The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-12-14
in THE LITERARY FIELD
FEW THOUGHTS ON THE yAGARIEs
OF LITERARY CRITICISM.
A Line That Must he Drawn by Mag
azfne Editors-Fashions i'm Books
The Flood of Books.

We picked up the other day. says the
Kansas City Journal. very dignified peri
odical which contained a criticism of James
Whitcomb Riley's latest book of poems. en-
titled '"The Book Of Joyous Children Some
way this criticism reminded US of the ex-
plosive language of a contributor to Kan
sas paper whose literary work had come
under the eye of the village schoolmaster,
with the result Of a severe reflection from
the schooimaster upon the grammar and
diction of the article in question. THAT
schoolmaster," said the indignant author,
lis one of them fellers that can parse blue
blazes out OF what other folks write. but
can't write cut of his own head as much
as an advertisement for lost shote" Our
critic in the periodical has certainly parsed
blue blazes out Of the writings Of Mr.. Ri
ley. He overlooks entirely the bubblng
spirit of childhood which Riley had caught
and fastened in his verses. He does not
see the harum-scarum boys or the holden
ish girls who gallop through the pages. He
is blind to the ripping fun and the child
hood tragedies which Riley paints so de-
lightfully. But he sees all the halts and
limps in syntax and prosody, and he asks
us to reject the book because it is not ''in
harmony with reason"
For example, quoting the verse,
An wunst he climbed on our back fence,
An flop his arms an men commence
TO crow, like he's hen,"
our critic shows clearly that hens don't
crow that Mr. Riley is reprehensible in
Milling the minds of children with the I'M
scientific thought that under some circum-
stances hens might crow" and that lit is
an unbecoming license to take with the
facts of natural history" But how does
our critic know that hens don't crow down
in the eery world where Riley lives with
his children? We guess they do crow if
they want to, and, anyway, We shall be-
lieve Riley every time when he is up
against hard word to rhyme with word
like rooster.
Again. our critic takes issue with the
statement of fact in the following:
Men when ma she slip an take
Him in the other room an shake
Him good! wy, he don't care-no, sir!"
Why" he asks. docs this careless poet
use the word 'slip?' Is it proper to suppose
that an indignant mother Slipped up on
mother go trenchantly against her sinful
boy and administer the punishment OF
which he is so richly deserving?" And
here again We must stand by the poet not
only because the word is fairly descriptive
OF scenes of this character. but because IL
Is one suggested by the eternal and poetic
narmonles. she slipped up on the boy be-
cause otherwise he might have escaped her
And, having captured the recreant, she
probably slippered him. What does the
critic want for his money, anyway?
But why pursue such disagreeable SUBJ
ject? Our critic clearly belongs to that un-
emotional, unpoetic, utilitarian class OF
people who never allow room at all for the
play of fancy. He has his prototype in a
Kansas editor who, the other day., criticised
one Of those obituary poems handed in by
country correspondent. The first verse
read:
Father has gone to the shores beyond,
To live life so sweet;
We see his footsteps everywhere,
But we do not see his feet
The editor severely criticised this pretty
tribute to the dear departed. He said il
lacked rhythm and sense and was a dis
grace to the friend who wrote it. He die
not see at all the beautiful thought that
We leave behind us the thoughts and deeds
of our lives when our bodies are departed
But 1t, perhaps. is better that the poem
should have fallen under the eye of ar
editor who is serious-minded rather thar
one who is humorist. The humorist would
probably have made light of very grave
subject by contributing some such insult
ing remark as, ''Do not see his feet? Well
the Lord knows they were big enough!'