Various Interpretations of Character Motivation in 19th Century American Literature
Various Interpretations of Character Motivation in 19th Century American LiteratureTitle: Various Interpretations of Character in Late 19th Century America Literature
The medium of photography is primarily concerned with capturing a precise, detailed image, with the photographer using a camera to distill the image. In the 19th century, this quest for precision drove not only photographers but also authors, perhaps pointing to a pervading desire to capture the reality of things. Responding to Romanticism, William Dean Howells, Mark Twain, and Henry James, among many others, committed themselves to writing about plausible events that actually occur to the average American individual. This is the essence of Realism. Their writing would be a snapshot of a moment, with the reader witnessing an instance in a character’s life.
Along side the rise of Realism in literature towards the end of the 19th century developed movements of Realism which emphasized different aspects of creating this literary picture. They included Regionalists, who also aimed to write truthfully about what is, and Naturalists, who identified the human struggle as the ultimate theme in Realism. Some would argue that these two genres are outside the realm of Realism, however upon examination, both of these movements share much of the same concerns as the Realists. Because of the preoccupation with achieving objectivity by creating complex characters and by looking at how these characters then react to their given circumstances, we should consider Regionalism and Naturalism as merely strains of Realism. By looking at the work of Jack London, Charles Waddell Chesnutt, and Elizabeth Freeman, we can see their interpretation of the Realist aesthetic.
However, first we shall discuss Henry James, as he is considered the quintessential Realist. James wanted to remove from his writing the subjective artifice of Romanticism, relying then on the distance objectivity grants the reader (and characters involved) to form their own opinion. He concentrated on character motivation — the why a person does something versus if it is morally correct. In “Daisy Miller”, we see all of his concerns regarding literature exhibited. His story is specific about the details of time and place. We are not necessarily concerned with the title character, but rather Winterbourne’s reading of her. We bear witness to his thought process as he reads her outer appearance, trying to determine the inner reality. Initially, he notes Miss Miller’s “various features–her complexion, her nose, her ears, her teeth” (456). He notes this because he believes that he can discern from her natural character. In fact, based on this cataloguing of her outward attributes, he comes to the conclusion that “it [she] was not at all insipid, but it was not exactly expressive; and though it was eminently delicate [he] mentally accused it … of want of finish” (456). He is pleased and “almost grateful for having found a formula that applied” to her (458). This desire to find an explanation clearly shows us James’s fascination with the why and how of things.
With Naturalism, the desire to explain the why of things manifests itself in Naturalism’s strict adherence to hereditary predestination. It simply carries the Realist idea of outward surfaces reflecting what is within one step further by stating that our genetic make up predisposes our character. Societal accoutrements are removed to reveal true character. No more is this more evident than in London’s treatment of characters in “The Call of the Wild”. London effectively achieves complete objectivity by highlighting the character’s natural strengths and weaknesses to determine success. For instance, if Buck was not a mixture of two strong breeds, but a Japanese pug like Toots, his adventure in the wild would never have taken place, for he would have died long before he reached the Arctic. In fact, we are reminded in many places of Buck’s strength and his possession of “a quality that made for greatness — imagination” (79). We are reminded of the importance of predisposition when Mercedes cannot adapt to the harsh environment of the Arctic because she “nursed a special grievance… of sex”, and because it is her “custom to be helpless” (100). Her inability to adapt is not for lack of will, but because she cannot. Like Realism, character motivation in Naturalism is innate to being.
Regionalists aimed to depict characters honestly by paying particular attention to the distinguishing features of a locale, thus giving the reader a different facet of the truth that also preoccupied Realists. Rather than focusing on the biological make-up or the outward appearance of a character, Regionalists recorded speech patterns, landscape and routine to discern character motivation. When we are introduced to a character like Sarah Penn (Mother), in “The Revolt of ‘Mother’”, we will not know that she is dismayed that her husband has built a new barn rather than the promised new home for family because of anything she says or the narrator implies. However, we are allowed to witness her actions upon hearing this news:
She went into the pantry, and there as a clatter of dishes… [She] came promptly out of the pantry, and shoved her [the girl] aside. “You wipe ‘em,” said she; “I’ll wash. There’s a good many this mornin’.”…
The mother plunged her hands vigorously into the water, the girl wiped the plates slowly and dreamily. (169)
By simply reporting Mother’s actions, we are able to distinguish that she is angry, yet cannot react thoughtfully just yet. The language describing Mother’s action of washing dishes is forceful and rife with determination, contrasting the language to describe the languid movement of her daughter. Though some may regard this inference of motivation from action as subjective and, in turn, not Realistic, I believe it can only be considered more so. Regionalism, too, may be seen as a logical extension of Realism because of this devotion to reporting things faithfully, without the taint of steering the reader toward judgement.
Characters within stories are always reading one another’s actions and dress, or questioning the other’s background as it relates to integrity, so it is only natural for writers to never really abandon a vague subjectivity. For instance, in Chesnutt’s “The Passing of Grandison”, two different slaves are asked to go up North with Dick Owens on a small trip. Both Tom and Grandison have virtually the same fear of being kidnapped by meddling abolitionists. Tom would not mind going, “ez long ez you’d [Owens] take keer er me an’ fetch me home all right” (367), while Grandison asks, “with sudden alarm” if “[d]ey won’t try ter steal me?” (370). Though having the same concerns, one is deemed to be more loyal to his master than the other, based on how Master Owens reads each one. We also see this in Kate Chopin’s “Desiree’s Baby”, as the title character is considered desirable until her baby begins to take on more attributes that suggest an African ancestry. Her husband rejects her and her baby, his son, based on this. Like Regionalists, Realists and Naturalists also acknowledged that, even if the character is completely embedded within the action, he often struggles to remain distanced to try and gain perspective, failing because inherently man is unable to remove himself entirely from said situation. Though the characters within the text retain their subjectivity, the writers are committed to ensuring that it is reported with utmost objectivity.
The world had changed dramatically at the end of the 19th century, reflecting new discoveries in science and technology that forced every American to re-examine how to read their everyday activity. People struggled to make sense of things that were once unknown now made known. The removal of the human eye from recording events, while still retaining the mind to interpret these events, caused writers to re-examine explore the validity of such literary devices as objectivity versus subjectivity. Within the Realism of Henry James, there is the need to report faithfully the processes of character judgment without didacticism. This same goal drove Regionalist authors as well as their Naturalist counterparts. They, too, were grappling with how to respond to an altered world in which complete Romantic subjectivity seemed antiquated. We should not see their attempts as working outside the realm of Realism, however as under the umbrella of Realism with Regionalism and Naturalism as a re-interpretation of the Realist aesthetic. Each writer, from London to Freeman attempted to distill their image, acting as the camera, witnessing the action of their characters. The boundaries separating Regionalism from Realism from Naturalism are so tenuous that they should be deemed as unnecessary, since all were working toward the same end — the faithful depiction of Americans as they are in Reality.