Edith Wharton v. Henry James

I'm not going to sit here and write that I know exactly what Henry James was talking about because honestly, I don't. I have this vague, foggy impression of what he was trying to get at but through his difficult syntax and his long winded explanations I find myself longing for some clarity. So bear with me as I try to fumble through this explanation of how James' belief of what fiction depicts directly coincides with Edith Wharton's short story "Souls Belated"

"The only reason for the existence of a novel is that it does attempt to represent life" (James 554). I don't know whether or not Wharton had ever had a scandalous affair in her life time but she portrayed it perfectly. She had me believing that I was the one at the end of my rope, that I was the one society would reject if they had ever known what I had done or that I was not married to the man whom I spend my nights with. It seemed like it was a real life occurence and let's face it, it is. How many times have we heard of someone having a scandal attached to their names due to their infidelity? Now, I'm not an avid celebrity stalker but I was hard pressed NOT to hear about the whole Brad Pitt-Angelina Jolie-Jennifer Aniston triangle that had happened some time ago. It STILL gets media attention now. Things like that cause a disturbance in the "comfortable atmosphere" that we live in so of course everyone is going to talk about it and of course everyone is going to turn and stare when they see the forementioned people. (this case is mainly cause they're famous but it still is relevant to some degree) This was precisely what Lydia was afraid of.

"The only obligation to which in advance we may hold a novel...is that it be interesting" (James 557). I think Edith Wharton held to that quite well. It never really god boring reading about Lydia moan and groan about hers and Gannett's position in life and how they had compromised themselves by having this affair. The account of Lydia's emotions and how she feels about Gannett IS interesting. It reveals so much about her character and about the time period itself. It kind of leaves the reader wanting for more than just scraping the surface of her ideas and it was INTERESTING. Which was the whole point wasn't it? Wharton just had to make the story interesting and therefore she had accomplished the only obligation that James had set out for her. So does this make it a "good" story?

"They would argue, of course, that a novel ought to be 'good', but they would interpret this term in a fashion of their own, which would indeed vary considerably from one critic to another. One would say being good means representing virtuous and aspiring characters, placed in prominent positions; another would say it depends on a 'happy ending', on a distribution at the last of prizes, pensions, husbands, wives, babies, millions, appended paragraphs and cheerful remarks" (James 556). So according to James no one really knows if a novel is good or not. I mean, how could they? With all the genres that people prefer to read who can really determine whether or not the story is good. Wharton doesn't necessarily make her ending a happy one. In fact you could just consider them giving in. Lydia comes back into the hotel but is she going to be happy with Gannett? Or will they forever be ashamed of how they began their courtship? Does Lydia come back into the hotel because she loves him or is it because honestly she doesn't have anywhere else to go so why leave him? He can give her support, money, a home, and security. Why leave that for the unknown?

"Catching the very note and trick, the strange irregular rhythm of life, that is the attempt whose strenuous forces keeps Fiction upon her feet" (James 563) "...only condition that I can think of attaching to the composition of the novel is...that it be sincere" (James 567). I believe Wharton accomplished that which James believed was the true art of Fiction. Come on, the man capitalized fiction. He treated it as a proper noun, he obviously holds this genre in high esteem. Wharton, I believe, is a perfect example of what James was trying to portray. It was a highly irregular story of a scandalous affair, one that would ruin a man and a woman's place in society, and she was entirely sincere about the whole story. She had the characters be almost brutally honest with each other, especially in Lydia's case, and portrayed the situation quite candidly.

The short story was, all in all, well written and James well...he was confusing but I muddled through to the best of my abilities.