Somerset Maugham and Henry James

[Emil Miller]

I am currently reading A William Somerset Maugham Encyclopedia by Samuel J. Rogal. At the entry for 'J' there is an insertion for Henry James who Maugham knew personally but did not particularly like.
What are the members views on the extracts given below?


Essentially, Maugham thought that his own firsthand view of life, focusing on specific persons as well as their specific experiences, clashed hard with James's subtle and obscure perceptions of human thought and existence.
In a word, he viewed James's fiction as a threat to realism.
At one point he compared James with a mountain climber who, simply to walk up the 206-foot-high Primrose Hill, equipped himself with all the paraphernalia
necessary to scale the 29,028-foot Mount Everest. In another context he viewed James's stories and novels as "cobwebs which a spider may spin in the attic of some old house, intricate, delicate and even beautiful, but which at any moment the housemaid's broom with brutal commonsense may sweep away."
In Cakes and Ale, Willie Ashenden tells Alroy Kear that James "had turned his back on one of the great events of the world's history, the rise of the Unted States, in order to report tittle-tattle at tea parties in English country houses."

[wessexgirl]

What a coincidence Brian, I have Cakes and Ale on my desk as from yesterday for a re-read. That's quite interesting what Maugham said. If I had to choose between the 2 authors, I know which one I would prefer to read, and it's not "the Master". I have the book by Toibin, as I find James himself interesting, but the little of him I've read doesn't make me want to read more, as I believe he got more difficult with his later works. I enjoy the directness and seeming simplicity of Maugham's style. There may be something in what he says.

[LitNetIsGreat]

There are some grains of truth to the quotations, but there is no getting away from the fact that the novels of Henry James are masterly written. I happen to like the subtleties and depth of his work and the psychological integrity of his characters. I'm not sure about all this "threat to realism" business, it sounds a bit weak to me. The Turn of the Screw is particularly brilliant and one of the longest (deepest) short stories I've ever read.

[Dark Lady]

The Turn of the Screw is particularly brilliant and one of the longest (deepest) short stories I've ever read.

I think I've disagreed with you quite a lot recently! Nothing personal. ;)

The Turn of the Screw is the only James novel I have read and I really didn't like it much. I had to read it when I was in either first or second year at university (can't remember which) and I'm pretty sure there were quite a few texts we had to read in those years that I really couldn't click with.

I can't remember exactly what it was that turned me off the novel. I think I quite liked it to start with, or was at least willing to like it. I have a feeling it was the awkwardness of the plot and the lack of sympathy I had for the protagonist that jarred with me.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh, nothing personal sure.

You really have to read this about three or four times to actually "get it". I'm not being patronising or anything, but it is very dense stuff. You have to almost close read the entire thing. I think I gave up on it twice before I really took hold of it, or it took hold of me! I think that is what is being suggested in those quotes with all the cobwebs and that. Maybe you are one of the ones holding the brush?

If you read James you have to pause at the bottom of every page and really take it in and explore the implications of every sentence, its very dense, but massively rewarding. This is especially true if you read this novella in light of psychological readings, in fact it is a pretty standard psychological/Freudian text.

Really, you should try it again and again and you may change your mind. Even better if you can read it as part of a class and share ideas.

Honestly, believe me, I'm like Wilde I am always right, (just joking, though Wilde IS always right, I wasn't joking about that). :)

It's always fun to disagree,

J Neely.

[Emil Miller]

What a coincidence Brian, I have Cakes and Ale on my desk as from yesterday for a re-read. That's quite interesting what Maugham said. If I had to choose between the 2 authors, I know which one I would prefer to read, and it's not "the Master". I have the book by Toibin, as I find James himself interesting, but the little of him I've read doesn't make me want to read more, as I believe he got more difficult with his later works. I enjoy the directness and seeming simplicity of Maugham's style. There may be something in what he says.

I am glad you have written "seeming simplicity of stye," because in reality Maugham worked hard to attain that ease of expression that is as much a hallmark of his writing as turgidity is of James's. Maugham was constantly changing and rewriting his stories but it never shows. I have read a number of books by James such as The American, The Turn of the Screw and Washington Square but I would rather read Maugham any day.

[mono]

Essentially, Maugham thought that his own firsthand view of life, focusing on specific persons as well as their specific experiences, clashed hard with James's subtle and obscure perceptions of human thought and existence.
In a word, he viewed James's fiction as a threat to realism.
As much as I love Henry James, "subtle" seems a good word to use in describing him, both as a person and as to his literature - The Portrait of a Lady, hundreds of pages of "almosts," "somewhats," and other subtleties, as opposed to Maugham's very straight-forward, unhindered, simple style, demonstrated well in both Of Human Bondage and Cakes and Ale; Maugham, yes, writes with more specifics, less verbosity. James, I think, lived in about as much of a state of flux as his fictional characters, which, to use a bit of psychology 101 techniques, predisposed him a bit towards not expressing himself fully and clearly - perhaps out of fear, shame, lack of confidence? He moved back-and-forth from the United States to England, had a theologian intellectual as a father, a philosopher-psychologist as a brother (William James), and a journal and essayist for a mother - a bit of an intimidating, somewhat cold (but wealthy) environment; maybe he seemed like the odd man out, the black sheep, especially while first pursuing law at Harvard, rather than something literary. From that, James easily invented many upper-class characters, he never felt reluctant to identify with them, and, overall, whether or intentional or not, never failed to encorporate their pretentiousness and irresponsibility.
James had a keen insight for developing a strong perspective from each character, whether important to the story or not, which seems a part of the problem - way too many unimportant, irrelevant characters who seem to disappear as quickly as they appear, especially in his longer novels. Maugham, on the contrary, seemed to stick to one character, and he wrote the whole several-hundred pages of A Human Bondage from a third-person perspective, but all from the sole main character's eyes, despite how many/few other characters, all of which gained importance, one way or another, appeared.
James' subtleties vs. Maugham's specifics? Very apparent. Like Neely, however, I cannot fully grasp that "threat to realism" business. :confused:

At one point he compared James with a mountain climber who, simply to walk up the 206-foot-high Primrose Hill, equipped himself with all the paraphernalia
necessary to scale the 29,028-foot Mount Everest. In another context he viewed James's stories and novels as "cobwebs which a spider may spin in the attic of some old house, intricate, delicate and even beautiful, but which at any moment the housemaid's broom with brutal commonsense may sweep away."
In Cakes and Ale, Willie Ashenden tells Alroy Kear that James "had turned his back on one of the great events of the world's history, the rise of the Unted States, in order to report tittle-tattle at tea parties in English country houses."
:lol: I love the first analogy!
In a way, I can see Maugham's point of James' stories seeming like these beautifully detailed, complex, and in-depth objects, but about as fragile as cobwebs. As much as I have loved many of James' novels and short stories, they can appear a bit as "castles in the sky," yet it does not subtract my affinity for his works. Indeed, James had everything there - strong characters, always intriguing settings, character development, amazing ability at perspective, but perhaps not motivation or effort, as mentioned before as subtleties, to put it on paper; Maugham also had these characteristics in writing, but wrote things that would hit the reader with full, unhindered force - he had all of the tools to climb Mt. Everest, and would use them.
Interesting topic. :)

The Turn of the Screw is the only James novel I have read and I really didn't like it much. I had to read it when I was in either first or second year at university (can't remember which) and I'm pretty sure there were quite a few texts we had to read in those years that I really couldn't click with.
I have found a lot of readers who have that love-or-hate relationship with The Turn of the Screw, and with many of James' stories, regardless. That story I would certainly call his most complex and mysterious; I thought it beautifully and obviously very carefully constructed - a classic! To each their own.
If you still have some interest, Dark Lady, give The Aspern Papers a chance - very mysterious also, not quite as mind-bending as The Turn of the Screw, and amusing.

[Emil Miller]

There are some grains of truth to the quotations, but there is no getting away from the fact that the novels of Henry James are masterly written. I happen to like the subtleties and depth of his work and the psychological integrity of his characters. I'm not sure about all this "threat to realism" business, it sounds a bit weak to me. The Turn of the Screw is particularly brilliant and one of the longest (deepest) short stories I've ever read.

One has to read Maugham in order to see how realistic his writing is as compared to that of James. If you haven't yet managed to do so, perhaps you will give Maugham a try and see what he meant. One of his most critically acclaimed works is The Painted Veil and is a good example of how to write a complex story without resorting to verbosity. I hope I'm not being presumptious but I am constantly amazed that, apart from Of Human Bondage, Maugham, who was one of the greatest story tellers of the 20th century, all too often appears to remain unread by most contributors to this forum.

[mono]

One has to read Maugham in order to see how realistic his writing is as compared to that of James. If you haven't yet managed to do so, perhaps you will give Maugham a try and see what he meant. One of his most critically acclaimed works is The Painted Veil and is a good example of how to write a complex story without resorting to verbosity. I hope I'm not being presumptious but I am constantly amazed that, apart from Of Human Bondage, Maugham, who was one of the greatest story tellers of the 20th century, all too often appears to remain unread by most contributors to this forum.
Unfortunately, I have not read everything by both authors, only Of Human Bondage (in my opinion, one of the best novels ever composed) and Cakes and Ale by Maugham, and The Portrait of a Lady, The Turn of the Screw, The Aspern Papers, and a mere handful of short stories by James. In terms of who writes more realistically, I would have to really think about it, but there seems a considerable amount of more introspection and reflection in Maugham's characters that gives them a realistic feel, and he digs deeper into his characters' psyches than the common author; he does not simply scratch on the surface, and does not require the verbosity of Dickens, while James' borderline-pretentiousness can certainly shine through his characters, and Isabel Archer fits a perfect lump of clay his hands molded - he shaped his characters with precision, but the component of lacking depth (never psychologically, however), I suppose, can subtract from the characters' realism and believability.

[LitNetIsGreat]

One has to read Maugham in order to see how realistic his writing is as compared to that of James. If you haven't yet managed to do so, perhaps you will give Maugham a try and see what he meant. One of his most critically acclaimed works is The Painted Veil and is a good example of how to write a complex story without resorting to verbosity. I hope I'm not being presumptious but I am constantly amazed that, apart from Of Human Bondage, Maugham, who was one of the greatest story tellers of the 20th century, all too often appears to remain unread by most contributors to this forum.

I have this book at home, I'll give it a read. Incidentally it is one of my wife's favourite films, with Edward Norton, have you see it?

[Emil Miller]

Unfortunately, I have not read everything by both authors, only Of Human Bondage (in my opinion, one of the best novels ever composed) and Cakes and Ale by Maugham, and The Portrait of a Lady, The Turn of the Screw, The Aspern Papers, and a mere handful of short stories by James. In terms of who writes more realistically, I would have to really think about it, but there seems a considerable amount of more introspection and reflection in Maugham's characters that gives them a realistic feel, and he digs deeper into his characters' psyches than the common author; he does not simply scratch on the surface, and does not require the verbosity of Dickens, while James' borderline-pretentiousness can certainly shine through his characters, and Isabel Archer fits a perfect lump of clay his hands molded - he shaped his characters with precision, but the component of lacking depth (never psychologically, however), I suppose, can subtract from the characters' realism and believability.

I think the perfect example among Maugham's characters that underlines his realism is that of Mildred Rogers in Of Human Bondage. A character that James would never have dared to create.


I have this book at home, I'll give it a read. Incidentally it is one of my wife's favourite films, with Edward Norton, have you see it?

No, that is the version released in 2007 which got very good reviews, and neither have I seen the original screen version filmed in 1934 and starring Greta Garbo and Herbert Marshall, although I have read the book three times, twice in English and once in a German translation. Maugham always based his characters and settings in places that he had personal knowlege of and his extensive travels in China enabled him to give powerful athenticity to the story.

[mortalterror]

Love Maugham. Hate James. Of Human Bondage is an amazing novel. Washington Square is quite the bore. I was really digging OHB until the very end when I was like "What? This isn't how the story is supposed to end." That last part wasn't very realistic, and just contrasted horribly with how true to life the previous parts of the novel had been. Otherwise, an incredible reading experience.

[Emil Miller]

Love Maugham. Hate James. Of Human Bondage is an amazing novel. Washington Square is quite the bore. I was really digging OHB until the very end when I was like "What? This isn't how the story is supposed to end." That last part wasn't very realistic, and just contrasted horribly with how true to life the previous parts of the novel had been. Otherwise, an incredible reading experience.

I agree that the ending to OHB does appear rather lame and I have heard the same criticism expressed by others, but in retrospect I think Maugham was making an oblique reference to Voltaire's 'Il faut cultiver notre jardin' at the end of Candide.