The age-herald., 1900-01-21
A-%PY PAUL FRY.


 whom you most care for-Bulwer, Dickens, Thackeray, George Eliot-and l will give you psychologist diagnosis. This Is an Interesting theme and raises a most unique question. We have generally supposed our reading of novels to be a question of taste On discrimination, rather than matter of temperament. More interesting still would 1t be to read the analysis of the tempera- ment of the lover of these four weh-known writers. Would the choice of any particu- lar one mean that the reader was more in touch or had something in his nature akin to the personality of the author behind the work because of this preference? It would be a new thought to hold that love for Dickens indicates that the reader Is akin by temperament to the great author whose works were so distinctly character ized by love for dnis fellow man; so pervad- ed with that comprehensive spirit of hu- manity that the reader Is unconsctously influenced to practical benevolence and a deeper sympathy for the aggrieved and suffering of all classes. It Is well known and has been proven by statistics that Of the four~~writers mentioned Dickens Is largely preferred by the mass of humani- ty; the homely, humble class, who may not be as highly intellectual as other read CTS, but who possess. nevertheless, honest natures and healthy imaginaltions, which are ever responsive. Possibly, then, this is the solution of the fact; that this large class of people are by temperament akin to Dickens; are moved by the same healthy sympa thetic feelings toward humanity and are correspondingly touched by the same generous, whole-souled impulses. Per con- tra, Thackeray, as We know, is popular with what we might designate as a limited number of readers. It would be highly en- I6Tta1n1nR to hear diapuOSiS al he who prefers Thackeray. If 1t is not be- cause or the intellectual faculty which through critical estimate learns to appreci- ate the work at its true value would read CTS be as willing to grant 1t was kinship of temperament? It is quite possible that the reader would not be so ready to grant that hls preference was because of some inhe- rent trait in his own temperament which responded to the immortal creator of Becky sharp; the scathing writer of irony Who spared no weakness of humanity and especially the feminine heart. nut so merci- lessly held 1t aloft to ridicule.
 With Bulwer and George Eliot the diag- nosas would be equally interesting, and maybe just here the reader would be flat tered to be informed of a spiritual relation ship. If the likes or dislikes of a reader are influenced not by critical estimate but oy nls temperament a most interesting psychological question Is raised. We have often heard people express the strongest likes and dislikes for certain works with out being able to give any definite or sat- isfactory reason for 1t; if the true expla- nation Is to be found in the inner spiritual Ife, the temperament of the reader, cer- tainly most unique point of view is open ed upon the subject.
 But the question very naturally follows, how would this proposition work when ap- piled to the more modern novels? No doubt 1t would increase the difficulty of the undertaking while at the same time 1t would lead the reader to be more circum- spect In expressing his devotion to par acular author.
 Discrimination In reading suggests A se- rious but a most important topic-a hack neyed one to be sure-btit so long as the world endures the last word on the subject never can be written. How is one to know beyond question just what Is best to read? MoSt certainly one cannot rely implicitly upon the critic so long as such a diversity or opinions exist among them as to what Is absolutely valuable and worth the read Ing. One will speak with authority of a new work as the best addition to literature or the year and work to bring fame to it's author; while another VIII as conscien- tiously ignore 1t as worthless The plea to read only the old tried and proved vol umes will not solve the problem even though 1t may shirk it; for, to be at all posted and we'll read at the present day
 
 ters who are busily engaged in the endea- vor, each in his or her individual way to add to an already rich and precious litera- ture Some one has suggested that if one were to wait until books were al least one year old, the would-be reader might be spared a great deal of trouble and have saved for him most valuable time But this will not answer. How can one eager and interested, deliberately set the whole space of year between himself and possi- bly a rally valuable book? The demand is too great; human nature on this side of the world is too eager, energetic and pro- gressive. Then, how can one be sure that a years trial is sufficient to test the real literary value of a book and assure the reader that it is quite worth his while to read it; for, what numbers of books are published, favorably reviewed and really achieve phenomenal success during two or three years, and then pass out almost as completely as if they never had existed So that how is one to know just what books to read? strange. intangible. thing Is the success of book as good literature It is as uncertain how 1t will be received by the eager, waiting public as if it were human, with a distinct personality. Neither the reader of the publishing house nor the critic is able to put his finger here or there: and say: "Thds Is worthy; this will live and take its place as good literature" Not all the advertising and pushing by an en- terprising publisher can make some books, a success, while others printed with reluc-l tance, and even with fear and uncertainty achieve instant and phenomenal success: It is impossible to predict in the first place.; to analyze with precision and absolute cer-. tainty or to prophecy what its future will be. There is no accepted standard by which any one may even approximately gauge work. No rules are laid down by which one may measure a work and decide to just what extent it meets the require ments or fails in being good literature. It would seem then to be a question which each must decide for himself just as he must decide what he will eat or wear. Reading carries with it personal respon- shbility which cannot be entirely borne by another. A responsibility which, if used with judgment and ever increasing discre- tion, brings its own sweet reward.
 The first thing that occurs to the reader about Mrs. Frances Hodgson Burnetfs new story is why fin the world she should have chosen such a mouthful of words for the title: "In Connection With the De Will loughby Claim" It certainly cannot find Its excuse in its perfect appropriateness.