The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-19
DIALECT WANING IN POPULARITY.

In representations of American life it is
inevitable that the peculiarities of speech
which form what we call dialect must be
given some recognition if the realistic ele-
ment is observed at ALL but it may very
easily happen that dialect literature can be
overdone. 1t is the belief of discriminating
readers that this result has already come
about. Mr. Lowell was the first writer who
used it with any success, but, after all, his
'Biglow Papers owe their chief interest
to the shrewdness, the wisdom and the wit
expressed rather than to the unpublished
utterance. Critical students also maintain
that his use of this uncultivated vernacular
is not artistic, since many of the senti-
ments uttered are those likely to suggest
themselves only to the educated man who
would not use the speech of the unlettered.
Several of the later school of dialect writ
ers are masters of the art and the popu-
larity so soon attained by them is proof
of their accuracy of portrayal Readers
who had any acquaintance with the old
time negro knew at once that Uncle
Remus" really talked the way Harris
makes him and no other. Whoever had
heard the soft, slurring speech Of the
Southerner knew that Page drew from life,
while those acquainted with the rural In
dianian of rough diamond variety recog-
nized the quaint expressions put by Mr..
James Whitcomb Riley into the mouths of
his characters as absolutely accurate. That
the use of these odd phrases and col
loquialisms adds greatly to the effective
ness of the sentiments uttered is not to be
disputed, but it must to a certain extent
limit the writer's scope, since the perfec-
ton Of his art lies in expressing only those
sentiments that might naturally occur to
the unlettered parsonage portrayed 1t
was the unconscious recognition of this
art by the public that caused the swift
welcome given to dialect literature when
story-writers and poets of the best class
set themselves to producing it a few years
ago. 1t may have seemed to many readers
that the merit of such productions lay
chiefly in the embalming of the vernacular
in verse or tale, but as matter of fact
the sentiment put forth or the incident re-
lated was the most important-was what
lived in the memory; few could repeat the
dialect, many held the thought in firm re-
membrance. Perhaps it is the realization
of this that has caused the public to be-
come somewhat weary of dialect-for in
dications are numerous that it is weary.
An Impotence with this form of literature
is frequently observed among readers of
current literature. Mr.. George w. Cable,
who has himself used dialect with much
discretion, makes the reasonable argument
that it should never be used for itself
alone, but only by way of illustration or as
a means to an end. a Kansas City paper
complains that writers, especially the MAX
ers of verse, do not recognize the fact that
it has been overdone and abandon il. 1t
thinks that in spite of Mr.. Riley's very
great genius the use of dialect has been
hndrance rather than help TO him. The
Missouri paper is not alone in thinking
that at least part of this writer's best
work has been in straight" English but
it is wrong in ascribing to him an I'M
alterable partially for the cruder form OF
expression The Journal is in position to
know that in his case. at least .fe fault.
II fault there be. is with the magazines
which demand dialect verse from hin. and