Thursday 26 April 2007

The Henry James Effect

Is there anyone else out there, I wonder, who is, or was (or ever will again be), hopelessly addicted to Henry James? There can’t be many, I suspect. If indeed there are any at all. People are much too busy, these days, to struggle with the rotund, the resonating, the too-rococo sentence. The allusive, over-subtle approach irritates them, and the parenthetical tendency defeats. You have only to take that word parenthetical itself, for example. It’s a James word if ever I heard one, yet I can’t be absolutely sure it actually exists. But there it is: the ordinary vocabulary can sometimes sag a little, when the rococo in prose is under consideration. And needs must anyway, as they say, when it’s Henry James who drives!

No, it’s the short, sharp, staccato sort of thing that works best for people these days, I’m told. I even seem to remember that there was an instruction to that effect in a little book I bought recently on the practice, and art, of blogging. The implication having seemed to be, that since everyone is so very much too busy now, to do battle with protracted sentences, the potential blogger had very much better forget all about them, and do what he can to go with the current stream instead. It seemed rather a pity to me, I confess it. I have a lingering fondness for the protracted sentence - and parentheses have always seemed to be one of the staples of the compositional life. ‘Playing the Proust Game’, I have always called it; and it’s better than crosswords or sudoku, by half. For exercising the brain there's really nothing else quite like it - since it involves staggering all the way to the end of the sentence, without once going back to see how it started out!

It was a comment left on my fictional blog, I Beatrice, yesterday, as a matter of fact, that has prompted me to go down the Henry James route this morning. Somebody wrote to say that, although it was a long time since she had read James herself, she nevertheless thought she detected something in my own style of writing, that put her in mind of his. I was humbled by the comparison of course - since though one always dares to aspire (as why wouldn’t one, if one were trying at all?), one never does quite presume to hope. (Too many ‘ones’ there, I acknowledge it. But it’s a hard road to escape from, once having started out!)

I was humbled – but I was also vaguely troubled - by the comparison. Because there was a time when the Henry James thing was the only one I really knew, or wanted for myself. All through the sixties and seventies, when my own children were small ( and when I really, according to the standards set by today’s so-very-much-busier Mummies, oughtn’t to have had time for any such thing) ……. at every available spare moment in those busy years, nonetheless, I was to be found with a Henry James novel somewhere about my person. To such an extent indeed, that if I happened to have sat down for a moment without one, my small children would feel impelled to run anxiously off and fetch it for me! Small wonder then, that at that period in my life I began to write, to think - to talk even, I don’t doubt ! – like Henry James.

One small anecdote from that period springs to mind, and I relate it here , because I think it probably illustrates my past addiction better than anything else could do. It concerns my elder son, who is a lawyer of rising distinction these days, but who was then a rumbustious boy of five or six. He wasn’t ordinarily the sort of child to pre-occupy himself with a book - and especially not one of "Mum’s Henry James sort"! But he had happened to be watching a Quiz programme on television that day, and so astonished was he by something he heard there, that he must run in to me at once, crying “Guess what, Mum? That man didn’t even know who wrote The Golden Bowl !”

That little recollection somehow epitomises all that the Old Master meant to me in those far-off days. And seems to illustrate, as nothing else quite could, the long struggle I have had to free myself from his influence since. I no longer wish to write like that. It’s not that I love him less – I can’t help remembering what Virginia Woolf once wrote of him, for one thing: how she said that in the history of the novel, there was no-one else who, having gone to all the lengths of constructing his sentence, could bring himself to smash it so resoundingly at the end! No, I certainly don’t love him less; but I seldom read him any more. I have come to recognise that such a style as his is hopelessly addictive, and that, even could one have hoped to emulate it, for today’s tastes, it simply doesn’t ‘do’. It has taken me many years to free myself from his influence, though, and I genuinely believed I had done it at last.

Which is why it came as something of an unpleasant jolt, as well as a pleasure, yesterday, to be told that to someone else, my style had seemed vaguely reminiscent of his. Somebody had discovered my guilty secret, that's what it was – and I felt somewhat shame-faced as a result!

Not that it wouldn’t give me the most enormous pleasure, just the same, were somebody else to write in and confess to having had (or having still), an addiction rather like mine.

11 comments:

Chris at 'Chrissie's Kitchen' said...

Sorry if I have unsettled you a little, Beatrice; it was quite unintentional of course!

Personally, I found that the rigours of getting around the Henry James' prose style did not seem worth the effort for the resultant story line; I almost lost the will to live at times.

Now give me Conrad, my own personal literary hero, any time!

I Beatrice said...

Lizzie, this is for you too. I might perhaps have written it as a comment on your own page - except that it would have seemed selfish of me to have commandeered your comment space, for what is after all an observation on my own..

I am puzzled though,to know what you mean by James's 'narrative grip'?

I feel strangely wounded by that remark, you see.
Almost as wounded as if he had been my personal friend - or myself!

And so far as 'narrative grip' goes - well, it has always seemed to me that he had quite as much of it as one would wish him to have. If one had wanted a simple story, one would have gone elsewhere I think... Jeffrey Archer tells a good story, I believe - though I have never felt inclined to go there and see for myself.

No, with people like James, it's something else one looks for. Just as it is with Jane Austen (whose own narrative grip sometimes falters, I dare to suggest!). Or with Shakespeare. To whom one doesn't really go for the stories either!

I am unable to talk about Conrad, because I never could quite 'get on' with all those sea-faring tales. Though I believe it's thought that as stylists go, he has almost no superiors, second (or third) language notwithstanding. Perhaps I'll go back and take another look......

What I look for in James, and find in abundance every time, is simply his wisdom, his gently ironic understanding and portrayal of almost every aspect of human experience; his wonderful way with word and phrase and (yes, I dare to claim it for him), his wit! You have to work hard for all these things, I agree. And I quite accept that for some the rewards are simply not sufficient for the amount of effort required! But for me he is, always was, and always will be, quite insuperable

I think I should probably have taken the route of posting another essay on him after all. There are just so many more things to say than can possibly be squeezed into a comment box! I guess we'll just have to agree to differ, on this one. But I live in hopes that another Jamesian addict (or convert) will sometime appear anyway.

Jan said...

First brief encounter with this, your other blog.
Shall be back!

Chris at 'Chrissie's Kitchen' said...

Back again, Beatrice!

I take your comments 'on the chin' and feel that I should perhaps give H.J. another try now that I am so much older if not wiser! I shall try to dig him out; though I would still say that in my memories of reading him I found him to be rather 'over-mannered' (even for his era and style) and laborious in his detail. To me, I feel I can hear him huffing and puffing and mending his syntactical cracks as even the clock on the wall slows down to his own inimitable pace. He does not make his efforts 'seem easy' even to himself. You know that cliche of the genious who elicits such comments as 'Gosh, he makes it seem so easy,' - well, I don't think I can say the same for H.J. -not like, say, George Eliot.

(Hmm. Discuss?)

I Beatrice said...

Oh Lizzie, do not mind me! We fall in love where we can and the rest, as they say, is silence. But I do love George Eliot too you know. And when it came to 'doing' Mr Casaubon (who is supposed to have been the model for James's Gilbert Osmond - though I've always thought him closer to Grandcourt, myself (discuss?) ..... )well, I have to concede that Eliot probably did it better!

Ralph Touchett in Portrait of a Lady, on the other hand, is unashamedly, for me, to be adored (again, discuss)!

Perhaps we're actually closer than we think?

(I'll post this comment on your page too - so as not to seem a limelight hogger. And have just posted another, oddish piece on my Just Blogging page ... From whence do they spring, I want to know, these curious outpourings?)

pluto said...

Beatrice, I wish I could be the reader that you said (elsewhere) you long for: the one who would reply to this post to say how much they too love Henry James.
But I really enjoyed reading about why you love him. So would anyone who cares about style of writing, regardless of whether they prefer it stark or elaborate.
And we've all at one time shared your frustration at the inability of other people to appreciate how good our own favorite writers are.

(I can imagine you wincing twice at my use of 'their' with singular meaning - hope it didn't hurt too much.)

Anonymous said...

I am not sure you will get this, since I'm late responding (I've just discovered your two blogs), but I, too, have been addicted to Henry James. I know how he gets into one's head and changes the structure of one's sentences. I can see his Paris and his London. I love his complexity, his insight. I recently reread The Ambassadors, my favorite of his, and fell in love again. I'm a woman of a certain age who grew up and still lives in New England--James's descriptions of the constraints of Stretther's character and what he discovers about himself in Paris really moved me. I also enjoy William Dean Howells (he is read even less than James is) and like that he is the source of Strether's passionate speech about living. Kisabel

I Beatrice said...

Dear Anonymous, your comment has indeed been found, and I can only say that you are the reader sent from heaven! Which is to say that your comment comes at just the moment when, approaching the end of the novel and feeling seriously jaded, I had begun to falter, and wonder if I was going to be able to see it through.

You have given me the fresh courage I needed, so I hardly know how to thank you.

I believe we could 'talk Henry James' by the hour - and living in New England as you do, you probably have all sorts of insights into his life and work that I lack. I however know his London - and his Lamb House, Rye; and also to some extent his Italy... I can never go to Florence, for example, without making the pilgrimage up the 'olive-muffled hill' to the place where Gilbert Osmond's villa might be. And I look constantly in the back-streets for Mrs Touchett's city palazzo...

Like you though, I return most often now to 'The Ambassadors' - which surprises me with something new and wonderful every time!

So, thank you so much for coming to visit me - you have quite made my morning|

Anonymous said...

And now you have made mine--many thanks. Kisabel

I Beatrice said...

Dear Kisabel, thank you again for coming. I do hope you have the courage to keep reading the story - though I guess it must be a pretty daunting prospect, in its online format....

Still, keep in touch when you can, won't you? And, have you no blog, or webpage to which I can go, to return the kindness of your visiting me?

Anonymous said...

Good words.