New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-06-04
BEING CRITICISED.


Since literature began authors have never ceased
to speak evil of critics. so inyeeIate IS this habit
that if critic chances to be an author too ne d.
yides his person. it were, and in his capacity OF
poet speaks scOrnfuy of the reviewers who are his
comrades III his business Of reviewing. 1t seems,
therefore, that artists and authors DO not Ike being
criticised and yet how eager they are tor ludg-
ments on their works! Observe newspaper
shop or stall on Saturday morning A gentleman
approaches it with eager yet turtive air; he buys
ali tue weekly prints, his eyes rapidly scan the
lists of contents, his fingers tremble as he hastily
and nervOusly tears the pages apart. lie IS an
author his new poem novel Is Just out, and he Is
anXiousy searching for those very judgments
which he affects to dcspise Critics, he maintains,
are Ignorant indocnt irresponsible, umpOtent and
often malicious Yet reviews what his soul
Graves for: and II he Is not noticed IN some
journal bow the author will poster the friends OF
the friends of his friends to attention for his
work lie will even write letters modcstly stating
what he cOnceves TO be the strong points OF his
pcriOunancc-his manly simplicity. his intricate
art bis profound contemplatiye reflection, his SIN
ceTc and ardent passion. Wei, he gets reviewed; ;
ard yet he IS not happy.
La RocheioucaulG Il is, We think, who says that
there are such things good. worthy. mcTltOriOus
marriage. but no such thing delicious mar
rage. lie author has much the same opinion
about criticism There are friendly reviews, iay-
OraD.e IesIc"s. even gushing !n.,Oihe ana dduId-
tory re.ic1-. but no such thin - Gcllciou. !3-
view. Even II critic Oe7 ~, ..,nt some draw
back, or hesitate some dislike he cannot, in the
natufe If things, select all the points for praise
which, in the authors opinion, deserve praise. A
whole journal could not contain the review needed
prefer what is coaTsely and obscnrely called
asatIng" toa judlcious aud temperate review
The slatng,D the tomahawl;ing, can he attributed
to the jealousy and hatred OF some odlous rival
But the temperate review, especially II III be
written by a personal friend conveys horrible
suspicion that the author IS not really miracle OF
genius, and this is not lightly to be borne
Ia the nature OF things. criticism can never really
be satisfactory TO the criticised. The thing is m
possible. The authors mind Ina; been full OF ms
topic for months or years. lie has thought of it
first when he wakcns, last before lac sleeps. lie
has sought illustrations after the manner OF the
Mailman bee from every field OF thought. He has
been in love with his own reflection in the still
waters of his thought. and like everyone in love,
has ideal OF himself, lis notons his style, which
is invisible to the eye of the most sympanetc re-
viewer. The critic gives hours to the work where
the author gave months or years. His mind Is full
OF a hundred other matters, much more important
to himself If he is master OF the subject treated,
he is almost certain to have an anagonislc theory,
and then he sees, with OdiOus dIstlnctness, every
clnnk and iissuTe III the mail OF his authors
hypothesis 1t II fortunate thing for writers on
grave topics happy provision OF nature, that they
cannot their own falacles even when they are
made PLAIN by criticism to the most cXcTuciat-
ingly feeble UNDERSTANDING Still. The process of
exposure makes the author feel vaguely indignant,
and, if he really has the scientific spirit, he makes
reply in the pages Of a scientific journal Inc
scieniifc writer is addicted TO answering back"
as the vulgar say. and appears 10 he mueh more
touchy than nOveists and poets The critic may
prove novelist TO he such "A bungler that he can
not even remember the color OF MS own herones
eyes or the name of her first lover But tie
novelist never, or very rarely, answers back"
He trust that excellent patient public of his
pablo which does not stick at TITLES. and easily
recognizes the dark heroine of volume three,
though she a blonde in the first volume, and
brown beauty III the second The poet. too, unless
he is very young rarely replies to criticism. We
have known one make "a terrible clamor because.
after he had reveed In the applause of criticism,
rude reviewer bluntly declared that he no poet
at all. But, as a rule, when the poet scathes his
critic he docs so in verse he riposts in burning
numbers. lie declares that dank locks wave
around the brow OF his adversary, who may very
possibly prove to he a bald man after all. He
AYERS that he Ieyes in blame; what lie cannot for
give is praise. The poet on the waI-path is a de-
lightfu spectacle to the malicious critic, so frank
vet so feeble, is his display of irritation The
novelist is more cunning of fence, and, when hard
hit draws n fancy sketch of his reviewer second
villain IN his next romance Such are The various
modes of retaliation by which the lOrdly author
shows that the reviewers arrow has not missed its
mark.
These OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES, swift. scathing
iambcs caricature-aIe reserved by the author for
severe cases where his vanity IS really hard hit AS
a rule. criticism annoys mole ieebly. Perhaps the
most irritating thing TO author is to lind critic
compiling a review :" out of the book" writing as
if he knew all about topic OF which he has really
heard for the first time, and ending by dlsmlsslng
the author as a harmless drudge. 1t Is scarcely
more pleasing to read a hurried abstract OF ones
own preface. The hosty writer OF short notices