THE "NEW" NOVEL.

FOR THE "NEW " WOMAN.

DOING IT'S WORK.

FACTS AND FANCIES ABOUT IT.

By Rita.

My opinion has frequently been sought lately on the subject of the "new" novel by the "new" woman. The subject is one of engrossing interest to the reading public of both sexes, for many men devour the " new " novel with avidity and— shall I say it?— discuss it for the most part in a narrow-minded, would-be-smart-at-the-expense-of-women, spirit that proclaims their ignorance of their subject, and their shallow minds. But this should not surprise one— when we find our Conservative Organs— in an article or leader— affecting much high falutin literary style to denounce the "new" novel.
It is " neurotic "—that is the word.  It is baneful. It is unnecessary. It is ephemeral. It must go. It will go. So say some.
Others read it and don't know quite what to think. "Is it teaching depravity or a higher morality?" they query dubiously.
And all this shows that with its many imperfections the "new" novel is doing its work. It is the novel of to-day, for to-day only, by "new" women to assist to teach the "new" woman. Our parents and grand-parents had their novels and novelettes of the trashy kind, wherein the heroine, though always virtuous, was so very much sinned against that had  it not been for the copious tears she shed when she found herself in unconventional situations and a noble if necessary, resolve to go forth to teach little children or be a picturesque lady's maid when her lover deserted her, had it not been for these and similar things the girl would have been just as open to cruel remarks. as the new woman who sometimes sins against some one.
The novels wherein the heroine was a girl, generally a governess— struggling for existence undoubtedly influenced many girls to work for their living. People of a certain mental calibre can only be approached and taught by a certain class of reading. From silly stories in periodicals girls have learnt something of the refinements of life they would never have learned any other way. Dress, etiquette, the social habits of better class people, description of their homes and such things, that were sealed books, were, and still are, read greedily by a certain class. Many object to the false ideas of sentiment engendered. But the key was pitched by society and the higher class novelist.
Society, a thinking portion of it that is, and some thinking writers, have pitched another key lately, and the "new" women writers are teaching their sisters through the medium of the trashy novel— it Is so easy to publish to-day — instead of through the pages of some popular ladies' journal.
The "new" novel deals largely, and more or less openly, with the "sex problem." I have seen nothing said by the women writers that has not been more powerfully said by Zola, Ibsen, and other men, but those latter are, for obvious reasons, neither within the reach nor comprehension of many reached by the "new" novel.
When in "A Doll's House" Ibsen makes Nora go from her husband and children, saying, "I cannot live with a strange man," and when in return for her husband's assurances that he has forgiven her, she lets him know that she as woman has the right to forgive or resent injustice, and that she means to resent it, the master puts his lesson too tersely to be even comprehended by some. They want the why and wherefore explained to them verbosely. And, being unprepared by reflection they are not ready to say whether they approve or blame when such a situation is suddenly sprung upon them. In a discussion on this very passage I once heard a lady M.A. say with great emphasis, "Oh, nothing could excuse Nora leaving her dear little children." What can you expect when a woman of education sees only this to dwell upon and remark upon instead of the lessons sought to be taught, that a woman should, nay, will, exact respect and loyalty for the respect and loyalty she gives ; that she will decline to be treated like a child and rebuffed or caressed at pleasure ; that she first owes a duty to herself, no matter what she owes in duty to others, and that if others will not regard her she must regard herself ; that it is the higher virtue, because prompted by a love of virtue for virtue's sake to revolt against conventional degradation than to submit to daily outrage of feelings for convenience or appearance and several other things.
The "new" novel by "new" women is not by sensible people taken seriously as lasting literature. Some of the volumes are so lacking in literary merit, that they would never have been heard of, but for the fact that they deal with this especial problem. And the fact that they deal with it in a weak and scrappy manner, and in one instance, at least, is full of printer's errors, has not damaged sales to society women and their daughters, who devour and discuss what the most liberal minded editor would decline to publish.
Nor is the discussion, or rather I should say conversation, for a real discussion on the subject is not what this class of woman indulges in, the least noteworthy point in the situation. We all know our mothers were forbidden "Jane Eyre," and when they managed to read it were silent about their feat. Now, books much more " rapid" and vapid than "Jane Eyre" are talked about at afternoon tea by men and women of all ages. You speak of a "new" book. You find yourself handling a certain problem. A problem once prohibited, but now insidiously introduced under the name of an up to date novel. These very conversations must in time make a change in the way things are viewed.
Is it serving any good or lasting purpose ? Yes. Speaking for the moment of the "masters" who have pitched the key for the "new" novel. It is well known that each period gives a distinctive coloring to its literature, that our various writers, from David till to-day, represent diverse nations and states of society. In the writings of the genius we find the reflex of public opinion of country and period. In the writings of the " masters " to-day we find the reflex of a more liberal public opinion. The sex problem is in the minds of many now. We find it dealt with by leading writers and dramatists, always with this end in view— woman to be more generously treated.
Glancing backwards we find that a distinctive literature has preceded or been the result of revolutions. Will the social revolution, then, not have its literature ? As Troy inspired Homer, as Virgil came after the triumvirate, as Dante sang in spite of the feuds of Guelphs and Ghibellines, as Milton found inspiration in the atmosphere of Cromwell's time, and Corneille in the state of society that permitted the murder of Henry IV.; as Racine, Moliere, Boileau found their muse fanned by stirring scenes, and Chateaubriand his by the French Revolution, may it not be expected that looking at the woman movements, and recognising, " Now is the hour of your trial," the literature of genius will be colored with woman questions, the sex problem, and so forth ? So it is. The key is pitched.
And the less smaller fry of scribes take up the work. And you like it not, some of you. You find sophistry, or the expression of something "advanced." So out upon it. It is the " new" woman and the "new " novel. The sex of the novelist and the sex championed gives you the chance for a feeble sneer —all you are capable of. You forget— perhaps you never knew— that Helvetius, Diderot, Voltaire and others presented "advanced" views, flavored with sophistry, and that their writings often contained beforehand the expression of social innovations that were hatching in the decrepitude of the last century. So with the "new" novel. The "new" woman has by no means the monopoly of sophistry. She has had good masters, why be so angry if she knows her lesson!
 Will it teach depravity or a higher morality? The latter, I think, in the long run, briefly put, it will teach women that, like Nora, they must recognise their duty to themselves, and that it is not consistent with that duty nor the highest virtue for a good woman to be degraded by the companionship of an unworthy man. Formerly a good woman was supposed to be satisfied with very unreasonable treatment from a drunken, dissolute husband. Her duty was to him. To-day few people will tell her she must ignore her duty to herself and live in hourly mortification. The feeling has set the other way.
So let us not complain of the "new" novel by the " new" women. It is doing its work, as those it imitates pitched in higher key could not. Written by women for women, it is chiefly when read by men that contention arises. Some write about it in a way that would be called hysterical from a woman's pen, and some others pretend to be literary, highly intellectual and well read on the strength of reading the "new" novel for the "new" woman. For which should we have the greater contempt ? For which ?

Herald (Melbourne, Vic. : 1861 - 1954), Saturday 29 September 1894, page 8