definite form, so when a form is presented to them they seize on it for
their purpose. Hence every new and original kind in literature produces
a tribe of imitators, some of them contented imitators, who undersell
the first author with colourable copies; others discontented imitators,
or parodists, who offer their own substitute for the author's wares,
yet stamp it with his brand. The compliment is the same in either case;
and the effect is not much different, for nothing so quickly exhausts
the popularity of a work of art as its power of multiplying its kind.
Some congenital weakness, it is fair to say, there must have been in
the original, when the form designed for a single purpose serves so
many others. The weakness is not always easy to detect; but it is
always there. It may be the weakness of excess; an ample and
loose-folded robe like Walt Whitman's is characteristic of its wearer,
but can soon be adapted to a borrower. Or it may be the weakness of
defect; the music and solemnity of the _Psalm of Life_ are a world too
wide for the shrunken body of the thought that they conceal. A perfect
conception expressing itself inevitably in the form that has grown
with its growth defies imitators. The great things of Virgil and of
Dante suffer no parody. And this is what is meant by a classic.
Yet lesser books have their day; and young authors, or old authors
trying a new kind of work, often begin by imitation. They discover
their genius by their failure. The famous parodies (so to call them)
are not parodies at all; their freedom from the servility of parody is
what has given them their place in literature. Cervantes may have
thought that he could criticize and banter the romances of chivalry by
telling the adventures of a poor and high-minded gentleman travelling
on the roads of Spain; but once the new situation was created it called
for a new treatment. Fielding doubtless intended to parody Richardson
by a tale of the chastity of a serving-man; and it is easy to see how a
mere wit would have carried out the design. But Fielding, like
Cervantes, was too rich in ideas, and too brave in purpose, to be
another man's mocking servitor. First Mrs. Slipslop incommodes the
framework by her intrusion, and then Parson Adams enters to complete
the disaster. The breakdown of these pretended parodies is always due
to the same cause--the appearance on an artificially designed scene of
real character. Character, where it is fully conceived, will not take
its orders from the scene-shifter; it reacts in surprising ways to
slight accidental provocations; it will not play the part or speak the
words assigned to it; it is consistent with nothing but itself; from
self-revelation it soon passes to self-assertion, and subdues the world
to its will, disordering all the puppet-show.
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