Oct. 5, 1895. Our "Crusaders."

The poor little Penny Dreadful has been catching it once more. Once

more the British Press has stripped to its massive waist and solemnly

squared up to this hardened young offender. It calls this remarkable

performance a "Crusade."

I like these Crusades. They remind one of that merry passage in

_Pickwick_ (p. 254 in the first edition):--

"Whether Mr. Winkle was seized with a temporary attack of that

species of insanity which originates in a sense of injury, or

animated by this display of Mr. Weller's valour, is uncertain;

but certain it is, that he no sooner saw Mr. Grummer fall, than

_he made a terrific onslaught on a small boy who stood next to

him_; whereupon Mr. Snodgrass--"

[Pay attention to Mr. Snodgrass, if you please, and cast your memories

back a year or two, to the utterances of a famous Church Congress on

the National Vice of Gambling.]

"--whereupon Mr. Snodgrass, in a truly Christian spirit, and in

order that he might take no one unawares, announced in a very

loud tone that he was going to begin, and proceeded to take off

his coat with the utmost deliberation. He was immediately

surrounded and secured; and it is but common justice both to him

and to Mr. Winkle to say that they did not make the slightest

attempt to rescue either themselves or Mr. Weller, who, after a

most vigorous resistance, was overpowered by numbers and taken

prisoner. The procession then reformed, the chairmen resumed

their stations, and the march was re-commenced."

"The chairmen resumed their stations, and the march was re-commenced."

Is it any wonder that Dickens and Labiche have found no fit

successors? One can imagine the latter laying down his pen and

confessing himself beaten at his own game; for really this periodical

"crusade" upon the Penny Dreadful has all the qualities of the very

best vaudeville--the same bland exhibition of _bourgeois_ logic, the

same wanton appreciation of evidence, the same sententious alacrity in

seizing the immediate explanation--the more trivial the better--the

same inability to reach the remote cause, the same profound

unconsciousness of absurdity.

You remember _La Grammaire_? Caboussat's cow has eaten a piece of

broken glass, with fatal results. Machut, the veterinary, comes:--

_Caboussat._ "Un morceau de verre ... est-ce drole? Une vache de

quatre ans."

_Machut._ "Ah! monsieur, les vaches ... ça avale du verre à tout

âge. J'en ai connu une qui a mangé une éponge à laver les

cabriolets ... à sept ans! Elle en est morte."

_Caboussat._ "Ce que c'est que notre pauvre humanité!"

Penny Dreadfuls and Matricide.

Our friends have been occupied with the case of a half-witted boy who

consumed Penny Dreadfuls and afterwards went and killed his mother.

They infer that he killed his mother because he had read Penny

Dreadfuls (_post hoc ergo propter hoc_) and they conclude very

naturally that Penny Dreadfuls should be suppressed. But before

roundly pronouncing the doom of this--to me unattractive--branch of

fiction, would it not be well to inquire a trifle more deeply into

cause and effect? In the first place matricide is so utterly unnatural

a crime that there must be something abominably peculiar in a form of

literature that persuades to it. But a year or two back, on the

occasion of a former crusade, I took the pains to study a

considerable number of Penny Dreadfuls. My reading embraced all

those--I believe I am right in saying all--which were reviewed, a few

days back, in the _Daily Chronicle_; and some others. I give you my

word I could find nothing peculiar about them. They were even rather

ostentatiously on the side of virtue. As for the bloodshed in them, it

would not compare with that in many of the five-shilling adventure

stories at that time read so eagerly by boys of the middle and upper

classes. The style was ridiculous, of course: but a bad style excites

nobody but a reviewer, and does not even excite him to deeds of the

kind we are now trying to account for. The reviewer in the _Daily

Chronicle_ thinks worse of these books than I do. But he certainly

failed to quote anything from them that by the wildest fancy could be

interpreted as sanctioning such a crime as matricide.

The Cause to be sought in the Boy rather than in the Book.

Let us for a moment turn our attention from the Penny Dreadful to the

boy--from the _éponge á laver les cabriolets_ to _notre pauvre

humanité_. Now--to speak quite seriously--it is well known to every

doctor and every schoolmaster (and should be known, if it is not, to

every parent), that all boys sooner or later pass through a crisis in

growth during which absolutely nothing can be predicted of their

behavior. At such times honest boys have given way to lying and theft,

gentle boys have developed an unexpected savagery, ordinary boys--"the

small apple-eating urchins whom we know"--have fallen into morbid

brooding upon unhealthy subjects. In the immense majority of cases the

crisis is soon over and the boy is himself again; but while it lasts,

the disease will draw its sustenance from all manner of

things--things, it may be, in themselves quite innocent. I avoid

particularizing for many reasons; but any observant doctor will

confirm what I have said. Now the moderately affluent boy who reads

five-shilling stories of adventure has many advantages at this period

over the poor boy who reads Penny Dreadfuls. To begin with, the crisis

has a tendency to attack him later. Secondly, he meets it fortified by

a better training and more definite ideas of the difference between

right and wrong, virtue and vice. Thirdly (and this is very

important), he is probably under school discipline at the time--which

means, that he is to some extent watched and shielded. When I think

of these advantages, I frankly confess that the difference in the

literature these two boys read seems to me to count for very little. I

myself have written "adventure-stories" before now: stories which, I

suppose--or, at any rate, hope--would come into the class of "Pure

Literature," as the term is understood by those who have been writing

on this subject in the newspapers. They were, I hope, better written

than the run of Penny Dreadfuls, and perhaps with more discrimination

of taste in the choice of adventures. But I certainly do not feel able

to claim that their effect upon a perverted mind would be innocuous.

Adventures in Criticism · 第 64 / 95 题