Tantalizingly Tender, Tiringly Terse

Famous and much feted, the French storywriter Guy de Maupassant was one of the few among those fortunate men of literature who achieved acclamation, celebration and affluence in their own lifetimes. He did not have to wait for posthumous glory and greatness.
Born in 1850 to an ambitious and independent mother, who was keen on establishing the family’s connection to nobility and aristocratic pretences, she forced her husband to acquire legally the nobiliary particle, ‘de Maupassant’, to signify his connection with nobility, a practice much in vogue among the aristocracy those days. She, however, soon separated from her husband and almost single handedly raised Maupassant and gave him among other things, an early love for books and outdoors. He became a good swimmer. His passion for the water was to prove useful when, at 18, he was nearby when the English poet Algernon Swinburne got into difficulties and would have drowned but for the young Maupassant. Later, once successful and rich, he indulged in sailing and luxuriating in his beautiful yacht, named Bel Ami, a passion second only to his love for women.
He went to seminary at the age of 13, but within years became weary of religion while actively pursuing a hectic social life, chasing a variety of women and maturing early. He invited and delightfully welcomed his expulsion from the seminary. At 20, he saw service in the Franco-Prussian war, a conflict which would feature in many of his stories, including the incomparable “Boule de Suif”. By 21, already a war veteran, he settled in Paris and spent 10 years in the civil service, working in the department of the navy. He had already become friendly with Flaubert and through him would meet Emile Zola and also Ivan Turgenev.
Regarded as the best by common consensus, he wrote almost 300 short stories, six novels, three travel books and a vast body of journalism. His stories were written in the naturalist style and often described the life of the lower and middle classes. If one were to choose one from his extensive repertoire of captivating narrations, his “Boule de Suif” (The Dumpling or Ball of Fat) stands out for his typical style, content and uniqueness of plot. It is by wide consensus considered his masterpiece. While “Boule de Suif” is regarded as his best story, the best known and popular story would be “La Parure” (The Necklace)
Maupassant captured almost instant public recognition when his story “Boule de Suif” appeared in a collection in 1880 that also featured one by Emile Zola. Zola, reportedly famously observed that Maupassant’s story about a whore’s patriotic modesty was the best in the collection, better than his own. It was after the publication of “Boule de Suif” that Flaubert suggested to his pupil: “Try to write a dozen like it and you’ll be a man.” And Maupassant, acting upon the advice of his master produced his first collection of short fiction, titled The House of Madame Tellier and other stories in 1881, which was very well received in France. In his review Zola praised “the style of a born writer” and called him “the solid writer of one of the sanest and healthiest temperaments of the younger generation”.
Subtleness of Realism
He was a prolific story writer and his style defined most elegantly the subtleness of structuring and a terseness both tender and tiring. He chose such themes for his stories that brought out grim realities and necessities of life, their denouements invariably leading to a surrender, a resignation to the inevitable determinism of human life. His portrayals of characters of his stories brilliantly demonstrate and display his understanding of human psychology and nature. The intensity and pathos of such portrayals remain unequalled even today.
Maupassant is ‘nonpareil’ in exploring the uncharted regions of the human mind and the dark recesses of the human heart. His stories present the grim realities of human frailties, fatuities and chicaneries like no contemporary writer does, only with brighter effulgence and appeal. The creativity of his mind finds a seamless and smooth expression that is both concise and convincing. The magnificence of Maupassant’s lucid style, can be largely attributed to his mentor Flaubert’s influence. It was he who made Maupassant a realist, only better and with deeper, sharper, crisper intent.
Literary Style
Maupassant’s writings could be clearly categorised under four specific themes: the life of Normandy’s peasant and lower gentry, the Franco-Prussian war, bourgeois life and the high society of Paris, and the supernatural. “At its best, the structure of his work is marked by two things: an economy which gives only the essential elements of character, situation, and development; and an onward movement which combines logic with the maximum of simplicity. Hence a dramatic swiftness, which is Maupassant’s special gift.”, observed one of his critics. The darker aspects like hopelessness and a morbid feeling dominate his narration but they don’t cease to be light and risque’. His simple limpid style embraced every form of storytelling, ranging from letters to monologues to third party narrative, with an elegance and finesse uncommonly captivating.
“He shows us the things themselves with perfect transparence, so well that, believing that we have them under our eyes, we are unaware of the writer.”, wrote G. Pellissier, the French critic. This conciseness and distancing he owes to Flaubert. He delighted in clever plotting, and served as a model for Somerset Maugham and O. Henry in this respect. One of his famous short stories, “La Parure”, was imitated with a twist by both Maugham (“Mr Know-All” and “A String of Beads”). Henry James’s “Paste” adapts another story of his with a similar title, “The Jewels”.
One of his greatest qualities is that he may not state the obvious, or put certain things directly, but as readers we still feel our blood rushing in anticipation. He achieves his objective with silence. Often he reminds us of an Indian short story writer Manta, and his stories on partition. He tells so much without telling anything. Maupassant, invariably, relies on the behaviour of his characters – their restiveness or awkwardness, their eloquence or reticence, to telling effect. He does not have to elaborate a situation, the dialogues of his protagonists describe it for us. There could be no better example of Maupassant impacting reader’s conscience so profoundly with so little said.
Obsession with Class
Maupassant’s fecundity with writing was matched by his virile versatility. He wrote about everyone, the aristocrats as well as the bourgeoisie, the rich and the poor, highlighting all their flaws and follies. His preoccupation with low life stirred deeply and intensely his own creative powers. He had to, however, face a great deal of remonstration from critics for depicting the lower strata of the society, as well as frowns and grimaces from his peers for laying their classes bare. And therein lies his triumph – the probing, shearing questioning of morality amongst the classes who raise such remonstrations. Maupassant rejected differentiation into classes and declared somewhere: “The writer is and must remain the sole master, the sole judge, of what he feels capable of writing.” Zola, commenting on his choice of subjects, wrote: “Why choose such subjects? Can’t writers write about respectable people? Of course. But I think Maupassant chose this subject because he felt it struck a human note.” The genius of Maupassant lies most outstandingly in the treatment that he offered to the most indecent subjects by the standards of his time, but in a way which is never vulgar, crude, shameful or shocking. There is an objectivity and a certain aloofness, a detachment from the characters he created.
Portrayal of Women
Many of Maupassant’s best stories are about the lives of women, and some of his strongest characters are those of prostitutes, actresses, working girls and women of nobility. He was not a chauvinist but as he himself admitted he found it difficult to understand the psyche of a woman. Perhaps his obsession with women and a lifelong weakness for sex may have coloured his opinion of women and restricted the scope of understanding love. But it remains a fact that women brought out the best out of him. His best novel, “Une Vie” is a moving tale of a woman’s life and her portrayal of the protagonist may as well be the work of Emily or Charlotte Bronte or Virginia Wolf.
Popular to a Fault
Ironically Maupassant’s only weakness as a writer was his popularity and ready acceptability of his writings. As early as the publication of “Boule de Suif” in 1880 when Maupassant was only 30, Flaubert praised it as a masterpiece and admitted he was grateful he had lived to read it. The first of Maupassant’s novels, “Une Vie” appeared in 1883, it was followed within two years by Bel Ami. It made him rich and famous. The huge sales of his books made critics suspicious and reluctant to acknowledge his art. But was he happy?
His popularity continued, even becoming grander after his death. A telling testament to his fame is the fact that some 65 salacious stories were in circulation in America for 50 years as genuine Maupassant stories, which were eventually recognised as fake. Just like spurious Modigliani paintings, his stories also were deemed worthy of faking, and successfully executed. The bluff could be called only much later.
Tragic End
With all his shortcomings, he was still immensely successful and his talent of story- telling and sensitivity towards human emotions were duly recognised in his life time and commands an enduring regard. If critics of the art of storytelling pronounce Anton Chekov as the god of the art, Maupassant is not far behind.
In his later years he was obsessed with isolation and solitude and was visited by fears of destruction. He died young. His was a vile death, caused by the madness and its related physical horrors. He knew the implications of what he was about to face and therefore, to avoid it he attempted suicide months before his death. But fate insisted on more suffering and the great French writer Guy de Maupassant, having slit his throat, failed to die. He struggled on and was reduced to crawling on all fours, convinced his brain was seeping out through his nose.
He died on July 6th 1893, in a Parisian lunatic asylum.
One of the most enduring enigmas of literary geniuses is the way many of them chose to end their lives. Ernest Hemingway blew his head up with a gun. Maupassant cut his throat and escaped immediate death but had a far more painful exit. Why do they do so? Why does happiness elude them even after such remarkable recognition, renown, even wealth? Why does a prolific productive creativity yield to vacuous emptiness?
The epitaph that he wrote, sums up the assessment of his own life.
“I have coveted everything and taken pleasure in nothing.”