The Washington herald., 1910-09-05
Poems on Waits.


Editor The Washington Herald:
The book reviewer Of The WASHINGTON
Herald recently passed upon my book Of
poems, Waits. and. as is the won't Of
that craft, vehemently exposed its faults
and scrupulously ignored its virtues.
For that only I might have Jet him 20
unanswered. but he did not stop there.
He criticised some things without occa-
sion, and II is 10 this that 1 object That
the book had faults knew land believe
that therein II did not differ from the
majority Of first-edition books.
For instance. 1 allowed one poem 10 go
through with technical errors simply be-
cause Il was written at the age Of fifteen.
In that I was wrong A few other faults
in construction were discovered when the
book was in press. and it is too late 70
correct same. Also in several early
poems my ear was not always true. and
a few false rhymes were the result
Ny critic, Of course, observed this.
among the various Offenses he scorej
against me. AS far as these particulars
are concerned. 1 deserved and expected
criticism. and accept II. But 70 other and
absurd charges made against Waits" [
protest most vigorously.
This reviewer says I know nothing Of
the poets technique. simply because he
has discovered a few violations Of il. And
he charges me with using words out OF
their meaning. and quotes several ex-
pressions in proof For instance. he takes
exception 20 the statement l make that
our work lis unreceptive 20 decay"
meant, OF course, the work that is worth
while-the work that is Of real benefit 10
humanity
Take Shakespeare. Was his receptive
10 decay? More than so years OF exist
ence say otherwise. Was Homer's recep-
tive 20 decay? Scarcely. Another ex-
preston he questions is: Immune from
Times ephemeral laws" grant time
itself IS anything but ephemeral. and the
things that are done in Time that are
worth while-and such I had IN mind
are as enduring as Time itself. And vet
Time consigns 70 oblivion the things of IL
that are insignificant Their date is short
their life ephemeral IF there is moth
ing ephemeraI in Times laws, what
then. IS the nature OF that law. for in
stance, wniJ.i governs the life Of the VIC
let and the daisy? Again, he stumbles
over certain figures Of speech, such as
the brow Of ages" &c. which I wager
ara as Ineligible iH their use as figures
Of speech ordinarily are
Here is a sample Of this criticism 20
which I object: IN poem called Lost
regret the woman OF the past begin !
ming thus: 20 for the woman my fathers
knew Now. my critic quotes this line
and then states: las II his fathers.
though most Of US ordinarily have but
one, knew only one woman There he
has attempted 10 make me ridiculous and !
to be himself funny. and has miserably |
Jailed In both. and simply accomplished /
an absurdity. Of which he Is the object. /
For the enlightenment Of this reviewer I
will state what must have been ultra /
apparent TO every one else. that The /
woman in mind was a type, and that by 4
my fathers I meant ali previous man |
kind in civilization.
a friend TO whom I showed this partis-
ular criticism remarked that il was silly.
and truly It IS
Again. does my critic detach from a
poem q verse which depends somewhat
for its clearest meaning upon some fore
going verse, although the verse in ques-
ton is sufficiently clear, even detached.
and he says that a prize might be offered
for the discovery Of its meaning. Such
Instances OF criticism as these two Just
cited SAVIOR Of acrimony, however loath
one is to think so.
In concluding the reveiesy. nv critic at
tempts to deal in real pathos when he
says what a pity it is that effort is
wasted TO produce such books, and that.
though we'll meant. they are worse than
useless. There are those who do not
share this view with him regarding
Waits" and will take their verdict
raIher than his. BERNARD f. GRADY.