Owen Seaman

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21708, 15 February 1936, Page 14

Owen Seaman

The parodist, whether he uses his art with satirical or humorous intent, is one of the most watchful guardian® of good.-sense and good taste in literature; and in the recent death of Sir Owen Seaman there to English letters one. who, while effectively performing this duty, provided a wealth of delightful and stimulating reading. Parody can be stimulating, because it helps the appreciation of good work and points out irrefutably the faults of bad. There is no need for it to be ill-natured; it Can. be harsh or amiable according to the 'quality of the model. Seaman’s work up the weaknesses of many contemporary writers of prose and verse; but it also develops a much clearer idea of what is essentially good in an author’s style, on which he focuses attention by separating it from its content and linking it with an entirely new subject. This is, in effect, an admirable method of criticism, which without comment shows the style exactly as it is and leaves the reader lo judge of it for himself. Parody, however, has also the pleasant function of being purely amusing, without express, critical intention, through the incongruity of associating a manner of writing with a theme . which appears oddly foreign to it. Good work never suffers by being parodied in this way, and it is only by a false standard of taste that ■the view, often held, can be maintained that there are some works so essentially serious that they should not be parodied. Actually, the pleasure gained from reading a good parody may preate a taste for the original and prove a stepping stone to its enjoyment by emphasising its best stylistic qualities and giving them a fresh and novel appeal. Even tile “ Song of: “Renunciation” and the “Rhyme of the Kipf*s«riingL”; in “Th£ Battle of the Bays,” wickedly as they mock the mannerisms of

Swinburne and - Kipling. leave the reader still unashamed'of his liking for the originals and even whet his appetite for, them. Often, indeed, there are lines in these burlesques that might have been written in -all seriousness ."by the writers who provide the model, so much do the parodist’s skill and delight in imitation make him happily forgetful of his. ability to ridicule his author’s stylistic weaknesses, tricks, and exaggerations. The pleasure to be gained from this kind of writing is one not to be resisted: It is based, in the first place, oh the real satisfaction'that comes from recognising something, in a new guise, of seeing a good likeness in a photograph; a satisfaction which is, in spite of modern views on the subject,fundamental in most artistic appreciation. To this satisfaction* it adds the more intellectual one of seeing the work analysed and criticised in a manner often more effective and always less difficult to follow than that of a critical essay. It might be said to give the reader an example of the Work and a comment on it together. In his prose parodies Sir Owen Seaman is probably more severely satirical, though none the less engaging. This is perhaps because there is not so much temptation here to write the parody for the sheer pleasure of doing so; there is generally a more conscious critical intention. A writer may parody a poem riot because he dislikes it, but because he likes and appreciates it. Parody may be, and often is, in Seaman’s hands, a graceful tribute to ai*cther writer. Blit this is less likely in prose, and the brilliant imitations of writers such as George Meredith and Marie Corelli have a more biting quality than most of the verse. Just as the parodies are a shrewd comment on literature, the topical, humorous, and satirical verses are a shrewd comment on contemporary life arid politics. They show the same ability to criticise by exemplification, by holding the subject up to the light rather than expressly stating the author’s views. It is a method of showing up what is stupid and wrong that is as effective as it is well-mannered. And Owen Seaman had also that very fine gift of turning humour to the end of stern judgment, where other writers would think only of using a direct appeal to sentiment and pity. The serious implication of some of his verse often surprises the reader when he finds it beneath the humour that makes the initial appeal; it perhaps gains its keenness and force from this awakening of surprise. It is a modern art, this of / using humour rather than blunt attack in judging literature and social questions, and it was well developed by a great successor in the line of Horace and James, Smith and C. S. Calverley.