XVIII.

In General Grant’s confession of novel-reading there is a sort of

inference that he had wasted his time, or else the guilty conscience of

the novelist in me imagines such an inference. But however this may be,

there is certainly no question concerning the intention of a

correspondent who once wrote to me after reading some rather bragging

claims I had made for fiction as a mental and moral means. “I have very

grave doubts,” he said, “as to the whole list of magnificent things that

you seem to think novels have done for the race, and can witness in

myself many evil things which they have done for me. Whatever in my

mental make-up is wild and visionary, whatever is untrue, whatever is

injurious, I can trace to the perusal of some work of fiction. Worse

than that, they beget such high-strung and supersensitive ideas of life

that plain industry and plodding perseverance are despised, and matter-

of-fact poverty, or every-day, commonplace distress, meets with no

sympathy, if indeed noticed at all, by one who has wept over the

impossibly accumulated sufferings of some gaudy hero or heroine.”

I am not sure that I had the controversy with this correspondent that he

seemed to suppose; but novels are now so fully accepted by every one

pretending to cultivated taste and they really form the whole

intellectual life of such immense numbers of people, without question of

their influence, good or bad, upon the mind that it is refreshing to have

them frankly denounced, and to be invited to revise one’s ideas and

feelings in regard to them. A little honesty, or a great deal of

honesty, in this quest will do the novel, as we hope yet to have it, and

as we have already begun to have it, no harm; and for my own part I will

confess that I believe fiction in the past to have been largely

injurious, as I believe the stage-play to be still almost wholly

injurious, through its falsehood, its folly, its wantonness, and its

aimlessness. It may be safely assumed that most of the novel-reading

which people fancy an intellectual pastime is the emptiest dissipation,

hardly more related to thought or the wholesome exercise of the mental

faculties than opium-eating; in either case the brain is drugged, and

left weaker and crazier for the debauch. If this may be called the

negative result of the fiction habit, the positive injury that most

novels work is by no means so easily to be measured in the case of young

men whose character they help so much to form or deform, and the women of

all ages whom they keep so much in ignorance of the world they

misrepresent. Grown men have little harm from them, but in the other

cases, which are the vast majority, they hurt because they are not true

--not because they are malevolent, but because they are idle lies about

human nature and the social fabric, which it behooves us to know and to

understand, that we may deal justly with ourselves and with one another.

One need not go so far as our correspondent, and trace to the fiction

habit “whatever is wild and visionary, whatever is untrue, whatever is

injurious,” in one’s life; bad as the fiction habit is it is probably not

responsible for the whole sum of evil in its victims, and I believe that

if the reader will use care in choosing from this fungus-growth with

which the fields of literature teem every day, he may nourish himself as

with the true mushroom, at no risk from the poisonous species.

The tests are very plain and simple, and they are perfectly infallible.

If a novel flatters the passions, and exalts them above the principles,

it is poisonous; it may not kill, but it will certainly injure; and this

test will alone exclude an entire class of fiction, of which eminent

examples will occur to all. Then the whole spawn of so-called unmoral

romances, which imagine a world where the sins of sense are unvisited by

the penalties following, swift or slow, but inexorably sure, in the real

world, are deadly poison: these do kill. The novels that merely tickle

our prejudices and lull our judgment, or that coddle our sensibilities or

pamper our gross appetite for the marvellous, are not so fatal, but they

are innutritious, and clog the soul with unwholesome vapors of all kinds.

No doubt they too help to weaken the moral fibre, and make their readers

indifferent to “plodding perseverance and plain industry,” and to

“matter-of-fact poverty and commonplace distress.”

Without taking them too seriously, it still must be owned that the “gaudy

hero and heroine” are to blame for a great deal of harm in the world.

That heroine long taught by example, if not precept, that Love, or the

passion or fancy she mistook for it, was the chief interest of a life,

which is really concerned with a great many other things; that it was

lasting in the way she knew it; that it was worthy of every sacrifice,

and was altogether a finer thing than prudence, obedience, reason; that

love alone was glorious and beautiful, and these were mean and ugly in

comparison with it. More lately she has begun to idolize and illustrate

Duty, and she is hardly less mischievous in this new role, opposing duty,

as she did love, to prudence, obedience, and reason. The stock hero,

whom, if we met him, we could not fail to see was a most deplorable

person, has undoubtedly imposed himself upon the victims of the fiction

habit as admirable. With him, too, love was and is the great affair,

whether in its old romantic phase of chivalrous achievement or manifold

suffering for love’s sake, or its more recent development of the

“virile,” the bullying, and the brutal, or its still more recent agonies

of self-sacrifice, as idle and useless as the moral experiences of the

insane asylums. With his vain posturings and his ridiculous splendor he

is really a painted barbarian, the prey of his passions and his

delusions, full of obsolete ideals, and the motives and ethics of a

savage, which the guilty author of his being does his best--or his worst

--in spite of his own light and knowledge, to foist upon the reader as

something generous and noble. I am not merely bringing this charge

against that sort of fiction which is beneath literature and outside of

it, “the shoreless lakes of ditch-water,” whose miasms fill the air below

the empyrean where the great ones sit; but I am accusing the work of some

of the most famous, who have, in this instance or in that, sinned against

the truth, which can alone exalt and purify men. I do not say that they

have constantly done so, or even commonly done so; but that they have

done so at all marks them as of the past, to be read with the due

historical allowance for their epoch and their conditions. For I believe

that, while inferior writers will and must continue to imitate them in

their foibles and their errors, no one here after will be able to achieve

greatness who is false to humanity, either in its facts or its duties.

The light of civilization has already broken even upon the novel, and no

conscientious man can now set about painting an image of life without

perpetual question of the verity of his work, and without feeling bound

to distinguish so clearly that no reader of his may be misled, between

what is right and what is wrong, what is noble and what is base, what is

health and what is perdition, in the actions and the characters he

portrays.

The fiction that aims merely to entertain--the fiction that is to serious

fiction as the opera-bouffe, the ballet, and the pantomime are to the

true drama--need not feel the burden of this obligation so deeply; but

even such fiction will not be gay or trivial to any reader’s hurt, and

criticism should hold it to account if it passes from painting to

teaching folly.

I confess that I do not care to judge any work of the imagination without

first of all applying this test to it. We must ask ourselves before we

ask anything else, Is it true?--true to the motives, the impulses, the

principles that shape the life of actual men and women? This truth,

which necessarily includes the highest morality and the highest artistry

--this truth given, the book cannot be wicked and cannot be weak; and

without it all graces of style and feats of invention and cunning of

construction are so many superfluities of naughtiness. It is well for

the truth to have all these, and shine in them, but for falsehood they

are merely meretricious, the bedizenment of the wanton; they atone for

nothing, they count for nothing. But in fact they come naturally of

truth, and grace it without solicitation; they are added unto it. In the

whole range of fiction I know of no true picture of life--that is, of

human nature--which is not also a masterpiece of literature, full of

divine and natural beauty. It may have no touch or tint of this special

civilization or of that; it had better have this local color well

ascertained; but the truth is deeper and finer than aspects, and if the

book is true to what men and women know of one another’s souls it will be

true enough, and it will be great and beautiful. It is the conception of

literature as something apart from life, superfinely aloof, which makes

it really unimportant to the great mass of mankind, without a message or

a meaning for them; and it is the notion that a novel may be false in its

portrayal of causes and effects that makes literary art contemptible even

to those whom it amuses, that forbids them to regard the novelist as a

serious or right-minded person. If they do not in some moment of

indignation cry out against all novels, as my correspondent does, they

remain besotted in the fume of the delusions purveyed to them, with no

higher feeling for the author than such maudlin affection as the

frequenter of an opium-joint perhaps knows for the attendant who fills

his pipe with the drug.

Or, as in the case of another correspondent who writes that in his youth

he “read a great many novels, but always regarded it as an amusement,

like horse racing and card-playing,” for which he had no time when he

entered upon the serious business of life, it renders them merely

contemptuous. His view of the matter may be commended to the brotherhood

and sisterhood of novelists as full of wholesome if bitter suggestion;

and I urge them not to dismiss it with high literary scorn as that of

some Boeotian dull to the beauty of art. Refuse it as we may, it is

still the feeling of the vast majority of people for whom life is

earnest, and who find only a distorted and misleading likeness of it in

our books. We may fold ourselves in our scholars’ gowns, and close the

doors of our studies, and affect to despise this rude voice; but we

cannot shut it out. It comes to us from wherever men are at work, from

wherever they are truly living, and accuses us of unfaithfulness, of

triviality, of mere stage-play; and none of us can escape conviction

except he prove himself worthy of his time--a time in which the great

masters have brought literature back to life, and filled its ebbing veins

with the red tides of reality. We cannot all equal them; we need not

copy them; but we can all go to the sources of their inspiration and

their power; and to draw from these no one need go far--no one need

really go out of himself.

Fifty years ago, Carlyle, in whom the truth was always alive, but in whom

it was then unperverted by suffering, by celebrity, and by despair, wrote

in his study of Diderot: “Were it not reasonable to prophesy that this

exceeding great multitude of novel-writers and such like must, in a new

generation, gradually do one of two things: either retire into the

nurseries, and work for children, minors, and semi-fatuous persons of

both sexes, or else, what were far better, sweep their novel-fabric into

the dust-cart, and betake themselves with such faculty as they have to

understand and record what is true, of which surely there is, and will

forever be, a whole infinitude unknown to us of infinite importance to

us? Poetry, it will more and more come to be understood, is nothing but

higher knowledge; and the only genuine Romance (for grown persons),

Reality.”

If, after half a century, fiction still mainly works for “children,

minors, and semi-fatuous persons of both sexes,” it is nevertheless one

of the hopefulest signs of the world’s progress that it has begun to work

for “grown persons,” and if not exactly in the way that Carlyle might

have solely intended in urging its writers to compile memoirs instead of

building the “novel-fabric,” still it has, in the highest and widest

sense, already made Reality its Romance. I cannot judge it, I do not

even care for it, except as it has done this; and I can hardly conceive

of a literary self-respect in these days compatible with the old trade of

make-believe, with the production of the kind of fiction which is too

much honored by classification with card-playing and horse-racing. But

let fiction cease to lie about life; let it portray men and women as they

are, actuated by the motives and the passions in the measure we all know;

let it leave off painting dolls and working them by springs and wires;

let it show the different interests in their true proportions; let it

forbear to preach pride and revenge, folly and insanity, egotism and

prejudice, but frankly own these for what they are, in whatever figures

and occasions they appear; let it not put on fine literary airs; let it

speak the dialect, the language, that most Americans know--the language

of unaffected people everywhere--and there can be no doubt of an

unlimited future, not only of delightfulness but of usefulness, for it.