Nelson Evening Mail SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1920 THE IMPERFECTIONS OF THACKERAY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LIV, Issue LIV, 16 October 1920, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1920 THE IMPERFECTIONS OF THACKERAY

TO speak of the imperfections of one who is probably the greatest of English novelists,'perhaps the greatest of world-novelists, may seem to be a mere forcing of criticism, a carping at what is too groat for disparagement to touch. But, though not for a moment disputing the right of Abo author of “Vanity Fair” to stand almost at the head of all writers of fiction, we confess to a feeling that hero and there in Thackeray's work defects occur which detract from that rounded perfection which should mark the novel at its highest. It may he useful therefore to define and comment on such limitations, nr lapses, prevising always that the writer's criticism stands ip need uf being itself criticised. It must be stated at • the outset, that this criticism is based almost entirely on one work, “Vanity. Fair,” hut as that hook, if not tho author's greatest novel, is certainly typical of his aims and methods, such restriction does not. necessarily affect the conclusions. The fact that “Vnniity Fair” has no definite plot is somoI times instanced as a iault, but it may be questioned whether it is really so. [if the passions and emotions which move men and women can be as admirably pourtrayed in a narrative having no distinct crisis as in one possessing the orthodox climax, then a “plot” in the ordinary sense is not an essential part of the novel. lhat 1 “Vanity Fair” abunda fitly realises the. 'former alternative must, bo universally acknowledged; it is needless (hen to further discuss this alleged Imperfection.

The next criticism which wo. have to notice seems to be based on firmer ground. It is this, that in the conduct of his story Thackeray is oueasionally somewhat, careless of the probabilities. That is to say, that he is ratlior inclined to bend circumstances and characters to suit the progress of liirt narrative, without giving due hoed to the likelihood of the characters acting so as to produce the desired circumstances. Per instance, it is necessary at a certain juncture-in the fortunes of Amelia that her brother Jos should be possessed of ample means. In the ordinary course of events it is difficult to imagine how the extravagant Joseph came to bo so well off. • Thackeray gives the pnzzzled reader no adequate explanation True, Jos. occupies a lucrative position in the East India Company’s Civil Service, but,at tho same rime it is fairly evident that it would need to lie a very lucrative position which would leave rnuch of a credit balance on the side of a gentleman ol his tastes in wines and waistcoats. Another instance is that- of the complete commercial collapse of old Mr Sedley. It is essential, of course, that John Sedley should not he able to. reinstate his fortunes in the business world, for this would have done away with the necessity for Amelia’s sacrifice in parting with Georgy. But there is a strong improbability in the circumstances as conceived hy Thackeray. Sedley. senior, is introduced to us as a prosperous merchant. Wo learn that not onlV has he built up a good business for himself, but be has I put his friend Osborne in the. wa\ of [making a fortune. The landing of Napoleon at, Cannes brings ruin to the house of Sedley, whose speculations had not allowed for so unexpected a contingency. So far there is nothing improbable, but it is inexplicable that this once shrewd and capable business ■man should suddenly change into an incapable and foolish old blunderer. | So far nothing of a serious nature has been advanced against Thackeray’s literary reputation the trilling drawbacks which have been commented on are almost negligible—but there II ■ one real and serious • defect in his

work, and with time we have now to do. In a. man o[ Tlnn-kerjiyl,jn<!3 \ and sympathetic dispoMMon “ >■- muM remarkalde that. wo find no appreciation of the heam it's <d nauiraJ secuery. Neither animate nor inanimate nature seems to run let- any appeal to him. The grandeur or a mountainside, the magnificence of sweeping heath'or moor, or the softer heavily of woodland and stream nil leave him unimpressed. Tie seems never to have seen an autumn sunset or to have waiehed the grey midsummer dawn grow into a. period day. In the long three volumes of “Vanity Fair” there is hardly a casual mention of bird nr {lower! And this in England, where every hint and hedgerow and spinney is lit era 11 v spangled with wild dowers, with lhe primrose, the cowslip and the “nodding violet.” this in the England of the nightingale and the blackbird, in the England where the cuckoo heralds in the spring and “the chaffinch sings on the orchard hough.” Drear in his knowledge of human nature, unerring in his characterization, supreme m the art which commands at will our sympathy or our scorn, ♦here yet. remains m Thackeray this one thing lacking. It is the sole defect, which debars him irom the position of the perfect, novelist.