New-York tribune., 1901-05-11

pigeonholed as though for a detectives use
The method is somewhat wearisome. and grows
positively repugnant when II leads the author
into indulgence in a very crude and meretricious
mannerism on page Harran Derrick is de-
scribed having the Derrick nose "hawklike
and prominent. such as one sees in the later
portraits of the Duke of Wellington" on page
63 Magnus Derrick. his father is duly endowed
with "a prominent. hawklike nose-the charac-
teristc Of the family-thin. with a high bridge
such one sees In the later portraits Of the
Duke Of Wellington" II this were the sole ex-
ample of Mr.. Norris's unfortunate prediction
for form OF repetition which is no doubt meant
TO be artistic. but is really far from deserving
TO be so characterized. it might be overlooked;
but the epithets used to describe Angelo varian
for the first time paEe 80 are repeated again
on page -. page 152 and again on page 39i.
The arrangement of them is changed more or
less in each case. but this cannot prevent their
leaving the impression of a cheap rhetorical
trick
We lay stress upon the blemish because the
authors descriptive faculty is pretty nearly all
Of which he can boast. When he is painting the
invasion OF a barn in which a happy dance is
going by bad man" a bronco: when he
is exhibiting a company Of ranch owners furi-
ously debating ways and means of fighting
great TditToau, WIleN ne Is IelInS us ABOUT
highwayman's hold up OF a railroad train or
when he shows one Of the villains of his drama
being suffocated in the hold Of a ship 10y masses
OF the very wheat for the possession of which
the man has done his wicked deeds he is vivid
after a rather Zoaesque fashion. and is inter
estug. There Is a kind of rough power too in
his telling Of his story; the desperate, but vain,
struggle of the ranchmen against the sinister
strength of a colossal corporation holds the at
tention even after the reader has recognized the
artlfciality Of the conception. But in the long
run that artihciaty leaves with a very
dubious opinion of the authors work rs a whole.
He has attacked his theme with profound ser-
BUSINESS; he is TO carry on his treatment Of II
through two more volumes. The three 70 bear the
general title of The Trilogy." as he also calls
il. The book is tremendously wordy. But the
resoundIns thumps the rhetorical drum fail
TO persuade us that Mr.. NorrIss tall talk has
sound ideas behind it; he is lurdly emphatic
where apparently he means To be eloquent. His
pcrsorages are clearly enough differentiated. and
he realizes them with sufficient energy for each
10 play a fairly indivdualized part in the
scheme. But he falls short Of making us feel
that there is really any question of character
reacting upon character in this book.
He sets out show the private Individual
being overshadowed by the power Of a trust
and while he seems TO prove his by the
time he gets through, il is only a seeming; we
cannot avoid suspicion that he has done so
without much reference 10 human nature or the
conditions of modern life. 1t is stated on the
slip cover to the book that the story is founded
on IAN actual piece of history almost unknown
in the East-What is known as the Mussel-
Slough affair. when the wheat growers Of the
San joaquin Valley came into actual conflict
with the railroad (the octopus). which they be-
lieved was trying to defraud them cf their land"
In spite of this declaration, Mr.. Norris fails TO
carry conviction. leaving the impression only OF
an immature poemist. with a sociological prob
lem his mind. The creative faculty of the ex-
perienced novelist. taking the raw material Of
life and moulding it into a work of art. is sadly
missing. We regret this. for Mr.. Norris is un-
misrakably possessed OF a serious ambition and
of capacities which might very possibly be
effectively developed, If he would but wreak