The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1902-01-07

prose-" He thinks that Neredith's
most unimpeachable claim Is his gen
eral intellectual eminence." He il in
deed a master, one OF the greatest or
novelists since Thackeray died. and he
has many themes and great originality
His worst drawback Is the worst posi-
sible style at times. II you would have
fine mental exercise as well as interest
| read ..Richard Feverel-"
Mr.. w. d. Howells Is beyond all fair
question a capital stylist, and with but
few equals among his living country
men. He is now more than sixty n
writes better than when he was thirty.
We no not affect to read with ~pleasur..
| his later novels. We do not agree willis
many of his criticisms Of writer's. His
taste appears to us ~emfnently defective,
IL not positively eccentric. His lauda-
ton of some writer's is amazing. while
his undertaking CT some of the very
greatest Of geniuses in and
the move are among his mental pecu.
l~iarities and extraordinary personal dis
likes. We were gratifed to see that
Mr.. William S. Walsh, a writer of gifts,
editor of The Era, in a review of How
els last book, "Heroins of Fiction
touches up some Of his extravaganzas.
For instance:
"One grows tired of being told that
Jane Austen and Trollope are the two
greatest Of English novelists. A mar
who plays such perverse tunes upon
his fiddle ought to hang il up. Mr..
Howells has reduced fiction to a for
mula, which he calls realism" just as
the men of Queen Anne's day, whom
ne resembles in temperament, reduced
all literature to a formula which they
called correctness. Both formulas are
discredited today. Shakespeare. in the
larger and better sense, is more correct
than Pope, Scott more real thar Troll
lope. For myself ] own that / wouldn't
give the least of the Roundabout pa
pers for the greatest of all Trollope's
novels. Howells does not like
Thackeray's confidential attitude to-
wards his reader. Doubtless he would
reject Fielding's very similar attitude
Many readers do like that attitude. But
whether they like it or not the majority
have pretty we'll made up their mind
as to the supremacy of Fielding and
Thackeray. in the novel, Of Scott in the
romance"
Our readers understand that We
nave e no recent novels. Hence
when we refer to a new publication we
either state the consensus of critics Of
the higher kind, or give the opinion Of
some one or two writer's of ability. The
usual laudation you meet with is abso-
lutely valueless. They are for the most
part. We believe, misleading. Now and
then we see some particular novel so
much lauded by even critics Of respec.
liability If not of distinction that we are
led to call attention to the books NAM
ed. We would suppose that Miss Ber-
tina Runkle's she calls 1.-THE
Helmet of Navarro" is of real excel
lence. 1t is most eventful. John Paul
writes in the New York Saturday Re-
view of it and exalts it nightly. Let
US quote a little:
1.-The personality of the letter is kept
out of the story. I found no sleeve of
a woman in evidence, no tangling Of
skirts in TIE machinery. The sword
play is all right; Wonderful
work it were for a man; for a girl, and
a girl in her twenties. 1 call 1t miracu-
lous."
Others nave praised it too, but we
avouch nothing. We observe that most
writer's in England and the United
States praise kim" One writer says
it is not a novel or history or biogra-
ply, but nameless. but good, being AN
intensely interesting book" We have
not read d line of it. Do not read any
novel until a full year old. Two years
will be better. By hat time the most
of the praised will have heen forgotten