Charles Dickens: A critical studyChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
General
Charles Dickens: A critical study
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870
To the tame mind the above affair does not seem to offer anything
very promising in the way of a row. But Seymour’s widow managed to
evolve out of it the proposition that somehow or other her husband had
written “Pickwick,” or, at least, had been responsible for the genius
and success of it. It does not appear that she had anything at all
resembling a reason for this opinion except the unquestionable fact
that the publishers had started with the idea of employing Seymour.
This was quite true, and Dickens (who over and above his honesty was
far too quarrelsome a man not to try to keep in the right, and who
showed a sort of fierce carefulness in telling the truth in such cases)
never denied it or attempted to conceal it. It was quite true, that
at the beginning, instead of Seymour being employed to illustrate
Dickens, Dickens may be said to have been employed to illustrate
Seymour. But that Seymour invented anything in the letter-press large
or small, that he invented either the outline of Mr. Pickwick’s
character or the number of Mr. Pickwick’s cabman, that he invented
either the story, or so much as a semi-colon in the story was not only
never proved, but was never very lucidly alleged. Dickens fills his
letters with all that there is to be said against Mrs. Seymour’s idea;
it is not very clear whether there was ever anything definitely said
for it.
Upon the mere superficial fact and law of the affair, Dickens ought
to have been superior to this silly business. But in a much deeper
and a much more real sense he ought to have been superior to it.
It did not really touch him or his greatness at all, even as an
abstract allegation. If Seymour had started the story, had provided
Dickens with his puppets, Tupman or Jingle, Dickens would have still
have been Dickens and Seymour only Seymour. As a matter of fact, it
happened to be a contemptible lie, but it would have been an equally
contemptible truth. For the fact is that the greatness of Dickens and
especially the greatness of Pickwick is not of a kind that could be
affected by somebody else suggesting the first idea. It could not be
affected by somebody else writing the first chapter. If it could be
shown that another man had suggested to Hawthorne (let us say) the
primary conception of the “Scarlet Letter,” Hawthorne who worked it
out would still be an exquisite workman; but he would be by so much
less a creator. But in a case like Pickwick there is a simple test.
If Seymour gave Dickens the main idea of Pickwick, what was it? There
is no primary conception of Pickwick for any one to suggest. Dickens
not only did not get the general plan from Seymour, he did not get it
at all. In Pickwick, and, indeed, in Dickens, generally it is in the
details that the author is creative, it is in the details that he is
vast. The power of the book lies in the perpetual torrent of ingenious
and inventive treatment; the theme (at least at the beginning) simply
does not exist.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account