Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-08-06

There 10 something very distinct In the
Jewish character and speech, and one
ity in the portrayal of this race. Yet .
comparison OF the writings Of authors who
have made this field their speciality show
all sorts of giaring discrepancies com
parison of the stories of Myra Kelly and
Bruno Leasing will corroborate this asser-
ton They do not only differ In idiom, but
also In character drawing
In the 5argon which passes as the typical
the discrepancies are. perhaps. even more
glaring The question do your" VIII be
written "fyou?''; do ye?' or dyer or
dee, yer; nothing appears as "nothin'.
'.nawthinR" 'nawthin." 'nnottin8, nos
sing" And other low-life expressions are
equally variegating.
Profanity.
One cannot write about the jargon OF low
life without referring to the subject of pro-
family. The stage books and stories have
dispensed with "dashes" to give profanity
in all It's convincing purity.
The term most frequently used Is the
equivalent of ito perdition'' and ito hades"
OF polite society. To my best recollection
this term was first made famous in contem-
poraneous literature by the author OF
'Chimmie Fadden,'' a book which is not
available at present. However. l think
am right in stating that the above torrid
expression was Interpreted by Chimmie.
the intrepid hero Of many impossible adj
ventures, as wot tell.
1t only needed this initiative to flood our
low-iife stories with this pointed invitation
Of removal to a warmer cline. But even
in this instance uniformity seemed fmpos-
sible. and it came to pass that magazines,
by the staidness of which our grancfathers
used to swear, indicated their new Hteraltty
by "t'eil," "thell." ''wot TELL ''vot tell,
hell and go on.
There is plausible reason for the dis
crepancies in low-life lingo, but the above
warm adage has no claim to II. 1t Is never
used excepting in the white heat Of passion.
and then it is uttered with distinctness and
delberation and rings out thrillingly: To
hell"
The plausible reason for most OF the dis
crepancies lies in the individual stage OF
observation taken by the writer. After
choosing his setting, the writer will fasten
upon a picturesque or interesting charac-
ter. The antecedents of the character are
not considered The fact that he was found
in the slums is sufficient guarantee that he
is full-fedged representative OF the SUM
population I know of instances where
men, scarcely acclimatized to the Sums.
but picturesque!y dilapidated, were greed
lily chosen for literary purposes. These
characters are aware of the writer's inten-
ton and help IL along most enthusiastically.
And of such make are the realistic pictures
of the netherworld. But, If not true. the
imagination of slum litterateurs makes
these pictures entertaining.
Not long ago, while engaged in making
my usual rounds among my old neighboIs
and dressed conveniently in a sweater. 1t
was my good fortune to cross the path or
a Jungle hunting lady writer. She had her
setting all she needed was the interesting
character-when she met me. My shock
was agreeably minimized by her assurance
that a good deal of intelligence was still
traceable In my features, and that. with a
little effort, l would surely rise above my
surroundings.
According to promise. the marked copy OF
a Sunday magazine supplement reached me
in due time and gave me the opportunity to
study r,yself in print. Evidently there was
a difference of opinion between the artist
and the writer of the story, for even mi
croscopic examination failed to disclose In
the portrait 90 the still traceable intelli-
gence" But this defect was offset by the
speech put into my mouth Let me quote
q fragment:
Say, Polly, If I sees that cove putting
up his snoot to them ruby kissers O your'n
again. III soak him in the Stats till his
teeth falls out like bunch o beans.
And thus, according to The LADY writer,
do I utter my tender sentiments. On the
other hand, 1t is subject for serious spec
ualtion what would happen to me were to
address my real best in that energetic
mo