New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-05-27
THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM.
CONAN DOYLE MAKES A PROTEST.


Or. Conan Doyle, the novelist, has been moved
to write to The London Chronicle letter OF
indignant protest concerning what he calls "a
growing scandal" This. he says. Is the puphca-
lions of reviews upon the same book by the
same reviewer in many different periodicals. 30
that what to the uninitiated might seem to be
q general burst of praise or blame may really
when analysed prove to be the work of single
individual.
DR.. Doyle lamenting that this is becoming
year by year a more crying evil adds:
1 have no desire to descend to personalities;
but one cannot state case In convincing
manner without giving a concrete instance.
which / shall do with little offence as pos
sfble
There is an excellent and useful monthly. The
Bookman," In the columns of which the editor,
a well-known critic. is naturally able to express
his opinion OF any new book The same editor
sends-or has until recently sent-a letter 10
The New York Bookman." and so exercises
double influence on each side of the Atlantic.
This seems to me to be quite legitimate and fair.
There is a well-known weekly, The British
Weekly" which is edited by the same gentle
man. II Is the chief exponent of Nonconformlst
literary opinion. In this journal this same gen
tleman can. and does. review the same volume.
The reviews are anonymous. and there is no
reason why the outside public should connect
the one review with the other To 1t they APP
pear to be two important Independent 1udS-
ments.
In the same paper there are two different
columns of paragraphs devoted TO literary COM
ment and chat, which are signed respectively by
"Claudius Clear and by "A Man Of Kent
am credibly informed that both Of these mons
de guerre cover the individuality of the same
critic who has already had his opportunity OF
literary criticism In three other forms II all
these strings are pulled simultaneously pro-
| digious consensus of opinion seems TO exist And
| yet there is only the one pair of hands to pull
| them
Turning now from these more serious papers
| to their somewhat frivolous contemporary THE
| Sketch" we come upon column or literary crit
! icism signed by yet another symbol, 70. o.
Yet. Incredible as it may seem the opinion OF
| 30. o." is still the opinion Of "Claudius Clear
| Of "A Man of Kent Of the critic of The BOOK
man." OF the critic of the American Book
man" and OF the critic OF The British Weekly
| This hold, is not legitimate criticism
And now when / add that this same critic
frequently expresses his opinion of any impor-
| tant new book In the anonymous columns OF a
| daily paper and thus adds a sixth to his posi-
! BILE methods Of Influencing public opinion,
| think that 1 have said enough TO show that a
protest is needed I have not chosen this ex-
| ample as being the only case. though perhaps II
is the most notorious: but there are other groups
Of papers controlled by single opinion, and
| any two Of these groups by forming an alliance
| can at any time exert an enormous influence
| upon the fate Of a book IT is not too much to
| say that the property of authors and Of pub
|
| a very small clique OF men. To revert to the In
stance already given. 1t is obvious that four or
| Ave such critics would cover the whole critical
| press Of London. and no beginner could gain
| hearing without their sanction. l hold that
| such a state OF things is intolerable.
The Editor Of THE London Bookman" replies
to Dr. Doyle in THE Chronicle" regrettng tina,
| II is impossible to answer his letter without
| descending to personalities Of the most trivial
| into he 10
| upon are these:
First-It is true that projected "The Book
| man. and have edited ii since its commence
| ment in 1891. 1t is not true that have used
| 1t as vehicle for my personal opinions. During
| the whole period of its existence l have not
| written more than a dozen reviews, long OF
short, in its columns. and every one of these
has been signed. Nearly every distinguished critic
and specialist of the day has contributed &c
The Bookman' over his own signature. Books
are sent to qualified reviewers. and hope
need not say that contributors have been quite
unfettered in the expression of their opinions
| Ny letter to THE New-York Bookman Is
signed. and consists almost entirely of literary
! news.
second-The pseudonymes use in The British
Weekly are transparent. They have been IN
terpreted to the readers. and believe they are
included in such well-known books Who's
Who?" No criticism OF mine. so far as ! re-
member. has appeared which has not beer
signed either by my initials or by easily recog
nizable pseudonymes.
Third entirely agree with you in thinking
that the reviews in daily papers should b,
| signed. but the journals In which l have beer
! accustomed to write do not allow signatures
I have written no critical article which should
| not have been willing to sign, and / have al
ways left editors perfectly free to give my nam
TO the authors of books I have reviewed. Ii
! my Judgment the worst evils OF criticism would
| b. obviated II every criticism signed AM
no critic is justified in writing a review to which
| he would be afraid to attach his name Man,
OF would find 1t a great advantage If thi
~ If.lt nfad hat,
been pursued for years with relentless hostilit
by authors who attributed to me criticisms o
books which had never even seen. and in on
case I was made 10 figure as character Fl
a widely circulated novel on the strength OF
deusion of this sort
Fourth--As to groups acting together in ALI
ance so as to make II impossible for beginI er
TO gain a hearing, ! have never heard Of sucl
alliances. ] have never in all my life endeay
ored 10 prevent a beginner from being heard
On the contrary, have done what little cou
70 gain hearing for new writers Though Dr.
Doyle may have forgotten II, | did my best Il
impress on the public the striking merit o
Micah Clarke"
DR.. Doyle's proposed method OF insuring wha
he believes TO be fair play he states thus:
II is so powerful a weapon that should b
loath to see II used unless II were necessary 70
the higher interests OF literature. Authors an
publishers have between them the regulation y
advertising, and literary papers are dependen
upon advertising. combination OF author
who are opposed to wire-pulling and pluralisr
would easily, either acting independently o
through the Society OF Authors, break down thi
perniciOus system
Let me repeat. In conclusion. that 1t is no
adverse criticism which deprecate. We do no
get enough OF II, though IL is sometimes mis-
applied. But 1t is the system by which one ma
writes many notices which are quoted as sepa
rate opinions This is the great danger. as
seems to me. OF modern British literature.