
Novels were never the same after Henry James - lermontov
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/john-banville-novels-were-never-the-same-after-henry-james-1.3242726
======
nfg
Just a note for HN readers that the author of this piece, John Banville, is
himself a writer of great power. Given the audience here I’d recommend trying
‘Doctor Copernicus’ or ‘Kepler’ to start. Historical fiction of the richest
variety imaginable.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Copernicus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Copernicus)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_(novel)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_\(novel\))

------
westoncb
I wonder how the 'psychological novel' which was supposed to be invented in
James' _The Portrait of a Lady_ (1880) (according to the article) is distinct
from, e.g., _Crime and Punishment_ (1866) (or _Notes from Underground_ ,
though I guess that was a novella so it doesn't count). Is _Portrait of a
Lady_ more psychologically focused, or is the way it treats the psychological
content somehow different?

~~~
voidhorse
I was thinking the same as soon as I read the article subheading. I can
certainly grant the title "Novels [especially English novels] were never the
same after Henry James" but Dostoyevsky definitely "pioneered" what one would
typically call 'psychological' literature.

I actually have several of Banville's (the author of this piece) own novels
sitting in my backlog. A few skims confirm his work is quite interested in
psychology as the novel can render it (all his work that I have is in first
person), so it's not too surprising he'd focus on that aspect of James's
writing.

I'd wager James's central contribution to literature was his intense
craftsman's devotion and concern for the _construction_ of the novel as an
aesthetic object and his firm conviction literature could be an artform and
not merely the stuff of adventure tales and parables--his literary criticism
and prefaces to his own works are perhaps even more important to the
development of literature than his stories.

~~~
tmalsburg2
Dostoyevsky was a master of the genre but there were many others at the time,
e.g. Flaubert (Madame Bovary, 1857). Plus, we can hardly stick the label
pioneer/inventor of psychological novel on either James or Dostoyevsky when
there are works such as Madame de La Fayette's La Princesse de Clèves (1678).

~~~
hkmurakami
Madame Bovary immediately sprung to mind as well. I find that there are plenty
of similarities regarding the psychological depiction and psychological
narrative of the characters between Madame Bovary and Portrait of a Lady.

------
CalChris
I read _Daisy Miller_ and _Portrait of a Lady_ , kind've the same book if you
ask me. The ending of _Portrait_ is unsatisfying and meant to be. Does she go
back to Osmond? But like _Blade Runner_ , there are two edits:

One ends with Henrietta telling Caspar (in a _Graduate_ Hollywood sort of
ending)

 _“Look here, Mr. Goodwood,” she said; “just you wait!” On which he looked up
at her._

[http://www.bartleby.com/ebook/adobe/311.pdf](http://www.bartleby.com/ebook/adobe/311.pdf)

The other continues:

 _On which he looked up at her-but only to guess, from her face, with a
revulsion, that she simply meant he was young. She stood shining at him with
that cheap comfort, and it added, on the spot, thirty years to his life. She
walked him away with her, however, as if she had given him now the key to
patience._

[http://www.planetpublish.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/11/The_...](http://www.planetpublish.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/11/The_Portrait_of_a_Lady_NT.pdf)

Even James can't figure out what he wants.

------
polm23
I really enjoyed Daisy Miller. It tells a story of wealthy vapid socialites
having silly conflicts, and ends with a girl literally dying of "vapors"
because she took a walk outside after dark.

Only later did I realize it wasn't a parody. I was horrified.

The less said about Portrait of a Lady the better.

------
lr4444lr
Sorry to say, but what I remember most after finishing _The Turn of the Screw_
was how utterly underwhelmed I was by the "great" Henry James.

~~~
ashark
That was the first work of his I read, and I didn't like it at all. "Horror"
from the 19th century sometimes doesn't hold up too well, and the same
concept's been done to death at this point, arguably more effectively. I'm not
sure of the history of that conceit, but possibly _The Turn of the Screw_ is
famous more for its novelty than for being particularly good _per se_.

I kept reading him, though, and loved _Washington Square_. Hated _Daisy
Miller_. _The Aspern Papers_ was fun if not really very good. I'd started
reading _The Liar_ and it was very promising, but one of my kids ruined my
copy before I finished and I haven't gone back to it yet.

TL;DR give him another try, TTotS isn't his best stuff, and his quality's
kinda all over the place.

~~~
lr4444lr
I greatly enjoyed Poe, Hawthorne, and Mary Shelley, so I don't accept that
19th century horror doesn't "hold up" too well, but you've convinced me to
give him another try. I will put _Washington Square_ on my reading list.

~~~
ashark
"sometimes doesn't". I gave myself wiggle room precisely for the few
standouts.

My experience of _Frankenstein_ , though (if that's what you're talking about
with Shelley) was that it was almost (almost!) entirely ineffective as horror,
and is held up mainly by a couple of _really_ good chapters that basically
lacked anything horrific or frightening. If I'd approached the book without
preconceptions I'd not have been likely to firmly categorize it as horror, I
think. It's more like a Greek tragedy with a shifted setting (which is more
than hinted at in the full title) and even the other members of that category
that contain monsters aren't usually considered horror. I'd probably have
placed Frankenstein outside of horror, as more of a Greek-mythology throwback
tale, had I lacked the existing bias of "Frankenstein is a horror-genre
thing".

~~~
anhari
Your expectations of Frankenstein are largely due to Hollywood's
interpretation. Frankentstein is referred to as the work which gave birth to
Science Fiction. Not bad for a story that was more-or-less fleshed out over a
weekend.

I think you're pretty spot on and fair to the book though. If you're reading
Frankenstein and you're expecting a thrilling horror novel then you may be
disappointed. If you're interested in the ethical questions raised by the
creature being created, abandoned, and left to deal with it's strife over
having no companion... then I think it's a pretty great read.

