The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1890-09-14
A LITERARY TILT.
ma ANDREW LAM CRIIlC'sso
Mr.. HOWELLS,

,,,,, Ia Fuiiest Expression ~f'P"'
n.,,de, the Novelist 81 Mo""''"
,,,.r,ry Notes on varied Sub
Jects.
7, ia time that the line should be
firmly drawn between criticism ana re.
viewing. In the August nun'oer oi
Harper's Magazine (which. by me way
contains thrilling account OF Custer
last fiqht. Mr.. Iowells does not seem
to draw this line. He once more en-
deavors to abate the lnsolence Oh
critics. - assures them that criticism
has usually tried to depress originality
tells them that, being anonymous they
are tempted to be savage, and geheI-
ally. labors to make them know their
Mace" To myself, writes Mr.. Andrew
Lang in the last Longman he seems
10 overrate their influence-and their
savory. The ordinary anonymous
reviewer is las the Scotch lassIe
said of a modest lover "sensele'sly
ceevil." lie is good natured to de'
gree. Occasionally he hits hard, and
sometimes below the belt. Occasionally
he NAV have bad motive--a motive OF
envy. spite. or personal dislike. But,
on the other hand, rs Mr. Ihackeray
said authors should make up their
minds to a great deal Of "honest en-
nifty. " and ITO be abused for good as
well as bad reasons" This j. hard
lesson for authors. yet they should learn
il. The anonymous Is not necessarily
nor otter the dishonest reviewer Mr.
Howells tells a parable of journal. the
Clarion. which "is opposed 10 So-and
sos book Now, If a reviewer lets
his editor impose q task on him.
il he attacks the books merely because
the Clarion is opposed TO them, he
is selling his soul extremely cheap.
But | believe such bargain 10 rare ii
the reviewer finds that he differs from
the literary policy OF hls paper. he
says: Send the book t. some other
man. 10 is mistake, 70 be sure. for
q journal to have q policy about an
authors books at all; each should be
Judged ON its merits. But there Is no
need. i'm any case. for the reviewer TO
dissemble. After reviewing for many
years, | myself can only recall two
cases in which an editor made any sug
gestions. One Of the books was Mr..
ROssetti's first poems; the other was q
volume of Mr. Matthew Arnold :. The
editor ia each case said: IT you don Z
like the work send it back. for | DO. ~ /
al fftf .n.sl. me- huI |
disliked IL. no harm would have been
done Nobody 5 conscience would have
been wrOuged. So much for honesty. |
and, as for savagery. many signed |
French criticisms appear more anus /
iugly cruel than the excuses of our |
anonymous pres. For varlou reasons |
one might agree with Nr. HOwells. and |
wish that all reviews were signed. /
But tine public is of another opinion, |
and a reviewer can always act on Mr. |
HOwells' excellent advice. and say 1
nothing anonymously. that be would /
hesitate % put his name o.. Most of /
the names would be quite unknown,
would tell The reader and author very /
little.
In short, the brief contemporary
notice ia not criticism. IL may be-
merely an item Of literary uews. or q
brief summ3ry-a useful thing in itself /
or il may be puff or IL may be- "a
spiteful insult. IL has nor room 90 b. o
studied ruci-m. LOr is the knowledge /
of any mau SD eucyclolR .lc that hc
can DO FL dDZ.l book, briefly. yet each
with the tCucn 81 a specialist. Toe
of this. and human kind
ness herewith, make most reviewers
good naturod. An author gets little
good or bad from them. About
familiar AMI prolific writer's obey keep
little clIches on stereotyned forms For
my own part / know exactly what the
reviewer viii say about any new
venture If my own. The versatile
and industrious Dir. l.. New field.
Accustomed lightness OF touch. Des
ultory. Inaccurat-. May be read
without fatigue. Opinions may still be
divided rs to Mr.. l.. 5 conclusions
That is the humor Of it. not
axhilaraliug but quite kindly and
harmless And what more has q man
4 right 70 expect 1t have developed
4 theory about the religion of the Pata-
Sonians. what can Jones. who does the
notices 10 the Clarion. know about the
matter What can he care about the
He has to turn out score Of
lines OF copy. and 10 were irrational
vanity in me ID expect him to study
half "a library and wiring his brow with
thought over me and my PatagOniaps.
Or d write "A nOvel-w hich may fat,
tOrb.d-lt is a thousand 10 one that /
neither excite Jones enthusiasm. nor
drive him 10 a fury of Indignation.
That is reserved for more power
tul and passionate authors, who
should be proud of ecstatic praise
IF violent standardization Jones
They have. in either event. made
Jones sit Up. as the saying Is.
and that is something only once re-
member having made him assume this
attitude. with a translation Of a Greek
poet, and he hit out at me rarely. The
subject Of punishment merely giggled.
and 1t were well for all authors to laugh
instead of sitting down gravely to call
Jones treacher0us savage, or gong A.,
about to discover his name and habIta-
.l0n. Who cares where he is or who
10 lsy He has right to MS opinion and
me likes to near him express it as if he
meant It, But Mr. Howells appears TO
De wounded when people differ from
MS views of what fiction ought TO be.
and prove by the energy Of their excla.
nations that he has bit them.
lie Is always hitting me. for one, be
'ause to me criticism seems more valu.
ible and other than he thinks. ! mean ,
reasoned and considered writing on the ;
rled masterpieces Of the world. or
syen ingenious ana entertaining writing ,
about new books. To have a clever and
man telling YOU, in his
pest manner, what thoughts come into
Dis mind after reading even new nov.
Il IS no uifling pleasure among the
pale aud shadowF pleasures Of the
mind. The topic may be Dante. or may
De only Marie Bishkirtseff yet the
IDEAS which it helps to suggest to a com
)etent and well rean crluc are agree.
sole. and not mere yalueltss verolage
This is apart from his verdict Of praise
u condemnation. What one eni)ys is
not the verdict. but the insight into
another nature. Not that ovan tina