I’m not the first to criticise the writing of Edward Bulwer-Lytton
(1803-1873). There’s even a writing contest in his name in which contestants
attempt to write the worst opening sentence. And following on from two prose master
classes (on first person narration and repetition) using the works of Charles
Dickens, I thought it might be fun to take Bulwer-Lytton’s 1834 novel The Last Days of Pompeii as an example
of how NOT to write historical fiction.
Pompeii (artist's impression) |
1. Don’t lecture. Even if you want your novel to have
educational value, there’s no excuse for making the writing dull. Take this
discussion on Pompeian architecture, which is even framed as a lecture by
Bulwer-Lytton. It begins:
‘Previous to our description of this house, it may be as
well to convey to the reader a general notion of the houses of Pompeii, which
he will find to resemble strongly the plans of Vitruvius; but with all those
differences in detail, of caprice and taste, which being natural to mankind,
have always puzzled antiquaries. We shall endeavour to make this description as
clear and unpedantic as possible.’
Edward, I think you’ve already failed. Endeavouring not to
be pedantic is not a good start. Telling us what ‘we will find’ renders the
rest of the passage unnecessary. And, more than anything, showing any sign of
uncertainty (‘it may be as well to…’) damages your credibility in the eyes of
readers. If you’re going to be transporting readers back to another time period,
being confident is even more important. The passage concludes:
‘The reader will now have a tolerable notion of the Pompeian
houses, which resembled in some respects the Grecian, but mostly the Roman
fashion of domestic architecture.’
Yes, we may know something ‘tolerable’ about houses but we
may not be engaged in the novel.
2. If you’re going to lecture, at least get your facts
right. This is a corker. Bulwer-Lytton provides his readers with an unnecessary
aside about the two most famous ancient Greek writers:
‘Yet you are fond of the learned, too; and as for poetry,
why, your house is literally eloquent with Aeschylus and Homer, the epic and
the drama.'
Unless this is an unsuccessful attempt at reproducing a
(very Latin) chiastic structure, this is sloppy and ‘epic’ and ‘drama’ should
be swapped round.
3. Don’t quickly gloss unknown terms or facts. Either as
narrator (‘'Bene vobis! (Your health!) my Glaucus,' said he’) or in the
characters’ dialogue:
''She interests me, the poor slave! Besides, she is from the
land of the Gods' hill—Olympus frowned upon her cradle—she is of Thessaly.'
'The
witches' country.'’
Any immersion in the world of your novel is destroyed in
seconds by the acknowledgement of its inaccessibility.
4. Don’t turn critic of literature from the period you are writing
about. This is like glossing but also comes across as writer-on-writer
bitchiness:
‘it was the fashion among the dissolute young Romans to
affect a little contempt for the very birth which, in reality, made them so
arrogant; it was the mode to imitate the Greeks, and yet to laugh at their own
clumsy imitation.’
Perfect your own prose first (or just write bitchy blog
posts!).
5. Don’t get your characters to say things which seem ironic
from a modern perspective. I’ve hated this ever since ‘analysing’ the Titanic
references in my GCSE set text J.B. Priestley's An Inspector
Calls. It’s lazy historical writing. It’s just too obvious. You can make
these points in the body of your story. Just don’t write dialogue lines like
these:
‘'What think you of this new sect, which I am told has even
a few proselytes in Pompeii, these followers of the Hebrew God—Christus?'
'Oh, mere speculative visionaries,' said Clodius; 'they have
not a single gentleman amongst them; their proselytes are poor, insignificant,
ignorant people!'’
And:
‘'Nay,' cried Glaucus, 'no cold and trite director for us:
no dictator of the banquet; no rex convivii. Have not the Romans sworn never to
obey a king? Shall we be less free than your ancestors?’’
Got any ideas for future writing master classes? Let the
Secret Victorianist know below, on Facebook or on Twitter (@SVictorianist).
"Bulwer-Lytton’s 1834 novel The Last Days of Pompeii "
ReplyDelete..so technically pre-Victorian.
On the other hand, Bulwer-Lytton is said to have got worse as he got older so his faults would be aggravated when he became Victorian. Certainly, the only one I've read- The Coming Race, early SF and the inspiration for the name of Bovril- is not a masterpiece.