Last week I went into a bookshop. I hadn’t really planned to buy a book; I just like to browse and discover new books from time to time. I check if there have been any price changes and at the same time I soak up the warm atmosphere of the place. At such times, I also wonder if new editions of books by my favourite authors have been published. On one of those days, instead of finding a book by the author himself, I came across a slim volume containing a critical study of him. To be honest, I thought the price was a bit steep, but considering the current inflation, I wasn’t too surprised and wanted to buy the book.
To think you were publishing a critical study of one of my favourite authors, huh!
H. G. Wells by John Davys Beresford published by Laputa Kitap
The author I mentioned is H. G. Wells, whose name has appeared in several of my previous articles. The person who wrote the review is a writer called J. D. Beresford. I wasn’t familiar with him, but that didn’t matter because the subject of his book was enough to intrigue me. Interestingly, I noticed something before I started the book. I had never read a criticism of an author before. I hadn’t really thought about how critical books are written. As you can imagine, we can be more curious and eager about subjects we haven’t experienced or formed an opinion about. From my point of view, critical writing was a genre I had never experienced in a literary sense, and it was fascinating to learn about it by reading reviews of my favourite author.
Every day, literally every day, we make comments about things in our lives and these comments are usually in line with the current state of affairs. They may be positive or negative. However, criticism or constructive criticism often has a negative connotation. But in reality it is about seeing and expressing the positive aspects of what is happening, and this applies to both sides of the spectrum. Just as scientists explain the truth by constantly questioning scientific experiments to determine their validity. Because well-done criticism requires us to step out of our comfort zone, take a realistic approach and confront issues we may have ignored. By aligning your thoughts with the person you are criticising, you may even come closer to them. Let me explain what I mean.
Beresford, as briefly mentioned in the part of the book that focuses on him, is a writer who adopts Wells’ style (Wellsian) and belongs to the same era (early 1900s). He has read all of Wells’ books from that period, in a variety of genres. In this way, Beresford takes the first step towards being a good critic. In order to provide a detailed and informed commentary on a subject or person, we need to have a deep understanding of that subject or person. Beresford, who has come a long way in this regard, is well aware of this. On the contrary, we are often the ones who fail to apply it before we criticise. But let’s not go there.
I began to enjoy the book by the author, who has also written in the genres of scientific romance, literary criticism, science fiction and horror fiction. In his segmented narration, he gave detailed explanations of Wells’ books, one after the other. The comparisons, the jargon, the underlying messages, the metaphors… It was all reasonable and sensible criticism. I must also mention that I have read every Wells book I could get my hands on, both in English and Turkish. Therefore, the critic’s rational narrative could completely captivate me. The justified comments about my favourite author no longer felt hurtful, but increased my appreciation. Sometimes we show unquestioning loyalty to the subjects and people we love. When I read a well-crafted book of criticism, I felt replenished because I saw the possibility of looking at things from a positive perspective.
Finally, there is one point I mentioned that I would come back to later. As I read on, I found myself warming up to the author. Imagine someone you don’t know talking to you about your close friend, and you find their words insightful, wholesome, engaging and impressive. At first glance that might seem rather unusual, wouldn’t it? But what I realised is that both writers are highly talented. Because, as I said, when we think of criticism, it often has a negative — and perhaps biased — connotation. But in fact that is what distinguishes both Wells and Beresford. One is able to write a thoughtful critique, while the other is skilled enough to get a critic to write a literary critique of himself.
Beresford had a deep understanding of Wells, and I felt that I understood Beresford quite well. He was like a friend to me. It was like having a literary conversation about our favourite author, as if we were sitting together, reading the same books and sipping our coffee in the same surroundings. I felt fortunate that my first experience of this kind of critical work was with such a remarkable critic, whose expressions were equally extraordinary.
Comments