OurHenryJamesinFiction, Film,andPopularCulture
JohnCarlosRowe
Firstpublished2023 byRoutledge
605ThirdAvenue,NewYork,NY10158
andbyRoutledge
4ParkSquare,MiltonPark,Abingdon,OxonOX144RN
RoutledgeisanimprintoftheTaylor&FrancisGroup,aninforma business
©2023JohnCarlosRowe TherightofJohnCarlosRowetobeidentifiedasauthorofthisworkhas beenassertedinaccordancewithsections77and78oftheCopyright, DesignsandPatentsAct1988.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereprintedorreproduced orutilizedinanyformorbyanyelectronic,mechanical,orothermeans, nowknownorhereafterinvented,includingphotocopyingandrecording, orinanyinformationstorageorretrievalsystem,withoutpermissionin writingfromthepublishers.
Trademarknotice:Productorcorporatenamesmaybetrademarksor registeredtrademarks,andareusedonlyforidentificationand explanationwithoutintenttoinfringe.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData Acatalogrecordforthistitlehasbeenrequested
ISBN:978-1-032-28680-8(hbk)
ISBN:978-1-032-28681-5(pbk)
ISBN:978-1-003-29798-7(ebk)
DOI:10.4324/9781003297987
TypesetinSabon byTaylor&FrancisBooks
Formymother,GloriaMacConaghyRowe(1914–2004): “Shehada fixeddeterminationtoregardtheworldasaplace ofbrightness” (ThePortraitofaLady)
Listof figures ix Preface x
Introduction:OurHenryJames1
PARTI HisTimes 25
1HenryJamesandtheFormofSentiment27
2RomanticSentimentalisminHenryJames’ s DaisyMiller:A Study (1878)47
3FromMelodramatoSoapOpera: TheAwkwardAge (1899)of PopularCulture63
4HenryJames,RichardWagner,FriedrichNietzsche,andT.S. Eliot:SomeVersionsofModernism91
PARTII OurTimes 111
5CagedHeat:FeministRebellioninHenryJames’ s IntheCage andAlfredHitchcock’ s RearWindow 113
6DaisyandFrederickandPollyandPeterandCybillandHugh andDorothyandPaul: DaisyMiller inHollywood130
7ForMatureAudiences:SexandGenderinFilmAdaptationsof James’sFiction148
8WhatWouldJamesDo?:TransnationalisminRecentLiterary AdaptationsofHenryJames183
Epilogue:MyHenryJames211
Bibliography 220 Index 228 viii Contents
2.1MariaLouisaLander, VirginiaDare (1859)TheElizabethan Gardens,ManteoIsland56
2.2MariaLouisaLander, BustofNathanielHawthorne (1858) ConcordPublicLibrary56
5.1GraceKellyasLisaFremont,theepitomeoffemininebeauty121
5.2Jeff’sphallictelephotolens122
5.3LisalookingforevidenceinThorwald’sapartment122
5.4Lisaostensiblypreparingforalifeofadventuroustravel125
7.1GustavKlimt, Danäe (1907)171
7.2JohnSingerSargent, Repose (1911)175
Preface
IhavebeenwritingprofessionallyaboutHenryJamesformorethan fifty years,beginningwithmydoctoraldissertationonHenryAdamsandHenry James,whichIbeganinthefallof1970.Myinterestsinotherauthorsand issuessometimeshavetakenmeawayfromJames,buthehasalwaysbeen anundercurrent,gainingintensityatkeymomentsinmycareer,forreasons Icannotalwaysexplain.Thespecializationbyascholarinasingleauthor haswaned,thanksinlargeparttothebroadeningofliteratureandthe humanitiestoencompassfarmoreissuesthanthenarrowcanonsof knowledgeinwhichIwaseducated.Inthe firstthirty-fiveyearsofmycareer attwodi ff erentuniversities,Inevertaugh tacoursedevotedexclusively toHenryJames.Thereweresimplytoomanyotherandmoreimportant curriculardemandsinmyareasofspecializationofnineteenth-and twentieth-centuryU.S.literature.
ThesituationwasnodifferentattheUniversityofSouthernCalifornia, whereIbegantoteachin2004,butsometimearound2010ourEnglish Departmentdevelopedspecialtwo-unitcoursesthatseemedtomesuitedfor intensivestudyofsingleauthors.Althoughthesecourseswereinventedto addresstheneedsoftransferstudentsandgraduatingseniorsforadditional credits,facultywereencouragedtoimaginetopicsandformatsforsuch coursessignificantlydifferentfromourregularcourses.Mydepartmenthad nocoursedevotedtoasingleauthor,exceptforShakespeare,andinmysix yearsofteachingatUSCIhadcometotheconclusionthatourundergraduateswouldbenefitfromreadingaselectionofworksbyaninfluential author,likeHenryJames,MarkTwain,orToniMorrison.Idesignedand taughttwocoursesinthisnewformat, “OurHenryJames” and “Mark Twain’sHumor.”
Myguidingprincipleinbothcourseswastoteachthemastutorials,similar towhatIimaginedworkedinthisformatatOxfordandCambridgeinEngland.IknewlittleofthisBritishmethod,exceptwhatIhadreadinnovels andoccasionallyheardfromcolleaguesatconferences,butmyfantasywas pedagogicallysound.Suchacoursewouldhavesmallenrollment,encouraged byUSC’stwo-unitformat,andIwouldencourage firstresponsestothe materialbythestudents.Mytaskswouldbetocontroltheprofessor’ s
insistentneedtooffer “correct” interpretationsandyet findawaytooffer crucialhistoricalandbiographicalinformationwithoutlecturing.Ihoped thesecourseswouldeducatebothmystudentsandme,encouragingthemto becomemoreactiveinourworktogetherandmetobelesscontrollingofthe classroom.Theformatandmaterialsforbothclassesworkedquitewell,and IenjoyedlisteningtowhatstudentsfoundinterestingandirrelevantinJames andTwain.
EachtimeItaughtthetwo-unitcourseonHenryJames,Iaskedmystudents tohelpmewithmybookproject, “OurHenryJames.” WhyisJamesstillof interestandtowhom?Althoughweconsideredhowscholarshipandteaching havecontributedtothepopularityofJames’sworkssincehisdeath,weagreed earlyinourdiscussionsthatthesefactorsdidnotplayalargerole.Shakespeare ’sworksaretaughtandperformedonaregularbasisinhighschoolsand universities.James’sworksaretaughtprimarilyatthecollegelevel.American studentsaretaughtearlythatShakespearerepresentsthepinnacleofEnglish dramaandstyle;hisinfluenceextendsfromhightopopularculture.ShakespearefestivalsthroughouttheU.S.andtheU.K.keeppublicattentionfocused onhisworksastouchstonesofAnglophoneculture.Thesameconditionsdo notapplytotherevivalofinterestinJamesinthe1990s.Althoughwehad neitherthetimenorthemeanstodoquantitativestudiesofaudiencesandtheir demographics,mystudentsandIcoulduseourselvesastestcases.Tothisend, IaskedthestudentstoadopttwodifferentrolesastheyreadandviewedJames. First,theyshouldreadhimandviewadaptationsofhisworksasupper-division EnglishmajorswithcompetencyinAnglo-Americanliterarytraditions.Second, theyshouldconsiderhisworksandadaptationsfromtheperspectiveofa readerwithrelativelylittleknowledgeofhimandtheculturalheritagewith whichheisassociated.
WedrewmanyconclusionsaboutthecurrentinterestinJames’sworks, andtwoofthemstandoutasthemostfrequentlymentioned.First,James exempli fiesahigh-culturalstandardoftaste,refinement,andeducationfor whichpeopletodayarenostalgic,inpartbecausetheideal,oftenidentifiable withcosmopolitanism,seemstobewaning.Ontheonehand,thisview expressestheconventionalnotionthatJamespersistsbecauseoftheaestheticistandhigh-culturalvaluesherepresentsinhisworks.Ontheotherhand, suchaconclusionseemsratheroddintheglobalizedcontextsinwhichmost ofusliveandwork.WemighthaveconcludedthatJames’scosmopolitanismlooksoldandprovincialwhencontrastedwiththatofcontemporary writersinEnglishlikeSalmanRushdie,ZadieSmith,VietThanhNguyen, andJunotDíaz.ItisworthnotingthatstudentsdidnotconsiderJames’ s focusonupper-classsocialpsychologytobepartofhiscontinuinginterest. Thelivesoftherichandfamoushardlyplayedinthestudents’ considerations,inpartbecauseJames’srepresentationsofwealthandcelebrityseemed sodistantfromourcontemporaryversions.Forexample,wesampledseveralonlinehistoricalcurrencyconverterstogetanaveragevaluetodayof£ 9,000,000fortheTouchetts’ bequestof£70,000toIsabelin ThePortraitofa
Lady.Evenwhentakingintoaccountthedifferentpurchasingpowerofsuch apre-taxfortune,studentsconsidereditarelativelymodestsumtosupport Isabel’scirculationinhighsocietyinseveralEuropeancities.Anannual returnonthisfortuneof5percentwouldyieldasubstantial£400,000 income,butthatwouldhardlybesufficienttoallowIsabel,Osmond,and Pansytolivetheexpensivelivesdescribedinthenovel.PartiesinItalian palazzosareexpensive,thestudentswerequicktoremindme!
Astocelebrity,LordWarburton’sroleasareform-mindedmemberof Parliamentinspiredfewcontemporaryequivalentsforthestudents,inpart becausehishereditarypositionintheHouseofLordsasamemberofthe landedaristocracyseemedsoforeigntothem.Whereasthewealthycapitalists inJames ChristopherNewman,DanielTouchett,AdamVerver seem modelledafterAmericanentrepreneurslikeJ.P.Morgan,JohnJacobAstor, andCommodoreCorneliusVanderbilt,allofwhomaspiredtoBritisharistocraticcultivation,contemporaryBritishentrepreneurs,likeSirRichardBranson,seemtofollowtheAmericanleadsofDonaldTrump,BillGates,andJeff Bezos.Ofcourse,thehistoricalshiftfromBritishtoU.S.imperialandeconomicauthorityinterestedthestudents,inpartbecauseJamesaddressesjust themomentinwhichthistransformationbegan.Butmostofusagreedthat thesemacrohistoricalissueswouldhavelittleappealtoabroaderaudience.
ThemostcompellingreasonforJames’scontinuingpopularitywashis ambiguity.ManystudentspraisedJames’sabilitytoraisecomplexquestions aboutsocialbehaviorandthenrequirethereadertochoosethebestanswer. Noneofthesestudentswascommittedtoapoststructuralisttheoryofthe undecidabilityinherenttolanguage,asIhadbeeninsomeofmyprevious workonJames.ThestudentsmerelyrecognizedJames’sSocraticmethod andappreciatedthewaysitbothempoweredandexposedthemasreaders. IsDaisyMilleracoquetteorsocialradical?Choosetheformer,andyoumay revealyoursexisttendencies.Choosethelatter,andyoumayexposeyourselfas ahopelessliberal.Inbothcases,however,thereader’sconclusioniswhat matters,nottheauthor’sdidacticconclusion.Forsomestudents,however, James’sambiguitywasaruseeithertocoverhisowninabilitytoconcludehis storyortodistractusfromthepooroptionshemadeavailable.Inthe final analysis,whatdoesitmatterifwechoosethatIsabelstayswithOsmond,runs off withGoodwood,ormarriesLordWarburton?Howeverdifferentthese malecharactersmaybefromoneanother,theystillrepresentpatriarchal authority.Isabel,Pansy,evenHenriettaStackpolearestilltheircaptives,angels inthehousewithlittlefreedom.
StudentsappliedbothoftheseconclusionsaboutJames’sinconclusiveness torecentadaptationsofhiswork.PeterBogdanovichcanturnDaisyintoa naïvechatterbox,becauseanti-feminismisapossibleinterpretationof James’srepresentationoftheAmericanGirl.JaneCampioncantransform Isabelintoamodern,independentwoman,becauseJamesencouragessuch aninterpretation,onlytoreturnreadersattheendtothegloomyprospects forwomeninanymarriage.ScottMcGeheeandDavidSiegelcanborrow
James’sMaisieFarangeandthebasicsoftheplotin WhatMaisieKnew (1897)fortheir2013 film,becauseJamesleavesMaisiesuspendedbetween alternativesandinthemiddleoftheEnglishChannelonherconcluding returntoEnglandandafoggyfuture.Wecantellotherstoriesthatbetter fit ourcontemporarycircumstances,becauseJamesdidnotprovideconclusive endings.HenryJamesthusencouragessuchmisreadingsandadaptations, notjustbecausewewantto finishhisworksbutbecausewewantthe authorityofastrongpredecessor,a “Master” ofthenovel,toauthorizeour ownviewsofgender,sexuality,divorce,fortune,fame.
Iamgratefultothesestudentsfortheirintelligenceandcandor,aswellas theirwillingnesstohelpmecompletethisbook.Myworkwiththemhasled metoaratheroddconclusionforascholarwhohasspentmuchofhislife celebratingJames’sgenius.Jamesdoesnotalwaysrelyonambiguityasa strategicdevicetoencouragethereader;heisofteninconclusivebecausehe doesnotknowhowtoendhisstory.Ofcourse,wemightagreethatthis indecisiveness—“Well,thereweare!”—isverymuchanaspectofeveryday life—“Itiswhatitis!” James’sindecisionmaywellbeacrucialpartofhis enduring,albeitchanging,reputation,suggestingamoregeneralproposition thattheclassicliterarytextandthecanonicalauthorspeaknotsomuchto enduringuniversalsbuttosocialandculturalproblemswestillhavenot resolved.Iwillnotgeneralizehereaboutother,verycomplexwriters,like ShakespeareandFaulknerandJoyce,butmyworkwiththosestudents suggeststhatHenryJames’senduringreputationhassomethingtodowith ourinabilitytoovercomethegenderandsexualhierarchies,theclassdivisions,andtheracialstereotypesofnineteenth-centuryAmericaandEngland. Inthisregard,then,HenryJamesisnotsomucha “Master” asawriter whoaddressedsocialissuesofkeyimportancetohistimesthatcontinueto troubleourowntimes.ThisconclusionmaywellmeanthatintimeHenry Jameswillnolongerbepopular,hisworkscondemnedtothedust-heapof history,butthatinthemeantimewehavesomethingtolearnfromhisown anxiousstrugglestounderstandthesocialproblemsofhistimes.
IamgratefultomycolleaguesintheHenryJamesSociety,whoseannual conventionsaroundtheworldhaveprovidedanetworktoshareideasabout James’sworkanditscontinuinginfluence.Inparticular,Iwanttothank DanielMarkFogel,foundingeditorof TheHenryJamesReview,andhis successor,SusanM.Griffin,bothofwhomhavecontributedtoallmywork onJames.Susanreadanearlyversionofthemanuscriptwhilevacationing inParis myJamesianhero!PeterWalkersharedhisownresearchand knowledgeofJameswheneverIasked,especiallyaboutJames,opera,and Wagner.NanZ.Dareawakenedmyinterestinthismanuscriptwitha timely,generousemail.J.GeraldKennedyhasalwayssupportedmywork andkeptmybrainworking.Ourgoodfriends,MollyandSteveMailloux, inspireuswiththeirexamples,andMollyspurredmeaheadtocompletethis bookwhensheexpressedherdislikeofJames.Ihopethisbookwillchange hermind!MythankstoCarolineKessler,whohelpedcopyeditanearly
versionofthemanuscriptwhileshewasanundergraduate.Tomywife, Kristin,andourthreesons,Sean,Kevin,andMark,theirspousesKatherine, Karen,andAngela,andourfourwonderfulgrandchildren,FionaGloria, AntonCarlos,LebenDonald,andAvaKristinMichele,IcanonlysayIama fortunateperson.Iloveyouall.Mymotherisrememberedinmydedication; she firstintroducedmetoHenryJames’swritingswhenIwasateenagerand gavemeFredDupee’ s HenryJames:HisLifeandWritings (1951),aprizedif tatteredpossession.
IamgratefultoOxfordUniversityPressforpermissiontoreprinta substantiallyrevisedversioninChapter5of “ CagedHeat:Feminist Rebellionin IntheCage and RearWindow, ” which firstappearedin The MenWhoKnewTooMuch,eds.SusanM.GriffinandAlanNadel(New York:OxfordUniversityPress,2012),pp.174–188,aswellastoPalgrave MacmillanforpermissiontoreprintinChapter7amuchexpandedversionof “ForMatureAudiences:Sex,GenderandRecentFilmAdaptationsofHenry James’sFiction,” which firstappearedin HenryJamesonStageandScreen, ed.JohnR.Bradley(Basingstoke:Palgrave,2000),pp.190–211.Earlyversions ofthechaptersinthisbookweregivenastalks:Chapter4attheLosAngeles Ring Festival,MuseumofContemporaryArtonApril15,2010,Würzburg University(Germany)onJune2,2014,and “TheRealThing” HenryJames ConventionattheUniversityofAberdeen,ScotlandonJuly18,2014;Chapter 6attheAmericanLiteratureAssociationConvention(SanFrancisco)onMay 25,2018;Chapter7atLüdwigMaximiliansUniversity,Munich,February2, 2000andDepartmentofLiterature,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz,June 5,2000;Chapter8attheModernLanguageAssociationConvention(Seattle), June8,2012.
Introduction
OurHenryJames
IloathedHenryJamesandcountedmyselfboorishuntilIreadtheopinionof hisbestfriend,EdithWharton,whopronouncedhimunreadable.
– DavidMamet, “CharlesDickensMakesMeWanttoThrowUp,” WallStreetJournal (7/21/2017)
IhavespentmyprofessionallifewritingaboutHenryJames,butIamstill baffledbyhiscontinuingpopularity.Hisworksaredifficult,notjustinthe later,proto-modernistnovelsoftheMajorPhase,butinhisearlyandmiddle periods,aswell.Hisemphasisonsocialandpersonalproblemsspecifictothe upper-middleandaristocraticclassesseemsdated,eventoonarrowforthelate VictorianandEdwardianaudiencesforwhichhewrote.Hispreferencefor highcultureandtrivializationofpopularculturearelinkedwithhisnostalgia forearlier,morerefinedperiodsandhistypicalcondemnationofthemodern ageandmanyofitstechnologicalinnovations.Hisnovelsaretoolongandtheir plotsgenerallytootrivialtodeserveourattention.Andhisconclusionsare frustratinglyambiguous.
YetJamespersists,almostagainstourbetterjudgments,forreasonsthat seemonthefaceofitsuperficialoratleastunsatisfactory.Inourpostmodernera,wearenostalgicforthegraceandcharmoflatenineteenth-and earlytwentieth-centuryculture.WeareAnglophilesandcannotgetenough ofBritishculture,eventhoughweareawarethatitsauthorityhaswaned withthebreakupoftheEmpire.Welovetolivevicariouslyintheworldof therichandfamous,becausewewishwewerethey.James’swritingisjust, well, beautiful andhisnovelsaestheticallypleasing.Whocandenythe inherentvalueofsuchlanguage,style,form?
Alloftheseclaimsaretrue,butevenwhentakentogethertheydonotquite explainJames’spersistenceinverydifferenttimesandplaces.Atleastsincethe 1970s,BritishculturehasturnednostalgiafortheEmpireintoalivelyand profitablecommercialmodel,especiallywithsuchtelevisionseriesas Downton Abbey and IndianSummers orthe TheBestExoticMarigoldHotel films. HavingbecomeaBritishcitizenandsurrenderedhisU.S.citizenshipin1915, HenryJamesqualifiesforsuchimperialnostalgia,buthisAmericanbackgroundandcentralthemesinhis fictionseemeccentrictothisBritishculture
DOI:10.4324/9781003297987-1
2 Introduction
industry.Anglophiliahasalonghistoryandwasanespeciallyguiltypleasureof nineteenth-andearlytwentieth-centuryAmericans,butthediversificationof theU.S.intheaftermathofthe1965ImmigrationReformActcertainlymeans thatfewerAmericans findEnglandtobe “ouroldhome,” asHawthorne termeditinoneofhisnon-fictionbooks.1 Astoourfascinationwiththelives oftherichandfamous,Americanscertainlyhavetheirownlonglistof celebritiestofollowfromtheAstors, Vanderbilts,andRockefellersin James’ stimetotheKardashians,Trumps,andGatesesofourera.
Certainlythejudgmentofinherentaestheticvalueisthemostpervasiveand troubling.HenryJames’ s fictionisrarelygiventosplendidvisionarymoments orsoaringrhetoricunqualifiedbyhisusualironyandambiguity.Shakespeareis oftenquoted,perhapsbecausehischaracteristiciambicpentameter,appropriatetotheElizabethanstage,hasarhythmicqualitythatlendsitselfto memory.AlexanderPopeisalsomemorableandoftenquoted,thankstohis useoftheheroiccouplet.ButJames’slong,meanderingsentencesinthenovels oftheMajorPhase,eventhesentimental,oftenmelodramaticproseofhisearly novels,donotlendthemselveseithertomemoryorrecitation.
HisreputationasanaestheticmastercertainlydatestoPercyLubbock’ s The CraftofFiction (1921),inwhichLubbockdrawscentrallyonJames’sprefaces totheNewYorkEditionforLubbock’sdefinitionofwhatconstitutesagreat novel.2 MichaelAneskohasshownhowLubbockalmostsingle-handedlycreatedJames’sposthumousreputation.3 AmemberoftheBritisharistocracy, closefriendofJames,and fictionreviewerfortheLondon TimesLiterary Supplement,LubbockworkedhardtowintheJamesfamily’sapprovaland then “editedJames’ sunfinishedmanuscripts …; … compiledthetwo-volume editionofJames’sletters…;andoversawthepublicationofMacmillan’sthirtyfivevolumeeditionof TheNovelsandStoriesofHenry James(1921–1923) …” (Anesko,73).In TheCraftofFiction,LubbockcelebratesJames’sscenicand dramaticmethods,aswellashisperspectivism.4 Lubbocktreatsawidevariety ofnovelsfromAustenandDickenstoTolstoy,James,andForster;mostof themarejudgedbythecriteriaforgood fictionestablishedbyJamesinhis Prefaces.Lubbock’sbookhadawidecirculation,wentthroughnumerous reprintingsinthemodernperiod,andisoftenconsidered “theofficialtextbook oftheModernistaestheticsofindirection.”5 AsAneskoconcludes, TheCraftof
1NathanielHawthorne, OurOldHome:ASeriesofEnglishSketches (Boston: TicknorFields,1863).Onnineteenth-centuryU.S.Anglophilia,seeElisa Tamarkin, Anglophilia:Deference,Devotion,andAntebellumAmerica (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2008).
2PercyLubbock, TheCraftofFiction (London:JonathanCape,1921).
3MichaelAnesko, MonopolizingtheMaster:HenryJamesandthePoliticsof ModernLiteraryScholarship (PaloAlto:StanfordUniversityPress,2012),p.73. Furtherreferencesinthetextas:Anesko.
4Ibid.,pp.143,159,199.
5SusanaOnegaandJoséAngelGarcíaLanda, “Introduction,” Narratology:An Introduction,eds.SusanaOnegaandJoséAngelGarcíaLanda(London:Routledge,1996),p.20.
Fiction wasLubbock’ s “ownhigh-modernistcriticaltreatise,whichredacted –andmadeelegantlypersuasive – thecompositionalprinciplesJameshad(more discursively)articulatedinthePrefacestotheNewYorkEdition” (Anesko,73). Although TheCraftofFiction confirmsJames’sreputationasamodernist,itis curious,evenperverse,literarycriticismthatpaysmoreattentiontohowa novelshouldbewrittenthantohowagoodnovelshouldbeunderstoodbyits readers.InfluentialasLubbock’sbookwasonmodernistwritersandAngloAmericanNewCriticism,itsaestheticvaluesbelongtoapastgeneration.
AlthoughLubbock’sidealizationofJamesianaestheticismbelongstoan oldermodernisttradition,thereisanewaestheticismthatoftendrawson James’sdedicationtostyle,concernwithformalbeauty,andrejectionofliterarydidacticism.ElaineScarry’scriticalstudy OnBeautyandBeingJust (2002)andnovelslikeAlanHollinghurst’ s TheLineofBeauty (2004)andZadie Smith’ s OnBeauty (2005)indicateatrendintheearlyyearsofthetwenty-first centurytoreclaimthesocialandmoralpurposesofaestheticism.6 Colm Tóibín’ s TheMaster (2004)isanothergoodexampleofthisapproach,andit usesJamesasaclassicwriternotableforhisuniversalvalues,especiallywhere goodliteratureisconcerned.7 Thenewaestheticismrepresentedbythesecontemporarythinkersisnot,however,areactionaryappealtomodernistaestheticism.Instead,thesetheoristsofbeautyand fictionseemintentonreconciling aesthetic,social,ethical,andevenhistoricalfunctions.
AlloftheseconventionalclaimsaboutJames’slingeringreputationrevolve aroundhisstatusasaclassicwriter,suchasthatofShakespeare,Joyce,or Faulkner,whotouchesontheuniversalsofhumanexperience.Howeverbound ShakespearewastoElizabethanEngland,Faulknertotheraciallydivided South,JoycetosubjugatedIreland,andHenryJamestotransatlanticAngloAmericanculturesofthe fin-de-siècle,eachofthemteachesussomething enduringabouthumanity.ForallhisentanglementsinBritishmonarchy,Lear speakstousasafather,whosetroubledrelationswithhisdaughtershavebeen experiencedbymanyparents.Sutpen’sruthlessambitionsin Absalom,Absalom! (1936)aretiedinextricablytothesinsofSouthernslavery,buthispassionatedesiretoovercomehishumiliatingchildhoodandaffirmhisself-reliant authorityintheworldarecommonhumanmotives.LeopoldBloom’sJewish andIrishbackgroundsdefinehimasdoublyexiled,andhisidentityasanoutsidercanbesharedbyusall.IsabelArcher’swishtocontrolherowndestiny amidthelimitationsplacedonwomeninnineteenth-centuryAmericaand VictorianEnglandtranscendstheritualsofcourtship,marriage,andchild rearingtoembracetheproblemsfacedbyeverystrongindividualforcedto compromiseheridealsbyacceptingsocialresponsibilities.
6ElaineScarry, OnBeautyandBeingJust (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 2002);ZadieSmith, OnBeauty (London:HamishHamilton,2005);AlanHollinghurst, TheLineofBeauty (London:Picador,2004).
7ColmTóibín, TheMaster (NewYork:Scribner,2004).Furtherreferencesinthe textas: M.SeeChapter8forafullerinterpretationofthenovel.
Wehavegrownsuspiciousofsuchclaimstouniversality,becausetheyare sohardtoprove,changehistorically(ofteninverydramaticways),andhave beenusedsooftentooverlookhistoricallyspecificissues.Asthedebates concerningliterarycanonsduringtheso-calledculturewarsofthelate1980s and1990sdemonstrated,canonformationanditsrelationto “non-canonical” worksfurthercomplicatesuchclaimstouniversality.In CulturalCapital:The ProblemofLiteraryCanonFormation (1993),JohnGuilloryelaboratesthese complexities,concluding:
Insofarasthedebateonthecanonhastendedtodiscreditaesthetic judgment,ortoexpressacertainembarrassmentwithitsmetaphysical pretensionsanditspoliticalbiases,ithasquitemissedthepoint.The pointisnottomakejudgmentdisappearbuttoreformtheconditionsof itspractice.8
Althoughtherearemanypossiblewaystoreformhowwepracticeaesthetic judgment,IwanttosuggestthatJames’scontinuingreputationreliesontwo aspectsofhisworkrelativelyneglectedinhisscholarlyreception:popular cultureandliteraryambiguity.
SubstantialworkhasbeendoneonwhatJameslearnedfrompopular culture,especiallynineteenth-centurypopularliterature,butmostofthat scholarshiphasfocusedonhowJamesdrewonpopularmodelstocreatehis own “personalstyle,” asWilliamVeederputsit,ortodistinguishhisfemininecharactersandsituationsfromthepoliticalagendasof first-wavefeminism,asAlfredHabeggerhasdone.9 Veedercanwriteconfidently: “Formy purposes,FannyFernandE.D.E.N.Southworthareclearlypopular,and NathanielHawthorneandHenryJamesareclearlynot ” (Veeder,7).For Habegger,James’ sconflictedresponsestothewomen’smovement,motivatedinpartbyhiscomplexrelationshipwithhisfather’sadvocacyoffree loveandwomen’srights,distancesJamesfromapopularliterarytradition dominatedbywomenauthorsandtheircharactersandplots.In “Friction withtheMarket:” HenryJamesandtheProfessionofAuthorship (1986), MichaelAneskohasresituatedJameswithintheeverydaystruggleofthe creativewritertomanagepublishers,contracts,reviewers,andreadersas consumers. 10 YetitisneitherthedegreetowhichHenryJamesdistanced himselffrompopularliterature,asVeederandHabeggerhaveargued,or shouldbejudgedasawriterworkingwithinthecommercialconditionsof
8JohnGuillory, CulturalCapital:TheProblemofLiteraryCanonFormation (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1993),p.340.
9WilliamVeeder, HenryJames – TheLessonsoftheMaster:PopularFictionand PersonalStyleintheNineteenthCentury (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress, 1975),pp.8–9;AlfredHabegger, HenryJamesandthe “WomanBusiness” (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2004),p.10.
10MichaelAnesko, “FrictionwiththeMarket:” HenryJamesandtheProfessionof Authorship (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1986).
authorshipJamesabhorsinhiswritings,asAneskoargues,thatdescribethe literarypopularitythatI findsostrikinginJames’scontinuingreputation.
RichardSalmonmoreeffectivelylocatesJameswithinthedevelopingmass cultureofhiserain HenryJamesandtheCultureofPublicity (1997), detailingJames’scomplexrelationshipwithsuchcrucialaspectsofpopular cultureasjournalism,theater,celebrity,andadvertising.EmployingFrankfurtSchooltheoriesofmassculture,Salmonmakesaneffectivecasefor JamesasaprecursortotheculturalcriticismadvocatedbyTheodorAdorno andMaxHorkheimerin TheDialecticofEnlightenment (1972),especially theextenttowhichpublicitydependsona “self-referentialsystemofculturalcodes” competitivewithmanyaestheticfunctions.11 Oneofthe motivesofAdorno’srevolutionarymethodin NegativeDialectics (1966)is torecognizethesocialandpoliticalvalueoftheaestheticfunctiontodefamiliarizeconventionalmeanings.ForAdorno,greatartworkstodistance itselffromthequotidianortheovertlypopular,inordertoenableusto recognizethehorizonsofthelivedrealitiesweacceptuncritically.Adorno hasoftenbeencriticizedfordefendinghighculturalworkbyidentifyingits criticalfunctionaswhatdistinguishesitfrompopularculture.Salmonmore effectivelyidentifiesthetensionsinJames’sworkbetweenhisowndesireto criticizepopularcultureandthedegreetowhichhisworkdependsonsuch popularity,bothintermsofhisaestheticmodelsandtheaudienceshe courtedinthemanydifferentgenresinwhichhepublished.In “Henry James,PopularCulture,andCulturalTheory,” Salmonconciselyexpresses theproblemofpopularculturehe findscentraltoJames’swork:
JamesmaynothavelongedforthetruereconciliationofculturaldivisionwhichformsthenegativelyrealizedutopiandimensionofAdorno’ s criticaltheory,but,experientially,inhisconflictingaspirationstowards bothpopularandartisticacclaim,herealizedtheexistingconditionsof its(im)possibility. 12
Salmon’sinterpretationofthis “(im)possibility” ofJamesreconcilinghis aspirationsfor “bothpopularandartisticacclaim” focusesexclusivelyon James’sera,inwhichthenotionsofpopularity,celebrity,andpublicitywere assumingrecognizablymodernfeatures.Inourowntimes,thesecultural sphereshavebecomeimmenselymorecomplicatedandcentraltoour understandingofsocialandpersonalidentities.Althoughwecannotclaima straightpathfromJames’ sera ’scultureofpublicityandourown,thereare certainparallelisms,evenstructuralresemblancesthatsuggestthevalueof extendingSalmon’sargumentstoourcontemporaryreceptionsofHenry
11RichardSalmon, HenryJamesandtheCultureofPublicity (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),p.139.
12Salmon, “HenryJames,PopularCulture,andCulturalTheory,” TheHenry JamesReview 19:3(Fall1998),217.
Jamesasa figureofbothpopularandhigh-culturalreputation.Putanother way,HenryJamesisa celebrity todayinwaysthatmightsurprisehim,but areverycompatiblewithhowhisworksrepresenttherelationshipofliteraturetosocialreality.WhatSalmon’sworkteachesusisthatthestatusof HenryJamesasapopularorhigh-culturalwriterisfarlessimportantthan how “HenryJames” circulatesasacommodityintheserelatedcultural registers.Oneoftheaimsof OurHenryJamesinFiction,Film,andPopular Culture istotrackthiscirculationinhisownandourtimes.
Jameswroteagreatdealofpopular fiction,evenifhetypicallycondemns thepopularliteratureofhisera.PeterBrookshasshownthepowerfulinfluenceoftheatricalmelodramaonbothBalzacandJames,eachofwhomrelies ona “melodramaticimagination” thatcannotbeseparatedfrompopular culturalwork.13 RoderickHudson,TheAmerican,and DaisyMiller arenot justinfluencedbypopularcharactertypesandmelodramatic,evengothic, situations;allthreeoftheseearlyworks are popularworks,lessonthebasis oftheirpopularitywithreadersthanasaconsequenceoftheirdominantuses ofpopularliterarythemes.Scholarshaveoftentreatedtheseearlyworksin termsoftheir “romantic” qualitiesandtheinfluenceofHawthorne,dodging thequestionofwhetherornotbothauthorswrotepopularworks.James’ s shortstoriesalsoconfirmhisreputationasawriterofpopularliterature.The scholarlyemphasisonworkssuchas “TheJollyCorner,”“TheBeastinthe Jungle,” and “TheAltaroftheDead” asprofoundlyphilosophicalworks oftencausesustoforgetpot-boilerssuchas “Adina,”“Collaboration,” and “TheVelvetGlove.” James’sworkslendthemselvestopopularadaptations, then,inpartbecausethoseworksrelyontechniquesdrawnfrompopular cultureinwayswehavenotadequatelyrecognized.
LiteraryambiguityistheotheraspectofJames’sworksthathelpsexplain theircontinuingpopularity.Inhiscanonizationasamodernistbyboththe Anglo-AmericanNewCriticsandsubsequentpost-structuralistscholars,James exemplifiestheinherentironyofthemodernistavant-gardeandtheinevitable relativismofallmeaningelaboratedbydeconstruction.14 Bothapproachesto Jamesarevalid:Jamesdoesrelyonstructuralironiesthatwouldbecomehallmarksofliterarymodernism,andJamesplayswiththeinherentundecidability oflanguage,especiallyhighlyrhetoricalliterarylanguage.YetJamesisradicallyambiguousinotherwaysthatbothcontributetohisnotoriousdifficulty andhisrelationtopopularculture.Jamesisoftenindecisiveregardingsocial, political,andeconomicchangesandhowindividualsoughttorespondtothem. Sometimesprofoundlyconservativeinresponsetonewtechnologies,political
13PeterBrooks, TheMelodramaticImagination:Balzac,HenryJames,andthe ModeofExcess (NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1976),pp.1–24. 14CleanthBrooks, “IronyasaPrincipleofStructure” (1949),inHazardAdams, ed., CriticalTheorysincePlato,rev.ed.(NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich,1991),pp.968–974.JohnCarlosRowe, ThroughtheCustom-House: Nineteenth-CenturyAmericanFictionandModernTheory (Baltimore:Johns HopkinsUniversityPress,1982),pp.168–189.
crises,andchangingsocialdemographics,Jamesretreatstooldervaluesand bemoansprogressivechanges.Ontheotherhand,hecanbeverycriticalofthe lingeringeffectsoftraditionalvaluesandconventionalmeanings.Readershave longbeenconfusedbythemorallessonstobedrawnfromhiswritings,evenas theyrespecthiswarningstoavoidthemoraldidacticismofpopularliterature.15 IthinkthatJamesisoftenindoubtabouthowtorespondtonewsocial,political,andeconomicconditions,preferringtosatirizetheworstexcessesoftraditionalvaluesandnewideas,ratherthanofferingussettledperspectives.In theserespects,Jameslendshimselfbothtodifferinginterpretationsandtoa widerangeofadaptations.James’sgeniusistohaveidentifiedsuchproblemsas critical;hiscontinuingpopularityoftenreliesonhisambiguitywithrespectto howsuchchangesoughttobejudged.
Myownapproachinthisbookistotreatcentrallyhowhistoricalandsocial changessuggestcommonalitiesfromoneeratoanotherprimarilyintermsof unresolvedsocialproblems,ratherthanshareduniversals.JamesmadehisliteraryreputationbytreatinginterpersonalrelationsbetweenEuropeansand Americansinhiscelebratedinternationaltheme.Latenineteenth-andearly twentieth-centuryEuropeanandU.S.societieshardlyresolvedtheconflictsthat arosefromgreatercommercial,cultural,andpersonalexchanges.Infact, Jamesrepresentsmostoftheseinternationalrelationsinwaysthatareultimatelyinconclusive.WritingduringtheperiodofmassEuropeanimmigration totheU.S.,Jamesalsoconfrontedconsiderablechangesinwhathadinitially appearedtohimastheclass-specificissuesfacingindividualswiththeeconomic meansandsocialstandingtoenjoyacosmopolitanlifestyle.Inhisown responsestoimmigrantsintheBoweryin TheAmericanScene (1907),James certainlybetraystheethnocentrismandevenracialprejudicesthatindicatehis inabilitytoadapttochanginginternationalconditions.16
Whencomparedwithourcontemporarydebatesoverimmigration,undocumentedworkers,andthesocio-economicconsequencesofglobalization,James’ s attitudesmayseemout-of-dateandirrelevant,yettheveryunresolvedstatusof immigrationinU.S.cultureallowshisinternationalthemetoresonateinthelate twentiethandearlytwenty-firstcenturies.Wecanconcludethathiscosmopolitanbehaviorinresponsetosuchconditions,atoncecondescendingtoandyet extremelyinterestedindifferentcultures,isanotherexampleofhowhis ambivalencecangivehimcontinuingrelevance.Today’snewcosmopolitanism hasmanydifferentkindsandhardlyresemblesthelate-VictoriancosmopolitanismexemplifiedbyJames,buttheconceptitselfstillremainscontroversialand difficulttojudgeethically.17 Inshort,persistentsocial,political,oreconomic
15HenryJames, “TheArtofFiction” (1884),in TheFutureoftheNovel,ed.Leon Edel(NewYork:RandomHouse,1956),pp.24–25,inwhichJamescontests WalterBesant’sclaimthatagoodnovelrequires “moralpurpose.”
16HenryJames, TheAmericanScene (NewYork:HarperandBrothers,1907), pp.187 – 201.Furtherreferencesinthetextas: AS .
17ConsiderthedifferencesbetweenKwameAnthonyAppiah’sliberaltheoryin Cosmopolitanism:EthicsinaWorldofStrangers (NewYork:W.W.Norton,
problemsmaycauseustolooktothepastforanswersoratleastforprecedents. Inmanycases,suchquestsinform thecontinuinginterestinJames’ s fiction,both becausehisworkisoftenambiguousabouthowtoresolvetheseproblemsand suchliteraryindecisionremindsusofanongoingissue.
James ’ sconsiderationofchangingsocialattitudestowardgenderand sexualityisanevenbetterexampleofthishistoricalprocess.Sociallyconstructedgenderrolesandsexualbeha viorsareinherentlyunstableand subjecttofrequentchanges,especially whenpoliticalactivismchallenges prevailingconventionsforgenderhierarchiesandsexualtaboos.Fromhis earliesttolastworks,James’ soeuvreisdistinguishedbyitsvariedtreatmentofsuchissues,frequentlythematizingspeci fi csocialandpolitical changeswithoutdrawingparticularmoralconclusions.From DaisyMiller to TheGoldenBowl,Jameso ff ershisreadersstrongfemininecharacters whoseemtodrawonthepoliticsofthewomen’ srightsandsu ff rage movements.Yethisstrongestfemininecharacters,suchasIsabelArcher andMaggieVerver,areinvolvedindom esticplotsrevolvingaroundmarriageandsocialmanners.Femininech aractersinthepublicsphereofwork andpoliticalactivism,suchasHenriettaStackpole,MissBirdseye,and OliveChancellor,areroutinelysatirizedfortheirfailuretorecognizetheir feminineresponsibilitiestofamilylife.Evenso,Jameshardlyrepresents marriageandthefamilyinfavorableterms.Itishardto fi ndahappy marriageinJames ’swritings,andchildrenareabusedmoreoftenthan lovedbytheirparents.
ThesituationisequallyproblematicwhenweconsiderJames’streatment ofsame-sexrelations,whichscholarshipofthepastthirtyyearshasshown tobequitepervasive,ifsemioticallyunstable,inhisworks.Inearlystories, like “ALightMan” (1869)and “Adina” (1874),Jamesplayswithsame-sex relationsaspossiblealternativestoheteronormativity.Even DaisyMiller, althoughbynomeansexplicitlyhomoerotic,suggestspotentialaffiliations betweenLordByronandDaisythatsuggestasortofrhetoricalcross-dressingandgenderswitching.Yetbythetimehewritessuchmid-careerworks as TheBostonians (1886), TheTragicMuse (1890),and TheTurnofthe Screw (1898),Jamesseemstodemonizethesame-sexrelationsofOlive ChancellorandVerenaTarrant,theWilde-likequalitiesofGabrielNash, andthehintedpederastyofPeterQuintwithMiles.Sometimespitting homosexualandlesbianrelationsagainsteachother,ashedoesin “The MiddleYears” (1893),andatothertimesconfusinghomosexualitywith childabuse,ashedoesin “TheAuthorof ‘Beltraffio ’” (1884)and “The Pupil” (1891),aswellasin TheTurnoftheScrew,Jamesseemsuncertain howtojudgegenderrolesandsexualidentitiesofallsortsinthechanging sociallandscapeofVictorianandEdwardianEngland.
2006)andtheleftistpositionsofPhengCheahandBruceRobbinsintheircoeditedcollection, Cosmopolitics:ThinkingandFeelingbeyondtheNation (Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1998).
Suchindecisivenessisnotquitetheliteraryorlinguisticambiguitysome Jamesscholarshaveconsideredhishallmark,butithasgreatinterestfor scholarsofculturalandsocialhistory. 18 Understandinghowacultivated andinsightfulwriterrespondedtothedramaticchangesingenderand sexualconventionshelpsuscomprehendsocialchangeinaperiodthat includedthedemonizationofsame-sexrelationswiththeAnti-Sodomylaws inEnglandandtheirlegalprecedentintheconvictionofOscarWilde.From thishistoricistperspective,HenryJamesisnotaqueerwriterorpioneerof laterfeministorLGBTQ+politicalactivism.YetifJamesisnotaforerunnerorprecursorofsecond-andthird-wavefeministandqueerpolitical movements,thenwhydohisworkscontinuetobeadaptedtoothermedia, reprinted,andreadtoday?
OneansweristhatJamesplayswiththepossibilitiesofgenderandsexuality inwaysthatappearprogressiveandyetinmanyinstancesturnouttobequite conservative.Iftheconclusionsofmostofhisbiographersarecorrectthat Jamesdidnotengageinsame-sexrelationsandyetwashomosexual,thenhis closetedsexualidentitywouldseemtomatchhishighlyguardedandambivalenttreatmentsofsame-sexrelationsinhis fiction.Inmanyrespects,James exemplifieswhatItermedelsewhere “aestheticdissent,” wherebythe “rigorous reflectionontheprocessesofthoughtandrepresentationconstitutesinitselfa critiqueofsocialreality.”19 Iconsider “aestheticdissent” tobeaparticular legacyoftheromanticidealisttradition,ofwhichJamesisanimportantheir, andthatinformsthepragmatisttraditionthathisbrotherWilliamJames foundedandwithwhichHenryJameshasoftenbeenassociated.20 Ithinkwe needtopaymuchmoreattentiontoJames’ssocialconventionality,insofaras hesimplyplayswithprogressivegenderandsexualpoliticsinhiserawithout changingsubstantiallythesocialstructureslimitingthesenewattitudes.Isabel doesreturntoOsmond,Pansy,andRome,ratherthanbreakingfreeofthis gothicfamily.LittleMilesisindeed “dispossessed” attheendof TheTurnof theScrew,eitherfrightenedtodeathbyhiscrazygovernessorjustsuccumbing totheterriblememoryofhisviolationbyPeterQuintand/orMissJessel.At theendof TheBostonians,VerenaTarrantiscarriedawaymelodramatically byBasilRansomtosomeSouthernhell,butJamesseemstosuggestitmightbe betterthanherBostonfriendshipwithOliveChancellor.Whateverwemay wishforthetroubledrelationshipbetweenPrinceAmerigoandMaggieVerver
18ThecriticalclaimthatJamesusedambiguitystrategicallydatesatleastto EdmundWilson’ s “TheAmbiguityofHenryJames,” firstpublishedin Hound andHorn (1934),385–406,thenrevisedandincludedinWilson’ s TheTriple Thinkers:TwelveEssaysonLiterarySubjects (NewYork:HarcourtBrace, 1938).
19JohnCarlosRowe, AtEmerson’sTomb:ThePoliticsofClassicAmericanLiterature (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1997),p.1.
20RichardA.Hocks, HenryJamesandPragmatisticThought:AStudyinthe RelationshipbetweenthePhilosophyofWilliamJamesandtheLiteraryArtof HenryJames (ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1974). Introduction 9
attheendof TheGoldenBowl,Maggiehasindeedsavedtheirmarriageby sendingherfriendCharlotteandherfatherAdambacktoAmericanCity, perhapstoliveouttheirowndeeplytroubledrelationship.
Inthisview,James’ s fictionpermitsustoimaginealternativestosocial reality,butthenreturnsustoitscomfortableconventionality.Hardlypropaganda,suchimaginativeexperiencemightresembleBakhtin’ s “carnivalesque,” inwhichemancipatorypossibilitiesareentertainedprimarilytokeepreaders undercontrolandminimizetheprospectsofgenuinesocialorpoliticalrevolutions.21 HenceJamesmaybelesspropheticoffuturesocialproblems,such asimmigrationandwomen’sandgayrights’ movements,thanworkto maintainthestatusquoandkeepalivesuchsocialproblemsbydiverting readersfromtheirremediation.Suchaconclusionplacesusasordinaryand professionalreadersinadifficultrelationshiptoJames’scomplexanddiverse oeuvre.IncelebratinghisgeniusandroleasMaster,wemayperpetuatehis normalizingfunction,whichsomehavetermedan “aestheticideology” that employsculturetominimizesocialandpoliticalchange.22
Thebroaderideologicalquestionsareparticularlyrelevantwhenwe considerhowoftenJamesinvokeshisownliteraryandaestheticauthorityto solvesocialandpoliticalproblems.DaisyMillerneverquiterisestothepossibilitiesofsocialrevolutionthatJamesidentifieswithLordByronandother Englishromantics.ThejournalistHenriettaStackpolein ThePortraitofa Lady,theoratorVerenaTarrantin TheBostonians,thebook-binderHyacinth Robinsonin ThePrincessCasamassima,theactressMiriamRoothin The TragicMuse,thetelegraphistin IntheCage,theromance-readingGovernessin TheTurnoftheScrew,thebequest-writingMillyThealein TheWingsofthe Dove,theeditorofaliteraryjournalLambertStretherin TheAmbassadors, themarriage-arrangingMaggieVerverin TheGoldenBowl allfailtoliveupto theirtacitrolemodel:therestlessanalyst,insightfulobserver,andinspired artistHenryJameshimself,whoisaloneabletorepresentthecomplexsocial problemsinwhichtheyareallenmeshed.I finditinterestingthatthesecharactersallwork,albeitnotasmembersoftheproletariat,byvirtueofsome activityinvolvinglanguageorliterature.
Insomeoddsense,then,PercyLubbockwasrightin TheCraftofFiction thatwereadJamesprimarilytolearnhowto write ashedid,notsomuchto becomesuccessfulnovelistsorjudgesoftheirwork,asLubbockintended,but rathertocopewithamodernworldthatisincreasinglystructuredinthe mannerof fiction.Thisviewofsocietyas narrative issharedbyMarkTwain andHenryJames,contemporaryauthorswhoareotherwisevastlydifferentin termsoftheirbackgrounds,interests,andstyles.HuckFinn,TomSawyer,Jim, theDukeandDauphin,DavidWilson,HankMorgan,ColonelSellers,the
21MikhailBahktin, ProblemsofDostoevsky’sPoetics,ed.andtrans.CarylEmerson(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1984),pp.132–137.
22MartinJay, “‘TheAestheticIdeology’ asIdeology;Or,WhatDoesItMeanto AestheticizePolitics?” CulturalCritique 21:1(Spring1992),41–61.
MysteriousStranger,andmostofTwain’sothernotablecharactersarestorytellersliketheircreator,whosepurposesrangefromhonestcommunicationto deception.ColmTóibíncontendsthatJames’ s fictiondependson “purestyle, wherestyleitself wasasortofhighmorality” (ANN,24).Asreaders,we shouldlearnhowtotellagoodstoryandhowtointerpretstories,becausethe worldturnsonsuch fictions.Intheserespects,TwainandJamesbothparticipatedintheearlystagesofaestheticmodernismandanticipatedthepostmodernculturalturn,remindingusthatnosocialrealitycanbeseparatedfrom itsrepresentation.
Themeta fi ctionalaspectofJamesiscertainlyoneofhisappealsto postmodernaudiences,butitalso hasatendencytotrivializespeci fi csocial andpoliticalissues.Everythingissociallyconstructedandhencesubjectto change.Whybothertomarchorchangethelawswhentomorrowthevery socialconventionsgoverningourliv eswillbeexposedaslies?Thereisan existentialistbiasinJames,whichheshareswithTwain,thattendsto universalizehumanproblemsandrend ersocialtransformationsquixotic. EventhoughJames’smetaliterarydimensionmaybehismainclaimtoforesee ourcontemporary,digitalworld,itmayalsobepartofadeeplyconservative, retrogradeimpulsetoreduceeverythingto fiction,allfactsto “fakenews.” As farasDonaldTrumpseemsfromtheculturalsophisticationandcosmopolitanismofHenryJames,distantasJamesmightbefromTrump’spopulist politicalbase,theymaybestrangebedfellows,bothofwhomunderstandwell enoughhowtomanipulatethe fictionsofsocialreality.23
Thisbookaddresseswhatpersistsandhowitischangedintheworkofasingle exemplaryauthorwhosecomplexbodyof workcontinuestodrawcontemporary audiencestohisoriginalandadaptedtexts.Mypurposeislesscelebratorythan criticalinthesenseofseekingwhatliesbehindtheapparent “genius” ofadistinguishedwriter.Farmoreinterestingtousshouldbethesocialissuesthatcontinuetodemandeither “aestheticdissent” orgenuinepoliticalchanges.Does Jamesencourageustofacethesecontinuingproblems,evenidentifyingprospectivelyhowtheymightgaincomplexityorvariationinafuturehecouldonly dimlyanticipate?OrdoesJamesinsteadprovideuswithaestheticplacebos,fake catharsesthatmayreassureusthatpeoplehave always struggledtounderstand eachother,thatnooneevercanhaveenoughmoney,thatartisindeedawayout, thatallfamiliesareunhappy,thathellistrulyotherpeople?Orareweimagininga Jameswhoneverexistedbutinsteadservesourpurposesinwayshecouldnever haveanticipated,aphantasmaticHenryJameswhohaslittletodowithhisown eraandeverythingtodowithourowncontemporaryneeds?
Morethan fiftyyearsago,MaxwellGeismarindictedtheinventionof anotherHenryJamesin HenryJamesandtheJacobites (1963).24 Histarget
23SeeJohnCarlosRowe, “TheReaderWritesBack:SocialMediaandtheNovel,” Novel 50.3(Fall2017),452–464,forafullerdevelopmentofthisidea. 24MaxwellGeismar, HenryJamesandtheJacobites (Boston:HoughtonMifflin Co.,1963).Furtherreferencesinthetextas:Geismar.
