Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1900-12-27
COMMENT AND CRITICISM.
Lest men suspect your tale untrue,
Keep probability In view.

We're you surprised at dinner coming
SO soon? Did you mistake eleven for
ten, and twelve for eleven? We're you
too late to dress, and did you sit up
beyond the usual hour2 III novel rro-
duces these effects, it is good; il 1t
does not, story, language, love, scandal
itself cannot save it. 1t is only meant
to please, and it must do that, or it
does nothing" N...
In 1902, the year in which the first
number Of the Edinburgh Review APP
peared-a journal founded by the rev.
erend gentleman ! have quoted, it is
more than likely the above test would
have been conolusive; but can we ac-
cept 1t now as a reliable criterion in
summing up the merits OF a fin do
steele novel? The question is difficult
to answer. In q test of this kind much
depends upon taste and predilection,
features of mental development prone
to succumb to vitiating influences, and
we would, therefore, hardly be justitled
in saying novel was 'good" simply
because it was amusing, or, as we would
have it nowadays, popular. There are
SO many factors Of recent growth that
have to be reckoned with in the for
nation of literary taste, one Of which |
EoloItbl w tuo ouu5E nay AZ VI
the public school system, that it would
be unsafe l take it, to accept the
quality of entertainment as the sole
standard Of fiction. We have only to
turn to the modern stage 10 be con-
WINGED analogically Of the truth of this,
for there We find the burlesque and the
continuous performance absurditiss
furnishing a graphic illustration of the
danger of yielding to entertainment
and mere amusement Perhaps there
| is principle underlying this thought
that has been in operation ever since
the days when novels were first written,
but certainly IL is more In evidence NJ
the present time than In any other
period of our literary history and for
that reason deserves to be kept particu-
larly in mind. 1t seems to me we
cannot be too strenuous in our opposl-
tIon tc any tendency toward its annul-
ment, for surrender to the Sydney
Smith view would be tantamount to an
acknowledgment that fiction is not
literature, an admission so obviously
erroneous that 1t would only cause con-
fusion and controversy.
"In the Palace of the King" by +.
Marion Crawford, is forcible example
Of how one novelist has gone wrong. Its
appearance indicates the latter-day
tendency Of certain writers of fiction
to ride the wave of spectacular SUCCESS
and aim to catch only the froth OF
popular taste, forgetting, in their
insouciant faulty, that their genuine
talents and capacity for producing
enduring work are being washed out
and disintegrated in the journey. The
story aud the plot are little more than
burlesque. The book as whole
answers most OPPORTUNITY to Mr.,
Howells' designation Of tarradiddle'
and strikes me as being an excellent
sample. Described as "a love story o.
old Madrid" in which we rightfully
might expect much in the way Of ro
mantle freshness, it is in reality {
machine product from the vel. worr
pen of "a prolific novelist. And yet
withal, it is remarkably entertaining. !
! have no doubt it would have greatly
novel reader will begin II and lay |
aside before reaching the last chap
ter. But he will follow the action
more correctly speaking, the perform
ance-just as he would the stage scene
of theatre into which he had wan
, dered by mistake, thinking to see
good play, but finding instead the Ga.
: Burlesauers. - Attracted by the fash,
costumes, the gaudy scenery and tn
unexpected play of random wit AM
! humor he "sits 1t outs" yielding to th
fascination of a Bohemian moment
!. despite irrepressible feelings Of DISCUS
! and disapprobation. This is, in on
sense tribute to Mr.. Crswford's liter
. airy strength, but in the present 10
. stance the strength is perverted. Th
result ia devoid of harmony and plausi
BILE sequence of event and a blind sur
= render to the allurements of dramati
intensity--an intensity enfeebled b
flamboyant padding. 1t is not near s
. good, nor MS entertaining, as "Whe
= Knighthood was in Flower" 9TH
= Macmillan Co. From e. S. r. Butte
% g. Son.
Il have always had the greatest &C
n miration for the writings OF the lai
2 Charles Dudley Warner, esteemin
N them net only for their intrinsic wort
If and their fidelity to coutemporaneot
IS life and thought, hut for the hand tht
wrote them, ard in this devotion hay
y derived no little pleasure. The recer
ia death of Mr.. Warner has introduced a
d element OF sadness into this faithful
a ness to work we'll done, not SO muc
from a reminiscent point of view, I
IL in the realization that the fountain
"a much thought and wisdom of an eleva
,e ing and informing nature has CEASE
ir to flow. This might, perhaps, be r
10 garded as an attitude OF selfishnes
/. tinctured with little Of the bltterne
le Of complaint, but what would becon
I'd OF those steadying qualities of phil
to sophie resignation that enables wor
,e Of wickedness to ad Just itself to chan
ing conditions If it were net for Il
be- Christening influences of a healthy q
tagonism to sudden loss ard the /
az eyItable reaction that followsp TO
he life would he very dull and monotono
Il. "a very different sort from the one NJ
be Warner would have had US to lead.
rs Mr.. Hamilton W, Mahie, in b
d, musterly tribute to the editor of "Il
al Worlds Best Literature" in the ID
h. cember Critic, does well when he class
ed him as "fine representative OF tt
ed second generation of New Englal
80 writers.'' Mr.. Mabie would not ha
ia gone far amiss to have said the be
he representative. but it is better to err
a the side of accuracy than to fall 10
nd fulsome praise. Sulhoe it to say, for b
lis literary standing, that he was not t
it weak member in group composed
to such men as Edmund Clarence Ste
he man, Thomas Baily Aldrioh, Thorn
an Wentworth Higginson. Oliver Mend
ey Holmes, Samuel L. Clemens, Willlf
Dean Howells and Richard Henry Ste
Or, dard. As Mr.. Mabia intimates In