The Little Review, November 1915 (Vol. 2, No. 8)Various
General
The Little Review, November 1915 (Vol. 2, No. 8)
Various
Literature, Modern -- 20th century -- Periodicals
In dealing with a creative quality as unusual and striking as that of
Theodore Dreiser, it is of absolutely no critical value to content
ourselves with a crude physical disturbance on the surface of our minds,
whether such disturbance is favourable or unfavourable to the writer. It
is, for instance, quite irrelevant to hurl condemnation upon a work like
_The “Genius”_ because it is largely preoccupied with sex. It is quite
equally irrelevant to lavish enthusiastic laudations upon it because of
this preoccupation. A work of art is not good because it speaks daringly
and openly about things that shock certain minds. It is not bad because
it avoids all mention of such things. An artist has a right to introduce
into his work what he pleases and to exclude from his work what he
pleases. The question for the critic is, not what subject has he
selected, but how has he treated that subject;—has he made out of it an
imaginative, suggestive, and convincing work of art, or has he not!
There is no other issue before the critic than this; and if he supposes
there is,—if he supposes he has the smallest authority to dictate to a
writer what his subject shall be;—he is simply making a fool of himself.
There is an absurd tendency among some of us to suppose that a writer is
necessarily a great writer because he is daring in his treatment of sex.
This is quite as grotesque an illusion as the opposite one, that a great
writer must be idealistic and uplifting. There is not the remotest
reason why he should concern himself with sex; if he prefers—as did
Charles Dickens for instance—to deal with other aspects of life. On the
other hand there is not the least reason why he should be “uplifting.”
Let him be an artist—an artist—that is the important matter! All these
questions concerning “subjects” are tedious and utterly trifling.
In _The “Genius”_ Theodore Dreiser has achieved a very curious and a
very original work. In doing it he has once more made it clear how much
more interesting the quality of his own genius is than that of any other
American novelist of the present age.
_The “Genius”_ is an epic work. It has the epic rather than the dramatic
quality; it has the epic rather than the mystic, or symbolic, quality.
And strictly speaking, Dreiser’s novels, especially the later ones, are
the only novels in America, are the only novels, as a matter of fact, in
England or America, which possess this quality. It is quite properly in
accordance with the epic attitude of mind, with the epic quality in art,
this reduction of the more purely human episodes to a proportionate
insignificance compared with the general surge and volume of the
life-stream. It is completely in keeping with the epic quality that
there should be no far-fetched psychology, no quivering suspensions on
the verge of the unknown.
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