The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-12-15
Literary Likes ~ ~ -
~ ~ ~ and DisHkeS.

hNO~>~~~~~>~-~~.~~~~~ ~.~~~~~~ ~S<~.~~~o~4
The confession, Il know ought to like such and such
oook or author but do not is infrequently heard
rom inc Ups OF persons who value the possession good
taste in literature and concerning authors OF accepted stand
ing and the same confession would be heard cener il all
readers were equally frank, This interesting
on How far such individual Independence Of taste NAV be
INDUCED without carrying the nduger outside the boundaries
of literary culture and good taste We can make broad
rule easily. Thus reader who delights In Mrs south
worth Miss Evans, E. p Roe and Mary Johnston and can
not read Ihaekeray Stevenson, Goldsmith and Mrs Hum
phry Ward (aking names at rsndom) not claim place
In the ranks OF people OF good literary taste But when we
marrow the boundaries and attempt decide how necessary
IS to like Browning and Meredith and Tosois fiction not
to include OF the older classics then meet probie
not easy Of solution
In behalf of independence of liking many precedent
might be cited This list would include Howes estimate OF
Scott Mark rwains estimate of Cooper and cayles com
tempt tor Darwin, An analysis Of these dskes will assist
us IN reaching some explanation OF the difference of
taken by persons of epute in regard many authors and
will lead to the conclusion that may indulge in dislike
Cor nonkngl for certain authors OF recognized position
without FORGETTING the claim good literary judgment
Mr. Howes refuses to place Scott in the front rank Of
noVeus's largely because his characters IN Mr. Howels
estimation do not possess individuality, Here
come in contact with the individual point OF view The
American novelist who introduces to young and
women OF our own day and country and who has found
that he must build mp for each character sufficient
individuality to attract his readers interest satisfied
with the productions OF the Scott novelist who dcpends 40
largely and historic effects with which he sur
rounds the people OF his imagination those whom he
mons 10 his pages from historic ground The great mass Of
readers who novests accept the Seotohmaus pic
lures, frame and all works OF many OF them it is
true confcssng 10 much wearuess in the study of
them Mark Twain analyses Coopers Indian tales with
measuring line proving TO his satisfaction the mpossiblity
Of OF the Misunderstanding peoples accomplishments
and tossing the whole overheard this This
may come under the heading OF exact criticism and
where appeals 70 reader is certain 10 work good deal
of destruction among idols But the OF Coopers read
do the rod they read and the absence of II
that has insured Cooper place in their hearts Carye
criticism OF Darwin is Of different kind criticism Of
philosophy may he urged rather than of literature But
I O
that Darwin utterly failed interest him His ego,
tism will for his dislike for rival but the Illus
traon only confirms the that the deepest thinkers will
grade book from the point which they themselves
gard it,
And here we get a the kernel Of literary opinion. II
honest in hkngs will admit that like book
because Of the impression leaves minds ard
the biggest books very different impressions We
writer's in which she combats the idea that Don Quixote
could be regarded from the pathetic instead Of from the
strictly humorous view and yet inclined TO think
that the appreoiavc students Of the character will feel
inclined extend the knight their sympathy
than their rdicue American criticism of Puritan
and Anglican contains this statement 10 see the ri
grims Progress against Robinson Crusoe, the
experience readers Here reader who has ev
IDENTITY regarded Defoes tale wholly from the stand
point of adventures and conieses his surprise TO fine
it classed along with BunysnS creation But Or Dowder
is by no means The discover such resemblance. auc
We recall devout old New England clergyman who gsv
Robinson Crusoe" very high place in the list OF work
that conduoe better life
In deciding for question whether real,
ought 70 like particular work author, allow
certain for individuality of taste II viii not do &c
class among the iteate all who do not read Browning
Meredith or all who confess lack OF enthusiasm
over Kipng and Mrs Ward We do not all enjoy equally
the same pictures the walls, the dishes the
table why should expect have the taste about
hooks7 be content rather to take stand with
Aacauay, and say
There are few characters which have stood the closest
scrutiny and the everest tests tried in the
and have proved which have been weighed IN
the balance and have been found wanting which have
declared sterling by the general consent Of mankind
and which vsbly stamped with the image and super
scripon of the Most High. These great men we trust
that We know prize and OF these Milton The
sight Of his books the sound OF his refreshing tc
US His thoughts resemble those celestial fruits and flowers
which Virgin Martyr OF Massnger sent down from the
gardens Paradise the earth distinguished from the
auctions other soils only by their superior bloom and
sweetness by their miraculous efficacy to nvigorste and
TO heal They powerful only TO delight but to ele
waite and purify
If we can pick these few characters and honestly
give them our appreciation need not if our pur
cases embrace not only of the popular
ones OF the day. few OF those whose authors eputa
ons have been madeNew York Times Saturday Review