Selected Essays by Virginia Woolf – 1. Reading and Writing (2)

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

Earlier blog posts give my introductory notes to the essays and summary of the first four essays in the ‘Reading and Writing’ section. This post summarises and comments on the last six essays in the ‘Reading and Writing’ section, numbers 5 to 10 in this list.

  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]

5. Mr Bennett and Mrs Brown (1923: 5 pages)

The essence of fiction is character but the complexity of the world the Georgian novelists face means they have to reject the simplistic notions of character good enough for their Victorian and Edwardian forebears.

The story of this and the following essay are a bit confused.

In March 1923 the bestselling novelist Arnold Bennett wrote a review of Woolf’s avant-garde novel ‘Jacob’s Room’ (1922) in which he claimed her characters would never survive in ‘the real world’. This triggered Woolf to write 1) a rebuttal of Bennett’s criticisms that was published in the Athenaeum magazine in December 1923 under the title of ‘Mr Bennett and Mrs Brown’.

Woolf realised she was onto something and expanded her points into a 2) longer essay and, the following year, presented the expanded version in a paper read to the Heretics Society at Cambridge University, still titled ‘Mr Bennett and Mrs Brown’, on 18 May 1924.

When T.S. Eliot, as editor of The Criterion magazine, asked Woolf for an article she submitted the text of this talk and it was published in July 1924 under the title ‘Character in Fiction’. This second version, the expanded version, is the essay following this one in this selection, number 6 in my list. Woolf and her husband then published it themselves, as a standalone pamphlet, in their own Hogarth Press, on 30 October 1924. What makes things confusing is that they chose to publish it under the title of the short version, ‘Mr Bennett and Mrs Brown’.

So this is my summary of the original 5-page review. In his selection Bradshaw follows it by publishing the longer version, as published in The Criterion and under the Criterion‘s title, ‘Character in Fiction’.

***

Woolf quotes the best-selling serious novelist of his day, Arnold Bennett, as writing in a recent essay that the foundation of good novel writing is character but that the Georgian novelists have lost interest in depicting character in preference for a blizzard of details. Woolf agrees but claims that it is Bennett and the two other successful novelists of his generation, H.G. Wells and John Galsworthy, who are chiefly responsible for drowning character in facts and details.

She claims that the characters of modern books such as Kipps or ‘The Old Wives Tale’ pale into comparison with any character from ‘the splendid opulence of the Victorian age’, notable for ‘the astonishing vividness and reality of the characters.’

For Woolf the Edwardian novelists suffer from at least three disadvantage: 1) In a sense they simply couldn’t compete with the scale and depth of the great Victorians. 2) There was also something squalid and vulgar about them. She is very rude about Samuel Butler.

No sooner had the Victorians departed than Samuel Butler, who had lived below stairs, came out like an observant boot boy, with the family secrets in ‘The Way of All Flesh’.

In the same vein John Galsworthy is accused of being overly concerned with social injustices, which was even more true of H.G. Wells and his incessant issue-mongering.

3) The impact of Constance Garnett’s powerful English translations of the Russian classic novelists, particularly Dostoyevsky. Not only the Edwardians but even the Victorians couldn’t compete with the scale and depth and complexity of characters such as Raskolnikov, Stavrogin et al.

Galsworthy gives us his sense of compassion, Wells his generous enthusiasm and Bennett his sense of time passing, but none of them match up to the great Russians.

Woolf claims that it was this, the change to a new sense of the depth and complexity of human nature, which marked the decisive break between the culture of the Edwardians and of the Georgians (King Edward VII died and was succeeded by his son George V in May 1910). This is the thinking behind her much quoted saying that ‘On or about December 1910, human character changed’, which comes in the expanded version of this essay (see below).

Character, she asserts, is crucial to human beings’ sense of life, of who we are and who other people are. Hence, if we disbelieve in the characters in novels as they are presented to us, then we want to go deeper and further, to search out their real meanings for ourselves.

At this point she introduces the figure of Mrs Brown – who is to feature so largely in the expanded version of the essay – but in a very different way from her later appearance. Here she is not much more than a name Woolf gives to her notion of a deeper, more unpredictable conception of character than the Edwardian writers can cope with, a notion which breaks up and shatters traditional ideas about character.

And it is amid these ruins of the old Victorian and Edwardian notions of ‘character’ that her generation of writers, the Georgians, have to somehow construct a reasonable dwelling place. She argues that the difficulties each of the Georgian writers encountered in trying to work out their own conception of ‘Mrs Brown’ (i.e. how to depict modern character) explain both the failures but also the daring experiments of her generation.

6. Character in Fiction (1924: 18 pages)

Extended criticism of the Edwardian novelists – Galsworthy, Bennett and Wells – for their excessive naturalistic detail which swamps their characters, for ignoring the spiritual for the material, which is why her generation of Georgian novelists must reject them.

This is the text of the paper read to The Heretics in Cambridge on 18 May 1924 mentioned above. (The Cambridge Heretics was a society formed at the University of Cambridge in 1909, to oppose compulsory Christian worship and celebrate humanist values.)

Woolf actually delivered it under the title of the original article rebutting Bennett i.e. ‘Mr Bennett and Mrs Brown’ (see above) which was also the title she used when she published it in her own Hogarth Press edition. But in an effort to distinguish between the two versions, David Bradshaw publishes it here with the title it was given when published in T.S. Eliot’s journal, The Criterion i.e. ‘Character in Fiction’.

This explains why, when you look it up online, you find the text given here as ‘Character in Fiction’ is everywhere else given the Hogarth Press title of Mr Bennett and Mrs Brown.

***

Woolf opens with a modest, self-deprecating tone. She describes herself as ‘one solitary, ill-informed, and misguided individual’ and goes on to say:

It seems to me possible, perhaps desirable, that I may be the only person in this room who has committed the folly of writing, trying to write, or failing to write, a novel. And when I asked myself, as your invitation to speak to you about modern fiction made me ask myself, what demon whispered in my ear and urged me to my doom, a little figure rose before me—the figure of a man, or of a woman, who said, ‘My name is Brown. Catch me if you can.’

She gets the ball rolling going by quoting Arnold Bennett as saying that the most important thing in novel writing is creating character, everything follows from that. So that’s the Mr Bennett of the title accounted for.

To the reader’s mild surprise, Woolf suddenly makes the grand declaration that ‘on or about December 1910 human character changed.’ What changed? She explains. Between her generation and the Victorians there is a gulf:

All human relations have shifted—those between masters and servants, husbands and wives, parents and children. And when human relations change there is at the same time a change in religion, conduct, politics, and literature. Let us agree to place one of these changes about the year 1910.

Ah. So it’s an arbitrary but useful dividing line which she has airily invented.

She goes on to admit that to some extent everybody is an expert in ‘character’. To assess other people’s characters is a fundamental human need. But novelists take it a stage further:

The study of character becomes to them an absorbing pursuit; to impart character an obsession. And this I find it very difficult to explain: what novelists mean when they talk about character, what the impulse is that urges them so powerfully every now and then to embody their view in writing.

Then she makes what appears, at first sight, to be one of her bewildering digressions. She tells everyone about an incident which occurred to her recently, when she was late catching a train and hurriedly climbed into a compartment where a man and woman seemed to be having an argument. They both shut up when she got in but she could feel the tension in the carriage. being Woolf, she promptly invented names for these two unknown strangers, naming the bluff irritated man Mr Smith and the much older, visibly poor woman, Mrs Brown. So this is the Mrs Brown of the title.

Woolf then reports this pair’s inconsequential conversation, Smith leaning forward and threateningly extracting from the woman what he wanted, namely a promise to meet someone named George somewhere on Thursday. Once assured of this, the man jumps out at Clapham Junction, while Mrs Brown continues on to Waterloo station, gets out and walks – like so many of the bit characters she observes in London streets – out of Woolf’s life.

What just happened? We have just watched Woolf conjure character and interest out of an apparently chance and trivial encounter and she begins to make her point:

I believe that all novels begin with an old lady in the corner opposite. I believe that all novels, that is to say, deal with character, and that it is to express character — not to preach doctrines, sing songs, or celebrate the glories of the British Empire, that the form of the novel, so clumsy, verbose, and undramatic, so rich, elastic, and alive, has been evolved.

She reminds us that Arnold Bennett claimed that fictional characters must be ‘real’ to make a book work, but Woolf asks the obvious question: what is reality? One man’s reality is another man’s nonsense.

For instance, in this article he says that Dr Watson in Sherlock Holmes is real to him: to me Dr Watson is a sack stuffed with straw, a dummy, a figure of fun.

Anyway, her point is this: Why are there no plausible characters in contemporary (1920s) fiction? She has another go at Bennett, Wells and Galsworthy, saying their books lack the completion and closure of, say, Jane Austen. They miss something, they are incomplete.

To make her point she entertainingly speculates what Wells, Galsworthy and Bennett would have made of her made-up Mrs Brown. Her three little parodies are unusually funny for Woolf. She spends most effort on Bennett’s version. Then, to check, she takes down a novel of his, Hilda Lessways. She quotes from it, from the long factual description of Hilda Lessway’s house, in order to graphically demonstrate what a blizzard of realistic detail clutters up Bennett’s texts. No wonder his novels are so bloody long.

But Woolf says Bennett’s approach is the wrong way round. The house isn’t important, the person living in it, Hilda, is the important thing.

Back to 1910 and Woolf says that E.M. Forster and D.H. Lawrence spoiled their early work by giving in to the British public’s need for conventions and facts. They compromised with what she calls the Edwardian quality of Wells-Galsworthy-Bennett’s books. Foster and Lawrence had to wriggle free of the old conventions in order to capture the uniqueness of ‘Mrs Brown’.

By now we can see that this ‘Mrs Brown’ has become a metaphor for a particular view of reality, of Life as portrayed in fiction. And so Woolf comes to the present day and tells us that she can hear all around her the sound of authors crashing and smashing down those Victorian-Edwardian conventions in order to convey the truth of life. But the trouble with contemporary authors is they don’t know what to replace all those dead old conventions with. Hence the sense of confusion and lack of common values which she lamented in ‘How it strikes a contemporary’. It’s one thing to tear down the old rule, but what are the new rules and how do we agree on them?

Then Woolf is surprisingly harsh on a couple of notorious modern writers, James Joyce and T.S. Eliot. She condemns Joyce for his indecency and Eliot for his obscurity. It’s part of her broader point that modern writers have to waste so much of their energy smashing the old conventions and forging their own way. This was not true of her ideal writers from earlier times, authors like Jane Austen or Macauley the historian, who were at one with their times and so wrote easily and gracefully. Instead:

We must reconcile ourselves to a season of failures and fragments. We must reflect that where so much strength is spent on finding a way of telling the truth the truth itself is bound to reach us in rather an exhausted and chaotic condition. Ulysses, Queen Victoria, Mr Prufrock — to give Mrs Brown some of the names she has made famous lately — is a little pale and dishevelled by the time her rescuers reach her.

Drawing to a conclusion, Woolf asks her readers to be tolerant of the problems and difficulties of modern fiction, to ‘tolerate the spasmodic, the obscure, the fragmentary, the failure.’ Modern authors are trying their best but they are having to invent a whole new world.

After all this talk about smashing and crashing and difficulties, she ends with the surprising claim that:

We are trembling on the verge of one of the great ages of English literature. But it can only be reached if we are determined never, never to desert Mrs Brown.

Summary

Well, this is a Great Essay. She delivers a good, clear point of view, forcefully and vividly expressed. Just as T.S. Eliot’s essays in the early 1920s helped him think through his position and helped the perplexed public understand what his new type of poetry was trying to do, so Woolf’s essays show her developing her new and radical aesthetic, and this is very interesting. And her criticism of Wells and Bennett’s materialism becomes more debatable, discussable and powerful, the more you read it.

7. ‘Impassioned Prose’ (1926: 8 pages)

Justification of her wish to restore poetry to prose, on the model of her hero Thomas de Quincy.

She means poetic prose, prose poetry. She laments that most prose fiction is resolutely factual, that we are continually told that it is a solecism to include poetic flights in a prose text.

If the critics agree on any point it is on this, that nothing is more reprehensible than for a prose writer to write like a poet. Poetry is poetry and prose is prose—how often have we not heard that! Poetry has one mission and prose another

Trouble is that this occludes half of life, prevents us exploring our subjective, inner lives.

Therefore all that side of the mind which is exposed in solitude they ignore. They ignore its thoughts, its rhapsodies, its dreams, with the result that the people of fiction bursting with energy on one side are atrophied on the other.

Luckily there are in all ages writers who are not themselves of the first rank but who widen the possibilities of writing for contemporaries and successors. The example she has in mind is Thomas de Quincey who wrote a huge amount, and had a poetic sensibility, but never wrote any poetry because he didn’t have the sustained gift; and by the same token wasn’t interested enough in people to be a novelist so never write fiction.

In what form was he to express this that was the most real part of his own existence? There was none ready made to his hand. He invented, as he claimed, ‘modes of impassioned prose‘. With immense elaboration and art he formed a style in which to express these ‘visionary scenes derived from the world of dreams’. For such prose there were no precedents, he believed; and he begged the reader to remember ‘the perilous difficulty’ of an attempt where ‘a single false note, a single word in a wrong key, ruins the whole music’.

And so he carved out his own space, writing poetically in the other prose genres: essays, biographies, confessions and memoirs.

He was an exception and a solitary. He made a class for himself. He widened the choice for others.

She goes on to describe at length the strength and weakness of her favourite among de Quincey’s books, the ‘Autobiographic Sketches’. By this stage she’s made her point, for surely she is the modern de Quincey, deploying ‘modes of impassioned prose’ to convey a deeper perception of life, than the stony prose writers. We sit with our friends and family, eating, talking, in too close proximity.

But draw a little apart, see people in groups, as outlines, and they become at once memorable and full of beauty. Then it is not the actual sight or sound itself that matters, but the reverberations that it makes as it travels through our minds. These are often to be found far away, strangely transformed; but it is only by gathering up and putting together these echoes and fragments that we arrive at the true nature of our experience.

She is describing her own technique.

8. How Should One Read A Book? (1926: 11 days)

Quite frequently Woolf displays the number one mistake of intellectuals and writers in thinking that the present moment, the moment she’s writing about, is somehow uniquely special, and moreover uniquely degraded and decadent. Thus she opens this essay:

At this late hour of the world’s history…

But it isn’t ‘this late hour of the world’s history’. Who’s to say this isn’t an early hour in the world’s history, that the last 3,000 years are just a prelude to what comes after. In fact they obviously will be. Human history will go on as long as there are humans to record it and who knows how long that will be – maybe thousands and thousands of years to come. This decline-and-fall trope is a cliché and doesn’t give you confidence of her broader understanding of history or society. You get the feeling that her orientating herself in culture and history is subtly awry, but then there’s something awry about all her writings, the detachment, the alienation, but also the odd insights of the mentally ill.

Anyway, her point is that there are more books than ever before (another cliché, something she also complains about in ‘The Decay of Essay-Writing’) so how should you read them? Well, there are no rules but the first thing to acknowledge is that books come in all shapes and sizes and genres and forms and we should respond appropriately.

Her essays often address issues which feel very outdated; her values are those of another age. Still in thrall to Victorian earnestness, she asks whether one should read books for pleasure or profit? Answer: no-one really cares. It’s a non-question. Maybe a GCSE-level question to get schoolchildren thinking but tangential to our concerns.

Anyway, she does make one simple Big Point, which is that nobody really understands what reading is. The physical activity, yes; you can test people on their ability to read, on their level of comprehension, on what they understand or remember. But at the more advanced level of registering nuance and implication… I wonder if there’s a specialist area of modern neuroscience devoted to the science of reading?

Belles letterism

Belles-lettres is a category of writing, originally meaning beautiful or fine writing… The phrase is sometimes used pejoratively for writing that focuses on the aesthetic qualities of language rather than its practical application.

I can’t see how a lot of Woolf could not be considered belle-letterism: the concern for fine, flowing elegant prose redolent of nineteenth century fine writing (Lamb, Pater); the use of the royal ‘we’; mention of ‘turning to the bookcase’ which evokes the comfy air of a book-lined study in a fine house or gentlemen’s club. It’s a permanent puzzle how radical and drastic her experiments in fiction were and yet how conservative and backward-looking her prose style is.

The problem [of what to read] is not so simple in a library as at the Zoölogical Gardens. Books have a great deal in common; they are always overflowing their boundaries; they are always breeding new species from unexpected matches among themselves. It is difficult to know how to approach them, to which species each belongs. But if we remember, as we turn to the bookcase, that each of these books was written by a pen which, consciously or unconsciously, tried to trace out a design, avoiding this, accepting that, adventuring the other; if we try to follow the writer in his experiment from the first word to the last, without imposing our design upon him, then we shall have a good chance of getting hold of the right end of the string.

The leisurely, all-the-time-in-the-world elegance of this authorial ‘we’, the royal we, the superior ‘we’ of the privileged literary elite.

Co-production

At the end of ‘Mr Bennett and Mrs Brown’, Woolf introduced the idea that any book is a co-production between the writer and the reader. (This idea was taken up decades later, in the late 1960s, by reader response theory and to some extent anticipates Roland Barthes’ ideas about the death of the author and the birth of the creative reader.) She does the same again, here:

To read a book well, one should read it as if one were writing it. Begin not by sitting on the bench among the judges but by standing in the dock with the criminal. Be his fellow worker, become his accomplice.

Writers’ worlds

She asks us to imagine encountering a beggar in the street (as I, in fact, routinely do, every time I go shopping there are people begging or selling the Big Issue at both the front and the back entrance to Sainsburys: no escaping the modern beggar in London town).

Woolf gives an entertaining account of how such an encounter would be turned into fiction by 1) Daniel Defoe, 2) Jane Austen, 3) Thomas Hardy. Out of this little frolic she makes the fairly obvious point that each really great writer is a world of their own with a distinct perspective.

It is necessary to approach every writer differently in order to get from him all he can give us. We have to remember that it is one of the qualities of greatness that it brings heaven and earth and human nature into conformity with its own vision. It is by reason of this masterliness of theirs, this uncompromising idiosyncrasy, that great writers often require us to make heroic efforts in order to read them rightly. They bend us and break us.

She makes the equally obvious point that: sometimes the writing we have to work hardest to understand is ultimately the most rewarding; and that different works appeal to us in different moods. (Along the way she betrays her bias or premise that ‘real books [are] works of pure imagination’, in contrast to histories and other factual books.)

Over-reading

She mentions something equally as common but which I’ve never seen described before, the risk of ‘over-reading – when you overdo it with a book you’re enjoying, read too much, become tired, and suddenly realise you’re tired, fed up, and abruptly take against the whole thing:

Suddenly the book becomes dull as ditchwater and heavy as lead. We yawn and stretch and can not attend.

The cure (pretty obviously) is to read something else of a different type, Woolf’s favourite alternatives being biography or history. But:

However interesting facts may be, they are an inferior form of fiction, and gradually we become impatient of their weakness and diffuseness, of their compromises and evasions, of the slovenly sentences which they make for themselves, and are eager to revive ourselves with the greater intensity and truth of fiction.

Thus speaks the novelist who (surprise) believes that the novel is the highest form of writing. The risk of reading literary writers is taking them at their own value. As you get older you realise there are many other types of writing with just as much claim to importance, and that’s before the thousands of other human activities we need (doctors, nurses, teachers etc). Presenting the reading and writing of novels as some kind of heroic endeavour is a form of chauvinism; deeper down, a type of narcissism, defined as: ‘an excessive preoccupation with oneself and one’s own needs.’ All Woolf’s essays are about herself.

Reading poetry

Then she switches to what is required of reading poetry and its rewards.

Anyone who has read a poem with pleasure will remember the sudden conviction, the sudden recollection (for it seems sometimes as if we were about to say, or had in some previous existence already said, what Shakespeare is actually now saying), which accompany the reading of poetry, and give it its exaltation and intensity.

Good description.

After-reading

In the last part of the essay she describes what happens when we’ve finished reading a book i.e. we judge it. Here she suggests that in reading we go through two processes: one might be called the actual reading; the other the after-reading. It is really in the after-reading that all the bits and pieces we’ve been bombarded with during the reading coalesce into an overall view and opinion. Neat idea.

And is it good or bad, the novel, the fiction you just read? It’s the question which has been dogging literary theory for two and a half thousand years. The simple answer is – it’s up to you. Critics can’t help. They all disagree with each other. Opinions aren’t much help because ‘minds differ too much to admit of close correspondence in matters of detail’. The best approach is:

by realizing our own impression as acutely as possible and referring this to the judgments which we have gradually formulated in the past.

We must ask demanding questions of the book and follow the answers to the limits of our ability. Only when we’ve completed this process can we hold our opinion up against other people’s or the criteria laid down by the great critics.

Summary

To summarise:

A good reader will give the writer the benefit of every doubt; the help of all his imagination; will follow as closely, interpret as intelligently as he can. In the next place, he will judge with the utmost severity. Every book, he will remember, has the right to be judged by the best of its kind. He will be adventurous, broad in his choice, true to his own instincts, yet ready to consider those of other people.

A defence of reading

She has a last word for the moralists who criticise reading books as a lazy self-indulgent activity. She thinks the firmest defence is that books give pleasure, ‘mysterious, unknown, useless as it is’.

This is the argument of an aesthete and could have come from the lips of Oscar Wilde (we always have to remember what a Victorian Woolf was). The most obvious defence of reading is that it is educational and an educated population is an undeniable public good. The more educated and literate a population, the more economically active, productive and wealth creating. Then there’s the liberal defence that reading imaginative literature broadens the mind and produces a population of broad-minded, empathetic readers. Personally, I’ve always found this a weak argument because the twentieth century provides ample evidence of highly literate and civilised populations which allowed fiendish behaviour, Germany being the obvious one. Other factors are required to produce a liberal, civilised population besides just widespread literacy and reading.

Personally, I think practical arguments which eschew lofty aims and avoid moral principles, are most effective in a debate. And so it’s most effective not to argue that reading is valuable for this or that noble or social or moral end, but to start with the empirical fact that lots of people simply like reading. Begin with the evidence in the real world, the statistics about the numbers of books published, bought, borrowed and read each year. Can’t argue with the facts.

Lots of people go to football matches or pop concerts or go fishing or potter in their gardens. Reading takes its place among the range of activities practiced by tens of millions of people in a civilised society. It needs no more defence than that.

Comic conclusion

Woolf concludes with a piece of satirical exaggeration, stylish and silly, which made me smile.

That pleasure [of reading] is so curious, so complex, so immensely fertilizing to the mind of anyone who enjoys it, and so wide in its effects, that it would not be in the least surprising to discover, on the day of judgment when secrets are revealed and the obscure is made plain, that the reason why we have grown from pigs to men and women, and come out from our caves, and dropped our bows and arrows, and sat round the fire and talked and drunk and made merry and given to the poor and helped the sick and made pavements and houses and erected some sort of shelter and society on the waste of the world, is nothing but this: we have loved reading.

Heroically wrong. Houses, pavements, plumbing, wiring, power stations, reservoirs and sewerage farms aren’t designed and built by bookish readers. But it’s a rare florescence of humour in Woolf’s writing and so a little treat.

9. Poetry, Fiction and the Future (1927: 11 pages)

Describes a theoretical work of fiction in the future which will incorporate into its prose a high degree of poetry and drama, pointing towards her own novel The Waves.

Woolf claims that the present (1927) is problematic for fiction. She and so many of her contemporaries are struggling to express themselves. Why? One reason is that poetry, which was so easily available and expressive for the Victorians, has become impossibly complicated and difficult. Not only that but society is in turmoil, with the old Christianity destroyed yet people yearning to believe; with the awesome scale of scientific discoveries, from the age of the earth to the size of the universe, crushing the human spirit, creating an atmosphere of ‘doubt and conflict’.

For some reasons she moves on to consider the poetic play and notes how the attempts of the great nineteenth century poets – Byron, Shelley, Tennyson, Browning, Swinburne – were miserable failures, and how the attempts of her contemporaries (maybe she’s thinking of T.S. Eliot’s doomed attempts to revive the play in Elizabethan blank verse) have likewise failed.

Why? You have to go back to the Elizabethan dramatists (as she so often in her essays goes back to Shakespeare) to understand why. It’s because the Elizabethan playwrights could write about anything; they completely shared a worldview and experiences and a diction with their audiences and readers, and so didn’t need to hold back. Modern authors, by contrast, live in a highly atomised, class-ridden society, where everyone lives locked up in their own houses, in their own living rooms, listening to their own records or radio or reading their own books, each in little worlds of their own. No wonder the modern writer finds it so hard to cut through.

Above all there’s a corrosive cynicism which means the modern writer daren’t be caught out celebrating simple beauty without hastening to show the dark and ugly side of life as well. Poetry hasn’t the flexibility, the ability to change subjects and register, which the fragmented modern mind requires.

Therefore – and here’s her point – it may be that modern prose is going to take over some of the duties formerly performed by poetry. It may be that in 10 or 15 years’ time prose will be used for purposes it has never been used for before; that that cannibal, the novel, will have swallowed up even more of the territory of literature.

In particular there may come a book which is written in prose but with the sensibility of poetry, which will have some of the exaltation of poetry but written in prose. It will be read but not acted. We won’t even have a name for its hybrid form. I realise that she is referring to the experimental novel she was currently writing, The Waves, published in 1931 and which she referred to not as a novel but as a ‘playpoem’, and she goes on to describe other ways in which poetry will be melded with prose in her experiment.

Surprisingly, maybe, she thinks the classic novel which most successfully incorporated poetry is Tristram Shandy by Lawrence Sterne. Because it is continually changing subject matter, tone and register, we tend not to notice that there are passages of deliberately exquisite feeling, because these are completely incorporated into the text alongside the farce and pratfalls and bawdy and sentiment. Sterne fashions a prose which is getting on for being as flexible and omni-expressive as the Elizabethans.

10. Craftsmanship (1937)

A radio broadcast on April 20th, 1937. This text is immediately bewildering because it starts with a series of claims all of which seem questionable, simplistic or wrong.

We know little that is certain about words, but this we do know—words never make anything that is useful; and words are the only things that tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

‘Words tell the truth and nothing but the truth.’ This is so wrong it’s hard to know where to start. What words are, what language is and how it works, is too encyclopedic a subject to be knocked off in a pithy phrase. The claim is so vague and insubstantial I wondered if it’s one of her mad essays.

Let us then take for our starting point the statement that words are not useful. This happily needs little proving, for we are all aware of it. When we travel on the Tube, for example, when we wait on the platform for a train, there, hung up in front of us, on an illuminated signboard, are the words ‘Passing Russell Square.’ We look at those words; we repeat them; we try to impress that useful fact upon our minds; the next train will pass Russell Square. We say over and over again as we pace, ‘Passing Russell Square, passing Russell Square.’ And then as we say them, the words shuffle and change, and we find ourselves saying, ‘Passing away saith the world, passing away… The leaves decay and fall, the vapours weep their burthen to the ground. Man comes…’ And then we wake up and find ourselves at King’s Cross.

Woolf comes from another time and place. Having never done any real work, having servants to do all the housework, leading a pampered, sheltered life, Woolf has no idea, no idea at all, of the importance of words in professional contexts, in the law, in the civil service, in the administration of nations and counties and cities, in rules and regulations, in the vast world of healthcare and medicine. Only if you leave out most of what people in civilised societies use language for, can you acquiesce in the dreamy digressions of this pampered lady.

Very symptomatically the quote which ends the piece – ‘The leaves decay and fall, the vapours weep their burthen to the ground. Man comes…’ – is from Tennyson, patron saint of mellifluous dreaminess. It’s a characteristically Victorian reference point, to a man who devoted his long career to ignoring the gritty, complex realities of the Victorian age and created a dream otherworld into which his many readers and fans could take refuge. Despite her often challenging handling of her content, in terms of her style Woolf’s novels offer a similar level of mellifluous, elegantly shaped escapism, part of the reason for her enduring popularity.


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

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