Salem State University - Clipper Yearbook

Page 29 text:

The Novels of Margaret Deland and Frances Hodgson Burnett The author of a novel, if the novel is to be worth while, writes with some purpose in mind. According to the worthiness of the purpose and the effectiveness with which it is carried out, the book is considered strong or weak. The purpose may be making historical scenes real, it may be the study of character, or it may be social reform, but whatever it is, the treatment ought to be convincing. A marked difference in the books of Margaret Deland and Frances Hodgson Burnett is noticeable. Margaret Deland aims at the study and development of character, her books are personal rather than social. Mrs. Burnett, on the other hand, does not aim at character development, she takes almost all her characters ready-made and made, too, to suit her purpose. The principal characters of Mrs. Burnett's books are mainly divisible into two classes: the good, for instance, Betty Vanderpoel in the Shuttle, Joan Lowrie and Dei- rick in That Lass 0' Lowrie's, and the bad, like Sir Nigel Anstruthers and Joan Lowrie's father. The good are generally the strong, the bad, the weak. There are also a few characters who are weak and helpless, but not essentially bad, as Rosa Vanderpoel in the Shuttle and Polly in the Dawn of a Tomorrow. The story consists of a struggle be- tween the good and bad characters, resulting in the victory of the good, the marriage of the hero and the heroine, the alleviation of the suffering of the poor from some plentiful source of wealth, and the protection of the weak, who are not bad. In Margaret Deland's books we find, instead of decidedly good or bad characters, good and bad characteristics in the same character often contrasted with good and bad characteristics of an opposite nature in another character. Mrs. Maitland is strong, but rough and coarse, Blair is weak, but refined and sensitive. The result is to arouse our sympathy for both. This is far truer to life. It is not in life the case of all good against all bad which brings perplexing results, it is rather the pitiful blunders and misunder- standings of such people as Blair Maitland and his mother, each with good qualities capable of development, but each capable of the faults most irritating to the other and incapable of understanding the other. It was no wonder that Blair called it ugly-the house, the orchard, the works-even his mother, in her rusty black alpaca dress, sitting at her desk in the big, dingy dining-room, driving her body and soul, and the bodies and souls of her workmen-all for the sake of the little shrinking boy, who wanted a bunch of flowers on the table. In the Awakening of Helena Richie, there is a similar combination of qualities in the same character. Mrs. Burnett would not have ventured to make a merely weak char- acter the principal character of a book. She leaves the weak characters to occupy sub- ordinate positions. Helena Richie is decidedly weak, rather unmoral than immoral. She would not seem to many writers an interesting character to write about, yet Mar- garet Deland has made her interesting. She takes care to arouse our sympathy for her so that we really care about her and her happiness. In the same way, in the Hands of Esau it is the struggle within one character which we are concerned with. No one who reads the book can doubt that Nina's lover is a de- cent, respectable young man. He seems worthy of his good fortune. His weakness is only slight, hardly amounting to a fault. It is shown in not more than three places, and in these it seems almost excusable. So thoroughly are we in sympathy with him that, when it comes to the question of whether he will or will not tell Nina the secret, we are almost inclined to believe that he will. It is just this that holds the attention of the reader,-this uncertainty so like the uncertainty of real life. There is also some ques- tion as to which side is right. Both the Iron Woman and the Hands of Esau are left in the same uncertainty, which sets us thinking. The question in the Iron Woman is not 21

Page 28 text:

The pigs grunted approvingly and the hens said, Yes-I-think-sol Yes-I-think-str too! The big rooster hopped on the fence rail and said, I-shall-surely-win, I-shall- surely-win. But what kind of a contest shall we have 3 said Dinah. Let it be a flying contest, said the rooster. Mehitable can't fly, and we'l1 say the one who can fly the quickest to that limb on the sweet apple tree shall be our ruler. I guess not, said Dinah and the pigs. Mehitable can't fly and no more can we, so of course you'd win. I know a good contest, said one of the pigs. Let it be a rooting contest. The one who can root the deepest hole from milking time in the morning 'till milking time at night shall be our ruler, and Mehitable can't root. I guess not, said Dinah and the hens. 'tYou're the only one that can root, so of course yould win. I knowln said Dinah, who was usually very wise on all important matters. We can all run, can't we? And I know Mehitable with her spavins and stiff joints has all she can do to hobble around, let alone running. When Farmer Brown turns us into the fields, as he always does after haying, we'1l race from here to the wall at the end of the field. Although the pigs and hens felt that they hadn't a fair chance at running against Dinah, they agreed to the plan, and told Mehitable about it. Mehitable listened without even blinking an eye. When they had finished she said, A fine ideal A fine idea l A few weeks later the barnyard was in happy confusion, for Farmer Brown was let- ting down the bars into the field. At once all the barnyard folks started on the run. Dinah was in the lead. Although she was not graceful in running, she could run steadily and keep up a moderate speed. Poor Mehitable thought, I can't have this. I had no idca my legs were so stiff or I would never have agreed to the plan. The hens were so excited that they lost their heads completely, while the pigs were tired before they had hardly got out of the barnyard. Dinah felt sure she would win. When nearly to the wall, she glanced over her shoulder and what was her surprise to find Mehitable scarcely a neck behind her! Me- hitahle was no longer stiff, and in a moment she shot past Dinah to the goal. She stood still a minute, kicked up her heels, and dropped to the ground, dead. So Mehitable died as she had lived, the ruler of the barnyard, and Dinah, feeling very shcepish, began to eat grass. 37 M. I. K., 1916. flt eiaffk

Page 30 text:

definitely settled. Helena Richie and Robert Ferguson have different opinions on the matter, and we are left to ours. Nina's lover feels that he is justified in his course, and there is much justice on his side. Why should he not say it was nobody's business what his father did, that he had a right to lead his own life regardless of the past and let the dead alone? Then, too, in keeping silence, he is doing only what his mother had done to him. Mrs. Deland's custom of ending a novel with a doubt in the mind of the reader as to the final outcome of the story is in direct contrast to Mrs. Burnett's method. Mrs. Burnett, as well as most other writers, does not venture to leave a story with an unhappy ending, she would think it unsatisfactory. A broken engagement, a disappointed young man, a sad and heart-broken girl are not her idea of a proper ending for a story. Yet it is this ending that gives the story its effectiveness. The ending of the Awakening of Helena Richie is not simply the happy clearing up of all troubles. It is not with light-hearted joy, but with grave doubts and responsibilities resting upon her, that Hel- ena Richie leaves Old Chester. To Mrs. Burnett, a satisfactory ending must settle things to the discomfiture of the evil doers and the happiness of the good, as in the marriage of J oan and Derrick, Betty and Lord Mount Dunstan, and the victory over Dan Lowrie and Sir Nigel. To Mrs. Deland, a satisfactory ending requires the settling of a problem, -the awakening of Helena Richie, the determination of Nina's happiness, the course of Elizabeth and David. The great weakness of Mrs. Burnett's books lies in their unreality. Good and ad- mirable women do not always fall in love with equally good and admirable men, marry, and live happy ever after. Wicked people do not always meet with swift and proper punishment. No person like Betty Vanderpoel ever existed. If we could believe in her existence, it would not be a help nor inspiration to us to do so. She is so far above possibility that it would be of no use for anyone to try to be like her. People suffering from want do not always meet some one who is able and willing to supply all their needs and give them what they want most. In life, the suffering and poverty go on forever, and if in a few chance cases, things are made better, it makes little difference to the general mass of sufferers. Nothing could be more unlikely than the story of the Dawn of a Tomorrow. When did a rich man ever swoop down among a selected group of wretched but deserving poor, receive inspiration from them, and in retur11 carry out all their wishes? Mrs. Burnett depends upon wealth for most of her transformations rather than upon natural influences, as Margaret Deland does. Her characters do not change essentially, as Margaret Deland's do. Joan Lowrie is a good and admirable woman, whether she reads the Bible or not. 'fGlad never becomes any better or worse than she is before she meets Sir Oliver Holt, except that money enables her to lead a less wretclied life. Not a character in the Shuttle changes in any important particular. Mrs. liurnettls sct.tings, English and Scotch, are less familiar to us, and she uses a great deal of Scotch dialect and American slang. These features ought to make her books more interesting, and they do make them more interesting than they would be without, but Margaret Deland, with ordinary settings and no unusual language, is really the more fascinating of the two. It is the reality which makes her so. She shows what ordinary people can do in ordinary circumst.ances. It may be objected that Dr. Laven- der was too good to exist. Margaret Deland did not mean him as a character to be emu- lated. hat rather as an influence. lt is the human, erring, struggling ones, and most of hr-r characters are such, in whom we see our likeness. NVith them we can turn to Dr. Lavendf-r tn settle Holm- of our problems for us. As keen as George Eliot in reading character because she is able to see all sides at once, and as skillful in portraying it be- cause she does not have to depend upon direct characterization, Margaret Deland has infused a strong purpose into her works and has made them a powerful influence. 22