William Dean Howells

William
Dean Howells

Howell’s had a very interesting,
while very philosophical view on what society viewed as “art”. This is very apparent in William Dean
Howell’s “Criticism and Fiction”. In the very first page Howell’s tries to put
into words where the masses generally go wrong in deciding what constitutes as
art, and gives us his own views on the subject.

“That is to
say, as I understand, that moods and tastes and fashions change; people fancy
now this and now that; but what is unpretentious and what is true is always beautiful
and good, and nothing else is so. This is not saying that fantastic and
monstrous and artificial things do not please; everybody knows that they do
please immensely for a time, and then, after the lapse of a much longer time,
they have the charm of the rococo”

Here Howell’s is making a very
interesting critical point on the way that art has on us. He is basically
saying that while some things that are pleasing to us may be art, but being
pleasurable is not a necessary condition.
Howell’s seems to liken his opinion to Keats’s quote, and work “Beauty
is Truth, Truth is Beauty”. This really does outline Howell’s idea of beauty in
writing, seeing as William Howell’s was a realist writer. If he did find beauty
in truth than he is consistent with that in his writing. Realism portrays the
realistic side of life, in which Howell’s found everything worthwhile.

“I should,
indeed, prefer another line of Keats's, if I were to profess any formulated
creed, and should feel much safer with his "Beauty is Truth, Truth
Beauty," than even with my friend's reformation of the more quoted verse.”

Howell’s critical view extends
further into the realm of philosophy upon talking about the common man.
Howell’s claims that the common man has all the power he wants within his
grasp, if only he had the courage and strength to use it. Again we can see this
view consistent with his work such as The Rise of Silas Lapham. Howell’s
rejects anything that is of the ideal nature, claiming that most things are
simple, and natural. He even goes so far to say that those who are excellent
gentlemen are not interesting. In modern terms it seems Howell’s is claiming
that people that are so incredibly “book smart” are not real enough for him.
This view seems a bit condescending for Howell’s; who wants to give power to
the common man.

“As I said, I
hope the time is coming when not only the artist, but the common, average man,
who always "has the standard of the arts in his power," will have
also the courage to apply it, and will reject the ideal grasshopper wherever he
finds it, in science, in literature, in art, because it is not "simple,
natural, and honest," because it is not like a real grasshopper.”

Often Howell would write criticism
about the way critics go about reviewing a piece of literature. Howell believed
that criticism itself derives from the readers inability to accept the piece
for what it is. That the reader almost has his mind set on not enjoying
whatever it is being read. He claims that in order to be effective critics we
must take into account why it is the writer chooses to go about his or her work
in such a manner. We would need to think of every choice the writer makes a
very deliberate one, granting him or her many courtesies. Howell’s says “The
critic must perceive, if he will question himself more carefully, that his
office is mainly to ascertain facts and traits of literature, not to invent or
denounce them; to discover principles, not to establish them; to report, not to
create.” This seems that Howell’s seems to think that many critics take too
many liberties with their work, which could easily be true.

Howell’s had a very unique approach to his literary critics.
He believed basically that literary criticisms were worthless, and critics
themselves were in no way essential to the progress of literature.

“I would beseech the
literary critics of our country to disabuse themselves of the mischievous
notion that they are essential to the progress of literature in the way critics
have imagined.”

It
would seem that Howell’s believed that reading fictional literature that’s sole
purpose it merely to entertain is basically good for nothing. He says that we
are fooled into thinking that this literature is good because it is pleasurable
to read. Howell’s takes a very strong stance on this topic, as it seems to make
him very passionate. He grants that these novels are able to take a readers
mind and remove it from their head, but in this is the problem.

“There is a certain
demand in primitive natures for the kind of fiction that does this, and the
author of it is usually very proud of it. The kind of novels he likes, and
likes to write, are intended to take his reader's mind, or what that reader
would probably call his mind, off himself; they make one forget life and all its
cares and duties; they are not in the least like the novels which make you
think of these, and shame you into at least wishing to be a helpfuller and
wholesomer creature than you are”

William Dean Howell’s was a hell of
a lot more philosophical than I originally thought. His ideas on literary
criticism make a lot of sense to those willing to listen. His own take on this
matter helps explain his realistic writing style, and gives insight as to how
he would react to critics who did not exactly enjoy his work. He brings up
issues with literary critics and offers insight into how he would criticize, or
rather his likes and dislikes in literature. Although many probably would not
agree with his outlook on fictional literature to such a strong degree he does
make good points.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3377/pg3377.html

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/acs/1890s/howells/wdhowells.html

http://www.enotes.com/william-dean-howells-criticism/howells-william-dean

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3390/pg3390.html