"TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE

"Is there much wonder that Wendell Phillips should grow famous by the lecture that put this negro among the foremost of the men we should pride? He was not afraid to argue that in him we find the proof of the equality, if not the superiority, of the black man with the white. He put the black general against the white; people saw that the negro was not the fiend of cruelty and brutality. They had not known of the beautiful purity of his personal life, his tenderness and kindliness. There were tears for the story of his last miserable days. Perhaps when the lecture was done there was less to be said of the greatness of Napoleon. Suffice it to say, that we've much thanks for Mr. Phillips and a heart full of admiration for L'Ouverture."

The faults of this paper may be gathered in part from the student criticism below, given without change from the student's paper.

"This theme talks as much about Phillips' lecture as it does about L'Ouverture. There are many minor mistakes in it. The expression men we should pride,' is poor. This negro' has no name to refer back to, L'Ouverture not being mentioned until the last line. 'He was not afraid to argue that in him,' has indefinite antecedents, but is fairly clear. The equality, if not the superiority, of the black with the white,' has a poor preposition, as one that went with superiority would be better. 'Saw that the negro,' has a reference general rather than specific. Furthermore, the first half of the second sentence is not in thought connected with the second, while the second part of that third sentence would go pretty well with the third sentence. 'We've,' should be we have, for the tone of the rest of the theme. 'Much thanks,' should be many thanks. Heart full of admiration' would better have been an emotional term following 'heart.' In all these things the writer has been quite careless. The style is jagged. Our wonder about Phillips' getting famous is incongruous

6

་

with the fact that Phillips was not afraid to argue. There is parallelism in thought in this theme, but the form is poor because it does not bring out one thing, it does not bring out different phases of one thing, and it does not progress. The point of the paragraph, that Phillips makes us admire L'Ouverture, is lost throughout the center. The diction is poor in that it does not bring pictures to the mind. It is abstract."

The general drift of this criticism is in the way of pointing out a lack of unity in the paper. The writer has not sufficiently centered attention on either L'Ouverture or Phillips. One or the other must be subordinated. Either one is interesting enough for a theme. Indeed, the material offered by one alone is more than abundant for a theme much longer than this, but the writer should not attempt to exalt both of them, except as one of them shares in an entirely subordinate way in the glorification of the other.

53. If we look at it a little closely we shall see that the question of form is, in this paper, nearly related to the question of what I shall call the writer's objective. In this student's theme the objective is a divided one, and the style consequently is diffuse and scattered. An experienced writer feels all the while that he is pushing toward something. He has an end before him just as clearly as the sculptor has before him the imagined figure that will be left when he has cut away the marble. If he is as deeply bent upon this objective as he should be, he is impatient of anything that keeps him back from it. Every word must count. There must be no turning aside, no confusion of aims, no change of attitude either in fact or in appearance. There will be complications of the subject through which the discussion must be carried, but the course must not be or seem circuitous. All the relationships of

the ideas must be so flashed up into the light that all the minor notions will seem clearly tied to the main thread of thought.

Now, this mood and this spirit, this feeling for the goal, this urgency toward an objective has an influence upon the structure, the organization of the thought, and also upon the form given it in words. In general literature has been considered as being subject-matter and form. It is more accurate to think of it as subject-matter, structure, and style. When one is in the creative mood, looking at the objective of his writing and trying to focus every word and phrase upon it, these are all seen to be in a very close mutual relationship. Often the thought is a part of the form, either as structure or style or both, because what the writer wishes to communicate is a tone as well as a truth. It is the style of the writing that will be most important in establishing this tone. Thought, then, is itself not complete until it has been given an adequate form, until it has achieved actuality in style.

54. Evidently style, good style, is not one thing, but many. It must be considered always with relation to thought and structure and must change with them. If the thought is sharp and definite and the structure rigid, the style cannot appropriately be whimsical and capricious. When we are discussing a writer's style or deliberating upon our own, we must not confuse it with structure or art method or subject-matter, and yet we must not think of it as a thing wholly independent. It is not the tissue paper wrapped around the orange, but the deep gold of the orange itself kept moist and sweet by the juice inside.

Some study of structure, therefore, cannot be quite omitted in the study of style. We shall have to look a little at the rigidity or looseness of structure of what we read.

We shall have to ask whether the method of approach to the prime idea of the writing is gradual or abrupt, whether the idea is brought forward slowly as the grounds for it appear or is first clearly announced and then substantiated, whether the method is inductive or deductive. It will sometimes be necessary to ask whether the author presents his ideas by implication or by declaration, whether the writing belongs to the literature of suggestion or to that of full statement. It will be well to know what our author's objective is, understanding that as being generally something more than meaning, and to know also how he brings his writing forward to that objective. Then we can see the better how style plays its part in the whole, bringing the reader's passions and will and intellect to one full unity of realization.

IX

KNOWING HOW AND GETTING THE TOUCH

55. HOWEVER well we may know how a thing should be done, we can gain facility in the doing only by long and intimate acquaintance of some sort with the actual process of doing. We may see how others have done, going over the ground after them, and we may try the doing for ourselves. Practically, if we wish to carry our practice of the literary art, or any other, as far as we can, we should do both. That was Stevenson's way, as we have seen. It was also the method of so eminently practical a man as Benjamin Franklin, as he has recorded with quite sufficient clearness. In fact, it seems almost self-evident that the easiest road to achievement in any kind of effort is through acquaintance with the experience of others. There is no doubt a great deal of drudgery in following patiently the details of style in any writer. So there is drudgery in mastering the technique of any art. It is drudgery sitting for hours before a piano strumming dull exercises. It is drudgery doing a like thing in front of an easel. It is drudgery listening to the click of a telegraph key and learning to turn it into words. It is impossible to do anything well without going through an apprenticeship of drudgery. It is so that we acquire the right touch, that we become at last sure and unfaltering, that we do what we do with ease.

The writers from whom material has been taken for the following pages are all of them masters of highly