<h2><SPAN name="VII" id="VII"></SPAN>VII</h2>
<h3>ON CHEERFUL READERS</h3>
<p>There has been an increasing demand lately for
cheerful books. Mr Balfour began it—at least, he
gave it a voice by quoting approvingly a phrase
from one of Mr Bennett's novels about the books
that cheer us all up. It was a most unfortunate
phrase to quote in public. It confirmed every
bald old scaramouch in all his hostilities to realism,
tragedy, and every other form of literature that does
not go about with its hat over its eye. It also
confirmed a popular prejudice to the effect that it
is the duty of men of letters to be cheerful in a
way in which it is not the duty, say, of mathematicians
to be cheerful. Now, one need not be an
enemy of cheerfulness to detest this theory. One
merely needs to be sufficiently awake to recognise
that cheerfulness may easily become a tyranny
which will bind the hands and feet of literature as
it has already bound the hands and feet of drama.
Cheerfulness, cheerfulness, and yet again cheerfulness,
is the all too golden rule in the theatre.<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</SPAN></span>
One result of this is that Ibsen has been expelled
from the stage for the only naughtiness of which the
English theatre takes notice—the naughtiness of
being serious. Even Mr Shaw, who possesses the
comic spirit in greater abundance than any other
writer of his time, is flayed alive by the critics
on the production of each new play he writes,
because, besides being cheerful, he is a man of
ideas. It is not enough that you should be cheerful:
you must be cheerful to the exclusion of
everything else—everything, at least, that might
bring unrest to the intellect or the spirit or to any
other part of a man except the muscles that work
the oil-wells of sentiment and the creaking jaws of
laughter. The consequences might have been
foreseen. No one unaided, could be quite so
inhumanly vacuous as the audiences in the theatres
expected him to be. And so the dramatic author
had to call in to his aid the musicians, the poets,
the limelight-men, the mask-sellers, the dancing
girls, the dressmakers, and a host of other people,
each of whom separately could only be a little
inane, but all of whom together could be overwhelmingly
inane; and among them they produced
that overwhelming inanity, musical comedy.
There you have the ultimate logic of cheerfulness
in the theatre. It is like the obtrusive<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</SPAN></span>
cheerfulness of the performing animals in music-halls.
It is a tedious and beastly thing. It is
cheerfulness without mind or meaning. It is like
a laugh painted on a clown's face. Compulsory
cheerfulness must always end like that, because, if
one has to laugh all the time, it is far easier to put
the laugh on with a brush than to keep one's face
distorted by strength of will.</p>
<p>With the warning of the cheerful theatre before
us, then, it would be the stupidest folly to pay any
heed to the new plea for cheerful books. It is an
extraordinary fact that thousands of people can
be serious to the point of bad temper over a political
argument or a game of cards or tennis; but if you
asked them to take a book seriously, they would
regard the prospect as worse than a dry pharyngitis.
They put literature on a level not with their
games, but with the chocolates and drinks they
consume when they are resting from their games.
It is of the chocolate kind of literature that ninety-nine
out of a hundred persons are thinking when
they applaud phrases about the books that cheer
us all up. Or it might be nearer the mark to liken
the sort of literature they have in mind to one of
those brands of medicated port which innocent old
ladies find grateful and comforting. We live in
an age of advertised brain-fag, and we demand of<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</SPAN></span>
literature that it shall be the literature of brain-fag.
We ask of it not friendship, but a drug.
That is the heresy which must be killed if letters
are to live. Till it is killed they will not even be
enjoyed. I grant at once that it would be an
impudence to expect an average sensual man to
regard books with the same profound interest as his
business affairs or his wife. On the other hand,
persuade him that it is pleasant to put as much of
his heart into the enjoyment of a book as he puts
into the enjoyment of a football match, and you
will produce a revolution among the book-reading
public. No man who is not eccentric dreams of
asking that a football match shall be amusing or
a game of chess cheerful. He goes to the one for
its furious energy, for the thrill of the rivalry of
real people; he turns to the other for an experience
of intensity, of prescient skill. It is for energetic
experiences of a comparable kind, as Mr R. A.
Scott-James suggestively pointed out in a recent
volume, that we go to literature. Literature is not
primarily meant to cheer us up when we are too tired
to read the paper, though incidentally it often does
so, and to despise this kind of literature would be
as sinful as to despise Christmas pudding and
brandy sauce. But the purpose of literature is
not to be an epilogue to energy. It involves not<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</SPAN></span>
a slackening, but a change, of effort. That is
why even the difficult authors like the Browning
of <i>Sordello</i> attract us. They have the appeal of
pathless mountains. It is a curious fact, at the
same time, that some of those who delight most
boldly in physical experiences turn from intellectual
and imaginative experiences with a kind of contempt.
They despise from their hearts the mollycoddle who
will not risk a wound or a cold for the pleasures
of the sun and air. But, so far as the imagination
is concerned, they themselves are mollycoddles who
will not venture beyond a game of halma or a
sugarstick by the hearth. What the world of
literature needs most is not cheerful writers, but
adventurous readers. The reading of poetry will
become as popular as swimming when once it
is recognised that it is as natural and as
exhilarating.</p>
<p>Literature thus justifies itself not so much by
cheering us all up when we are limp as by its appeal
to the spirit of adventure, or, if you like the phrase
better, the spirit of experience. That is the explanation
of the pleasure we take in tragic literature.
Tragedy reminds certain spiritual energies in
us that they are alive. It enables them to expand,
to exert themselves, to breathe freely. That is
why, in literature, it makes us happy to be miser<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</SPAN></span>able.
To put forth our strength, whether of limb
or of imagination, makes for our happiness far
more than the passive cheerfulness of the fireside;
or if not more, at least as much. It would be
ungrateful to speak slightingly of the easy-chair
and its pleasures. But the chief danger in literature
at present is not that the easy-chair will be
neglected, but that it will be given a place of far
too great importance. Hence it is necessary to
emphasise the pleasures of the strenuous life in
contrast. This may seem to some readers a
tolerable excuse for liking tragedy and poetry, but
a poor defence of the taste for realism, naturalism,
or whatever you like to call it. Even those who
respond immediately to the appeal of the mountains
and the sea will often resist the invitation of Zola
and Huysmans and their followers to seek adventures
in the slums. They will not see that it
is as natural to go on one's travels in the slums as
in the most beautiful lakeland on earth. As a
matter of fact, the discovery of the slums was one
of the most tremendous discoveries of the nineteenth
century. It was one of those revolutionary
discoveries that have changed our whole view of
society. Whether it was the men of letters or the
sociologists who first discovered them I do not
know. I contend, however, that the men of letters<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</SPAN></span>
had as much right to go to them as the sociologists.
They found life expressed there in horror and
beauty, in sordidness and nobility, and to reveal
this in literature was to some extent to create a
new world for the imagination. It was to do more
than this. Society could not become fully self-conscious
or articulate until the pauper aspect of
it was expressed in literature. Hence the novelist
of mean streets extended the boundaries of social
self-consciousness. The realists indeed have brought
the remedial imagination to us as the sociologist
has brought the remedial facts and figures. This
remedialism, no doubt, is an extra-literary interest.
But nothing is quite alien to literature which
touches the imagination. The imagination may
find its treasures in Tyre and Sidon or in an alley
off a back street, or even in a semi-detached villa.
One must not limit it in its wanderings to safe and
clean and comfortable places.</p>
<p>This seems to me to be the great justification of
the demand, not for cheerful books, but for cheerful
and courageous readers. The cheerful reader will
be able to go to hell with Dante and to hospital
with Esther Waters; and though this may be but
a poor and secondhand courage, it is at least
preferable to the intellectual and imaginative
cowardice which will admit danger into literature<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</SPAN></span>
only when it has been stripped of every semblance
of reality. The courage of the study, it may be,
is not so fine a thing as the courage of the workshop
and the field. But it is finer than is generally
admitted. And it is much rarer. There is no
place in which men and women are so shamelessly
lazy and timid as among their books. If happiness
lay in that direction, the laziness might be justified.
But it does not. Happiness can never come from
the atrophy of nine-tenths of our nature. It is
the result of the vigorous delight of heart and mind
and spirit as well as of body. The cheerful reader
feels as ready for Æschylus and his furies as the
yachtsman for his sail on a choppy sea. He fears
the tragic satire of <i>Madame Bovary</i> no more
than a good pedestrian fears the east wind. This
is not to say that he does not enjoy cheerful books
when he finds them. He may even prefer <i>Tristram
Shandy</i> and <i>The Pickwick Papers</i> to Tolstoi. But
he realises that cheerfulness in a book is a delightful
accident, not a necessity of literature. He knows
that to be cheerful is his own business, whether he
goes with his author into the dark and solitary
places or into the sheltered and smiling gardens
of the sun.</p>
<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</SPAN></span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />