Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-04-04

That many copies of good books are
wasted upon newspaper reviewers is
n well known fact. A very large pro-
portion of papers that have review"
column are not adequately equipped
for the work they undertake to do, and.
for the gift of book from its pub
Usher or author. furnish an ostensible
but in no sense an equivalent return.
For those extremely popular novels
which run up into editions of 100 thou
sand or more. the mention of their
titles may be advertisement enough,
and the results desired. namely, sales,
are brought about by line or two in
which appears the name of the book.
Gondolame! Gondolame!! Condo
lame!!! In big letters may be all that
a certain class of readers need TO make
them buy the great novel by that name;
so will this sort Of notice sell good
soap or bad medicine.
But the real books that never will be
read by the majority; which could not
possibly become a fad, are not helped
at all by such advertising or by the
opinion Of an ignorant, vain or pre-.
tentious reviewer. The appreciative
buyer reads large number Of re-
views. no doubt, but he considers only
the criticism of those who show fair
and discriminating judgment.
Some publications have a special ed
itor for this work, nut more often II Is
ready OverwOrked editor.
Many newspapers whose review de-
partments are worthless, are good
journals with a large circulation: po-
litical or religious organs quite worthy
of the support they get And because
they should not be considered as liter
larry purveyOrs. Is not reason at all
why they should not be good newspa-
pers.
A review department ought 10 be
conducted along absolutely impartial
lines. The critic should not be influ-
enced at all by political, religious, Soc
ial, racial or commercial tendencies.
The language of the book he reviews
should be his mother tongue that he
may have not only technical facility
but the gradually acquired intellectual
subtlity; the hereditary knowingness
necessary In a man who must TO some
extent be prophetic. II the critic be
narrow in any sense, II he is irritated
by opinions he does not like. II he is
capable OF being made angry by the
egotism or self-consciousness OF the
author, by his tons, his pride or race,
his enthusiasm, by any quality that
does not detract from the value Of his
book as literary entity, then he Is
disqualified from serving as reviewer
of books. Besides, the ideal passer-of-
judgment upon books must be a man
of large sympathies and charity. He
must not only be student of human
nature flor books are only exhibitions
of itJ, but one who. II he has not been
mellOwed by his OVID experiences. still
possesses the genius TO discern truth
intuitiyely.
With all the equipment necessary.
this critic must have read books, too,
and he needs a well stored mind no less
than the originality and mental indie
pendence to come to each book much
as the petitioner approaches the
Throne of Grace" ready to receive the
blessing.
What he has read about the book
should lie in the unconscious area of
his mind: who the author is, who the
publisher, how many copies have been
sold. He must even shut his eyes 10
the type and the pictures, and strictly
repress any emotion over the binding.
He may mention these matters, of
course, but they must not alter his
judgment on the other values of the
work.
Whatever he is, this reviewer must
not be partisan but a real man who
loves his fellow man; who possesses the
trained, conservative. Unconditional, cal
culating intellect Of the literary anal
yst. Then he will not fall into the
methods of the hypercritical, and show
on his knowledge OF mere grammar.
Such trivial critics are too common.
Ihey VIII point out 10 you the mis-
takes not OF Moses but Of Shakespeare.
That they have the technical. school
room knowledge requisite no one will
deny, but II is equally true that their
microscopic vision units them for just
criticism.
One journal which receives thou
sands Of books year for review, has
as its literary editor japanese. This
may be quite interesting, and the re-
viewers skill in English is no doubt
quite remarkable. considering the few
years he has been in touch with Eng
lish literature, but few persons will
question his unfitness for the Office he
holds. In what adequate way could a
technical" book appeal to such a re-
viewer? How could such a critic really
appreciate Miss wilkins, Joel Chandler
HARRIS m n w Tah1a0