An Academic Battlefield

CCAC North Library
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ccacnorthlib/3931730608/in/photostream/

Richard Harding Davis wrote during a time period in America where literary criticism was split in two; these divided lines affected the ways in which one saw Davis’ work, for one group praised Davis’ idealistic writing, while the other criticized him for oversimplifying literature. An academic “battlefield” characterized the era between 1880 and 1920 (Osborn 92). All analytical forms were attacked and questioned, which created a divide between the idealists and cynics. This carried over into literature, and specifically, to the writing of Richard Harding Davis. He held the reputation of writing realistic literature advocating ethics and morality. Davis came to represent a symbol of the time period for both criticisms, although the connotations of these representations contrasted between realistic, even traditional, and immature.  

            American impressionists and realists fully supported Davis for his literary work. His writing came off as impeccably moral, sophisticated, and brilliant (Osborn 85). To them, this seemed to promise a revolution on “American crudeness” (Osborn 85). Davis wrote of foreign culture often and even showed a particular interest in European literary forms. His writing contrasted between the different social classes while upholding moral standards. This can be seen in “A Question of Latitude,” when he shows the Congo through Everett’s eyes. This point of view exposes the violence and immorality embedded in African society, something Everett had not witnessed due to his wealthier background. This indirectly creates a contrast between the lower class of the Congo and the higher class of the West. Everett enters this new environment educated and idealistic to serve the underprivileged. Davis’ advocates appreciate his literature because he opens up new cultures and exposes them in a realistic and inoffensive. He never delves into complex matters, leaving that interpretation up to the reader. For this explicit reason, Davis’ writing is attacked by another group of critics who find that Davis simplifies such concepts which produce innocent and inexperienced writing.

            On the other side of literary criticism, cynics balked at Davis’ gentlemanly code, attention to manners, and smiling attitude toward life. They argued that literature is not a source of entertainment, but rather, a means to teach ethics and current events to a mature audience. Instead, Davis wrote for an immature audience, one made up particularly of young women. Literary rebels saw Davis’ writing as directed toward the point of view of the wealthy, and he idealized this class as superb and gracious. While idealists praised his descriptions of social classes, these critics found his assumptions to be a “cramping prejudice” that did not adequately represent the classes (Osborn 91). In other words, Richard Harding Davis failed in writing effectively to portray his subjects and captivate his audience. He started with complex ideas but left them underdeveloped. For instance, he brought about the large question of violence in the Congo, yet has Everett simply turn the other way rather than face the issue just to survive to the next day. These actions leave the reader wanting to know more about this violence, and it is as if Davis wants to only see the good in the world rather than the entire picture. It is this “limited outlook” that has critics questioning why realists pioneer Davis as such a brilliant writer of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Osborn 91).

            Why was there such a stark contrast between the views of Richard Harding Davis’ work? The time period explains everything, for some needed an idealistic view of life, yet others chose to critique that view point in favor of a more realistic one. To some, Davis wrote everything they wanted to hear, and he even became a symbol of tradition worth preserving. On the other hand, his attackers saw him as a symbol of immaturity and outmoded American life. Davis was “too American,” meaning he had a “sunny innocence” toward his simple and inexperienced outlooks (Osborn 91). These contrasting viewpoints of Davis’ career provide insight into a larger picture of the great divide between two outlooks on life during a difficult time period.

Works Cited

Osborn, Scott C. "Richard Harding Davis: Critical Background." American Quarterly

            12.1 (1960): 84-92. JSTOR. Web. 23 Sept. 2011.