The Study of an Author: W. H. Hudson

 The Study of an Author: W. H. Hudson

Que.: The study of an Author OR What does Hudson suggest about the systematic study of author?

The third part of the Chapter – I, “Some Ways of Studying Literature,” deals with the systematic study of the author. The very opening of this part makes difference between the mere reader of literature and the student of literature. The first reads in a haphazard and desultory way, whereas the latter reads according to some regular order or plan. This suggests that only a systematic study of literature makes one a good student of literature. He also distinguishes between reading and studying. Reading may be haphazard but study is mostly systematic and organised.

The systematic study of an author starts with the close reading of his works. Hudson says that as literature is an expression of writer’s personality, we must start our reading with the writer’s personality.  A work of literature is the record of writer’s personality. These records of writer’s personality cannot be understood without understanding writer’s life. Hence it is essential for us to take this personal trait as a ‘corpus’ or organic whole. We must consider the works of author not separately but as a whole body – “not simply as works, but as his work.”  Hudson names some Shakespearean plays and says that we read and understand them without any sense of sequence, but if we read them in a systematic way by comparing and contrasting them in matter and spirit, and, in method and style, we can understand his works in better way. Hence manifestly there is need of systematizing our reading.

 

Hudson suggests us the comparative method of studying an author. We should use the chronological method of study. The chronological method focuses on the study of writer’s works in order of their production. By following this method, we can understand the various phases of writer’s experiences, the stages of his mental and moral growth, and, changes undergone by his art. He gives an example of Shakespearean plays and proves that the chronological method of studying an author will help us to know the development of Shakespeare’s dramatic art.

But, then, he raises a question: is it necessary to read all the works of a writer? He says that we should read those works of the author which are really vital for our study. All the works of the author may not be useful in our study. We should make selection of those works by the author which are significant to us. We should compare and contrast the writer with himself. We should compare and contrast his earlier works with his later works and then we should understand the author’s craftsmanship.

The next step that Hudson suggests is to compare and contrast the writer with the other writers – with men who worked in the same field, took up the same subject, dealt with the same problems, and, wrote under the similar condition. He says that one who wants to understand Shakespeare in better way should compare and contrast him with his great contemporaries like Marlowe, Jonson, Beaumont, Fletcher, and, Webster. Then, we should try to compare the marking points in which they resembled each other, the points in which they differ from each other, and in this way we can come to know more about Shakespeare. If we want to know more about Tennyson, we should compare him with Browning. The similar is the case of the classical dramatists like Sophocles and Euripides as well as the Victorian novelists Dickens and Thackeray. Thus Hudson says that as a student of literature our first business is to enter in the life of the author and to understand the vital forces that shaped his personality.

Thus, to conclude, we can say that the line that Hudson quotes in his book, “all higher knowledge is gained by comparison, and rests on comparison” is really apt. Comparison is the basis of all higher knowledge.