Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-12-05
Famous Books That Were Rejected bv
Publishers.


over i'll England struggling vo,,ro
autiors are hndlng encouragement in
'he carry discouragements of famous
men OF letters In this connection n
curious romance attending the produc
tion OF Julia NJ. Crottie's book. 'sThe
| LOST Lana, is recalled. When writ
Ten the authoress showed it to n
friend, who took it away TO read. and.
| Without Miss Crottie's consent, sent n
for inspection to n publisher. She ne
elected to inclose with it either her own
| address or that of the writer, with The
| result that the precious manuscript was
lost. Nothing daunted. Miss Crottie re-
| wrote the book. 1t was then Sent to
the editor of Il London magazine. this
/ time with name and address carefully
stamped on every other page. Notwith-
standing, ii was again lost, and no
| trace of it could be discovered This
! second disappointment must have been
| q bitter one. But the fair authorizes
bore up under it, wrote the book over
again yet once more, and in the end
| as every one knows, it got printed and
proved big success. t
Not often, of course, does a publisher
knowingly refuse to undertake the pub
lication of the work of n living royal
parsonage. Yet it has happened once
at all events. King Luis of Portugal
spent Is years of his life in transat-
ing Shakespeare. Then he sent it to
leading London house TO be brought
out, preferring, so he said, that it
should first see the light in Shake
speare's own country. The firm first
approached, however, would have moth
in8 to do with the venture. Nor would
the next, nor the next. The conditions
were too onerous. And in the end the
disappointed and disguised monarch
had the manuscript returned TO Lisbon,
and it was there printed and published
by a Portuguese firm at His Majesfy's
own risk tet
Il is fact not generally known that
there was once in existence a lengthy
and complete novel by the late Duke OF
Clarence. That it was never beheld by
the great reading public-who would
certainly have welcomed it with avidity
was due to the perhaps excusabe ig-
norance of the head of the one and only
publishing house to which it was sub
mitted. His Royal Highness, anxious
that the book, so far as the public was
affixed to the title page the pseudonym
of Mixes This he had previously
used for some short stories which had
appeared in a now defunct periodical,
entitled Aselia, and he probably thought
it would be recognized by the publisher
in question. That individual. however,
had apparently never heard of it. At
all events he returned the manuscript
a.
as to its fate. And it was not until some
time afterward. and then only by acct
dent, that he discovered he had de
clined with thanks both Il handsome
fortme-for such the book would most
certainly have brought him-and II
novel from the pen of the Queens
grandson.
Instances of publishers refusing
books by unknown authors who after
ward achieved immediate and we'll
nigh unlimited success are, of course.
plentiful. A typical example is afford
ed by Blackmore's perennially doomed
Lorna Doone," which was hawked
about for months by the author and adj
versely reported upon by nearly every
reader" in London before being ae-
cepted-and then not without consider
able trepidation--by Messrs. Sampson,
Low & co.
John Strange Winter" absolutely
failed to get any publisher to risk
bringing out "Bootle's Baby" in book
form until it had achieved Il unanimous
and terrific success as the Graphic Sc
rial. Marie Correllis first story, "a
Romance of Two Worlds" narrowly
escaped being consigned to permanent
oblivion. Hall Caine Qhen MI. Bent
Iey's principal reader) having judged
it unfavorabe.
For the inimitable Vicar of Wake
fleld'' a book that cells well even now,
Goldsmith received but G70 and that
as favor. "Tom Jones" lay for years
dusty and neglected ON a shelf In the
authors study, and only found n pub
Usher after Fielding had made a name
for himself as q dramatist.
1T must not be supposed, however.
that all publishers are invariably blind
to the promise of genius. Quite the
contrary. TO cite but one instance.
Thomas Moore was as yet comparative
ly unknown when the Messrs. Long
man. detecting the vast possibilities
that lay dormant in the man and anx-
of him than the pot boilers he
was at the time turning out, Of
fered him G 5000 for lengthy
poem, the subject to be chosen by HIM
self Moore was then a poor man, ana
the sum mentioned meant for him conn
paratively wealth. He shock the dust
of London off his feet, buried himself
among the Derbyshire dales and set to
work assiduousy to saturate his mind
with Oriental facts and imagery. The
result was seen later on In "Lalla
Rookh,'' work so true to nature that
it was translated into Persian and sung
as genuine native production In the
streets and cafes of Ispahan.
Or, again, take the case of the pale
faced. quiet, round-shouldered lad
who III the year 1862. was tying up par
cells in Messrs. Hachette's publishing
house at the munificent salary OF Gi ~
week.
"Sir,, he remarked timidly one day
to his chief, Il have been reading one Of
Flaubert's novels. am convinced that
il ! had time l could do as well-pcr-