D J McAdam - A Website for Book Collectors




 Stories and Story-telling

[Note: This is taken From Andrew Lang's Adventures Among Books.]

Marion Crawford

We have had a drought for three weeks.  During a whole week this northern strath has been as sunny as the Riviera is expected to be.  The streams can be crossed dry-shod, kelts are plunging in the pools, but even kelts will not look at a fly.  Now, by way of a pleasant change, an icy north wind is blowing, with gusts of snow, not snow enough to swell the loch that feeds the river, but just enough snow (as the tourist said of the water in the River Styx) “to swear by,” or at!  The Field announces that a duke, who rents three rods on a neighbouring river, has not yet caught one salmon.  The acrimoniously democratic mind may take comfort in that intelligence, but, if the weather will not improve for a duke, it is not likely to change for a mere person of letters.  Thus the devotee of the Muses is driven back, by stress of climate, upon literature, and as there is nothing in the lodge to read he is compelled to write.

Now certainly one would not lack material, if only one were capable of the art of fiction.  The genesis of novels and stories is a topic little studied, but I am inclined to believe that, like the pearls in the mussels of the river, fiction is a beautiful disease of the brain.  Something, an incident or an experience, or a reflection, gets imbedded, incrusted, in the properly constituted mind, and becomes the nucleus of a pearl of romance.  Mr. Marion Crawford, in a recent work, describes his hero, who is a novelist, at work.  This young gentleman, by a series of faults or misfortunes, has himself become a centre of harrowing emotion.  Two young ladies, to each of whom he has been betrothed, are weeping out their eyes for him, or are kneeling to heaven with despairing cries, or are hardening their hearts to marry men for whom they “do not care a bawbee.”  The hero’s aunt has committed a crime; everybody, in fact, is in despair, when an idea occurs to the hero.  Indifferent to the sorrows of his nearest and dearest, he sits down with his notion and writes a novel—writes like a person possessed.

He has the proper kind of brain, the nucleus has been dropped into it, the pearl begins to grow, and to assume prismatic hues.  So he is happy, and even the frozen-out angler might be happy if he could write a novel in the absence of salmon.  Unluckily, my brain is not capable of this æsthetic malady, and to save my life, or to “milk a fine warm cow rain,” as the Zulus say, I could not write a novel, or even a short story.  About The Short Story, as they call it, with capital letters, our critical American cousins have much to say.  Its germ, one fancies, is usually an incident, or a mere anecdote, according to the nature of the author’s brain; this germ becomes either the pearl of a brief conte, or the seed of a stately tree, in three volumes.  An author of experience soon finds out how he should treat his material.  One writer informs me that, given the idea, the germinal idea, it is as easy for him to make a novel out of it as a tale—as easy, and much more satisfactory and remunerative.  Others, like M. Guy de Maupassant, for example, seem to find their strength in brevity, in cutting down, not in amplifying; in selecting and reducing, not in allowing other ideas to group themselves round the first, other characters to assemble about those who are essential.  That seems to be really the whole philosophy of this matter, concerning which so many words are expended.  The growth of the germinal idea depends on the nature of an author’s talent—he may excel in expansion, or in reduction; he may be economical, and out of an anecdote may spin the whole cocoon of a romance; or he may be extravagant, and give a capable idea away in the briefest form possible.

These ideas may come to a man in many ways, as we said, from a dream, from a fragmentary experience (as most experiences in life are fragmentary), from a hint in a newspaper, from a tale told in conversation.  Not long ago, for example, I heard an anecdote out of which M. Guy de Maupassant could have made the most ghastly, the most squalid, and the most supernaturally moving of all his contes.  Indeed, that is not saying much, as he did not excel in the supernatural.  Were it written in French, it might lie in my lady’s chamber, and, as times go, nobody would be shocked.  But, by our curious British conventions, this tale cannot be told in an English book or magazine.  It was not, in its tendency, immoral; those terrible tales never are.  The events were rather calculated to frighten the hearer into the paths of virtue.  When Mr. Richard Cameron, the founder of the Cameronians, and the godfather of the Cameronian Regiment, was sent to his parish, he was bidden by Mr. Peden to “put hell-fire to the tails” of his congregation.  This vigorous expression was well fitted to describe the conte which I have in my mind (I rather wish I had it not), and which is not to be narrated here, nor in English.

For a combination of pity and terror, it seemed to me unmatched in the works of the modern fancy, or in the horrors of modern experience; whether in experience or in imagination it had its original source.  But even the English authors, who plume themselves on their audacity, or their realism, or their contempt for “the young person,” would not venture this little romance, much less, then, is a timidly uncorrect pen-man likely to tempt Mr. Mudie with the conte.  It is one of two tales, both told as true, which one would like to be able to narrate in the language of Molière.  The other is also very good, and has a wonderful scene with a corpse and a chapelle ardente, and a young lady; it is historical, and of the last generation but one.

Even our frozen strath here has its modern legend, which may be told in English, and out of which, I am sure, a novelist could make a good short story, or a pleasant opening chapter of a romance.  What is the mysterious art by which these things are done?  What makes the well-told story seem real, rich with life, actual, engrossing?  It is the secret of genius, of the novelist’s art, and the writer who cannot practise the art might as well try to discover the Philosopher’s Stone, or to “harp fish out of the water.”  However, let me tell the legend as simply as may be, and as it was told to me.

The strath runs due north, the river flowing from a great loch to the Northern sea.  All around are low, undulating hills, brown with heather, and as lonely almost as the Sahara.  On the horizon to the south rise the mountains, Ben this and Ben that, real mountains of beautiful outline, though no higher than some three thousand feet.  Before the country was divided into moors and forests, tenanted by makers of patent corkscrews, and boilers of patent soap, before the rivers were distributed into beats, marked off by white and red posts, there lived over to the south, under the mountains, a sportsman of athletic frame and adventurous disposition.  His name I have forgotten, but we may call him Dick Lindsay.  It is told of him that he once found a poacher in the forest, and, being unable to catch the intruder, fired his rifle, not at him, but in his neighbourhood, whereon the poacher, deliberately kneeling down, took a long shot at Dick.  How the duel ended, and whether either party flew a flag of truce, history does not record.

At all events, one stormy day in late September, Dick had stalked and wounded a stag on the hills to the south-east of the strath.  Here, if only one were a novelist, one could weave several pages of valuable copy out of the stalk.  The stag made for the strath here, and Dick, who had no gillie, but was an independent sportsman of the old school, pursued on foot.  Plunging down the low, birch-clad hills, the stag found the flooded river before him, black and swollen with rain.  He took the water, crossing by the big pool, which looked almost like a little loch, tempestuous under a north wind blowing up stream, and covered with small white, vicious crests.  The stag crossed and staggered up the bank, where he stood panting.  It is not a humane thing to leave a deer to die slowly of a rifle bullet, and Dick, reaching the pool, hesitated not, but threw off his clothes, took his skene between his teeth, plunged in, and swam the river.

All naked as he was he cut the stag’s throat in the usual manner, and gralloched him with all the skill of Bucklaw.  This was very well, and very well it would be to add a description of the stag at bay; but as I never happened to see a stag at bay, I omit all that.  Dick had achieved success, but his clothes were on one side of a roaring river in spate, and he and the dead stag were on the other.  There was no chance of fording the stream, and there was then no bridge.  He did not care to swim back, for the excitement was out of him.  He was trembling with cold, and afraid of cramp.  “A mother-naked man,” in a wilderness, with a flood between him and his raiment, was in a pitiable position.  It did not occur to him to flay the stag, and dress in the hide, and, indeed, he would have been frozen before he could have accomplished that task.  So he reconnoitred.

There was nobody within sight but one girl, who was herding cows.  Now for a naked man, with a knife, and bedabbled with blood, to address a young woman on a lonely moor is a delicate business.  The chances were that the girl would flee like a startled fawn, and leave Dick to walk, just as he was, to the nearest farmhouse, about a mile away.  However, Dick had to risk it; he lay down so that only his face appeared above the bank, and he shouted to the maiden.  When he had caught her attention he briefly explained the unusual situation.  Then the young woman behaved like a trump, or like a Highland Nausicaa, for students of the “Odyssey” will remember how Odysseus, simply clad in a leafy bough of a tree, made supplication to the sea-king’s daughter, and how she befriended him.  Even if Dick had been a reader of Homer, which is not probable, there were no trees within convenient reach, and he could not adopt the leafy covering of Odysseus.

“You sit still; if you move an inch before I give you the word, I’ll leave you where you are!” said Miss Mary.  She then cast her plaid over her face, marched up to the bank where Dick was crouching and shivering, dropped her ample plaid over him, and sped away towards the farmhouse.  When she had reached its shelter, and was giving an account of the adventure, Dick set forth, like a primeval Highlander, the covering doing duty both for plaid and kilt.  Clothes of some kind were provided for him at the cottage, a rickety old boat was fetched, and he and his stag were rowed across the river to the place where his clothes lay.

That is all, but if one were a dealer in romance, much play might be made with the future fortunes of the sportsman and the maiden, happy fortunes or unhappy.  In real life, the lassie “drew up with” a shepherd lad, as Miss Jenny Denison has it, married him, and helped to populate the strath.  As for Dick, history tells no more of his adventures, nor is it alleged that he ever again visited the distant valley, or beheld the face of his Highland Nausicaa.

Now, if one were a romancer, this mere anecdote probably would “rest, lovely pearl, in the brain, and slowly mature in the oyster,” till it became a novel.  Properly handled, the incident would make a very agreeable first chapter, with the aid of scenery, botany, climate, and remarks on the manners and customs of the red deer stolen from St. John, or the Stuarts d’Albanie.  Then, probably, one would reflect on the characters of Mary and of Richard; Mary must have parents, of course, and one would make them talk in Scottish.  Probably she already had a lover; how should she behave to that lover?  There is plenty of room for speculation in that problem.  As to Dick, is he to be a Lothario, or a lover pour le bon motif?  What are his distinguished family to think of the love affair, which would certainly ensue in fiction, though in real life nobody thought of it at all?  Are we to end happily, with a marriage or marriages, or are we to wind all up in the pleasant, pessimistic, realistic, fashionable modern way?  Is Mary to drown the baby in the Muckle Pool?  Is she to suffer the penalty of her crime at Inverness?  Or, happy thought, shall we not make her discarded rival lover meet Dick in the hills on a sunny day and then—are they not (taking a hint from facts) to fight a duel with rifles?  I see Dick lying, with a bullet in his brow, on the side of a corrie; his blood crimsons the snow, an eagle stoops from the sky.  That makes a pretty picturesque conclusion to the unwritten romance of the strath.

Another anecdote occurs to me; good, I think, for a short story, but capable, also, of being dumped down in the middle of a long novel.  It was in the old coaching days.  A Border squire was going north, in the coach, alone.  At a village he was joined by a man and a young lady: their purpose was manifest, they were a runaway couple, bound for Gretna Green.  They had not travelled long together before the young lady, turning to the squire, said, “Vous parlez français, Monsieur?”  He did speak French—it was plain that the bridegroom did not—and, to the end of the journey, that remarkable lady conducted a lively and affectionate conversation with the squire in French!  Manifestly, he had only to ask and receive, but, alas! he was an unadventurous, plain gentleman; he alighted at his own village; he drove home in his own dogcart; the fugitive pair went forward, and the Gretna blacksmith united them in holy matrimony.  The rest is silence.

I would give much to know what that young person’s previous history and adventures had been, to learn what befell her after her wedding, to understand, in brief, her conduct and her motives.  Were I a novelist, a Maupassant, or a Meredith, the Muse, “from whatsoever quarter she chose,” would enlighten me about all, and I would enlighten you.  But I can only marvel, only throw out the hint, only deposit the grain of sand, the nucleus of romance, in some more fertile brain.  Indeed the topic is much more puzzling than the right conclusion for my Highland romance.  In that case fancy could find certain obvious channels, into one or other of which it must flow.  But I see no channels for the lives of these three queerly met people in the coach.

As a rule, fancies are capable of being arranged in but a few familiar patterns, so that it seems hardly worth while to make the arrangement.  But he who looks at things thus will never be a writer of stories.  Nay, even of the slowly unfolding tale of his own existence he may weary, for the combinations therein have all occurred before; it is in a hackneyed old story that he is living, and you, and I.  Yet to act on this knowledge is to make a bad affair of our little life: we must try our best to take it seriously.  And so of story-writing.  As Mr. Stevenson says, a man must view “his very trifling enterprise with a gravity that would befit the cares of empire, and think the smallest improvement worth accomplishing at any expense of time and industry.  The book, the statue, the sonata, must be gone upon with the unreasoning good faith and the unflagging spirit of children at their play.”

That is true, that is the worst of it.  The man, the writer, over whom the irresistible desire to mock at himself, his work, his puppets and their fortunes has power, will never be a novelist.  The novelist must “make believe very much”; he must be in earnest with his characters.  But how to be in earnest, how to keep the note of disbelief and derision “out of the memorial”?  Ah, there is the difficulty, but it is a difficulty of which many authors appear to be insensible.  Perhaps they suffer from no such temptations.













Home | Book Collecting | Folklore / Myth | Philately | Playing Cards | Literature | Contents