The Russellville Democrat., 1890-02-20
NEWSPAPER CRITICISM.
The Modern Magazines Failing Before tl
 Modern Newspapers.


 Modern Newspapers.
 The notion that magazine critic is, in the nature of things, of superior au- thority to a newspaper critic had a most respectable origin and develop ment. Yet even at the height of the magazine critics power and fame. in the royal days of the Quarterly and Edin- burgh Review, such men as Leigh Hunt and Hazlitt were writing for news papers, and to-day the situation bids fair to be reversed. There are no longer any Broughams, Macaulays and Sidney Smiths leading the quarterlies. The successors of these men are for the moment of less critical ability; but where they are their equals they would speak with greater force through the newspapers, even though these only took up and disseminated what the speakers said in the magazines.
 Again, the day of the magazine as a controlling political force is over. Occa- sional magazine articles, and magazine articles that are in themselves occa- sions, still appear, which considerably agitate public opinion, but they derive their efficiency from the political rather than the literary standing and reputa- tion of their writes Forty years ago an article by Mir. Gladstone, NJ P, would have counted for something. To-day it is only Mir. Gladstone, Prime Minister, who can count Here, again, the news paper and the interviewer have come to the front, and the old idea that if man has something weighty to say he must
 
 wait for the Edinburgh Review to report him is lost. And in America the work of political criticism is almost entirely carried on by the newspapers. Indeed, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to name an article appearing in an American magazine or monthly review which has controlled fifty votes either way in any important campaign since the war.
 Our dramatic criticism is wholly a matter of newspaper province, all tue magazine articles dealing with the drama being supplied either by news papers or by actors, who, for the pur- pose of the present comparison, are not critics at all. As for literary criticism, there may be, perhaps, few men whose observation on literature are printed exclusively in magazines Some of these arc genuine critics, some are hacks for the publishers who print the magazine itself But test is afforded by the announcements of these very publishers, who will generally be found commenting their wares by appealing to the opinion of newspapers and week. ly reviews. And the critics of these weekly reviews are pretty generally newspaper men"
 The fact is, the great critics of to-day are the critics of history, of philosophy, of biology, of therapeutics. They are the men to whom the world Is really listening, whether the world knows it or not The critics of literature and art stand in'the second place, and we have scarcely any first-class critics of eitherr We probably have not any.
 On the whole, the strength of our modern magazines is not in their criti- cism, but in their illustrations, and it is precisely for that reason that the news papers are endeavoring to rival them in that department, while preserving their other departments entire.-Phila. delphia Times.