Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1877-06-20
PLOTMAKING, IN FICTION,

PLOTMAKING, IN FICTION.
Harriet Martineau declares, in her
autobiography, that the creating OF q
plot in fiction is task beyond human
faculty. This power she thinks, is
the same as that of the prophecy
shat is, if all human action is' Gas we
know il to be) "the inevitable results
Of antecedents, all the antecedents
must be thoroughly comprehended in
order to discern the inevitable catas-
tropy. A mind which can do this
must be in the nature Of things a
prophetic mind, in the strictest sense I;
and no human mind is that" She goes
on to assert that the only thing to be
done is to derive a plot from actual
life, as everybody knows the best plots
have been. Shakespeares were SCOTS
best plot ("Thc Bride of Hammer.
moor was Boccaccio's stories were
undoubtedly derived from narratives
or from life before his eyes; and plot
making, such as it is, is often the gift
Of inferior writers. Dickens, she af-
firms, could not invent plot-nor
Bulwer-nor Douglas Jcrrold - nor
perhaps Thackeray -" "while Fannie
Kembles forgotten Francis L. writ
ten in her teens, contains mines of plot,
sufficient TO furnish groundwork for
score of fine fictions." She describes
how, in preparing one OF her early
economic tales, "Berklcy the Banker"
she sat over her materials for two days
from seven in the morning until two
the next morning, with an interval of
only twenty minutes for dinner and
after all was obliged to have recourse
to some facts Of the financial crisis Of
1925, and to those facts the story main
ly owed its success.
Writers ambitious for success in fic-
ton will be apt to derive vast deal
of comfort from these utteranccs. The
difficulty of plot-making has doubtless
kept many persons of brilliant imagi-
nation from the field of novel-writing (.
it was always weight upon Washing
ton Irving; it has kept writers like Ike
Marvel and Warner lowering ON the
verge of story. writing in the form of
the dramatic essay; it is peculiarly
the deficiency of American novelists.
But IL must not be hastily assumed
that, because original plots are impos-
sible, it only remains for writer to
bring together facts and characters in
real life In order TO execute novel.
Somebody has said that to combine in
Nature is to produce in art. A novel
writer, however much he may depend
upon actual facts for his groundwork,
must in one sense, after all, invent his
plot-that is, he must create the group
ing and the arrangements; he must,
by means of his imaginative power,
give freshness and vitality TO the pic
ture. A novel is no. really original by
the mere facts OF the story, but by the
treatment of them-by the atmosphere,
so to speak, IN which they are envelop-
ed, by the manner in which the char
acters are depicted and grouped, by
the artistic coloring, by the light and
shadc-just as one painter may make
the Crucifixion conventional and com
monplace, and another give to the IA
miliar incident original force and ex-
preston. These results are the high.
est tax upon the mental powers of a
writer; and the reason why inferior
writers are often good at mere plot
making is because IL is purely me-
chanical talent, a sort of puzzle.mak-
ing, the faculty for which may be rare,
but which is none the less far from be-
ing a high one Mere plot, moreover,
is never satisfying quality in ro.
nance; none of the works that endure
are famous for the story they have to
tell, but rather for the character.
painting and the manner IN which the
story is told. In almost every instance
an intricate story holds the attention
of the reader only SO long as the puz-
eel is unsolved the moment the mys-
terry is known, the novel is as empty
of interest as an old riddle. 1t is thus
obvious that writers are not going to
produce successful books by adopting
the idea that as original plot is impos-
sible it is not therefore to be attempt
ed, and that all one has to do is to
borrow from history or experience a
group OF facts in order to construct an
acceptable romance.