II

A book has a certain form, we all agree; what the form of a particular

book may be, whether good or bad, and whether it matters--these are

points of debate; but that a book _has_ a form, this is not disputed.

We hear the phrase on all sides, an unending argument is waged over

it. One critic condemns a novel as "shapeless," meaning that its shape

is objectionable; another retorts that if the novel has other fine

qualities, its shape is unimportant; and the two will continue their

controversy till an onlooker, pardonably bewildered, may begin to

suppose that "form" in fiction is something to be put in or left out

of a novel according to the taste of the author. But though the

discussion is indeed confusingly worded at times, it is clear that

there is agreement on this article at least--that a book is a thing to

which a shape is ascribable, good or bad. I have spoken of the

difficulty that prevents us from ever seeing or describing the shape

with perfect certainty; but evidently we are convinced that it is

there, clothing the book.

Not as a single form, however, but as a moving stream of impressions,

paid out of the volume in a slender thread as we turn the pages--that

is how the book reaches us; or in another image it is a procession

that passes before us as we sit to watch. It is hard to think of this

lapse and flow, this sequence of figures and scenes, which must be

taken in a settled order, one after another, as existing in the

condition of an immobile form, like a pile of sculpture. Though we

readily talk of the book as a material work of art, our words seem to

be crossed by a sense that it is rather a process, a passage of

experience, than a thing of size and shape. I find this contradiction

dividing all my thought about books; they are objects, yes, completed

and detached, but I recall them also as tracts of time, during which

Clarissa and Anna moved and lived and endured in my view. Criticism is

hampered by the ambiguity; the two books, the two aspects of the same

book, blur each other; a critic seems to shift from this one to that,

from the thing carved in the stuff of thought to the passing movement

of life. And on the whole it is the latter aspect of the two which

asserts itself; the first, the novel with its formal outline, appears

for a moment, and then the life contained in it breaks out and

obscures it.

But the procession which passes across our line of sight in the

reading must be marshalled and concentrated somewhere; we receive the

story of Anna bit by bit, all the numerous fragments that together

make Tolstoy's book; and finally the tale is complete, and the book

stands before us, or should stand, as a welded mass. We have been

given the material, and the book should now be there. Our treacherous

memory will have failed to preserve it all, but that disability we

have admitted and discounted; at any rate an imposing object ought to

remain, Tolstoy's great imaginative sculpture, sufficiently

representing his intention. And again and again, at this point, I make

the same discovery; I have been watching the story, that is to say,

forgetful of the fact that there was more for me to do than to watch

receptively and passively, forgetful of the novel that I should have

been fashioning out of the march of experience as it passed. I have

been treating it as life; and that is all very well, and is the right

manner as far as it goes, but my treatment of life is capricious and

eclectic, and this life, this story of Anna, has suffered accordingly.

I have taken much out of it and carried away many recollections; I

have omitted to think of it as matter to be wrought into a single

form. What wonder if I search my mind in vain, a little later, for the

book that Tolstoy wrote?

But how is one to construct a novel out of the impressions that

Tolstoy pours forth from his prodigious hands? This is a kind of

"creative reading" (the phrase is Emerson's) which comes instinctively

to few of us. We know how to imagine a landscape or a conversation

when he describes it, but to gather up all these sights and sounds

into a compact fabric, round which the mind can wander freely, as

freely as it strays and contemplates and loses its way, perhaps, in

Tolstoy's wonderful world--this is a task which does not achieve

itself without design and deliberation on the part of the reader. It

is an effort, first of all, to keep the world of Anna (I cling to this

illustration) at a distance; and yet it must be kept at a distance if

it is to be impressed with the form of art; no artist (and the skilful

reader is an artist) can afford to be swayed and beset by his

material, he must stand above it. And then it is a further effort,

prolonged, needing practice and knowledge, to recreate the novel in

its right form, the best form that the material, selected and disposed

by the author, is capable of accepting.

The reader of a novel--by which I mean the critical reader--is himself

a novelist; he is the maker of a book which may or may not please his

taste when it is finished, but of a book for which he must take his

own share of the responsibility. The author does his part, but he

cannot transfer his book like a bubble into the brain of the critic;

he cannot make sure that the critic will possess his work. The reader

must therefore become, for his part, a novelist, never permitting

himself to suppose that the creation of the book is solely the affair

of the author. The difference between them is immense, of course, and

so much so that a critic is always inclined to extend and intensify

it. The opposition that he conceives between the creative and the

critical task is a very real one; but in modestly belittling his own

side of the business he is apt to forget an essential portion of it.

The writer of the novel works in a manner that would be utterly

impossible to the critic, no doubt, and with a liberty and with a

range that would disconcert him entirely. But in one quarter their

work coincides; both of them make the novel.

Is it necessary to define the difference? That is soon done if we

picture Tolstoy and his critic side by side, surveying the free and

formless expanse of the world of life. The critic has nothing to say;

he waits, looking to Tolstoy for guidance. And Tolstoy, with the help

of some secret of his own, which is his genius, does not hesitate for

an instant. His hand is plunged into the scene, he lifts out of it

great fragments, right and left, ragged masses of life torn from their

setting; he selects. And upon these trophies he sets to work with the

full force of his imagination; he detects their significance, he

disengages and throws aside whatever is accidental and meaningless; he

re-makes them in conditions that are never known in life, conditions

in which a thing is free to grow according to its own law, expressing

itself unhindered; he liberates and completes. And then, upon all this

new life--so like the old and yet so different, _more_ like the old,

as one may say, than the old ever had the chance of being--upon all

this life that is now so much more intensely living than before,

Tolstoy directs the skill of his art; he distributes it in a single,

embracing design; he orders and disposes. And thus the critic receives

his guidance, and _his_ work begins.

No selection, no arrangement is required of him; the new world that is

laid before him is the world of art, life liberated from the tangle of

cross-purposes, saved from arbitrary distortion. Instead of a

continuous, endless scene, in which the eye is caught in a thousand

directions at once, with nothing to hold it to a fixed centre, the

landscape that opens before the critic is whole and single; it has

passed through an imagination, it has shed its irrelevancy and is

compact with its own meaning. Such is the world in the book--in

Tolstoy's book I do not say; but it is the world in the book as it may

be, in the book where imagination and execution are perfectly

harmonized. And in any case the critic accepts this ordered, enhanced

display as it stands, better or worse, and uses it all for the

creation of the book. There can be no picking and choosing now; that

was the business of the novelist, and it has been accomplished

according to his light; the critic creates out of life that is already

subject to art.

But his work is not the less plastic for that. The impressions that

succeed one another, as the pages of the book are turned, are to be

built into a structure, and the critic is missing his opportunity

unless he can proceed in a workmanlike manner. It is not to be

supposed that an artist who carves or paints is so filled with emotion

by the meaning of his work--the story in it--that he forgets the

abstract beauty of form and colour; and though there is more room for

such sensibility in an art which is the shaping of thought and

feeling, in the art of literature, still the man of letters is a

craftsman, and the critic cannot be less. He must know how to handle

the stuff which is continually forming in his mind while he reads; he

must be able to recognize its fine variations and to take them all

into account. Nobody can work in material of which the properties are

unfamiliar, and a reader who tries to get possession of a book with

nothing but his appreciation of the life and the ideas and the story

in it is like a man who builds a wall without knowing the capacities

of wood and clay and stone. Many different substances, as distinct to

the practised eye as stone and wood, go to the making of a novel, and

it is necessary to see them for what they are. So only is it possible

to use them aright, and to find, when the volume is closed, that a

complete, coherent, appraisable book remains in the mind.

And what are these different substances, and how is a mere reader to

learn their right use? They are the various forms of narrative, the

forms in which a story may be told; and while they are many, they are

not indeed so very many, though their modifications and their

commixtures are infinite. They are not recondite; we know them well

and use them freely, but to use them is easier than to perceive their

demands and their qualities. These we gradually discern by using them

consciously and questioningly--by reading, I mean, and reading

critically, the books in which they appear. Let us very carefully

follow the methods of the novelists whose effects are incontestable,

noticing exactly the manner in which the scenes and figures in their

books are presented. The scenes and figures, as I have said, we shape,

we detach, without the smallest difficulty; and if we pause over them

for long enough to see by what arts and devices, on the author's part,

we have been enabled to shape them so strikingly--to see precisely how

this episode has been given relief, that character made intelligible

and vivid--we at once begin to stumble on many discoveries about the

making of a novel.

Our criticism has been oddly incurious in the matter, considering what

the dominion of the novel has been for a hundred and fifty years. The

refinements of the art of fiction have been accepted without question,

or at most have been classified roughly and summarily--as is proved by

the singular poverty of our critical vocabulary, as soon as we pass

beyond the simplest and plainest effects. The expressions and the

phrases at our disposal bear no defined, delimited meanings; they have

not been rounded and hardened by passing constantly from one critic's

hand to another's. What is to be understood by a "dramatic" narrative,

a "pictorial" narrative, a "scenic" or a "generalized" story? We must

use such words, as soon as we begin to examine the structure of a

novel; and yet they are words which have no technical acceptation in

regard to a novel, and one cannot be sure how they will be taken. The

want of a received nomenclature is a real hindrance, and I have often

wished that the modern novel had been invented a hundred years sooner,

so that it might have fallen into the hands of the critical schoolmen

of the seventeenth century. As the production of an age of romance, or

of the eve of such an age, it missed the advantage of the dry light of

academic judgement, and I think it still has reason to regret the

loss. The critic has, at any rate; his language, even now, is

unsettled and unformed.

And we still suffer from a kind of shyness in the presence of a novel.

From shyness of the author or of his sentiments or of his imagined

world, no indeed; but we are haunted by a sense that a novel is a

piece of life, and that to take it to pieces would be to destroy it.

We begin to analyse it, and we seem to be like Beckmesser, writing

down the mistakes of the spring-time upon his slate. It is an obscure

delicacy, not clearly formulated, not admitted, perhaps, in so many

words; but it has its share in restraining the hand of criticism. We

scarcely need to be thus considerate; the immense and necessary

difficulty of closing with a book at all, on any terms, might appear

to be enough, without adding another; the book is safe from rude

violation. And it is not a piece of life, it is a piece of art like

another; and the fact that it is an ideal shape, with no existence in

space, only to be spoken of in figures and metaphors, makes it all the

more important that in our thought it should be protected by no

romantic scruple. Or perhaps it is not really the book that we are

shy of, but a still more fugitive phantom--our pleasure in it. It

spoils the fun of a novel to know how it is made--is this a reflection

that lurks at the back of our minds? Sometimes, I think.

But the pleasure of illusion is small beside the pleasure of creation,

and the greater is open to every reader, volume in hand. How a

novelist finds his subject, in a human being or in a situation or in a

turn of thought, this indeed is beyond us; we might look long at the

very world that Tolstoy saw, we should never detect the unwritten book

he found there; and he can seldom (he and the rest of them) give any

account of the process of discovery. The power that recognizes the

fruitful idea and seizes it is a thing apart. For this reason we judge

the novelist's eye for a subject to be his cardinal gift, and we have

nothing to say, whether by way of exhortation or of warning, till his

subject is announced. But from that moment he is accessible, his

privilege is shared; and the delight of treating the subject is acute

and perennial. From point to point we follow the writer, always

looking back to the subject itself in order to understand the logic of

the course he pursues. We find that we are creating a design, large or

small, simple or intricate, as the chapter finished is fitted into its

place; or again there is a flaw and a break in the development, the

author takes a turn that appears to contradict or to disregard the

subject, and the critical question, strictly so called, begins. Is

this proceeding of the author the right one, the best for the subject?

Is it possible to conceive and to name a better? The hours of the

author's labour are lived again by the reader, the pleasure of

creation is renewed.

So it goes, till the book is ended and we look back at the whole

design. It may be absolutely satisfying to the eye, the expression of

the subject, complete and compact. But with the book in this condition

of a defined shape, firm of outline, its form shows for what it is

indeed--not an attribute, one of many and possibly not the most

important, but the book itself, as the form of a statue is the statue

itself. If the form is to the eye imperfect, it means that the subject

is somehow and somewhere imperfectly expressed, it means that the

story has suffered. Where then, and how? Is it because the treatment

has not started from the heart of the subject, or has diverged from

the line of its true development--or is it that the subject itself was

poor and unfruitful? The question ramifies quickly. But anyhow here is

the book, or something that we need not hesitate to regard as the

book, recreated according to the best of the reader's ability. Indeed

he knows well that it will melt away in time; nothing can altogether

save it; only it will last for longer than it would have lasted if it

had been read uncritically, if it had not been deliberately recreated.

In that case it would have fallen to pieces at once, Anna and

Clarissa would have stepped out of the work of art in which their

authors had so laboriously enshrined them, the book would have

perished. It is now a single form, and let us judge the effect of it

while we may. At best we shall have no more time than we certainly

require.