Reading "Daisy Miller". Reading for the 1st time a writer whose fiction I've never read but about whom I've read a lot.
"Dramatise! Dramatise!": Check. The story is mostly dialogue, like "Daniel Deronda: A Conversation" almost. Henry James uses lots of different words for "said" and also makes use of adverbs, which is reminiscent of F. Scott Fitzgerald. The descriptive phrases attached to these lines are not there to distinguish the characters, which is hardly necessary, but to let readers know how the characters speak and what they do whilst speaking. Now and then "Daisy Miller" feels like a script and the descriptions are there not for the readers as much as for the actors, so they know how to act, and directors, so they know how to direct.
Economy and relevance: Check. At least so far there doesn't seem to be anything redundant as one might find in George Eliot or Dostoyevsky.
Invisible author: Check- in the sense that the story's not interrupted by an intrusive narrator or distorted by the author's private feelings, though the author/ narrator does say "I" a few times.
Focus on consciousness and perception: Check. The descriptions of Daisy are not descriptions of Daisy, but of Daisy as seen by Winterbourne.
Unreadability: No, not an issue here. James is often mentioned as 1 of those unreadable authors, and people generally don't specify which works or which period in his long career. My guess is that the language in his novels, especially the late works, may be difficult- it's definitely not unreadable here.
A friend of mine says Henry James is similar to, and better than, Jane Austen. Whether or not he's better is too early to say, but he's similar in the characterisation through dialogue and the free indirect speech. There is also humour.
Hopefully next time I'll find something more interesting to say.