POE AND THE SHORT STORY

[_28 Jan. '09_]

The great Edgar Allen Poe celebration has passed off, and no one has been

seriously hurt by the terrific display of fireworks. Some of the set

pieces were pretty fair; for example, Mr. G.B. Shaw's in the _Nation_ and

Prof. C.H. Herford's in the _Manchester Guardian_. On the whole, however,

the enthusiasm was too much in the nature of mere good form. If only we

could have a celebration of Omar Khayyám, Tennyson, Gilbert White, or the

inventor of Bridge, the difference between new and manufactured enthusiasm

would be apparent. We have spent several happy weeks in conceitedly

explaining to that barbaric race, the Americans, that in Poe they have

never appreciated their luck. Yet we ourselves have never understood Poe.

And we never shall understand Poe. It is immensely to our credit that,

owing to the admirable obstinacy of Mr. J.H. Ingram, we now admit that Poe

was neither a drunkard, a debauchee, nor a cynical eremite. This is about

as far as we shall get. Poe's philosophy of art, as discovered in his

essays and his creative work, is purely Latin and, as such,

incomprehensible and even naughty to the Saxon mind. To the average

bookish Englishman Poe means "The Pit and the Pendulum," and his finest

poetry means nothing at all. Tell that Englishman that Poe wrote more

beautiful lyrics than Tennyson, and he will blankly put you down as mad.

(So shall I.)

* * * * *

Once, and not many years since, I contemplated editing a complete edition

of Poe, with a brilliant introduction in which I was to show that the

appearance of a temperament like his in the United States in the early

years of the nineteenth century was the most puzzling miracle that can be

found in the whole history of literature. Then, naturally, I intended to

explain the miracle. My plans were placed before a wise and good

publisher, whose reply was to indicate two very respectable complete

editions of Poe which had eminently failed with the public. Further

inquiries satisfied me that the public had no immediate use for anything

elaborate, final, and expensive concerning Poe. My bright desire therefore

paled and flickered out. Since then I have come to the conclusion that I

know practically nothing of the "secret of Poe," and that nobody else

knows much more.

It was inevitable that, apropos of Poe, our customary national nonsense

about the "art of the short story" should have recurred in a painful and

acute form. It is a platitude of "Literary Pages" that Anglo-Saxon writers

cannot possess themselves of the "art of the short story." The only reason

advanced has been that Guy du Maupassant wrote very good short stories,

and he was French! God be thanked! Last week we all admitted that Poe had

understood the "art of the short story." (His name had not occurred to us

before.) Henceforward our platitude will be that no Anglo-Saxon writer can

compass the "art of the short story" unless his name happens to be Poe.

Another platitude is that the short story is mysteriously somehow more

difficult than the long story--the novel. Whenever I meet that phrase,

"art of the short story," in the press I feel as if I had drunk mustard

and water. And I would like here to state that there are as good short

stories in English as in any language, and that the whole theory of the

unsuitability of English soil to that trifling plant the short story is

ridiculous. Nearly every novelist of the nineteenth century, from Scott to

Stevenson, wrote first-class short stories. There are now working in

England to-day at least six writers who can write, and have written,

better short stories than any living writer of their age in France. As for

the greater difficulty of the short story, ask any novelist who has

succeeded equally well in both. Ask Thomas Hardy, ask George Meredith, ask

Joseph Conrad, ask H.G. Wells, ask Murray Gilchrist, ask George Moore, ask

Eden Phillpotts, ask "Q," ask Henry James. Lo! I say to all facile

gabblers about the "art of the short story," as the late "C.-B." said to

Mr. Balfour: "Enough of this foolery!" It is of a piece with the notion

that a fine sonnet is more difficult than a fine epic.

Books and Persons; Being Comments on a Past Epoch, 1908-1911 · 第 28 / 76 题