The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-06-28
in THE LITERARY FIELD
LIST OF DULL BOOKS THAT INCLUDES
SOME BY GREAT WRITER'S.
Successes of Literary Men I'm the Dip
1omatic service-0ur Native
Literature.

Lists of best books" are common enough.
But it has been left. says the Kansas City
Star, to correspondent of the Bookman
to ask for a list Of the ten dullest English
novels 1t is manifestIy impossible to COM
ply with this request. for. as the editor
of the Bookman remarks. in order to do so
# would be necessary TO have read every
book In the language. without this equip
ment no one would be sure that somewhere
there might not be a more wretched volume
than had ever come under his notice. More
over one is inclined to throw aside dull
book without finishing tia practice which
interferes with the possibility of making
fine comparisons in dullness between vol
umes.
The editor of the Bookman. however.
obligingly undertakes the task and fur
nishes list of the worst ten books in Eng
lish, combining himself to novels by authors
who might have been expected to do better.
He pledges his word. too. that he has read
them through. His pet diversions are:
Thackerays Philip" Twain's Joan OF
Arc" Kingley's ALTON Locke" Porter's
Scottish Chiefs" Watts-Duntons Alvin"
E1iot,s Daniel Deronda," Disraeli's "Lo-
thair,'' Richardson's "Clarissa Harlowe."
LongfeIlows Hyperion" This is a formid-
able collection. and one by its very nature
difficuit to criticise. Probably not one reader
IN a hundred has read through the Book
mans list If it were of the best instead
OF the worst books. nobody with any liter
airy pretensions would dare to confess to
being SO unenlightened as not to have read
them all But under the circumstances il is
possible to plead Ignorance with cheerful
ness, for IL Is no disgrace to have failed TO
read a book with such a reputation for dull
ness as has Daniel DerOnda, for instance.
Few persons, however, can have escaped
coming upon certain of the novels men
toned. and difference of opinion as to
their relative dement's Is natural The
Bookman's editor will be accused Of not
having put In those books which he ought
70 have put in and having left out those
books which he ought not 10 have left out.
Scottish Chiefs for instance, while not
the most thrilling book in the world, has
been enjoyed by many boys and girls, and
is probably still read with pleasure by
untimely death Of the hero, Sir William
Wallace. at the end. While THE Blithe-
would hesitate TO single it out as one of the
worst ten. 1t used to be considered the
thing for young people to Ike Alton
by the family won't quarrel with the Book
mans choice. In his day Disrealis books
were considered wonderfully brilliant. But
the mOucTn TcdueF III AIleIlcd DIT ledSL -
forced to conclude that much of their
charm was due to their adaptation to their
times. liz ne had read "Coningsby' or
Vivian Grey" he will admit the probable
claim OF .'Lothair'' to its place in the Book
mans index expurgatorius.
There are certain other books which at
least a goodiy number of persons would
be tempted 10 include in list of worst
books" Scott's Monastery and castle
Dangerous are dull collections OF words
Few admirers OF Dickens reconciled
TO "Barn1by Rudge." Meredith's Beau
champs Career Is rated high in England,
but IL Is too dependent on British politics
Of the middle OF the century to be any
thing save WEAKNESS to the flesh of the
average American. Among the later dull
books by authors who should have done
better are Hopes Rupert of Hentzau,'
F0rd's "Janice Meredith and Kipling' s
'.Stalky e. Co.. There may be duller books
than these by writers OF ability. At least,
there are several hundred better ones.