LANGUAGE FICTION PB/ LODGE

by Lodge

Language of Fiction was the first book of criticism by the renowned novelist and critic David Lodge. His uniquely informed perspective - he was already the author of three successful novels at the time of its first publication in 1966 - and lucid exposition meant that the work proved a landmark of literary criticism, not least because it succeeded in communicating a radically new vision of English literature to a readership that reached well beyond the bounds of the academy. Now reissued with a new foreword, this major work from the pen of one of England's finest living writers is essential reading for all those who care about the creation and appreciation of literature.

Genres: Literary Criticism, Nonfiction, Criticism, Literature, British Literature, 20th Century, Writing

310 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1966

Reviews

[Andrew Wardle · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this thinking it was a companion volume to his "The Art of Fiction" which I greatly enjoyed. That one was literary criticism stripped of jargon and adapted for the general reader. This one is much more an academic work aimed at students and other English Literature experts. But Lodge is always an entertaining and instructive author, so read on.
This book, written in the 1960s, divides into two unequal sections: the first a theoretical argument and the (longer) second some illustrative examples from famous novels to develop the author's thesis: that novels, like poetry, can be subjected to close textual analysis to expand and enrich our understanding.
I'm a strictly amateur literature reader and I struggled a little with the academic discourse of part 1, but, as I understood it, the author's contention is that we accept that poetry can be subjected to this kind of word-by-word analysis because every word must fit metre and rhyme and sit harmoniously with every other word or the overall artistic effect is ruined: but prose fiction also conveys its message entirely through its language - so can we not apply similar quasi-objective analysis to novels rather than express our opinion through subjective impressions ? He argues his case very persuasively, quoting both supporting and contrary arguments from other literature scholars. This section, for a scientist, became very "words about words about.......", so I was pleased to move on to his examples in part 2.
On the examples quoted, I would have to say his case is "not proven". His analysis, of "Mansfield Park", "Jane Eyre", "Tess.......", "Hard Times", "The Ambassadors", "Tono-Bungay", and several works by Kingsley Amis, is of course interesting and illuminating, but doesn't come to any convincing conclusions. The best argument (also expounded in "The Art of Fiction") is made for "The Ambassadors", where subtle changes in the use of language beautifully convey the naive hero's dawning realisation that his "friends" have deceived and betrayed him. I wanted more like this: more like the explanation (not from this book) that Flaubert deliberately uses dull and repetitive language in the sections of "Madame Bovary" where Emma cannot be with her lover to give the reader a sense of her ennui and the dullness of her life without him.......that's what I expected from this book.
But instead we get a treatise on how many synonyms for "judgement" are used in "Mansfield Park" to ram home how judgemental Fanny Price is, an enumeration of the metaphors about fire, storms, ice, water and stone in "Jane Eyre", and a critique of Dickens' rhetoric and moralising in "Hard Times". None of these offered any new insights or any clue as to why these novels are considered "greater" than those of other authors or other works by the same authors. And, although it's very penetrating and clever to notice them, I don't think they offer a richer experience to the reader.
So I found this book interesting, but ultimately unsatisfying. English Literature students may find it useful, but for the general reader, "The Art of Fiction" is much more illuminating - and very much easier to read.

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very much worth revisiting.