The daily morning journal and courier., 1903-08-20
THE SMALL FAMILIES OF FIG

by the recent discussion or the size oI
 families, in which the president of the
 United States has borne no inconspicu-
 ous part, ''calls attention to the low
 birth rate in novels and plays, which,
 he says, will, when taken in connection
 with the high death rate, inevitably lead to the rapid extermination of the
 hero and heroine."5 The mere state
 ment of the problem shows that we are
 dealing with two different worlds
 worlds subject to different rules. For if, in the actual world, the birth rate
 were permanently low and the death rate permanently high, the human race
 would shortly be extinguished-whic
 would be a calamity. On the contrary,
 in the world of fiction these phenomena
 would result simply in the extinguish-
 ment of ''the hero and heroine which, on the whole, would be henefactton.
 So one may hold the .Rooseveltian theo-
 ry and yet not be terrified by the facts
 unearthed by the writer whose remarks we are discussing. '' < ;" ...z.- There are hundreds-we had almost
 said thousands or inillions--or charac- ters in fiction that ought never to have
 been born at all. In these cases the death rate in fiction is far too low and
 the birth rate far too high. We do not
 mean to be personal, at least not in con- nection with living authois, yet we can not resist the temptation to say that
 the world could get along very comfort
 ably without any of the people of the
 Rev. Tom Dixon. The Rev. Charles
 Frederick Goss, toe--it merely happens that we have chosen persons for our il-
 lustration--is responsible for the exis- tence of too many people. Other names will occur to our readers. We forbear to mention more because tastes differ so widely. But Goss and Dixon should, we think, both strive for q higher death rate and lower birth rate. But it is only fair to the writer in Public Opinion to say that he does not seem to be greatly disturbed over the situation. He simply calls attention to the fact. Here is what he has to say of one typical novel, 'Varity Fair:' <. Becky Sharp was an only child, nor do we hear of uncles. and aunts. Sir
 Pitt Crawley, twice married, has four children, his brotlesH five and his sister none; So there Is Hri. average family of three, just sufficient to maintain that questionable line Osborne and Dobbin each have two sisters. and we ,have again the family required for a station- ary population. The Sedley family con- sists of brother and sister. In the next generation. however, things are worse. Amelia has two husbands and two children, Becky one child, Sir Pitt one. and Jos none. This is apparently an average family of 1.SS, which is almost that of the Harvard graduates, accord- | ing to President Eliot" | This, it must be confessed, is dis tressingly bad showing. The worst | thing about it is that this state of af- fairs exists in many of the families in 1 Thackeray's books. Colonel Newcome had but one son, and there was but one son in the Pendennis family--the fa- nous Arthur, Laura Bell was an only I daughter Rachel Lady Castlewood) l had but one daughter by her marriage | with Colonel Esmond, and that daugh- ! ter had but two sons. There are ex- | captions, of course, but still the birth rate in the Thackeray stories is unde- ! nfably low. In his case, of course, it IS a misfortune, for his children are al- ways worth knowing. But what is to | be done about it? We can see no rem edy. President Roosevelt might offer a prize to the novelist who should write I the most stories with the largest fami- l lies. But we doubt whether even that would be effective. For here we run up against one of those peculiar rules which apply only to the world of fiction--and that is that the writer, if he is wise, uses no more people than he actually needs to make his story go. The quality which pays him best is fecundity in books and not in characters. He can write half doz- en books with six or eight characters each in the same time that he could write one book with half a hundred characters, and make more money by so doing. Again, he wants his people as different as possible, and this. for bids making too many of them belong to the same family. Each of his char acters must have relationships outuside of those of his own family, anr this ne- cessarily involves the creation of differ ent sets of people somewhat widely separated in blood and station. It is more important, for instance, that Bec- ky Sharp should know the Sedleys, the Osbornes, and the Crowleys than that she should have a dozen brothers and sisters. But how do we know that she did not have brothers and sisters? The author does not say that she had, but enither does he say that she had not. On the whole, we do not think that
 Public Opinion has made an important
 discovery. It is interesting, but in no
 way vital. The productive power of a
 novelist is better shown by the charac- ter of his characters than by their num-
 Der. Perhaps it may not be amiss to
 say that this is one of the few rules that apply both to the actual world and to the world of fiction. We hardly.
 dare say-lest we should be guilty of heresy-that large family even in ac-
 tual life is not good thing in and for
 and by itself. It is a good thing if it is
 good family-otherwise it is a very
 bad thing. Certainly this is true of fic- ton. And as it is with that that this
 discussion is concerned, perhaps it would be safer for us to leave the oth-. CT branch of the discussion to Jresident RO0SeVelt.-Indianap polis News