Why Should We Read Henry James?

I've read much good literature, but I've always read widely but not deep. For example, I'm well-read in American Literature, having read Hawthorne, Melville, Thoreau, Crane, Twain, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Hemingway, Salinger, Bellow, and Roth. I've read most of the novels of the last three authors, but, of the others, I've read only two or three. I've also read a representative few of the so-called great books or classics, The Odyssey, Don Quixote, many of Shakespeare's plays, War and Peace, and Crime and Punishment. There are many gaps in my reading, Milton, for example, Jane Austin, and, to the point, Henry James. I always look forward to filling these gaps, but I find, when I do, sometimes I'm pleased and sometimes disappointed. Five years ago I read Stendahl's The Red and the Black with an on-line reading group. I thought it was one of the worst books I've ever read. How could it have been on so many lists of the world's great books? I felt the same reading Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels. And, so do I feel having just completed Henry James' The American. I've sought out a James website to air my complaints.

Frankly, I think The American is a terrible book. There isn't much of a plot, but then I'd heard not to expect much from James insofar as plot is concerned, the meat of his novels is in the interaction of his psychologically well-develeoped characters. Sorry, I didn't like his characters either. I did not care for any character in this book. The main character, Christopher Newman, who, I suppose, is not a bad guy, in many respects. He's made a lot of money, but he never cheated anyone or took unfair advantage. He has made his money honestly, but, in my estimation, he's a shallow character who doesn't inspire me, the reader, to identify with him. He shares the ethnic prejudices of his day ( "No Irish need apply." and "Conditions suitable for a white man." are propositions he believes in). He goes to Europe to "do the tourist thing." He wants to get married, but demands what we would call today a "trophy wife." I don't like him and, consequently, I can't share his disappointment when he's unfairly rebuffed in his attempts to "acquire" the aristocratic Madame de Cintre by her haughty older brother and her mean-spirited mother.

And what about James' supposed psychological development of his characters? Newman certainly isn't very psychologically well-developed. He's fascinated by Madame de Cintre, but we don't get any insight as to why she is so appealing to him except for her pedigree and her "eyes." Newman makes no attempt in his courtship of her to find out who she really is. There is nothing going on during the several months that he courts her expect polite talk and social small talk.

It is to Newman's credit that, in the end, when he could extract some vengence against the de Bellegardes, he doesn't, That, I suppose, is the point to the novel, but I found Newman so unsympathetic that I couldn't enjoy this small moral victory too much. If he had any sense in the first place and if he wasn't so blinded by his desire for his trophy, he should have known very early that the aristocratic de Bellegardes didn't want to have anything to do with him. I found his persistence somewhat laughable.

So my question is why is Henry James considered as great as he is when, in this novel, at any rate, he gives us no plot and characters we don't care about? My only answer is that I probably shouldn't take this as a representative novel. It is any early one, I realiize. Maybe he got a lot better. If he wrote with a graceful style in this one, I could, possibly, see some hope. But that brings me to my third objection, the style of this novel is turgid. I can select any page at random and find an example: "He greeted her with high geniality and bade her come in and sit down and make herself comfortable. There is something which might have touched the springs both of mirth and of melancholy in the ancient maidenliness with which Mrs. Bread endeavored to comply with these directions." I don't know, but I would think that this and most of James' style would benefit from a good editor who would pare down his rhetoric. "He enthusiastically greeted her and asked her to come in and sit down and make herself comfortable. There was something both funny and sad at the way Mrs. Bread was unable to do so."

I would like someone to convince me that I'm wrong and that Henry James is the great author so many have said he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C. R.

I would like someone to convince me that I'm wrong and that Henry James is the great author so many have said he is.

---

No one can do this. You must decide for yourself whether you agree with the generally-held idea that he is a great author. But you would be cheating yourself if you decided in the negative based only on The American. It is only really "representative" in the sense that it deals with an American in Europe.

Quote:

---

My only answer is that I probably shouldn't take this as a representative novel.

---

That's the spirit!

Quote:

---

There isn't much of a plot, but then I'd heard not to expect much from James insofar as plot is concerned, the meat of his novels is in the interaction of his psychologically well-develeoped characters. Sorry, I didn't like his characters either. I did not care for any character in this book.

---

Well, one might actually argue that the more "psychologically well-developed" a character is, the less likable they necessarily are... ;)

Anyways, my prescription is to have a go at The Portrait of a Lady. If you want something a little shorter, maybe The Beast in the Jungle or perhaps The Aspern Papers. But Portrait is really where it's at. It's considered (by him as well as everyone else) his first masterpiece. If you don't like it, you can pretty well conclude that he isn't your thing. Part one isn't the most eventful thing (the author felt this way as well), but I didn't find this particularly bothersome while I was reading it. And it has, if not exactly likable, still much better drawn characters. Of course, Ralph Touchett is my favorite character in literature, so there is at least one person the reader can like.

I've tried reading The American and The Portrait of a Lady at least twice but could never get beyond the early chapters. Even Daisy Miller, I had to put aside for some 20 years before I could pick it up again and read it to the end. But this time, I loved the story!

The Turn of the Screw is by far his best work. (Or maybe I just like a good ghost story). If you are looking for in-depth psychological development, this is where it is. If you can read that and say Henry James is terrible, then he probably isn't the author for you -- which is nothing to be ashamed of. I know plenty of people who can't stand him. His writing style does border on pretentious at times.

Just don't be scared off by the introduction (I almost was.)

The problem is the myth of well developed characters...
Henry James does not exactly changes much his characters, they are more like well defined actors since the first page. His psychological work is the interation between the characters. The plot is "absent" because what James shows is the characters reactions to the their surroudings.
Now, my question is Why should Henry James not be considered a great writer if all that you said just indicates that you did not liked him? I suppose that needs more than one person, one experience to change a status gained in a century and after life and work that had influences on writers like Borges or Virginia Woolf, right?
Do not overate our own experiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Intended

Just don't be scared off by the introduction (I almost was.)

---

Do you mean HJ's Preface?
I would add that one should probably avoid the Prefaces altogether until one has finished the work in question. And there's really no reason to read introductions either until afterwards, as they tend to give away a good deal of the story.

It also wouldn't be a bad idea to have a look at his essay "The Art of Fiction", in order to get an idea of his ideas on the subject. A couple of quotes from it will serve to exemplify:

"The only reason for the existence of a novel is that it does attempt to represent life."

"The only obligation to which in advance we may hold a novel, without incurring the accusation of being arbitrary, is that it be interesting."

No, no. It's not a preface. Its the first chapter in the story literally called the Introducton, because it's just establishing the character actually telling the story (it's a frame tale). It's hard to explain, and when you read it, its very easy to go: "This is confusing/boring" and put it down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Intended

No, no. It's not a preface. Its the first chapter in the story literally called the Introducton, because it's just establishing the character actually telling the story (it's a frame tale). It's hard to explain, and when you read it, its very easy to go: "This is confusing/boring" and put it down.

---

OH! Yes, I remember now. You mean the bit with the narrator who introduces the governess before reading her account...? ("The story had held us, round the fire, sufficiently breathless...")
Well, I suppose one should actually go ahead and read that. :) (Though, in truth, it wouldn't spoil it completely to skip on to chapter one; it is, of course, a vital chapter for coming to a more complicated understanding as to the question of the governess's reliability.)

And welcome, The Intended!

I'll put my two cents worth in for The Ambassadors.
I think you would find The Wings of the Dove much like the American in that none of the characters (although thoroughly psychologically developed) is particularly appealing. I found them all loathsome at one level or another.
The characters in The Ambassadors were appealing and intriguing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PabloQ

I'll put my two cents worth in for The Ambassadors.
I think you would find The Wings of the Dove much like the American in that none of the characters (although thoroughly psychologically developed) is particularly appealing. I found them all loathsome at one level or another.
The characters in The Ambassadors were appealing and intriguing.

---

I most of this over winter break; unfortunately classes resumed about hundred pages away from the end, which means I've now failed to finish all three of the last works - looks like a nice summer project. I like the pacing of this work, and the characters are indeed delightful, but I do suspect I'll be drifting toward the camp that finds it a somewhat unworthy idea for that level of artistry...
What's so bad about Merton and Milly? Based on the 2/3 I read (and the film), they both seem pretty alright.
Personally, I've probably enjoyed The Golden Bowl the most of these last three novels, having read the first half. But we shall see...

In any event, I would second the suggestion of The Ambassadors.

I don't really know what to convey to the OP. James can be insufferable, and he can't really write about anything or anyone outside of his class. Even The Pupil and The Cage are derivative of monied Victorian Europeans and Americans--which is why his mid-career novel, Princess Casamassima, is a failure. James cannot, like the Russians, deal with social justice.

That said, learning to read James is rewarding, and the implications of his views downright sinister. No one holds a candle to his master works, not a one. I've read Portrait at least 12 times, GB 3, Dove 1 and a half, and so on, but he is an acquired taste, because he will never state the obvious for the reader to make it easy.

The Intended, is your name a reference to Heart of Darkness in anyway? Like Kurtz's fiancee?

Henry James does sometimes have a verbosity which is bordering on long-winded. Currently reading The Golden Bowl- very dense writing. I like the book but it requires a lot of concentration.

What Maisie Knew was easier to read and I really liked it. I think that James' characters are interesting.

Having recently read Washington Square, The Other House, The Golden Bowl, The Turn of the Screw, The Aspern Papers, Daisy Miller, I'm half way though The Wings of the Dove and captivated.

I love the plausible sophistication of his portrayal of the mental world of his characters - far more intricate than, say, Dostoevsky's. His endings too are stunning. Nevertheless, I was disappointed with both The Other House and The Turn of the Screw.

I really want to read the Wings of The Dove- the film was very good.

I just started the Turn of the Screw recently an its my first exposure to James. So far I'm just enamored with his craft; his prose excites me a titillates my palate so distinctly, and the way he presents a setting and almost imperceptibly adds dramatic tension has completely overshadowed the story itself. I do not care what will happen to this governess and her charges, I just want to read James description of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oshima

I do not care what will happen to this governess and her charges, I just want to read James description of it.

---

Welcome to Henry James. I began with Washington Square (1880) a couple of years back and have not stopped. By comparison with the enchanting What Maisie Knew (1897), my last novel, and what I am presently reading of The Awkward Age (1899), the novella The Turn of the Screw (1898) is a comparatively easy read. Most of James' later novels tend to be slow and challenging reads. The grammar of sentences tends to be impenetrable until the last clause.

I should say that this and The Other House (1896) are the only two works of Henry James that I would scarcely recommend. The other dozen have been wonderful.