“Anne Grey herself was, as Helga expressed it, ‘almost too good to be true.'” (Larsen 44-45)
This sentence exemplifies all but one of the components of Nella Larsen’s writing to which I strongly reacted. First, it provides literally no tangible, sensory detail. It is telling, and shows nothing. Can’t we see her in some gesture of kindness, rather than being told of her goodness? Why can’t we smell the cookies she baked for Helga, or see the makeshift bedroom she prepared when she found out Helga needed a place to stay? It feels as though Larsen doesn’t think the reader capable of interpreting acts as “good,” and so need to have the word in quotes.
Second, it contains a stock phrase (“almost too good to be true,”) and plays it off as thought it is original, or fresh, or in any way especially applicable to the situation at hand. There is no specificity which justifies its use–it is simply dropped into quotations, which implies that there is an originality and importance to its use. A quote should never be used if it is only a quote on the grounds that a character said it. Something needs to legitimize its use, and in this case, nothing does.
Furthermore, it contains her consistent awkward diction. The placement of “herself” cuts up the sentence, the repetition of full names throughout the text is distracting, and quotations are not placed carefully. This sentence, and much of the book, feels like a tacked-on explanation for a decent story that may have been written somewhere else, once.
This passage even touches on one of her most surface writing flaws–her insistence on repeating the word “gray” (or, in this case, “Grey”) in some half-baked hope that it will subliminally inspire feelings of hopelessness when Our Heroine is especially struggling. The word “gray” begins to blend into the background as another trite phrase Larsen relies too heavily on. At the same time, the reader is vaguely aware of its presence, but as it is accompanied by almost no other sensory description, it loses all meaning and is just an annoyance every few pages.
The only aspect of her writing I noted repeatedly which wasn’t included in this sentence was the fact that the text was riddled with run-on sentences. They raged over the line of stylistic device and into plain sloppiness. But this one ought to cover it:
“The husband of Mrs. Hayes-Rore had at one time been a dark thread in the soiled fabric of Chicago’s South Side politics, who, departing this life hurriedly and unexpectedly and a little mysteriously, and somewhat before the whole of his suddenly acquired wealth had had time to vanish, had left his widow comfortably established with money and some of that prestige which in Negro circles had been his.” (Larsen 37)
The content of this book had the potential to be handled very well, but it was given no chance to do so. It was crippled from the start by an impersonal narrator who gave almost no details to distinguish her from millions of other people feeling disenfranchised. This may have been an attempt at universality, but the entire novel felt over-explicated, and as though it may have been much better suited to be a personal essay of some kind. The narrator’s disengagement throughout the book infected the reader to be disengaged with the novel–because even if we were told she was undergoing emotional experience, we were not grounded physically enough to feel them. As Robert Frost said, “No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.”