The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-12-11
LITERARY MEASURES.

A good many excellent people have lit
erary measure which they feel that every
one who would not be rated as hopelessy
uncultured must accept. 1t is proper, ac-
cording to their ideas, not only to read GER
tain books classed as STANDARD" but to pro-
fess a liking for them. Perhaps, to do them
justice, they do not formulate the thought
in precisely this way; rather, they probably
put it that one must like the specified works
if he aspire to be called cultured. 1t is
matter with them, not of their own taste
and preference, but of a valuation fixed by
others whose opinions they regard as au-
thoritative. These good people are conse-
quently much shocked over a recent state
ment by Mark Twain that he has never been
able to find in Thackeray a line that inter
ested him, and are saying it is a great pity
that the humorist should have felt compelled
to say such thing. There are of course,
certain canons of art to which every piece
of literature must conform before it can
satisfy a critical taste, but the chief quail
ity that makes literature valuable is it's
power to interest people, and this power
must vary according to the characteristics
of the readers. That work which can hold
the attention of the greatest number from
one generation to another takes highest
rank, but it need not discredit any mans
intellectual standing that he is unable to
enjoy any particular piece of writing. This
is especially true of fiction No one novel,
however great, can please all novel readers,
even of the most intelligent class The lik-
ing for any given tale must be governed
by the mental idiosyncrasies of each reader
One may have distaste for historical fic-
ton, not caring for history in sugar-coated
eNise another may dislike the romantic or
the sentimental tale, another modern real
ism, another the psychological. retrospective
variety of story, another may find it impos-
sible to become interested in cynical studies
of life in upper-cIass English society. Mark
Twain is evidently one of these, and it is not
surprising, nor is it at all a reason for con-
may be a matter for regret that he does
not appreciate that keen analyst of human
nature, Thackeray, since by his failure to
do so he misses much pleasure, but, on the
other hand. he may have liking for novel
lists of equally high grade, though of an
other class, as Scott, or Dumas, or Hugo.
Twains own work deals with action rather
than motive; he tells what people do, not
why they do it. and it is natural enough
that he should not fancy the dissecting
knife in the fiction he reads. But, what
ever the cause, there is no reason why he,
or any one, should not be free to express
distaste for any author. There are men of
high intellectual quality who do not read
fiction at all. do not enjoy 1t. Strawberries
please the palates of the great majority,
but now and then is found an individual
with whom they disagree. AS we'll blame
him as a man who does not like Thack-
cray or any other writer. He is not neces-
sarily an inferior being. The truth is, there
is a great deal of hypocrisy in the matter
of opinions concerning books. 1t is we'll for
one just entering the realm Of literature to
read those books that the verdict of time
has pronounced good; but when his taste
has matured he may choose and reject as he
pleases and no one has right to criticise.
1t is probable that one Of a catholic taste
-one who reads anything and everything
that comes to hand, from George Meredith
to "Chimmie Fadden'' or Richard Harding
Davis-gets the most out of literature. The
pretense of liking only those publications
that belong on lists of 'best one hundred
books is a very hollow one and makes the
discerning smile Perhaps if some of those
who are condemning Mark Twains honesty
were to indulge in frank confession it might
be found that they also have their limita-
tions among standard works.