Skip to content

The Age of Innocence

Ellen Olenska

Author: Edith Wharton
First Published: 1920, in the Pictorial Review

The first chapter of the Age of Innocence is one of those magical first chapters that contains the entirety of the book within it. In fact, it holds a single sentence that contains the entire book:

He had dawdled over his cigar because he was at heart a dilettante, and thinking over a pleasure to come often gave him a subtler satisfaction than its realisation.

For that is nearly everything that this book is about: Newland Archer’s insufferable dawdling, his dilettantism, the dilettantism of everyone around him, the constant delay of his own pleasures, and satisfactions never to come.

It is one of the most heartbreaking stories ever told.

Wharton presents an archaeological inventory of the Old New York Society into which she was born. It’s the early 1870’s, a time when everything—and everyone—has an exact and prescribed seat at the lavish dinner table of social custom. The relentless detail of Wharton’s novel produces more than just gorgeous prose; it constructs the fine bars of Newland Archer’s gold and crystalline cage. Every item, every word, every mood, every temperature is an essential part of the magnificent social structure that shackles him in velvet chains from which he can never escape.

You can open The Age of Innocence, point to any random paragraph, and immediately find evidence of this delicate, filigreed ironwork. The details and descriptions of Newland Archer’s world are Wharton’s foundation, walls, and ceiling. But there is one paragraph in particular that linguistically unites all of the themes of this great book—the imprisoning details, the social imperatives, the unconquerable addiction to those imperatives, the pain of a life suppressed:

There was something about the luxury of the Welland house and the density of the Welland atmosphere, so charged with minute observances and exactions, that always stole into his system like a narcotic. The heavy carpets, the watchful servants, the perpetually reminding tick of disciplined clocks, the perpetually renewed stack of cards and invitations on the hall table, the whole chain of tyrannical trifles binding one hour to the next, and each member of the household to all the others, made any less systematized and affluent existence seem unreal and precarious. But now it was the Welland house, and the life he was expected to lead in it, that had become unreal and irrelevant, and the brief scene on the shore, when he had stood irresolute, half-way down the bank, was as close to him as the blood in his veins.

This paragraph appears at the end of Chapter 21, after Archer has spotted Ellen Olenska on Granny Mingott’s pier. He plays the game that he so often plays with himself—the game whereby he delays his own pleasure. “If she doesn’t turn before that sail crosses the Lime Rock light I’ll go back.” Of course, she doesn’t turn, and he does go back. It’s the same cowardly march to his own execution that he can’t help but repeat, over and over.

Martin Scorsese’s 1993 film adaptation of The Age of Innocence is my favorite book-to-screen movie of all time, not only because of its visual splendor, but because of its absolute fidelity to Wharton’s original text. It has been dismissed as slow and boring by many, but to me it is probably the greatest film adaptation ever done of one of the greatest novels ever written.

Jane Eyre

Charlotte Bronte

Author: Charlotte Brontë (Currer Bell)
First Published: 1847, by Smith, Elder, and Co.

Poor Jane Eyre—the doormat of 19th-century literature. Everyone walks all over her, and her mistreatment by other characters throughout the novel is both infuriating and disgusting. From the Reeds and Mr. Brocklehurst in childhood, to the Ingrams and even her beloved Mr. Rochester as an adult, the abuse heaped upon the heroine of this book is difficult to endure. I actually need to put the book down at certain times because I can only take so much of Jane’s undeserved punishments at once.

But beyond that horrible aspect of the book—which, I must own up, is as artful as it is disturbing—there is so much to love about Jane Eyre. One of the things I love most about Jane Eyre herself is that she is one of literature’s great readers (even though she often disavows this). At ten years old we know that she has already devoured Bewick’s History of British Birds, Goldsmith’s History of Rome, The Arabian NightsGulliver’s Travels, and no doubt countless other unnamed books. Little Jane has read widely and with great feeling, and her reading has made her “passionate.”

And then there is the language—Brontë’s magnificent, dream-like language. Her imagery is as relentless as it is gorgeous, and I think I might be right in saying that her prodigious vocabulary surpasses that of any other Victorian writer (even Dickens). Here are but a few examples:

. . . it was the hebdomadal treat to which we all looked forward from Sabbath to Sabbath. (Chapter 7)

. . . the heavy supper she had eaten produced a soporific effect. (Chapter 10)

. . . she proceeded to arrange the cups, spoons, &c., with assiduous celerity. (Chapter 13)

To so practiced and indefatigable a horseman as Mr. Rochester it would be but a morning’s ride. (Chapter 22)

. . . you watched me, and now and then smiled at me with a simple yet sagacious grace I cannot describe. (Chapter 27)

The water stood in my eyes . . . but I would not be lachrymose . . . (Chapter 37)

And who but Charlotte Brontë could ever describe a wedding dress like this?

It was enough that in yonder closet, opposite my dressing-table, garments said to be [Mrs. Rochester’s] had already displaced my black stuff Lowood frock and straw bonnet: for not to me appertained that suit of wedding raiment; the pearl coloured robe, the vapoury veil pendent from the usurped portmanteau.  I shut the closet to conceal the strange, wraith-like apparel it contained; which, at this evening hour—nine o’clock—gave out certainly a most ghostly shimmer through the shadow of my apartment.

Jane Eyre is a feast of words. And it is no wonder Virginia Woolf said that we read Charlotte Brontë not for her characters, not for her comedy, and not for her philosophic view of life, but simply “for her poetry.”

In Cold Blood

Richard Hickcock/Perry Smith

Author: Truman Capote
First Published: 1965, in The New Yorker

The village of Holcomb stands on the high wheat plains of Western Kansas, a lonesome area that other Kansans call “out there.”

So begins, beautifully, Truman Capote’s meticulously-researched masterpiece about the brutal 1959 murder of the Clutter family in their home, and the pursuit and execution of their killers. It’s hard for us today to imagine airport news stands devoid of true-crime books with their glossy black covers and embossed, bright red lettering, but before In Cold Blood, the modern true crime story as we know it had yet to be born. Literary accounts of crimes and criminals had always been popular with readers, going all the way back to the Newgate novels of the early 19th-century, and even earlier with such “rogue” novels as Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe. But In Cold Blood inaugurated what Capote himself called the “nonfiction novel”—a genre of writing that told the “truth” with the artistry and devices of the traditional realist novel. When you read the book, you step into another densely atmospheric and psychological world, chiefly because Capote’s journalism skills walk arm in arm with his creative powers as a novelist.

The story came to Capote’s attention one day when he read a 300-word, one-column article in the back of the New York Times:

Holcomb, Kan., Nov. 15 [1959] (UPI)—A wealthy wheat farmer, his wife and their two young children were found shot to death today in their home. They had been killed by shotgun blasts at close range after being bound and gagged. The father, 48-year-old Herbert W. Clutter, was found in the basement with his son, Kenyon, 15. His wife Bonnie, 45, and a daughter, Nancy, 16, were in their beds. There were no signs of a struggle, and nothing had been stolen. The telephone lines had been cut . . .

Capote immediately traveled to Kansas (escorted by his childhood friend Harper Lee) to investigate the story. The killers, Richard Hickock and Perry Smith, were captured shortly afterwards, and Capote spent the next six years researching and writing the “novel.” The book has been rightly hailed as the author’s greatest achievement.

I have talked about incredible openings before (García Márquez and Shirley Jackson), but with Capote, it’s the ending that never leaves me. The closing scene of In Cold Blood takes place in the cemetery where the graves of all four Clutters are “gathered under a single gray stone.” Al Dewey, the lead investigator who apprehended Smith and Hickock, meets Nancy Clutter’s high school friend, Sue Kidwell, at the gravesite. After a noticeably unemotional conversation about college plans and boys, Sue trots off, seemingly late for something undisclosed.

“And nice to have seen you, Sue. Good luck,” he called after her as she disappeared down the path, a pretty girl in a hurry, her smooth hair swinging, shining—just such a young woman as Nancy might have been. Then, starting home, he walked toward the trees, and under them, leaving behind him the big sky, the whisper of wind voices in the wind-bent wheat.