Windham County reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1901-1906, 1906-11-09
ROUGH ON KIPLING.
One Of His Stories, Thinly Disguised Got
Lemons from Various Editors.

II is no novel device to test the literary
,,,,ipm.pts Of editors By sending in to mag
,zine, for acceptance the already published
work Of some well.known literary figure un'
der faint disguise, but II usually produces
a laugh ON the editors. correspondent oil
the New York Sun. over the signature
BLACK and White reports trial OF the
magazines with "a well'known story OF MP.
Hng's." We quote the important parts OF
the letter;
"a non.lterary friend and myself after
some discussion Of the subject in question:
decided upon test-perhaps one Of ques'
tionable propriety, but nevertheless test,
and a relentless one. One OF kipling's most
nopular short stories was selected The en-
yironment OF the tale was English, but as
the story depended little on local color the
scene was easily transferred to America. An
entire change Of names and characters was
ACCOMPLISHED after considerable mental Ell.
fort. Aside from this. / give my word oil
honor. not a paragraph, line, WORD or
punctuation was changed. Upon being type
written Il was sent to the following publish
ers: Golfers Weekly, Harper's Monthly
scrbner's, Ainslee's, Century, Munsey s.
Iippincott's. Metropolitan, Cosmopolitan,
Outing Magazine, McClure's, Frank Leslie's,
Everybody's, Saturday Evening Post Smart
Set. Broadway Magazine.
I'm the case Of each of the above'men'
toned publishers the story was returned 10
us accompanied by note In which the edi'
torial soul breathed forth its appreciation
and regret but nothing more. Finally 10
make the postion Of the undiscerning pub
fishers superlatively ridiculous the manu-
srript was forwarded to Kipling's original
publishers of the story. After an interval
Of about seven weeks we received letter
containing a cheek and acceptance.
1.-THE check was returned by u.s. with the
explanation that the story was to be ampil'
fed into q novel. and in due time we re-
ceiyed our manuscript back.
The comment ELECTED by this publication,
appearing in The Sun from day to day,
seems TO be almost all aimed against the
aditnrs who are accused of an Owlish blind
ness TO original talent and even failure TO
nerceiye genuine merit One writer VINO
names himself Free Lance" declares 1t is
no unusual occurrence in these days OF what
he calls " 'musical.comedy-m editors
to have an original manuscript rejected
dozen times and then accepted by the unwit'
ting editor Of the magazine to when IL was
first submitted - Another writer declares
in tones that have q familiar echo that 'edi'
tors Of popular magazines are not in the mar
ket for original contributions; they want the
cd for the other side by one writer who
thinks the 16 editors recognized the tale as
clumsy imitation of the Kipling story and
sent the printed slips of regret to AVOID
openinp n debate with the contributor on the
subject of plagiarism. He says:
my experience has been that editors are
far TOO busy to engage in correspondence I'M
less it be really necessary rule when OBJ
tains in all properly conducted business,
whether literaly or other The scheme OF
your correspondent was of the 'headsl'win''
tails.you.Iose' variety. If the manuscript
were rejected, then it was to laugh. IT, on
the other hand. it were accepted, then 1t was
to laugh also The only thing that 1t seems
would have eased the conspirators souls was
letter of indignant and possibly insulting
protest; and the fact that no such letter was
written in any one OF the 16 cases would APP
pear to be. not commentary ana rehec'ion
on somebody's intellectual pretensions' nut
signal example of editorial forbearance ana
courtesy