Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1871-11-21
W o RCESTER .
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER II, 1871.
CharIes Rendo Ancr his critics,


Charles Reade writes long letter denouncing
his critics and asserting himself His last novel,
ga Terrible Temptation" has been sharply
criticised everywhere, but the critics have gen.
orally given him due credit for ability as
writer; more credit, in some cases, than he really
deserves, for he has not been able to bring into
the world of fiction an array of striking charac-
tiers, which can be classed with the creati ons of
Scott, Dickens, and Thackeray and successfully
claim the freedom of general literature. The
objection raised against some of his novels is
one which he seems unable to understand. If
his habit of mind had allowed him to be readily
conscious of what this objection means and of
the reasons for it so abundantly furnished in such
stories as Griffith Gaunt" and "a Terrible
Temptation" he would instinctively have writ
ten in such way as to make it impossible. He
is told that the moral atmosphere of these stories
is impure, pFarient, and very unwholesome,
Why-it IS 50 is carefully explained; but he can
not see what is shown him; therefore he regards
the criticism as a foul assault on himself as
literary artist.
The letter to which we refer is printed in the
Toronto Globe, which had published Il long
criticism on some Of his books, in which this
objection was set forth. His reply to the criti-
cism shows that it aroused i'll him nothing bur
anger bordering on rage. Conscious of undue
heat, he says, as if by way OF apology, that he
bears "an Indifferent character for temper and
moderation" This is well known, for Mr..
Reade has more than once rushed into print to
chastse his critics. In the present case, he is
no more moderate than heretofore. He calls
them anonymous slanderers, 'lewd hypo
critics" "anonymuncules," "prurient prudes,"
"shamsample swindlers," Glars and scoun-
drels;" and he detests them all "from the British
anonymuncule up to Carolina Skunk" He is
strongly inclined to attack his Toronto critic
with "the dog-whip of the law" being sure, he
says, that the criticism is $50 evidently mali
cious, that could sue him or even indict him."
But he will not do this, as he knows "the
sanderer would run away and hide" and the
punishment would fall on "some unguarded
editor, publisher or printer" who is more of a
man than the real culprit."
Very likely, some of the critics have treated
Mr.. Reade's books unjustly. Perhaps his Cana
dian critics have done SO; we have not seen
what they published Generally, however,
there has been no disposition to treat him un-
fairly; in many cases, there has been tendency
TO offset the unfavorable criticism by praising
him beyond his actual merit. The moral objec-
ton to some of his books can not be suppressed.
1t ls;real and he would do well to lay aside his an
ger, lcam his nerves, and try honestly to under
stand it. Certainly he gains nothing by these
outbreaks of blind and violent temper; and
nothing he can say in his moments of fury will
change anybody's opinion of his books. His
rank in English literature will be determined by
influences above his control. Shakespeare was
careless of his productions, and never dreamed
of the great place in literature to which he was
destined If Mr.. Reade were equally careless he
would be sure to have his true rank while, on
the other hand, furious quarrels with his critics
will neither increase the force of his genius, nor
raise him to a position above his deserts. The
next generation will judge him fairly, and he
may be sure that it will judge him, not by the
characteristics and social ways of the sixteenth
century, but by those of his own time, not y
his own estimate of his powers, but by what he
actually is.