The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-02-08
Portraits In Fiction.
Philadelphia Press.

In recent issue OF The Independent
Prof. Goodwin Smith discusses 'the pro-
priety of introducing pictures or carica-
lures of living characters into works of fic-
tion," and raises question which is Of in
terest not only to the general reader but
to the novelist, and especially, it seems, to
the novelist's friends. Professor Smith pre-
sents for our inspection the usual stereo-
typed cases in point: Lord Steyre, who
was really Lord Hertford; Wenham, who,
in real life, was Wilson Croker; Squeers,
who was said to be modelled from a man
who had offended Dickens and was ruined
by the story-teller's revenge, and Cheve-
ley who was Bulwer as seen through the
eyes Of his estranged and Infatuated wife"
When such cases can be proven-and that
is rarely-the result, to extenuate the
crime, must, Of course, be very great, but
the sweeping dictum against portraits in
fiction which is implied by Professor Smith
is, in the last analysis, still less defensble
1t has ultimately been said that literature
is a criticism of life, and, worker in
literary materials. the novelist naturally
aims, first of all, to make his characters at
least seem real. OF course, supposing the
experiment possible, no living man-at any
rate, no interesting living man-would seem
real if faithfully and wholly portrayed in a
work of fiction, SO that the novelist is
forced to depend upon a selection and COM
binatton of salient qualities and character
istics. But in the matter of such selection
and combination the conscientious artist
should. patiently. be allowed free hand.
He has no right to commit libel; in rare
instances only-in the instances of a Juve-
nal or a Swift-is he great enough to have
right to inf1ict personal wound. Yet,
finally, unless his puppets appear authen-
tic and alive. his art fails, and it Is self
evident that the puppets cannot seem alive
unless they possess certain qualities which
are common to all men and certain peculi-
aritieS which their master has observed
either in his own self, in an acquaintance,
or in his individual experience OF life.
The truth is that the fault generally lies
with the reader. The shoe pinches and he
delights to put it on. No one who has had
ing of fiction can have failed to have a half
dozen friends ask him, either sincerely or
1nSincerely, please not to put them in his
novel," Yet, though these friends are quite
generous enough to themselves to believe
that they are worth thus setting forth in
work of fiction, they are always so mig
gardly toward their novelist as uncon-
sciously to disallow him any imagination.
According to their ancient theory, the char
acters are all real characters, the incidents
all true happenings and the hero irfvari-
ably photographic AS an instance and a
result of this, the piouS acquaintance of
one beginner in fiction have recently as
sured him that, after a reading of couple
of his books. they were sure that he had
led an immoral life at a large college, and
that he subsequently gained a knowledge
of prison discipline which was quite too ex-
act to be above suspicion. The author in
question Is relatively harmless citizen,
and. though he may have deserved penal
servitude, has never suffered that sentence.
This case, of course, is a minor one, but it
goes TO illustrate the fact that the imagi-
nation of the average reader is of a far
superior type to that of the average nov
q OF