No sovereign, no court, no personal loyalty, no aristocracy, no church, no clergy, no army, no diplomatic service, no country gentlemen, no palaces, no castles, nor manors, nor old country-houses, nor parsonages, nor thatch cottages nor ivied ruins; no cathedrals, nor abbeys, nor little Norman churches; no great Universities nor public schools…no literature, no novels, no museums, no pictures, no political society, no sporting class.
Perhaps the most controversial lines that Henry James are published are these. They appear in the comprehensive overview of the work of Nathanael Hawthorne which comprises part of the extensive collection of critical writings of James. In the volume, James covers all of the writings of Hawthorne, delving into great detail in the more famous. It is, in fact, a reinterpretation of sorts of the words of Hawthorne himself which he writes in the Preface to The Marble Faun. That prefatory material takes on the inherent problems for an author attempting to write a Romance about America, a country which Hawthorne describes as having “no antiquity, no mystery, no picturesque and gloomy wrong.” James expands upon this conceptualization of the American legacy to that point while also constricting and narrowing its focus to specific instances pointing out that which the country had yet to suffer or offer.
“laws of fiction may be laid down and taught with as much precision and exactness as the laws of harmony, perspective, and proportion”
“The Art of Fiction” is an essay that James was motivated to write in direct response to a lecture given by British novelist Walter Besant. James quotes from Besant’s lecture that which he found especially egregious. According to the British writer, the novel should framed and constructed according to rules and regulations that include such things as writing only about character which could possibly exist in real and with which they are familiar. The specific example given is that a young female writer who has been raised in the country should not task upon herself the expectations of writing about military experiences. In other words, write not just what you know, but only what you know defined by the tightest of restrictions. James responds to this idea with tasteful revelation of the inherent absurdity, suggesting instead that the full realization of the potential within the novel to raise to the level of respect it should could only be accomplished by expanding the form through experimentation and loosening of rules and restrictions to allow each writer the bring the full breadth of their comprehensive experience to each undertaking.
In this light one sees the critic as the real helper of the artist, a torch-bearing outrider, the interpreter, the brother.
The role of the critic evolves over the course of the non-fiction writing of James. When he starts out, he is simply another reviewer who situates the creative artist as a status elevated above the critic who exists only on account of the creative works of the writer. This perspective shifts gradually, but perceptibly over time to the point that he comes to view the relationship as more dynamic, connected and even symbiotic. While few question that the critic needs to creative artist in order to survive, James evolves to argue quite substantively his position that the creative artist is dependent upon criticism, which is to say serious, analysis-centered interpretative criticism. In this instance, James is not opening for inclusion the standard thumbs-up/thumbs-down, star-rating, like/hate kind of critique. He is specifically discussing serious scholarly criticism which penetrates deeply into creative works to find meaning and connections between other entries in the full body of work of an author in order to confer a fair and accurate judgement upon any one in particular.
