The Indianapolis journal., 1899-07-23
THE LITERARY PROFESSION.
Does Ii Offer Sufficient Reward to It's
Followers-Two sides.

Edward Fuller in Time and the Hour.
wish TO present here two out or many
reasons why. except under extraordinary
conditions, the career OF authorship Is al
most certain TO be a failure. The first is
the singular inefficiency OF criticism. II
has often been argued that the critic is the
natural foe Of the author: and there is some
thing TO be said on that side when note
what criticism. In these days. has come TO
how the small men are puffed and the
great men are ignored, and a universal de-
sire TO pat pretenders on the back has con-
fused every distinction between good work
and bad. While Mrs. Oliphant was still
alive. foolish pens were lavishing praise
upon Mr.. Crocketts banalities.. When Will
liam Black died our. literary advisers-with
very few exceptions. contented themselves
with few half-contemptuous words and
went back to their soldering praise of the
emanations OF the kailyard. One of the
first Of American poets died not so very long
ago; but who stopped TO put a well-won
laurel on the grave Of Thomas William Par
sons? One of the first of American poets 10
living now in New York: but what praise
does Richard Henry Stoddard get from the.
fuglemen or Richard Harding Davis ct ID
omne genus? No. II Is idle to pretend that
modern criticism is fair or just 1t is dis
figured by personal prejudice. by ignorance.
by incompetence. by venality. by log-rolling
of the most shameful kind. Probably there
has not been a novel published this year
that has won success on its merits. IL
were TO name the best novel have read
should unhestatingly put down The Chill
dren or the Mist IL has a touch of Hardy:
IL has touch OF Blackmore: and yet IL is
fresh and original and powerful; but there
mas has, been conspiracy Of silence against II:
do know that II it has sold It has sold in
spite of its critics. The author is not in
Meanwhile our ears are re asssiled with tales
or the success OF David Harum. "a
rather vulgar version of our old friend
The second reason wish to mention is
the hostility Of the magazines to literary.
talent. OF course editors will deny this in
dignantly. They will say that there can be
no persona grata or persona non grata in
their well-conducted offices. But when they
say this they say what is not true. There Is
harmless and almost unconscious some
times malignant, with hatred of talent and
detestation OF new regulations which
could hardly be exaggerated. Apart from
this consideration-which some authors pa
thetically refuse TO recognize, and so go on
sending manuscripts where rejection is GER
tain, despite any merit these manuscripts
may have-there is another objection 10 de-
pendence upon editors. They do not want
literature. 1ney are not at all anxious to
have persons that can write. There are
plenty Of celebrities. scientists. soldiers,
naval commanders, politicians who cannot
write, but who have names TO attract the
idle curiosity OF the public. This has been
notoriously the case with our so-called re-
views for many years. but the evil has null
tiplied, and the magazines that once pre-
tended to better things are no longer free
from the sordid taint of commercialism.
The articles bearing on literature that have
appeared In the half-dozen leading period
| icals for a year past could be got into the
| compass OF a very moderate volume. Even
| those magazines which have prided them
| selves in the past on their literary qualities
| have gone or are going the same way. They
have editors who know nothing OF literature,
| who doubtless look back with contempt to
| the days when Lowells and Nortons sat in
| the editorial chair. but who are practical"
| and know when a given subject is hottest
| In the public mouth
| These are only two reasons out OF many
why Sir Walter Besant's golden view of the
| haps these two enough.