The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1898-02-15

SACelicut. we ISdQ WlLuiu d year Ut So,
the second novel Of the trilogy, What
Will He Do With It." We verify be-
lieve that it is far better than any of
the novels of the new school, unless
we are to except THE Little Minister"
by Barrie. 1t is to out taste a work of
more fascinating interest than any
novel within our reading produced
since Lorna Doone." We know that
this is not latter day opinion, but it is
the deliberate judgment of III "old
fogy" if you please, who sat in boy
hood and manhood at the footstool Of
the modern masters in poetry and fc-
ton and biography and history and
criticism. 1t is the opinion of one who
has read much of the greatest fiction
in all the world-Fielding, Smo1-
lett, Scott, Dickens, Thackeray,
George Eliot, Charlotte Bronte,
Hugo, Dumas, Sue, George Sand, Bal
FAC, and of later writer's, Blackmore,
Black, Charles Kingsley, Charles
Reade (who has written al least one
work that should live throughout the
ages,) as Blackmore has in Lorna
Doone" and Kingsley has in West
ward Ho," and "Hypatia," and many
others. We have an abiding faith in
the excellence and charm of Bulwer's
best books. We were led to write this
by a mention of DR.. w. r. Nicoll, a
Scotch critic and editor in London, in
a critical paperin the New York Book
man." It is stated that the very able,
scholarly, admirable critic, the late r.
II. Hutton, editor of LONDON Spectator,
a great literary weekly, held ~steadfast-
ly that Bulwer was not a success in
his trilogy. DR.. Nicoll says:
He allowed that the books were lively,
but complained that they were defOrme1
by direct and poor limitations of Sterne,
for which Lord Lytton had not the requi-
site hurOr, and that they rarely rose
above the ordinary novelist's work"
Now after reading that we invite
the intelligent reader to procure a
copy of What Will He Do With 1t"
and try to accept it if he can, the hos
tile dictum Of the great English critic
| We do not know of a worse critical
| judgment since we read some of DR..
Johnson's opinions of Shakespeare's
plays and some Of the English poets.
There is a lack Of scanity and pene-
tration in such a damning of Lord
Lytton. DR.. Nicoll himself evidently
leans to the opinion that Bulwer was
merely a clever man, of varied
knowledge, of vast ambition and in
dustry, but without genius. The ques-
! ton is still undecided" But he is
pleased to say that there are many
of us still who rank 'The Cations very
much higher than Mr.. Hutton ranked
it, although by no means blind to it's
faults" Well what of il. Have not
all the novelists faults? Even Shakes
peare is most justly criticized for his
defects-his Astounding bad grammar,
his poor stuff he sometimes wrote, his
defect of taste now and then. And yet he
remains the worlds greatest poet, SUI
| preme genius. So with the greatest
| Scott. There is not a critical midgit
living who canno pick flaws in the
mighty Scotch magician and under
rate his splendid, unrivaled creative
genius among fctive writer's. Who
F.! expects perfection? Doubtless Bulwer
had faults many and some grave ones.
But he had, if not genius, very rare
and brilliant talents that expressed
themselves in manifold production.
But think of DR.. Nicoli overlooking
"The Cations" and MY Novel" and
named already, and saying hat per
haps Lytton's claims to genius might
be hazarded on that impressive and
weird story, The Strange Story"
That is as bad as Hutton's slip UP.
Think of naming that fantastic per-
Torrance in preference to those works
named. Taste and insight often ap-
pear deficient in those supposed to be
we'll equipped for critical deliverance.
But taste is often wanting in scholars
and even professional critics.
Some one wrote to New York "Sat-
urday Review" to name the novels of
Scott, T~hackeray and Dickens which