A Plea for Eros (16 page)

Once Ransom’s attraction to Verena has become conscious love, his pursuit of her is increasingly described in terms of force. “In playing with the subject this way, in enjoying her visible hesitation, he was slightly conscious of a man’s brutality—of being pushed by an impulse to test her good nature, which seemed to have no limit.” Later he understands that his relentless pressure has made her “tremendously open to attack … . ,” that he is engaged in a “siege.” By the end of the novel, Verena is in a state of “surrender” and he has “by muscular force, wrenched her away ,…” from Olive and the waiting public. The war imagery is obvious, James is pointing to a second, far more personal version of the North/South conflict, but Mr. Ransom’s victory over Miss Chancellor, his conquest of Verena and her future in domestic bondage, isn’t achieved by “muscular force” but by talk.

It is interesting to note that Ransom’s decision to chase Verena in earnest, despite his poverty and dim prospects, is fueled by the rather flimsy justification that one of his essays has at last found a publisher. A single publication does not change Ransoms financial future, but he seizes upon it as a sign of a new public voice, which invigorates him in his quest to silence Verena’s. The newly acquired stature as public speaker gives credence to Ransom’s private utterance, a marriage proposal, just as his anti-feminist ideas justify his very
personal
advance on Verena. The eloquent phrases describing the pathos of female oppression, which Olive feeds to Verena, can’t contend with Basil’s verbal seduction. His most potent phrase turns out to be his accusation that Miss Tarrant isn’t real. He tells her that in her desire to please others she has come to resemble “a preposterous little puppet” commandeered from behind the scenes, and the suitor turns his love object’s own phrase against her: “It isn’t
you;
the least in the world.” What she originally believed was selfless devotion to a cause, a belief that allowed her to proclaim with pride, “It isn’t me,” is transformed through Ransom’s steady rhetorical assault into an accusation of fraud: “, … these words, the most effective and penetrating he had uttered, had sunk into her soul and worked and fermented there. She had come at last to believe them and that was the alteration, the transformation.” Sentence by sentence, Ransom enters the inner sanctum of her doubts. Although he has touched on a truth and offers Verena the hope of “standing forth in … freedom,” his is finally a promise of continued captivity under another name. Verena’s fate is sad, but she is too wobbly and empty a character to be tragic, and Basil Ransom’s hunger for Verena Tarrant is augmented by the stature of his adversary, Olive Chancellor, who, unlike Verena, is truly his equal. In terms of the book’s politics, this irony creates a final and terrible resonance. It also redeems James from the charge that
The Bostonians
is somehow against women. It is a book uncomfortable with causes but deeply, intimately comfortable with women.

In the novel, only Olive Chancellor achieves tragic dimensions, and it is because of all the characters in the book she feels most, and feeling is the domain where Henry James is transcendent. The painfully private Olive Chancellor will in the end suffer the horror of public exposure and failure as well as the loss of the person whom she loves most passionately in the world, and it is a fate she has brought upon herself. Her culpability, however, doesn’t in the least diminish the depth or reality of her pain or this reader’s immense pity for her. Stiff, humorless, prejudiced, and half-blind to the reasons for her actions, the little Boston spinster becomes in her profound sorrow and humiliation heroic.

…. as soon as Ransom looked at her he became aware that the weakness she had just shown had passed away. She had straightened herself again, and she was upright in her desolation. The expression of her face was a thing to remain with him forever; it was impossible to imagine a more vivid presentment of blighted hope and wounded pride. Dry, desperate rigid, she yet wavered and seemed uncertain; her pale glittering eyes straining forward, as if they were looking for death. Ransom had a vision, even at that crowded moment, that if she could have met it there and then, bristling with steel or lurid with fire, she would have rushed on it without a tremor, like the heroine that she was.

“In the arts,” James wrote, “feeling is always meaning.” For me, these words illuminate not only the novelist’s
ars po-etica
but also James’s great strength as a writer. His experience of the world and his empathy for other people produced a body of work that adamantly refused ready categories, received ideas, and preordained notions of all kinds in favor of the difficult, strange, tender, and always multifarious arena of human relations and emotions. I think James felt that every attempt to reduce life to a system of beliefs—religious, political, or philosophical—must inevitably become a form of lying.

Late in his life, he tried to explain his wariness of systems to two politically engaged writers: George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells. As a member of the committee that had rejected a play by James, Shaw told its author in a letter, “People don’t want works of art from you. They want help, they want above all encouragement.” In his response, James argued: “… all direct ‘encouragement’—the thing you enjoin me on— encouragement of the short cut and say ‘artless’ order, is really more likely than not to be shallow and misleading …” Wells had hurt James by publishing a cruel attack on the older writer in a satirical book called
Boon, The Mind of the Race,
in which he had, among other things, criticized his “view of life and literature.” To Wells, James wrote, “I
have
no view of life and literature, I maintain, other than that our form of the latter in especial is admirable exactly by its range and variety, its plasticity and liberality, its fairly living on the sincere and shifting experience of the individual practitioner.” And later in the letter, he elaborated further, “It is art that
makes
life, makes interest, makes importance, for our consideration and application of these things, and I know of no substitute whatever for the force and beauty of its process.” James believed in the power of art, not because he thought it would change the world or because he imagined it could be a mirror of life. Art, he explains to Wells, is “for the extension of life, which is the novel’s best gift.”

James was probably too subtle for his correspondents, but the idea of “extension” makes sense to me because art and the world can’t be as easily divided as we sometimes imagine. One comes from the other, and they intermingle in the consciousness we as readers meet on the page. Art can and does make life, as James says, because when we encounter a great work of art it creates feeling, and that feeling in the reader, the viewer, or the listener is finally what the work
means.
I have lived with James’s characters and stories for many years, and they do not leave me. They have become part of who I am, and I can’t help but feel that their creator, who worried over his paltry sales and lack of popularity with the reading public, would have been very happy to know how I feel. He would have been glad to know that his work has lasted and grown in importance and that I am only one of many people who have been permanently altered by his books.

In its range and variety, its plasticity and liberality,
The Bostonians
is an embodiment of James’s nonprescriptive idea about what a novel should be. Through a story that delineates the power of words to obfuscate, exploit, and distort human reality, Henry James offers his own nuanced, precise, and sensitive prose in opposition to the dead phrases that stream from lecture halls, line the pages of newspapers, and float from one speaker to another in that arid climate that was Boston. That city has changed and the United States has changed since James wrote his American novel, but dead phrases, empty rhetoric, clichéd thought, as well as ready-made opinions and just plain nonsense proffered to the public by the press show no sign of abating anytime soon.

I believe it’s impossible to read
The Bostonians
without at least wondering about the ways we use language or language uses us. Moribund and idiotic political statements continue to influence and sway us because of the manner in which they are spoken or written. Even the most sincere declaration of devotion to a noble cause may be born from private venom or personal misery. There is always a gap between what we feel and what we say. Henry James knew that it was heartbreak-ingly difficult to capture the flux of experience in words, to articulate the riddle of human feelings and actions, but this was precisely his ambition, and I, as one of his faithful readers, love him for it.

2004

“WHENEVER I AM AT PARIS, I AM DRAGGED BY SOME INVISIBLE
force into the Morgue. I do not want to go there, but I am always pulled there.” Charles Dickens gave this sentence to his narrator in
The Uncommercial Traveller,
but he used the same words to describe his own compulsion to look at dead bodies: “I am dragged by invisible force to the morgue.” In 1847, this unseen power lured Dickens again and again to the Paris morgue, and on one of those visits he found himself enthralled by the disfigured, bloated body of a man who had been drowned. Sixteen years later, Dickens would begin a novel about drowning,
Our Mutual Friend.
It was to be the last book he finished before he died. The image of that nameless dead man lying on a slab in the morgue must have stayed with Dickens over the years like a ghost waiting for a story. The tale he came to write attacks the problem of the corpse with a full arsenal of verbal weaponry—humor, irony, and pathos. The dead body was Dickens’s muse, the catalyst that generated the writing of
Our Mutual Friend,
the abject thing that launched a torrent of words to do battle with the truth every person faces: The corpse is my future. I will die.

The closer I find myself to death, the more threatening it becomes. The time I saw an open wound on an operating table, I fainted. A few years ago, I was in a car accident. Right after the crash, my vision blurred, I was overcome with nausea, and although I managed to retain consciousness, I went into shock. Even after I had been released from the hospital and sent home with the knowledge that I was only banged and bruised, I woke up with a start for several nights in a row to the impact—the sudden terrific blow that shattered the windshield and crushed the car around me. I felt it in my body as if it were happening again exactly as it had happened, and in my terror I was jolted awake. This dream image had no relation to other dreams I’ve had; it was brief and isolated—a reenactment of the moment the van hit us. I suspect that this “dream” was closer to traumatic memory. Soldiers in wars and victims of crimes or disasters may suffer from these unwanted memories for years—gruesome fragments of experiences that can’t be digested because they don’t make sense. The mind resists categorizing horror—it doesn’t know where to put it—but traces of the incomprehensible may linger nevertheless; no longer fully conscious, they seem to float outside of place and time.

Dickens’s traveler is drawn to view a body in the morgue, and then after he has seen it, he begins to imagine it everywhere. He goes to the baths and has a fantasy of the “large dark body” bobbing toward him. When he accidentally gulps down some bathwater, he recoils, thinking he senses “the contamination of the creature in it.” Still later, “that very day, at dinner, some morsel on my plate looked like a piece of him.” Although the body the traveler saw in the morgue was whole, he is haunted by a corpse that is both leaking and falling apart, a loathsome object that threatens to enter him as bacteria or food. His repulsion comes from an anxiety that the protective barrier between him and it will shift, fall, or crumble. Horror movies play on this fear all the time—that the dead are, well, not dead but moving about in the world, usually chasing some howling young woman. Although fantastic, these films don’t lie. Eventually, death catches up with all of us.

Early in
Our Mutual Friend,
the reader encounters the first of several drowned bodies. A police inspector has taken charge of the corpse, but he has trouble knowing how to refer to the thing in his custody. He first addresses the dead man as “you”; then a little later, he announces to a bystander, “I still call it
him,
you see.” Mr. Inspector is the first of a number of characters to have pronoun difficulties. What does it mean to call someone
you
or
him?
When does
he
turn into
it?
These are ultimate questions, and they are posed relentlessly in the novel. When I defended the dissertation I wrote on Dickens at Columbia University in 1986, Steven Marcus, the Dickens scholar and author of
From Pickwick to Dombey,
asked me if I thought Dickens
knew
what he was doing, if he knew that his work was metaphysical. I said, “No,” and he agreed with me. But in art, knowing isn’t everything—the unknown often pushes its way to the surface. In recent years, neuroscience has demonstrated that Freud was surely right in this sense: A huge part of what the brain does is unconscious. And every novelist can tell you that while writing, things happen. You don’t know why the characters or their words appear to you or where they come from, but there they are, and often these peculiar ghosts and their voices, rising up from nowhere, are exactly the ones that are most crucial to the story.

The novel’s plot turns on the identity of the drowned man Mr. Inspector calls “you,” “him,” and “it.” This body is hauled from the Thames by Gaffer Hexam and his daughter, Lizzie, who then hand the corpse over to the authorities. The papers found on the body lead them to identify it as John Harmon, son of a London dust mogul and heir to a fortune. With the son dead, the money goes to the Boffins, The Golden Dustman and his wife, formerly loyal servants to Old Harmon. Silas Wegg, a sly observer of the Boffinses’ new wealth, plots against them. A cash reward, offered for information leading to the perpetrator of the crime, inspires Rogue Riderhood, a low-life river rat, to a deception that takes him to the offices of Eugene Wrayburn and Mortimer Lightwood, lawyers for the Harmon estate. Riderhood then falsely accuses Gaifer Hexam, the man in the boat who found the body, of murder. This brings the highborn Eugene Wrayburn and the lowborn Lizzie Hexam together, and their love story begins. But the authorities are wrong. The body found in the river did not belong to John Harmon but to George Radfoot, a friend of Harmon’s who bore a resemblance to the heir. This mistake allows John Harmon, who has been away from home for many years, to pose as someone else and become a spectator of his own death. He changes his name to Rokesmith, goes to live in what was once his father’s house, works as a secretary to Boffin, and there observes the beautiful but spoiled Bella Wilfer, ward to the newly flush servants and the woman to whom he has been given in his father’s will—his marriage to her being a condition of his inheritance—and their rocky courtship begins. Through social connection or simple coincidence all the dispersed elements of the story intersect: Lizzie and Bella meet. Bradley Headstone, schoolmaster to Lizzie’s brother, and Eugene Wrayburn are thrown together and become rivals for Lizzie. In the grip of a terrible and fatal passion for Lizzie, Headstone allies himself with Riderhood. Mayhem ensues. Riderhood, Headstone, and Gaffer all drown. Eugene Wrayburn almost drowns, but in the end couples are united, the wicked are punished, and most of the good characters seem headed for the fairy-tale state known as “happily ever after,”