In Miriam May, Miriam saves Arthur three times in sensational incidents.
First Miriam saves Arthur from a jail sentence. Then she saves his inheritance after
his mother dies. Finally, Miriam rescues Arthur from a burning building. All
these incidents sound thrilling and suitably conventional for plot twists in sensation
fiction. But Miriam May fails in each
instance to send the right kind of a shiver down the reader's spine. Instead these incidents will serve as good illustrations of bad writing.
Mr Slie recommends Mr George
Alexis Wray as a tutor for Arthur and his elder brother (Miriam May, Chapter 7). "He was one of those measureless
hypocrites whose success in those households he infested, were in the main
brought about by an appeal to that religion which he only professed that he
might profane it." We can assume that Wray, like Slie, is a religious man
of the Low Church variety, unpalatable to our narrator. Wray stays as tutor in
Glastonbury Grange for seven years until one day in the school room, to
discipline Arthur, Wray ends up "dealing me two blows with a huge
dictionary, which brought me stunned to the ground at his feet." (Miriam May, Chapter 7). Arthur is
enraged by this treatment. He seizes Wray by the throat: "for the first
time in my short life I knew what it was to have revenge, and I liked it well
enough to wish for more." (Ibid.)
Arthur is in a murderous rage: "I closed my fingers all the tighter
... I was not frightened but very glad when I saw how black his face had turned
and how his eyes stated and stared. Devilish thoughts had so come over me that
I laughed at his agony." Wray pulls out a knife, Arthur "stayed his
hand" and in the fight Wray stabs himself in the eye. Arthur recoils from
this gruesome sight: "I felt a sickness creeping on me, such as I had
never felt before; whilst my head turned giddy, and for a while I was as one
that was dead." (Ibid.)
This extremely violent, horrific scene of the school boy and
the teacher is followed immediately by a comic scene where Wray's legal
representative Mr Latimer Latitude tries to extract compensation for Wray from
Arthur's father. The dialogue is courteous legalese in the best weaselly
tradition. Mr Trevor refuses to pay Wray, even if his own solicitor tells him
that "Mr Wray has a case." (Miriam
May, Chapter 9). Arthur is accused of an assault. He is jailed, because he
refused bail. "I had resolved to go to prison." Even though, "I
might within an hour have been at large on bail." (Ibid.) At his trial: "I
looked around the court and saw many a hard face fixed in its callous ridicule
on me that had come to sneer from Glastonbury, to see my shame, and listen to
the judgment on the rich man's son." (Ibid.)
After this gloom start to the proceedings, Robins goes on to have fun with
comically convoluted speeches by the lawyers about this "piece of savagery
... unequalled in our criminal annals." In the end, it is the word of a
boy against the word of a preacher and the verdict is about to go against
Arthur, when on the court room aisle "trembling and beautiful, kneeled
Miriam May." "I can save you - save you!" She calls and insists
on speaking. "She seemed like an angel ... [with] her heaving bosom ... he
exceeding loveliness." Miriam claims she was an eye-witness to the
incident between Arthur and Mr Wray, and as a result Arthur is declared
"Not Guilty." (Ibid.)
Arthur's father Mr Trevor loses much of his money and then
dies.His executor is Mr Stoolman. After Mr Trevor's death, Mrs Stoolman, a grasping
woman, persuades Mrs Trevor to write a second will and more or less dictates it
to her. The purpose of this will is to benefit Mrs
Stoolman and "many years ought to be put between me and my
inheritance," according to Arthur. At the time, Miriam May saw Mr
Banco the solicitor arrive to "make the will." Miriam ""had
gone up before them, and hidden herself, and heard all." (Miriam May, Chapter 10). In addition to
this eaves-dropping, Miriam then burns the new will and keeps the
old one.
Eighteen months later Mrs Trevor follows her husband to the grave (Miriam May, Chapter 10). Again, the Stoolmans arrive at Glastonbury
Grange. They bring along their daughter, called Sophonisba, who "was known
to scream at wasps, black beetles, and naked little boys in their baths."
(Miriam May, Chapter 11). There is
much comic debate about Mrs Trevor's legacy with the Stoolmans and the
McGrabs (also related to the family) trying to appropriate items in the house.
Eventually the house is searched for Mrs Trevor's will. Arthur has
told Miriam to keep the will hidden to see "what a turn things might take." Well,
they take no turn whatsoever, so in the very next paragraph Miriam pretends to
find the will. Miriam has saved Arthur's inheritance.
Later in the novel, Miriam and
Arthur attend a reception for Mr Slie at Mrs Dubbelfaise's house.
"There was coffee and conversation, and then a little severe sacred
music." (Miriam May, Chapter
16). The place catches fire. Miriam May notices the flames and calls to Arthur:
"Come! See I can save you
yet." Together they save others and get them out of the burning building:
"Whenever I turned to look for her, I saw that her great, soft loving eyes
were fixed on me." The house burns down, but never mind; Mrs Dubbelfaise
"had been an insuring woman for many years." (Miriam May, Chapter 17).
So what is wrong with these plot
twists of crime, inheritance and destruction by fire? Why do these stock
devices of sensational plotting not work in Miriam
May?
First, they are contrived. Mr Wray is only introduced into the narrative in order to be stabbed in the eye. Arthur gives no reason for his determination to refuse bail. The Stoolmans are only introduced into the narrative for the inheritance sub-plot to be run through in a single chapter (Chapter 10). There is no explanation of Miriam's motives for burning the second will - or rather there is no consideration of the moral implications of her actions. She appears entirely single-minded in her devotion to Arthur. The fire at Mrs Dubbelfaise's house flares up by accident and no harm is done. The three incidents are not embedded in the course of the narrative, they are bolts out of the blue, constructed quickly and vanish without a trace.
Secondly, they do not contribute to
the overall plot. The only purpose of all three incidents seems to be to allow
Miriam to save Arthur so that he will notice her devotion sufficiently to marry
her. Arthur's violent temper, his inheritance, and the loss of Mrs Dubbelfaise's
house do not advance the narrative. They are anecdotal events.
Thirdly, the three incidents do
not add anything to the characterization in the novel. Quite the opposite, they
are red herrings. Arthur's uncontrollable temper revealed in the incident with
Mrs Wray could be potentially significant. He could be a man who has to
struggle to master his passions. No such luck, there is no indication in the rest
of the narrative that Arhur has any fire in his belly. Miriam's eavesdropping
and her decision to burn Mrs Trevor's second will are clearly signs that she is
not a complete goody-two-shoes. This is also potentially excellent for a
sensation novel, the genre revels in contradictory heroines. But no, the rest
of the time Miriam May is an angel. There are no repercussions from the fire. This
dramatic incident does not appear to affect the relationship of the main
characters.
Finally, each of these sensational
incidents are stylistically mixed with comedy that takes the thrill away from
them. Mr Latimer Latitude and the Stoolmans are comic characters whose only
purpose is to provide light entertainment. The fire begins after a scene with
social comedy when Mrs Dubbelfaise's son's attempts to dance with Miriam are
interruped by Mr Slie's call for prayer. In short, the writing is too uneven to
be carry the reader smoothly with it. The narrative does not know which note to
strike: melodramatic or comic. This is a good mix with a long tradition in
popular entertainment, but in Miriam May,
the mix is not sufficiently controlled and managed. Instead the comic eats into
the ability of the melodramatic to thrill, and the melodrama takes away the joy
of the comedy. This is particularly stark in the case of Mr Wray. It is very
awkward to associate the horrifically violent, powerful scene of Arthur's
attack on Mr Wray with the comic parody of courtroom descriptions of the same
event.
I would ask all novelists to avoid these pitfalls demonstrated so well by the eye of the tutor.
