Half trade, half art

William Ralph Inge

"Literature flourishes best when it is half a trade and half an art," wrote William Ralph Inge, a British writer and priest who lived from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th. It's an interesting point and, I believe, a valid one.

The best literature does seem to spring from those writers struggling both to make a living and to make art. A James Patterson, whose thriller machine produces a new best-seller several times each year, makes lots of money but no books with literary value. Meanwhile, those writers who would rather starve than entertain readers may produce literature, but if hardly anyone reads it, so what?

There are exceptions. Charles Dickens had an expensive lifestyle and many mouths to feed, so writing books that drew many readers was his top priority, yet many of those books continue to be taught in literature classes. Meanwhile Emily Dickinson had no interest in either fame or fortune, yet her poetry continues to be read and discussed today.

Still I believe Inge was right that a compromise of trade and art works best for literature as a whole. Art should be accessible to the common people, not just the intellectual elite. Why have art museums if hardly anyone ever pays for admission? And why have bookshops full of books hardly anyone wants to read? And of what value is a museum full of velvet Elvis paintings or a bookshop full of James Patterson novels?

Many literary scholars regard William Faulkner as a better writer than Ernest Hemingway, but the public bought and read more Hemingway novels than Faulkner novels. Faulkner had to write screenplays to make a living, while Hemingway, ever the tradesman, supported himself with his writing. Which of them was better for American literature? I'd say Hemingway, and I think Inge would agree.