IS SCOTT READ?

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 170, 19 July 1924, Page 17

IS SCOTT READ?

AND WHY HEJHOULD BE. (B y CYRANO i 'to^ v .Tpe"o l mli"t,,',-. i .,0u f rlni a »Ur ■"• 1,1 iffi flavin., been »'"•"-'•'' "' ' 1 ""' t "' letter;. ° *~* « seif.advcriiM'mcnt. lie *ffi dfeaUout- wi-iier '•■,,,., ; 'Cand more exponent 11...n him-. °_fj_be writes in h iwni i-suc of j ut friend. i fii Ul "' ■ :ora fo bo far down searching for ha ! e .„ " The astonished novelist found: 111 irlmrali the older man had not **, .ohe Wavcrlcy novel, for 30 I -* d .atlca«t -he was firmly convinced] St shoddier clap-imp had never so! . neratelv abused the hnplish language Si'further thai.that 1 discovered j ,tat none of his friends had encountered dfwavcrlev novels since their childh _l_ and!.taking it furtlu-r than that | 1 I discovered that the children of | ite' amc friends jeered at Walter, Srft's very name, and |.refcrre.l Mr. Mr. Edgar WaH ll( ,,'- M 2? of the character, o. In, deputed fivinity used to «ay. ■'Prod.g.ous* With all the deference due from an _-=_.- journalist in the **"-*- remote to a gifted novelist at Hie HTS togs h think Mr. Walpole | *_.-_rates the reaction again*! Scott. | Yet'there are easily seen _ij.ni> that oven i *„_■ the classes where . lie would ihink! Scott would be popular lie i- much j elected. One or two inquiries I have, ma c d e show that the sale ol bis books, accept for use in schools, is not great. ( A friend with English library experience tells mc that there was no marked demand for the novels. The neglect seems to he especially deplorable among the younger generation, yet I have heard of one or two men of much more than average culture who, until they were reminded of his value, had hardly touched Scott- since their "boyhood 30 or 40 years before. One of these began to re-read, .era--- fascinated, and went through most of the novels. Even in families there are sharp divisions. I know one ill irhich there are two or three ardent Scott worshippers, one at least of vvhoro places him as far above all other novelists as Shakespeare is above other poets. Other members of the family read him with difficulty. Jfv own opinion, for what it is worth, approaches that of this friend who puts Scott first. I know that with many novel readers of the present day this will bankrupt mc of taste and judgment. Reared on analysts and psycho-analysts, ruthless dissectors, relentless searchers after motive, novelists writing propaganda under the guise of fiction, writers obsessed by sex, and cultivators of style at all costs, they cannot understand why anyone should like a dull old fogey like Scott. Where is his message! Where is his. pyschoiogy. Where is his style? To answer these questions adequately would take much more space than I am given, but it will go some way to say simply that Scott was not concerned primarily with any of these things—his business was to tell a story, and he told - the great creative artists of the world. As Mr. Walpole points out in his fine defence, readers to-day are deflected from him by two criticisms, that his style is vile, and. that he is dull. Scott's style, is not vile. It may he poor in places compared with the polished English of some other writers, but as a critic whose name I have forgotten has remarked, while Scott is often careless about his words, where the situation becomes really dramatic the.style is perfectly suited to the subject. The fact is Scott was not a conscious artist. He wrote freely and bounteously. The words poured from his pen. If the man who wrote "The Bride of Lanrmennoor" in a fortnight or three weeks had paused to get the one and only word for every situation, well, he would not have written half as many novels as he did, and they would have been very different hooks. Scott's genius lay largely in this extraordinary prodigalit}-, in which he resembles Dickens. The style of Dickens sends some moderns into strong shudders, but he lives. Scott has no style? Read any of the great dramatic scenes and judge. "1 do not know what fine style may be," says Mr. Walpole, "if it is not to he found in the harangue of Meg Merrilies in 'Guy Mannering," the concluding pages of "Eed Gauntlet, the garden scene with tbe queen in Kenilworth.' " Lovers of Scott will make their own additions to this list. What of the tournament scene in "Ivanhoe." and the gaol scene in "Bob Hoy"? As for Scott's dullness, we "may admit that he is unexciting in places, but does he not gloriously make up for this in the wonderful excitement 01 his drama when it reaches a crisis? Has the vigour and colour and pulsating hfe of the tournament in "Ivanhoe" ever been surpassed, and this is only one of of similar scenes? Scott's crowning glory, however, is his genius for character. The modern, if he does not reject the moral aspect altogether, asks what is his message. His message IS life. Scott does not bother about sermons, as the term is generally understood. Ht does not write tracts about sanitation, or drains, or divorce, or the rranchise, or the decay of the landed gentry, or the failure of democracy. He Wites about life, and teaches through to delineation of character in action. DUS also is Shakespeare's method, and alter Shakespeare, Scott is our greatest Pointer of character. Through this gift 01 portrayal both men depict life as not Only comic or tragic, but noble. lv one M his finest pieces of criticism, Mr. Westerton sets it down as the chief glory of Scott that he, a Tory iv politics, 2! m °5f res P ect the greatest of democrats. That he proclaimed the dignity to*U men is Scott's "moral and enduring ffiagnificence." Scott does this mostly trough his "common" characters—his Mggars and peasants and haif-mad _K S, v In hi 3 elemental dig«iy the beggar Edie Ochiltree towers "ore the gentry of "The Antiquary." those who lay Scott aside with their Jttpol dajra rob themselves of rich trea.onLw at great Uterature means to much to the young as to the mature? w read Scott in our 'teens for the rush .tod colour of the narrative; it is only fh_. .y" r "» **!»■* we appreciate fully «SE*-" f genius - the richneas an d WA ot }? s characters. A modern nQ&Rw^V 0 a PP reciat e his best we s fully they should be read at least «tt times—(l) for the story. (2) for the gwji W for the historical perspeciol V ' ._ he Earning, which is great; Peafe. fri** W i? d ° m ' Which is stiU U___ J_ ( ' for tlle consummate knowcaracter i. which is greatly 5, Whenever I come across a "a .Bvrh" Ultra -?° dern tastes who sniffs » bef °™ Oscar Wilde, thinks ml ?* Ca Ws D 0 clai » l upon us, ste2 P V Stylef ° r -kc, I nottin-+ m .° a a desert island wita _gg« to read but a full S et of sett's