develop character and plot. There was some obscurity in the Elizabeth-Essex relationship but not enough. Just as the fiction was getting going it bumped up against the documents and records we do have which contradicted it, blocked the flow of a narrative. Worse:

By fact in biography we mean facts that can be verified by other people besides the artist. If he invents facts as an artist invents them — facts that no one else can verify — and tries to combine them with facts of the other sort, they destroy each other. (p.120)

(All this prompts the obvious thought that in the 100 years since Strachey’s Elizabeth was published, thousands of writers have managed to write fictional books about historical characters i.e. which blend historical fact with fictional narratives, from Robert Graves to Hilary Mantel, so this last point doesn’t really stand.)

3.

But ‘the facts’ of biography change, they are coloured by changes of opinion by which she means social conventions or beliefs. To demonstrate this she chooses the subject of homosexuality, though she is not allowed to say so.

What was thought a sin is now known, by the light of facts won for us by the psychologists, to be perhaps a misfortune; perhaps a curiosity; perhaps neither one nor the other, but a trifling foible of no great importance one way or the other. The accent on sex has changed within living memory.

Maybe she chooses this particular topic among many other views which shifted with the end of the Victorian era, because Strachey was gay.

Anyway, given these ever-shifting social values, the biographer needs to keep on their toes, alert to the way that so-called biographical ‘facts’ are liable to change completely in a generation. This is why Woolf suggests chucking out the old conventional chapters in a conventional biography and rethinking it as more subtly psychological (like her novels).

Many of the old chapter headings — life at college, marriage, career—are shown to be very arbitrary and artificial distinctions. The real current of the hero’s existence took, very likely, a different course.

4.

Summing up, then, Woolf asserts that it’s exciting times for biographers as biography is poised to take significant new steps forward. But, in line with her obsessive need to rank literary genres, she persists in insisting that biography is an inferior type of writing.

It is a different life from the life of poetry and fiction — a life lived at a lower degree of tension. And for that reason its creations are not destined for the immortality which the artist now and then achieves for his creations. (p.122)

The great characters from fiction last forever. No biographer’s work will last forever. And so she comes round to answering the question she set herself at the start, whether biography is an art. No. No it isn’t.

The artist’s imagination at its most intense fires out what is perishable in fact; he builds with what is durable; but the biographer must accept the perishable, build with it, imbed it in the very fabric of his work. Much will perish; little will live. And thus we come to the conclusion, that he is a craftsman, not an artist; and his work is not a work of art, but something betwixt and between. (p.122)

So Woolf is very tough on biographers, then. According to her they are simply not in the top ranking. Oh well.

But she does throw biographers a consolation prize. This is that the Imagination needs a rest from time to time and biography provides good recreation. Their works make a good playground. A playground where, more importantly, the Creative Writer (the Important Writer, someone like Woolf) may find nuggets of fact, anecdotes or insights:

the creative fact; the fertile fact; the fact that suggests and engenders

which may inspire the superior Creative Writer, which the superior Creative Writer may be able to incorporate into their Work of Art. And so all the biographer’s hard work will have been worthwhile. It would be entertaining to read professional biographer’s responses to this patronising, dismissive point of view.


Credit

‘Selected Essays of Virginia Woolf’ was published by Oxford World Classics in 2008. Most of the essays can be found online. David Bradshaw’s introduction can be read on Amazon.

Related links

Related reviews

Selected Essays by Virginia Woolf – 1. Reading and Writing (1)

You may well complain of the vagueness of my language.
(Woolf acknowledging that she doesn’t always have clear ideas or express them very clearly, in ‘Character in Fiction’, page 48)

The Oxford World Classic edition of ‘Selected Essays by Virginia Woolf’, edited by David Bradshaw, brings together 30 of Woolf’s non-fiction prose pieces and groups them under four headings:

  1. Reading and Writing
  2. Life-Writing
  3. Women and Fiction
  4. Looking On

I’ve published introductory notes on the themes and style of the essays. This blog post summarises the first four essays of the ten in the ‘Reading and Writing’ section (many but not all of which are available online).

  1. The Decay of Essay-Writing (1905)
  2. Modern Fiction (1919)
  3. The Modern Essay (1922) [review of Modern English Essays 1870 to 1920]
  4. How It Strikes a Contemporary (1923)
  5. Mr Bennett and Mrs Brown (1923)
  6. Character in Fiction (1924) [a talk]
  7. ‘Impassioned Prose’ (1926) [Thomas de Quincy]
  8. How Should One Read A Book? (1926)
  9. Poetry, Fiction and the Future (1927)
  10. Craftmanship (1937) [BBC radio talk]

1. The Decay of Essay-Writing (1905: 3 pages)

Summary: good essays are always personal and autobiographical.

Woolf was just 23 and exploring her talents in this early essay. She affects a world-weary omniscience of the literary scene and laments the overproduction of writing of all types:

Tracts, pamphlets, advertisements, gratuitous copies of magazines, and the literary productions of friends come by post, by van, by messenger—come at all hours of the day and fall in the night, so that the morning breakfast table is fairly snowed up with them.

Like many conservative-minded people she laments all the newfangled tricks and innovations of ‘modern’ writers (this was written before the genuine wave of modernist innovations, so reads like the standard conservative lament about everything going to the dogs; and is also deeply ironic seeing as she was to go on to become one of the most notable pioneers of modernist techniques in English fiction).

She claims that one of the most prominent innovations of the age (end of the Victorian era, start of the Edwardian decade) has been the advent of the personal essay which gives the opinions of the author, in which every sentence starts with ‘I’:

Its popularity with us is so immense and so peculiar that we are justified in looking upon it as something of our own—typical, characteristic, a sign of the times which will strike the eye of our great-great-grandchildren

Rather ludicrously she attributes this tidal wave of personal essays to the simple fact that so many people have been taught to write, presumably as a result of the late-Victorian education acts which expanded the scope of state schooling. But it’s the personal, egotistical element of essay writing which interests her:

The essay, then, owes its popularity to the fact that its proper use is to express one’s personal peculiarities, so that under the decent veil of print one can indulge one’s egoism to the full. You need know nothing of music, art, or literature to have a certain interest in their productions, and the great burden of modern criticism is simply the expression of such individual likes and dislikes—the amiable garrulity of the tea-table—cast into the form of essays.

Then she arrives at a point, of sorts. When contemporaries write reviews about books (which we can all read for ourselves) or pictures (which we can all see for ourselves) what real value do they add? It’s only when critics write of what is really, distinctively theirs alone, ‘of that single book to which they alone have the key and of that solitary picture whose face is shrouded to all but one gaze’, that their essays have value. Too many essayists, like autobiographers, feel obliged to produce fine writing and orthodox views. For young Virginia Stephen, on the contrary, it is the personal element which is most valuable in criticism.

This call for the personal in criticism can be seen as a kind of manifesto for the deeply personal impressions and observations she would make a career out of.

2. Modern Fiction (1919: 7 pages)

Summary: Woolf rubbishes the novels of the popular writers of her day, H.G. Wells, Arnold Bennett and John Galsworthy, for being obsessed with realistic detail and neglecting the spiritual aspect of human nature. Hence her calling them ‘materialists’. She goes on to define the kind of novel she desires, concerned with the internal psychology of its characters and registering the blizzard of sensory input and thoughts we all experience.

It is important to state that a good deal of Woolf’s essays consist of gaseous verbiage. She is prolix and verbose. She writes as if she’s being paid by the word, not the idea. Entire pages consist of filler. Particularly irksome is her adoption of the lofty, snobbish ‘we’ in her articles.

It is doubtful whether in the course of the centuries, though we have learnt much about making machines, we have learnt anything about making literature. We do not come to write better; all that we can be said to do is to keep moving, now a little in this direction, now in that, but with a circular tendency should the whole course of the track be viewed from a sufficiently lofty pinnacle. It need scarcely be said that we make no claim to stand, even momentarily, upon that vantage ground. On the flat, in the crowd, half blind with dust, we look back with envy to those happier warriors, whose battle is won and whose achievements wear so serene an air of accomplishment that we can scarcely refrain from whispering that the fight was not so fierce for them as for us. It is for the historian of literature to decide; for him to say if we are now beginning or ending or standing in the middle of a great period of prose fiction, for down in the plain little is visible. We only know that certain gratitudes and hostilities inspire us; that certain paths seem to lead to fertile land, others to the dust and the desert; and of this perhaps it may be worth while to attempt some account.

The ‘we’ refers to ‘people like us’, privileged, educated, upper-middle-class who have the right stuff, an advanced sensibility and sophisticated tastes. Another reason for using it is that, very simply, it protects the writer from coming out into the open and admitting it’s just their own personal opinion. It makes it sound like she’s speaking on behalf of a group, a class. Safety in numbers.

It need scarcely be said that we make no claim…

This orotund phraseology is the tone of a conservative snob, the tone of an old buffer in clubland. The fact that it emanates from the consciously feminist Woolf makes it all the more ironic. If she’d been a man, she would have been unbearably snobbish and reactionary.

This is a notorious essay because it’s the first in a series in which Woolf criticises three of the most successful novelists of her time, H.G. Wells, Arnold Bennett and John Galsworthy. Why? Because they lacked the refined and sensitive spirituality of a superior soul such as Woolf. They describe real people in an all-too-rackety and realistic way. Woolf struggles to find a word to describe what she dislikes and the best she can come up with is materialism.

These three writers are materialists. It is because they are concerned not with the spirit but with the body that they have disappointed us.

Woolf was an atheist. Her novels rarely bother with traditional Christian belief or, if they do, do so only to mock it, as in the figure of the Reverend Streatfield in Between The Acts. As always, to get the full measure of her real opinions, you shouldn’t consult the novels but read her searing criticism of the Church of England as a perpetrator of misogynist patriarchy in Three Guineas.

But here, in this essay, in order to diss Wells and Bennett and Galsworthy, she is happy to invoke traditional religious metaphors, contrasting the heavy, materialist, clay of their writings with her ideal of writing which is, of course, pure, airy and spiritual.

Of Bennett she says that his books are solidly built and well crafted and present hosts of characters but ‘it remains to ask how do they live, and what do they live for?’ Bennett depicts nothing but comfortable lives, first class railways carriages and fine hotels at Brighton i.e. all the externals of life. Similarly, Wells overstuffs his novels with issues and ideas:

In the plethora of his ideas and facts scarcely having leisure to realise, or forgetting to think important, the crudity and coarseness of his human beings. Yet what more damaging criticism can there be both of his earth and of his Heaven than that they are to be inhabited here and hereafter by his Joans and his Peters? Does not the inferiority of their natures tarnish whatever institutions and ideals may be provided for them by the generosity of their creator?

‘The inferiority of their natures’ – there you have, in black and white, the clearest possible expression of Woolf’s snobbery.

All three novelists, in Woolf’s opinion, describe in immense detail the material facts of life and completely neglect the higher, spiritual aspects, the aspects, in other words, which Woolf intended to devote her novels to. They:

write of unimportant things… they spend immense skill and immense industry making the trivial and the transitory appear the true and the enduring.

‘The true and enduring’ being exemplified by the Classics of English Literature which Virginia found in her father’s well-stocked library and which he taught her to revere as the true repositories of Poetry and Truth – Homer, Aeschylus, Dante, Shakespeare – you know the list.

So, in Woolf’s view, All Bennett, Wells and Galsworthy’s novels fail to capture ‘life’ – but the obvious question is, Whose definition of ‘life’? Hers, of course, The higher, spiritual life, not the low, clay life of ‘inferior natures’.

For us at this moment the form of fiction most in vogue more often misses than secures the thing we seek. Whether we call it life or spirit, truth or reality, this, the essential thing, has moved off, or on, and refuses to be contained any longer in such ill-fitting vestments as we provide.

‘Vestments’, by the way, are ‘liturgical garments and articles associated primarily with the Christian religion’. See what I mean by how, in order to insist on the important of the spiritual in art, she has to temporarily resort to explicitly Christian metaphors, despite her contempt for the Church of England?

As so often in her polemical essays, it becomes more interesting when it opens up to describe Woolf’s own practice. She very vividly describes what she feels as the oppressiveness of having to create characters, think up a plot, come up with some comedy and generally conform to the existing pattern of The Novel. Does the novel always have to be like this? she asks.

It’s at this point, if it wasn’t obvious before, that you realise that Woolf is deploying her criticism of Wells et al in order to better define what she is aiming to do with the form.

Nevertheless, we go on perseveringly, conscientiously, constructing our two and thirty chapters after a design which more and more ceases to resemble the vision in our minds. So much of the enormous labour of proving the solidity, the likeness to life, of the story is not merely labour thrown away but labour misplaced to the extent of obscuring and blotting out the light of the conception. The writer seems constrained, not by his own free will but by some powerful and unscrupulous tyrant who has him in thrall, to provide a plot, to provide comedy, tragedy, love interest, and an air of probability embalming the whole so impeccable that if all his figures were to come to life they would find themselves dressed down to the last button of their coats in the fashion of the hour. The tyrant is obeyed; the novel is done to a turn. But sometimes, more and more often as time goes by, we suspect a momentary doubt, a spasm of rebellion, as the pages fill themselves in the customary way. Is life like this? Must novels be like this?

This is an interesting description of Woolf’s own dilemma as a novelist: she had written two traditional, conventional, heavy realistic novels but knew she wanted to break free and works out in the essay what that would mean and feel like:

Look within and life, it seems, is very far from being ‘like this’. Examine for a moment an ordinary mind on an ordinary day. The mind receives a myriad impressions–trivial, fantastic, evanescent, or engraved with the sharpness of steel. From all sides they come, an incessant shower of innumerable atoms; and as they fall, as they shape themselves into the life of Monday or Tuesday, the accent falls differently from of old; the moment of importance came not here but there; so that, if a writer were a free man and not a slave, if he could write what he chose, not what he must, if he could base his work upon his own feeling and not upon convention, there would be no plot, no comedy, no tragedy, no love interest or catastrophe in the accepted style, and perhaps not a single button sewn on as the Bond Street tailors would have it.

And then a ringing statement of intent:

Life is not a series of gig lamps symmetrically arranged; life is a luminous halo, a semi-transparent envelope surrounding us from the beginning of consciousness to the end. Is it not the task of the novelist to convey this varying, this unknown and uncircumscribed spirit, whatever aberration or complexity it may display, with as little mixture of the alien and external as possible?

This is a very eloquent defence of the new aesthetic she was to embody in Jacob’s Room and even more so in Mrs Dalloway. It is a manifesto. You can see why these passages are routinely quoted in introductions and essays to her works.

Let us record the atoms as they fall upon the mind in the order in which they fall, let us trace the pattern, however disconnected and incoherent in appearance, which each sight or incident scores upon the consciousness. Let us not take it for granted that life exists more fully in what is commonly thought big than in what is commonly thought small.

Surprisingly, she goes on to praise James Joyce, whose ‘A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man’ had been published just three years earlier, in 1916. Why? Because he, like she, and unlike the clayey materialists she deprecates, is spiritual.

In contrast with those whom we have called materialists, Mr Joyce is spiritual; he is concerned at all costs to reveal the flickerings of that innermost flame which flashes its messages through the brain, and in order to preserve it he disregards with complete courage whatever seems to him adventitious, whether it be probability, or coherence, or any other of these signposts which for generations have served to support the imagination of a reader when called upon to imagine what he can neither touch nor see.

Although she immediately goes on to qualify her praise, claiming that Joyce’s work ultimately fails:

because of the comparative poverty of the writer’s mind, we might say simply and have done with it. But it is possible to press a little further and wonder whether we may not refer our sense of being in a bright yet narrow room, confined and shut in, rather than enlarged and set free, to some limitation imposed by the method as well as by the mind… centred in a self which, in spite of its tremor of susceptibility, never embraces or creates what is outside itself and beyond?

This is her response to the early chapters of Ulysses which were circulated among potential publishers from 1918 onwards. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that her aversion to the later book is due to its inclusion of sex, always a queasy subject for Woolf.

Does the emphasis laid, perhaps didactically, upon indecency, contribute to the effect of something angular and isolated?

As far as I understand it, Woolf deprecated sex in fiction not so much because of the sex itself, per se, but because sex is vulgar. A properly brought-up person, a well-bred writer, simply doesn’t talk about such matters. It is a paradox that Woolf cheerfully criticised other writers for being narrow and shut in and yet, on the subject which went on to dominate the fiction of the century, sex, it is she who is fastidious, aloof and taciturn.

Back to her manifesto, Woolf says the modern novelist must overthrow, ignore and reject all the constraints of the traditional novel – the concerns for realism and realistic detail and realistic settings and realistic plots, which she so dislikes in Wells-Arnold-Galsworthy – and strike out for new points of interest.

She thinks the new, the modern style will concern itself with a new psychology. She cites a short story by Chekhov, ‘Gusev’, for its obliqueness. She tells us that it is, at first reading, a little hard to work out what this story is ‘about’, whether it’s comic or tragic or really has an ending. It is this type of inconclusive obliquity which she thinks presages The Modern.

The last paragraph of this important essay briefly tells us that any serious conversation about modern fiction has to defer to the Russians. Why? Because of their superior spirituality.

If we want understanding of the soul and heart where else shall we find it of comparable profundity? If we are sick of our own materialism the least considerable of their novelists has by right of birth a natural reverence for the human spirit.

Woolf is that very characteristic modern type, the spiritual and superior woman who, however, rejects all established religions (as male and sexist). They became a very common type in the 1920s, heavily satirised in their stories by D.H. Lawrence and Aldous Huxley, but nonetheless real for that.

As to Russia’s superior spirituality, regular readers of my blog will know that I despise this point of view. The classic Russian authors (Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy) defined the superior spirituality of the great Russian soul by comparing it with the decadence and superficiality of the West, of the corrupt France and materialist Britain. My view is, look where Russia’s supposed superior spirituality got it in the following hundred years and look where Russia’s superior spirituality has landed it today? Woolf was just one of many sensitive souls who identified with the superior spirituality of the Russian soul.

In every great Russian writer we seem to discern the features of a saint, if sympathy for the sufferings of others, love towards them, endeavour to reach some goal worthy of the most exacting demands of the spirit constitute saintliness. It is the saint in them which confounds us with a feeling of our own irreligious triviality, and turns so many of our famous novels to tinsel and trickery.

Well, Stalin wiped out any tinsel and trickery in his Russia. The great Russians wrote about the nobility of suffering and their children and grandchildren got the revolution, the civil war, the gulag archipelago and the Great Patriotic War. After a decade of drunken chaos under Yeltsin we are now back to traditional Russian values with Vladimir Putin, who has made speeches asserting the superior civilisation of Mother Russia and the hopeless decadence of Western democracies. Russia’s superiority over all other civilisations is an essential part of Russian culture and here we have Woolf espousing it.

Woolf backs up a little and concedes there is some merit to the English tradition:

English fiction from Sterne to Meredith bears witness to our natural delight in humour and comedy, in the beauty of earth, in the activities of the intellect, and in the splendour of the body.

For me it is telling that she doesn’t really draw the obvious conclusion from this thought, which is that maybe the characteristic tone of the greatest English literature is comedy. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens are comedians, to which Bennett and certainly Wells, in their smaller ways, are the heirs. But Woolf has little or no sense of humour and so doesn’t see it. Given a choice between Dickensian humour and the solemn pieties of Romantic poetry, she chooses Keats, Rossetti and Tennyson every time.

She ends with more manifesto:

Nothing – no ‘method’, no experiment, even of the wildest – is forbidden, but only falsity and pretence. ‘The proper stuff of fiction’ does not exist; everything is the proper stuff of fiction, every feeling, every thought; every quality of brain and spirit is drawn upon; no perception comes amiss.

This essay is an impressive and resounding rallying cry for the type of novel she was to write over the next decade even if, like so many manifestos, it has to be unduly critical of her contemporaries in order to clear the space for her new approach.

3. The Modern Essay (1922: 10 pages)

The best essays are highly personal and express personality.

This was a review of a hefty five-volume collection of Modern English Essays 1870 to 1920 which was published in 1922. It explains why this review refers freely to a variety of the essayists included in the set. It contains the paragraph on what makes a good essay which Bradshaw quotes in his introduction and I quoted above, the paragraph about the main purpose of an essay being to entertain and give pleasure.

The principle which controls [the essay] is simply that it should give pleasure; the desire which impels us when we take it from the shelf is simply to receive pleasure. Everything in an essay must be subdued to that end. It should lay us under a spell with its first word, and we should only wake, refreshed, with its last. (Modern Essays)

The review rambles through the famous names in these volumes but the striking thing about Woolf is that, despite the vast amount she wrote about fiction and literature, she’s not a particularly useful critic, either in theory or practice. What I mean is, she very, very rarely analyses a passage by someone to tell you whether and why it succeeds or fails. And she has few general critical ideas apart from the ones which help her gather her thoughts for her own endeavours.

For example, she thinks Walter Pater’s essay is best because ‘he has somehow contrived to get his material fused‘. Not very useful. She thinks Max Beerbohm’s essay is a success because in it ‘he is himself’.

He has brought personality into literature… We only know that the spirit of personality permeates every word that he writes.

Not dazzlingly insightful, is it? And his style? ‘The triumph is the triumph of style.’ These are close to platitudes and she hits a kind of low when she tells us that the important thing in writing an essay is ‘to know how to write.’ Yes. Sounds likely.

This is pretty thin pickings, isn’t it? Barely exists as criticism. You can see why, despite fans like Bradshaw bigging her up, few if any of Woolf’s critical ideas are widely used or cited for the simple reason that she hardly has any critical ideas, apart from the ones where she is working out her own approach – but those passages are cited everywhere.

4. How It Strikes A Contemporary (1923: 9 pages)

The present age lacks one commanding critical figure, a symbol of the way that, since the war, literature has become fragmented and difficult.

The ‘it’ in the title isn’t the modern world or politics, it refers to contemporary literary criticism i.e. it’s a commentary on contemporary literary criticism circa 1923.

Why are there such radical disagreements about new books? Because there is no one critic who dominates the age. Like all conservatives, Woolf looks back to supposed Golden Ages when there was one towering critical figure who dominated their era – to the ages of John Dryden (the 1680s and ’90s), Dr Johnson (1760s to ’80s), Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1810s to ‘1830) or Matthew Arnold (1860s, ’70s, ’80s). The fact that these are nostalgic conservative tropes is given away by her own phraseology:

Once upon a time, we must believe, there was a rule, a discipline, which controlled the great republic of readers in a way which is now unknown…

‘Once upon a time…’ reveals that this is a fairy tale version of history, removing all its complexity and conflict.

Anyway, in Woolf’s opinion the real problem is simply the scale of output. No one critic could read everything that is produced nowadays and so the situation she laments, with thousands of reviewers scribbling away but no one central Man of Letters setting a standard.

It is revealing who she picks but then dismisses as possible contenders for this title of Master of the Age: Thomas Hardy has retired from novel writing; Conrad is an exotic outsider. No, like all cultural conservatives, Woolf thinks the present day (1923) was one of special collapse, decline, decay. It is an age of fragments, ‘it is a barren and exhausted age’ etc.

Interestingly, she gets it wrong about W.B. Yeats, thinking he will only be remembered for a few poems. Similarly and notoriously, she thinks that James Joyce’s Ulysses was a disaster and failure. In both of these opinions, she was, of course, dead wrong.

There are several passage of incoherent impressionism before she emerges with a tangible point: the present age is defined by The War. The First World War changed everything.

Nor has any generation more need than ours to cherish its contemporaries. We are sharply cut off from our predecessors. A shift in the scale—the war, the sudden slip of masses held in position for ages—has shaken the fabric from top to bottom, alienated us from the past and made us perhaps too vividly conscious of the present. Every day we find ourselves doing, saying, or thinking things that would have been impossible to our fathers. And we feel the differences which have not been noted far more keenly than the resemblances which have been very perfectly expressed… The most casual reader dipping into poetry, into fiction, into biography can hardly fail to be impressed by the courage, the sincerity, in a word, by the widespread originality of our time.

But:

Our exhilaration is strangely curtailed. Book after book leaves us with the same sense of promise unachieved, of intellectual poverty, of brilliance which has been snatched from life but not transmuted into literature. Much of what is best in contemporary work has the appearance of being noted under pressure, taken down in a bleak shorthand which preserves with astonishing brilliance the movements and expressions of the figures as they pass across the screen. But the flash is soon over, and there remains with us a profound dissatisfaction.

We live in a special age, uniquely cut off from the past. Many writers are capturing this new spirit. But there is something unsatisfactory about their work. This is a useful impression and certainly a very useful background to understanding her own practice from ‘Jacob’s Room’ onwards.

But the essay also conveys a sense of Woolf feeling adrift in this new age. As so often with Woolf you feel that this is due, in part, to her own personal intellectual inadequacy. In her essays and her novels, you get the impression that things are always just a bit too much for her to cope with. She needs help. She needs Daddy.

And Daddy, here as everywhere, takes the form of looking back nostalgically to the age of Wordsworth, Scott and Austen. She likes those old authors because they were so sure of themselves. By contrast, her contemporaries:

afflict us because they have ceased to believe. The most sincere of them will only tell us what it is that happens to himself. They cannot make a world.

Her conclusion uses a silly metaphor to make a valid point:

It would be wise for the writers of the present to renounce for themselves the hope of creating masterpieces. Their poems, plays, biographies, novels are not books but notebooks, and Time, like a good schoolmaster, will take them in his hands, point to their blots and erasions, and tear them across; but he will not throw them into the waste-paper basket. He will keep them because other students will find them very useful. It is from notebooks of the present that the masterpieces of the future are made.

The great critics of the past spoke with confidence for their entire age. The Great War has made that impossible because it has shattered all traditional values. This explains the daring experiments but also the failures and sense of blockage and frustration among so many of her contemporaries. But she nonetheless cleaves to the hope that out of the current chaos great things will come. And she was, of course, correct. She was in fact living in an age of masterpieces, which included her own works.


Credit

‘Selected Essays of Virginia Woolf’ was published by Oxford World Classics in 2008. Most of the essays can be found online. The OWC introduction can be read on Amazon.

Related links

Related reviews

Selected Essays by Virginia Woolf – Introductory notes

As well as her famous novels, Virginia Woolf wrote a prodigious number of essays and reviews, over 500 in all. The definitive edition of her collected essays runs to six ‘meaty’ volumes and contents range from the book-length polemics A Room of One’s Own and Three Guineas, through numerous book reviews, talks and lectures, introductions to other people’s books, critical essays about novels and biography, meditations on women’s writing, descriptions of London and the countryside, to fugitive pieces she contributed to student magazines. Tracking these down has been a labour of love and taken decades.

The Oxford World Classic edition of ‘Selected Essays by Virginia Woolf’ edited by David Bradshaw brings together 30 of these prose pieces and groups them under four headings:

  1. Reading and Writing
  2. Life-Writing
  3. Women and Fiction
  4. Looking On

Summarising each of the essays was taking so long that I’ve broken my review up into separate blog posts. This is by way of being an overall introduction to the main themes and ideas.

Woolf’s aestheticism

I found Woolf’s essays hard to read for a number of reasons. On the face of it the essays cover a range of topics, at different lengths, and using different approaches, from the reasonably logical to the whimsical and impressionistic. But they all have two or three things in common, which, I suggest, are:

  • their foundation on a doggedly aesthetic or arty set of values
  • an emphasis on a poetic approach to writing, which explains and justifies her often impressionistic and hard-to-follow style
  • all of which sounds radical but embodies an underlying attitude which is often surprisingly conservative and backward looking

The modernists I read as a lad – T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Wyndham Lewis and T.E. Hulme – consciously rejected the hazy verbosity of late-Victorian Romanticism and called for a new poetry and art which was to be hard, brief and unsentimental, hence Imagism in poetry and Vorticism in art.

Woolf is the opposite. Her heroes are the hard-core Romantics John Keats in poetry and Charles Lamb and Thomas de Quincey in prose writing and her prose displays the very qualities of belle-letterist posing, of poetic prose and digressions and imaginative fantasias, which those other modernists despised and rejected.

In her most famous essays, the ones criticising the Edwardian novelists and setting out her own views of what fiction should be about, Woolf is making a polemical point and so is reasonably easy to follow. But much of the time she approaches her subject in a deliberately roundabout, digressive manner and in a prose style which continually strives for very conservative notions of Elegance and Beauty.

Above all, Woolf committed the anti-modernist sin of constantly making her prose aspire to the condition of poetry. Her writings are obsessed with this thing called Poetry which she very narrowly insists represents the highest possible art, the highest expression of human values, harping on about Truth and Beauty in a way which makes her sound just like John Keats from a hundred years earlier.

Woolf’s conservative conception of the essay

Woolf’s conception of the essay is surprisingly conventional, almost conservative. She looks back to the classic English essayists of the nineteenth century, Hazlitt, Macauley, etc and especially to the essays of Charles Lamb who she regularly name-checks (‘no one has approached the Essays of Elia’).

In her view an essay doesn’t set out to analyse or explain anything. Instead it is a charming distraction, an entertainment whose main purpose is to reveal the character of the author, a magic spell. In this, as in so much else, Woolf has a very late-Victorian, Aesthetic attitude.

The principle which controls [the essay] is simply that it should give pleasure; the desire which impels us when we take it from the shelf is simply to receive pleasure. Everything in an essay must be subdued to that end. It should lay us under a spell with its first word, and we should only wake, refreshed, with its last. (Modern Essays)

It’s not just me who finds her whole attitude puzzlingly anti-modern, nostalgic and backward looking. The editor of this edition and big Woolf fan, David Bradshaw, freely acknowledges it:

At a time when Modernists such as Wyndham Lewis, Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot turned their backs on the ‘amiable garrulity’ of the late-Victorian and Edwardian personal essay, Woolf embraced this belletristic model as an appealingly ‘egotistical’ model. (Introduction p.xiii)

So even a devoted fan and scholarly expert on Woolf concedes that she is deliberately belletristic, she is consciously egotistical, she is contrivedly poetical, in a deeply old-fashioned way – Keats and Lamb.

Personally, I’ve never really bought the idea of Woolf as a modernist precisely because her style is so self-consciously mellifluous and euphonious, elegant and refined. No matter how fragmented and experimental her narrative structure, when it comes to style her primary concern always seems to be to maintain good taste and good manners. It’s a snobbishly high-minded attitude which explains her disdain for the vulgar energy of more realistic and rackety writers from Dickens to H.G. Wells, the ‘materialist’ novelists who she famously criticises in several of the essays included here. Hers is consciously fine writing which you are meant to savour in the same way that a connoisseur savours fine wine.

So: Woolf’s essays are often hard to read because they are more concerned with maintaining a style appropriate to this aesthetic worldview, and with the airy digressions thought appropriate to the belles-letterist tradition she espoused, than in conveying her thoughts clearly and concisely. You often have to wade through passages of highly subjective verbiage or deliberately whimsical digressions to find the nuggets of insight.

Admittedly these nuggets are usually well worth the effort, and she does have interesting things to say, especially about her core subject, modern fiction and modern novels. Some of the observations of contemporary life, and even some of the fantastical passages, are rich and rewarding. I can see that 1) she was a great writer and 2) her opinions about writing are historically and aesthetically important, 3) her writings on feminism and women authors ditto – but God, what a slog wading through the swamp to get there.

Maybe a savvier way of putting it is that Virginia Woolf’s essays can be, and often are, every bit as demanding as her most demanding novels.

It is symptomatic that of all the authors in a collection of modern essays which she reviews (in Modern Essays) she thinks by far the best is Walter Pater because of its aesthetic ‘purity’.

There is no room for the impurities of literature in an essay. Somehow or other, by dint of labour or bounty of nature, or both combined, the essay must be purepure like water or pure like wine, but pure from dullness, deadness, and deposits of extraneous matter. (p.15)

You can see from this excerpt how earnestly she aspired to a refined and aesthetic purity untainted by facts, arguments or even opinions.

So if you’re looking for logic and argument you might, like me, find it a grind to work through her deliberately digressive and self-consciously elegant style. If, on the contrary, you are happy to be beguiled and distracted, and to submit to her many extraordinary fantasias, passages of delirious description which make barely any sense – such as the storm which seems to end civilisation at the end of Thunder at Wembley or the death visions in Flying over London or the extraordinary description of the whole planet dying in The Sun and The Fish – to submit to her magic spell, then there is much to revel and lose yourself in.

But I couldn’t help continually comparing all this with the straightforward intellectual pleasure offered by the lucid essays of George Orwell or the perspective-changing insights of T.S. Eliot’s wonderful essays. Much easier and much more opinion-changing, because so much clearer.

Woolf’s long career but narrow range

Woolf had a long writing career. She published her first reviews in the Times Literary Supplement in 1905 and her last novel in 1941 – 36 years of writing and publishing, in total. And she was incredibly prolific: besides the nine novels and two biographies, her collected essays fill six ‘meaty’ volumes.

The Oxford World Classic edition claims these 30 essays show Woolf’s thoughts on ‘a range of subjects’ but when you look closely, the most striking thing is just how narrow her range of subjects was. I’ve tweaked Bradshaw’s section titles to make their subject matter clearer.

  1. Writing Fiction and Criticism
  2. Writing Biography
  3. Women and Writing
  4. Miscellaneous pieces

Writing novels, reading and criticising novels, writing biography, criticising biography, theorising about fiction and biography, women and writing, writing about the world around her, mostly London – it’s not a massive range, is it? After a while it feels like Woolf circles round and round a relatively small number of the same issues like a goldfish in a bowl. A word about her background maybe helps to explain why.

Like father, like daughter

Virginia Stephen grew up in a highly literate and bookish household, deeply influenced by the example of her father, Leslie Stephen, the eminent author, critic, historian and biographer. To quote the biographical note to this volume:

Both her parents had strong family associations with literature. Leslie Stephen was the son of Sir James Stephen, a noted historian, and brother of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, a distinguished lawyers and writer on law. Her father’s first wife was a daughter of the great Victorian novelist, William Makepeace Thackeray. His second wife was an admired associate of the Pre-Raphaelites and had aristocratic connections. Stephens himself is remembered as the founder of the Dictionary of National Biography but he was also a remarkable journalist, biographer and historian of ideas.

So her father was a writer of journalism, essays and biography and she grew up to be… a writer of journalism, essays and biography. The fact that Bradshaw’s first two categories are ‘Reading and Writing’ and ‘Life-Writing’ (biography) indicates just how little distance she travelled from her father’s interests: literature and biography. And, as above, it’s not just me saying so. Bradshaw’s introduction to this book quotes Woolf scholar Rachel Bowlby as saying:

Woolf was directly following in her father’s footsteps, in a move that was composed of both rivalry and honour; in fact, she took over where he left off, quite literally, since she began publishing… just after he died [in 1904]. (quoted in the introduction, page xii)

Woolf was a nepo baby

So she had the big advantage in terms of instruction, guidance and support of having a famous, well-connected literary figure as your dad – then you learn that her first two books were published by the company set up by her half-brother George Duckworth – and you begin to get a feel for the immense advantages in terms of useful family connections which Virginia Woolf enjoyed compared to most other women (and male) writers of her time. D.H. Lawrence grew up in a cramped coal miner’s house and could only read what he found in the school library.

There’s no doubting that Woolf was a nepo baby, which the internet defines as: ‘a term for someone whose career is similar to their parents’ successful career. It’s short for “nepotism baby”.’

Harsh? Not according to Rachel Bowlby: ‘Woolf was directly following in her father’s footsteps.’ What she added to her father’s interests were 1) an interest in just observing the life around her, especially the hectic street life of modern bustling London and 2) her feminism.

1. Woolf’s observational essays

1) Mrs DallowayOrlando and The Waves famously contain passages doing nothing more than describing London’s endless hustle and bustle; To The Lighthouse is so wonderful for the calm and lyrical descriptions of life on the idyllic holiday island; and this selection contains many impressionistic essays in the manner of Street Haunting (1927), The Docks of London (1931) and Oxford Street Tide (1932).

Then again, this was hardly a new subject. Charles Dickens (who the snobbish Woolf disliked for his vulgarity and lack of artistic purpose) began his career with ‘Sketches by Boz: Illustrative of Every-day Life and Every-day People’, observations of London life and people published in various newspapers and periodicals between 1833 and 1836 i.e. just about a century before Woolf’s comparable pieces. Obviously Woolf’s pieces deploy the distinctive subjective, free-associating point of view which she perfected in her modernist novels, but the basic idea is the same.

2. Woolf’s feminism

The one category in this book which is definitely new and unique to Woolf (unlike Dickens, her father, Lamb, Macauley or Samuel Butler or any other male writer) is her feminism. Personally, I don’t think any of the six feminist essays included here really cut it. They all pale by comparison with her book-length polemic Three Guineas which is a masterpiece.

In my opinion, anyone who’s interested in Woolf should read Three Guineas. Reading even the modernist novels can easily give you the impression of a posh, privileged, upper-middle-class white woman who writes airy, dreamy, drifting fantasias about other dreamy, impractical middle-class women (Clarissa Dalloway, Mrs Ramsay, the female characters in The Waves, Mrs Swithin and Isabella Oliver in Between the Acts) who drift along in a cloud of flowers and tea parties.

Compared to the studied inconsequentiality of her novels, Three Guineas is a revelation of Woolf’s stone-cold fury at the legal, financial, traditional, educational and professional oppression of women, at women’s systematic exclusion from all aspects of life except marriage and baby-making by a ferociously repressive and woman-hating patriarchy, right up to the time of its writing, the 1930s. It’s a sensational, eye-opening book, not only for the genuinely shocking roster of facts it marshals but for the unexpected fury of the author.

Woolf’s mental illness

But for me the really distinctive quality Woolf brings to her observational essays is her mental illness. I thought her description of a ramble across London at dusk, Street Haunting, would be a fun description of the bits of London I know as they appeared a hundred years ago and, up to a point, it is. But the most powerful passages describe her mind being assailed by multiple selves clamouring for expression and rather harrowingly portray her desperate attempts to calm her neurotically anxious thoughts.

The same anxiety dominates the piece titled Evening Over Sussex: Reflections in a Motor Car, namely the problem of how to control the many voices in her head. And what you’d expect to be a larky in the essay titled Flying Over London, contains extended passages about wanting to be dead.

I don’t raise this as a criticism. As the father of two children with mental health problems I feel pretty sensitised to the issues. Which is in fact why, maybe, I feel so sensitive to the thread of mental illness running through all her texts, fiction and non-fiction, why I can almost physically feel the difficulty she had concentrating, her evasion of the dangers of introspection, her preference for escaping into long descriptions of a steady stream of surface images, passing sights and sense impressions, rather than risk deeper thoughts. I find it in all her writings and it has deeply coloured my response. Basically, I feel desperately sorry for her.

Woolf is weird

And, last point, many of the essays contain passages which are strange, often very strange, far stranger, more lateral, random and sometimes inexplicable than David Bradshaw makes out in his sensible and useful introduction. Woolf was often just plain weird.

It’s one reason why you should always read her works rather than summaries and commentaries by academics. Academics and critics have to make sense and if you only read them you’d think Woolf did too. But she often really didn’t and rejoiced in the fact, and her refusal to conform to ‘male’ standards of reason and logic may, after all, be a really important aspect of her enduring appeal.


Credit

‘Selected Essays of Virginia Woolf’ was published by Oxford World Classics in 2008. Most of the essays can be found online. The OWC introduction can be read on Amazon.

Related links

Related reviews

Aspects of the Novel by E.M. Forster (1927)

‘Aspects of the Novel’ is based on a series of weekly lectures which E. M. Forster gave at Trinity College Cambridge in 1927, in which he discussed the English novel. Forster used examples from classic novels to describe what he claimed to be the seven universal aspects of the novel, namely:

  • story
  • characters
  • plot
  • fantasy
  • prophecy
  • pattern
  • rhythm

The book was mocked when I was a student for its rambling, amateurish, belle-lettreist approach, lacking all reference to any kind of smart theory. Forster knew it lacked intellectual depth and modestly described it as ‘a ramshackly survey’, but he deprecates to deceive. Although eschewing scholarship and expertise, he says many interesting things, and it’s fascinating to read the comments on eminent books and authors by one of themselves.

Introduction

Forster doesn’t make grand statements or general rules, in fact he’s all about how difficult it is to define or discuss the novel. What, even, is a novel?

He adapts the suggestion of Monsieur Abel Chevalley that it is ‘a fiction in prose of a certain length’, adding it probably needs to be over 50,000 words long. He doesn’t say this, but the issue reminds me of all those Joseph Conrad stories which are too long to be short stories but don’t quite make Forster’s word count. ‘Heart of Darkness’ is 37,906 words long. Is it a novel or a novella? D.H. Lawrence wrote half a dozen works more complex than short stories, but without the full weight and length of novels, so they are called novellas.

Forster wants to talk about the ‘English’ novel, so what does ‘English’ mean in this context? Does it refer to the country? No. To any long fiction work written in English.

It’s notable that Forster doesn’t worry about the implications of American fiction swamping British fiction. In 1927 maybe it was still seen as the poor relation. He’s much more concerned with the influence on the English novel of the Continent. But this, he says, is in fact negligible. English fictions writers are sometimes influenced by the French, but rarely by the Spanish, Italian, Germans or any other national literature. In this, as everything else, the English are insular and generally hold aloof from the Continent.

But he makes a few chastening points about English fiction in a nominal league table of achievement:

No English novelist is as great as Tolstoy—that is to say has given so complete a picture of man’s life, both on its domestic and heroic side. No English novelist has explored man’s soul as deeply as Dostoevsky. And no novelist anywhere has analysed the modern consciousness as successfully as Marcel Proust.

English poetry is world class. English fiction less so. He cites Bronte, Hardy, Gaskell, Meredith and says they’re fine in their way, often give vivid portraits of particularly English areas and types. But set next to War and Peace or The Brothers Karamazov? No.

He is extremely averse to the notion of ‘periods’ (the Victorian novel, ‘Edwardian fiction’ etc) much beloved by academics. Ditto the idea of ‘influence’, that this or that writer is writing under, or seeking to evade, the influence of this or that other writer.

Forster prefers to think of all the writers he deals with sitting in the British Library Reading Room with pens in hand, at the same time, dealing with the same kinds of problems, unaffected by their times or predecessors, an attitude he summarises as:

History develops, Art stands still.

A note on scholarship. Genuine scholarship, defined as having read everything in your subject and something from around the fringes and having taste and discrimination, is extremely rare. Most people are pseudo-scholars who know about particular authors or periods. This is why pseudo-scholarship likes specialising in particular periods, or authors, or subjects, and compiles a mocking list.

The literature of Inns, beginning with Tom Jones; the literature of the Women’s Movement, beginning with Shirley; the literature of Desert Islands, from Robinson Crusoe to The Blue Lagoon; the literature of Rogues—dreariest of all, though the Open Road runs it pretty close…

Obviously all these objections have been swept away by a century of pseudo-scholarship. His approach is going to be to quote from various classic novelists and make comments.

He gives passages from Samuel Richardson and Henry James before making the point that both are anxious rather than ardent psychologists. Each is sensitive to suffering and appreciates self-sacrifice but falls short of the tragic, though a close approach is made.

Then H.G. Wells (Mr Polly) and Dickens (Great Expectations). They are both humorists and visualizers who get an effect by cataloguing details. They are generous-minded and hate shams. They are valuable social reformers. Sometimes the lively surface of their prose scratches like a cheap gramophone record, a certain poorness of quality appears. Neither of them has much taste: the world of beauty was largely closed to Dickens, and is entirely closed to Wells.

Then Tristram Shandy and Virginia Woolf. They are both fantasists. They start with a little object, take a flutter from it, and settle on it again. They combine a humorous appreciation of the muddle of life with a keen sense of its beauty. There is a rather deliberate bewilderment, an announcement to all and sundry that they do not know where they are going. But their tones are very different. Sterne is a sentimentalist, Virginia Woolf is extremely aloof. Virginia Woolf’s her aim and general effect both resemble Sterne’s (discuss).

Technique changes and develops. Sterne and Woolf may have certain things in common but Woolf’s way of expressing them is more developed and advanced.

Anti-theory (obviously). The Bloomsbury emphasis on friendship and affection as the ultimate moral criteria.

Principles and systems may suit other forms of art, but they cannot be applicable here… I am afraid it will be the human heart, it will be this man-to-man business, justly suspect in its cruder forms. The final test of a novel will be our affection for it, as it is the test of our friends, and of anything else which we cannot define.

Sentimentality… will lurk in the background saying, ‘Oh, but I like that,’ ‘Oh, but that doesn’t appeal to me,’ and all I can promise is that sentimentality shall not speak too loudly or too soon. The intensely, stiflingly human quality of the novel is not to be avoided. The novel is sogged with humanity; there is no escaping the uplift or the downpour, nor can they be kept out of criticism.

Story

The basis of a novel is a story, and a story is a narrative of events arranged in time sequence

He postulates three (rather wishy-washy silly) attitudes to story in the novel, and says his one is:

Yes — oh, dear, yes — the novel tells a story.

He is really against the need for a story in a novel. Some call it the backbone of the text, but he calls it the tapeworm. That is the fundamental aspect without which it could not exist.

He calls it the ‘low atavistic form’ and paints a picture of the crudest Neanderthal people sitting round a fire at the end of a day hunting mammoth and being enthralled by the group’s resident storyteller, the urge to tell goes back that far and the urge to hang on each development of the plot.

The classic example is the Thousand and One Nights in which Scheherazade tells a story each night but ends abruptly when the sun rises, this keeping her wicked husband in perpetual suspense to hear what happens next.

We are all like Scheherazade’s husband, in that we want to know what happens next. That is universal and that is why the backbone of a novel has to be a story. Some of us want to know nothing else—there is nothing in us but primeval curiosity, and consequently our other literary judgments are ludicrous. And now the story can be defined. It is a narrative of events arranged in their time sequence — dinner coming after breakfast, Tuesday after Monday, decay after death, and so on. Qua story, it can only have one merit: that of making the audience want to know what happens next. And conversely it can only have one fault: that of making the audience not want to know what happens next. These are the only two criticisms that can be made on the story that is a story. It is the lowest and simplest of literary organisms. Yet it is the highest factor common to all the very complicated organisms known as novels.

He then posits two ways of thinking about time. One is pure chronology, one event after another, what he calls the time-sense. But there is also ‘life by values’ where we live for, and remember, only certain special intense moments. The cheapest novels (typically, detective novels and thrillers) exist simply to tell what happens next. More sophisticated examples dwell on values i.e. on the special moments, for example turning points, in characters’ lives. Thus the novel has a double allegiance, to life by time and life by values.

But no matter how much you prefer the values approach, you can never relinquish plot. The novelist must cling, however lightly, to the thread of their story, they must touch the interminable tapeworm, otherwise they become unintelligible.

One novelist has tried to abandon all signs of plot, Gertrude Stein who ‘hoped to emancipate fiction from the tyranny of time and to express in it the life by values only.’

She fails because as soon as fiction is completely delivered from time it cannot express anything at all… [it was a noble experiment but doomed to failure because] the time-sequence cannot be destroyed without carrying in its ruin all that should have taken its place; the novel that would express values only becomes unintelligible and therefore valueless.

Back to the basic need for a story, Walter Scott is a prime example of a storyteller which is why Forster doesn’t like him. Scott has ‘a trivial mind and a heavy style.’ He cannot construct. He has neither artistic detachment nor passion. He only has a temperate heart and gentlemanly feelings, and an intelligent affection for the country-side and this is not basis enough for great novels.

Forster gives a long summary of the plot of Scott’s (1816), the third of the Waverley novels to show how one damn thing happens after another, Scott deploying characters’ comings and goings purely to extend the plot, till he runs out of steam and ties everything up with the wedding of the nice young people. It is a classic example of a novelist focusing on ‘the life in time’, which leads to ‘slackening of emotion and shallowness of judgment, and in particular to that idiotic use of marriage as a finale’.

He compares this with Arnold Bennett’s The Old Wives’ Tale which is a book dominated by time: ‘Time is the real hero of The Old Wives’ Tale’, showing the growth and ageing and death of the lead female characters. This has more integrity and depth than Scott plonking down event after event but, in the end, isn’t enough. The Old Wives Tale is ‘strong, sincere and sad but misses greatness.’

He contrasts both these with Tolstoy’s War and Peace which also shows characters growing old but makes the interesting point that the hero of Tolstoy’s novel is not time but space, the immense area of Russia, over which episodes and characters have been scattered, from the sum-total of bridges and frozen rivers, forests, roads, gardens, fields, which accumulate grandeur and sonority after we have passed them.

Many novelists have the feeling for place — Five Towns (Bennett), Auld Reekie (Scott), and so on. Very few have the sense of space, and the possession of it ranks high in Tolstoy’s divine equipment. Space is the lord of ‘War and Peace’, not time.

A note about ‘voice’. Forster reverts to his description of:

the voice of the tribal narrator, squatting in the middle of the cave, and saying one thing after another until the audience falls asleep among their offal and bones. The story is primitive, it reaches back to the origins of literature, before reading was discovered, and it appeals to what is primitive in us.

People

Characters are ‘word masses’ arranged and grouped by the writer, given characteristic gestures or phrases, and assigned names and slowly accumulating into characters.

What is the difference between people in life and people in books? History gives us the outward actions of people. Only the novelist can take us inside minds to show their motivation.

In daily life we never understand each other, neither complete clairvoyance nor complete confessional exists. We know each other approximately, by external signs, and these serve well enough as a basis for society and even for intimacy. But people in a novel can be understood completely by the reader, if the novelist wishes; their inner as well as their outer life can be exposed. And this is why they often seem more definite than characters in history, or even our own friends; we have been told all about them that can be told; even if they are imperfect or unreal they do not contain any secrets, whereas our friends do and must, mutual secrecy being one of the conditions of life.

He suggests there are five basic facts of human existence: birth, food, sleep, love and death (you could add others, but these seem central), then gives a brief description of each.

About birth we know nothing and Forster is surprised how few novelists really describe it or the mental state of the baby or infant. Tristram Shandy and Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man stand out as two exceptions.

Death on the other hand, is extremely popular with novelists, for two practical reasons. 1) The death of a character in the middle of the story can be used to trigger emotion; 2) death of the main character is a handy and time-honoured way to end the story. He doesn’t mention them, but think of the tragedies of the ancient world.

Food is strangely ignored in fiction; often characters just eat something, sometimes provender is ignored for pages and days.

Sleep is also usually neglected in fiction. We all sleep for about a third of our lives, yet fiction ignores this unless it needs to mention disturbed sleep or specific dreams.

Love:

You all know how enormously love bulks in novels, and will probably agree with me that it has done them harm and made them monotonous. Why has this particular experience, especially in its sex form, been transplanted in such generous quantities?

( Forster has no answer but I have: Darwin. Of course we obsess about love (and sex) because it is one of our deepest biological imperatives, to mate and breed, and even after breeding the imperative (in men at any rate) to mate and ejaculate continues as an urgent force until the end of our lives. Women on the other hand, bearers of babies for nine long months and then their carers for decades afterwards, naturally want to marry well, and so spend an inordinate amount of time picking and choosing who to marry / mate with. It is the theme of all Jane Austen’s novels.)

Back to Forster, he sees two reasons why love is so monotonously prominent in fictions:

1) As part of the general over-sensitiveness of all fictional characters:

The constant sensitiveness of characters for each other — even in writers called robust like Fielding — is remarkable, and has no parallel in life, except among people who have plenty of leisure. Passion, intensity at moments — yes, but not this constant awareness, this endless readjusting, this ceaseless hunger. I believe that these are the reflections of the novelist’s own state of mind while he composes, and that the predominance of love in novels is partly because of this.

2) We wish love to be perfect. This is one reason so many narratives end in marriage, while the future is imagined to be a perfect harmony which the reality of being married, obviously, undermines. Ending narratives with marriage is ending with hope and promise.

He introduces the entertaining concept of Homo fictus. He

is generally born off, he is capable of dying on, he wants little food or sleep, he is tirelessly occupied with human relationships. And — most important — we can know more about him than we can know about any of our fellow creatures, because his creator and narrator are one.

He ends with an extended meditation on the character of Daniel Defoe’s Moll Flanders, admiring her good sense, high spirits, kindness and humour. He thinks Moll Flanders is an:

example of a novel, in which a character is everything and is given freest play. Defoe makes a slight attempt at a plot with the brother-husband as a centre, but he is quite perfunctory, and her legal husband (the one who took her on the jaunt to Oxford) just disappears and is heard of no more. Nothing matters but the heroine; she stands in an open space like a tree, and having said that she seems absolutely real from every point of view.

He asks when do we feel that a character in a book is ‘real’?

It is real when the novelist knows everything about it. He may not choose to tell us all he knows — many of the facts, even of the kind we call obvious, may be hidden. But he will give us the feeling that though the character has not been explained, it is explicable, and we get from this a reality of a kind we can never get in daily life.

I was really comforted by Forster’s explanation. I worry all the time that I don’t really ‘get’ people, the people at work and people in social situations (at the school pickup, at parties). I worry all the time that I don’t understand people and so am saying the wrong thing. It is precisely because novels give us the illusion that we can and do understand people, that we find them so comforting. This is Forster’s view.

Human intercourse… is… haunted by a spectre. We cannot understand each other, except in a rough and ready way; we cannot reveal ourselves, even when we want to; what we call intimacy is only a makeshift; perfect knowledge is an illusion. But in the novel we can know people perfectly and… can find here a compensation for their dimness in life. [Fictional characters] are… people whose secret lives are visible or might be visible: we are people whose secret lives are invisible. And that is why novels, even when they are about wicked people, can solace us; they suggest a more comprehensible and thus a more manageable human race, they give us the illusion of perspicacity and of power.

They give us the comforting illusion that life is more ‘manageable’ than, in reality, it actually is. Or indeed, more explicable.

People (part 2): types of character and points of view

But Moll is an exception. She is a solitary. Most characters in most novels exist in relationship to a number of characters. Taking them out of context is like taking half the bushes out of a mature and well planned shrubbery: everything looks sparse and bare as a result. Their canny arrangement is the key.

But characters can be anarchic. Given too much vigour they can destroy the plan and lopside the plot.

1. Two types of character, flat and round

Flat characters used to be called humours or caricatures, can be summarised in a line.

Flat characters are very useful to him, since they never need reintroducing, never run away, have not to be watched for development, and provide their own atmosphere — little luminous disks of a pre-arranged size, pushed hither and thither like counters across the void or between the stars… He is the idea, and such life as he possesses radiates from its edges and from the scintillations it strikes when other elements in the novel impinge.

They are often more memorable than main characters precisely because they don’t change and so comforting or reassuring.

All of us, even the sophisticated, yearn for permanence, and to the unsophisticated permanence is the chief excuse for a work of art. We all want books to endure, to be refuges, and their inhabitants to be always the same, and flat characters tend to justify themselves on this account.

The special case of Dickens, almost all of whose characters are ‘flat’, yet his incredible vitality gives his books an amazing depth. Similarly most of H.G. Wells’s characters are flat but come to life because of the author’s tremendous brio. Dickens and Wells are good at transmitting force which animates everything, even when they’re only puppets.

Why are Jane Austen’s characters round?

She is a miniaturist, but never two-dimensional. All her characters are round, or capable of rotundity… her characters though smaller than his are more highly organized. They function all round, and even if her plot made greater demands on them than it does, they would still be adequate… All the Jane Austen characters are ready for an extended life, for a life which the scheme of her books seldom requires them to lead, and that is why they lead their actual lives so satisfactorily.

The test:

The test of a round character is whether it is capable of surprising in a convincing way. If it never surprises, it is flat.

2. Point of view

He cites Percy Lubbock who said point of view is the central weapon in the novelist’s armoury and defined three types:

  • from outside characters, as an onlooker
  • omniscience i.e. can describe everything from within
  • take the part of one of the characters and be in the dark about the motives of all the others

Forster thinks this privileging of point of view is a symptom of ‘critics’ wanting to make The Novel a special case with its own rules and techniques. Personally, he thinks it less important than a proper mix of characters and the writer’s ability to ‘bounce’ us into believing them.

Gide’s ‘Les Faux Monnayeurs’ plays with different points of view and tactics but is too clever to be involving.

The Plot

Aristotle thought character was revealed through action, but then he was talking about drama, the stage. Forster thinks action (the plot) is less important for the novel.

A story is a series of events. A plot is a series of events with some element of causality and explanation involved. Curiosity is enough to understand a story (‘when happened next?’). Understanding a plot requires memory (for facts scattered earlier) and intelligence (to piece together and interpret them).

George Meredith is now unfashionable but was once, around 1900, all the rage. Forster thinks he is one of the great contrivers of plots. His contrivances are plausible and they alter characters.

A writer who is far greater than Meredith, and yet less successful as a novelist — Thomas Hardy. Hardy seems to me essentially a poet, who conceives of his novels from an enormous height. They are to be tragedies or tragi-comedies, they are to give out the sound of hammer-strokes as they proceed; in other words Hardy arranges events with emphasis on causality, the ground plan is a plot, and the characters are ordered to acquiesce in its requirements. Except in the person of Tess (who conveys the feeling that she is greater than destiny) this aspect of his work is unsatisfactory. His characters are involved in various snares, they are finally bound hand and foot, there is ceaseless emphasis on fate, and yet, for all the sacrifices made to it, we never see the action as a living thing as we see it in Antigone or Berenice or The Cherry Orchard.

Most novels are feeble at the end because the plot takes over. The novelist needs to end the thing and so character and other aspects are all put on hold while the bits and pieces of the plot are tied up. Which is why novel ending are so often flat and disappointing.

Forster devotes five pages to describing Gide’s attempts to deconstruct novel writing in ‘Les Faux Monnayeurs’ which, I must say, sound contrived and clunky.

Fantasy

There is more in the novel than time or people or logic or any of their derivatives, more even than Fate. And by ‘more’ I do not mean something that excludes these aspects nor something that includes them, embraces them. I mean something that cuts across them like a bar of light, that is intimately connected with them at one place and patiently illumines all their problems, and at another place shoots over or through them as if they did not exist. We shall give that bar of light two names, fantasy and prophecy.

His sections on fantasy and prophecy are suddenly incoherent, under-developed. He gives no very useful definition of fantasy. He sounds very like Forster in introducing the notion of fauns and dryads and Pan: this sounds like his strange short stories. He also sounds like Forster in claiming the great god Muddle stands behind Tristram Shandy. This is the first place where I felt his opinion was inadequate and embarrassing.

He gives a long rather embarrassing summary of a now unknown book called ‘Flecker’s Magic’, by Norman Matson, in which a boy is given a wishing ring by a witch etc. He goes on to summarise and quote Max Beebohm’s fantastical comic novel ‘Zuleika Dobson’, ‘a highly accomplished and superbly written book whose spirit is farcical’. His quotes make it sound tiresome. Much has happened to the genre of Fantasy over the past 100 years to make his comments seem vain.

Parody. Very useful for the type of writer who has a lot to say but doesn’t take to creating characters: they can simply parody someone else’s. After mentioning Lowes Dickinson’s book ‘The Magic Flute’ he wastes a couple of pages giving a surprisingly unsympathetic summary of James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’. I was disappointed to see Forster takes the Bloomsbury / Virginia Woolf line that Ulysses is a book about dirt and smut:

It is a dogged attempt to cover the universe with mud, it is an inverted Victorianism, an attempt to make crossness and dirt succeed where sweetness and light failed, a simplification of the human character in the interests of Hell (!).. an epic of grubbiness and disillusion.

He thinks the aim of the book is ‘to degrade all things and more particularly civilization and art, by turning them inside out and upside down’. On this page I stopped respecting Forster’s opinion and realised how trapped he is in his timid, bourgeois English tea-party provincialism.

Prophecy

When the author wants to say something about the universe, a visionary, bardic strain. It is predominantly a tone of voice. To fully appreciate it you have to suspend your sense of humour, your sense of the absurd. He mentions D.H. Lawrence in this regard.

He quotes a long passage from ‘Adam Bede’ by George Eliot and makes the sage point that her writing depends on her ‘massiveness,’ because ‘she has no nicety of style’. Then a passage from ‘The Brothers Karamazov’ to show what it means to say that Dostoyevsky was a prophet. It means that everything means more than it says, reaches out to have cosmic implications.

We are not concerned with the prophet’s message, or rather (since matter and manner cannot be wholly separated) we are concerned with it as little as possible. What matters is the accent of his voice, his song.

Fantasy is diffuse, sparkles with fragments, whereas prophecy is focused on a great central vision. Fantasy is more often than not funny whereas prophecy requires suspension of humour.

Forster gives an extended summary of Herbert Melville’s classic novel ‘Moby Dick’, dwelling on its visionary prophetic character. It is more song than novel. And he adds a summary of the short story ‘Billy Budd’. Both of them are allegories of good and evil (though he doesn’t use the word allegory).

He makes the striking point that Melville wasn’t hampered by a conscience ‘that tiresome little receptacle… which is often such a nuisance in serious writers and so contracts their effects.’

Then D.H. Lawrence, ‘the only prophetic novelist writing today’. He makes the shrewd point that Lawrence was also a preacher and lots of people are irritated or angered by the preaching. But the real writer lies ‘far, far back’ behind the surface antagonisms and speaks with the voice of the Norse god Balder.

The prophet is irradiating nature from within, so that every colour has a glow and every form a distinctness which could not otherwise be obtained. Take a scene that always stays in the memory: that scene in ‘Women in Love’ where one of the characters throws stones into the water at night to shatter the image of the moon. Why he throws, what the scene symbolizes, is unimportant. But the writer could not get such a moon and water otherwise; he reaches them by his special path which stamps them as more wonderful than any we can imagine. It is the prophet back where he started from, back where the rest of us are waiting by the edge of the pool, but with a power of re-creation and evocation we shall never possess.

He rightly realises that Lawrence writes as if from an entirely new world.

He ends with ‘Wuthering Heights’ by Emily Brontë. It is a book of storms, visions and prophetic tone of voice. The notorious thing about ‘Wuthering Heights’ is that no one can remember the plot, they just remember the giant passion of the central characters.

Pattern and Rhythm

He discusses some books with patterns: the hour glass of ‘Thais’ Anatole France in which two characters swap plights; the daisy chain in ‘Roman Pictures’ by Percy Lubbock in which one character is passed along through a sequence of encounters with others.

Pattern and Henry James

Far more complicated is ‘The Ambassadors’ by Henry James. He summarises the plot and has a few words of praise for James:

He is so good at indicating instantaneously and constantly that a character is second rate, deficient in sensitiveness, abounding in the wrong sort of worldliness; he gives such a character so much vitality that its absurdity is delightful.

Like a lot of people I am put off reading James by the reputation for hyper-sensibility which surrounds him and then, on the few occasions I’ve tried, have struggled to penetrate through the prose and understand what is going on. So it is a relief to read Forster’s criticisms of The Master.

The basic one is that 1) James wrote works of art but at the cost of leaving most of human life out of them. And then 2) Forster says he has a very restricted number of character types who recur in all his novels, namely:

  • the observer who tries to influence the action
  • the second-rate outsider
  • the sympathetic foil, very lively and frequently female
  • the wonderful rare heroine
  • sometimes a villain
  • sometimes a young artist with generous impulses

Forster’s summary is comic: ‘And that is about all. For so fine a novelist it is a poor show.’ And then 3):

The characters, beside being few in number, are constructed on very stingy lines. They are incapable of fun, of rapid motion, of carnality, and of nine-tenths of heroism. Their clothes will not take off, the diseases that ravage them are anonymous, like the sources of their income, their servants are noiseless or resemble themselves, no social explanation of the world we know is possible for them, for there are no stupid people in their world, no barriers of language, and no poor. Even their sensations are limited. They can land in Europe and look at works of art and at each other, but that is all. Maimed creatures can alone breathe in Henry James’s pages — maimed yet specialized.

As interesting as Forster’s points is the vivid way he expresses them:

The longer James worked, the more convinced he grew that a novel should be a whole—not necessarily geometric like The Ambassadors, but it should accrete round a single topic, situation, gesture, which should occupy the characters and provide a plot, and should also fasten up the novel on the outside—catch its scattered statements in a net, make them cohere like a planet, and swing through the skies of memory.

And:

Put Tom Jones or Emma or even Mr. Casaubon into a Henry James book, and the book will burn to ashes.

Conclusion:

Though they [Henry James characters] are not dead — certain selected recesses of experience he explores very well — they are gutted of the common stuff that fills characters in other books, and ourselves. And this castrating is not in the interests of the Kingdom of Heaven, there is no philosophy in the novels, no religion (except an occasional touch of superstition), no prophecy, no benefit for the superhuman at all. It is for the sake of a particular æsthetic effect which is certainly gained, but at this heavy price.

H.G. Wells wrote a very funny satire of James which he cheerfully sent to The Master and was surprised when James was profoundly upset. Wells thinks the novel should overflow with people and ideas and life. Interestingly, Forster concludes:

My own prejudices are with Wells. The James novels are a unique possession and the reader who cannot accept his premises misses some valuable and exquisite sensations. But I do not want more of his novels.

So James demonstrates the limitations of seeking Pattern, which is to say, seeking formal Beauty, in a novel. The chances are: the more Beauty, the less life and humanity.

To put it in other words, the novel is not capable of as much artistic development as the drama: its humanity or the grossness of its material hinder it (use whichever phrase you like). To most readers of fiction the sensation from a pattern is not intense enough to justify the sacrifices that made it.

Rhythms large and small

Two types of rhythm, large and small, macro and micro.

Micro rhythms Proust has examples of micro rhythms but not macro. Forster makes the bold claim that ‘À la recherche du temps perdu’ ‘is chaotic, ill constructed, it has and will have no external shape; and yet it hangs together because it is stitched internally, because it contains rhythms.’

By rhythms what he appears to mean are recurring facts, connections and coincidences. He gives the specific example of a phrase from a piece of music which recurs only at long intervals of hundreds of pages:

Rhythm can develop, and the little phrase has a life of its own, unconnected with the lives of its auditors, as with the life of the man who composed it. It is almost an actor, but not quite, and that ‘not quite’ means that its power has gone towards stitching Proust’s book together from the inside, and towards the establishment of beauty and the ravishing of the reader’s memory. There are times when the little phrase — from its gloomy inception, through the sonata into the sextet — means everything to the reader. There are times when it means nothing and is forgotten, and this seems to me the function of rhythm in fiction; not to be there all the time like a pattern, but by its lovely waxing and waning to fill us with surprise and freshness and hope.

Macro rhythms Very large scale repetitions and shape as in a classical symphony (in this case, Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony). In fact, very candidly, Forster tells us he can’t think of an example of this macro rhythm in fiction.

Maybe in drama because drama is more tightly structured, in drama characters submit to the dramatic shape which is known from the start. But fiction, as he sweetly puts it, ‘Human beings have their great chance in the novel.’

Early on, in the chapter about plots, Forster lamented that novels have to end, pointing out how lifeless the endings of most novels are, as the logic of closing the plot overrides the human vitality which has preceded it. Now, at the end of the book, he returns to the same idea. He says that at the end of a performance of a Beethoven symphony you hear chords or sense shapes which were never actually expressed in the music, which tower behind it. Then optimistically wishes the same kind of aesthetic effect could be achieved in a more open-ended type of fiction.

Music, though it does not employ human beings, though it is governed by intricate laws, nevertheless does offer in its final expression a type of beauty which fiction might achieve in its own way. Expansion. That is the idea the novelist must cling to. Not completion. Not rounding off but opening out.

When the symphony is over we feel that the notes and tunes composing it have been liberated, they have found in the rhythm of the whole their individual freedom. Cannot the novel be like that? Is not there something of it in ‘War and Peace’? the book with which we began and in which we must end. Such an untidy book. Yet, as we read it, do not great chords begin to sound behind us, and when we have finished does not every item even the catalogue of strategies – lead a larger existence than was possible at the time?

Conclusion

It’s fashionable to make predictions about The Future of the Novel but he won’t. All sorts of scientific discoveries and social transformations may occur but the task of the novelist will stay broadly the same. He repeats his motto: ‘History develops, art stands still.’ He imagines human nature will remain pretty fixed but gives himself a slight glimmer of hope.

If human nature does alter it will be because individuals manage to look at themselves in a new way. Here and there people — a very few people, but a few novelists are among them — are trying to do this. Every institution and vested interest is against such a search: organized religion, the State, the family in its economic aspect…

Maybe he meant his friends in the Bloomsbury Group, overinflating, as they all did, their own importance. Anyway, the state and the family have hardly been abolished because it seems like we need both of them. Organised religion, on the other hand, the personal repression, legal persecution and censorship exercised in the name of the Church of England, have largely withered away, like the Church itself. But, it turns out, via social media, the philistine press and other, rising religious organisations, we have invented new ways to judge and censor ourselves. That will never change.

As to The Future of the Novel, despite a century of pessimistic prognostications, this year, 2024, more novels than ever before were published. The Novel is doing fine.

Thoughts

1. Style

Only towards the end of the book did I notice the absence of Style from his handful of aspects. Style, the order of words in the sentence, the way sentences are assembled into paragraphs, is probably the aspect of novels which interests me most. It feels like Forster consciously avoided it, knowing what a minefield it is.

2. Forster’s oddly strange or incisive phrasing

Forster almost goes out of his way to appear a gentlemanly old buffer, an amiable old cove, and yet his writing often contains disconcerting turns of phrase and thought, which seem unexpectedly modern, harsh or violent.

In his fiction this is most obvious in the short stories, which are surprisingly weird, but these oddities crop up continually in everything he writes. For example, his opening comparison of ‘the story’ to a tapeworm. Here are some other oddities:

We move between two darknesses. Certain people pretend to tell us what birth and death are like: a mother, for instance, has her point of view about birth, a doctor, a religious, have their points of view about both. But it is all from the outside, and the two entities who might enlighten us, the baby and the corpse, cannot do so, because their apparatus for communicating their experiences is not attuned to our apparatus for reception.

Then food, the stoking up process, the keeping alive of an individual flame, the process that begins before birth and is continued after it by the mother, and finally taken over by the individual himself, who goes on day after day putting an assortment of objects into a hole in his face without becoming surprised or bored.

When a baby arrives in a novel it usually has the air of having been posted.

[Characters] are creations inside a creation, and often inharmonious towards it; if they are given complete freedom they kick the book to pieces, and if they are kept too sternly in check, they revenge themselves by dying, and destroy it by intestinal decay.

One of our foremost writers, Mr. Norman Douglas, is a critic of this type, and the passage from him which I will quote puts the case against flat characters in a forcible fashion. The passage occurs in an open letter to D. H. Lawrence, with whom he is quarrelling: a doughty pair of combatants, the hardness of whose hitting makes the rest of us feel like a lot of ladies up in a pavilion.


Credit

Aspects of the Novel by E.M. Forster was published 1927 by Edward Arnold. References are to the 1962 Pelican paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

Tono-Bungay by H.G. Wells (1909)

This is a long novel narrated in the first person by 40-year-old George Ponderevo, describing in a deliberately ramshackle, digressive way, his boyhood and early manhood, his doomed early marriage and, above all, his involvement with his uncle Edward Ponderevo who shot to fame and fortune – in a ‘comet-like transit of the financial heavens’ – on the back of the quack medicine he invented and which gives the book its title, ‘Tono-Bungay’.

Three categories of H.G. Wells novel

Wells wrote a terrifying amount, over 100 books, sometimes publishing three books in a year, not to mention the numerous short stories and countless magazine articles.

Gilbert Phelps, in his introduction to the Pan paperback edition, says you can divide Wells’s novels into three categories: the scientific romances; the social comedies; and the novels of ideas. He ‘went off’ as a novelist precisely as the first flush of his extraordinary science fiction gave way to the third category, his increasingly long-winded novels addressing various social issues and designed to put the world to rights.

Phelps suggests that ‘Tono-Bungay’ holds a special position in Wells’s oeuvre as containing elements of all three categories in a kind of equipoise. 1) The narrator is presented as a devotee of scientific knowledge, an innovative engineer working on the (very new) technology of flight and the book contains serious technical accounts of manned flight (in gliders and propelled balloons), as well as a surprising amount about radioactivity in the late episode about ‘quap’.

At the same time the book contains 2) a lot of social comedy i.e. a lot of the characters are grotesques and caricatures created for comic effect. There’s a lot of Dickensian boisterousness, especially in the early chapters.

And all this is entwined with sustained attempts at 3) broader social analysis. In his way, Wells attempts to get to the root of hidebound Little England and its uptight social hierarchies, its small-minded snobbishness. Later on, the book becomes an anatomisation of modern business and finance, the sham values of advertising, the ghastly need for social acceptability of the nouveaux riches, all described in punishing detail. To summarise:

In effect [Tono-Bungay] was the watershed between Wells the predominantly creative artist and Wells the predominantly propagandistic writer.
(Gilbert Phelps in the Introduction, p.xviii)

Autobiographical

I read Tono-Bungay when I was a student and have a vague memory of the exuberant character of his uncle and its commentary on Edwardian England which I found politically energising. Rereading it thirty years later I have a completely different view. On this reading the social analysis seems to me weak and vague, the character of Uncle Edward only appears intermittently and the entire quack medicine storyline lacks detail and conviction. What comes over to me this time is that it is extremely autobiographical; the strong feeling that in his Edwardian novels Wells is writing his autobiography again and again, that it is the only ‘serious’ story that he has.

What I mean is that Love and Mr Lewisham (1900) is about a young man who escapes from drudgery working as a bullied teacher in a rubbish little private school when he wins a scholarship to study at the science college in South Kensington but is distracted from his studies when he falls in love with a beautiful but poor and rather dim young woman and ends up dropping out altogether in order to marry her. This is what happened to Wells, who escaped drudgery as a teacher in a nonky little school to study Biology at the Normal School of Science (later, Imperial College) in South Kensington, but fell in love and married his cousin who turned out to be dim and conventional.

The hero of Kipps (1905), after a promising education finds himself condemned to drudgery in a haberdasher department store in Kent just like Wells was before he managed to escape to London, as Kipps escapes by inheriting a fortune, as in a fairy story.

So Tono-Bungay feels like Well’s third go at using the material of his own life, and this time it feels closer than ever to his actual life story and maybe this explains why it often feels more vivid and, at moments, more fierce and angry, than its predecessors.

For in real life, when his family fell on hard times his mother was forced to go back into service as a housekeeper in the big country house at Up Park in Sussex where Wells as a boy observed all the snobbery of the late Victorian era, both above and below stairs – and this is precisely the plot of the first part of Tono-Bungay. It describes the boyhood of the narrator, young George Ponderevo, whose mother is housekeeper in the big old country house of Bladesover, allowing him to view the snobbery of the old lady who owns the place, and of the fleet of servants who run it, at first hand.

Bladesovery

George’s mother is housekeeper at Bladesover, a grand old country house belonging to a terrifying old lady, Lady Drew, and her forbidding friend and companion, Miss Somerville, and it’s here that young George is brought up below stairs to know his place in a fixed and centuries-old hierarchy.

Bladesover is deliberately built up into a symbol of England with its snobbishness and narrow-mindedness and conservatism, which is to become a reference point or touchstone for the rest of the book.

Bladesover illuminates England; it has become all that is spacious, dignified pretentious, and truly conservative in English life.

The narrow-minded, snobbish, philistine, bigoted, Brexit, Daily Mail, conservative England which endures down to the present day, 125 years later. The narrator calls this blinkered mindset Bladesovery.

His mother sets the tone: her husband ran off, possibly to Australia, and abandoned her with the baby, with the result that she is fierce and embittered, and has destroyed every trace of her perfidious partner. Young George never even finds out his father’s name let alone what he looked like.

His mother has become narrow, crabbed, confined to the dark spaces below stairs with the other narrow-living, dignified staff, replicating the snobbery of their betters upstairs. Against all this stuffiness and fixity young George instinctively rebels. He is:

‘Disobedient,’ said my mother. ‘He has no idea of his place…’

‘You must be a good boy, George,’ she said. ‘You must learn…. And you mustn’t set yourself up against those who are above you and better than you…. Or envy them.’ ‘No mother,’ I said.

So these opening chapters describe the narrator’s boyhood as the son of the housekeeper in a rural grand house in Kent and vividly depict the elaborate social system whereby everyone is born into a ‘place’ and expected to remain there for life, victims of ‘that snobbishness which is the distinctive quality of English thought’.

True to form George rebels and causes trouble and after a climactic incident, he is exiled from the house, sent off to stay with his mother’s cousin to work in his seedy little bakery in horrible Chatham. This man, Nicodemus Frapp, represents the servile tradition perfected, and is a sort of caricature of incompetent simplicity. He is a Christian but made to represent a small-minded English type of intolerance and narrow-mindedness. George has to sleeps in same bed as Fripp’s two sons, which leads not to furtive teenage sex, as you might expect in a modern novel, but to the boys having fiery debates about the existence of God where George finds himself goaded into mocking the boys’ ignorant faith which eventually leads to a big fight and George runs away, walking the 20 or so miles back to Bladesover and presenting himself, unrepentant, to his exasperated mother.

It’s at this point that he is sent to live with another cousin of his mother’s, Edward Ponderevo, a pharmacist in Wimblehurst, 26 or 7, married, impatient, ambitious, with a joking supportive wife, Susan – Uncle Edward and Aunt Susan, and thus the Bladesover part of the book ends and the young adult part begins.

Critique of Bladesovery

When I was a student I think I thrilled to Wells’s repeated skewering of the Little England mindset, the kind of provincial ignorance I myself had to run away from in order to embrace the bigger world of ideas and experiences.

Wells puts some effort into trying turn Bladesover into a theory of British society. This has at least two distinct aspects.

1. Static analysis

The first is the static analysis or historical theory, the notion that Bladesover represents the fundamental social structure of England and the historical theory that it has been this way since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In the narrator’s view, English society was crystallised around the rule of the Whig landed gentry who owned all the land, who ran it from big houses, around whom was a constellation of other roles and jobs – the wide array of servants who served them in their homes, and then the professions (doctor, lawyer, architect and so on) who serviced their needs from local towns or cities. The entire paraphernalia of politics, the House of Commons and House of Lords, the awards system and so on, everything was constructed around the needs and demands of the landed aristocracy and had been so from 1688 to the time when the protagonist is a boy at Bladesover in the 1880s (p.80).

The cultural result of all this is that the aristocracy own culture, can afford to be cosmopolitan, have broad horizons and so on, while virtually everyone else is indoctrinated into the naive and blinkered belief that British is best, that this is the greatest country in the world, that foreigners with their silly languages and fancy cooking are ghastly and so on and so on, the Daily Mail, Daily Express mentality.

The serfs have completely assimilated the social structure which entirely benefits their betters, and aggressively champion their own subjugation – just like poor Northerners in our time fooled into voting for the Conservative party, the party of oligarchs and millionaires and non-doms. They love their own enslavement and react violently against anyone who suggests they think for themselves. They have the Daily Mail to do their thinking for them, to tell them who to hate and why – which is, broadly speaking, anyone who wants to change any aspect of the present most excellent state of the country.

Thus it is that, at various moments throughout the book, the narrator reverts to his theory of Bladesovery to explain this or that aspect of hidebound, snobbish English society (p.150). Even when he goes up to London to stay with his Uncle, who’s moved there, he, at first, sees the vast capital as an extended Bladesover, the Bladesover system devised to provide a golden life for aristocrats and their hangers-on in the law and the city, and drudgery for everyone else…

There have been no revolutions, no deliberate restatements or abandonments of opinion in England since the days of the fine gentry, since 1688 or thereabouts, the days when Bladesover was built; there have been changes, dissolving forces, replacing forces, if you will; but then it was that the broad lines of the English system set firmly. . . . The fine gentry may have gone; they have indeed largely gone, I think; rich merchants may have replaced them, financial adventurers or what not. That does not matter; the shape is still Bladesover…

2. Dynamic analysis

Having established, and repeatedly embellished, this reading of the theoretical, historical framework of British society, the novel then goes on to describe George’s dawning realisation that the system is, in fact, falling to pieces, and chronicles his slow, slow disillusion with the state of English society.

Specifically, George starts out as a very young man thinking everywhere will be as ordered and structured as life at Bladesover. Even after his personal life starts going awry he continues to work on the assumption that there is someone, somewhere, in control:

I still clung to the idea that the world of men was or should be a sane and just organisation…

Only slowly does he realise that no one’s in control and all is mess and muddle.

Just as I had always imagined that somewhere in social arrangements there was certainly a Head-Master who would intervene if one went too far, so I had always had a sort of implicit belief that in our England there were somewhere people who understood what we were all, as a nation, about. That crumpled into this pit of doubt and vanished…

‘I’ve had false ideas about the world,’ I said…

And:

Everybody who is not actually in the shadow of a Bladesover is as it were perpetually seeking after lost orientations. We have never broken with our tradition, never even symbolically hewed it to pieces, as the French did in quivering fact in the Terror. But all the organizing ideas have slackened, the old habitual bonds have relaxed or altogether come undone… (p.13)

This realisation is demonstrated by the whole story of Tono-Bungay, which is only a kind of glorified cough medicine but becomes a worldwide bestseller due to his uncle’s genius for publicity and advertising. Uncle Edward comes up with amazingly catchy jingles, places hoardings with his striking logo all round towns and cities, branches out into a huge range of other household products and objects (Tono-Bungay Lozenges and Tono-Bungay Chocolate, Tono-Bungay Mouthwash). He is, you realise at some stage, a kind of epitome of American can-do commercialism plonked down into stuffy late-Victorian society (as far as I can make out, the key events all happen during the 1890s).

And as young George watches at first hand his uncle create a commercial and financial giant from what is, in essence, a set of advertising jingles and slogans, it’s then that he realises that, if the city and lawyers and the wealthy, if entire provincial cities and towns can be taken by storm by this patently fraudulent product, then maybe nobody knows what’s going on and nobody’s in charge. Maybe all of society with its pomp and circumstance and Jubilee celebrations is a hollow sham.

He goes from thinking the world is planned and organised with someone somewhere supervising its moral nature, to realising it’s chaos. Thus when his uncle manages to raise a huge sum in the City on the strength of his fraudulent products:

£150,000 – think of it! – for the goodwill in a string of lies and a trade in bottles of mitigated water! Do you realise the madness of the world that sanctions such a thing? (p.129)

And:

At the climax of his Boom, my uncle at the most sparing estimate must have possessed in substance and credit about two million pounds’-worth of property to set off against his vague colossal liabilities, and from first to last he must have had a controlling influence in the direction of nearly thirty millions. This irrational muddle of a community in which we live gave him that, paid him at that rate for sitting in a room and scheming and telling it lies. For he created nothing, he invented nothing, he economised nothing. I cannot claim that a single one of the great businesses we organised added any real value to human life at all. Several like Tono-Bungay were unmitigated frauds by any honest standard, the giving of nothing coated in advertisements for money. (p.184)

And:

Civilisation is possible only through confidence, so that we can bank our money and go unarmed about the streets. The bank reserve or a policeman keeping order in a jostling multitude of people, are only slightly less impudent bluffs than my uncle’s prospectuses. They couldn’t for a moment ‘make good’ if the quarter of what they guarantee was demanded of them. The whole of this modern mercantile investing civilisation is indeed such stuff as dreams are made of. A mass of people swelters and toils, great railway systems grow, cities arise to the skies and spread wide and far, mines are opened, factories hum, foundries roar, ships plough the seas, countries are settled; about this busy striving world the rich owners go, controlling all, enjoying all, confident and creating the confidence that draws us all together into a reluctant, nearly unconscious brotherhood…

The flags flutter, the crowds cheer, the legislatures meet. Yet it seems to me indeed at times that all this present commercial civilisation is no more than my poor uncle’s career writ large, a swelling, thinning bubble of assurances; that its arithmetic is just as unsound, its dividends as ill-advised, its ultimate aim as vague and forgotten; that it all drifts on perhaps to some tremendous parallel to Uncle Edward’s individual disaster… (p.186)

So George goes from thinking the world is a hugely amplified model of the structured, ordered, supervised society of one grand country house, to realising it is an enormous sham, populated by chancers and frauds, with no bedrock or anchor at all, except everyone blindly trusting in the old forms and traditions.

The power of advertising

Thus the book isn’t so much ‘about’ the fake product as the tremendous power of ‘modern’ advertising and the passages Wells writes describing the coming of age of mass advertising in the 1890s are fascinating social history.

I was particularly struck when he writes that modern advertising isn’t so much about just promoting and selling stuff – it’s about creating new ideas and possibilities which people can buy into. When the book’s resident cynic, Bob Ewart, visits Uncle Edward’s bottling operation, he makes the profound point that advertising doesn’t flog this or that product, it offers its consumers the dream of a better life.

‘It’s the poetry of the customer too. Poet answering to poet – soul to soul. Health, Strength and Beauty – in a bottle – the magic philtre! Like a fairy tale….Think of the people to whom your bottles of footle go…Think of the little clerks and jaded women and overworked people. People overstrained with wanting to do, people overstrained with wanting to be…. People, in fact, overstrained…. The real trouble of life, Ponderevo, isn’t that we exist – that’s a vulgar error; the real trouble is that we don’t really exist and we want to. That’s what this – in the highest sense – just stands for! The hunger to be – for once – really alive – to the finger tips!

‘Nobody wants to do and be the things people are – nobody. YOU don’t want to preside over this – this bottling; I don’t want to wear these beastly clothes and be led about by you; nobody wants to keep on sticking labels on silly bottles at so many farthings a gross. That isn’t existing! That’s – substratum. None of us want to be what we are, or to do what we do. Except as a sort of basis. What do we want? You know. I know. Nobody confesses. What we all want to be is something perpetually young and beautiful – young Joves – young Joves, Ponderevo, pursuing coy half-willing nymphs through everlasting forests… (p.130)

And again:

‘Advertisement has revolutionised trade and industry; it is going to revolutionise the world. The old merchant used to tote about commodities; the new one creates values. Doesn’t need to tote. He takes something that isn’t worth anything – or something that isn’t particularly worth anything – and he makes it worth something. He takes mustard that is just like anybody else’s mustard, and he goes about saying, shouting, singing, chalking on walls, writing inside people’s books, putting it everywhere, ‘Smith’s Mustard is the Best.’ And behold it is the best!’

And plans to control and manipulate the media:

He had some amazing perceptions of just how modern thought and the supply of fact to the general mind may be controlled by money. Among other things that my uncle offered for, he tried very hard to buy the British Medical Journal and the Lancet, and run them on what he called modern lines [i.e. to promote his fraudulent products] (p.192)

Plenty of literary critics have written about Wells. I wonder if there’s an essay somewhere by someone who works in advertising and assesses just how spot-on Wells’s analysis was, and whether much has changed in the 130 years since the book’s setting in the 1890s.

Socialism, or not…

George doesn’t become a full-on socialist and socialism is represented in the novel by his boyhood friend, Ewart, who grows up to be a middling to poor sculptor, just about scraping a living, so hardly a shining beacon. Ewart represents total cynicism; he thinks all of society and its values are a sham and so he lives outside them. This is represented by his simple decision to live in sin with one of his models, who herself calmly accepts the fact that he periodically goes on big debauches, getting epically drunk and/or sleeping with prostitutes. Ewart can do this with no hesitation because he has seen through ‘society’ and realised all its values are shams simply designed to keep the proles in line.

But you can see how Wells came to his political opinions and why they aren’t, in fact, socialist; you can see why he joined, but then fell out with, the Fabians. A dictionary definition of socialism is: ‘a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole’ i.e. public ownership not private ownership.

But where Wells’s heart really lies is in the notion that the old raddled fraudulent society needs to be torn down and rebuilt on the basis of Reason and Science. It is Science which becomes young George’s god and he imagines it is leagues of rational, educated, detached and objective scientists who Wells will run the rational society of the future. As George’s flying assistant, Cothope, puts it:

‘We scientific people, we’ll have to take things over and stop all this financing and advertisement and that.’ (p.293)

Uncle Edward

But Lord! they’ve no capacity for ideas, they don’t catch on; no Jump about the place, no Life. Live!—they trickle, and what one has to do here is to trickle too—Zzzz.”
“Ah!” said my mother.
“It doesn’t suit me,” said my uncle. “I’m the cascading sort.” (p.46)

Interesting to learn that even down the social scale, in the 1890s a provincial chemist is aware that America is more vibrant exciting and go-ahead than sleepy England:

I’d like to let a dozen young Americans loose into it,” said my uncle. “Then we’d see.”

America! I wish to Heaven, George, I’d been born American—where things hum.

Uncle goes bust on speculation, sells the pharmacy, takes a job in London. George continues studying. Aged 19 he makes his first visit to London (p.69). His uncle invites him to join him in the Tono-Bungay venture. It is the early 1890s.

Marion

Like Mr Lewisham, George gets a scholarship to study Science in London and, just like Mr Lewisham, allows himself to fall in love with an unsuitable woman, in George’s case uneducated, banal, lower class Marion, neglects his studies for her and fails his exams.

The long chapter about Marion is quite harrowing because it is a very powerful description of a sensual intelligent but completely inexperienced young man projecting onto a shallow silly woman all his longing for romance, intellectual companionship and pure lust – while she is a familiar type of sluggish, conventional narrow-minded, reluctant, delaying, ‘not where people can see’ type of prude.

She was young and extraordinarily conventional – she seemed never to have an idea of her own but always the idea of her class – and I was young and sceptical, enterprising and passionate; the two links that held us together were the intense appeal her physical beauty had for me, and her appreciation of her importance in my thoughts. There can be no doubt of my passion for her. In her I had discovered woman desired. The nights I have lain awake on account of her, writhing, biting my wrists in a fever of longing!

Well, after an agonising courtship in which Marion reveals herself as narrow and unimaginative and petty-minded, they get married, George hoping all the time that, once they’re married, Marion will blossom into the adventurous, cosmopolitan, erudite and wildly sexual personality which he has projected onto her but, of course, she doesn’t. She stays the frigid lump she was all through their courtship and on their wedding night, when he tries to have sex, she cries, unable to cope with the dirty, horrid thing he’s doing to her and which her mother and all her friends have warned her against all her life – which, of course, brings all George’s fantasies crashing down.

Driven by forces I did not understand, diverted altogether from the science, the curiosities and work to which I had once given myself, I fought my way through a tangle of traditions, customs, obstacles and absurdities, enraged myself, limited myself, gave myself to occupations I saw with the clearest vision were dishonourable and vain, and at last achieved the end of purblind Nature, the relentless immediacy of her desire, and held, far short of happiness, Marion weeping and reluctant in my arms. (p.151)

Having taken time to describe their agonising courtship, Wells briskly deals with their sad, humiliating married life:

Each time I returned to Ealing, life there seemed more alien, narrow, and unattractive—and Marion less beautiful and more limited and difficult—until at last she was robbed of every particle of her magic. She gave me always a cooler welcome, I think, until she seemed entirely apathetic. (p.155)

And quickly summarises what happened next, which is he has a fling with a woman who works in the typing pool and he becomes aware of following him with her eyes, Effie Rink.

She looked up at me without a word, with her face flushed and her eyes alight, and I bent down and kissed her lips. She leant back to put an arm about me, drew my face to her and kissed me again and again. I lifted her and held her in my arms. She gave a little smothered cry to feel herself so held. Never before had I known the quality of passionate kisses. (p.157)

Startlingly for an Edwardian novel, he says that after they’ve exchanged glances on numerous occasions, he finally summons up the courage to speak to her and then, abruptly, kisses her and…it’s what she wanted and she returns the kiss! And so they quickly have a passionate affair, running off for a week of sensual delight at Cromer. And with a certain inevitability, as soon as he gets home, Marion confronts him with his infidelity (one of her relatives spotted him in Cromer) and he confesses and so, with surprising calm, they discuss and arrange a divorce, and after a few more pages tying up loose ends, she passes out of his life and the story.

The point is, this is what happened – as a very young man Wells rushed, in 1891, into a marriage with his cousin, Isabel Mary Wells who turned out to be utterly unsuitable for an effervescently intellectual super-ambitious writer. After only a few years he fell in love with a much more suitable candidate, one of his students, Amy Catherine Robbins, so that he divorced Isabel in 1894 and married Amy in 1895.

So it’s hard not to feel that the Marion chapter (Part Two, Chapter 4) is a deeply-felt and only thinly-veiled record of his miserable courtship and failed marriage and it has a lot of force and power. I read it in one go and felt quite unnerved and depressed by it.

Boyhood vividness

It’s a while since I mentioned how autobiographical the book is but I intended, back in the Bladesover section, to make an important point which is, the boyhood scenes are best. The other scenes have interest – Ewart’s analysis of advertising is shrewd and the long chapter about his marriage to Marion pierces the heart, the account of Uncle Edward’s rise to nouveau riche status – but the first fifty or so pages about being a boy at Bladesover are, arguably, the most fresh and vivid and memorable.

The boy’s-view of the old spinsters who own the place and the petty snobberies of the staff, and his description of his boyhood crush on a little girl he was allowed to play with, Beatrice, and once got to kiss amid the ferns in the house grounds – all have the freshness and power of a good children’s story. Some of it is very funny in a way none of the subsequent scenes, humorous though they may intend to be, are actually funny. (I learn from the introduction that critics routinely describe these scenes to the boyhood scenes in Dickens’s David Copperfield and, I’d add, Great Expectations.)

And the same was true of Kipps. The best part of Kipps is the descriptions of him being a small boy running wild over Romney Marshes with a best friend his own age, pretending at playing cowboys and Indians on the beach, around old shipwrecks or ruined towers, it sounds paradisiacal.

Simple point: the most vivid bits of these two autobiographical novels are the scenes of boyhood.

Victim of life

This is all the more poignant because the adult George paints himself throughout the book as a victim, as a pawn of life, in thrall to forces he completely fails to understand.

I wondered if my case was the case of many men, whether in former ages, too, men had been so guideless, so uncharted, so haphazard in their journey into life.

At times my life appeared before me in bleak, relentless light, a series of ignorances, crude blunderings, degradation and cruelty. I had what the old theologians call a ‘conviction of sin’.

With the dismaying result that:

There were moments when I thought of suicide.

Many passages in the ‘adult’ section of the book are like this and serve to highlight the comedy and freshness of the boyhood scenes. And it’s against his hopeless failures in his private life that he turns to a belief in Science as something hard and objective which can save him.

In the end of this particular crisis of which I tell so badly, I idealised Science. I decided that in power and knowledge lay the salvation of my life, the secret that would fill my need; that to these things I would give myself. (p.168)

Science, with her order, her inhuman distance, yet steely certainties, saved me from despair. (p.169)

And so it is to the science of Aeronautics that George comes to devote his time and researches (pages 181, 218, 230 and Part 3 Chapter 3).

Scientific truth is the remotest of mistresses; she hides in strange places, she is attained by tortuous and laborious roads, but she is always there! Win to her and she will not fail you; she is yours and mankind’s for ever. She is reality, the one reality I have found in this strange disorder of existence. She will not sulk with you nor misunderstand you nor cheat you of your reward upon some petty doubt. You cannot change her by advertisement or clamour, nor stifle her in vulgarities. Things grow under your hands when you serve her, things that are permanent as nothing else is permanent in the whole life of man. That, I think, is the peculiar satisfaction of science and its enduring reward… (p.233)

One wonders how much Wells’s own promotion of the Creed of Science and Technology was based, like George Ponderevo’s, on personal failure and despair and a search for personal certitude, the same kind of disillusionment with traditional society and search for a grand transnational Order to properly run the world which, of course, fuelled the rise of totalitarianism between the wars…

Topics

The book is stuffed with long passages about society and other topics which make for sort-of interesting reading, but, at the same time, you can feel the prolixity which was to make his later novels feel more and more garrulous. Wells knew it and has his narrator try to excuse it right at the start:

I warn you this book is going to be something of an agglomeration. I want to trace my social trajectory (and my uncle’s) as the main line of my story, but as this is my first novel and almost certainly my last, I want to get in, too, all sorts of things that struck me, things that amused me and impressions I got – even although they don’t minister directly to my narrative at all… I want to get in all sorts of things. My ideas of a novel all through are comprehensive rather than austere….

Just the fact that these passages have to be quoted at such length indicates the sense of Wells unbelting himself, letting himself go, the pithy brevity of the early sci fi stories giving way to middle-aged spread.

England as one vast landed estate run for the benefit of the landed aristocracy

It is this idea of escaping parts from the seventeenth century system of Bladesover, of proliferating and overgrowing elements from the Estates, that to this day seems to me the best explanation, not simply of London, but of all England. England is a country of great Renascence landed gentlefolk who have been unconsciously outgrown and overgrown. The proper shops for Bladesover custom were still to be found in Regent Street and Bond Street in my early London days in those days they had been but lightly touched by the American’s profaning hand—and in Piccadilly. I found the doctor’s house of the country village or country town up and down Harley Street, multiplied but not otherwise different, and the family solicitor (by the hundred) further eastward in the abandoned houses of a previous generation of gentlepeople, and down in Westminster, behind Palladian fronts, the public offices sheltered in large Bladesoverish rooms and looked out on St. James’s Park. The Parliament Houses of lords and gentlemen, the parliament house that was horrified when merchants and brewers came thrusting into it a hundred years ago, stood out upon its terrace gathering the whole system together into a head.

London as the Bladesover template gone cancerous

I said at the outset of my first book that I find in Bladesover the clue to all England. Well, I certainly imagine it is the clue to the structure of London…I am most reminded of Bladesover and Eastry by all those regions round about the West End parks; for example, estate parks, each more or less in relation to a palace or group of great houses. The roads and back ways of Mayfair and all about St. James’s again, albeit perhaps of a later growth in point of time, were of the very spirit and architectural texture of the Bladesover passages and yards; they had the same smells, the space, the large cleanest and always going to and fro where one met unmistakable Olympians and even more unmistakable valets, butlers, footmen in mufti. There were moments when I seemed to glimpse down areas the white panelling, the very chintz of my mother’s room again.

I could trace out now on a map what I would call the Great-House region; passing south-westward into Belgravia, becoming diffused and sporadic westward, finding its last systematic outbreak round and about Regent’s Park. The Duke of Devonshire’s place in Piccadilly, in all its insolent ugliness, pleases me particularly; it is the quintessence of the thing; Apsley House is all in the manner of my theory, Park Lane has its quite typical mansions, and they run along the border of the Green Park and St. James’s. And I struck out a truth one day in Cromwell Road quite suddenly, as I looked over the Natural History Museum. ‘By Jove,’ said I, ‘But this is the little assemblage of cases of stuffed birds and animals upon the Bladesover staircase grown enormous, and yonder as the corresponding thing to the Bladesover curios and porcelain is the Art Museum and there in the little observatories in Exhibition Road is old Sir Cuthbert’s Gregorian telescope that I hunted out in the storeroom and put together.’

And:

And the more I have paralleled these things with my Bladesover-Eastry model, the more evident it has become to me that the balance is not the same, and the more evident is the presence of great new forces, blind forces of invasion, of growth. The railway termini on the north side of London have been kept as remote as Eastry had kept the railway-station from Wimblehurst, they stop on the very outskirts of the estates, but from the south, the South Eastern railway had butted its great stupid rusty iron head of Charing Cross station, that great head that came smashing down in 1905—clean across the river, between Somerset House and Whitehall. The south side had no protecting estate. Factory chimneys smoke right over against Westminster with an air of carelessly not having permission, and the whole effect of industrial London and of all London east of Temple Bar and of the huge dingy immensity of London port is to me of something disproportionately large, something morbidly expanded, without plan or intention, dark and sinister toward the clean clear social assurance of the West End. And south of this central London, south-east, south-west, far west, north-west, all round the northern hills, are similar disproportionate growths, endless streets of undistinguished houses, undistinguished industries, shabby families, second-rate shops, inexplicable people who in a once fashionable phrase do not ‘exist.’ All these aspects have suggested to my mind at times, do suggest to this day, the unorganised, abundant substance of some tumorous growth-process, a process which indeed bursts all the outlines of the affected carcass and protrudes such masses as ignoble comfortable Croydon, as tragic impoverished West Ham. To this day I ask myself will those masses ever become structural, will they indeed shape into anything new whatever, or is that cancerous image their true and ultimate diagnosis? (p.82)

A city of Bladesovers, the capital of a kingdom of Bladesovers, all much shaken and many altogether in decay, parasitically occupied, insidiously replaced by alien, unsympathetic and irresponsible elements; and with a ruling an adventitious and miscellaneous empire of a quarter of this daedal earth complex laws, intricate social necessities, disturbing insatiable suggestions, followed from this. Such was the world into which I had come, into which I had in some way to thrust myself and fit my problem, my temptations, my efforts, my patriotic instinct, all my moral instincts, my physical appetites, my dreams and my sanity. (p.83)

(At exactly the same time, in Howards End, E.M. Forster describes London as a cancerous growth and I came across the contemporary Tory leader Lord Rosebery doing the same, in Roy Hattersley’s history of The Edwardians, page 350: ‘a tumour, an elephantitis, sucking into its gorged system half the life and blood and the bone of rural districts.’)

The nouveaux riches

I don’t know whether it is due simply to my changed circumstances, but it seems to me there have been immensely disproportionate developments of the hotel-frequenting and restaurant-using population during the last twenty years. It is not only, I think, that there are crowds of people who, like we were, are in the economically ascendant phase, but whole masses of the prosperous section of the population must be altering its habits, giving up high-tea for dinner and taking to evening dress, using the week-end hotels as a practise-ground for these new social arts. A swift and systematic conversion to gentility has been going on, I am convinced, throughout the whole commercial upper-middle class since I was twenty-one.

So it was we recognised our new needs as fresh invaders of the upper levels of the social system, and set ourselves quite consciously to the acquisition of Style and Savoir Faire. We became part of what is nowadays quite an important element in the confusion of our world, that multitude of economically ascendant people who are learning how to spend money. It is made up of financial people, the owners of the businesses that are eating up their competitors, inventors of new sources of wealth, such as ourselves; it includes nearly all America as one sees it on the European stage. It is a various multitude having only this in common: they are all moving, and particularly their womankind are moving, from conditions in which means were insistently finite, things were few, and customs simple, towards a limitless expenditure and the sphere of attraction of Bond Street, Fifth Avenue, and Paris. Their general effect is one of progressive revolution, of limitless rope.

They discover suddenly indulgences their moral code never foresaw and has no provision for, elaborations, ornaments, possessions beyond their wildest dreams. With an immense astonished zest they begin shopping, begin a systematic adaptation to a new life crowded and brilliant with things shopped, with jewels, maids, butlers, coachmen, electric broughams, hired town and country houses. They plunge into it as one plunges into a career; as a class, they talk, think, and dream possessions. Their literature, their Press, turns all on that; immense illustrated weeklies of unsurpassed magnificence guide them in domestic architecture, in the art of owning a garden, in the achievement of the sumptuous in motor-cars, in an elaborate sporting equipment, in the purchase and control of their estates, in travel and stupendous hotels. Once they begin to move they go far and fast. Acquisition becomes the substance of their lives. They find a world organised to gratify that passion. In a brief year or so they are connoisseurs. They join in the plunder of the eighteenth century, buy rare old books, fine old pictures, good old furniture. Their first crude conception of dazzling suites of the newly perfect is replaced almost from the outset by a jackdaw dream of accumulating costly discrepant old things.

This made me think of The Times newspaper which aims, in our day, to be the Bible of this class, overflowing with supplements titled ‘Class’ and ‘Style’ and ‘Travel’, guides for the rich on how to spend their money with ‘class’ and ‘style’. Nothing whatsoever has changed.

The affluent society

The American economist John Kenneth Galbraith coined the phrase The Affluent Society in the title of a book he published in 1958, but Wells was describing its existence in the 1890s:

In these plethoric times when there is too much coarse stuff for everybody and the struggle for life takes the form of competitive advertisement and the effort to fill your neighbour’s eye, when there is no urgent demand either for personal courage, sound nerves or stark beauty, we find ourselves by accident. Always before these times the bulk of the people did not over-eat themselves, because they couldn’t, whether they wanted to do so or not, and all but a very few were kept “fit” by unavoidable exercise and personal danger. Now, if only he pitch his standard low enough and keep free from pride, almost any one can achieve a sort of excess. You can go through contemporary life fudging and evading, indulging and slacking, never really hungry nor frightened nor passionately stirred, your highest moment a mere sentimental orgasm, and your first real contact with primary and elemental necessities, the sweat of your death-bed. (p.234)

Here, as in Galbraith, it strikes me as a comfortably middle class concern

The imperial class

I had a near view of the machinery by which an astounding Empire is run, rubbed shoulders and exchanged experiences with bishops and statesmen, political women and women who were not political, physicians and soldiers, artists and authors, the directors of great journals, philanthropists and all sorts of eminent, significant people. I saw the statesmen without their orders and the bishops with but a little purple silk left over from their canonicals, inhaling, not incense but cigar smoke. I could look at them all the better because, for the most part, they were not looking at me but at my uncle, and calculating consciously or unconsciously how they might use him and assimilate him to their system, the most unpremeditated, subtle, successful and aimless plutocracy that ever encumbered the destinies of mankind.

John Buchan wouldn’t have agreed.

The absurdity

Regarding the vast unfinished palace Uncle Edward was having built for him on Crest Hill, George is stricken with the futility, not only of the individual life, but of the entire system whereby people slave their lives away to provide the improvident rich with their heedless luxuries.

For this the armies drilled, for this the Law was administered and the prisons did their duty, for this the millions toiled and perished in suffering, in order that a few of us should build palaces we never finished, make billiard-rooms under ponds, run imbecile walls round irrational estates, scorch about the world in motor-cars, devise flying-machines, play golf and a dozen such foolish games of ball, crowd into chattering dinner parties, gamble and make our lives one vast, dismal spectacle of witless waste! So it struck me then, and for a time I could think of no other interpretation. This was Life! It came to me like a revelation, a revelation at once incredible and indisputable of the abysmal folly of our being. (p.294)

Turns of phrase

As I’ve often said, I prefer reading older literature because of the unexpected turns of phrase and thought you come across. Wells is usually dismissed as a literary writer because he was slapdash and too often propagandist in intent, but pound for pound his texts include a surprising amount of unexpected and delightful turns of phrase.

I remember these women as immense. No doubt they were of negotiable size, but I was only a very little chap and they have assumed nightmare proportions in my mind. They loomed, they bulged, they impended.

He exfoliated and wagged about novel and incredible ideas. (p.53)

accident in a butter tub p.144

My uncle was my best man, and looked like a banker—a little banker—in flower.

He was an aquarium-faced, long, blond sort of chap (p.177)

He smoked and was fragmentary for a time, fending off my questions… (p.188)

[The polite ladies of Beckenham] all sat about in the summer-house and in garden-chairs, and were very hatty and ruffley and sunshady. (p.198)

Plus ca change…

Another interesting thing about older books is repeatedly being surprised by how little issues and attitudes have changed in the past 130 years. I was struck that George sends Effie a message reading ‘How goes it?’, a phrase I’d have thought was much more modern and slangy (p.170).

I was amused when, after he’s broken up with sensual free spirit Effie, she, in her Bohemian way, falls for a poet:

She married a year or so ago a boy half her age – a wretch of a poet, a wretched poet, and given to drugs, a thing with lank fair hair always getting into his blue eyes, and limp legs.

I was struck how the image of the outsider poet, the poète maudit, coming down to our times in the image of the leather-clad rock’n’roll rebel, drug addict etc – far from being a modern invention has remained so consistent over such a long period.

The radioactive interlude

So most of the novel is extremely homely, set in a country house, a sleepy Sussex town, slovenly Chatham, hotels and apartments around London and then…as the novel reaches its climax, as the wolves start to close in on the fraudster Ponderevo and his business empire starts to crumble, something really weird happens.

Uncle Edward and George agree that the latter must take ship in a dirty old brig, the Maud Mary, and sail, with the shifty captain and surly crew, to an island off the West coast of Africa, here to take aboard as much radioactive ‘quap’ as they can carry. What? The explanation is that Uncle Edward’s London office has been besieged for years by all sorts of people trying to interest him in their get-rich-quick schemes and one that always stood out was a poor explorer, Gordon-Nasmyth, who said he’d come across deposits of radioactive sludge piled up around a lagoon on an island, Mordet Island, off the African coast. Our guys do a scientific analysis of the sample Gordon-Nasmyth brought along and find in it several rare metals. The project hangs fire until Uncle Edward’s fortunes begin to slide and the plan to get the ‘quap’ is a desperate last throw of the dice – if George can return with enough of it, they can extract it, sell it and cover all their debts.

Originally, the plan had been for Gordon-Nasmyth to go but at the last minute he manages to be badly injured in an accident and so our boys decide that George himself should go. The ship is rotten, the captain is a secretive Romanian Jew, George is locked up in a small sweaty cabin with him and the monosyllabic first mate for 50 days, madly seasick.

And when they do find the ‘quap’ is really is radioactive, having scorched the lagoon and surrounding area and burning the hands of the crew who reluctantly set about wheelbarrowing it up plans and dumping it in the ship’s hold.

This whole episode is really bizarre and departs madly from the homely and broadly comic tone of the rest of the book. It feels like a science fiction short story Wells didn’t know what to do with and so inserted here, regardless of its incongruity and strangeness.

As he describes the heat of the tropics, the smell of rotting vegetation, and the occasional black faces they see peeping out of the foliage, I wondered if it was some kind of pastiche of Joseph Conrad, especially his most famous novella, Heart of Darkness. I wondered why on earth Wells made the captain of this knackered old cargo ship a Romanian Jew, which seems a bizarre choice in itself, but when he went into detail about the man’s heavy foreign accent and Continental habit of accompanying his talk with face and hand gestures, I wondered if this was meant to be a satirical portrait of Conrad, who Wells knew, and notorious for his heavy Polish accent.

As if this mad trip to Africa to collect radioactive sludge wasn’t bizarre and random enough already, Wells piles on an even more random and inexplicable event. The boat is anchored for weeks as the loading takes place and so George gets into the habit of wandering beyond the zone blasted by the waste, into the jungle, for an increasing amount of time each day, eventually taking some food and making a day of it.

It was during one of these little explores that he comes across a black man standing stick still in a clearing staring at him. There’s a moment as they both stare at each other then the native turns and starts to run. On impulse, to prevent him alerting his tribe and bringing others and maybe attacking his little European crew, George puts his rifle to his shoulder, fires and hits the black man square in the back. Running over, he sees he’s killed him with one shot.

What? Why? Why on earth has George the sceptical engineer, the man whose confused feelings we are encouraged to sympathise with throughout the book, suddenly transmogrified into a racist murderer? It’s true that throughout the book we’ve had continual satirical analysis of the rotten state of England which has two or three times expanded into jokey comments about the ramshackle adventitious British Empire…is this…is this entire African adventure meant as some kind of extended satire on the folly of Empire, very much like ‘Heart of Darkness’?

George buries the body in quicksand but that night is haunted by guilt at what he’s done and returns to the spot the next day only to find it’s been dug up and half eaten by some jungle animal, so he buries it again. Another night of guilt and when he goes back to the spot next day he finds the body has been dug up again but this time by human hands and entirely removed. This puts the Fear into him and when the ship’s crew rebel at the work they’re doing, effectively going on strike and demanding they leave, George is quick to agree.

In the event this is a wise decision because only a few hours after weighing anchor and starting to steam north they encounter a gunship from another European power (it is never explained which European nation claims ownership of this territory, only that removing the ‘quap’ as they do, is illegal and risky).

Anyway, they manage to throw off the other ship in a storm and fog but then the episode reaches a kind of quintessence of futility. For the ship starts to leak, in George’s opinion because its powerful radioactive cargo slowly disintegrates the wooden staves of the hull. They have to man the bilge pumps continually for seasick storm-ridden days until everyone is sick to death and exhausted and only too happy to agree when the captain says they must abandon ship.

After a day in open rowing boats they are picked up by another European ship, the Union Castle liner, Portland Castle, where they are fed and watered and given new clothes and George reads in the newspapers that his Uncle Edward has finally been declared bankrupt.

At which point the narrative returns to England and the rather sleepy provincial English tone of the novel but leaving this reader completely bewildered at this thick slice of exotica, at this bizarre sci fi-and-murder episode I’ve just experienced. It’s weird.

The flight to France

But it’s followed by something almost equally bizarre, namely George and Edward’s aerial flight to France. In the later part of the novel George tells us less and less about Uncle Edward’s complicated business empire and more and more about his use of the money he acquires to set up extensive workshops, hangars and engineering facilities where he, along with trusty assistant Cothope, work on projects for manned flight.

These passages include an extended description of the sensation of lying in an early design of glider and it swoops over the Surrey countryside. And George was working on a new, expanded version of a dirigible of his own design, including his own lightweight motor. So this is a zeppelin-type balloon with a small space for a couple of passengers to lie in and a motor-driven propeller at the back to move it and steer with.

So, long story short, when he gets back to England, and travels down to Surrey to meet with Uncle Edward the latter is, for the first time in his life, broken and speechless. A sustained campaign by his rivals, in particular a certain press baron named ‘Lord Boom’ (modelled on Lord Northcliffe?) have exposed the rickety basis of Edward’s empire and it’s all collapsing. Not only that but he sheepishly admits to George that he’s lied under oath and in signed affadavits – in other words, he could be arrested and gaoled for fraud.

So this is all the rational or logical pretext for what happens next, which is bonkers. And this is that George bundles Edward and some supplies into his prototype dirigible and flies him to France. In the event this fraught trip is described in rather too much detail for the prevailing winds blow them down rather than across the Channel and it’s only by extreme effort that George manages not to get blown out into the Atlantic and instead manages to crash land them on the coast near Bordeaux. But that isn’t the end of this section, far from it.

They are looked after by kindly French peasants and then make their way across country to a small village which I got the impression was close to the Spanish border (‘There is a background of the Pyrenees, of blue hills and sunlit houses, of the old castle of Luzon and a noisy cascading river..’).

Here they find accommodation in a peasant inn and Uncle Edward, worn down by his worries and the exertions of the journey, sickens and dies. But even this simple plot development is really stretched out, taking many days and involving a bizarre coterie of characters, including the local doctor, a Catholic nun, and an English Anglican vicar who spends some of his time catering to English tourists abroad.

Why? Why this ridiculous science fiction, Heath Robinson contrivance of an escape? And why flee as far as the Pyrenees? And why subject us to an extended description of the argy-bargy this all causes among the people tending dying Edward?

A set of whys to add to all the questions about the entire African ‘quap’ episode, which also feels as if it’s been parachuted in from a different genre altogether. It is a weird exotic conclusion to the life story of someone who had, up until that moment, been a kind of quintessence of little Englander provincialism and, as such, feels wildly inappropriate.

And it would never have been a proper ‘escape’ as the authorities get wind of a dying foreigner and about the time Uncle Edward expires they turn up to arrest George.

Losing Beatrice

But that’s not all. Third in this trilogy of weirdness is the very final section which describes the frustratingly unsatisfactory end of George’s love affair with Beatrice. You might recall that right back at the start of the novel (which feels like years ago) George, as a little boy growing up in Bladesover House, had a crush on a little girl from the ruling class who he was allowed to play with, Beatrice, and this led up to a stolen kiss in the bracken. In fact it triggers the next stage in the plot because Beatrice is often accompanied by a slightly bigger boy, her cousin Archie, and one day jealous banter escalates into fighting. George is getting the best of it when the house’s owner, old Lady Drew, and her companion come round the corner, are appalled, all sides agree that George started the fight because he is an ill-mannered oik, and this is what triggers him being banished from Bladesover and sent to stay with his awful cousin Frapp in miserable Chatham (from where he eventually runs away).

Anyway, towards the end of the entire book, this Beatrice re-enters, on horseback, accompanied by the son (Lord Carnaby) of the posh local landowner (Lady Osprey). Long story short, George and Beatrice reconnect, and she swears, repeatedly, that she loves him, she has always loved him etc etc, but she cannot be his. This all happens over the few months leading up to George’s ill-fated expedition to Africa so that when he leaves there’s much kissy-kissy and declarations of love.

The thing is she refuses to marry him, constantly putting him off, telling him she’ll explain why and so on when the time is right, one day, not now, but darling we have this evening etc.

What, I think, eventually emerges is that she has been corrupted by society: she was brought up in a grand house, enjoying all the freedoms and privilege, and she now, I think, if I have deduced form her frustratingly oblique explanations, become the mistress of Lord Carnaby (I don’t understand why she hasn’t just married him). The point being that her role of Carnaby’s mistress keeps her in fine clothes and big rooms and horses to ride. If she ran away from Carnaby to be with George, well, George has just lost his fortune and is facing possibly legal proceedings… So she’d be throwing away all the advantages of a wealthy lifestyle to live with poor engineer George and… well… she thinks she’d change, she wouldn’t be the same, she would come to hate him for ruining her life.

So I think the entire point of the Beatrice storyline is to ram home Wells’s point about the corrupting and strangling effect of wealth and social convention on Pure Love.

Last point: destroyers

At the very very end of the novel we clearly discover what has been hinted at a few times earlier that, having lost the fortune which allowed him to experiment with powered flight, George has moved into a job designing destroyers i.e. warships. And not for the British, who scorned his homemade solutions, but for whoever pays the highest fee. The novel ends with an extended description of George taking the first of this new breed of destroyer, the X2, on its maiden voyage down the Thames to the North Sea.

This, also, can be given a satirical, political interpretation: namely that a man who has vaunted his fine feelings and delicate sensibilities and shared the inner truth of his love affairs and been such a shrewd critic of English society and its snobberies and pretensions and ramshackle empire, who came to London with such earnest hopes to contribute something positive to society, who had earnest conversations about socialism and a new world – that this idealist ends up working not for the betterment of mankind but building weapons of destruction (itself to be seen in the context of the arms race between Britain and Germany).

So society is based on a confidence trick; the worlds of finance and business are a sham; the whole show is only kept on the road by only empty snobbery and showy ceremonies; true love is always strangled and frustrated; and even the most idealistic of men ends up designing weapons of war and death in order to survive. These are just some of the more obvious themes which emerge from this ramshackle pot-pourri of a novel.

Conclusion

It’s a powerful book, full of all sorts of treats such as the many topics which I’ve quoted at length – but you can’t help being bewildered by its wild swings of tone and subject matter, especially in the final sections, which I’ve just summarised.

It’s a big absorbing novel full of interesting ideas, the vivid scenes of childhood, the upsettingly powerful description of a failed marriage but – what is the Joseph Conrad-style Africa section doing in it? Or the science fiction dirigible escape? And the final section about his frustrated love for Beatrice felt like it dragged on forever leaving me, by the end, exhausted and relieved that this long rambling, all-over-the-place narrative had, at last, finally, ended.


Credit

Tono-Bungay by H.G. Wells was published in 1909. References are to the 1982 Pan Classics paperback edition.

Related links

H.G. Wells reviews

Kipps: The Story of a Simple Soul by H.G. Wells (1905)

You figure him a small, respectably attired figure going slowly through a sometimes immensely difficult and always immense world.
(Wells describing the simple, overwhelmed protagonist of this novel, page 212)

The first edition bore a preface by the author:

Kipps is essentially a novel, and is designed to present a typical member of the English lower middle-class in all its limitations and feebleness. Beneath a treatment deliberately kindly and genial, the book provides a sustained and exhaustive criticism of the ideals and ways of life of the great mass of middle-class English people.

From which you can see that Well’s social novels (his realistic depictions of Edwardian life as opposed to his scientific romances) all have an agenda and a program. This is what people like Virginia Woolf didn’t like about him: in her ideal, a novel is a self-contained aesthetic object carefully crafted to be an exquisite thing of beauty, beautifully capturing the beautiful thoughts of beautiful sensitive people, mostly women. For Wells, the novel was the exact opposite, a device or tool designed to convey social satire, sociopolitical criticism, highlight abuses and issues, in stories and prose designed to appeal to a mass audience, to be popular, mostly featuring lower class, under-educated and often quite shallow men, in plots which ramble and shamble with a cheeky chappy narrator pushing and prodding and pointing the moral in case you missed it.

Woolf was a snob and deplored the fact that Wells’s novels depicted ‘counter jumpers’, literally sales assistants in shops who, in Woolf’s view, ought to know their place in the social hierarchy, ought to remain silent functionaries serving her beautiful sensitive friends, instead of having vulgar futile ambitions for a better life. But to Wells, people who worked in shops, in retail, in domestic service, on the railways, on ships, the clerks and receptionists and so on, the great army of functionaries who made society run smoothly, these were people too, people who had had rough starts in life, been let down by a ruinous ‘education system’, and been condemned to lives of shabby poverty and small horizons.

‘Love and Mr Lewisham’ is the story of a very young and naive pair of impoverished lovers: it has many lovely things in it but left me feeling poor and downtrodden. And ‘Kipps’, also, starts off lovely, light and breezy when Kipps is a boy playing carefree on Romney Marsh, but also turns into a bit of a grind. Initially ‘Kipps’ is funnier. Wells maintains his facetiously comical attitude to all his characters, but his phrasing comes off more often:

The eldest Quodling lisped, had a silly sort of straw hat and a large pink face (all covered over with self-satisfaction)…

Mrs. Woodrow — a small partially effaced woman with a plaintive face and a mind above cookery…

Quite regardless of the subject matter I find Well’s throwaway phrasing wonderfully vivid and suggestive:

His own knowledge of French had been obtained years ago in another English private school, and he had refreshed it by occasional weeks of loafing and mean adventure in Dieppe.

Half-way to the wreck Kipps made a casual irrelevant remark. ‘Your sister ain’t a bad sort,’ he said off-handedly. ‘I clout her a lot,’ said Sidney modestly…

He was a youngster of fourteen, thin, with whimsical drakes’ tails at the poll of his head, smallish features, and eyes that were sometimes very light and sometimes very dark, gifts those of his birth; and by the nature of his training he was indistinct in his speech, confused in his mind, and retreating in his manners.

‘Retreating in his manners’, that’s just not the kind of thinking or phrasing you find in modern fiction – curious, odd, unexpected, highly expressive.

Affairs of clothes and vanities they were, jealousies about a thing said, flatteries and mutual boastings, climaxes in the answering grasp of hands, the temerarious use of Christian names… (p.39)

Kipps felt himself a creature of outer darkness, an inexcusable intruder in an altitudinous world. (p.46)

‘You’re right,’ he said, and then looked at her with an entire abandonment of visage. (p.54)

‘You’ll have a good time,’ he said abruptly, with a smile that would have interested a dentist. (p.114)

Sometimes there are thoughts which have strayed in from the scientific romances and have a sudden depth or power:

He wondered where he could be. He had a curious fancy that the world had been swept and rolled up like a carpet and that he was nowhere. (p.105)

When he’s like this I find Wells highly readable.

‘I like gardenin’,’ said Kipps, with memories of a pennyworth of nasturtiums he had once trained over his uncle’s dustbin. (p.135)

Mrs. Walshingham turned a little beam of half-pathetic reminiscence on the past. (p.146)

Sid spoke offhand as though there was no such thing as pride. (p.160)

There was an interlude of matches. (p.205)

He saw them clasp their hands, heard Coote’s characteristic cough—a sound rather more like a very, very old sheep, a quarter of a mile away, being blown to pieces by a small charge of gunpowder than anything else in the world… (p.234)

A faint, tremulous network of lights reflected from the ripples of a passing duck, played subtly over her cheek and faded away. (p.245)

He dismissed their previous talk with his paragraphic cough. (p.258)

For a while they abandoned themselves to ejaculating transports. (p.287)

It was like the rush of water when a dam bursts and washes out a fair-sized provincial town; all sorts of things floated along on the swirl. (p.296)

I’ll return to Woolf’s critique at the end of my plot summary.

The shadow of Dickens

The influence of Charles Dickens haunts the novel: 1) beginning with the basic conception of focusing on very common people, leagues below the lords and ladies of James or EM Foster, the permanently embarrassed lower middle classes and lower, as Dickens did.

2) Then there are Dickensian echoes in the setting of rural Kent, which continually reminds you of ‘Great Expectations’. Pip grows up on the edge of Romney Marsh and Kipps grows up in a sweetshop in New Romney.

3) Wells has a Dickensian way of expressing character through dialogue and, in particular, through idiolects or distinct turns of speech, which really bring out a character. He pays a lot of attention to Kipps’s working class speech, or what he calls ‘his clipped defective accent’ (p.138)

‘Isn’t it a Go!’ said Kips. ‘I ‘aven’t nearly got to believe its reely ‘appened yet. When that Mr. Bean told me of it you could ‘ave knocked me down with a feather…. It’s a tremenjous change for me.’

Even more so Uncle Kipps’s mangled accent:

‘Ain’t bort a dog yet?’
‘Not yet, uncle. ‘Ave a segar?’
‘Not a moty car?”
‘Not yet, uncle.’

4) And then there are Dickensian tricks, such as making a house or its furnishings into living, comic entities.

The rug, the fender, the mantel and mirror conspired with great success to make him look a trivial and intrusive little creature amidst their commonplace hauteur, and his own shadow on the opposite wall seemed to think everything a great lark and mocked and made tremendous fun of him…. (p.113)

And later in the same scene:

He picked a piece of cotton from his knee, the fire grimaced behind his back, and his shadow on the wall and ceiling was disrespectfully convulsed. (p.119)

5) And then the carefree direct address of the author to the reader:

Coote, a sort of master of the ceremonies. You figure his face, blowing slightly with solicitude, his slate coloured, projecting but not unkindly eye intent upon our hero.

Book 1. The Making of Kipps

I. The Little Shop at New Romney

As to the plot it certainly opens with a sort of ‘Great Expectations’ vibe with young Artie Kipps being abandoned by his parents to the care of his aunt and uncle who kept a sweetshop in New Romney. I really enjoyed the description of him running wild across the marshes with the boy next door, Sid Pornick, playing at cowboys and Indians, exploring mysterious shipwrecks. Sounds wonderful. He develops a puppy love for the girl next door, Sid’s sister, Ann. As they hit adolescence their friendship suddenly takes on a mysterious new depth which is puzzling to both of them. Ann swears that they’ll never be apart and:

Then a great idea came to him, in a paragraph called ‘Lovers’ Tokens’ that he read in a torn fragment of Tit Bits. It fell in to the measure of his courage – a divided sixpence! He secured his aunt’s best scissors, fished a sixpence out of his jejune tin money-box, and jabbed his finger in a varied series of attempts to get it in half.

In fact, Kipps fails to cut it and it falls to Ann to manage this task and, when Kipps is getting on the bus to Folkstone, to rush after him and thrust the half a sixpence into his hand.

For then he is sent to a ludicrous private school, ‘Cavendish Academy’, run by a preposterous charlatan:

George Garden Woodrow, F.S.Sc. – letters indicating that he had paid certain guineas for a bogus diploma

Part of Wells’s sustained criticism of the dire state of English education for anyone below public school level.

2. The Emporium

Age 14 Kipp is bound an apprentice to a haberdasher and draper’s shop in Folkestone run by a Mr Shalford who lacks all innovation, planning or intelligence, and whose idea for business is not to innovate in any way but to screw the maximum surplus labour out of his extensive staff.

Mr. Shalford rose, and handing Kipps a blotting-pad and an inkpot to carry – mere symbols of servitude, for he made no use of them – emerged into a counting-house where three clerks had been feverishly busy ever since his door handle had turned.

Nicknamed the Emporium, this establishment is like a department store and has sleeping quarters for most of the staff, including a dormitory for the apprentices like Kipps.

3. The Wood-Carving Class

Long years of soul-destroying drudgery pass, running errands for the older staff and being routinely shouted at and nursing a huge resentment against the world. As he turns 20, the only door into a wider world is a woodwork class Kipps takes with a symbol of the wider world and all the culture he knows nothing about, young woodwork teacher Helen Walshingham.

Kipps shyly falls in love with her, a situation commented on by a freckly girl who adores Helen and points out to her that Kipps loves her. There’s a central symbolic incident where Miss Walshingham tries to open a window in the classroom, can’t, Kipps enthusiastically volunteers and manages to push his hand through the glass, making a long cut down his arm, quickly bleeding profusely. Miss W and the freckled girl both take this as an example of his heroism.

But the class comes to an end and it’s back to work work work, long hours on his feet and complete subservience to hoity-toity customers.

Then three things happen in a hurry, a flurry of coincidences which the characters make much of, as if Wells the author is a little embarrassed by them:

‘It’s about the thickest coincidence I ever struck,’ said Chitterlow…

[Chitterlow] threw out a number of long sentences and material for sentences of a highly philosophical and incoherent character about Coincidences. (p.127)

4. Chitterlow

Kipps is out walking on his afternoon off when he’s run over (or bumped into) by a fellow named Chitterlow riding a bicycle. Sort of posh, or posher than Kipps, this chap apologises effusively and takes him back to his room to offer a drink and to sew up Kipps’s trousers which have been ripped. They become friends. Kipps learns that Chitterlow is a wanna-be playwright who’s been working for years on a Great Tragedy and a Wonderful Farce, neither of which quite get written.

Their early conversation involves a drink, then two, then a top-up, then a lot more conversation about plays and theatre and critics and so on and it turns into a chapter to Kipps and Chitterlow getting completely plastered. Maybe this was intended as a comic tour de force with its description of Kipps’s increasingly confused perceptions but I found it a bit trying. Long story short: Kipps gets do disgustingly drunk that he ends up spending the night on Chitterlow’s sofa thus not returning to the Emporium before lockup at 11pm.

5. ‘Swapped’

Next morning Kipps has a thumping headache and makes his way timidly to the Emporium, only to be called into Mr Shalford’s office and told that, for this breach of the rules governing his apprenticeship, he is being immediately ‘swapped’. This term is never explained by appears to mean sacked.

6. The Unexpected (i.e. Kipps inherits a fortune)

It’s Chitterlow who draws Kipps’s attention to an ad in a newspaper asking for anyone with the surname Kipps, with a mother named Euphemia, and born in September 1878, to get in touch. Long story short: Kipps inherits a fortune. We piece together from scattered conversations with his uncle and aunt that Grandfather Kipps was a stern successful businessman, that his son got Kipps’s mother, Euphemia, pregnant; that Grandfather Kipps sent his son off to Australia and Euphemia gave birth before handing the child over to the uncle and aunt who raised him. Then, on his deathbed, Grandad Kipps realised what a mistake he’d made in preventing the couple from ever marrying, and decided to try and make it right, and so changed his will at the last moment, charging his lawyers, Watson and Bean, to track down his grandson and make him his heir.

And so Kipps inherits property (houses in Folkestone) and other assets which give him an annual income of £1,200. The narrative cuts to five days later and Kipps wearing fashionable dress strolling round town and admiring his main house, an impressive stucco-ed pile.

A scene where Kipps goes back to the Emporium and the entire staff rally round and insist on breaking open champagne and toasting him (obviously only possible because dictatorial Mr Shalford is away in London), featuring some of the named characters he’d been rooming with, ‘Buggins, Carshot, Pierce and the rest of them’. A warm vision of lower middle class solidarity.

Book 2 Mr. Coote, the Chaperon

1. The New Conditions

Mr. Chester Coote. You must figure him as about to enter our story, walking with a curious rectitude of bearing through the evening dusk towards the Public Library, erect, large-headed—he had a great, big head full of the suggestion of a powerful mind, well under control—with a large, official-looking envelope in his white and knuckly hand. In the other he carries a gold-handled cane. He wears a silken grey jacket suit, buttoned up, and anon he coughs behind the official envelope. He has a prominent nose, slatey grey eyes and a certain heaviness about the mouth. His mouth hangs breathing open, with a slight protrusion of the lower jaw. His straw hat is pulled down a little in front, and he looks each person he passes in the eye, and directly his look is answered looks away.

Kipps obviously has no idea to do with his inherited wealth and the impression given by the opening chapters of part 2 is that he is co-opted by people who want to get their hands on it. He had met Chester Coote at Helen Walshingham’s wood-carving class where he gave a sense of lofty superiority. He offers to take Kipps under his wing and guide him through the world of etiquette required of a gentleman in his position.

As the evening wore on Coote’s manner changed, became more and more the manner of a proprietor. He began to take up his rôle, to survey Kipps with a new, with a critical affection. It was evident the thing fell in with his ideas. ‘It will be awfully interesting,’ he said. ‘You know, Kipps, you’re really good stuff.’ (Every sentence now he said ‘Kipps’ or ‘my dear Kipps’ with a curiously authoritative intonation.)

As Coote slowly inveigles his way into role of Kipps’s mentor, I don’t think we’re meant to think of him as a crook exactly, but kind of sinister:

That sinister passion for pedagoguery to which the Good Intentioned are so fatally liable, that passion of infinite presumption that permits one weak human being to arrogate the direction of another weak human being’s affairs, had Coote in its grip. He was to be a sort of lay confessor and director of Kipps, he was to help Kipps in a thousand ways, he was in fact to chaperon Kipps into the higher and better sort of English life. He was to tell him his faults, advise him about the right thing to do… (p.119)

2. The Walshinghams

Coote invites Kipps for tea, shows him books and art, discusses his future. When they go down for tea they discover Miss Walshingham has been invited. Coote had attended Miss W’s wood-carving class periodically. Now there is a very strong feeling that Coote is pushing Kipps towards Walshingham, almost as if he might get a commission for pairing them off.

Kipps is invited for tea at the home of Helen Walshingham and is introduced to her discreet scheming mother. Although it’s all told from Kipps’s point of view the plot is as old as the novel, namely eligible young woman angling to marry well i.e. money. There is no mistaking that Helen and her mother both have their beady eyes on the newly rich Kipps (note her mother’s ‘quiet watchfulness’, p.138). This ought to be funny but I found it sad. Apart from anything else we discover that Helen, who Kipps perceived as a window onto the great world of ‘Culture’ when he attended her classes, in reality lives in a dingy little house, with cramped little rooms and a tiny little back garden.

Even sadder is the refrain repeated by both Helen and her mother that she’s a woman with a lot of potential who never had the opportunities, never had the springboard to become what she ought to.

3. Engaged

Under gentle pressure from Coote and Helen, Kipps changes his lawyer from respectable old Mr Bean who had dealt with his inheritance and gives full charge of his affairs to Helen’s brother, an insignificant detail here, which is to have large consequences at the end of the story…

Fifty-three days later Coote organises a day outing to Lympne, to the romantic ruined castle on the marshes, and while he himself makes a play for the freckled young woman who’s come along, Helen inveigles Kipps into climbing to the turret of the castle with her and in the subtlest way possible makes it clear that she’s in love with him, calls him ‘dear’ (which, apparently, in Edwardian England clinched the matter) because Kipps replies, ‘You mean…you’ll marry me’ (p.144).

It’s been a running joke since he inherited that Kipps has bought several books of etiquette (with titles like ‘Manners and Rules of Good Society’) and pores over them late into the night, but nonetheless is paralysed by fear of making a social faux pas, even when making the slightest social visit, and also that he keeps wearing very expensive and obviously brand new polite clothes.

Well, Helen Walshingham now sets about the work of every wife, which is to reform her future husband and begin to house-train him into what to wear and how to behave (p.154). In among this satire about small people with cramped horizons, what you could Wells’s visionary tendency keeps intruding:

Something like awe at the magnitude of his own fortune came upon him. He felt the world was opening out like a magic flower in a transformation scene at the touch of this wand of gold. And Helen, nestling beautiful in the red heart of the flower. (p.149)

4. The Bicycle Manufacturer

Kipps buys a car and, as far as I can tell, hire a chauffeur, who promptly drives him out to Romney where he announces his magnificence to his aunt and uncle. It is taken for granted that Kipps will share his good fortune with them and they can sell the family toyshop and retire.

In New Romney high street he bumps into his boyhood friend, Sid Pornick, now running his own bicycle manufacturing company in Hammersmith. He is not pleased to hear Kipps has inherited so much money because he is now a Socialist and delivers a bit of a rant about unearned income and the class system.

5. The Pupil Lover

Subtle analysis of the way Kipps’s feeling for his fiancée change which is that, somehow even he doesn’t understand or is really aware of, he’s stopped loving her. Partly due to her growing tendency to mother and boss him about. Somehow they’ve persuaded Kipps to hand over legal responsibility for his affairs from his grandfather’s firm to Helen’s brother. Mrs Walshingham refers to her children as her Twin Jewels. Somehow it is assumed that he will come to live with them when they move to London.

The scene where Kipps is airing himself at Folkestone bandstand when he is bumped into by old mates from the Emporium, Buggins and Pierce, but when Coote turns up he is distinctly cool towards these men who are obviously not gentlemen and Kipps finds himself very embarrassed caught in the middle, and being pressed into denying his past and his character in order to ‘get on’.

6. Discords

Having mastered the skills of the bicycle, Kipps cycles from Folkstone to Romney to announce his engagement to his uncle and aunt when who should he bump into by Ann Pornick. She’s 7 years older, taller, a proper woman, but oh how easily he falls into conversation as they walk together, how happy and relaxed he feels. She mentions the half a sixpence they shared, and he feels an overwhelming urge to kiss her.

With some reluctance they part, he goes onto his uncle’s and can’t remember a thing they talked about then cycled back to Folkestone thinking about Ann all the way, and into the evening and wakes up the next day thinking about ‘Ann, the bright, the desirable, the welcoming’ (p.185).

A few days later he’s back in Romney, finds Ann again in the high street, they go walking down to the sea, talk about the old days, mention the half sixpences again and then, in the poppy-strewn pebbly beach, he kisses her. The rest of the chapter describes his steady alienation from Helen, who now fills the days with criticism and tips for his improvement. He is pestered by Chitterlow who invites himself round, gets drunk and somehow implies that Kipps is to be the new main investor in his forthcoming play at the bargain price of £2,000. That night he is almost in a panic, which is clinched the next day when he receives a letter from aunt and uncle telling him they’re coming to Folkstone to be introduced to his lady love (meaning Helen). Kipps’s feelings for Helen have now curdled to dislike sometimes bordering on hatred. This letter throws him into a panic and he packs a bag and catches a train to London.

7. London

Obviously on the train he feels bad about running out on his aunt and uncle. Then has a panic that they’ll track down the Walshinghams and visit without him as mediator. (He’s ashamed of their roughness.) Now Kipps had visited London precisely once before, when he was taken by Helen’s brother, had stayed at the Grand Hotel at Charing Cross (the London station for Kent) and gotten used to taking hansom cabs everywhere.

He takes an expensive room at the hotel but is intimidated by the formal dining room so goes wandering down the Strand then up to Clerkenwell but is intimidated by either being too ignorant of etiquette or too smartly dressed, to go in anywhere. He’s getting hungry when he is tapped on the shoulder by his old mate, Sid Pornick, who takes him by tube to Hammersmith where Mrs Sid has made a lovely mutton dinner and he meets their adorable baby boy, who repeats his name over and over while banging a spoon on the table. He’s never been so happy.

Then Sid takes him upstairs to meet their lodger, Masterman, who Sid insists is a great Socialist and intellectual, author of a book about ‘Physiography’, reviewer of books for magazines and so on. Masterman is knackered, slumped in a shabby bedroom, but as he gets fired up he sits up and becomes inspired, delivering a long monologue about the evils of capitalism, the rottenness of society, class, corruption, all the usual.

Cut to Kipps mooching moodily along Rotten Row in Hyde Park, torn between two lovers, Helen who’s he’s come to really dislike for her bossy ways, and Ann, who he’s ashamed of. As Sid said goodbye he told Kipps that Ann (who works as a servant) had taken a position in Folkestone – in other words, Kipps might be out strolling arm-in-arm with Helen when they come across Ann! Before you even get to the kissing, there’s the enormous social embarrassment of telling Helen he’s good friends with a member of the servant class etc etc. nightmare. If only he could break free.

There is a set-piece scene where he goes down for dinner at the Grand Hotel and is comprehensively humiliated in every way imaginable, by lofty waiters, menus in French, incomprehensible dishes and swanky neighbours tittering at him, until he retreats in embarrassment and humiliation. This scene reminded me of Charlie Chaplin who made his first short movie 9 years later, in 1914, and introduced the character of The Tramp the following year.

The last section is another scene of humiliation in the hotel, this time on a day when he decides it would be a smart move to tip all the stuff which backfires as he realises them all in groups in corridors, dining room and foyer, sniggering at him. It’s cast as a competition between Kipps and the hotel to score points and in the end Kipps retires, having been comprehensively defeated.

8. Kipps Enters Society

So, thoroughly defeated by London after just three days, Kipps catches the train back to Folkestone. Here he attends a posh party where the guests each have a card with an anagram on it to break the ice. Inevitably, the servant who opens the door to him is Ann and both young people stand there frozen, till the hostess sweeps past to greet him. He has another attack of class hatred:

Here were all these chattering people, with money, with leisure, with every chance in the world, and all they could do was to crowd like this into a couple of rooms and jabber nonsense…Abruptly resolution stood armed in his heart. He was going to get out of this! (p.228)

God, I know that feeling.

He tries to explain to Helen that he hates this life but she happily bats away his objections, explaining that he has to learn to swim in the small insipid pool of Folkestone before they move to a flat in London and set about creating their own social circle

The climax comes at a dinner given by a Mrs Wace, attended by a supposed author and luminary, Revel. First of all Helen is wearing a dazzling evening dress which brings out her wonderful figure and, for some reason, finally exterminates all traces of affection for her in Kipp’s breast. Second, conversation turns to unreliable servants and one of the guests, Mrs Bindon Bott, tells about a servant at her house who, at the end of the anagram party of a few days earlier, had burst into floods of tears and gave her notice at the end of the evening. Kipps realises this must be Ann and realises she must have learned that Kipps was engaged to Helen, which so upset her.

Long story short, Kipps flees the dinner party, goes right round to Mrs Bindon Bott’s house where Ann opens the door and tells him to come back to the servant’s door and after 9pm, when she’s ‘off’. When he comes back, he proposes, asking her to run away to London with him and get married and, after much hesitation and tears, she says YES!

9. The Labyrinthodon

So they flee by train to London and then by cab to Sid’s house in Hammersmith, who’s delighted to see them, delighted to learn they’re to get married, delighted to put them up.

A labyrinthodon is a type of dinosaur. The chapter title derives from the fact that there’s a life-sized plaster model of one in Crystal Palace and that’s where they go on a day out and to discuss their future, namely marriage and a nice little house in Hythe. And so they get married with no description at all of the ceremony.

Book 3. Kippses

1. The Housing Problem

Once married they have to find their dream house. This proves impossible, most English housing, then as now, being crap, so Kipps conceives the extravagant plan of building his own house, eventually persuaded to hire an architect for the actual design.

It’s an unhappy process designed to show how spoiled Kipps has been, not by the money but by the snobs who gathered round him, Coote and Walshingham. Ann dreams of a cosy little cottage but Kipps finds himself being bamboozled, influenced by his aspiring Uncle, into agreeing to an 11-bedroom mansion, though by the time building commences, neither he nor Ann really want it.

2. The Callers

They are miserable. They are bored. They live in a rented house with a view of the grey relentless sea and nothing to do. Kipps goes for a walk and is cut by Coote, plunging him into unhappiness. He walks on to the muddy building site for the house which is bereft of workers or activity, is surprised the marked-out rooms look so small, has a strong suspicion that the builders are bilking him.

When he gets back his misery is made complete when he discovers that, in his absence, Ann was on her hands and knees enamelling some tiles which their servant, Gwendolin, had made a hash of, and it was at that moment that they had their first callers, the wife and daughters of the local vicar. And Ann had gone down to answer the door dressed like a skivvy and the vicar’s wife asked whether Mrs Kipps was in and Ann acted the part of a servant and said ‘no ma’am’, took their cards and closed the door. Now she can never face them and is humiliated.

But Kipps gets unusually angry with her for behaving so badly and putting off their first ever callers! (These poor babies, with their ‘ their poor little troubled heads’, lost in the big world of grown-ups.) They were going to have a nice tea of buttered toast but end up arguing and going to bed in silence where, in the dark of the night, Kipps hears Ann crying.

3. Terminations

In the final chapter, Kipps discovers that Walshingham – Helen’s sister and his lawyer – has been speculating with his money and lost it all! Kipps is completely broke! He goes of walking across the Downs to process the disaster.

But next day goes to see the old lawyer, Bean, who tells him it’s not a total loss. Walshingham couldn’t speculate away the half-built house so they can probably sell that for £500 and there’s rent and half a mortgage on the house in Folkestone. All told they might clear £1,000. Kipps shares with Ann a dream he’s been nurturing of opening a shop. Drapery? asks Ann. No, a nice little bookshop.

Three things happen: 1) Kipps does indeed set up a bookshop, though there’s loads of boring detail about his getting involved in an American chain of bookshops called the ‘Associated Booksellers’ Trading Union (Limited)’ which may have been a satire on a contemporary concern but now appeared unnecessarily clotted and complicated.

2) Ann has a baby. There was no mention of her pregnancy and his description of her after labour is embarrassingly patronising and obtuse, but maybe reflects Kipps’s naivety and obtuseness.

She had the look of one who emerges from some strenuous and invigorating act. (p.293)

Well, of course she bloody did!

3) Remember Chitterlow with his madcap schemes for plays, and him inveigling Kipps into investing in one: well, it turns out to be a wild success and Kipps is assured of profits.

Two years later

An abrupt jump and the narrative quickly explains that Chitterlow’s play really did become a runaway success, playing to packed houses every night, so that the return on Kipps’s investment has brought him back to being about as rich as he was before Walshingham ran off with his money.

Nothing changes

Globalisation

‘Man is a social animal with a mind nowadays that goes around the globe, and a community cannot be happy in one part and unhappy in another. It’s all or nothing, no patching any more for ever.’ (Masterman)

World run by and for the rich

‘Today,’ he said, ‘the world is ruled by rich men; they may do almost anything they like with the world. And what are they doing? Laying it waste! Collectively, the rich today have neither heart nor imagination. No! They own machinery, they have knowledge and instruments and powers beyond all previous dreaming, and what are they doing with them?… God gives them means of communication, power unparalleled of every sort, time and absolute liberty! They waste it all in folly! … They grudge us our schools, they grudge us a gleam of light and air, they cheat us and then seek to forget us…. There is no rule, no guidance, only accidents and happy flukes…. Our multitudes of poverty increase, and this crew of rulers makes no provision, foresees nothing, anticipates nothing…’

Global warming

‘Very hot,’ said this lady. ‘Very hot, indeed – hot all the summer – remarkable year – all the years remarkable now – don’t know what we’re coming to – don’t you think so, Mr. Kipps?’ (p.227)

Housing crisis

A whole chapter describing how English houses in 1905 were built to poor standards by penny-pinching developers.

When the houses were not too big, then they were almost invariably the product of speculative building, of that multitudinous hasty building for the extravagant multitude of new births that was the essential disaster of the nineteenth century. The new houses Ann refused as damp, and even the youngest of these that had been in use showed remarkable signs of a sickly constitution, the plaster flaked away, the floors gaped, the paper mouldered and peeled, the doors dropped, the bricks scaled and the railings rusted…There were occasions when it seemed to them that they must be the victims of an elaborate conspiracy of estate agents… (p.253)

And, strikingly:

Everyone hates estate agents. (p.254)

The Woolf critique

You can understand the criticism made of Wells the ‘popular’ novelist by ‘serious’ novelists such as Henry James, Joseph Conrad or Virginia Woolf, writers (in their different ways) committed to turning the novel into an Art Form.

1. Wells’s novels seem episodic and, a word frequently used, improvised, meaning you often get a strong sense that he had another bright idea for a satirical swipe at Edwardian society and so chucked in a new 3 or 4 page section, heedless of the overall design or flow.

2. Wells directly addresses the reader in the manner of 18th century authors, in a way which seemed clumsy and vulgar to artists like Woolf who were trying to make the novel into self-contained artworks. Direct address:

Perhaps you know those intolerable mornings, dear Reader, when you seem to have neither the heart nor the strength to rise, and your nervous adjustments are all wrong and your fingers thumbs, and you hate the very birds for singing. (p.191)

Or:

Mrs. Kipps is the same bright and healthy little girl woman you saw in the marsh; not an inch has been added to her stature in all my voluminous narrative. (p.252)

An attitude demonstrated at greater length in part 2, chapter 5, section 4:

But you must not imagine that the national ideal of a gentleman, as Coote developed it, was all a matter of deportment and selectness, a mere isolation from debasing associations. There is a Serious Side, a deeper aspect of the true, True Gentleman. The True Gentleman does not wear his heart on his sleeve. He is a polished surface above deeps… (p.177)

Initially I liked this, but came to find it irritating and arch. It doesn’t have the freshness of Henry Fielding or Dickens and ended up feeling lame. This is particularly true of the last couple of pages where the narrator comes clean and says Kipps is based on a real person and you can visit his bookshop in Hythe today, and have a chat with him, only don’t tell him that Wells has put him in a novel and his name is Kipps. I can appreciate the meta aspects of this but it felt lame, it undermined the force of what went before. I can understand the Woolf objection.

3. If the intrusive narrator feels like watered-down Dickens the same is true of many of the characters – I had the strong sense that the handful of recurring characters (Coote, Uncle Kipps, Walshingham, Chitterlow) should all have been more vivid. Surely Dickens would have made all of them more colourful, given them more vivid quirks of speech or odd hobbies. Wells just gives them very cursory distinguishing features, such as Coote’s thick jaw, and that’s it. Actually the uncle is given the mildly amusing habit of buying up rubbish antiques which he assures Kipps are priceless bargains, a fairly comic indication of the hopeless ignorant optimism of his type. But this kind of mild quirk lacks the manic energy of Dickens’s mad imagination.

4. The most effective part of the critique is the accusation that Wells’s characters are extremely shallow, have no souls and that these social novels all-too-accurately capture:

The stupid little tragedies of these clipped and limited lives. (p.279)

The accusation is that the characters are boring and given to little or no thought, no ideas, nothing for the intelligent reader to latch onto. After a while you realise the problem of having a central protagonist who is, as Wells describes him, ‘simple’, who lacks all education or depth, who is a bundle of nerves in all social situations, with no knowledge of books, culture, politics or current affairs, the wider world or any interesting friends, is that it’s very…limiting. Kipps is a ‘simple soul’ but the book is, in the end, also rather simple, in content and form. Simple-minded. Towards the end the narrator says that, due to their lack of education or experience:

It was a tortuous journey when the Kippses set out to explain anything to each other. (p.288)

But he doesn’t follow through to the obvious conclusion that it is often a tortuous journey to watch them trying to explain anything, to themselves or each other. Periodically Wells describes, very well, what it’s like to be stupid and unreflective:

Out of the darknesses beneath the shallow, weedy stream of his being rose a question, a question that looked up dimly and never reached the surface. It was the question of the wonder of the beauty, the purposeless, inconsecutive beauty, that falls so strangely among the happenings and memories of life. It never reached the surface of his mind, it never took to itself substance or form, it looked up merely as the phantom of a face might look, out of deep waters, and sank again to nothingness.

This is haunting and poetic but moments like this are rare. 300 pages is a long time to spend in the company of a character who can barely fashion a thought and struggles to express himself at even a basic level.

5. And finally, as a novel, it justifies its existence via its humour – I found it fairly humorous, fairly often, as indicated by the odd or humorous sentences I listed at the start of this review – but, in the end, not funny enough, nowhere near as funny as Wells, I think, intended. There are long passages which aren’t particularly funny and aren’t particularly interesting. I liked the first 50 pages of his carefree childhood on the marsh then all the rest was an effort to read.

The film

Kipps was made into the 1967 movie Half a Sixpence, conceived as a vehicle for English song and dance star Tommy Steele, featuring its hit song, the brilliant pastiche of Edwardian music hall, ‘Flash, Bang, Wallop!’


Credit

Kipps: The Story of a Simple Soul by H.G. Wells was published in 1905 by Harper Brothers. References are to the 1993 Everyman paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

The Secret Agent: A Simple Tale by Joseph Conrad (1907)

There is a sort of lucidity proper to extravagant language.

Joseph Conrad burst upon the literary world in 1895 with his first novel, ‘Almayer’s Folly’. It announced an author with a detailed knowledge of the life of merchant seamen and traders far away in remote ports and settlements of the Far East, a writer with a florid, exotic style, and a man obsessed with futility and death. For the next nine years Conrad produced a series of short stories and novellas all with more or less the same distant setting, themes and style.

But Conrad had ambitions to move out of this initial niche and surprised everyone in 1904 by publishing his longest novel, ‘Nostromo’, which switches geographical location and subject matter entirely, being about revolutionaries in South America.

‘The Secret Agent’ is an even more conscious change of scene and subject matter from Conrad’s initial brand, in at least three ways:

  1. almost all his previous novellas and short stories were set in the Far East, in the ports of Thailand or Malaysia or on the high seas; this was his first story set entirely in the capital of his adoptive country
  2. most of the novellas and short stories up to this point focused on one dominating protagonist, often named in the title: Almayer, Peter Willems, Kurtz in Heart of Darkness, Jim in Lord Jim, Captain MacWhirr in Typhoon, Falk and so on; ‘Secret Agent’ marks a break by being equally about a handful of four or five characters; it is far more collegiate, there is no one dominating figure
  3. Conrad’s style is very sober and reined in – still fluent and loquacious but noticeably less so than in his ‘exotic’ writings; it’s still sometimes florid, sometimes obscure, but it’s as if it’s sobered down to suit London’s chilly, foggy location

As to the subject matter. ‘The Secret Agent’ plunges us straight into the world of London’s underworld of professional revolutionaries and anarchists along with the police and officials who combat them. At least it plunges into Conrad’s vision of those things. How accurately the book relates to any such underworld in Edwardian London is obviously a matter for history specialists. In practice, like most novels ‘The Secret Agent’ feels very small, focusing on a handful of characters – the secret agent, his wife and brother-in-law; just four named professional revolutionaries; and three representatives of the police and Scotland Yard.

Right at the end we are told that it is set in 1886. The Verlocs were married on 24 June 1879 and their marriage lasted seven years till the events the story narrates.

Characters

Adolf Verloc is a professional agent provocateur. Contrary to the image that evokes, he is a fat, slothful, lazy man. He maintains a dingy shop selling dirty postcards and French novels, helped out by his wife, Winnie. They’ve been married for seven years. They met when he took rooms in a boarding house run by her mother in Belgravia, and presented himself as an attractive means of escaping her narrow slavey life.

Now her old mother lives in the back room. Also living with them is Winnie’s younger brother, Stevie, who is ‘simple’ and given simple tasks around the house and shop. When not doing simple chores he sits at a deal table:

drawing circles, circles, circles; innumerable circles, concentric, eccentric; a coruscating whirl of circles that by their tangled multitude of repeated curves, uniformity of form, and confusion of intersecting lines suggested a rendering of cosmic chaos, the symbolism of a mad art attempting the inconceivable.

Winnie knows Verloc has a small circle of very intense friends. What she doesn’t realise is that they are professional revolutionaries. They are:

Karl Yundt:

The all but moribund veteran of dynamite wars had been a great actor in his time—actor on platforms, in secret assemblies, in private interviews. The famous terrorist had never in his life raised personally as much as his little finger against the social edifice. He was no man of action; he was not even an orator of torrential eloquence, sweeping the masses along in the rushing noise and foam of a great enthusiasm. With a more subtle intention, he took the part of an insolent and venomous evoker of sinister impulses which lurk in the blind envy and exasperated vanity of ignorance, in the suffering and misery of poverty, in all the hopeful and noble illusions of righteous anger, pity, and revolt. The shadow of his evil gift clung to him yet like the smell of a deadly drug in an old vial of poison, emptied now, useless, ready to be thrown away upon the rubbish-heap of things that had served their time.

Michaelis, first name unmentioned, who has spent 15 years in prison because of his involvement with a cack-handed attempt to rescue some prisoners from a police van which went wrong, described on page 96. Now he is now morbidly obese, weighing maybe 18 stone.

He had come out of a highly hygienic prison round like a tub, with an enormous stomach and distended cheeks of a pale, semi-transparent complexion, as though for fifteen years the servants of an outraged society had made a point of stuffing him with fattening foods in a damp and lightless cellar.

Michaelis has an upper-class fan, an aristocratic lady who has taken the fat revolutionist into her salon as a conversation piece, and then sets him up in a moss-covered cottage to write his memoirs, Autobiography of a Prisoner (p.103).

Comrade Alexander ‘Tom’ Ossipon, nicknamed ‘the Doctor’, an ex-medical student without a degree; afterwards a wandering lecturer to working-men’s associations upon the socialistic aspects of hygiene; author of a popular quasi-medical study entitled ‘The Corroding Vices of the Middle Classes’; special delegate of the mysterious Red Committee, together with Yundt and Michaelis.

There’s a fourth who sits to one side of these three and despises them, known only as the Professor, because he is an expert in explosives.

His title to that designation consisted in his having been once assistant demonstrator in chemistry at some technical institute. He quarrelled with the authorities upon a question of unfair treatment.

The Professor thinks the other three are typical of their groups in that they don’t actually want anything to change, they enjoy feeling like exciting desperados and are trapped by their symbiotic relationship with the very system they claim to despise. Whereas the Professor wants to destroy. In a scene with Ossipon the Professor reveals that he carries a little vial of explosive around with him everywhere and has his left hand permanently on a little detonator in his left pocket. If the police ever try to arrest him, he’ll explode it and take half the street with him.

Ranged against them are some representatives of the British establishment, namely:

  • Chief Inspector Heat of the Special Crimes Department
  • The Assistant Commissioner of the Police
  • The Home Secretary, Sir Ethelred

Police complicity with the revolutionaries

A key and ironic premise of the book is that the police know the names of all the revolutionists. None of them are really secret at all. Inspector Heat knows not just the names but the addresses and usually the day-to-day movements of Michaelis, Yundt, Ossipon, the Professor and many more. In fact the police and the revolutionaries have a sort of working relationship or understanding, what the narrator calls ‘the rules of the game’ (p.105).

This is demonstrated when Heat bumps into the Professor in a side street and they have an uneasy standoff which ends because Heat, for the time being, wants to leave the anarchist alone.

Verloc the provocateur

What none of the revolutionaries nor Heat know is that Verloc is actually a double agent. He is an agent provocateur. Although a member of various Red Councils, a great speaker at socialist meetings and working men’s assemblies, Vice President of The Future of the Proletariat, enthusiastic friend of Ossipon, Yundt and Michaelis – he is in fact in the pay of reactionary, anti-revolutionary foreign embassy and has been for years, 11 years to be precise.

So Verloc is the secret agent of the title.

What kick-starts the plot is that his old handler at this (unnamed) foreign embassy, an old boy named Baron Stott-Wartenheim (‘pessimistic and gullible’) has retired and been replaced in the London embassy by a new go-getter, the First Secretary, Mr Vladimir, ‘a young man with a shaven, big face, sitting in a roomy arm-chair before a vast mahogany writing-table’.

Softly spoken Vladimir tells fat slothful Verloc that the good times are over. The secret service is not a philanthropic institution and Verloc is going to have to start to pull his weight. To be precise, he needs to cause a sensation, a ‘spectacular’, an egregious atrocity,

Why? Because Vladimir and his country are offended that the British authorities are so lax and permissive and ‘liberal’ as to allow countless revolutionaries to thrive in London pretty much untouched, revolutionaries who threaten the basis of his own government, back home. The British police, British society as a whole are, in Vladimir’s view, relaxed and permissive: ‘England lags. This country is absurd with its sentimental regard for individual liberty.’

Therefore Vladimir wants Verloc to commission some kind of spectacular atrocity which will wake up the British authorities and force the police to crack down. The complacent British bourgeoisie needs ‘a jolly good scare’. What is needed is a string of outrages to sting the authorities into a universal repression. Otherwise, Vladimir threatens, his office will stop paying Verloc.

And Vladimir goes further, straying into socio-philosophical territory, when he suggests that his government doesn’t want Verloc to assassinate someone (old hat), or blow up a bank (predictable) but strike at the conceptual foundations of bourgeois society. Which is why he suggests attacking time itself – a bit of dialogue which, for a moment, threatened to turn the story into a whole different type of novel, some kind of science fiction story. Normality is, however, quickly restored, when Vladimir explains that, in practice he just means blowing up the Greenwich Observatory, home of the meridian which, in a sense, during Britain’s heyday, anchored time zones all round the world.

So that is the setup. A fat, seedy complacent middle-aged ‘revolutionary’ who for over a decade has been pocketing money from a foreign embassy to report on radicals and anarchists in London, is told by his new young handler that he needs to pull his finger out and organise a spectacular ‘outrage’ or the embassy will cut off his funding, which has formed most of his family income…

The Assistant Commissioner connection

To digress for a moment, the novel is full of incongruous complicities. I’ve mentioned the way Inspector Heat knows all the revolutionaries by name and they know him and both sides leave each other alone, according to ‘the rules of the game’.

Higher up the food chain something similar obtains for Inspector Heat’s boss, the Assistant Commissioner of Police. This man was enjoying being a police officer in an imperial colony until he came home and made a good marriage but his new wife didn’t fancy the tropical heat. So he had to pack in his colonial career, stay in London and took the Assistant Commissioner post. He’s had it for 18 months when the narrative begins.

So far, so banal, but the ironic gag Conrad concocts is the notion that the Assistant Commissioner’s wife is supported and mentored by the same posh lady who is Michaelis’s patron. This leads to the humorous situation whereby the Assistant Commissioner attends the same parties as Michaelis, in fact has to stand by while the posh lady sings the praises of the lovely, sweet man, a visionary, a ‘saint’ who simply wants to bring fairness to society and food to the poor etc. The posh lady patron is depicted as irredeemably dim, but the bite to the situation is that the Assistant Commissioner knows that if he is involved in putting Michaelis behind bars, the posh lady will know about it and will never forgive his wife – and his wife will never forgive him.

The Greenwich bomb

Why is all this an issue? Because, with unexpected abruptness, in chapter 4 on page 65 of this 249-page-book, we learn that a bomb has gone off in Greenwich Park. Ossipon tells the Professor about it. Seems some unknown person was carrying a bomb, tripped over a tree root and blew themselves to pieces.

In the next chapter Chief Inspector Heat is called to the scene of the explosion and sees for himself the body blown into myriad pieces as by a demented butcher. Amid the fragments of bloody cloth, Heat discovers a piece which, amazingly, has an address written on it, 32 Brett Street. He pockets it as he walks away for, as an expert on the revolutionary underground, he knows it is the address of Adolf Verloc. The police have interviewed a witness who said she saw two figures come out of the nearby Tube station, a fat older man and a thinner younger one. The reader – well, this reader – immediately realises this is Verloc and Stevie and strongly suspects the person blown to pieces was poor simple Stevie.

(Note: a lot later in the book we are told that precisely a month, a long and aggravating month, separated Verloc’s interview with Mr Vladimir and the tragic bomb blast, p.209.)

The authorities

Heat reports to the Assistant Commissioner for the Police. (This is where we learn that the latter’s wife is friends with the posh lady who supports the obese revolutionist Michaelis and Heat senses his reluctance to place Michaelis in the frame). But, having dispatched Heat, the Assistant Commissioner goes to see his own superior, the Secretary of State, Sir Ethelred.

The depiction of Sir Ethelred, and the charming young man, his principle private secretary who everyone calls ‘Toodles’, this is all done with suavity and humour. Conrad deploys the Dickensian tactic of turning people into objects:

The Assistant Commissioner’s figure before this big and rustic Presence had the frail slenderness of a reed addressing an oak.

But more Dickensian is the association of characters with certain key words which are then drummed home. Thus Michaelis can’t be referred to without the phrase ‘the ticket-of-leave apostle’. And the secretary of state’s key word is ‘expansion’ or ‘expanded’.

Vast in bulk and stature, with a long white face, which, broadened at the base by a big double chin, appeared egg-shaped in the fringe of thin greyish whisker, the great personage seemed an expanding man… A shiny silk hat and a pair of worn gloves lying ready on the end of a long table looked expanded too, enormous.

The big time shift and switch to Winnie

All Conrad’s fictions up to this point deploy sophisticated manipulation of time frames. The narrative never just sets off and follows simple chronological order. In the hands of a narrator like Charles Marlow (who narrates Heart of Darkness, Lord Jim and Youth) the narrative continually interrupts itself to go back a few years, get someone else’s eye-witness account, sometimes juggling multiple time zones and frame narratives.

‘The Secret Agent’ is, on the whole simpler than all that, with the events in one chapter often following on simply from that before – with one big exception. Chapter 8, starting precisely half way through the text goes back in time. I’ve explained how the revolutionists heard about someone blowing themselves up in Greenwich Park as early as page 65, and how Heat visits the crime scene, spots the fragment of fabric with Verloc’s address on it, has an interview with his boss the Assistant Commissioner, who himself is called in to brief the Secretary of State. All this, obviously enough, follows the explosion.

But when we start reading chapter 8 we find ourselves transported back to several weeks before the explosion. In fact the narrative makes what appears to be quite a big digression which I found obscure and hard to follow, to begin with. Suddenly it is describing the motivation of Winnie’s aged mother, Verloc’s mother-in-law, who has decided she needs to move out of the Verloc household and has negotiated with the secretary of a charity for licensed victuallers, moving into one of their almshouses.

There is then another long passage describing how Winnie and Stevie help the old lady pack her bags and ride with her in a hansom cab to her new home (according to the notes, the Licensed Victuallers’ Asylum in Asylum Road, Peckham). This trip is distinguished by Stevie getting very upset at the way the cab driver whips his horse and the cab driver’s rather shamefaced defence of this behaviour.

What is this all about? Well, it’s the start of the novel’s shift to being, not about The Secret Agent but The Secret Agent’s Wife. it’s not only a clever playing with the novel’s timeframes but a switch in its focus. it is the first of a series of chapters in which we see the world from Winnie’s point of view, and get some detail on her feelings for her mother and her brother Stevie. It means that, once her mother is settled in her new cottage, Winnie feels lonely without her in the Verloc home and comes to rely more on Stevie, to think about him more.

I can sympathise with some contemporary critics who wondered why we’re bothering to go in such exquisite detail into the minds and feelings of pretty stupid and pretty insalubrious characters, but this is what the aristocratic and fastidious Conrad wanted to do.

The weeks pass and Winnie carries on feeling more lonely (in the absence of her mother) and more solicitous of Stevie, and also concerned about Verloc who seems to be on edge and anxious all the time. I think we are meant to realise that Winnie’s mother’s departure coincided with Verloc’s meeting with Vladimir and him giving Verloc the ultimatum to do something spectacular.

The effect is to create a dramatic irony in the mind of the reader. We know what’s coming. We have a very strong hunch that Verloc is going to take Stevie to Greenwich Park, with a bomb he’s had the Professor make for him, and commission him with planting it but simple clumsy Stevie is going to trip up and blow himself to smithereens.

So these scenes, as we share Winnie’s feelings for her brother, have a very bleak or tragic effect and this must be the effect Conrad is aiming for. There’s the ‘plot’ – what actually happens – and then there’s how Conrad has arranged it, which is to sidestep all the men he itemised for us in the first part of the book, and shift the whole focus onto poor Winnie.

Stevie goes away

Back in the nitty-gritty of the plot, Verloc suggests that Stevie might like a break from life in Brett Street and so kindly offers to arrange for him to go and stay with Michaelis in the cottage and Kent where the posh lady fan has set him up. Winnie is happy to pack his things and let Verloc take him off.

The two narrative timelines resynchronise

On page 156, a little into chapter 9, the timelines come back together, mesh up, resynchronise, as this digression, Winnie’s timeline, catches up with the ‘main narrative’.

She was alone longer than usual on the day of the attempted bomb outrage in Greenwich Park, because Mr Verloc went out very early that morning and did not come back till nearly dusk.

They mesh up again except that the reader knows (or thinks they know) what happened, namely that Stevie’s been blown to pieces. Which means that, when Verloc returns to the house that evening, every word Winnie utters, no matter how innocent, has a terrible ironic meaning.

The horrible truth: Stevie is dead

Now the reunified narrative picks up pace. Winnie makes dinner for Verloc, who’s come home late. When she asks him where he’s been he blusters, although admitting he’s been to the bank to withdraw all his money, which he’s placed in a pigskin wallet. Why? Because, he tells her, they must flee to the continent.

But he’s still explaining this to a puzzled Winnie when they are surprised by two visitors in quick succession. The first is the Assistant Commissioner himself who insists Verloc go for a walk with him. Shortly afterwards arrives Inspector Heat. Heat is is who produces the fragment of Stevie’s overcoat and shows it to Winnie who recognises it. When she identifies it Heat realises at a stroke that Verloc was the other man the eye witness saw emerge from the Tube and head to the park, Verloc accompanying his simple brother-in-law.

At that moment Verloc re-enters the shop, back from his walk and talk with the Assistant Commissioner. Heat hustles him into the back parlour of the house and shuts the door. Winnie kneels by the door with her ear to the keyhole. And thus she hears her husband confess everything – the plan to blow up the Observatory, obtaining the explosive from the Professor, his taking Stevie and sending him to plant the device, the tragic accident – and her world crashes in ruins around her.

The Assistant Commissioner pays visits

Meanwhile the Assistant Commissioner 1) goes to brief his boss, Sir Etheldred, during which we learned that Verloc has completely confessed to him too, as well as to Heat; 2) goes home, changes then 3) onto a reception given by the lady patron of Michaelis. Here he is introduced to Mr Vladimir. It is a small world – at least it is in books and films which limit the number of characters to the optimum number their audiences can handle.

More importantly, the Assistant Commissioner knows it was Vladimir who intimidated Verloc into commissioning this ridiculous tragedy. Indeed, Vladimir is scaring the posh ladies he likes flirting with by suggesting the Greenwich Park scandal is just the start of a campaign of terror.

When Vladimir leaves the Assistant Commissioner accompanies him and lets him know that Verloc has confessed everything and implicated Vladimir and his embassy. The AC tells him the British authorities want to use it as an excuse to round up all the secret agents and foreign political spies and expel them. In other words, Vladimir and his ilk. Vladimir says no-one will believe the word of such a man in court. The CA isn’t really interested in the court case he just wanted to rattle Vladimir and his rattledness confirms Verloc’s story. Vladimir is the instigator.

Chapter 11

Cut back to Verloc and Winnie at home after Inspector Heat has left. This is a long (28 pages) excruciatingly slow and horrible chapter whose purpose is to contrast the way Verloc more or less dismisses Stevie’s death, regrets Winnie overhearing it all from his and Inspector Heat’s conversation, but now he wants Winnie to pull herself together and wants to make plans. He’ll probably be tried and sent away for two years during which she will have to look after the shop. But then they’ll have to plan what to do on his release, maybe emigrate to America etc.

All this babble is contrasted with the cosmic horror in Winnie’s mind. She only married Verloc because she thought he offered enough money and stability to keep her poor brother safe. All she can think of is that, instead, he walked away with him one fine day in order to murder him. She considers herself utterly released from her marriage, no longer tied in any way to this horrible man, ‘the bargain was at an end’. And so, while Verloc burbles on, blissfully unaware of her complete alienation, of her internal screaming existential crisis, she becomes consumed with the thought of flight.

Throughout the chapter increasing reference is made to the carving knife lying on the table next to the loaf of bread and cold beef which was to form Verloc’s supper. And now, in a trance, Winnie picks it up, walks over to the sofa where Verloc, exhausted, had lain down to rest, and stabs him through the side right into his heart. He barely has time to sigh ‘Don’t’ before he dies.

Chapter 12

Winnie’s shock is slowly penetrated by the sound of Verloc’s blood tick tick ticking from the knife handle onto the floor. Shocked back to her senses she has a vivid premonition of the rope going round her neck as she is hanged, and so fastens her veil and staggers into the street with the vague intention of throwing herself off one of the Thames bridges.

She was alone in London: and the whole town of marvels and mud, with its maze of streets and its mass of lights, was sunk in a hopeless night, rested at the bottom of a black abyss from which no unaided woman could hope to scramble out. (p.218)

Who does she blunder into but Comrade Ossipon. Ossipon is a sensualist and a womaniser. He’s had his eye on Mrs Verloc for some time and is delighted to find her in such a state that he needs to hold her up, steady her, and generally touch and reassure her.

But his thoughts of seduction are quickly overwhelmed by her panic fear, and the whole chapter becomes a a very black joke in miscommunication and misunderstanding. For Ossipon readily falls in with Winnie saying Verloc is dead, because he thinks the person who blew themselves up in Greenwich Park was Ossipon. So he completely misreads Winnie’s repeated wailing that ‘he’s dead, he’s dead’ and then is perplexed when she goes on to say things like ‘he made me do it, he was a devil’ and so on. What is the woman on about?

Ossipon is keen on anything which involves the possibility of seduction but is puzzled and worried when Winnie starts babbling about fleeing the country. but then reassured when she draws out of her dress the pigskin wallet with all the money Verloc had withdrawn from the bank.

He has a brainwave and remembers the Southampton to St Malo ferry which leaves at midnight. they can get a train from Waterloo. But she insists they go back to the shop first, to close the door, and then she insists that a reluctant Ossipon goes inside to turn off the gas lights which she, of course, is horrifiedly reluctant to do. And where he, of course, stumbles across Verloc’s body, dead on the sofa.

He has a panic attack but has barely moved before he realises the woman has come running in from the street and gripped his arms. A policeman is coming! They stand in a frozen embrace as the copper very leisurely strolls up, checks the door, peers through the shop window into the dark interior before finally moving on. It is a scene from a movie. And Winnie hisses in his ear, ‘If he finds me, kill me, Tom, kill me’ such is her panic fear of the gallows.

And now in the darkness she explains why she murdered Verloc, for taking away her boy and blowing him up, and a great lightbulb goes on in Ossipon’s head. So the blown up body in the park wasn’t Verloc, it was her simple brother. And Verloc was responsible. And so she killed him.

Now, in words which must have been scandalous for the time, she begs him to take her away, to escape England: she’ll be his slave, she’ll adore him, she’ll do anything for him, he won’t even have to marry her. She falls to the floor and grips his legs and, in his mortal terror of her, Ossipon fancies her a snake, an angel of death. They’re both completely hysterical. For a moment, there in the dark, it crosses Ossipon’s mind to strangle her and be free.

But the moment passes and instead they go out and hail a cab to take them to the station. Here Ossipon instructs her to buy a ticket and enter the train by herself, he being known to the police and accompanying her would trigger alarm bells.

Her hysteria and his panic are vividly conveyed in a way which made me tenser, more uptight than at many a movie thriller I’ve seen. They enter a compartment of the train and sit waiting for it to depart, her weeping copiously and blessing him as her ‘saviour’, him wondering what the devil he’s got himself into.

Finally, finally the train starts to move off and even as Winnie continues tearfully thanking him as her saviour and promising to serve him all her days, he takes a few strides, opens the carriage door and jumps out, flinging the door closed behind him.

Something is required artistically, to round off the mad series of events following Verloc’s murder and Conrad makes the maybe obvious, maybe stylish decision to let the train pull out and leave without a word, and gives us nothing of Winnie’s response, no words, no thoughts, nothing about her at all, leaving the reader to imagine her horror and despair.

Instead Conrad has a couple of pages describing how Ossipon walks walks walks all night long the length and breadth of central London, walking off the trauma and shock and horror and fear and confusion he has just experienced until finally, at dawn, he enters his cheap digs, collapses on the bed and falls asleep.

Chapter 13

Cut to a completely different scene. We really are never going to hear more of Winnie Verloc. Instead we are in the Professor’s bare garret where Ossipon has paid him a visit. The Professor is describing a visit of his own to Michaelis’s rural cottage and ridiculing the ‘book’ he is writing for its sentimental thick-headedness. Michaelis witters on about creating an ideal world in which the strong will tend to the weak. Hah! says the Professor.

‘The weak! The source of all evil on this earth!… I told him that I dreamt of a world like shambles, where the weak would be taken in hand for utter extermination.’

And they catch a bus to the Silenus, the bar where we first met them drinking and arguing about radical politics. But the Professor isn’t a radical, he’s a nihilist.

‘What’s the good of thinking of what will be!’ He raised his glass. ‘To the destruction of what is,’ he said calmly. (p.245)

But Ossipon isn’t listening. He has in his jacket pocket the press report of a mystery woman who went aboard a Channel ferry, was spotted by several ship staff wandering looking lost and ill. Who was questioned by staff who went to get help and when they got back she was gone, presumed jumped over the side. So that was the end of Winnie Verloc.

But it isn’t the end of the consequences. Because ever since he read it Ossipon has lost his natural joie de vivre and his easy success with women. he radiated health and vitality which seduced no end of women but now his words come haltingly, he embarrasses them, he has lost his seductive powers. He asks the professor for his help but the gnome-like Professor is no use, tells him he is a mediocrity in an age destroyed by mediocrity, bids farewell and leaves.

Ossipon stumbles out into the daylight a broken man. He’s not going to keep the date he has with a likely prospect (‘an elderly nursery governess putting her trust in his Apollo-like ambrosial head’), he has lost all his lust for life. he likes drinking now, drinking to forget, drinking to head towards a future of alcoholism and vagabond ruin. He is the moral casualty left behind by the squalid little Verloc affair.

But the last word is given to Conrad’s spooky description of the Professor, in suitably ominous, threatening tones. I imagine a black and white movie ending with huge end credits and melodramatic Hollywood music.

And the incorruptible Professor walked too, averting his eyes from the odious multitude of mankind. He had no future. He disdained it. He was a force. His thoughts caressed the images of ruin and destruction. He walked frail, insignificant, shabby, miserable—and terrible in the simplicity of his idea calling madness and despair to the regeneration of the world. Nobody looked at him. He passed on unsuspected and deadly, like a pest in the street full of men. (p.248)

Minor characters

One of the things which makes ‘The Secret Agent’ such a chewy and rewarding read is the depth and care Conrad gives to even minor characters. Everybody who comes onstage is given some thought and analysis:

The Italian waiter in the Italian restaurant where the Assistant Commissioner stops for a cheap dinner, who, when the latter pays, is divided between counting the silver coins and eyeing up the pretty young woman who’s just leaving. (p.125)

The cabman with his ‘fierce little eyes’, who takes Winnie’s mother to the almshouse, and even more so the cabby’s horse, are treated to an extended description (pages 130 to 142).

Stevie was staring at the horse, whose hind quarters appeared unduly elevated by the effect of emaciation. The little stiff tail seemed to have been fitted in for a heartless joke; and at the other end the thin, flat neck, like a plank covered with old horse-hide, drooped to the ground under the weight of an enormous bony head. The ears hung at different angles, negligently; and the macabre figure of that mute dweller on the earth steamed straight up from ribs and backbone in the muggy stillness of the air.

The secretary of the charity who bends the rules to grant Winnie’s mother her alms cottage is given a paragraph or more to fill out his character (p.134).

Mrs Neale who cleans for the Verloc’s is given several pages:

Victim of her marriage with a debauched joiner, she was oppressed by the needs of many infant children. Red-armed, and aproned in coarse sacking up to the arm-pits, she exhaled the anguish of the poor in a breath of soap-suds and rum, in the uproar of scrubbing, in the clatter of tin pails. (p.150)

Revolutionary arguments

Yundt, Michaelis, Ossipon and the Professor are made to represent different flavours or strands of revolutionary thought and Conrad presents extensive conversations in which they articulate and debate their points of view.

Michaelis is the most articulate and he expresses 100% pure Marxism:

‘The future is as certain as the past – slavery, feudalism, individualism, collectivism.’ He saw Capitalism doomed in its cradle, born with the poison of the principle of competition in its system. The great capitalists devouring the little capitalists, concentrating the power and the tools of production in great masses, perfecting industrial processes, and in the madness of self-aggrandisement only preparing, organising, enriching, making ready the lawful inheritance of the suffering proletariat.

By contrast, the Professor is placed in a dialogue with Comrade Ossipon in which he is given very powerful critique of the professional revolutionaries for their smug complacency, and the Professor’s insistence on destruction for its own sake. The Professor accuses Ossipon and his ilk of being mirror images of the society they claim to want to overthrow, which shapes and limits them. They are its slaves.

‘You revolutionists… are the slaves of the social convention, which is afraid of you; slaves of it as much as the very police that stands up in the defence of that convention. Clearly you are, since you want to revolutionise it. It governs your thought, of course, and your action too, and thus neither your thought nor your action can ever be conclusive… You are not a bit better than the forces arrayed against you – than the police, for instance… The terrorist and the policeman both come from the same basket. Revolution, legality – counter moves in the same game; forms of idleness at bottom identical…’ (p.64)

By contrast with this comfortable arrangement, the Professor wants to blow up society, erase and destroy it.

The influence of Dickens

I read a lot of Conrad as a student and when I came to ‘The Secret Agent’ I was struck by the flavour of Charles Dickens in a lot of the descriptions. Not just of the fog and damp of London which is, after all, in Sherlock Holmes and umpteen other late Victorian texts, but something more animated and alive.

He advanced at once into an immensity of greasy slime and damp plaster interspersed with lamps, and enveloped, oppressed, penetrated, choked, and suffocated by the blackness of a wet London night, which is composed of soot and drops of water. (p.126)

What’s more specifically Dickensian is giving inanimate objects such as houses, or parts of people’s anatomy or physiology, a humorous life of their own.

Sir Ethelred opened a wide mouth, like a cavern, into which [his] hooked nose seemed anxious to peer; there came from it a subdued rolling sound, as from a distant organ with the scornful indignation stop. (p.117)

All was so still without and within that the lonely ticking of the clock on the landing stole into the room as if for the sake of company.

Striking a match on the box she held in her hand, she turned on and lighted, above the parlour table, one of the two gas-burners, which, being defective, first whistled as if astonished, and then went on purring comfortably like a cat.

Mr Verloc obeyed woodenly, stony-eyed, and like an automaton whose face had been painted red. (p.162)

A thick police constable, looking a stranger to every emotion, as if he too were part of inorganic nature, surging apparently out of a lamp-post, took not the slightest notice of Mr Verloc.

Also, for anyone who’s read ‘Bleak House’, Conrad’s Chief Inspector Heat brings echoes of Dickens’s Inspector Bucket.

And names, Dickens was a genius at naming his characters which is why so many remain part of popular culture (Oliver Twist, Scrooge). Verloc, Ossipon and so on are not particularly great names, but when I came across the assistant to the Secretary of State and found his name was Toodles this rang a big bell. Toodles is the name of the warm and generous family in ‘Dombey and Son’.

Conrad’s cosmic imagery

As I’ve pointed out in all my Conrad reviews, all his stories contain a sprinkling of similes or descriptions which lift off from the present banal situation and suddenly see everything from a cosmic perspective, suddenly drawing comparisons with the entire earth, the human race, the universe, all space and time and so on.

Down below in the quiet, narrow street measured footsteps approached the house, then died away unhurried and firm, as if the passer-by had started to pace out all eternity, from gas-lamp to gas-lamp in a night without end… (p.55)

His wisdom was of an official kind, or else he might have reflected upon a matter not of theory but of experience that in the close-woven stuff of relations between conspirator and police there occur unexpected solutions of continuity, sudden holes in space and time. (p.76)

All the inhabitants of the immense town, the population of the whole country, and even the teeming millions struggling upon the planet, were with him. (p.85)

The Assistant Commissioner remembered very well the conversation between these two. He had listened in silence. It was something as exciting in a way, and even touching in its foredoomed futility, as the efforts at moral intercourse between the inhabitants of remote planets. (p.94)

She kept still as the population of half the globe would keep still in astonishment and despair, were the sun suddenly put out in the summer sky by the perfidy of a trusted providence. (p.198)

Vivid images

Conrad has a knack of knocking out, every now and then, startlingly vivid and unexpected images.

The Assistant Commissioner’s delivery was leisurely, as it were cautious. His thought seemed to rest poised on a word before passing to another, as though words had been the stepping-stones for his intellect picking its way across the waters of error. (p.86)

He led a cortege of dismal thoughts along dark streets, through lighted streets, in and out of two flash bars, as if in a half-hearted attempt to make a night of it, and finally back again to his menaced home, where he sat down fatigued behind the counter, and they crowded urgently round him, like a pack of hungry black hounds.

Mr Verloc went on divesting himself of his clothing with the unnoticing inward concentration of a man undressing in the solitude of a vast and hopeless desert.

Something wild and doubtful in his expression made it appear uncertain whether he meant to strangle or to embrace his wife.

Sometimes clunky

Conrad handles the English language with the fearlessness of an outsider. Very often this results in sentences and whole paragraphs of vivid power, long, loquacious, studded with unusual words or phrasing. But now and then the same preparedness to experiment and find new expression drives him over the edge into a kind of rule-breaking clunkiness – although this, like everything else about Conrad, is still interesting and entertaining.

He was strong in his integrity of a good detective, but he saw now that an impenetrably attentive reserve towards this incident would have served his reputation better. (p.77)

All the time his trained faculties of an excellent investigator, who scorns no chance of information, followed the self-satisfied, disjointed loquacity of the constable. (p.79)

That singed piece of cloth was incredibly valuable, and he could not defend himself from astonishment at the casual manner it had come into his possession. (p.80)

Somehow it’s as if the effort to make his prose closer to a more functional detective style, at the same time reveals its occasional oddity and boniness. It also brings out the French in him.

French word order

Conrad was Polish and like lots of boys of his class was taught French as his primary foreign language. He lived for a while in Paris and was fluent in the language long before he began picking up English and, I would argue, it shows. I think this French tinge to his thinking comes out mostly in placing adjectives and adverbs and adverbial phrases after rather than before the nouns or verbs they refer to.

He turned no longer his back to the room.

The stranger gave her again a silent smile.

‘I’ve heard of him,’ whispered uneasily Mr Verloc.

Mrs Verloc adjusted nicely in its place a small cardboard box… (p.167)

‘He’s been frightening me,’ declared suddenly the lady who sat by the side of Mr Vladimir…

All of these are against traditional English word order. As Hugh Epstein writes, in the notes to the Wordsworth Classics edition, ‘Conrad’s translations from French occasionally interfere with idiomatic English’ to which I would add ‘occasionally’? Conrad’s often Frenchified word order is one of the reasons his prose style is often described as ‘exotic’.

Animal imagery

The use of animal imagery to dehumanise characters, by implication to compare all the characters to dumb beasts, is not particularly Dickensian. In fact Conrad did it earlier in ‘Amy Foster where he compares the emigrant husband, and his baby son, to birds caught in a snare. It’s a kind of anti-humanistic tactic but one he uses extensively in ‘The Secret Agent’.

Mr Verloc extended as much recognition to Stevie as a man not particularly fond of animals may give to his wife’s beloved cat.

Mr Verloc called aloud to the boy, in the spirit, no doubt, in which a man invites the attendance of the household dog

Stevie prowled round the table like an excited animal in a cage.

Mr Verloc’s immobility by the side of the arm-chair resembled a state of collapsed coma — a sort of passive insensibility interrupted by slight convulsive starts, such as may be observed in the domestic dog having a nightmare on the hearthrug.

‘When he heard me scraping the ground with it he leaned his forehead against a tree, and was as sick as a dog.’

Chief Inspector Heat, though what is called a man, was not a smiling animal.

The perfect anarchist was not recognised as a fellow-creature by Chief Inspector Heat. He was impossible — a mad dog to be left alone.

On all fours amongst the puddles, wet and begrimed, like a sort of amphibious and domestic animal living in ash-bins and dirty water, [Mrs Neale] uttered the usual exordium.

Stevie moped in the striking fashion of an unhappy domestic animal.

Mr Verloc felt this difficulty acutely. He turned around the table in the parlour with his usual air of a large animal in a cage.

‘The Embassy,’ Mr Verloc began again, after a preliminary grimace which bared his teeth wolfishly. (p.198)

He paused, and a snarl lifting his moustaches above a gleam of white teeth gave him the expression of a reflective beast, not very dangerous — a slow beast with a sleek head, gloomier than a seal. (p.208)

He felt her now clinging round his legs, and his terror reached its culminating point, became a sort of intoxication, entertained delusions, acquired the characteristics of delirium tremens. He positively saw snakes now. He saw the woman twined round him like a snake, not to be shaken off. (p.234)

The Russian character

It seems to be generally agreed that the unnamed foreign power paying Verloc is Russia – Vladimir is the founding ruler of the Russian Orthodox Church and Verloc visits an embassy in ‘Chesham Square’, the Russian Embassy was in Chesham Place – so it is generally assumed that Vladimir, the suave commissioner of this terrorist attack, is Russian. No change there, then.

As a Pole, whose nation had for centuries oppressed by the Russians, Conrad gives an inevitably negative account of the Russian character, with its centuries-old tradition of illiberal, autocratic, repressiiveness

Descended from generations victimised by the instruments of an arbitrary power, he was racially, nationally, and individually afraid of the police. It was an inherited weakness, altogether independent of his judgment, of his reason, of his experience. He was born to it. (p.183)

Thoughts

I disagree with the critics quoted on the paperback blurb, in the introduction and the Wikipedia article, who claim this is a great political novel or even, ludicrously, the greatest novel about terrorism ever written. It’s obviously nothing of the sort. The little cohort of revolutionists described here are more like cartoon comedy figures than the terrorist groups of the world I grew up in – the PLO, the IRA, the Baader-Meinhof group, more recently al-Qaeda and all its franchises and affiliates.

Slothful Verloc and his shop of seedy photos and his moany mother-in-law are more the stuff of a comic novel (if Conrad could do genuine comedy), as is the long peculiar passage about taking the mother by cab to Peckham.

The central event of sending an idiot boy to plant a bomb which he trips over and detonates by accident has no meaning or significance, is simply sad and squalid, Viewed from a different angle it has a Keystone Cops slapstick element about it.

Even the ‘arguments’ between the revolutionists are moderately interesting but feel like they’ve been tacked on as required by the nominal subject matter, and mostly amount to ad hominem abuse of each other. There’s none of the intellectual clarity and incisiveness you get from, for example, something like Jean-Paul Sartre’s play Dirty Hands.

The machinations of the foreign embassy manipulator Mr Vladimir have the quaint home-made feeling of a character from The Prisoner of Zenda or a Sherlock Holmes story.

The entire thing lacks the sense of real threat you only really begin to get in fiction following the First World War, which transformed the world into a much more dangerous and threatening place. None of these people is a threat, they’re harmless jokes.

In any case, the entire earlier parts of the book are entirely overshadowed by the final two chapters which are harrowing in the extreme; everything else – Vladimir’s threats, Verloc’s pathetic career, Ossipon and Michaelis and Yundt’s pointless bickering – are just foreplay for the big event, which is the searingly tragic impact on Winnie of finding out about Stevie’s death.

That chapter is unstoppable, unput-downable, her terrible grief gripped me by the throat, and then rolled on into the long sequence of events with Ossipon which carry you like a rollercoaster to the bitter end of the text.

It’s odd that liberal critics – and Conrad himself in his dull prefaces – go on about ‘morality’ and ‘moral choices’ and so on, as if this is what Conrad’s fiction is about, when what so many of his stories actually convey, with nerve-flaying power, is the horror and futility of existence. Everybody quotes Kurtz’s final phrase in ‘Heart of Darkness’, ‘The horror, the horror’, mainly because it’s so short and quotable, but the final two chapters of ‘The Secret Agent’ should be up there alongside ‘Heart of Darkness’ as one of the most nerve-shredding, intense and psychologically horrifying passages in literature.


Credit

The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad was first published in Blackwood’s Magazine in 1902. Page references are to the 1975 Penguin Modern Classics paperback edition.

Related links

Conrad reviews

Preface to Major Barbara by George Bernard Shaw (1905)

I, the dramatist, whose business it is to show the connection between things that seem apart and unrelated in the haphazard order of events in real life…
(Shaw describes his role in the Preface to Major Barbara)

George Bernard Shaw became notorious for the long prefaces he attached to his many plays. The preface to Major Barbara is one of the longest, at 40 pages long! So long it is divided into sections with their own headings. I’d heard so much about Shaw’s prefaces that I was really looking forward to their wit and wisdom, to learning something but this one felt like 40 pages of often dazzling, sometimes incomprehensible, but ultimately pointless rhetoric.

First aid to critics

Shaw has a very poor opinion of British critics and so explains that his preface is so long because he is going to explain the major themes of his play to them and how to think and write about it.

For starters, as a prologue, Shaw takes critics to task who, whenever he tackles a serious subject, accuse him of being influenced by Ibsen or Nietzsche or Schopenhauer or some fancy Continental thinker. Shaw irritably declares that he was much more influenced by little-known British writers such as:

  • the Irish novelist Charles Lever, whose novel ‘A Day’s Ride: A Life’s Romance’ contains the theme of the clash between romantic ideals and harsh reality
  • the amoral antinomianism of Ernest Belfort Bax who defended the positive value of crime
  • Captain Wilson who criticised Christianity for its slave morality who criticised the Sermon on the Mount as a justification of cowardice and servility
  • or the historian Stuart-Glennie who argued that Christianity was invented by white races to subjugate all the other races of the world

The Gospel of Andrew Undershaft

Here beginneth Shaw’s explanation of his play. He tells us that he conceived the character of Andrew Undershaft as a man who has grasped that the greatest human value is to avoid being poor. He picks up the typical middle-class comment ‘Let him [the working man] be poor’ and asks what it means in practice:

It means let him be weak. Let him be ignorant. Let him become a nucleus of disease. Let him be a standing exhibition and example of ugliness and dirt. Let him have rickety children. Let him be cheap and let him drag his fellows down to his price by selling himself to do their work. Let his habitations turn our cities into poisonous congeries of slums. Let his daughters infect our young men with the diseases of the streets and his sons revenge him by turning the nation’s manhood into scrofula, cowardice, cruelty, hypocrisy, political imbecility, and all the other fruits of oppression and malnutrition.

Shaw turns to the play and says he conceived of Undershaft, ‘resolute and clearsighted’, as a man who has grasped the great truth that you ought to do anything, anything at all, to avoid being poor. Against him is contrasted Peter Shirley, a feeble specimen of the weak-willed ‘deserving poor’ who is incapable of bettering himself and always complaining about his lot.

Shaw lambasts high-minded do-gooders like William Morris with his fancy arts and crafts for not grasping the basic fact that most people do not want hand-designed wallpaper or expensive editions of Chaucer, they want more money.

Money is the most important thing in the world. It represents health, strength, honour, generosity and beauty as conspicuously and undeniably as the want of it represents illness, weakness, disgrace, meanness and ugliness.

Thus:

The crying need of the nation is not for better morals, cheaper bread, temperance, liberty, culture, redemption of fallen sisters and erring brothers, nor the grace, love and fellowship of the Trinity, but simply for enough money. And the evil to be attacked is not sin, suffering, greed, priestcraft, kingcraft, demagogy, monopoly, ignorance, drink, war, pestilence, nor any other of the scapegoats which reformers sacrifice, but simply poverty.

The Salvation Army

Critics thought he was mocking the Salvation Army or took Barbara’s view that it should never accept tainted money, but Shaw spends several pages explaining that all money is tainted, none of us can stand all of from the exploitation inherent in our society, and the real life Salvation Army officer who exclaimed that of course they’d accept the donations of a distiller and an arms manufacturer, ‘they would take money from the devil himself and be only too glad to get it out of his hands and into God’s.’ Army officers he quizzed questioned the plausibility of the play not because Mrs Baines accepted the tainted money but because Barbara refused it. The fact that so many playgoers and critics saw her gesture as noble and good indicates how out of touch with ‘the life of the nation’ so many playgoers and critics are.

Barbara’s Return to the Colours

Shaw makes the simple but striking point that fine writing changes nothing, only physical force changes society. It is a truism to claim that Voltaire, Rousseau and the Encyclopedists caused the French Revolution but it’s also wrong. When Voltaire was at the peak of his career, French society only became more repressive and barbaric. The simple truth is that only physical force changes things. Likewise the nineteenth century in Britain had the high-minded writings of its Utilitarians, its Christian Socialists, its Fabians, of Bentham, Mill, Dickens, Ruskin, Carlyle, Butler, Henry George and Morris but they changed nothing. Only strikes and illegal organisation among working men changed anything.

Which is why Shaw finds it extremely significant that the Salvation Army is named and organised as an army, and that its chief campaign is for money. Both of these aspects denote a realism about how society needs to be changed.

Weaknesses of the Salvation Army

That said, he bemoans its Christianity, its ties to arch conservatives and old-school evangelists. This section disappears into squabbles about whether Salvationists do or don’t believe in an afterlife, what kind of afterlife, whether belief in an afterlife robs death of its sting etc, all of which feels like dancing on a pinhead which has been stomped into the ground millions of times over the past two thousand years.

He disapproves their habit of sinners making a grand confession of their previous sinful lives before they saw the light, as this just encourages exaggeration or downright lies. He goes on to attack Christianity (as far as I can make out) claiming that:

the Salvation Army instinctively grasps the central truth of Christianity and discards its central superstition: that central truth being the vanity of revenge and punishment, and that central superstition the salvation of the world by the gibbet.

Who cares. Christianity has no place in modern public life which is, as I write in 2024, more dogged by worries about Judaism and Islam. But it was 120 years ago and the play is about the Salvation Army so Shaw continues with his paradoxical and provocative views:

Forgiveness, absolution, atonement, are figments: punishment is only a pretence of cancelling one crime by another; and you can no more have forgiveness without vindictiveness than you can have a cure without a disease.

You can see how this chimes with his view that imprisoning people for crime is barbaric, simply returning one crime for another. the trouble with all Shaw’s clever demolitions of contemporary social values is it’s hard to make out what he would put in their place. If we don’t lock up rapists and murderers, what should we do with them?

It gets, in my opinion, worse, as Shaw rambles on to talk about super successful millionaire businessmen.

Our commercial millionaires to-day, they begin as brigands: merciless, unscrupulous, dealing out ruin and death and slavery to their competitors and employees, and facing desperately the worst that their competitors can do to them. The history of the English factories, the American trusts, the exploitation of African gold, diamonds, ivory and rubber, outdoes in villainy the worst that has ever been imagined of the buccaneers of the Spanish Main.

We might all agree about the exploitation of Africa, but did English factory owners, mine owners, big businessmen deal out ‘ruin and death and slavery to their competitors and employees’? No, not really. And the unreliable exaggeration of this renders everything which follows flaky and invalid. For he goes on to describe the type of the successful tycoon who believes his own propaganda, writes books of advice, sponsors charitable foundations etc. I guess he’s describing the John D Rockefellers of his age. Would the same apply to our modern leading charitable millionaires, Elton John, David Sainsbury, Dame Janet de Botton, Sigrid Rausing?

Anyway, all this degenerates into the kind of wordy gibberish Shaw is so prone to:

just as our persistent attempts to found political institutions on a basis of social inequality have always produced long periods of destructive friction relieved from time to time by violent explosions of revolution; so the attempt – will Americans please note — to found moral institutions on a basis of moral inequality can lead to nothing but unnatural Reigns of the Saints relieved by licentious Restorations; to Americans who have made divorce a public institution turning the face of Europe into one huge sardonic smile by refusing to stay in the same hotel with a Russian man of genius who has changed wives without the sanction of South Dakota; to grotesque hypocrisy, cruel persecution, and final utter confusion of conventions and compliances with benevolence and respectability.

‘To found moral institutions on a basis of moral inequality’ 1) I don’t quite understand what ‘moral institutions’ are or what ‘moral inequality’ means so 2) I can’t see any way it applies to anything in the real world.

Shaw comes out with sweeping but schoolboy criticisms of society:

Churches are suffered to exist only on condition that they preach submission to the State as at present capitalistically organized.

The police and the military are the instruments by which the rich rob and oppress the poor (on legal and moral principles made for the purpose)…

These sound like the childish nostrums of 1960s radicals who all grew up and went into advertising, silly on so many levels. Would you expect the state religion to preach violent overthrow of the status quo? How would that work? And as we discovered during the Thatcher years, sometimes the greatest opposition to the government’s policy came from senior figures in the Church of England.

As to the police, it is another old chestnut that they oppress the poor but 1) what happens if you defund the police and withdraw any force of law and order from inner cities? Do they become paradises of ‘moral equality’? Nope. Surely the police are the least worst option in terms of trying to curb the evil instincts of so many men. And 2) it is 40 years of neo-liberal economics, with its casualisation of millions of low-paid jobs, the lack of social housing and the demonisation of benefits scroungers which oppress the poor, not cops whizzing round in fancy cars.

Christianity and Anarchism

Thus, according to Shaw, the Salvation Army and all organised religions are placed in a false position until society is comprehensibly restructured. Shaw refers to the Morral Affair without (as is the habit of him and so many of the authors of his age) giving the necessary names or details. The reader has to turn to Wikipedia to find out what he’s on about.

On May 31, 1906, Mateu Morral threw a bomb at King Alfonso XIII’ of Spains car as he returned with Victoria Eugenie from their wedding in Madrid. It was a year to the date following a similar attack on his carriage. The bomb was concealed in a bouquet of flowers. While the King and Queen emerged unscathed, 24 bystanders and soldiers were killed and over 100 more wounded. A British colonel observing the scene compared it to one of war. The bride’s wedding gown was splattered with horse blood.

But Shaw seems to imply that the attack was justified.

The horses alone are innocent of the guilt he is avenging: had he blown all Madrid to atoms with every adult person in it, not one could have escaped the charge of being an accessory, before, at, and after the fact, to poverty and prostitution, to such wholesale massacre of infants as Herod never dreamt of, to plague, pestilence and famine, battle, murder and lingering death – perhaps not one who had not helped, through example, precept, connivance, and even clamour, to teach the dynamiter his well-learnt gospel of hatred and vengeance, by approving every day of sentences of years of imprisonment so infernal in its unnatural stupidity and panic-stricken cruelty, that their advocates can disavow neither the dagger nor the bomb without stripping the mask of justice and humanity from themselves also.

So do I deserve to be blown up by a terrorist bomb because I acquiesce in all the poverty and exploitation to be found in contemporary London? As he continues his narrative, Shaw seems to sympathise with the Madrid newspaper editor who helped the assassin escape, at least temporarily, from the Spanish police, while his bile is especially reserved for public opinion across Europe – ‘the raging fire of malice’ – which was horrified at the mass murder of the bombing.

Maybe Shaw would have approved of 9/11 on the basis of his claim that none of us are innocent? Or, closer to home, of the 7 July 2005 London bombings? That seems to be the logical consequence of his claim that no one who lives in a capitalist society is innocent of the exploitation inherent in capitalism. We all deserve to be blown up.

Sane Conclusions

Shaw continues with his hobbyhorse against the police and against any form of judicial punishment, especially the ‘barbarity’ of imprisonment. Instead he suggests every man is an anarchist when it comes to laws which are against their consciences. At times of great social change, institutions and laws need to change with them but rarely do, end up being 50 years or more out of date with the result that most sane men break them with a clean conscience.

As so many writers of this ilk do, he appeals not to data or facts, but to his own personality:

Here am I, for instance, by class a respectable man, by common sense a hater of waste and disorder, by intellectual constitution legally minded to the verge of pedantry, and by temperament apprehensive and economically disposed to the limit of old-maidishness; yet I am, and have always been, and shall now always be, a revolutionary writer, because our laws make law impossible; our liberties destroy all freedom; our property is organized robbery; our morality is an impudent hypocrisy; our wisdom is administered by inexperienced or malexperienced dupes, our power wielded by cowards and weaklings, and our honor false in all its points. I am an enemy of the existing order for good reasons; but that does not make my attacks any less encouraging or helpful to people who are its enemies for bad reasons. The existing order may shriek that if I tell the truth about it, some foolish person may drive it to become still worse by trying to assassinate it but I cannot help that…

Schoolboy rubbish. Do our ‘liberties destroy all freedom’? No, rubbish. Is property organised robbery? No. Is our morality an impudent hypocrisy? Well, take the general moral agreement that murder is bad, is that some kind of hypocrisy?

It feels intolerably weak, lame and inadequate that all the preceding bombast of this 40-page effusion ends up with this combination of crass exaggeration and egotistical self obsession.

Shaw’s solutions

And his two solutions for all this? Are close to incomprehensible.

First, the daily ceremony of dividing the wealth of the country among its inhabitants shall be so conducted that no crumb shall go to any able-bodied adults who are not producing by their personal exertions not only a full equivalent for what they take, but a surplus sufficient to provide for their superannuation and pay back the debt due for their nurture.

This is nonsense. Nearly half the adult population of Britain is incapable of productive work due to long-term sickness, mental illness, addiction or caring responsibilities for children or others. Next?

The second is that the deliberate infliction of malicious injuries which now goes on under the name of punishment be abandoned; so that the thief, the ruffian, the gambler, and the beggar, may without inhumanity be handed over to the law, and made to understand that a State which is too humane to punish will also be too thrifty to waste the life of honest men in watching or restraining dishonest ones. That is why we do not imprison dogs. We even take our chance of their first bite. But if a dog delights to bark and bite, it goes to the lethal chamber. That seems to me sensible.

To be absolutely clear:

It would be far more sensible to put up with their vices, as we put up with their illnesses, until they give more trouble than they are worth, at which point we should, with many apologies and expressions of sympathy, and some generosity in complying with their last wishes, then, place them in the lethal chamber and get rid of them.

So there are Shaw’s solutions to Britain’s social problems: everyone must be forced to work; any criminal will be tolerated until their behaviour becomes completely unacceptable at which point they will be liquidated. Any goodwill Shaw generated earlier in this grotesque essay surely evaporates at this point. On the last page he explains at length that the churches and Christianity, by offering unlimited redemption, only encourage lowlife criminals or criminal capitalists like Bodger to carry on with their crime indefinitely. The only way to stop it is not endless fol-de-rol of atonement and forgiveness but the iron law of annihilation. To ensure there’s no doubt he repeats his two key points:

We shall never have real moral responsibility until everyone knows 1) that his deeds are irrevocable, and 2) that his life depends on his usefulness.

Is this Swiftian satire or does he mean it? In which case, surely he was a proto-Nazi?


Related links

Bernard Shaw reviews

The Happy Prince and other stories by Oscar Wilde (1888)

In May 1888, 4 months after the 22 year-old Kipling published Plain Tales from the Hills, the 33 year-old Oscar Fingal O’Flahertie Wills Wilde published his first volume, ‘The Happy Prince and other stories’, five fairy tales for children.

  1. The Happy Prince
  2. The Nightingale and the Rose
  3. The Selfish Giant
  4. The Devoted Friend
  5. The Remarkable Rocket

Wilde takes up Victorian sentimentality about children and poverty where Dickens left it but whereas Tiny Tim or Little Nell were accompanied by the comic, the grotesque and Dickens’s unquenchable verbal energy, Wilde sets his stories in an idealised aestheticised realm of fairyland where statues and animals and rose bushes talk, and strives for a melodious smoothness, clothing his sweetly weeping tales in fin-de-siecle silver and gold:

Pale poppies were broidered on the silk coverlet of the bed, as though they had fallen from the tired hands of sleep, and tall reeds of fluted ivory bare up the velvet canopy, from which great tufts of ostrich plumes sprang, like white foam, to the pallid silver of the fretted ceiling.

1. The Happy Prince

Actually, maybe more Hans Christian Andersen than Dickens, though both authors took the side of the poor and of poor children in particular – and so does Wilde.

The Swallow flew over the great city, and saw the rich making merry in their beautiful houses, while the beggars were sitting at the gates. He flew into dark lanes, and saw the white faces of starving children looking out listlessly at the black streets. Under the archway of a bridge two little boys were lying in one another’s arms to try and keep themselves warm

The third of the happy prince’s charitable beneficiaries is a poor matchgirl freezing in the snow who, of course, reminds us of Andersen’s little matchgirl dying in the snow (Andersen’s story was published in 1845).

In the story all the swallows fly off to Egypt except one who dallies to woo a reed in the lake. But after some time he realises the reed will never reply and so heads south. He stops en route at a town whose highest point is a column on top of which is a gorgeous statue of the happy prince. The swallow rests at his feet but is woken up by drops of rain which he realises are big tears falling from the happy prince’s eyes. He is crying because when he looks out over the town he sees nothing but suffering and misery.

He tells the swallow that he is only called the happy prince because he did not know what tears were, he lived in the Palace of Sans-Souci, surrounded by a high wall where sorrow was not allowed to enter. It is only after he died, and was made into a statue and set on a pillar high above the town that he has been shocked to learn of the widespread poverty and unhappiness among his people: he finds it not only deeply upsetting but puzzling and strange:

There is no Mystery so great as Misery.

On three successive days he asks the swallow to make three trips to a representative of the poor, taking to them part of the prince’s statue which will relieve them of their poverty. On the first day he asks the swallow to take the ruby embedded in his sword to the poor mother of a boy with fever in a garret. On the second day he asks the swallow to take one of the sapphires which make his eyes to a playwright starving in a draughty garret. On the third day he tells the swallow to take the sapphire which forms his other eye to a poor matchgirl shivering in the snow, if she returns penniless her father will beat her, but the gift of the pretty jewel sends her skipping home with happiness.

Now that he is blind the prince asks the swallow to fly out over the town and bring back report of what he sees and he sees misery and poverty and unhappiness. So the prince tells the swallow to unpeel the gold leaf off his body and go deliver a leaf to each of the poor.

Leaf after leaf of the fine gold he brought to the poor, and the children’s faces grew rosier, and they laughed and played games in the street. “We have bread now!” they cried.

The swallow exhausts himself performing all these good deeds, then the real freezing deep winter comes and it is too late for him to fly south. He kisses the happy prince and falls dead at his feet. Then the lead heart within the prince’s statue breaks in two.

Next morning the pompous mayor and his counsellors are walking through the town square when they notice how shabby the statue has become, almost like ‘a common beggar’. The mayor orders it to be taken down and the metal melted down and cast into a fine statue of himself! The overseer at the town furnace discovers the broken lead heart won’t melt down so chucks it on the same scrapheap as the dead swallow.

Then God tells one of his angels to fetch the most precious things in the town to him and the angel brings the dead bird and the old lead heart and God says he did right, and gives the swallow immortal life in Paradise and remakes the happy prince to praise him in his city of Gold.

Commentary

The central structure of three days is immensely reassuring. Why are threes in narratives so primal and so comforting?

The opening passage is important because the swallow’s wooing of the reed gives the whole a pleasantly Greek myth feel, referencing the legend of Pan and Syrinx.

You’d expect Wilde’s prose style to be smooth and mellifluous but it’s worth pointing out the importance of dialogue and, in particular, the contrast between the hypnotic repetitions and Tennysonian diction of the statue (note the ‘will you not’) –

‘Swallow, Swallow, little Swallow,’ said the Prince, ‘will you not stay with me one night longer?’

– and the swallow, who has a much more chirpy, chipper voice (note the demotic, chatty contraction ‘don’t’):

‘I don’t think I like boys,’ answered the Swallow. ‘Last summer, when I was staying on the river, there were two rude boys, the miller’s sons, who were always throwing stones at me.’

So there’s drama at work in the contrasting roles and voices of statue and swallow. As to what makes Wilde’s text feel so gorgeous (apart from the late Victorian poetic diction) it is that at every opportunity he describes rare and precious things, described in striking primary colours, amid repeated references to gold and silver and precious jewels.

He was gilded all over with thin leaves of fine gold, for eyes he had two bright sapphires, and a large red ruby glowed on his sword-hilt…The streets looked as if they were made of silver, they were so bright and glistening; long icicles like crystal daggers hung down from the eaves of the houses, everybody went about in furs, and the little boys wore scarlet caps and skated on the ice…He told him of the red ibises, who stand in long rows on the banks of the Nile, and catch gold-fish in their beaks; of the merchants, who walk slowly by the side of their camels, and carry amber beads in their hands; of the King of the Mountains of the Moon, who is as black as ebony, and worships a large crystal; of the great green snake that sleeps in a palm-tree, and has twenty priests to feed it with honey-cakes…and God said, ‘for in my garden of Paradise this little bird shall sing for evermore, and in my city of gold the Happy Prince shall praise me.’…

Everything is precious and rich and wonderful, designed first and foremost to make the children the stories are read to gasp in wonder.

And then to discuss the moral: God rewards the kind deeds of those who put others above themselves.

2. The Nightingale and the Rose

Talking birds are immediately magical and take you into the world of legend and fairy tales, in English as old as Chaucer, in the ancient world as old as the oldest legends.

Again the story is structured through a series of miniature odysseys and trials. A nightingale sitting in a holm oak tree overhears a young student lamenting that his beloved, the daughter of his professor, will not accompany him to the ball unless he presents her with a red rose. The nightingale is pleased that this is the Platonic Ideal of the True Lover of which she has sung for her entire life but never met before so she decides to help him and undertakes 3 (the magic number) journeys: flying to the rose tree in the middle of the lawn who tells her his roses are white; then to the rose tree twined round the sun dial, who tells her his roses are yellow; then to the rose tree that grows beneath the student’s window, but it tells her it is worn and blasted by winter winds and will not bloom this year.

And yet there is a way to get the student his rose. The nightingale must sing to the rose tree all night long her sweetest song with her breast pressed hard up against the tree so that its thorns pierce through her feather and flesh and triggers her heart’s blood which will rejuvenate the tree and make it produce a blood red rose.

The nightingale accepts and flies back to the holm oak. He can understand that the student is fickle and unreliable and is sad to hear his favourite bird is going to give her life for him. Oak asks nightingale to sing her one last song.

Then night falls, the moon comes out, and the nightingale goes to sing against the rose tree under the student’s window. There are three (magic number) stages:

  • she sang first of the birth of love in the heart of a boy and a girl and that prompts a rose to bud, pale as mist
  • she sang of the birth of passion in the soul of a man and a maid – and a flush of colour comes into the pale rose
  • she sang of the Love that is perfected by Death – and the thorn pierces her heart and the marvellous rose becomes a deep rich crimson

Then the nightingale faints and dies. At dawn the student flings open the window, notices the red rose, plucks it and goes running to present it to the beautiful daughter of his professor. Unfortunately, in the interim the Chamberlain’s nephew has sent her some real jewels so she’s going to the Prince’s ball with him. Infuriated the student flings the rose, created by the ultimate sacrifice of the nightingale, into the street where it is crushed by a common cart, and flounces back to his garret where he resolves to renounce love and dedicate himself to philosophy.

Commentary

As usual the text is as studded with precious gems and jewels as a medieval reliquary.

Surely Love is a wonderful thing. It is more precious than emeralds, and dearer than fine opals. Pearls and pomegranates cannot buy it, nor is it set forth in the marketplace. It may not be purchased of the merchants, nor can it be weighed out in the balance for gold.

And the point of both quests is they move through colour: the white rose and the yellow rose and the red rose; and then the various shades of white, pink and red as the nightingale bleeds out her heart’s blood, with Wilde going to town to elaborate in mellifluous cadences the full possibilities of each of the shades.

These are stories for children. You can see how a parent or teacher could not only read them to a child but then maybe ask some simple questions: so was the nightingale’s sacrifice worth it? even if it didn’t achieve its ultimate goal, was it still a noble and beautiful gesture? is the student right to renounce love just because he’s been rejected by one girl?

3. The Selfish Giant

Every day after school the children stop to play in the giant’s garden. There are twelve peach-trees that in the spring-time broke out into delicate blossoms of pink and pearl. They are able to do this because the giant has been away for a full seven years (seven dwarfs, seven league boots) visiting a friend in Cornwall. On his return he is angry to realise children have been invading his garden and builds a high wall round it and puts up a sign saying Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted.

The children can’t get in to play so the birds don’t sing any more so the trees don’t come into blossom and the flowers in the grass refuse to bloom. Wilde then has fun personifying Snow and Frost and the North Wind and Hail to come and wreak their worst on the barren garden. Spring doesn’t come, nor summer, but a perpetual winter, and the giant is puzzled and upset.

Then one day he hears a bird singing and, looking out the window, finds that the children found a crack in the wall and have snuck back into the garden and are sitting in the boughs of the trees which have all come out in blossom to celebrate which has tempted the birds to return. Except for one corner which is still winter with a blossomless tree covered in snow and a little boy who is too small to climb up into it.

So the giant leaves his bedroom, goes downstairs and into the garden at which all the other children run away screaming but the little boy is blinded by tears and doesn’t realise it is the giant picking him up and putting him into the snowy tree – which promptly bursts into bloom and the birds come and all the children come streaming back and the little boy throws his arms round the giant’s neck and kisses him and then the giant takes a giant hammer and smashes down his wall and passersby are amazed to see lots of children laughing and playing in the most beautiful garden they had ever seen.

But none of them know where the little boy has gone and for years all the children of the neighbourhood play in the garden but never again the little boy. Till one winter, when he is old and creaky, the giant looks out his window and sees the boy standing by one tree which is in blossom. He goes running to see him but is angered when he sees the boy has wounds in his hands and feet. He is the Christ child. These, he explains, are the wounds of Love, and the giant feels a strange awe and kneels before the little boy who tells him, ‘You let me play once in your garden, to-day you shall come with me to my garden, which is Paradise,’ and when the children come to play later that day they find the giant lying dead under the tree, all covered with white blossoms.

That made me cry. If only love was that simple and sweet and all-forgiving.

4. The Devoted Friend

This is a sarcastic or ironic story, the longest in the set. It’s a story within a story, starting with an argument between a selfish water rat and a mother duck who is trying to teach her ducklings the important skill of turning upside down in the water. A linnet flies down and announces she will tell the selfish water rat a story intended to demonstrate what true friendship is:

Little Hans is a nice little man with an innocent face who keeps a lovely garden full of flowers which he sells at market as his only income. He is bullied and over-awed by his neighbour, the big miller named Hugh. This self-important bully persuades himself, his fawning wife and innocent little Hans that he is Hans’s ‘best friend’. He does this by offering Hans his knackered old wheelbarrow (Hugh has just bought himself a new one) and uses the promise of this dubious gift to then extort all manner of favours from Hans: taking the only spare plank of wood Hans has to repair his barn; taking a big bunch of his best flowers off Hans; carrying a heavy sack of flour to market; repairing the miller’s barn roof for him; driving his sheep up into the mountain pasture.

Because of this endless list of impositions Hans rarely has the time or energy to cultivate his own garden or water his own flowers, the sale of which he relies on for his food, while the fat miller enjoys wine and cakes with his wife all the time accusing Hans of being lazy and not appreciating ‘real friendship’ such as he is showing.

Things come to a climax when the miller comes knocking in the middle of a dark and stormy night to tell Hans his son has fallen off the roof and hurt himself and would Hans please walk the three miles through pelting rain across the marsh to the doctors. Hans asks to borrow Hugh’s lantern but Hugh points out that it is far too valuable to give to him.

So, with his usual reluctance overcome by his usual commitment to Hugh’s idea of ‘true friendship’, Hans sets off and after walking through the rain for hours arrives at the doctors and tells him about Hugh’s son’s accident, So the doctor saddles up and rides off leaving Hans to make his way back by night in pelting rain across the marsh and, somewhat inevitably, he wanders off the path and is drowned in a deep pool.

At Hans’s funeral Hugh bullies his way into pride of place as Hans’s ‘best friend’ though he complains that he doesn’t think Hans really appreciated his friendship and, now he’s dead, who the devil is he going to give his knackered, broken down old wheelbarrow to? Really, very selfish of Hans!

So the miller remains utterly ignorant of the nature of true friendship and completely self-involved and self-justifying right to the end:

‘A true friend always says unpleasant things, and does not mind giving pain. Indeed, if he is a really true friend he prefers it, for he knows that then he is doing good.’

And the water rat is his avatar; when the linnet declares the story over and that it had a moral the water-rat is outraged at this imposition on his good nature and scuttles back into his hole.

Commentary

The story is beautifully paced and balanced. It unfolds in the right order at just the right speed. The miller reminds us of the miller in Chaucer, maybe, but is probably more indebted, what with his German name, Hans, to a Grimm’s Fairy Tale.

5. The Remarkable Rocket

The night before the king’s son is scheduled to marry the Russian Princess the fireworks intended for a grand pyrotechnic display get talking. This is very funny as Wilde gives all the different types of fireworks appropriate characters (the sentimental catherine wheel, the Roman candle, the sceptical Bengal light, the airy fire balloon, the rowdy crackers and the chippy little squibs), leading up to the immense, unbearably self-satisfied superiority of the rocket, who comes, he tells the other fireworks, from a really most remarkable lineage, is immensely sensitive and demands respect:

‘The only thing that sustains one through life is the consciousness of the immense inferiority of everybody else, and this is a feeling that I have always cultivated.’

While all the other fireworks are pleased to be let off to celebrate the nuptials of such a beautiful couple, the remarkable rocket insists what an honour it is for them to be married on the great day of his Letting Off. And he weeps to show off his superior sensibility.

Unfortunately, this means that the next evening, after the wedding and at the climax of the party, all the other fireworks perform excellently but the remarkable rocket fails to even light. After the display is over the workmen dismantle the firework board and one of them simply throws the dud rocket over the wall into a ditch.

Here he has a series of comic encounters where he tries to maintain his lofty superiority over a succession of talking animals who are not at all impressed, namely a frog who is very proud of the racket he and his chorus make, a dragonfly who tells him not to worry about the frog, then a big white duck who is given the character of a fussy, middle-class suburbanite before paddling off quack quack quack.

Finally two schoolboys come along with some wood and a kettle planning to light a fire and boil water for tea. They think the rocket is just a stick and shove him in the fire before having a nap. Thus there is nobody at all to see him as he does, eventually, dry out, ignite and shoot high into the midday sky, utterly invisible and insignificant, before feeling a funny tingling sensation and then exploding in a series of impressive bangs which nobody sees or hears.

Then all that remains of this self-important personage, a singed stick, falls out of the sky and lands on the back of a goose who happened to be walking along beside the ditch.

‘Good heavens!’ cried the Goose. ‘It is going to rain sticks,’ and she rushed into the water.
‘I knew I should create a great sensation,’ gasped the Rocket, and he went out.

Commentary

In his vast and comic loftiness the rocket is given a barrage of characteristically paradoxical Wilde witticisms (notably absent from most of the other stories), which look forward to his mature writings:

‘It is a very dangerous thing to know one’s friends.’

‘You have talked the whole time yourself. That is not conversation.’
‘Somebody must listen,’ answered the Frog, ‘and I like to do all the talking myself. It saves time, and prevents arguments.’

‘You are a very irritating person,’ said the Rocket, ‘and very ill-bred. I hate people who talk about themselves, as you do, when one wants to talk about oneself, as I do. It is what I call selfishness.’

‘I like hearing myself talk. It is one of my greatest pleasures. I often have long conversations all by myself, and I am so clever that sometimes I don’t understand a single word of what I am saying.’

‘It would be unfair to expect other people to be as remarkable as oneself.’

‘My good creature,’ cried the Rocket in a very haughty tone of voice, ‘I see that you belong to the lower orders. A person of my position is never useful. We have certain accomplishments, and that is more than sufficient. I have no sympathy myself with industry of any kind, least of all with such industries as you seem to recommend. Indeed, I have always been of opinion that hard work is simply the refuge of people who have nothing whatever to do.’

And some simple but breath-taking effects:

Then the moon rose like a wonderful silver shield.

Ian Small’s introduction

The 1994 Penguin paperback edition of the Complete Short Fiction of Oscar Wilde is edited with an introduction by Ian Small, Professor of English Literature at the University of Birmingham. In his excellent introduction Small makes many good sensible points which are worth remembering.

New genres

The 1870s saw the start of a transformation in the economics of publishing in Britain.

1) New print technology made it possible to print and publish books at much cheaper prices.

2) The 1870 Education Act created (after a lag of about a decade) a new and growing audience of literate but not especially literary customers who wanted good, short, cheap, gripping stories.

3) These trends led to the development of speciality publishers and newly defined sub-genres of fiction. Pre-eminent among these were horror stories (Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde, She, Dracula); ghost stories (Wilkie Collins, MR James) adventure stories (Rider Haggard and Kipling); and detective stories (Sherlock Holmes). In a few short years H.G. Wells would single-handedly invented the massively popular new genre of science fiction.

All these new genres were embodied in short stories, and a great wave of new magazines and periodicals exploded onto the shelves of the new kinds of popular bookseller, not least the shops of successful businessman and Tory MP, WH Smith.

Writing for money

In the 1880s Wilde had tried his hand at publishing a slim book of volumes (disappeared without trace) and two serious plays (mocked by critics) and failed. He had been forced back onto journalism, writing and editing magazines and cultivating his reputation as a minor celebrity about town. Small points out that, when he made yet another attempt to break into the literary world in the late 1880s, he was by now married with two small children and so he needed to make money. And this is why he set his sights on using the newly revitalised form of the short story and using the new sub-genres of it which had become so popular.

Parodies

Thus The Canterville Ghost is a parody of a ghost story; Lord Arthur Saville’s Crime is a parody of a detective story; and his fairy stories are parodies of fairy stories. Parodies? Yes, in several ways. For a start there is a knowingness about many of the stories which means that right from the start you’re not surprised when characters don’t behave quite as you’d expect them to: take the cocksureness of the remarkable rocket.

Parenting and childing

Small goes on to make another point which is about parenting. Fairy stories are traditionally told to children to inculcate them into the values of a society. In line with his lifelong interest in ironic reversal, upsetting expectations, parody and paradox, in some of his fairy stories it’s the children who educate the adults. Small’s example is The Friendly Giant, whose size indicates that he is a parent figure but who, of course, needs to be educated by his children. (He also evidences The Canterville Ghost where only the youngest child of the American family has the imagination to understand the ghost and so lay him to rest.)


Related links

Related reviews

A Rebours by Joris-Karl Huysmans (1884)

Artifice was considered by Des Esseintes to be the distinctive mark of human genius. Nature has had her day; she has finally and utterly exhausted the patience of sensitive observers by the revolting uniformity of her landscapes and skyscapes…with her never-ending platitudes the old crone has exhausted the good-humoured admiration of all true artists and the time has surely come for artifice to take her place whenever possible.
(À rebours, chapter 2)

It was to him that this voice, as mysterious as an incantation, was addressed; it was to him that it spoke of the feverish desire for the unknown, the unsatisfied longing for an ideal, the craving to escape from the horrible realities of life, to cross the frontiers of thought, to grope after a certainty, albeit without finding one, in the misty upper regions of art!
(Chapter 9 cf p.117)

The title, the French phrase ‘A Rebours’, translates into English as ‘Against the Grain’ or ‘Against Nature’.

Joris-Karl Huysmans, born in 1848 to a French mother and Dutch father (hence his unfrench surname) supported himself with a steady job as a minor civil servant in Paris (where his colleagues knew him as simply ‘Georges’), while he wrote novels to amuse himself.

His first three novels followed the school of Naturalism led by the great Émile Zola. But he bridled at the documentary grimness and the extensive sociological research demanded by this style and so, in his fourth novel, A rebours, struck out in a new direction.

He was as surprised as anyone when it took Paris by storm. Its depiction of a neurasthenic aristocrat who retires to a house of his own design to experiment with an exquisite life of the senses immediately struck a chord with members of the Aesthetic movement, not only in France but Britain and across Europe. The poet Paul Valéry called it his ‘Bible and his bedside book’.

In the 1890s the Aesthetic movement intensified into what came to be known as the Decadence, the conscious exploration of the darker, morbid side of life, exaggerated into fantastic visions. Literature took on the tones of melodrama in British works like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, in a consciously literary work like Heart of Darkness, even in fairly ‘straight’ works like the more melodramaticSherlock Holmes stories, and, of course, in Oscar Wilde’s ‘scandalous’ contribution to the genre, The Picture of Dorian Grey.

In France with its strong counter-revolutionary Catholic tradition, they took these things more seriously and intensely. Words like ‘blasphemy’ and ‘sin’ in the mouths of Oscar Wilde characters were little more than a style accessory; but in the minds of genuine Catholics they denoted real and soul-threatening facts. Anyway, A Rebours became a kind of handbook for the Decadent Movement, a breviary, a missal, a set of instructions.

Arguably, ‘the Decadence’ is best understood via key paintings in the parallel style of Symbolism, particularly the over-ripe paintings of Gustave Moreau and the strange works of Odilon Redon. In England, maybe the most ‘decadent’ products in any form were the amazing drawings of Aubrey Beardsley and the notorious Yellow Book (1894 to 1897).

A rebours

So what is À rebours about?

Prologue [early years and fast living in Paris] (8 pages)

Well, it starts with a brief prologue limning the personality of the central character, Jean des Esseintes. The book is going to be about him and him alone. Des Esseintes is the weak and weary, worn-out, last scion of a once-great aristocratic house, an eccentric, reclusive, ailing aesthete. His childhood was plagued with illnesses. His parents hated each other. His father was absent most of the time. His mother spent most of her time lying in a darkened bedroom, subject to nervous attacks if exposed to even the slightest light or noise. Abandoned and crushingly lonely, the young Jean spent most of his time in the library, living through books.

In fact the Prologue is unexpectedly funny in a savage satirical way, taking the mickey out of de Esseintes’ wretchedly unhappy parents, the teachers at his Jesuit school who don’t know what to do with the bright unfocused boy and then his various attempts, as an adult, to find his tribe, to find a group of people to fit in with. He tries four or five different types (his actual family, starting with tedious cousins; sensible but dull men his own age; fast-living aristos; the literary set; so-called ‘freethinkers’) and finds them all unbearably boring. He has become ‘a jaded sophisticate’ (p.111).

During his Paris years Des Esseintes:

  • wears a suit of white velvet with a gold-laced waistcoat, and a bunch of palma violets in his shirt front instead of a cravat
  • holds a black-themed funeral dinner, held in honour of his dead virility, described in a page which is worth reading and rereading for its (literally) black humour

Des Esseintes tries sex: he attends unconventional dinner parties where the women strip off; he beds singers and actresses; he takes mistresses already famed for their depravity; he pays for call girls with specialist skills; eventually he seeks satisfaction in the gutter, among the filthy proles. The effort was making him weak and shaky but still he tried ‘unnatural love affairs and perverse pleasures’ but, in the end, he emerged disgusted with the whole thing and himself, and ill with boredom.

The key thing to emphasise is that the excesses of these bachelor debaucheries have made him ill, exacerbating his many boyhood ailments:

The excesses of his bachelor days and the abnormal strains put on his brain had aggravated his neurosis to an astonishing degree and still further diluted the blood of his race. (p.94)

He has become:

a feeble, broken-down, short-winded creature (p.111)

And so it is that, utterly worn out, trembling with nervous exhaustion and disgusted by people and contemporary society, by ‘the money grubbing ignominy of the age’ (p.194), Des Esseintes sells the big ancestral home, the Chateau de Lourps, selling off the setting of his bored miserable childhood, and retires to a house he has had completely redesigned and refurbished to his tastes on the outskirts of Paris (‘on the hillside above Fontenay-aux-Roses’). He seeks a solitude and silence which are ‘a well merited compensation for the years of rubbish he’s had to listen to’ (p.132).

Now the narrative proper begins and turns out to be a series of chapter in each of which Des Esseintes explores, in obsessive detail, aspects of the worlds of sensual pleasure, esoteric knowledge, the exquisite and beautiful and perversely tasteful, carrying out a syllabus of ‘delicious, atrocious experiments’ (p.129). The narrative is, in other words, ‘almost entirely a catalogue of the neurotic Des Esseintes’s aesthetic tastes, musings on literature, painting, and religion, and hyperaesthesic sensory experiences.’

Des Esseintes’ weakness

The key thing to emphasise is that Des Esseintes is no swaggering Byronic buccaneer. He is pale and wasted. He is ill. He is weak:

sapped by disillusionment, depressed by hypochondria and weighed down by spleen.

All he wants is absolute peace and quiet. All his pleasures are solitary, slow and virtually silent. He is the extreme opposite of the sex and drugs and rock and roll lifestyle. He brings the two old servants from the ancestral home with him but makes them wear felt slippers, all the doors are oiled and all the rooms soundproofed because his nerves are so poor. It is not a lusty virile decadence, but the exquisite mental pleasures of someone on their last legs. The house really is a retreat from the world.

You might expect Des Esseintes would organise riotous feasts packed with elaborate dishes, but that is to mistake his mental and physical frailty. In reality, his stomach is so done in by his previous fast living (referred to and dismissed in the Prologue) that he can only manage the plainest of fare: breakfast consists of two boiled eggs, toast and tea. (Mind you, he has breakfast at 5pm, lunch at 11pm, and toys with a simple dinner at dawn; decadents, like symbolists, being unhealthily attracted to the night.)

Not exuberant sensuality, but boredom and spleen, and underneath everything, profound ill health, are the keynotes of the whole thing.

Chapter 1 (7 pages)

The decoration of the house, its fabrics, colours and designs, the walls lined with leather, the mouldings and plinths painted deep indigo, the massive 15th century money-changers’ table, the tall lectern, the windows of blue-ish glass dressed with curtains cut out of old ecclesiastical stoles

Chapter 2 (8 pages)

Describes the pipes, ducts, aquarium and dim windows Des Esseintes rigs up in his dining room so as to feel like he’s in a steamship on a grand cruise. This leads into a dithyramb in praise of artifice and artificiality:

Travel struck him as a waste of time since he believed that the imagination can provide a more-than-adequate substitution for the vulgar reality of actual experience.

And:

There can be no doubt that by transferring this ingenious trickery, this clever simulation to the intellectual plane, one can enjoy, just as easily as on the material plane, imaginary pleasures similar in all respects to the pleasures of reality. (p.35)

Which leads up to the declaration that, contrary to several thousand years of aesthetic theory, which has drummed home the message that the true artist needs to return to nature, that nature is truth etc etc, contrary to all this Des Esseintes insists that the artificial is always superior:

As a matter of fact, artifice was considered by Des Esseintes to be the distinctive mark of human genius. (p.36)

Which leads on to the amusing thought that Nature is a clapped-out old crone, a cliché, serving up the same stereotyped old special effects, red sunsets, glistening moonglow etc etc yawn. What is needed is the new aesthetic of complete artificiality.

(This passage amounts to a manifesto in praise of Artifice and, more than specific passages about jewels or flowers, is probably the ”Bible’ part of the book, the bit which other authors read again and again. It certainly lies behind, or is virtually repeated, in Oscar Wilde’s essays about the superiority of art over nature.)

Chapter 3 (13 pages)

A prolonged, descriptive and hilariously opinionated review of his encyclopedic collection of Latin literature, from Plautus to the tenth century. Particularly funny are his contemptuous dismissals of the classics, Virgil, Horace, Cicero et al, witness:

the disgust he felt for the elephantine Horace’s vulgar twaddle, for the stupid patter he keeps up as he simpers at his audience like a painted old clown… (p.41)

Later in the book, discussing French literature, he explains this at further length:

Imperfection itself pleased him, provided it was neither base nor parasitic, and it may be that there was a certain amount of truth in his theory that the minor writer of the decadence, the writer who is incomplete but none the less individual, distils a balm more irritant, more sudorific, more acid than the author of the same period who is truly great and truly perfect. In his opinion, it was in their confused efforts that you could find the most exalted flights of sensibility, the most morbid caprices of psychology, the most extravagant aberrations of language called upon in vain to control and repress the effervescent salts of ideas and feelings. (p. 185).

He prefers more heterogenous authors of the later, ‘Silver Age’ such as Petronius (he gives a plot summary of the Satyricon) and Apuleius (author of The Golden Ass) before moving on to consider numerous obscure works of early Christian literature.

Chapter 4 (10 pages)

Des Esseintes needs a centerpiece to bring out some of the colours in a rare oriental rug he owns and has the bright idea of gilding and then embedding the shell of a tortoise with gemstones and placing it on the rug. This leads in to a review of the colour and meaning of jewels, which is itself punctuated by a description of the ‘mouth organ’, a device for mixing amounts of expensive liqueurs so as to produce symphonies of flavour on his palate. He even devises mixes of flavours to mimic the effect and instrumentation of classical music (symphony, string quartet etc).

For some reason the chapter ends with a farcical anecdote about a raging toothache which kept him up all night till he rushed off at opening time to the first cheap dentist he could find who tugged and tugged at the septic molar like a fairground huckster. In its crude farce, this episode is oddly out of kilter with the solemn intensity of most of the book, but then Huysmans didn’t realise he was writing a book which would become a ‘Bible’.

Chapter 5 (15 pages)

A long description of, then meditation on, the painting of Salome Dancing before Herod by top Symbolist painter, Gustave Moreau. In his view Salome appears as ‘a great venereal flower, grown in a bed of sacrilege, reared in a hothouse of impiety’ (p.68). Then further analysis of Moreau’s watercolour of her, titled ‘The Apparition‘.

In his red boudoir des Esseintes has a series of engravings by Jan Luyken, titled ‘Religious Persecutions‘, a collection of the most disgusting and horrifying tortures humans can impose on each other, which make him choke with horror. Other works of art he loves include:

Plus numerous works by Odilon Redon which plunge deep ‘into the horrific realms of bad dreams and fevered visions…exceeding the bounds of pictorial art and creating a new type of fantasy, born of sickness and delirium’, reminding Des Esseintes of the many fever dreams of his own sick boyhood (p.73).

As a break from modern artists, he has a lurid Christ by El Greco which he loves gazing at.

This segues into a passage describing how he’s decorated his bedroom. Bedrooms come in 2 types, one for the pleasures of the flesh, the other restrained and monastic. Having got sex out of his system in Paris, Des Esseintes makes his bedroom into a chaste retreat. Characteristically, he seeks to mimic the effect of a plain and worn monastery but by using exquisite and expensive materials. This is dryly funny but what I took from the description is that:

like a monk he was overwhelmed by an immense weariness, by a longing for peace and quiet (p.76)

Chapter 6 (6 pages)

Sitting quietly in front of a quiet fire he has two memories, both satirically funny:

When one of his group of bachelors back in Paris, D’Aigurande, announces he intends to get married, Des Esseintes is the only one who supports him but not out of common goodwill. The reverse. When he hears that the bride-to-be plans to move into one of the circular flats in the new blocks of flats lining the new boulevards, he knows there’ll be comedy ahead and indeed there is, as the new couple struggle to find furniture to fit the shape and layout of the flat, leading to endless arguments, the wife eventually moving to a new normal-shaped flat where none of their rounded furniture fits, D’Aigurande spending more and more time out seeking distraction while she has an affair. This was precisely the cruel entertainment Des Esseintes had anticipated and then relishes.

The second memory is deliberately monstrous. Des Esseintes comes across a street urchin who asks him for a light. Instead Des Esseintes takes him to a high class brothel and pays for him to have sex with one of the whores. The madam of the house asks why. Des Esseintes shares his sadistic plan, which is to pay for the boy to have sex there every fortnight for a few months, and then abruptly cut him off. The idea is to get him addicted to the high life so that, when he’s suddenly deprived of it, it forces him into a life of crime, leading him eventually to murder some bourgeois householder returning home to find it being burgled by the boy. The madam is shocked, but then she has a lot of odd clients. Anyway, back in the present Des Esseintes is chagrined because although he scours the Police Gazette, he never sees a report about the boy. He feels cheated.

Chapter 7 (12 pages)

Living such a retired, solitary life, Des Esseintes is puzzled and discomfited to discover that many of the questions about life which he smothered during his Paris years, now return to haunt him. Although he was raised by Jesuits, he thought his scepticism secure, but now he’s starting to wonder. Creating the atmosphere of a monastic cell, living a chaste life, reading Christian writers in Latin, he finds his scepticism becoming wobbly.

He comes to realise that his tastes, for artificiality and eccentricity, stem from the subtle sophistical studies of his boyhood education. Weeks pass and he finds his head full of theological speculations, or, their converse, morbid fantasies of grotesque blasphemies.

(Only in Catholic countries is this kind of extremism possible. England with its tea party Church of England never inspired the same fanatacism or morbidness. Anger, yes, as in controversies about Tractarianism, Anglo-Catholicism etc. But no Anglican speculated about putting holy oil and wine to depraved sexual uses as Huysmans does.)

Then these moods leave him, he finds his feet again, reinforces his scepticism by reading (the philosopher) Schopenhauer, disgusted and appalled at the spectacle of a world of pain. The world isn’t guided by a benevolent Providence but is the mangled product of aimless, blind striving.

Now his illnesses come back to haunt him. Terrible headaches, a nervous cough which wakes him in the early hours, searing heartburns. He almost gives up eating, forces himself to go for long walks in the country, puts down his books but almost immediately falls prey to excruciating boredom. He has an idea: to fill the house with hothouse flowers.

Chapter 8 (11 pages)

The flower chapter. In Paris he collected fake flowers, exquisite copies. Now, tired of fake flowers that look like real ones, he wants to collect real flowers that look like fakes. Suffice to say he likes flowers with diseased perfervid colouring, as if stricken with syphilis or leprosy. Sounding very like Oscar Wilde, Des Esseintes declares that:

‘The horticulturalists are the only true artists left to us nowadays.’ (p.102)

That night he has an atrocious nightmare in which he is accompanying a working class woman somewhere when a horse gallops ahead of them, turns and reveals the rider to be a half skeleton, half blue and green demon, with red pustules round the mouth, the figure of Syphilis. The nightmare unfurls through many scenes until the climax when he finds himself embraced by a demon woman, covered in pustules and, as she pulls him (and his erection) closer, her vulva changes into a red wound in the shape of the Venus Flytraps delivered to his houses earlier, the sharp teeth, the glistening digestive juices as she pulls him closer…and he wakes up in a fearful sweat.

Chapter 9 (11 pages)

The nightmares continue, evidence of Des Esseinte’s mounting neuroses. He tries a variety of cures but nothing works. He is all the more irritated as most of the rare flowers he bought at such cost have died. To try and soothe his nerves he reviews his art collection, enjoying the savage skill of Goya’s Caprices, Rembrandt.

Iller than ever, he tries the novels of Charles Dickens, supposedly good for convalescents but is revolted by the stereotyped virginity and chasteness of its young people. This sets off an equal and opposite reaction, and he finds himself shaken by images of perverted lust. He has a small box of purple bonbons, improbably named Pearls of the Pyrenees, which trigger memories of female moments, french kisses, debauches, conquests, sex – ‘Morose delectations’.

He remembers his affair with an American trapeze artist who turned out not to be the agile athlete he hoped for in bed, but prim and Puritanical. The affair with a ventriloquist. One night he placed statues of the Sphinx and the Chimera in his bedroom and had her pitch voices into each, reading out a script from Flaubert. But all the time he is fighting a losing battle against his impotence. He tries having sex with children but their pained grimaces are too samey and boring (p.116). Lastly he remembers being picked up by an attractive young man with whom, apparently, he had a homosexual relationship for a few months.

Like everything else, these memories leave him ‘worn out, completely shattered, half dead’.

Chapter 10 (12 pages)

The chapter on perfumes, the most neglected art of all, displaying Des Esseintes’ usual encyclopedic knowledge and exquisite discriminations, as he sets out to educate himself in the ‘the syntax of smells’, ‘the idiom of essences’, until his sense of smell has ‘acquired an almost infallible flair’.

He gives a history of perfumes which accompany and match French history, certain scents associated with the reigns of Louis 14, 15 and 16, with Napoleon, the restored monarchy etc. Descriptions of his experiments, mixing and mingling rare scents and aromas to create landscapes of the senses, reams of poetic prose describing the aromas he creates on the bed of a vision of a great meadow and swaying linden trees.

Suddenly he has a blinding headache and has to throw open the window to clear the room of its stifling atmosphere. In a brisk mood he decides to sort out the tumble of cosmetics he owns, in his bathroom. Most of these were bought at the insistence of a woman he had an affair with, who loved her nipples to be scented, but couldn’t achieve climax unless she was having her hair combed, or when she could smell soot, wet plaster or the dust thrown up by a summer rainstorm.

One thing leads to another and now he quotes a 2-page-long prose poem he wrote inspired by a visit to this woman’s sister on a day of rain and mud and puddles, which sounds like this:

‘Under the lowering sky, in the humid atmosphere, the houses ooze black sweat and their ventilators breathe black odours; the horror of life becomes more apparent and the grip of spleen more oppressive; the seeds of iniquity that lie in every man’s heart begin to germinate; a craving for filthy pleasures takes hold of the puritanical, and the minds of respected citizens are visited by criminal desires.’ (p.127)

‘Decadent’ enough for you? In fact the prose poem reaches the rather complicated conclusion that invalids, worn out be their debauchery in Paris, often head to the countryside to recuperate, where they die of boredom. He suggests that with a little imagination, their doctors could use perfumes to create the atmosphere of Parisian brothels, thus giving their patients the pleasant impression of being back in their Parisian fleshpots without any of the enervating physical requirements!

But when he throws open the windows he smells again a strong scent of frangipani and, in his weakened state, wonders if he is possessed by some evil spirit, and falls fainting, ‘almost dying’, across the windowsill. It cannot be emphasised enough how the entire narrative is based on Des Esseintes’ almost complete mental and physical collapse.

Chapter 11 (14 pages)

As a result of this collapse his terrified servants call a doctor who declares there’s nothing wrong with Des Esseintes before our hero shoos him out of the house. Suddenly, on a whim, based on his earlier attempt to read the novels of Dickens, des Esseintes conceives the mad idea of going to London. He has the old servant pack his things and is off in a cab to the train station within hours. Next thing he knows he is at the station and engaging a cabbie to take him to a bookstore to buy a guide to London. But as they trot through the streets of Paris Des Esseintes has a vivid and very enjoyable vision of London, the London of fogs and non-stop rain, and soot and rumbling tube trains and miserable pedestrians.

At the bookshop he peruses guidebooks to London, mostly noting lists of paintings hanging in London galleries. He likes the most ‘modern’ works and it is interesting to see that, for a super aesthete like des Esseintes, this means John Everett Millais and George Frederick Watts.

Having bought a guide he goes to the Bodega, a big wine emporium, where he finds himself surrounded by Englishmen about whom he is entertainingly rude:

There were laymen with bloated pork-butcher faces or bulldog muzzles, apoplectic necks, ears like tomatoes, winy cheeks, stupid bloodshot eyes and whiskery collars as worn by some of the great apes. (p.137)

Drifting into a reverie he superimposes on all these faces the names and characters from Dickens’ novels, imagining the hooting of tugs behind the Tuileries are those of boats on the Thames. He then takes the cab through the filthy rainy Paris weather to a warm tavern near the station for the train to Dieppe and boat onto Newhaven.

Here Des Esseintes stuffs himself with an unusually large meal (thick greasy oxtail soup; smoked haddock; roast beef and potatoes; several pints of ale; stilton, then a rhubarb tart; a pint of porter followed by a cup of coffee laced with gin).

There are many English men in the tavern but also some English women, about whom he is also amusingly rude:

Robust Englishwomen with boyish faces, teeth as big as palette-knives, cheeks as red as apples, long hands and long feet. They were enthusiastically attacking helpings of rump-steak pie – meat served hot in mushroom sauce and covered with a crust like a fruit tart. (p.140)

Eventually the bad weather outside, the warmth inside, the effect of an unusually heavy dinner,  and being surrounded by English men and women contribute to the growing sense that there’s no need to go to London. In his imagination he’s already been.

After all, what was the good of moving, when a fellow could travel so magnificently sitting in a chair? Wasn’t he already in London whose smells, weather, citizens, food and even cutlery were all about him? (p.143)

Only a ninny can imagine it is necessary, interesting or useful to travel abroad. And so, with a certain inevitability, he takes the cab back to the Gare de Sceaux, and a train back to Fontenoy, arriving (comically) with:

all the physical weariness and moral fatigue of a man who has come home after a long and perilous voyage.

This is broadly funny. Des Esseintes barely seems the hero of a satanic novel of moral debauchery any more, but a figure of fun, a comically etiolated, knackered, degraded version of the dashing hero of many an adventure novel by his compatriot Jules Vernes.

Chapter 12 (22 pages)

The second longest chapter, a review of French Catholic prose literature.

Des Esseintes (slightly comically) returns to his books as if after a long absence when he has, in fact, been away for one day. It’s a return to the mode of hyperaesthetic review which we’ve seen in the preceding chapters.

Obviously, not only is his book collection of rare and tasteful books, but he insists on having them specially printed – on special paper, printed with hand-made fonts, bound in rare and precious bindings. It is an orgy of exquisite taste, requiring specialist vocabulary such as ‘mirific’ and ‘blind-tooling’.

It is here that he gives a page-long dithyramb to the patron saint of decadence, Charles Baudelaire, who went further than anyone before him to explore ‘the symptoms of souls visited by sorrow, singled out by spleen…[at the age when] the enthusiasms and beliefs of youth have drained away.’ (p.147)

In Des Esseintes’ opinion, few other writers compare; certainly, he is not impressed by the ‘classics’ such as Rabelais and Corneille, Voltaire, Diderot or Rousseau. Pascal he likes for his austere pessimism and ‘agonised attrition’.

When it comes to the nineteenth century literature, he divides it into two classes, Catholic and secular. Catholic writing is good for stating abstract concepts and intellectual distinctions but the general run of Catholic writers is dire.

He is humorously rude about a set of women Catholic writers for their banality (it’s worth mentioning that Huysmans drops casually insulting comments about women throughout the book). Catholic writers generally have fallen victim to a conventional and frozen idiom, drained of all originality – with the exceptions of Jean-Baptiste Henri Lacordaire, the Abbé Peyreyve, the Comte de Falloux, Louis Veuillot, Antoine-Frédéric Ozanam, the Abbé Lamennais, Comte Josephe de Maistre, Ernest Hello and others he singles out.

Reading about these priests and polemicists makes me eternally grateful that England is (or was) a Protestant country, untroubled by the bitter and savage arguments about the role of Catholicism in public life which divided France, and the bitter splits which divided French Catholicism (between Ultramontanists and Gallicists). The bitter divides and the spiteful bigotry underlying French society were to come spilling out in the grotesque Dreyfus Affair a decade after this book was published (1894) whose antagonisms reverberated on to the time of the Great War.

A Catholic writer who went too far for the Church authorities was Jules Barbey d’Aurevilly (1808 to 1889). Des Esseintes likes d’Aurevilly’s more extreme works because they feed his taste for ‘sickly books, undermined and inflamed by fever’ (p.160).

Discussion of d’Aurevilly’s novels A married priest and The devils leads into a meditation on the fact that sadism only really makes sense within the context of Catholic faith. Sadism is a form of sacrilegious rebellion, a spiritual as much as a physical debauch. Without a God and Church to defy, it’s just being cruel.

Des Esseintes shares the fruits of his investigations into the Malleus Maleficorum and the Black Mass, describing a naked woman on all fours whose naked rump has been ‘repeatedly soiled’, serving as the altar from which the anti-congregation take a demonic host printed with the image of a goat, and so on.

Yes, of the entire canon of French Catholic prose, d’Aurevilly is the only one des Esseintes really enjoys reading because his works offer:

those gamy flavours and unhealthy spots, that bruised skin and sleepy taste which he so loved to savour in the decadent writers, both Latin and monastic, of olden times. (p.165)

(See my review of d’Aurevilly’s best known collection of stories, Les Diaboliques.)

Chapter 13 (12 pages)

There’s a heatwave. Feeble Des Esseintes is prostrated. He can’t eat, is almost choking with nausea. He takes down a bottle of Benedictine liqueur which he describes in a half-page prose poem, visions of medieval monks at their alembics.

Going out into the garden to recover his strength he sees a bunch of working class boys fighting in the lane which triggers negative thoughts. What’s the point of the scrofulous little brats being born in the first place? Why does society sell the means of contraception but locks up anyone who has an abortion? Maybe fornication should be banned outright. Then ‘a dreadful feeling of debility came over him again’ (p.172).

He tinkers with a few more liqueurs but they sicken him. We learn that, during his florid Paris heyday he tried hashish and opium but they only made him sick. He would have to rely in his imagination to carry him to other worlds.

He goes back indoors to seek relief from the heat, slumps into a chair and plays with an astrolabe he bought on the Left Bank. Now his mind drifts, reminiscing about walks around Paris, it dawns on him that licensed brothels are slowly being closed down and invariably replaced with taverns. This suggests to him that men tire of walking in, paying, having sex and walking out again. Too easy. In a tavern, on the other hand, you encounter women who you have to banter with, overcome, barter with, in some kind of degraded joust. If you score, there’s more of a sense of achievement. What idiots men are! Des Esseintes reflects, and goes to find some food for his troubled stomach.

Chapter 14 (23 pages)

French secular literature. At one point Des Esseintes worshipped Balzac but, as his health failed, Balzac came to seem too healthy. He changed to Edgar Allen Poe. He wants to be lifted ‘into a sphere where sublimated sensations would arouse within him an unexpected commotion’ (p.180). Hating modern life, as he does, he comes to dislike books which record it, from Flaubert to Zola. Instead he turns more and more to the fantastical, to the artificiality of Flaubert’s Temptation of Saint Anthony. He wants to escape the dullness and stupidity of his age, and fancy himself in another era, another world.

Then begins his review of nineteenth century French literature, starting by admiring Flaubert’s Salammbô, then analysing Edmund de Goncourt. What he, Des Esseintes, seeks in a book is ‘dream-inducing suggestiveness’ (p.183). After considering Zola he makes a major point about the appeal of minor, lesser writers. They are less consistent, less predictable and so more likely to include quirks and oddities which reveal strange corners of psychology and style.

Then the poets. He has a page on Paul Verlaine, who he describes as mysterious, vague, eccentric. And so on to Tristan Corbieres, Theodore Hannon. He no longer likes Leconte de Lisle and even Gautier no long appeals: they don’t make him dream any more, they no longer up vistas of escape. Hugo and Stendhal no. Nobody comes close to the pleasure given him by Edgar Allen Poe. The closest anyone comes is the Contes cruels of Auguste Villiers de l’Isle-Adam, a few of which he summarises (and which I recently reviewed).

Finally, his servant has filed his small collection of contemporary books on his shelves and leaves Des Esseintes with a specially printed selection of the finest poet of his times, Stéphane Mallarmé. Above all, des Esseintes loves the fineness of Mallarmé’s prose poems which is Des Esseintes’ favourite literary form. Verlaine, Mallarmé, represented the delicious decadence of the French language.

It is very symptomatic that Des Esseintes associates aesthetic excellence with illness, decline and collapse. Thus a little hymn celebrating the idea that the French language itself has finally reached the end of the road, is in terminal decay, since decay, decadence and death are his standard trope.

The truth of the matter was that the decadence of French literature, a literature attacked by organic diseases, weakened by intellectual senility, exhausted by syntactical excesses, sensitive only to the curious whims that excite the sick, and yet eager to express itself completely in its last hours, determined to make up for all the pleasures it had missed, afflicted on its death-bed with a desire to leave behind the subtlest memories of suffering, had been embodied in Mallarmé in the most consummate and exquisite fashion…this was the death-agony of the old tongue which, after going a little greener every century, had now reached the point of dissolution… (p.199)

All this is, in my opinion, actually a very suburban prejudice. Every generation likes to think it is the last one, that things are going to the dogs, can’t carry on this way, everything’s collapsing – whereas, in fact, rather disappointingly, things do just keep carrying on. It is a very common prejudice.

Then again, in the context of the narrative, you could argue that Des Esseintes’ opinion of the collapse of the French language really only reflects his own physical collapse. Like all his other opinions, it is highly subjective and self-referential.

Chapter 15 (11 pages)

Des Esseintes had had his servants install a food digester to cater to his sensitive stomach. It works for a while then wears off and symptoms of illness return – eye trouble, hacking cough, throbbing arteries, cold sweats, and now aural delusions i.e. he starts hearing things which aren’t there. He hears the school bell and then the hymns he learned at his Jesuit school.

Which segues into lyrical praise of medieval plainsong and Gregorian chant. As he himself notes quite a few times, not least in the passage about sadism, quite a few of the things Des Esseintes likes are meaningless without the context of Roman Catholicism. Sometimes he is deliberately rebelling against it, as in his fondness for blasphemous writers, but other times he is very sensitive to the true Christian spirit, with no irony.

And so it is here, where he deprecates almost all classical music as showy and straining for ‘popular success’ (a thought designed to make any true aristocrat shudder); only plainchant is the true ‘idiom of the ancient church, the very soul of the Middle Ages’ (p.202).

The only religious music he really approved of was the monastic music of the Middle Ages, that emaciated music which provoked an instinctive nervous reaction in him, like certain pages of the old Christian Latinists. (p.203)

He is hilariously rude about public concerts where:

you can see a hulking brute of a man waving his arms about and massacring disconnected snatches of Wagner to the huge delight of an ignorant crowd. (p.204)

Or you are forced to listen to:

contemptible cavatinas and objectionable quadrilles, sung with full orchestra accompaniment, in churches converted into boudoirs, by barnstormers bellowing away up in the roof, while down below the ladies waged a war of fashions and went into raptures over the shrieks of the mountebanks. (p.203)

The only ‘modern’ composers he can bear are Schumann, but above all the songs of Schubert which speak to his high-strung nerves, which wake a host of forgotten sorrows and thrill him to the marrow.

One day he sees his face in the mirror and is appalled. His face is shrunken, covered in wrinkles, hollow cheeks, big burning watery eyes. He is not at all like the image chosen for the cover of the Penguin Classics edition, the painting by Giovanni Boldini of the dashing, dapper Le Comte Robert de Montesquiou – that gives a completely misleading image of a dandy at the height of his powers, whereas the whole point is that Des Esseintes is a man utterly at the end of his rope.

He has his man rush to Paris to fetch an eminent and expensive doctor then falls to hypochondriac fretting and then into a doze. The doctor enters his bedroom unannounced, inspects him, writes out a simple prescription and leaves with barely a word.

Turns out the doctor has prescribed peptone enemas which appear to require the servant to place a tube or syringe up his anus and inject nutrition. Des Esseintes is overcome with hilarious glee, regarding this as the acme of the artificial way of life he has been seeking all his life. What could be more ‘against nature’ and a rejection of the whole messy way of stuffing our faces and chewing revolting foodstuffs which nature has condemned humanity to?

True to form, it crosses Des Esseintes’ mind that the ideal connoisseur could create dishes and combinations of flavours to be included in the mixture of nutrients being injected up his bottom – a thought which surely anticipates the Surreal blasphemies of a writer like Georges Bataille.

Slowly Des Esseintes recovers his strength till he can walk about his house unaided, though with a stick. As his health revives he renews his interest in interior decoration, coming up with ever-more byzantine new combinations. However, on his next visit his doctor informs him he must give up this reclusive, super-nervous, anxious way of living, return to Paris and live like other people, take his pleasures in ‘normal’ enjoyments, to which he whines:

‘But I just don’t enjoy the pleasures other people enjoy.’

Tough. It’s life or death. Keep on living as he is, and he’ll lose strength, go mad and die.

Chapter 16 (9 pages)

The doctor insists he needs a change of scene, to mix with society, to have friends. And so with great reluctance, Des Esseintes has his precious belongings packed up ready to ship back to a new apartment he is to rent in Paris.

This triggers a review of possible companions: all the young squires he used to run with will be married by now and having affairs; the money-grubbing bourgeoisie are beneath contempt, spreading all around them ‘the tyranny of commerce’; the aristocracy as a whole is dying out, ‘sunk into imbecility or depravity’, selling off their ancestral homes, their vices and crimes all too often leading them to court and then onto gaol like common criminals. He is disgusted by the way the Church, also, has caught the commercialism of the age, advertising all kinds of tacky products in Sunday supplements, Trappist beer, Cistercian chocolates.

He wants to believe, he wants to have faith, but the modern writings and even practices of the Church have been corrupted and adulterated. And so – after a bilious and very funny diatribe against the revolting bourgeoisie – the last pages of the book turn into a plea to God.

‘Lord, take pity on the Christian who doubts, on the unbeliever who would fain believe, on the galley-slave of life who puts out to sea alone, in the night, beneath a firmament no longer lit by the consoling beacon-fires of the ancient hope!’ (Final sentence, p.220)

So the book ends in such a way as to drive home the simple idea that the entire Decadence is a kind of disappointed Catholic faith, so angry with its disillusion that it turns to childish debaucheries and blasphemies in order to spite its disappointing parent. Unable to escape its firm foundation in Catholicism, À rebours ends with a surprisingly sincere prayer.

More incidents than you’d expect

From this summary you can see that the text is emphatically not simply a series of encyclopedia entries on a set of luxury topics (art, literature, jewels, perfumes etc), but that Huysmans goes to some lengths to shake his narrative up and vary it with real-world actions and events.

In the the ‘present’ of the narrative this includes the visits of various tradesmen and a doctor, and the big episode of the trip to Paris in chapter 11. A bit more subtly, the narrative is broken up with plenty of memories of active events: such as relationships with various lovers (trips to the circus to see the acrobat), the farcical trip to the dentist, memories of the visit to the sister-in-law of a lover which inspired his prose poem, the time he took the street urchin to the brothel, and so on.

Decadent rhetoric

Obviously the book is drenched in the rhetoric of ‘decadence’, with liberal use of classic adjectives and phrases from the genre. I made a list, curious to see how many times he could recycle the same basic ideas, and the answer is, quite a few times:

  • horror
  • spleen
  • filthy pleasures
  • tortured
  • fiendish
  • diabolical
  • voluptuous pleasure
  • licentious obsessions
  • new and original ecstasies
  • paroxysms celestial and accursed
  • atrocious
  • drunk with fantasy
  • abominable
  • ghastly screams
  • glaring infamies
  • delights
  • hideous hues
  • spine-chilling nightmare
  • foul uncontrollable desires
  • dark and odious schemes
  • fear
  • morbid depravities
  • monstrous vegetations of the sick mind
  • diseases of the mind
  • the burning fever of lust
  • the typhoids and yellow fevers of crime
  • self-torment
  • bitterness of mind
  • incest
  • disillusion and contempt
  • weary spirits and melancholy souls
  • gloomy ecstasies
  • melancholy madness
  • sacrilegious profanities
  • secret longings
  • atrocious delusions
  • insane aspirations
  • disgust
  • mystic ardours
  • cruel revulsives
  • secret reveries
  • occult passion
  • monstrous depravities
  • anxiety
  • anguish
  • terror
  • nightmares of a fevered brain
  • delicious miasmas
  • dream-like apparitions
  • inexorable nightmare
  • sexual frenzy
  • painful ecstasy
  • new intoxications
  • despairing appeal
  • stifled sob
  • mystical debauch
  • a dying love affair in a melancholy landscape
  • exquisite funereal laments
  • steeped in bitterness and filled with disgust
  • obstinate distress
  • tormented by anxiety
  • torrent of anguish
  • this hairy death’s head
  • incoherent dreams
  • dark venereal pleasures
  • subtly depraved and perverse type of mysticism

Of Moreau:

He himself remained downcast and sorrowful, haunted by the symbols of superhuman passions and superhuman perversities, of divine debaucheries perpetrated without enthusiasm and without hope. (p.69)

So an impressive collection of over-ripe and melodramatic language. But two other themes stand out and are less remarked on:

1. Decadence = exhaustion

Overcome with infinite fatigue, he slumped helplessly against the table. (p.167)

The keynote for me, is not the perversities and damned thoughts etc etc so much as the relentless tone of exhaustion. Des Esseintes only goes into retirement because his nerves have been shredded by his fast-living Paris lifestyle, and our hero is continually trembling on the brink of passing out, when he’s not having nightmares, night sweats, trembling and shaking as he lifts a cup of weak tea to his white lips.

And this air of exhaustion is something he seeks out in art and literature. The painter Luykens was, he tells us, a fervent Calvinist who:

composed and illustrated religious poems, paraphrased the Psalms in verse, and immersed himself in Biblical study, from which he would emerge haggard and enraptured, his mind haunted by bloody visions, his mouth twisted by the maledictions of the Reformation, by its songs of terror and anger. (p.71)

Obviously a lot is going on in that passage but for me, the key word is haggard. And what he likes in the later Latin literature which he collects is the sense of breakdown and decay. Half way through the book I started making a separate collection of key words on this theme

  • feeble
  • broken-down
  • short-winded
  • fainting
  • feverish
  • weeping
  • choking
  • spluttering
  • sick room routine
  • ailing
  • anaemic
  • debility
  • alarming weakness
  • apathy
  • bored inactivity
  • exhaustion
  • organic diseases
  • intellectual senility
  • last stammerings
  • exhausted by fever

In his discussion of the author Barbey d’Aurevilly Des Esseintes makes the candid remark that he is ‘really interested only in sickly books, undermined and inflamed by fever’ (p.160). It’s not too much of a stretch to call Decadence the aesthetic of illness.

Comedy

Given the book’s reputation as the Bible of Decadence, it’s unexpectedly funny.

He is savagely funny about his dull cousins in the Prologue. He is ferociously snobbish about the bourgeoisie, about shop-keepers and butcher’s wives and their meretricious, banal tastes.

He doesn’t just carry out a survey of Latin literature from Plautus to the tenth century, he massacres some of the most famous names in the classical canon, rubbishing Virgil and Horace very amusingly, and in a manner which must have been designed to render traditional Latinists apoplectic.

In a deliberately offensively funny section, the passage in praise of The Artificial, he first of all states that surely the most exquisite creation of nature is woman (‘the most perfect and original beauty’) but then goes on to say that, has not Man now produced something more dazzling beautiful than the most beautiful woman, being…’the two locomotives recently put into service on the Northern Railway’ (p.37), a deliberately offensive notion which anticipates the posturing of Marinetti’s Futurists 30 years later.

Then there are the hilarious descriptions of ugly English men and women in the aborted journey to London chapter (‘Robust Englishwomen with boyish faces, teeth as big as palette-knives’) and the thumping contempt the ignorati who attend public concerts, in chapter 15.

Maybe the one central theme of the French literature which is now regarded as canonical, from Flaubert and Baudelaire, through writers like Huysmans, through the Surrealists and on into the Existentialists, is their hatred of the bourgeoisie. Witness the diatribe against the filthy middle classes on almost the last page of the book. French authors will do anything to escape the taint or accusation of having bourgeois tastes. Whereas the same hatred of the middle classes just isn’t in evidence in English literature, lots of which is written virtually in praise of the middle and upper middle classes – Dickens, Thackeray, Trollope, Henry James, E.M. Foster.

Robert Baldick’s translation (brings out the comedy)

The translation I read is pretty old, the 1959 Robert Baldick one published by Penguin Books. However, unlike many translations of nineteenth century classics, it is immediately likeable and entertaining. Apparently:

Huysmans’s work was known for his idiosyncratic use of the French language, extensive vocabulary, detailed and sensuous descriptions, and biting, satirical wit

and this is exactly what comes over in Baldick’s translation. He uses a wider vocabulary than you might expect – I mean I was entertained by his unusual and out-of-the-way words – and certainly brings out Huysman’s biting wit. I laughed out loud at several places in the short Prologue, where he describes young men of his own age as ‘docile, good-looking ninnies, congenital dunces who had worn their masters’ patience thin’. In addition Des Esseintes:

discovered the freethinkers, those bourgeois doctrinaires who clamoured for absolute liberty in order to stifle the opinions of other people, to be nothing but a set of greedy, shameless hypocrites whose intelligence he rated lower than a village cobbler’s.

And the venom of his contempt is funny. Or the snobbishness. Like his refusal to use any of the obvious jewels on the tortoise because they are the kind worn by vulgar businessmen or upon ‘the tubulous fingers of butcher’s wives’ (p.55).

This snobbery is also evident in the passages about Goya and Rembrandt who he is embarrassed at liking because the rest of the world likes them too, and there is nothing worse than sharing the same taste as the ghastly bourgeoisie and having to listen to their inane praise of works of which, as an initiate, as a superior being, you have such a better grasp and appreciation (p.108).

If the mob start liking something, Des Esseintes hastily drops it and worries that his ‘taste’ (i.e. aristocratic superiority) is failing him. Throughout the book the adjective ‘aristocratic’ is a word of unqualified praise. Among other things, the Decadence was deeply elitist.

I bought this paperback when I was 17, alongside my edition of Baudelaire’s poems, desperate to enliven my humdrum suburban existence with the Flowers of Evil. Forty years later, some of Des Esseintes’ passages, like the rant against Virgil, his amusing abuse of middle-class taste, and even more in the farcical toothache scene, made me smile or even laugh out loud. When I was a stricken teenager I thought life was a tragedy and books like this fed that feeling. Now I know it’s a comedy and mostly what I find in them is different flavours of comedy.

French literature is more sexually open than English

Quite apart from anything else, the novel demonstrates the vast difference between French and English literature of this time in regard to women and sex. Huysmans doesn’t describe the sexual act itself, but he freely describes going to brothels, the charms of the different ladies, of attending parties where women strip off, he mentions breasts and nipples and even, apparently, what one of his lovers required in order to climax.

Absolutely none of this could have been written by or even hinted at by English authors, who subjected themselves to a ferocious self censorship. Same with Americans, possibly even more Puritanical. It’s significant that of the many lovers des Esseintes reminisces about, by far the most frigid and unsexual was American (the disappointingly prudish and passive acrobat, page 112).

I’m not sure when English writers caught up with French ones in terms of candour and honesty about sex: would it have been the 1960s, maybe? On a deeper level, it seems to me the English still haven’t caught up with the best Continental authors in capturing a genuinely relaxed, at-ease-with-themselves attitude towards bodies and sex.


Credit

À Rebours by Joris-Karl Huysmans was published in French, in Paris, in 1884. All references are to the English translation by Robert Baldick published by Penguin paperback in 1973.

Related reviews