Being Idiosyncratic: R. P. Blackmur Defines Henry James

Throughout the career of Henry James, critics and reviewers often referred to the “idiosyncratic” nature of both his literary personality and his work. Sometimes this term was the basis for praise, but it also formed part of a more skeptical or even negative judgment, especially of the books he produced in the 1890s and into the 1900s. The extraordinary transformation of James in the 20th century into a modern master, a genius of the art of the novel, is closely connected to this intriguing term “idiosyncrasy”—and how it came to be defined (that is, redefined) in relation to him. This is evident above all in the influential writing about James’s fiction and nonfiction by the eminent critic and ardent Jamesian, R. P. Blackmur, who emphasized that James is a brilliant writer precisely because he is idiosyncratic, in his style and manner incomparably unique. The question looming for us in the 21st century is whether James will remain idiosyncratically great or will fade from prominence as critics, teachers, and students conclude that he is too idiosyncratic.