British and Irish Literature Archives - Page 5 of 10

John Stuart Mill: Thinker and Human

I have taught English for several years now to a boy with cerebral palsy. He is about eighteen and he does not get out much. His English is excellent, and he is intelligent, but after several years I am tired out and really do not know what else to teach him. Still, one of the good things that has come from this pairing has been that I have been given an excuse to read authors that I would not otherwise have done. Carlyle is one such author. Another is John Stuart Mill, the noted 19^th century British philosopher. We read Utilitarianism and On Liberty some time ago and now we are reading Mill’s Autobiography. In Aileen Kelly’s Herzen Mill was mentioned as one of Herzen’s favourite discoveries, and he was also praised highly by Bertrand Russell (Mill’s godson for a brief year!) – another thinker I was reading recently.

Nevertheless, I had little desire to read Mill, on account of the fact that liberalism is relatively boring. People should be free to do what they want so long as they don’t hurt others – very well. Society can be a pain – indeed it can. Increasing the general happiness is important – really, I had no idea. But Mill is a more complicated thinker than these pithy statements make him out to be, and in particular I found his Autobiography very interesting. For those readers who haven’t seen the point of Mill, I propose to provide a few things I enjoyed in these three works.

On Liberty

The purpose of Mill’s essay is to work out the limits to the power that can legitimately be exercised over the individual by society and government. The tyranny of the “will of the people” is something that Mill faced in his personal life, carrying on an intense friendship with a married woman which created great difficulties for him. The majority or the group that can get others to accept it as the majority will doubtless lead to oppressing the minority, so checks and balances must be created. But where, and of what sort?

The argument, as summarised by Mill, is as follows: “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. … In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

How, on the basis of this argument, can we have a good society? Firstly, by a free press. Secondly, by having as many opinions as possible. This latter suggestion I particularly liked. Mill argues that if the dissenter from popular opinion is wrong, they learn the truth by speaking out. Meanwhile, those who are correct come to appreciate the truth more. And often both sides may share some truth. “All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility,” so either way we must always listen to others. Unfortunately, Mill’s views presuppose that arguments are made in good faith, and that people are willing to change their views if proven wrong. I believe the experience of a global pandemic seems to suggest that some people are unwilling to accept alternative viewpoints, whatever the strength of their foundations. (This is a dig at those against vaccinations, not those sceptical of them.)

If we live in fear, we will not speak out. This ultimately destroys independent thought, and the general development of a given community. At the same time, we must all work to “understand the grounds of one’s own opinions”. A free debate cannot proceed unless both sides know their foundations. A view without known foundations cannot be harmed through argument, but it can be terribly harmful.

Happiness is having the freedom to act according to one’s inner light. It consists in being spontaneous – the very thing society tends not to tolerate. Society, often internalised, leads to a “despotism of custom”. Contrary to the suggestion of coldness and rigidity, Mill’s idea of flourishing here is very freeform – “Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing.”

Liberty ends when harm begins. If we harm others the law must be ready. But if we harm only ourselves, we have only ourselves to blame. The punishment for this is simply a bad reputation, and your friends turning away from you. Once we are adults, we are responsible for our decisions. Nobody can force us to change, or to act in a different way. A big government is unnecessary for Mill because it tends to make of us small people. In the field of human affairs, the government should less prohibit, than act as a guide. A sugar tax, rather than a sugar ban – for example – would be what Mill would propose.

Mill’s essay is marked by a certain gloom. He sees the development of society as leading to a general personal decline into slavish similarity. Communication, commerce, and technological advances have all brought people more in touch with one another, but at the same time they all have reduced the differentiation of the individual. Public opinion, growing ever stronger and more similar, becomes less willing to tolerate dissenting views. Finally, “mankind speedily become unable to conceive diversity, when they have been for some time unaccustomed to see it”. Liberty is lost when homogeneity means nobody has any use for it.

Mill’s piece remains useful today firstly as a reminder of the value of listening to others and understanding the basis of our own opinions, and secondly by arguing for the minimal intrusion of others onto the freedom of the individual. “That the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself”, is a challenging statement that we may not agree with. But it is useful to hear, to turn over in our minds. If for no other reasons that it makes us think upon our own answer to the question of the relationship between society and the individual.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is about right and wrong. The philosophical idea was first put down by Jeremy Bentham, a friend of Mill’s father, in the form of “the greatest-happiness principle”. An action is good if it increases the general happiness, and bad if it doesn’t. This raised some issues, such as whether happy idiots are better-off than less happy intelligent people. It was also a rather cold doctrine, seemingly devaluing the arts in favour of more coarse pleasures such as eating and carousing. These are issues that Mill seeks to address in his essay.

Mill begins by noting that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure”. Happiness is desirable as an end, but that does not mean that simple pleasures are the most valuable. He suggests that we are capable of comparing pleasures, and in this way determining which of a given two is better. Having listened to some Mozart and eaten a burger I can decide for myself which I prefer. Now, many people may choose the burger (including, possibly, me). But Mill does not despair at this possibility, instead he draws a distinction between happiness and contentedness.

Contented people are generally stupider, meaning they require less pleasures and less complex pleasures. Intelligent people are more demanding of their pleasures, and also have a desire for more complex ones. Since we know the difference, we can say that “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”. But the fool or the pig cannot agree – and nor could we expect them to.

Just as in On Liberty, here too Mill is concerned with the kind of world that allows for human flourishing. In this essay Mill argues that we need sufficient time to develop our tastes for pleasure, otherwise we will lose them. In a mediocre, unfree society, there will be mediocre and boring pleasures and a lower sort of happiness predominating. The present age, for Mill, with its poor education and dreadful social arrangements, does not let us be as happy as we could be, or develop as much as we could.

Education is particularly important for Mill. In On Liberty, he identified it as the period of a person’s life where we can form people’s tastes before they become entirely responsible for themselves. In Utilitarianism, Mill sees education as playing a key role in helping us to harmonise our idea of our own happiness with the general happiness. Through education we can shape our consciences to be more utilitarian, so that we come to see the interests of others as being more equal to our own interests.

Utilitarianism is really annoying because it’s hard to argue against it for a layman like myself. In its modern form, such as propounded by Peter Singer, it’s thoroughly miserable-making. Can I justify having any money at all when I could give it to the poor and make their lives considerably happier? Singer’s Effective Altruism really appears, when thought through, to be the least we can do, and yet it is more than most of us do. Mill and Singer are not the same person, and Mill’s piece is simpler and less demanding.

At the same time, Utilitarianism does still suffer a little from a belief in human rationality. I remember thinking of Dostoevsky while I read it – a man whose writings time and again demonstrate that people can choose suffering over happiness. Mill might argue that Dostoevsky’s characters are made happy by being miserable, and I’m sure many depressed people would concur with the statement that in despair there can often be something sweet.

Thinking about it now, however, I’m not sure a Dostoevskian objection really holds up – what Dostoevsky is fundamentally after is affirming a sense of human dignity, in other words saying that I’m not a pig but a human being. Taking away our dignity by taking away our responsibility for our actions, as do the great systems (including utilitarianism) that his characters rail against, ultimately deprives us of the foundation of our happiness – our freedom. In other words, we can be against utilitarianism while still fitting very snugly into a utilitarian conception of human ends and means. The fact that such a thought would probably bring The Underground Man to suicide does not devalue it – it just suggests we shouldn’t tell him!

Autobiography – The Childhood

Mill’s Autobiography is another interesting text that throws light upon the concerns of the other two essays, both by answering some of our criticisms about them, and by explaining the character of the man who wrote them. John Stuart Mill was an extraordinary character. At the age of 3 he was learning Greek, at the age of 8 he had taught himself Latin. He was writing and being published in the leading newspapers of the day while still a teenager. And the fact that we are reading him today indicates that all this education led to the creation of a formidable thinker, as well as just a precocious child.

Mill’s purpose in the Autobiography is to leave “some record of an education which was unusual and remarkable.” Under his father’s watchful eye, Mill learned everything under the sun. Pushed relentlessly, he learned that “a pupil from whom nothing is ever demanded which he cannot do, never does all he can.” Yet at the same time, the text is riddled with tensions. Mill was allowed no holidays; he had no friends. He felt bitter about being unlike other children, had trouble dressing himself and tying knots. Worse than that, “Mine was not an education of love but of fear.” These thoughts are hidden from sight, exorcised from the text by Mill’s wife and then later by his stepdaughter. His father alternates between awe-inspiring intellectual power and terrible coldness. The result of such an influence was that for a long time Mill lacked confidence and the ability to think for himself.

Mill’s mother does not receive a mention. I had thought perhaps she had died in childbirth, but apparently Mill was the eldest of nine children (they too are barely mentioned). Mill apparently found no warmth in his mother capable of making up for his father’s coolness. And so, stunted by this childhood, Mill developed, learning a great deal, but feeling very little – he considers himself at this time a mere “reasoning machine” – until he reached the age of twenty and had a great and terrible crisis.

Autobiography – The Crisis

From his birth Mill had been raised to be a reformer of the world, and he had believed wholeheartedly in that goal. “My conception of my own happiness was entirely identified with this object”. Yet one day Mill asks himself whether he’d be happy if he achieved this goal, and he realised that he would not. Finding the end unrewarding, Mill can no longer see any value in the means and pursuing it. Though he continued to write, the light had gone out inside him. He felt desperately lonely, and could confide in no-one, least of all his father. He realised that his analytical abilities had done him just as much harm as good, because they had ruined his ability to feel. They were “a perpetual worm at the root both of the passions and of the virtues”.

Mill escaped from his despair, which was psychological as much as intellectual, through the help of art – he read Wordsworth for the first time. This led him to appreciate that “the internal culture” of an individual is more important than he’d realised. Happiness can lie not just in improving the world, but in art too. Indeed, Mill came to realise that happiness couldn’t be what we strive after – in something vaguely reminiscent of Wittgenstein, he noticed that whenever we asked ourselves if we were happy, we ceased being so. In other words, the resolution to our problems is a dissolution of them. In pursuing another worthwhile goal, Mill thought, “you will inhale happiness with the air you breathe, without dwelling on it or thinking about it, without either forestalling it in imagination, or putting it to flight by fatal questioning”. Suddenly utilitarianism does not seem so restrictive after all.

Autobiography – Harriet

Mrs Harriet Taylor, who later became Mill’s wife, was a married woman when they met in his early twenties. But in spite of this the two struck up an extremely intense and rewarding, and apparently platonic, friendship that lasted until her death in 1858. This friendship was “the honour and chief blessing of my existence” and Mill’s praise for his wife is extraordinary for the intensity of the feeling that it conveys. For Mill, Harriet was essential in making him the mature writer we associate with him. Where he had come to his conclusions about life through cold analysis and study, Harriet had come to the same conclusions through her feelings and empathy. Together, they created works like On Liberty and Utilitarianism, combining both approaches to the problems at hand.

Father’s Death, Political Career

Mill’s Autobiography is primarily a record of the first twenty-five or so years of his life, when all the major developments in his thought are taking place. The rest of his life is simply a long chapter at the end. Of this, aside from the records of what he wrote, the most interesting thing is Mill’s description of his brief stint as an MP.

Mill was put forward by some friends to be MP for Westminster. He refused to do any campaigning except at the end, and he also wrote a public letter in which he declared he would not fight for local interests. Nevertheless, he was elected. In Parliament he had a more direct effect on the affairs of state which he had attempted to alter from afar through newspapers and journals, but his radicalism – however normal it seems to us today – did him no favours. He fought for the Irish, for the colonies – in short, he was true to his views. All of these, sadly, were minority views. After the conservatives found themselves under threat, they themselves campaigned more seriously in the next election and Mill was thrown out. He had been an MP for all of three years.

Concluding Remarks

Mill’s Autobiography was written, at least in part, with the goal also of thanking those in whose debt he was for his development. It is at times tedious to read all these names, most of whom are well-forgotten these days. The prose is also rather stodgy. And yet, in spite of all that, I’m rather glad I read it. Mill’s book is not one of those tell-all gossipy biographies, but instead it serves a far more important purpose. It justifies his other works by answering for the man behind them. It shows that his ideas came not just from the cool reasoning of a man behind his desk, but also from the warm-heartedness and appreciation for internal development that it took a crisis and deep friendship to create. It also provides a clear example of how utilitarian ideas can be compatible with a well-lived, ultimately passionate, life. Meanwhile, Mill’s political work shows how committed he was to the ideas of On Liberty.

In sum, Mill’s Autobiography enriches his other works by showing that he had worked and lived enough to write them from a wealth of experience alongside the rational calculation we might expect. I am very glad I read all three.

The Letters of Joseph Conrad

I read Conrad’s letters because I find him a powerful if at times impenetrable artist. Unlike with other favourites, whose works may be complex but nevertheless generally manage to be at least somewhat clear to the reader, Conrad’s tales often are opaque in both language and content. I wanted to see whether his letters would help clarify matters. Another reason is that Conrad is one of the English language’s most interesting stylists. His tales are dark, gloomy, illuminated only by brief flashes of lightning. I thought that perhaps by going behind the scenes I might discover the system of cogs and wheels that made possible such great works as Nostromo and Heart of Darkness.

Over the course of five hundred pages we get to know Conrad reasonably well. The author, who spent the first half of his life at sea, has few surviving letters from that time, making him as much of a biographical mystery as any of his characters. Instead, we read the letters of Conrad the writer. These are at times touching, as when he writes to his wife, or funny, as when he writes of his critics (“There is even one abandoned creature who says I am a neo-platonist. What on earth is that?”), and at times merely dull. As with Dostoevsky, Conrad spent most of his life without much money and was always asking to borrow some from his friends. I also got almost as fed up of Conrad denying he was a writer of the sea as he got from being accused of it. And as for his gout…

The letters are interesting to people who want to get a feel for how Conrad created his own works. I particularly liked his comment on Lord Jim beingbut “a hash of episodes, little thumbnail sketches of fellows one has rubbed shoulders with and so on”. But they are more interesting for providing clear – for Conrad – statements about how he wrote and what he thought. Such things we might pick up from his work but when laid out here they may still be useful or at the very least interesting. It is around these areas which this piece will be structured, with the result that my comments will be limited. Conrad can speak, or rather write, for himself.

Life

Conrad’s view of the world is often described as pessimistic, even nihilistic. Fate is cruel, merciless, and incomprehensible. This comes across in his letters too, although it is more pronounced earlier on – at the time of Heart of Darkness and Lord Jim – than when he was more established as a writer:

“Life knows us not and we do not know life – we don’t know even our own thoughts. Half the words we use have no meaning whatever and of the other half each man understands each word after the fashion of his own folly and conceit. Faith is a myth and beliefs shift like mists on the shore; thoughts vanish; words, once pronounced, die; and the memory of yesterday is as shadowy as the hope of to-morrow”

A certain lack of faith in humankind is the keynote. He writes of injustice that the best way to deal with it is to accept it. We might say that he is realistic, rather than pessimistic. It is of no great consequence either way, for a man with a “deep-seated sense of fatality governing this man-inhabited world”.

Our problem, as he sees it, lies in our being conscious of the world. Unlike the brute beasts of the earth, humans are aware of the world’s terrifying valuelessness and suffer all the more for it: “What makes mankind tragic is not that they are the victims of nature, it is that they are conscious of it.” This is a view shared by other pessimists like Thomas Ligotti or Arthur Schopenhauer.

How does Conrad fight off this gloom, what does he believe in? Certainly not Christianity – “Christianity is distasteful to me. I am not blind to its services but the absurd oriental fable from which it starts irritates me”. Instead, Conrad clings to traditional values as his ballast: “What I believe in most is responsibilities of conduct.” When spelled out, his values are spoiled by the sense that they are impossible things, lying beyond our reach:

“I respect courage, truth, fidelity, self-restraint and devotion to the ancient ideals of mankind; and am sorry that, like most men, I fail in the practice of these simple virtues.”

We learn of Conrad’s politics, which are fairly sound. He has sympathy for the Africans and other non-white peoples, even though his views would be old-fashioned today, and his views on slavery are a little tainted by his experience growing up in Poland-Ukraine. Mostly, his politics is marked by the same sense of tireless hopelessness as the rest of his views:

“Every cause is tainted: and you reject this one, espouse that other one as if one were evil and the other good while the same evil you hate is in both, but disguised in different words… What you want to reform are not institutions – it is human nature. … Not that I think mankind intrinsically bad. It is only silly and cowardly. Now You know that in cowardice is every evil – especially that cowardice so characteristic of our civilization”.

Work

So much for Conrad the man. Now we must get to Conrad the writer. This was what I enjoyed the most. Conrad comes across in these letters as a thoroughly human writer. He goes from hope (“labouring against an anxious tomorrow, under the stress of an uncertain future, I have been at times consoled, re-assured and uplifted by a finished page”) to despair (“…writing as I did with a constant, haunting fear of being lost in the midst of thickening untruth”), he struggles with English – his third language – but at no point does he give up completely.

And so, what is his advice to us humble novices?

On le mot juste:

“No word is adequate. The imagination of the reader should be left free to arouse his feeling.” Instead, what you want is “a picture of a mental state”.

On scepticism and truth:

“The fact is you want more scepticism at the very foundation of your work. Scepticism the tonic of minds, the tonic of life, the agent of truth – the way of art and salvation. In a book you should love the idea and be scrupulously faithful to your conception of life. There lies the honour of the writer, not in the fidelity to his personages.”

On the use of detail for establishing reality, and the truth we must hold to, consciously or not:

“A picture of life is saved from failure by the merciless vividness of detail. Like a dream it must be startling, undeniable, absurd, and appalling… Our captivity within the incomprehensible logic of accident is the only fact of the universe. From that reality flows deception and inspiration, error and faith, egoism and sacrifice, love and hate. That truth fearlessly faced becomes an austere and trusted friend, a companion of victory or a giver of peace. While our struggles to escape from it – either through drink or philanthropy; through a theory or through disbelief – make the comedy and the drama of life. To produce a work of art a man must either know or feel that truth – even without knowing it.”

In short, what he recommends is a fidelity to one’s convictions, to one’s vision of the world (though we should know it before we write):

“Everyone must walk in the light of his own heart’s gospel. No man’s light is good to any of his fellows. That’s my creed – from beginning to end. That’s my view of life – a view that rejects all formulas dogmas and principles of other people’s making. These are only a web of illusions. We are too varied. Another man’s truth is only a dismal lie to me.”

And his other useful advice is to be careful about the creation of mystery:

“Explicitness, my dear fellow, is fatal to the glamour of all artistic work, robbing it of all suggestiveness, destroying all illusion”. Explicitness concerns spelling things out, it does not mean that we must rely on deliberately confusing language. On the contrary, “in letters suggestiveness itself – a great quality – must be obtained by precise expression”. There are a number of times when Conrad advises his friends by doing some close reading on a few of their sentences, and changes them to make them less obvious, but much more powerful suggestive, by adding in a perfect turn of phrase.

Conclusion

However much we may struggle at times with Conrad’s own style, and I know I do, it comes from a particular worldview, and fits that view like a glove. The dark world is depicted with a dark and flickering style. And that is what, to me, makes Conrad so great. For it is a style that has only grown more effective over the years and it is the style that is best suited to our own day, with its ambiguity, its dashed hopes, and its great uncertainty.

For readers who have no sympathy for Conrad’s writing, and for those who do, I end on an amusing quote from him about Nostromo, which he had edited lightly over ten years after it had first been published:

“A paragraph of about ten lines has been taken bodily out, for the simple reason that reading it after ten or twelve years I could find no intelligible meaning in it.”

Who has not felt that with Conrad? But who has not, at the same time, felt that even in the vaguest, the most tenebrous of phrases, there lies a suggestion of the dark forces that, like it or not, bubble underneath our world? He’s alright, Conrad, really.

Two Postmodern novellas – A. S. Byatt’s Angels and Insects

A friend of mine is named Antonia, after A.S. Byatt, which was reason enough for me to want to read the author. If any writer can inspire someone so much that they are willing to name their child after them, then that author must be doing something right. I asked my Antonia where to begin with Byatt (thankfully, Antonia is a fan of her namesake) and she suggested I try this collection of two novellas, Angels and Insects. The two stories here, “Morpho Eugenia” and “The Conjugial Angel” are both set in the Victorian period and engage with anxieties relating to the advance of science and its relation to the spirit.

“Morpho Eugenia” tells the story of how a young explorer’s experience of the Amazon and study of Darwin draw him into conflict with the patriarch of an English country home who does not want to see science undermine his religious beliefs. “The Conjugial Angel”, meanwhile, is the story of a group of spiritualists at a séance and the relationship between Emily Jesse, née Tennyson, and her dead fiancé, Arthur Hallam, who was immortalised through her brother Alfred’s poem “In Memoriam”.

Byatt is often named as a postmodernist English writer, and Angels and Insects provides ample evidence for that claim. These novellas are formally inventive, with scientific quotations, real characters, stories-within-stories, and plenty of poetry. At the same time, their settings and topics make them cousins to the German novellas of the nineteenth century, which like Angels and Insects were highly symbolic works, densely packed and interpretatively complex. Byatt’s intelligence is unmissable – she clearly did her reading, whether it be on mediums or on entomology. But is there a heart here, too? I propose to focus on the first story, “Morpho Eugenia”, to answer.

Morpho Eugenia

Morpho Eugenia is a clever and decidedly strange novella. It begins with William Adamson having returned to his benefactor’s home from an expedition to the Amazon, penniless after a shipwreck. Lord and Lady Alabaster have a great many children, and William finds himself falling in love with the eldest daughter, Eugenia. A marriage would be inappropriate, because of the differences in their stations, but William so impresses Lord Alabaster that eventually he grants him his daughter’s hand, and the two end up wedded together. At the house and surrounding estate, William works to sort through Lord Alabaster’s collection of scientific specimens – though the old man does not leave the house himself, still he has his passions and interests.

In addition, William helps Lord Alabaster with a book the latter is working on. Lord Alabaster is determined to prove the “argument by design” – that nature’s complexity proves God’s existence. William, a Darwinist, is to help Alabaster by challenging his ideas. William’s final role is to provide some education for the younger Alabaster children, and to this end he builds various exhibits in the house – anthills to be monitored, and the like. In this he is helped by the servants and by a young woman attached to the household, Matty Crompton.

Insects and People

At first “Morpho Eugenia” appears to set itself up to be a standard tragic love story, as so many novellas are – I thought of Storm’s “Aquis Submersus” and Hofmann’s “Sandman” when William wrote in his diary that fatal phrase “I shall die if I cannot have her”, referring to Eugenia. Instead, William marries Eugenia quite successfully, and they produce many children of their own over the course of the story. But at this point the story seems to take on another classic novella idea – that of madness. William has returned from a world untouched by civilization, as his fellow Englishmen might understand it, to a luxurious country estate. Yet from the first moments, when William takes part in a ball, he finds himself noting many similarities between the two worlds- from the elaborate dresses of Amazon women and young British ladies, to the dances themselves.

As time goes on, these comparisons become more and more forceful. Eugenia, whose name connects her to the butterfly, morpho eugenia (of the novella’s title) is described like an insect in her pregnancy: “his wife slept alone in her white nest, and swelled slowly, developing large breasts and a creamy second chin.” When Eugenia keeps producing twins, the comparison gets even stronger – she seems less and less human to him. Meanwhile, the aristocratic house and the anthills are also a site of obvious comparison. For the powerful figures of both places are served by countless servants, darting through dark corridors. William’s sanity seems constantly under threat of splitting in this world, and he longs for the Amazon he left behind.

But with that said, I think Byatt’s story hints at a madness that never truly arrives. William does not do anything in the novella, and his thoughts ultimately remain more or less under control. Perhaps the place where the insect-human comparison is most forceful is in the story’s treatment of the aristocracy, who are depicted as either indolent, or selfish, or outright cruel. Edgar Alabaster, who despises his new brother-in-law, is once found by William as he forces himself upon one of the servant girls. When William tries to stop him, Edgar declares that she – still a child – is “a nice little packet of flesh”. What appears to be William’s unstable psyche is used more effectively for social critique, suggesting that human beings may not be nearly so respectable as our insectoid brethren.

Religion and Science

William’s father, a butcher, believed in a God of hellfire and brimstone. William himself has little sympathy for religion as a result. Both stories in Angels and Insects are set after Charles Darwin’s work had revolutionised our understanding of the development of life on earth, and many of the key characters feel the impact of Darwin’s views upon the validity of their faith in God. Lord Alabaster has collected crate upon crate of animal and insectoid specimens from around the world, and he asks William to “make sense of it, lay it all out in some order or other” during his stay. His decision reflects a feeling that religion can no longer order the world, and that it must surrender that right to science. At the same time, Alabaster – who trained as a priest – is unable to relinquish his faith. Over the course of the novella, he makes spirited – but unbelievable – defences of God’s creation. At one point he suggests that love provides evidence of God’s existence. But William is ultimately only annoyed by these suggestions, based as they are not on reason at all.

There are many who refuse to believe in a world without God. When William raises the possibility to Alabaster the latter is aghast: “I cannot believe that, Mr Adamson. I cannot. It opens the path to a dark pit of horrors.” And “Morpho Eugenia”, with the constant presence of insects, reducing human beings into creepy-crawlies, certainly hints at what a horrific world such a godless world would be for some of its inhabitants. And yet at the same time, it falls into the clear anti-aristocratic undertone of the work. If there is no God, then why do the idle rich inhabit great country houses, while servants toil and suffer rape and abuse without a word of complaint. The Alabaster house becomes a microcosm of the world, and it shows how fragile that world is.

Formal Ingenuity

“Analogy is a slippery tool” says William at one point. “Men are not ants”. This is perhaps one of the key phrases of the novella. Another is “things are not what they seem”, which Matty Crompton offers. Byatt is great at confusing us by the sheer density of her reference and allusion. She quotes from the scientific treatises of the day freely alongside poetry, so that we feel she is hinting at much more than what she spells out. Men may not be ants, but “Morpho Eugenia” asks us to what extent a comparison is valid, and what kind of a comparison. Each metaphor is developed constantly, and always taken in new directions. My only complaint is that Byatt’s descriptions are far too rich, too colourful, so that she can belabour her ideas too heavily at times. The story would have been better, shorter, in other words.

To be told that things are not what they seem is to encourage us always to be on the lookout for new interpretations. Byatt includes a story, written by Matty Crompton, alongside scientific descriptions written by William himself. Each of these appears only tangentially related to the story, at least at first. But we know that something is there, and if we have the energy for it, certainly the story has a wondrous richness to it that will reward further thought and analysis.

The Heart of the Story

Yet I cannot say it came together perfectly. Leaving aside the overly flowery descriptions, and the occasionally clunky dialogue – characters often speak as though they are scientific treatises themselves – another problem in “Morpho Eugenia” is a certain absence of heart. William’s love for Eugenia turns out to be false, and this is understandable. There’s an easy moral in that about the fallibility of the heart and whirlwind romances. But the actual meat of the story has very little to get us emotionally invested. William’s madness never goes anywhere, meaning that we just have to read repeated unpleasant descriptions of women as egg-laying ants and vice versa without there being anything at stake. In the final ten pages of the story there is a turnaround, suddenly there is a character worth caring about and some action we might call heroic, but it is rather too late. There’s too much mush beforehand.

The Conjugial Angel

The second novella of Angels and Insects, “The Conjugial Angel”, is focused on a group performing seances to communicate with the world beyond. This kind of thing was popular in the latter part of the 19^th century – there’s a bit of it in Anna Karenina, for example – and was inspired by the works of the Swedish mystic, Emanuel Swedenborg, who had apparently visited Heaven and had a guided tour. There are several characters at the séance, but the focus is on Emily Jesse, who was once Emily Tennyson, sister of Alfred, Lord Tennyson. Emily was once engaged to Arthur Hallam, about whom Tennyson wrote his great long poem “In Memoriam”. That poem is quoted liberally throughout the text, which is nice because it’s a lovely piece of work.

During the séance Emily hopes to hear from Arthur. Though she has now married – and been married for decades – still she treasures the memory of her first love.

Representing the dead

I do not want to go into the details of “The Conjugial Angel” – it has an even weaker plot than “Morpho Eugenia”, and the themes do not come together quite so well. However, what it does do of interest is depict the dead. Authors regularly use real figures in their stories – after all, it is part of the appeal of historical fiction. But using dead people is another matter. Even today, in our comparatively godless world, there is something of a taboo on the dead – we try not to speak ill of them. Byatt brings Arthur Hallam back as a spirit to guide the automatic writing at the séance, and I felt more than a little uncomfortable by the whole idea. I began writing in my margins that this was hugely inappropriate and morally absurd.

But then Byatt gives our medium, alone at home, another vision of him. I shall not spoil the details but it is one of the most extraordinary sequences I have yet read in a work of fiction. There was a gruesome, terrifying intensity to it. I felt as though Byatt truly had brought the dead man, maggot-stained, back to life, and I was so impressed. For that reason alone this novella is worth reading.

Conclusion

German novellas, which I know well, are focused on individual characters much more than on the plot or society which form the centres of novels. The force of a strong character can sustain a novella-length work, but rarely manages to sustain something longer. The plot of a novella cannot be a situation, because these are better suited for short stories; while a drawn-out plot often needs the development of a novella to truly draw us in. For that reason, though novellas are jewel-encrusted – densely symbolic and full of things to think about – they work best when driven by a character. The character of William Adamson does not provide sufficient backbone in “Morpho Eugenia” to make us want to keep reading, however clever the work is. The really interesting character is hidden from view until near the end, at which point we’ve already decided whether we’ll read the story or not.

I anticipate criticism from those who’ve read the story that even this is part of Byatt’s argumentation, such as: the character cannot be more prominent, because the story is drawing our attention to certain oppressive structures, class and gender among others. Even so, a story must make us want to read it. “The Conjugial Angel”, meanwhile, is burdened by the focus Byatt places on the different characters. Emily Tennyson’s story is the most interesting, and with less of the trimmings and lengthy descriptions, it could have been even more effective.

Byatt is extremely intelligent, and I like her formal ingenuity. But my criticism actually has nothing to do with her postmodernism, and everything to do with the foundations of stories, such as they have existed for thousands of years. Her descriptions are too long, too florid; her characters don’t always speak like human beings; and the stories would be more effective, thematically and from a storytelling perspective, if they were a bit shorter and more focused.

Yet all the Angels and Insects collects two provocative and interesting examples of the novella genre, and it is a book well worth trying.