What did you think of Lapham?
The social context around it interests me more than anything. Howells seems to consistently work skew to an idea of novels as fluff for young ladies. He assumes readers know the idea well enough that he may pass over explanation. Yet this was published in the 1880's, no? And the so-called "linear" plot (as in, very roughly, Aristotle's treatment of tragedy, Poe's ideas about narrative, 19th century realism, and How-to-Write-a-Filmscript books) comes under radical question by the 1920's, just 40-odd years later.
What do you think of the relationships of this "novel" form with the reach towards science and positivisms in the 19th Century? How does this relate to film, radio, the various relativisms, the disillusionment with the machine as a purveyor of human fulfillment from, I suppose WWI into the mid 20th? How about to expanding print possibilities in the 19th (Cathy Davidson is interesting on this, but I could use something that continues a little later).
As I get farther into my 19th-century reading, I'm increasingly impressed by the vitality of invention and the speed of the changes in that time.
Another point - I don't know Howells' bio, but his concerns here sound tres uppercrust and upper-bourgeois. May my ruination be so chummy.
I wonder about reading this against Capital or Booker T. Washington .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is the second book by Howells that I have read. I also read A Hazard of New Fortunes. There are clear parallels. Hazard deals with three family groupings, including a Nouveaux Riche family (headed by Mr. Dryfoos who is depicted as a basically decent man like Silas). However, even though there are comic moments and Howell's enjoys showing class disparities, Hazard starts exploring labor movements and takes a very dark turn that ends in tragedy. While Hazard is uneven, it attempts to cover much more ground and would be a good novel to read next to get a feel for Howells. I think Howells realized that many novels were light fluff and he wanted to do more than just depict interesting character studies. Hazard is an attempt at this, and though flawed, shows that Howells at least had greater aspirations. I feel sorry for Howells because even though he was widely read and respected for many years, towards the end of his life he had a huge fall from favor. The anecdote I remember is that a writing school actually sent him an ivitation to join them so he could take a refresher course. The humiliation! Especially when his stint as editor of the Atlantic Monthly had put him in a position to work closely with major figures like Mark Twain and Henry James.
To me, Howells' shortcomings come in the lack of a psychological dynamic. The characters aren't badly observed. And the social system is pretty recognizable, albeit strongly codified. But he doesn't force one's perceptions to reset the way James does or that way Twain can in his better work.
Post a Comment