People

HAVING discussed the story—that simple and fundamental aspect of the novel—we can turn to a more interesting topic: the actors. We need not ask what happened next, but to whom did it happen; the novelist will be appealing to our intelligence and imagination, not merely to our curiosity. A new emphasis enters his voice: emphasis upon value.

We have discussed the story, the simplest and most basic aspect of the novel. Now we can turn to a more interesting topic: the characters. We need not ask what happened next, but who experienced those events. The novelist will appeal to our intelligence and imagination, not just our curiosity. A new emphasis enters his voice: an emphasis on value.

Since the actors in a story are usually human, it seemed convenient to entitle this aspect People. Other animals have been introduced, but with limited success, for we know too little so far about their psychology. There may be, probably will be, an alteration here in the future, comparable to the alteration in the novelist's rendering of savages in the past. The gulf that separates Man Friday from Batouala may be paralleled by the gulf that will separate Kipling's wolves from their literary descendants two hundred years hence, and we shall have animals who are neither symbolic, nor little men disguised, nor as four-legged tables moving, nor as painted scraps of paper that fly. It is one of the ways where science may enlarge the novel, by giving it fresh subject matter. But the help has not been given yet, and until it comes we may say that the actors in a story are, or pretend to be, human beings.

Since the characters in a story are usually human, it seemed convenient to call this aspect People. Other animals have appeared in stories, but with limited success, because we still know too little about their psychology. This may change in the future, and probably will. The change may resemble the past shift in how novelists portrayed peoples they called savages. Consider the gap between Man Friday and Batouala. A similar gap may separate Kipling's wolves from their literary descendants two hundred years from now. Then we shall have animals who are neither symbols nor little people in disguise. Nor will these animals be like four-legged tables moving about, or painted scraps of paper flying through the air. Giving the novel fresh subject matter is one way science may expand its scope. But science has not yet provided this help. Until science does, we may say that the characters in a story are, or pretend to be, human beings.

Since the novelist is himself a human being, there is an affinity between him and his subject matter which is absent in many other forms of art. The historian is also linked, though, as we shall see, less intimately. The painter and sculptor need not be linked: that is to say they need not represent human beings unless they wish, no more need the poet, while the musician cannot represent them even if he wishes, without the help of a programme. The novelist, unlike many of his colleagues, makes up a number of word-masses roughly describing himself (roughly: niceties shall come later), gives them names and sex, assigns them plausible gestures, and causes them to speak by the use of inverted commas, and perhaps to behave consistently. These word-masses are his characters. They do not come thus coldly to his mind, they may be created in delirious excitement, still, their nature is conditioned by what he guesses about other people, and about himself, and is further modified by the other aspects of his work. This last point—the relation of characters to the other aspects of the novel—will form the subject of a future enquiry. At present we are occupied with their relation to actual life. What is the difference between people in a novel and people like the novelist or like you, or like me, or Queen Victoria?

Because the novelist is human, he has a connection with his subject that many other artists do not have. The historian also has this connection, though, as we shall see, it is less intimate. Painters and sculptors need not have it. They need not represent human beings unless they want to. Neither does the poet. The musician, meanwhile, cannot represent human beings even if he wants to, without a programme explaining the music. Unlike many other artists, the novelist creates collections of words that roughly describe himself. Roughly, that is. The finer distinctions will come later. He gives these collections names and sexes, assigns them believable gestures, and makes them speak by using quotation marks. Perhaps he also makes them behave consistently. These collections of words are his characters. The characters do not come to his mind in this cold, mechanical way. He may create them in a frenzy of excitement. Still, their nature depends on what he guesses about other people and himself. Other aspects of his work further shape them. We will later examine this last point: the relationship between characters and the novel’s other aspects. For now, we are concerned with their relationship to real life. What is the difference between people in a novel and people like the novelist, you, me, or Queen Victoria?

There is bound to be a difference. If a character in a novel is exactly like Queen Victoria—not rather like but exactly like—then it actually is Queen Victoria, and the novel, or all of it that the character touches, becomes a memoir. A memoir is history, it is based on evidence. A novel is based on evidence + or − x, the unknown quantity being the temperament of the novelist, and the unknown quantity always modifies the effect of the evidence, and sometimes transforms it entirely.

There must be a difference. If a character in a novel is exactly like Queen Victoria, then the character actually is Queen Victoria. Not just somewhat like her, but exactly like her. In that case, the novel, or every part involving the character, becomes a memoir. A memoir is history, based on evidence. A novel is based on evidence plus or minus x, an unknown quantity. That unknown quantity is the novelist’s temperament. The novelist’s temperament always changes the effect of the evidence, and sometimes transforms it entirely.

The historian deals with actions, and with the characters of men only so far as he can deduce them from their actions. He is quite as much concerned with character as the novelist, but he can only know of its existence when it shows on the surface. If Queen Victoria had not said, "We are not amused," her neighbours at table would not have known she was not amused, and her ennui could never have been announced to the public. She might have frowned, so that they would have deduced her state from that—looks and gestures are also historical evidence. But if she remained impassive—what would any one know? The hidden life is, by definition, hidden. The hidden life that appears in external signs is hidden no longer, has entered the realm of action. And it is the function of the novelist to reveal the hidden life at its source: to tell us more about Queen Victoria than could be known, and thus to produce a character who is not the Queen Victoria of history.

The historian deals with actions, and with people’s character only as far as their actions reveal it. The historian is just as concerned with character as the novelist. But the historian can only know character exists when it shows on the surface. If Queen Victoria had not said, "We are not amused," those beside her at dinner would not have known she was unamused. Nor could her boredom ever have been reported to the public. She might have frowned, so that those beside her would have worked out her mood from her expression. Looks and gestures are also historical evidence. But if she showed no expression, what would anyone know? The hidden life is, by definition, hidden. Once the hidden life appears through outward signs, it is no longer hidden. It has entered the world of action. And the novelist’s task is to reveal the hidden life at its source. The novelist tells us more about Queen Victoria than anyone could know. In doing so, the novelist creates a character who is not the Queen Victoria of history.

The interesting and sensitive French critic, who writes under the name of Alain, has some helpful if slightly fantastic remarks on this point. He gets a little out of his depth, but not as much as I feel myself out of mine, and perhaps together we may move toward the shore. Alain examines in turn the various forms of æsthetic activity, and coming in time to the novel (le roman) he asserts that each human being has two sides, appropriate to history and fiction. All that is observable in a man—that is to say his actions and such of his spiritual existence as can be deduced from his actions—falls into the domain of history. But his romanceful or romantic side (sa partie romanesque ou romantique) includes "the pure passions, that is to say the dreams, joys, sorrows and self-communings which politeness or shame prevent him from mentioning"; and to express this side of human nature is one of the chief functions of the novel. "What is fictitious in a novel is not so much the story as the method by which thought develops into action, a method which never occurs in daily life.... History, with its emphasis on external causes, is dominated by the notion of fatality, whereas there is no fatality in the novel; there, everything is founded on human nature, and the dominating feeling is of an existence where everything is intentional, even passions and crimes, even misery."³

The perceptive and sensitive French critic who writes under the name Alain has some helpful, if slightly fanciful, comments here. He gets a little out of his depth, but not as much as I feel out of mine. Perhaps together we may move toward the shore. Alain examines the various forms of artistic activity in turn. When he reaches the novel (le roman), he argues that every human being has two sides. One belongs to history, the other to fiction. Everything observable in a person belongs to history. This includes their actions and whatever can be inferred about their inner life from their actions. But their novelistic or romantic side (sa partie romanesque ou romantique) includes "the pure passions. These are the dreams, joys, sorrows and private reflections that politeness or shame prevent them from mentioning". Expressing this side of human nature is one of the novel’s chief functions. "What is fictional in a novel is not so much the story as the way thought develops into action. Thought never develops into action this way in daily life.... History emphasizes external causes and is dominated by the idea of fate. But there is no fate in the novel. Everything in the novel is based on human nature. The dominant feeling is of a life in which everything is intentional, even passions and crimes, even misery."³

This is perhaps a roundabout way of saying what every British schoolboy knew, that the historian records whereas the novelist must create. Still, it is a profitable roundabout, for it brings out the fundamental difference between people in daily life and people in books. In daily life we never understand each other, neither complete clairvoyance nor complete confessional exists. We know each other approximately, by external signs, and these serve well enough as a basis for society and even for intimacy. But people in a novel can be understood completely by the reader, if the novelist wishes; their inner as well as their outer life can be exposed. And this is why they often seem more definite than characters in history, or even our own friends; we have been told all about them that can be told; even if they are imperfect or unreal they do not contain any secrets, whereas our friends do and must, mutual secrecy being one of the conditions of life upon this globe.

Perhaps this is a roundabout way of saying what every British schoolboy knew: historians record, while novelists must create. Still, this roundabout approach is useful. It highlights the fundamental difference between people in everyday life and people in books. In everyday life, we never fully understand one another. No one can read another person’s mind completely, and no one reveals everything about themselves. We know one another roughly, through outward signs. These signs work well enough as a basis for society and even for close relationships. But readers can understand people in a novel completely, if the novelist wishes. Their inner lives can be revealed as fully as their outer lives. This is why fictional people often seem more clearly defined than historical figures, or even our own friends. We have been told everything about these fictional people that can be told. Even if they are imperfect or unreal, they hold no secrets. Our friends, however, do have secrets, and must have them. Keeping secrets from one another is one of the conditions of life on this planet.

Now let us restate the problem in a more schoolboyish way. You and I are people. Had not we better glance through the main facts in our own lives—not in our individual careers but in our make-up as human beings? Then we shall have something definite to start from.

Now let us put the problem in simpler terms, as a schoolboy might. You and I are people. Wouldn't we do better to look over the basic facts of our own lives? Not our individual life stories, but what makes us human. Then we will have something definite to start from.

The main facts in human life are five: birth, food, sleep, love and death. One could increase the number—add breathing for instance—but these five are the most obvious. Let us briefly ask ourselves what part they play in our lives, and what in novels. Does the novelist tend to reproduce them accurately or does he tend to exaggerate, minimize, ignore, and to exhibit his characters going through processes which are not the same through which you and I go, though they bear the same names?

There are five main facts of human life: birth, food, sleep, love and death. We could add more, such as breathing, but these five are the most obvious. Let us briefly consider what role these five facts play in our lives and in novels. Do novelists tend to portray them accurately? Or do novelists tend to exaggerate, downplay or ignore them? Do novelists show their characters having experiences different from yours and mine, though those experiences have the same names?

To consider the two strangest first: birth and death; strange because they are at the same time experiences and not experiences. We only know of them by report. We were all born, but we cannot remember what it was like. And death is coming even as birth has come, but, similarly, we do not know what it is like. Our final experience, like our first, is conjectural. We move between two darknesses. Certain people pretend to tell us what birth and death are like: a mother, for instance, has her point of view about birth, a doctor, a religious, have their points of view about both. But it is all from the outside, and the two entities who might enlighten us, the baby and the corpse, cannot do so, because their apparatus for communicating their experiences is not attuned to our apparatus for reception.

Let us consider the two strangest first: birth and death. They are strange because they are both experiences and not experiences. We know about them only from what others tell us. We were all born, but we cannot remember what birth was like. And death is coming, just as birth has already happened, but we do not know what death is like either. Our last experience, like our first, is a matter of guesswork. We move between two darknesses. Certain people claim to tell us what birth and death are like. A mother, for instance, has her point of view about birth. A doctor and a member of a religious order have their points of view about both. But all these views are from the outside. And the two beings who might enlighten us, the baby and the corpse, cannot do so. Their means of communicating their experiences are not tuned to our means of receiving them.

So let us think of people as starting life with an experience they forget and ending it with one which they anticipate but cannot understand. These are the creatures whom the novelist proposes to introduce as characters into books; these, or creatures plausibly like them. The novelist is allowed to remember and understand everything, if it suits him. He knows all the hidden life. How soon will he pick up his characters after birth, how close to the grave will he follow them? And what will he say, or cause to be felt, about these two queer experiences?

So let us think of people as beginning life with an experience they forget. They end life with an experience they expect but cannot understand. These are the people the novelist plans to introduce as characters in books, or characters who could pass for them. The novelist is free to remember and understand everything, if he chooses. He knows all their hidden lives. How soon after birth will he take up his characters’ stories? How close to the grave will he follow them? And what will he say, or make us feel, about these two strange experiences?

Then food, the stoking up process, the keeping alive of an individual flame, the process that begins before birth and is continued after it by the mother, and finally taken over by the individual himself, who goes on day after day putting an assortment of objects into a hole in his face without becoming surprised or bored: food is a link between the known and the forgotten; closely connected with birth, which none of us remembers, and coming down to this morning's breakfast. Like sleep—which in many ways it resembles—food does not merely restore our strength, it has also an æsthetic side, it can taste good or bad. What will happen to this double-faced commodity in books?

Then there is food, the process of feeding the fire, of keeping an individual flame alive. The process begins before birth, and the mother continues it afterward. Finally, the individual takes over himself. Day after day, he puts an assortment of objects into a hole in his face, without surprise or boredom. Food links what we know with what we have forgotten. It is closely connected with birth, which none of us remembers, and reaches all the way to this morning’s breakfast. Like sleep, which food resembles in many ways, food does more than restore our strength. Food also has an aesthetic side: it can taste good or bad. What will happen in books to this commodity with its two sides?

And fourthly, sleep. On the average, about a third of our time is not spent in society or civilization or even in what is usually called solitude. We enter a world of which little is known and which seems to us after leaving it to have been partly oblivion, partly a caricature of this world and partly a revelation. "I dreamt of nothing" or "I dreamt of a ladder" or "I dreamt of heaven" we say when we wake. I do not want to discuss the nature of sleep and dreams—only to point out that they occupy much time and that what is called "History" only busies itself with about two-thirds of the human cycle, and theorizes accordingly. Does fiction take up a similar attitude?

And fourth, sleep. On average, we spend about a third of our time outside society, civilization, and even what we usually call solitude. We enter a world we know little about. After we leave, that world seems to have been partly oblivion, partly a caricature of this world, and partly revelation. When we wake, we say, "I dreamt of nothing" or "I dreamt of a ladder" or "I dreamt of heaven". I do not want to discuss the nature of sleep and dreams. I only want to point out that sleep and dreams take up much of our time. Yet what we call "History" concerns itself with only about two-thirds of the human cycle, and builds its theories accordingly. Does fiction take a similar approach?

And lastly, love. I am using this celebrated word in its widest and dullest sense. Let me be very dry and brief about sex in the first place. Some years after a human being is born, certain changes occur in it, as in other animals, which changes often lead to union with another human being, and to the production of more human beings. And our race goes on. Sex begins before adolescence, and survives sterility; it is indeed coeval with our lives, although at the mating age its effects are more obvious to society. And besides sex, there are other emotions, also strengthening towards maturity: the various upliftings of the spirit, such as affection, friendship, patriotism, mysticism—and as soon as we try to determine the relation between sex and these other emotions we shall of course begin to quarrel as violently as we ever could about Walter Scott, perhaps even more violently. Let me only tabulate the various points of view. Some people say that sex is basic and underlies all these other loves—love of friends, of God, of country. Others say that it is connected with them, but laterally, it is not their root. Others say that it is not connected at all. All I suggest is that we call the whole bundle of emotions love, and regard them as the fifth great experience through which human beings have to pass. When human beings love they try to get something. They also try to give something, and this double aim makes love more complicated than food or sleep. It is selfish and altruistic at the same time, and no amount of specialization in one direction quite atrophies the other. How much time does love take? This question sounds gross but it must be asked because it bears on our present enquiry. Sleep takes about eight hours out of the twenty-four, food about two more. Shall we put down love for another two? Surely that is a handsome allowance. Love may weave itself into our other activities—so may drowsiness and hunger. Love may start various secondary activities: for instance, a man's love for his family may cause him to spend a good deal of time on the Stock Exchange, or his love for God a good deal of time in church. But that he has emotional communion with any beloved object for more than two hours a day may be gravely doubted, and it is this emotional communion, this desire to give and to get, this mixture of generosity and expectation, that distinguishes love from the other experiences on our list.

And finally, love. I am using this celebrated word in its broadest and dullest sense. Let me first be very dry and brief about sex. Some years after a human being is born, certain changes occur, just as in other animals. These changes often lead to union with another human being and the production of more human beings. And our species carries on. Sex begins before adolescence and continues after fertility ends. Indeed, sex lasts throughout our lives, although its effects are more obvious to society during the mating years. Besides sex, other emotions also grow stronger as we approach maturity. These include various feelings that lift the spirit, such as affection, friendship, patriotism, and mysticism. As soon as we try to establish how sex relates to these other emotions, we will, of course, start arguing. We will argue as fiercely as we ever could about Walter Scott, perhaps even more fiercely. Let me simply list the different views. Some people say sex is basic and underlies all these other loves: love of friends, of God, of country. Others say sex is connected with these loves, but alongside them, not as their root. Others say sex is not connected with them at all. All I suggest is that we call this whole collection of emotions love. Let us regard love as the fifth great experience human beings have to pass through. When human beings love, they try to get something. They also try to give something, and this double aim makes love more complicated than food or sleep. Love is selfish and unselfish at the same time. However much one tendency develops, the other never quite withers away. How much time does love take? The question sounds crude, but we must ask it because it matters to our present inquiry. Sleep takes about eight hours out of every twenty-four, and food about two more. Shall we allow another two for love? Surely that is a generous allowance. Love may weave itself into our other activities, but so may drowsiness and hunger. Love may set off various secondary activities. For instance, a man's love for his family may make him spend a good deal of time on the Stock Exchange. Or his love for God may make him spend a good deal of time in church. But we may seriously doubt whether he shares an emotional connection with anyone or anything he loves for over two hours daily. This emotional connection distinguishes love from the other experiences on our list. It is the desire to give and to get, the mixture of generosity and expectation.

That is the human make-up—or part of it. Made up like this himself, the novelist takes his pen in his hand, gets into the abnormal state which it is convenient to call "inspiration," and tries to create characters. Perhaps the characters have to fall in with something else in his novel: this often happens (the books of Henry James are an extreme case), and then the characters have, of course, to modify the make-up accordingly. However, we are considering now the more simple case of the novelist whose main passion is human beings and who will sacrifice a great deal to their convenience—story, plot, form, incidental beauty.

That is human nature, or part of it. The novelist shares this nature. He picks up his pen, enters the unusual state conveniently called "inspiration," and tries to create characters. Perhaps the characters have to fit in with something else in his novel. This often happens (the books of Henry James are an extreme case). When it does, the characters must, of course, change their nature accordingly. However, we are now considering the simpler case of a novelist whose main passion is people. He will sacrifice a great deal to suit his characters: story, plot, form, and incidental beauty.

Well, in what senses do the nations of fiction differ from those of the earth? One cannot generalize about them, because they have nothing in common in the scientific sense; they need not have glands, for example, whereas all human beings have glands. Nevertheless, though incapable of strict definition, they tend to behave along the same lines.

Well, how do the people of fiction differ from the people of the real world? We cannot generalize about fictional people, because they have nothing in common in a scientific sense. For example, fictional people need not have glands, while all human beings have glands. Still, although fictional people cannot be strictly defined, they tend to behave in similar ways.

In the first place, they come into the world more like parcels than human beings. When a baby arrives in a novel it usually has the air of having been posted. It is delivered "off"; one of the elder characters goes and picks it up and shows it to the reader, after which it is usually laid in cold storage until it can talk or otherwise assist in the action. There is both a good and a bad reason for this and for all other deviations from earthly practice; these we will note in a minute, but do just observe in what a very perfunctory way the population of noveldom is recruited. Between Sterne and James Joyce, scarcely any writer has tried either to use the facts of birth or to invent a new set of facts, and no one, except in a sort of auntish wistful way, has tried to work back towards the psychology of the baby's mind and to utilize the literary wealth that must lie there. Perhaps it cannot be done. We shall decide in a moment.

First of all, they enter the world more like parcels than human beings. When a baby arrives in a novel, it usually seems to have come through the mail. The baby is delivered "off". One of the older characters picks it up and shows it to the reader. After that, the baby is usually put in cold storage until it can talk or otherwise help the action along. There is both a good and a bad reason for this treatment and all other departures from real life. We will consider those reasons in a minute. But just notice how little care goes into adding new members to the population of noveldom. Between Sterne and James Joyce, hardly any writer has tried to use the facts of birth or invent new ones. And no one has tried to explore a baby's mind and draw on the literary riches that must lie there. The only exceptions have approached the subject with a kind of wistful fondness, like an aunt. Perhaps it cannot be done. We shall decide in a moment.

Death. The treatment of death, on the other hand, is nourished much more on observation, and has a variety about it which suggests that the novelist finds it congenial. He does, for the reason that death ends a book neatly, and for the less obvious reason that working as he does in time he finds it easier to work from the known towards the darkness rather than from the darkness of birth towards the known. By the time his characters die, he understands them, he can be both appropriate and imaginative about them—strongest of combinations. Take a little death—the death of Mrs. Proudie in the Last Chronicle of Barset. All is in keeping, yet the effect is terrifying, because Trollope has ambled Mrs. Proudie down many a diocesan bypath, showing her paces, making her snap, accustoming us, even to boredom, to her character and tricks, to her "Bishop, consider the souls of the people," and then she has a heart attack by the edge of her bed, she has ambled far enough,—end of Mrs. Proudie. There is scarcely anything that the novelist cannot borrow from "daily death"; scarcely anything he may not profitably invent. The doors of that darkness lie open to him and he can even follow his characters through it, provided he is shod with imagination and does not try to bring us back scraps of séance information about the "life beyond."

Death. The treatment of death, on the other hand, draws much more on observation. Its variety suggests that the novelist feels at home with the subject. And he does, because death brings a book to a neat ending. There is also a less obvious reason. Since he works within time, he finds it easier to move from the known toward darkness. Moving from the darkness of birth toward the known is harder. By the time his characters die, he understands them. He can treat them with both accuracy and imagination, the strongest of combinations. Take a small death, the death of Mrs. Proudie in the Last Chronicle of Barset. Everything fits, yet the effect is terrifying. This is because Trollope has taken Mrs. Proudie strolling down many a side path of diocesan life. He has shown her in action, made her snap, and familiarized us, even to boredom, with her character and habits. We know her "Bishop, consider the souls of the people," only too well. Then she has a heart attack beside her bed. She has strolled far enough. That is the end of Mrs. Proudie. There is scarcely anything the novelist cannot borrow from "daily death". There is scarcely anything he cannot usefully invent. The doors into that darkness stand open to him, and he can even follow his characters through. But he must be equipped with imagination. And he must not try to bring us back scraps of séance information about the "life beyond."

What of food, the third fact upon our list? Food in fiction is mainly social. It draws characters together, but they seldom require it physiologically, seldom enjoy it, and never digest it unless specially asked to do so. They hunger for each other, as we do in life, but our equally constant longing for breakfast and lunch does not get reflected. Even poetry has made more of it—at least of its æsthetic side. Milton and Keats have both come nearer to the sensuousness of swallowing than George Meredith.

What about food, the third fact on our list? Food in fiction serves mainly a social purpose. It brings characters together, but they seldom need food for their bodies and seldom enjoy eating. They never digest their food unless specifically asked to do so. They hunger for each other, as we do in life. But our equally constant longing for breakfast and lunch goes unmentioned. Even poetry has done more with food, at least with its appeal to the senses. Milton and Keats have both come closer to capturing the sensual pleasure of swallowing than George Meredith has.

Sleep. Also perfunctory. No attempt to indicate oblivion or the actual dream world. Dreams are either logical or else mosaics made out of hard little fragments of the past and future. They are introduced with a purpose and that purpose is not the character's life as a whole, but that part of it he lives while awake. He is never conceived as a creature a third of whose time is spent in the darkness. It is the limited daylight vision of the historian, which the novelist elsewhere avoids. Why should he not understand or reconstruct sleep? For remember, he has the right to invent, and we know when he is inventing truly, because his passion floats us over improbabilities. Yet he has neither copied sleep nor created it. It is just an amalgam.

Sleep. Also treated carelessly. No attempt to show the loss of awareness or the actual world of dreams. Dreams are either logical or mosaics made from hard little fragments of the past and future. They are introduced for a purpose. That purpose concerns not the character's whole life, but only the part he lives while awake. He is never imagined as a creature who spends a third of his time in darkness. This is the historian's limited daylight view, which the novelist avoids elsewhere. Why shouldn't the novelist understand or recreate sleep? Remember, he has the right to invent. And we know when his inventions ring true, because his passion carries us over the improbabilities. Yet he has neither copied sleep nor created it. It is just a mixture.

Love. You all know how enormously love bulks in novels, and will probably agree with me that it has done them harm and made them monotonous. Why has this particular experience, especially in its sex form, been transplanted in such generous quantities? If you think of a novel in the vague you think of a love interest—of a man and woman who want to be united and perhaps succeed. If you think of your own life in the vague, or of a group of lives, you are left with a very different and a more complex impression.

Love. You all know how much space love takes up in novels. You will probably agree with me that love has harmed novels and made them monotonous. Why has this particular experience, especially sexual love, been brought into novels in such large quantities? If you think about a novel in general terms, you think of a love story. You imagine a man and woman who want to be together and perhaps succeed. If you think about your own life in general terms, or about several lives, you get a very different impression. Your impression is also more complex.

There would seem to be two reasons why love, even in good sincere novels, is unduly prominent.

There seem to be two reasons why love gets too much attention, even in good, sincere novels.

Firstly, when the novelist ceases to design his characters and begins to create them—"love" in any or all of its aspects becomes important in his mind, and without intending to do so he makes his characters unduly sensitive to it—unduly in the sense that they would not trouble so much in life. The constant sensitiveness of characters for each other—even in writers called robust like Fielding—is remarkable, and has no parallel in life, except among people who have plenty of leisure. Passion, intensity at moments—yes, but not this constant awareness, this endless readjusting, this ceaseless hunger. I believe that these are the reflections of the novelist's own state of mind while he composes, and that the predominance of love in novels is partly because of this.

First, when the novelist stops designing his characters and starts creating them, "love" becomes important in his mind. Love may matter in any or all of its forms. Without meaning to, he makes his characters too sensitive to love. They care about love more than they would in real life. The constant sensitivity of characters to one another is remarkable, even in writers considered robust, like Fielding. Nothing like this sensitivity exists in real life, except among people with plenty of leisure. Passion, moments of intensity, yes. But not this constant awareness, this endless adjusting to one another, this ceaseless hunger. I believe these qualities reflect the novelist's own state of mind as he writes. And I believe this partly explains why love plays such a large role in novels.

A second reason; which logically comes into another part of our enquiry, but it shall be noted here. Love, like death, is congenial to a novelist because it ends a book conveniently. He can make it a permanency, and his readers easily acquiesce, because one of the illusions attached to love is that it will be permanent. Not has been—will be. All history, all our experience, teaches us that no human relationship is constant, it is as unstable as the living beings who compose it, and they must balance like jugglers if it is to remain; if it is constant it is no longer a human relationship but a social habit, the emphasis in it has passed from love to marriage. All this we know, yet we cannot bear to apply our bitter knowledge to the future; the future is to be so different; the perfect person is to come along, or the person we know already is to become perfect. There are to be no changes, no necessity for alertness. We are to be happy or even perhaps miserable for ever and ever. Any strong emotion brings with it the illusion of permanence, and the novelists have seized upon this. They usually end their books with marriage, and we do not object because we lend them our dreams.

There is a second reason. Logically, it belongs in another part of our discussion, but we will note it here. Love, like death, suits a novelist because it provides a convenient ending to a book. He can make love permanent, and his readers readily accept this, because one illusion about love is that it will last. Not that it has lasted, but that it will. All history and all our experience teach us that no human relationship stays the same. A relationship is as unstable as the living people who form it. Those people must balance like jugglers if their relationship is to last. If a relationship stays the same, it is no longer a human relationship but a social habit. Its focus has shifted from love to marriage. We know all this, yet we cannot bear to apply our bitter knowledge to the future. The future will be so different. The perfect person will come along, or the person we already know will become perfect. There will be no changes, no need to stay alert. We will be happy, or even perhaps miserable, for ever and ever. Any strong emotion brings the illusion of permanence, and novelists have seized on this illusion. They usually end their books with marriage, and we do not object because we lend them our dreams.

Here we must conclude our comparison of those two allied species, Homo Sapiens and Homo Fictus. Homo Fictus is more elusive than his cousin. He is created in the minds of hundreds of different novelists, who have conflicting methods of gestation, so one must not generalize. Still, one can say a little about him. He is generally born off, he is capable of dying on, he wants little food or sleep, he is tirelessly occupied with human relationships. And—most important—we can know more about him than we can know about any of our fellow creatures, because his creator and narrator are one. Were we equipped for hyperbole we might exclaim at this point: "If God could tell the story of the Universe, the Universe would become fictitious."

Here we must end our comparison of those two related species, Homo Sapiens and Homo Fictus. Homo Fictus is harder to pin down than his cousin. He is created in the minds of hundreds of different novelists, whose ways of bringing him into being conflict. So we must not generalize. Still, we can say a little about him. He is generally born offstage, but he can die onstage. He needs little food or sleep, and he is tirelessly occupied with human relationships. Most importantly, we can know more about him than we can know about any of our fellow creatures. This is because his creator and narrator are the same person. If we had a gift for exaggeration, we might exclaim at this point: "If God could tell the story of the Universe, the Universe would become fictitious."

For this is the principle involved.

Because this is the principle at work.

Let us, after these high speculations, take an easy character and study it for a little. Moll Flanders will do. She fills the book that bears her name, or rather stands alone in it, like a tree in a park, so that we can see her from every aspect and are not bothered by rival growths. Defoe is telling a story, like Scott, and we shall find stray threads left about in much the same way, on the chance of the writer wanting to pick them up afterwards: Moll's early batch of children for instance. But the parallel between Scott and Defoe cannot be pressed. What interested Defoe was the heroine, and the form of his book proceeds naturally out of her character. Seduced by a younger brother and married to an elder, she takes to husbands in the earlier and brighter part of her career: not to prostitution, which she detests with all the force of a decent and affectionate heart. She and most of the characters in Defoe's underworld are kind to one another, they save each other's feelings and run risks through personal loyalty. Their innate goodness is always flourishing despite the author's better judgment, the reason evidently being that the author had some great experience himself while in Newgate. We do not know what it was, probably he himself did not know afterwards, for he was a busy slipshod journalist and a keen politician. But something occurred to him in prison, and out of its vague, powerful emotion Moll and Roxana are born. Moll is a character physically, with hard plump limbs that get into bed and pick pockets. She lays no stress upon her appearance, yet she moves us as having height and weight, as breathing and eating, and doing many of the things that are usually missed out. Husbands were her earlier employ: she was trigamous if not quadrigamous, and one of her husbands turned out to be a brother. She was happy with all of them, they were nice to her, she nice to them. Listen to the pleasant jaunt her draper husband took her—she never cared for him much.

After these lofty speculations, let us take a straightforward character and study her for a while. Moll Flanders will do. She fills the book that bears her name. Or rather, she stands alone in it, like a tree in a park. We can see her from every angle, without other growth competing for our attention. Like Scott, Defoe is telling a story. We find loose threads left lying around in much the same way, in case the writer wants them later. Moll's first batch of children is one example. But the comparison between Scott and Defoe cannot be taken too far. Defoe was interested in his heroine, and the shape of his book grows naturally out of her character. Seduced by a younger brother and married to an older one, she turns to husbands early in her brighter days. She does not turn to prostitution. She detests prostitution with all the strength of her decent, affectionate heart. She and most of the characters in Defoe's underworld are kind to one another. They spare each other's feelings and take risks out of personal loyalty. Their natural goodness keeps flourishing despite the author's better judgment. The reason, evidently, is that Defoe himself had some profound experience while in Newgate. We do not know what the experience was. Probably Defoe himself did not know afterward, for he was a busy, careless journalist and an eager politician. But something happened to him in prison. Out of the experience's vague but powerful emotion, Moll and Roxana were born. Moll is a physically real character, with firm, plump limbs that get into bed and pick pockets. She gives little attention to her appearance. Yet we feel her height and weight, her breathing and eating, and the many usually omitted things she does. Husbands were her earlier occupation. She was married to three men at once, if not four, and one husband turned out to be her brother. She was happy with all of them. They were nice to her, and she was nice to them. Listen to the account of the pleasant outing her draper husband took her on. She never cared for him much.

Contrast with this the scene with her Lancashire husband, whom she deeply loved. He is a high-wayman, and each by pretending to wealth has trapped the other into marriage. After the ceremony, they are mutually unmasked, and if Defoe were writing mechanically he would set them to upbraid one another, like Mr. and Mrs. Lammle in Our Mutual Friend. But he has given himself over to the humour and good sense of his heroine. She guides him through.

Compare this with the scene involving her Lancashire husband, whom she loved deeply. He is a highwayman, and each has tricked the other into marriage by pretending to be wealthy. After the ceremony, each discovers the other’s deception. If Defoe were writing mechanically, he would have them blame each other, like Mr. and Mrs. Lammle in Our Mutual Friend. But he has let himself be led by his heroine’s humour and good sense. She guides him through.

Which is both truer to daily life and pleasanter to read than Dickens. The couple are up against facts, not against the author's theory of morality, and being sensible good-hearted rogues, they do not make a fuss. In the later part of her career she turns from husbands to thieving; she thinks this a change for the worse and a natural darkness spreads over the scene. But she is as firm and amusing as ever. How just are her reflections when she robs of her gold necklace the little girl returning from the dancing-class. The deed is done in the little passage leading to St. Bartholomew's, Smithfield (you can visit the place today—Defoe haunts London) and her impulse is to kill the child as well. She does not, the impulse is very feeble, but conscious of the risk the child has run she becomes most indignant with the parents for "leaving the poor little lamb to come home by itself, and it would teach them to take more care of it another time." How heavily and pretentiously a modern psychologist would labour to express this! It just runs off Defoe's pen, and so in another passage, where Moll cheats a man, and then tells him pleasantly afterwards that she has done so, with the result that she slides still further into his good graces, and cannot bear to cheat him any more. Whatever she does gives us a slight shock—not the jolt of disillusionment, but the thrill that proceeds from a living being. We laugh at her, but without bitterness or superiority. She is neither hypocrite nor fool.

This is both truer to daily life and more enjoyable to read than Dickens. The couple face facts, not the author's theory of morality. And since they are sensible, good-hearted rogues, they do not make a fuss. Later in her career, she turns from husbands to stealing. She sees this as a change for the worse, and the scene naturally grows darker. But she remains as steady and amusing as ever. How sound her reflections are when she steals a gold necklace from a little girl returning from dancing class. The theft takes place in the little passage leading to St. Bartholomew's, Smithfield. (You can visit the place today. Defoe haunts London.) Her impulse is to kill the child as well. She does not, and the impulse is very weak. But she recognizes the danger the child has faced. So she becomes deeply indignant with the parents for "leaving the poor little lamb to come home by itself, and it would teach them to take more care of it another time." How ponderously and pretentiously a modern psychologist would struggle to express this! Yet it flows straight from Defoe's pen. The same happens in another passage, where Moll cheats a man and then pleasantly tells him she has done so. As a result, he likes her even more, and she cannot bear to cheat him again. Whatever she does gives us a slight shock. It is not the jolt of disillusionment, but the thrill that comes from a living being. We laugh at her, but without bitterness or any sense of superiority. She is neither a hypocrite nor a fool.

Towards the end of the book she is caught in a draper's shop by two young ladies from behind the counter: "I would have given them good words but there was no room for it: two fiery dragons could not have been more furious than they were"—they call for the police, she is arrested and sentenced to death and then transported to Virginia instead. The clouds of misfortune lift with indecent rapidity. The voyage is a very pleasant one, owing to the kindness of the old woman who had originally taught her to steal. And (better still) her Lancashire husband happens to be transported also. They land at Virginia where, much to her distress, her brother-husband proves to be in residence. She conceals this, he dies, and the Lancashire husband only blames her for concealing it from him: he has no other grievance, for the reason that he and she are still in love. So the book closes prosperously, and firm as at the opening sentence the heroine's voice rings out: "We resolve to spend the remainder of our years in sincere penitence for the wicked lives we have led."

Near the end of the book, two young women behind the counter catch her in a fabric shop. "I would have spoken politely to them, but there was no chance. Two fiery dragons could not have been angrier than they were." The women call the police, and she is arrested and sentenced to death. Instead, she is sent to Virginia as a convict. The clouds of misfortune lift with indecent speed. The voyage is very pleasant, thanks to the kindness of the old woman who originally taught her to steal. And (better still) her Lancashire husband happens to be sent there as a convict too. They arrive in Virginia, where, much to her distress, her brother-husband turns out to be living. She hides his presence from her Lancashire husband, and her brother-husband dies. Her Lancashire husband blames her only for keeping the secret from him. He has no other complaint, because the two are still in love. So the book ends happily, and the heroine's voice rings out as firmly as in the opening sentence: "We resolve to spend the rest of our years sincerely repenting the wicked lives we have led."

Her penitence is sincere, and only a superficial judge will condemn her as a hypocrite. A nature such as hers cannot for long distinguish between doing wrong and getting caught—for a sentence or two she disentangles them but they insist on blending, and that is why her outlook is so cockneyfied and natural, with "sich is life" for a philosophy and Newgate in the place of Hell. If we were to press her or her creator Defoe and say, "Come, be serious. Do you believe in Infinity?" they would say (in the parlance of their modern descendants), "Of course I believe in Infinity—what do you take me for?"—a confession of faith that slams the door on Infinity more completely than could any denial.

Her remorse is sincere, and only a shallow judge would condemn her as a hypocrite. Someone like her cannot distinguish for long between doing wrong and getting caught. For a sentence or two, she separates the two, but they keep merging again. That is why her outlook is so Cockney and natural, with "sich is life" as her philosophy. For her, Newgate prison takes the place of Hell. Suppose we pressed her or her creator Defoe and said, "Come on, be serious. Do you believe in Infinity?" They would answer in the language of their modern descendants: "Of course I believe in Infinity. What do you take me for?" Such a declaration of faith shuts the door on Infinity more completely than any denial could.

Moll Flanders then shall stand as our example of a novel, in which a character is everything and is given freest play. Defoe makes a slight attempt at a plot with the brother-husband as a centre, but he is quite perfunctory, and her legal husband (the one who took her on the jaunt to Oxford) just disappears and is heard of no more. Nothing matters but the heroine; she stands in an open space like a tree, and having said that she seems absolutely real from every point of view, we must ask ourselves whether we should recognize her if we met her in daily life. For that is the point we are still considering: the difference between people in life and people in books. And the odd thing is, that even though we take a character as natural and untheoretical as Moll who would coincide with daily life in every detail, we should not find her there as a whole. Suppose I suddenly altered my voice from a lecturing voice into an ordinary one and said to you, "Look out—I can see Moll in the audience—look out, Mr."—naming one of you by name—"she as near as could be got your watch"—well, you would know at once that I was wrong, that I was sinning not only against probabilities, which does not signify, but against daily life and books and the gulf that divides them. If I said, "Look out, there's some one like Moll in the audience," you might not believe me but you would not be annoyed by my imbecile lack of taste: I should only be sinning against probability. To suggest that Moll is in Cambridge this afternoon or anywhere in England, or has been anywhere in England is idiotic. Why?

Moll Flanders will therefore be our example of a novel where character is everything and has the greatest freedom. Defoe makes a slight attempt at a plot centred on the brother who is also her husband. But he puts very little effort into it. Her legal husband (the one who took her on the trip to Oxford) simply disappears and is never heard of again. Nothing matters but the heroine. She stands in an open space like a tree. Having said that she seems completely real from every angle, we must ask whether we would recognize her in everyday life. For we are still considering the difference between people in life and people in books. And here is the odd thing. Moll is as natural and free of theory as any character, and every detail about her would fit everyday life. Yet we would not find her there as a whole. Suppose I suddenly switched from a lecturer's voice to an ordinary one and said to you, "Watch out. I can see Moll in the audience. Watch out, Mr." (naming one of you by name), "she very nearly got your watch." Well, you would know at once that I was wrong. I would not just be defying probability, which does not matter. I would be violating everyday life, books, and the gulf between them. If I said, "Watch out, there's someone like Moll in the audience," you might not believe me. But you would not be annoyed by my idiotic lack of taste. I would only be defying probability. To suggest that Moll is in Cambridge this afternoon, or anywhere in England, is idiotic. So is suggesting that she has ever been anywhere in England. Why?

This particular question will be easy to answer next week, when we shall deal with more complicated novels, where the character has to fit in with other aspects of fiction. We shall then be able to make the usual reply, which we find in all manuals of literature, and which should always be given in an examination paper, the æsthetic reply, to the effect that a novel is a work of art, with its own laws, which are not those of daily life, and that a character in a novel is real when it lives in accordance with such laws. Amelia or Emma, we shall then say, cannot be at this lecture because they exist only in the books called after them, only in worlds of Fielding or Jane Austen. The barrier of art divides them from us. They are real not because they are like ourselves (though they may be like us) but because they are convincing.

This particular question will be easy to answer next week, when we discuss more complicated novels. In those novels, characters have to fit in with other aspects of fiction. We can then give the usual answer, found in all literary guides, which should always be given in an exam. This is the artistic answer: a novel is a work of art with its own laws. Those laws are not the laws of everyday life. A character in a novel is real when that character lives according to the novel’s laws. Amelia or Emma, we shall then say, cannot be at this lecture. They exist only in the books named after them, only in the worlds of Fielding or Jane Austen. The barrier of art separates them from us. They are real not because they are like us (though they may be like us) but because they are convincing.

It is a good answer, it will lead on to some sound conclusions. Yet it is not satisfactory for a novel like Moll Flanders, where the character is everything and can do what it likes. We want a reply that is less aesthetic and more psychological. Why cannot she be here? What separates her from us? Our answer has already been implied in that quotation from Alain: she cannot be here because she belongs to a world where the secret life is visible, to a world that is not and cannot be ours, to a world where the narrator and the creator are one. And now we can get a definition as to when a character in a book is real: it is real when the novelist knows everything about it. He may not choose to tell us all he knows—many of the facts, even of the kind we call obvious, may be hidden. But he will give us the feeling that though the character has not been explained, it is explicable, and we get from this a reality of a kind we can never get in daily life.

It is a good answer, and it will lead to some sound conclusions. Yet the answer is not satisfactory for a novel like Moll Flanders, where the character is everything. The character can do whatever she likes. We want an answer that is less about art and more about psychology. Why can’t she be here? What separates her from us? The quotation from Alain has already suggested our answer. She cannot be here because she belongs to a world where the private inner life is visible. That world is not ours and cannot be ours. In that world, the narrator and the creator are one. Now we can define when a character in a book is real: when the novelist knows everything about the character. He may not choose to tell us everything he knows. Many facts may remain hidden, even facts of the kind we call obvious. But he will make us feel that although the character has not been explained, the character can be explained. That feeling gives us a kind of reality we can never find in daily life.

For human intercourse, as soon as we look at it for its own sake and not as a social adjunct, is seen to be haunted by a spectre. We cannot understand each other, except in a rough and ready way; we cannot reveal ourselves, even when we want to; what we call intimacy is only a makeshift; perfect knowledge is an illusion. But in the novel we can know people perfectly, and, apart from the general pleasure of reading, we can find here a compensation for their dimness in life. In this direction fiction is truer than history, because it goes beyond the evidence, and each of us knows from his own experience that there is something beyond the evidence, and even if the novelist has not got it correctly, well—he has tried. He can post his people in as babies, he can cause them to go on without sleep or food, he can make them be in love, love and nothing but love, provided he seems to know everything about them, provided they are his creations. That is why Moll Flanders cannot be here, that is one of the reasons why Amelia and Emma cannot be here. They are people whose secret lives are visible or might be visible: we are people whose secret lives are invisible.

For human relationships seem haunted by a ghost once we consider them for their own sake, not merely as part of social life. We can understand each other only in a rough, practical way. We cannot reveal ourselves fully, even when we want to. What we call intimacy is only a makeshift solution. Perfect knowledge is an illusion. But in novels we can know people perfectly. Besides the general pleasure of reading, novels offer compensation for how indistinct people remain in real life. In this respect, fiction is truer than history because fiction goes beyond the evidence. Each of us knows from personal experience that something exists beyond the evidence. And even if the novelist has not got that something right, well, he has tried. The novelist can bring his characters into the story as babies. He can have them go without sleep or food. He can make them be in love, absorbed in love and nothing but love. He can do all this, provided he seems to know everything about them, provided they are his creations. That is why Moll Flanders cannot be here. It is also one reason why Amelia and Emma cannot be here. Their secret lives are visible, or might be visible. Our secret lives are invisible.

And that is why novels, even when they are about wicked people, can solace us; they suggest a more comprehensible and thus a more manageable human race, they give us the illusion of perspicacity and of power.

And that is why novels can comfort us, even when they are about wicked people. Novels suggest a human race that is easier to understand and therefore easier to manage. They give us the illusion of insight and power.