got about half way through it. The novel in question was by one of the younger Engh authors. It was very odd, I thought to yself as I perused it, that I should not (for read a great deal of fiction) have read bere anything by Mr. D. H. Lawrence. I had vays meant to, but his work had, for some ason or other, not come my way. And I was id I was reading it. I ought to have done H. Lawrence before. Some people had told he was "different." He was not so different all that; still, there was something fresh out him. Perhaps one could differentiate thin that group, though I had long since spaired of doing so. I would certainly get nething else of D. H. Lawrence's. At that int I decided to go to bed, and shut the book smartly. The cover revealed to me that the thor was J. D. Beresford. Why I had ever ought it was D. H. Lawrence, I do not ow. Some false association of ideas at the ment of borrowing it, probably. The joke is on me, as the younger generan would say. And yet, there is something to said on my side. The fact is that I had not have finish Mr. Stah renc betw fied betw that grou hav wor and WOU first Lav rev not rough it. finished. My only gain was the knowl Mr. Beresford can do something besid Stahl. I have yet to experience D. rence. Still, I submit that when, to di between one author and another, you fied with so tiny a difference in style as between two works by the same man, that differences in style within that p group are not very startling. One wo have read half of Tess and taken i work of Henry James; or half of A and taken that for the work of Mered would have been brought up standin first page. It may be, as I say, tha Lawrence is going to be to me, som revelation of individuality. But the re not give one much hope of that. of the younger E yodd, I tho at I should not ction) have rei H. Lawrence. It work had, for s e my way. And l ought to have & Some people had: e was not so differe was something it e could different gh I had long s I would certainly Lawrence's. At ed, and shut the h vealed to me that ord. Why I had Lawrence, I de: ation of ideas at? probably. s the younger gen there is something fact is that I had! Now, there are three authors in who stand a little away from this larg though they are not precisely conter of Hardy or of Conrad. Wells and Ber Galsworthy have some individuality o chapter of Mr. Wells is "different." A of Arnold Bennett or of Mr. Galswort [219] cal. And I am sure that you would not get ugh many chapters of a typical Galsworthy el without hearing a bird calling to its mate ot if there were a human love affair going I do not think you could comfortably sit n with any one of them for half an evening think that you were reading D. H. Lawe. You would know whom you were read hese three gentlemen have, of course, been Ing longer than the aforesaid younger p. They are, one might say, the elder hers of the brood. If any one of them has ed as model to the younger fry, it is Mr. 1s. None of the younger fry has ever roached the technical excellence of Kipps; on the other hand, almost any one of them d have written Ann Veronica. Mr. Wells certainly led them all astray in his time. there is another equally important thing e said: Mr. Wells has gone on. In his later es, he stands quite apart from them all. Research Magnificent and Mr. Britling It Through are perfectly individual: they The is B and mor is in had rew: pied The You boo hav eve hav agi ten th sin T de ca ΟΙ is t you would not a typical Galswor d calling to its ma an love affair gi ould comfortably for half an even reading D. H. La hom you were rea nave, of course, be aforesaid young ight say, the elt any one of them unger fry, it is t anger fry has excellence of Ki most any one of the eronica. Mr. W astray in his ti ally important t gone on. In his la part from them t and Mr. Bri ctly individual: t The most important thing in Ton is Bladesover and Bladesover's mor and even in the ridiculous Bealby more than an echo of Bladesover. N is interested in moral values. Sometim had very queer notions about them reward for having been perpetually pied with them is to have won th The Research Magnificent and Mr. You may not agree with the hero book; but at least he is a person for have respect. His is a dignified moral even if it is not the moral reaction У have preferred. He is a serious pers aging his relations to the world in temper. One does not see Mr. Bennett's thus envisaging the world; not, at a since The Old Wives' Tale. And The Old Wives' Tale you feel r deterministic net in which the chara caught, than any personal decisions own. The moral of the book is tha is more powerful than environment [221] incidentally had his own say about Wells Bennett, told me the other day that he ught Bennett's people had "character." I uld have said rather that they were "charrs," in the colloquial sense. They have selfrtiveness; like Aunty Hamps, they may subte their world. But "character"? No: that finer, more complicated possession. They at things, sometimes good things and somees bad; but they are (especially the women) d beasts as to their methods. If there is, he whole, a less decent creature in modern on than Hilda Lessways, or a more idiotic than Audrey Moze, I have still to encounher. They invoke their gods By the hunger of change and emotion, Veronica, as I once tried to point out, is true to life: she is a nice girl who proceeds ave reactions that a nice girl does not have out a lot of intervening history. Hilda is er a nice girl; she is a monster from the t and to the finish. As for Audrey-pace [ 222 ] |