In the shadow of the atomic bomb it is not easy to talk confidently about progress. However, if it can be assumed that we are not going to be blown to pieces in about ten years' time, there are many reasons, and George Gissing's novels are among them, for thinking that the present age is a good deal better than the last one. If Gissing were still alive he would be younger than Bernard Shaw, and yet already the London of which he wrote seems almost as distant as that of Dickens. It is the fog-bound, gas-lit London of the 'eighties [1880s], a city of drunken puritans, where clothes, architecture and furniture had reached their rock-bottom of ugliness, and where it was almost normal for a working-class family of ten persons to inhabit a single room. On the whole Gissing does not write of the worst depths of poverty, but one can hardly read his descriptions of lower-middle-class life, so obviously truthful in their dreariness, without feeling that we have improved perceptibly on that black-coated, money-ruled world of only sixty years ago.
Everything of Gissing's -- except perhaps one or two books written towards the end of his life -- contains memorable passages, and anyone who is making his acquaintance for the first time might do worse than start with In the Year of the Jubilee. It was rather a pity, however, to use up paper in reprinting two of his minor works when the books by which he ought to be remembered are and have been for years completely unprocurable. The Odd Women, for instance, is about as thoroughly out of print as a book can be. I possess a copy myself, in one of those nasty little red-covered cheap editions that flourished before the 1914 war, but that is the only copy I have ever seen or heard of. New Grub Street, Gissing's masterpiece, I have never succeeded in buying. When I have read it, it has been in soupstained copies borrowed from public lending libraries: so also with Demos, The Nether World and one or two others. So far as I know only The Private Papers of Henry Ryecroft, the book on Dickens, and A Life's Morning, have been in print at all recently. However, the two now reprinted are well worth reading, especially In the Year of the Jubilee, which is the more sordid and therefore the more characteristic.
In his introduction Mr William Plomer remarks that 'generally speaking, Gissing's novels are about money and women,' and Miss Myfanwy Evans says something very similar in introducing The Whirlpool. One might, I think, widen the definition and say that Gissing's novels are a protest against the form of self-torture that goes by the name of respectability. Gissing was a bookish, perhaps over-civilised man, in love with classical antiquity, who found himself trapped in a cold, smokey, Protestant country where it was impossible to be comfortable without a thick padding of money between yourself and the outer world. Behind his rage and querulousness there lay a perception that the horrors of life in late-Victorian England were largely unnecessary. The grime, the stupidity, the ugliness, the sex-starvation, the furtive debauchery, the vulgarity, the bad manners, the censoriousness -- these things were unnecessary, since the puritanism of which they were a relic no longer upheld the structure of society. People who might, without becoming less efficient, have been reasonably happy chose instead to be miserable, inventing senseless taboos with which to terrify themselves. Money was a nuisance not merely because without it you starved; what was more important was that unless you had quite a lot of it -- £300 a year, say -- society would not allow you to live gracefully or even peacefully. Women were a nuisance because even more than men they were the believers in taboos, still enslaved to respectability even when they had offended against it. Money and women were therefore the two instruments through which society avenged itself on the courageous and the intelligent. Gissing would have liked a little more money for himself and some others, but he was not much interested in what we should now call social justice. He did not admire the working class as such, and he did not believe in democracy. He wanted to speak not for the multitude, but for the exceptional man, the sensitive man, isolated among barbarians.
In The Odd Women there is not a single major character whose life is not ruined either by having too little money, or by getting it too late in life, or by the pressure of social conventions which are obviously absurd but which cannot be questioned. An elderly spinster crowns a useless life by taking to drink; a pretty young girl marries a man old enough to be her father; a struggling schoolmaster puts off marrying his sweetheart until both of them are middle-aged and withered; a good-natured man is nagged to death by his wife; an exceptionally intelligent, spirited man misses his chance to make an adventurous marriage and relapses into futility; in each case the ultimate reason for the disaster lies in obeying the accepted social code, or in not having enough money to circumvent it. In A Life's Morning an honest and gifted man meets with ruin and death because it is impossible to walk about a big town with no hat on. His hat is blown out of the window when he is travelling in the train, and as he has not enough money to buy another, he misappropriates some money belonging to his employer, which sets going a series of disasters. This is an interesting example of the changes in outlook that can suddenly make an all-powerful taboo seem ridiculous. Today, if you had somehow contrived to lose your trousers, you would probably embezzle money rather than walk about in your underpants. In the 'eighties the necessity would have seemed equally strong in the case of a hat. Even thirty or forty years ago, indeed, bare-headed men were booed at in the street. Then, for no very clear reason, hatlessness became respectable, and today the particular tragedy described by Gissing -- entirely plausible in its context -- would be quite impossible.
The most impressive of Gissing's books is New Grub Street. To a professional writer it is also an upsetting and demoralising book, because it deals among other things with that much-dreaded occupational disease, sterility. No doubt the number of writers who suddenly lose the power to write is not large, but it is a calamity that might happen to anybody at any moment, like sexual impotence. Gissing, of course, links it up with his habitual themes -- money, the pressure of the social code, and the stupidity of women.
Edwin Reardon, a young novelist -- he has just deserted a clerkship after having a fluky success with a single novel -- marries a charming and apparently intelligent young woman, with a small income of her own. Here, and in one or two other places, Gissing makes what now seems the curious remark that it is difficult for an educated man who is not rich to get married. Reardon brings it off, but his less successful friend, who lives in an attic and supports himself by ill-paid tutoring jobs, has to accept celibacy as a matter of course. If he did succeed in finding himself a wife, we are told, it could only be an uneducated girl from the slums. Women of refinement and sensibility will not face poverty. And here one notices again the deep difference between that day and our own. Doubtless Gissing is right in implying all through his books that intelligent women are very rare animals, and if one wants to marry a women who is intelligent and pretty, then the choice is still further restricted, according to a well-known arithmetical rule. It is like being allowed to choose only among albinos, and left-handed albinos at that. But what comes out in Gissing's treatment of his odious heroine, and of certain others among his women, is that at that date the idea of delicacy, refinement, even intelligence, in the case of a woman, was hardly separable from the idea of superior social status and expensive physical surroundings. The sort of woman whom a writer would want to marry was also the sort of woman who would shrink from living in an attic. When Gissing wrote New Grub Street that was probably true, and it could, I think, be justly claimed that it is not true today.
Almost as soon as Reardon is married it becomes apparent that his wife is merely a silly snob, the kind of woman in whom 'artistic tastes' are no more than a cover for social competitiveness. In marrying a novelist she has thought to marry someone who will rapidly become famous and shed reflected glory upon herself. Reardon is a studious, retiring, ineffectual man, a typical Gissing hero. He has been caught up in an expensive, pretentious world in which he knows he will never be able to maintain himself, and his nerve fails almost immediately. His wife, of course, has not the faintest understanding of what is meant by literary creation. There is a terrible passage -- terrible, at least, to anyone who earns his living by writing -- in which she calculates the number of pages that it would be possible to write in a day, and hence the number of novels that her husband may be expected to produce in a year -- with the reflection that really it is not a very laborious profession. Meanwhile Reardon has been stricken dumb. Day after day he sits at his desk; nothing happens, nothing comes. Finally, in panic, he manufactures a piece of rubbish; his publisher, because Reardon's previous book had been successful, dubiously accepts it. Thereafter he is unable to produce anything that even looks as if it might be printable. He is finished.
The desolating thing is that if only he could get back to his clerkship and his bachelorhood, he would be all right. The hard-boiled journalist who finally marries Reardon's widow sums him up accurately by saying that he is the kind of man who, if left to himself, would write a fairly good book every two years. But, of course, he is not left to himself. He cannot revert to his old profession, and he cannot simply settle down to live on his wife's money: public opinion, operating through his wife, harries him into impotence and finally into the grave. Most of the other literary characters in the book are not much more fortunate, and the troubles that beset them are still very much the same today. But at least it is unlikely that the book's central disaster would now happen in quite that way or for quite those reasons. The chances are that Reardon's wife would be less of a fool, and that he would have fewer scruples about walking out on her if she made life intolerable for him. A woman of rather similar type turns up in The Whirlpool in the person of Alina Frothingham. By contrast there are the three Miss Frenches in The Year of Jubilee, who represent the emerging lower-middle class -- a class which, according to Gissing, was getting hold of money and power which it was not fitted to use -- and who are quite surprisingly coarse, rowdy, shrewish and immoral. At first sight Gissing's 'ladylike' and 'unladylike' women seem to be different and even opposite kinds of animal, and this seems to invalidate his implied condemnation of the female sex in general. The connecting link between them, however, is that all of them are miserably limited in outlook. Even the clever and spirited ones, like Rhoda in The Odd Women (an interesting early specimen of the New Woman), cannot think in terms of generalities, and cannot get away from ready-made standards. In his heart Gissing seems to feel that women are natural inferiors. He wants them to be better educated, but on the other hand he does not want them to have freedom, which they are certain to misuse. On the whole the best women in his books are the self-effacing, home-keeping ones.
There are several of Gissing's books that I have never read, because I have never been able to get hold of them, and these unfortunately include Born in Exile, which is said by some people to be his best book. But merely on the strength of New Grub Street, Demos and The Odd Women I am ready to maintain that England has produced very few better novelists. This perhaps sounds like a rash statement until one stops to consider what is meant by a novel. The word 'novel' is commonly used to cover almost any kind of story -- The Golden Ass, Anna Karenina, Don Quixote, The Improvisatore, Madame Bovary, King Solomon's Mines or anything else you like -- but it also has a narrower sense in which it means something hardly existing before the nineteenth century and flourishing chiefly in Russia and France. A novel, in this sense, is a story which attempts to describe credible human beings, and -- without necessarily using the technique of naturalism -- to show them acting on everyday motives and not merely undergoing strings of improbable adventures. A true novel, sticking to this definition, will also contain at least two characters, probably more, who are described from the inside and on the same level of probability -- which, in effect, rules out the novels written in the first person. If one accepts this definition, it becomes apparent that the novel is not an art form in which England has excelled. The writers commonly paraded as 'great English novelists' have a way of turning out either not to be true novelists, or not to be Englishmen. Gissing was not a writer of picaresque tales, or burlesques, or comedies, or political tracts: he was interested in individual human beings, and the fact that he can deal sympathetically with several different sets of motives, and makes a credible story out of the collision between them, makes him exceptional among English writers.
Certainly there is not much of what is usually called beauty, not much lyricism, in the situations and characters that he chooses to imagine, and still less in the texture of his writing. His prose, indeed, is often disgusting. Here are a couple of samples:
Not with impunity could her thought accustom itself to stray in regions forbidden, how firm soever her resolve to hold bodily aloof. (The Whirlpool)
The ineptitude of uneducated Englishwomen in all that relates to their attire is a fact that it boots not to enlarge upon. (In the Year of the Jubilee)
However, he does not commit the faults that really matter. It is always clear what he means, he never 'writes for effect', he knows how to keep the balance between recit and dialogue and how to make dialogue sound probable while not contrasting too sharply with the prose that surrounds it. A much more serious fault than his inelegant manner of writing is the smallness of his range of experience. He is only acquainted with a few strata of society, and, in spite of his vivid understanding of the pressure of circumstance on character, does not seem to have much grasp of political or economic forces. In a mild way his outlook is reactionary, from lack of foresight rather than from ill-will. Having been obliged to live among them, he regarded the working class as savages, and in saying so he was merely being intellectually honest; he did not see that they were capable of becoming civilised if given slightly better opportunities. But, after all, what one demands from a novelist is not prophecy, and part of the charm of Gissing is that he belongs so unmistakably to his own time, although his time treated him badly.
The English writer nearest to Gissing always seems to be his contemporary, or near-contemporary, Mark Rutherford. If one simply tabulates their outstanding qualities, the two men appear to be very different. Mark Rutherford was a less prolific writer than Gissing, he was less definitely a novelist, he wrote much better prose, his books belong less recognisably to any particular time, and he was in outlook a social reformer and, above all, a puritan. Yet there is a sort of haunting resemblance, probably explained by the fact that both men lack that curse of English writers, a 'sense of humour'. A certain low-spiritedness, and air of loneliness, is common to both of them. There are, of course, funny passages in Gissing's books, but he is not chiefly concerned with getting a laugh -- above all, he has no impulse towards burlesque. He treats all his major characters more or less seriously, and with at least an attempt at sympathy. Any novel will inevitably contain minor characters who are mere grotesques or who are observed in a purely hostile spirit, but there is such a thing as impartiality, and Gissing is more capable of it than the great majority of English writers. It is a point in his favour that he had no very strong moral purpose. He had, of course, a deep loathing of the ugliness, emptiness and cruelty of the society he lived in, but he was concerned to describe it rather than to change it. There is usually no one in his books who can be pointed to as the villain, and even when there is a villain he is not punished. In his treatment of sexual matters Gissing is surprisingly frank, considering the time at which he was writing. It is not that he writes pornography or expresses approval of sexual promiscuity, but simply that he is willing to face the facts. The unwritten law of English fiction, the law that the hero as well as the heroine of a novel should be virgin when married, is disregarded in his books, almost for the first time since Fielding.
Like most English writers subsequent to the mid-nineteenth century, Gissing could not imagine any desirable destiny other than being a writer or a gentleman of leisure. The dichotomy between the intellectual and the lowbrow already existed, and a person capable of writing a serious novel could no longer picture himself as fully satisfied with the life of a businessman, or a soldier, or a politician, or what not. Gissing did not, at least consciously, even want to be the kind of writer that he was. His ideal, a rather melancholy one, was to have a moderate private income and live in a small comfortable house in the country, preferably unmarried, where he could wallow in books, especially the Greek and Latin classics. He might perhaps have realised this ideal if he had not managed to get himself into prison immediately after winning an Oxford scholarship: as it was he spent his life in what appeared to him to be hack work, and when he had at last reached the point where he could stop writing against the clock, he died almost immediately, aged only about forty-five. His death , described by H.G. Wells in his Experiment in Autobiography, was of a piece with his life. The twenty novels, or thereabouts, that he produced between 1880 and 1900 were, so to speak, sweated out of him during his struggle towards a leisure which he never enjoyed and which he might not have used to good advantage if he had had it: for it is difficult to believe that his temperament really fitted him for a life of scholarly research. Perhaps the natural pull of his gifts would in any case have drawn him towards novel writing sooner or later. If not, we must be thankful for the piece of youthful folly which turned him aside from a comfortable middle-class career and forced him to become the chronicler of vulgarity, squalor and failure.
This essay was written in 1948 but did not appear in print in Orwell's lifetime. It was first published in London Magazine, June, 1960.
By way of explanation, the "youthful folly" referred to by Orwell in the last sentence, as well as the remark about "if he had not managed to get himself into prison immediately after winning an Oxford scholarship", it's necessary to know a little something of the essence of Gissing's biography: his father was basically a shop-keeper, a "chemist", which is to say a pharmacist, but this was way before antibiotics, or even very wide acceptance of the germ theory; so he was in fact an untrained doctor of sorts to the poor, a dispenser of herbs and folk remedies. Thus George Gissing came from the non-blue-collar, non-laboring lower-middle class. It was only on the basis of winning an essay writing contest that he was able to go to Oxford.
Once there, the few women he came in contact with were from the upper and aristrocratic classes, and necessarily prim, proper, virginal, and chaste. In other words, not objects of desire. Off limits, except for shallow socializing. He became smitten with what was then called a commoner, a woman about his age from the working and/or lower classes. Some described her as a common prostitute, but it's not clear if Gissing was just naive, completely in denial, blinded by love/lust, or what. He thought he could "reform" her, improve her by exposing her to fine literature, world history, philosophical conversation, etc. Wasn't this what everyone aspired to, to better themselves socially and as humans? Who doesn't want to be "improved"?
Gissing also got the idea that she could earn a small but decent living respectably if she just had a sewing machine: she could then mend clothing and make dresses, as a home business. Cottage industry. But where to get the capital to buy a sewing maching? Well, everyone then at Oxford was part of a fraternity for their living arrangement, and as it turned out the one Gissing was put in had made him its Treasurer when he got there. Thus he had the key to the lock box with the fraternity's small amount of cash in it. He got the great idea that he could use some of it to help out this poor woman in acquiring a sewing machine so she could get up and running, with the idea that once she was set up and turning a small profit the loan could be paid back a little at a time. Well, of course the "theft" was discovered before any of that happened, Gissing's explanation/excuse carried absolutely no weight, and they lowered the boom on him, kicking him out of Oxford and putting him in the slammer for thirty or sixty days.
Needless to say this sequence of events at the age of only about eighteen had a profound influence on Gissing, and especially in his early novels a number of related themes and characters appear, as he "worked through it", to use modern psychological jargon. One is reminded of the current catchphrase "no good deed goes unpunished", or the biblical "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Characters that he's sympathetic to often innocently get into great heaps of trouble and are completely and perplexingly misunderstood trying to do something seemingly worthy. By contrast, he's clearly disdainful of professional social reformers, do-gooders, politicians, and the like -- people espousing high ideals but not really actually doing anything concrete; in a way they're parasitic on, dependent on, the very social ills that has them sounding like (mere) concerned citizens. This line of thinking is in keeping with the idea behind the Karpman drama triangle, where the Rescuers are at some level in cahoots with the Persecuters, since the former rely on the latter to produce a steady supply of Victims needing Rescuers. Some 130-140 years later I think Gissing would have liked a (non-fiction) book such as Anand Giridharadas's Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World
It's also worth mentioning by way of explanation that the term "odd women", from which one of Gissing's best books takes its title, was an actual term in use at the time, at least in England. It doesn't mean what one might think nowadays. It simply meant "different" and had no disparaging overtones: the premise of the novel was that it took place just a few years after the end of a war in which many young men were killed; there was thus a surplus of young, marriage-age women, for whom there would be no husbands. Practically every family with more than one daughter had such an odd woman in it. What to do with them? Many if not most remained "at home", say, playing the role of spinster and devoted aunt to their sibling's kids, assisting the parents (especially the mother) in housekeeping, while simultaneously trying not to be too much of a burden. Some would involve themselves with social causes, and charity and philanthropy. It is in this novel's characters that Gissing most thoroughly explored the "new woman" theme.
©2018-22, Chris Wetherill. All rights reserved. Display here does NOT constitute or imply permission to store, copy, republish, or redistribute my work in any manner for any purpose without prior permission.