New-York tribune., 1919-12-06

uay' Inc popular thinking on the
war, .Bolsf1evism, aviation, spIritualism,
politics and prohibition is quickly abb
sorbed in magazine fiction. 1t Is cur
nave. very little substance as art, but
the impulse at the bottom of it is a
vital one. Not to admit its legitimacy
would be dogmatic and arbitrary.
Magazine fiction is admittedly a
mushroom growth, inflated by the de-
velopment Of advertising and crassly
stimulated by foolish system of COM
getitive bidding for popular names.
put at the same time it is only fair
TO admit that short story production
mas been .quickened also by the ad-
MISSION n. OF personality as force in
ART, the modern passion for individual
istlc utterance. 1t doesn't matter that
the personalities which our magazines
reveal are for the most part of limited
and mediocre intelligence. That is the
error of our collective literary taste,
but In principle it represents an at
tempt at more varied and vigorous
expression. The American short story
mas exhausted its old forms Of mar
ratlve romance and adventure. Its
next next step Is the looser form of the
character eL; story. The possibilities Of
TINS form have barely been touched.
1t is capable Of as many variations as
enere are writer's to play them.
1nat Is as far as Davis's generaliza-
tions go. They do not extend to anv
theory on the selection of fiction or
the markings for the recognition Of
talent In that he goes by an extraor-
dinary intuition.
The twenty-five years of Davis's
edltorlal experience are filled with
the beginnings of famous literary
careers. The pictures of some of those
whom he had nursed through the
teething period of their literary in
fancy line the wall behind his swivel
chalr-Jose Hergesheimcr Theodore
Dresser, Fanny Hurst, Mary Roberts
Rlnehart. Charles Van Loan, Montague
Glass, Clarence Dudley Pelley. Edgar
Burroughs Rice, Frank l.. Packard. q.
4. Means, Ben Ames Williams, Perley
Poore Sheehan, Tod Robbins. A. Merritt.
Achmed Abdullah, George Allan Eng
land, r.. j. Rath, Max Brand, james
3. Hendryx-these names do not begin
to tell the tale. Something of the
extraordinary catholicity of taste Of
Robert II. Davis is suggested in these
names-his respect for the inviolability
Of individual quality.
A round shouldered, thickset little
man, with Extraordinarily alert eyes
and an equally extraordinary youthful
vivacity. He carries on volumi-
nous, intimate correspondence with
promising young writer's everywhe re-
One who has never seen him addresses
him "My lifelong friend -" He is
at home to every one in his office. He
does not avoid personal contacts He
seeks them. He wants to see the man
or woman whose work has interested
him. All he does for any of them, he
n CT IN BE-,
grow garrulous with the unaccustomed
joy of being listened to. There is
then, he says, a sort of blue flame
surrounding those who are bitten deep
with PASSIONATE desire for expression.
They may seem stodgy and inartculate,
but he knows potential greatness when
he sees it. He knows it by the way
they beat their foolish breasts and
say, II know it is true, because I feel
it here"
To know the writer's as human be-
channels of expression - that is all
Davis says he does for any of them.
But this includes a patient wachful-
ness and skilled suggestion that he does
not mention.
Fanny Hurst brought him her first
story. 1t was crude and inarticulate,
but it carried suggestions of power
At his suggestion she did it over. The
changes were not satisfactory and she
did the story over seven times before
he accepted it, That winter he bought
seven stories from her in succession.
Then one day she came to him and told
him that "Thc Saturday Evening Post"
had offered her three hundred dollars
for story "Go to them, my child,'
said Davis, "You have finished with
me-" 1t is only with beginnings that
Davis is concerned. When these
writer's of his are famous he is repaid
for every hour he gave them in the past.
"They never fail themselves" he says.
He is in search of another literary ad-
venture.
Montague Glass had done some writ
ing with Indifferent success, and had
returned to his law practice, when a
law case of infringement of copyright
brought him in touch with Davis.
"Why don't you begin writing again ?"
said Davis. "Why don't you put some
of those clients of yours into stories? %
The result was the Potash and Perl
muttcr stories, one of which Davis pub
| lishcd
Davis is an enthusiastic traveller and
he knows the local color of nearly
every section of the United States. He
may find a good story that is weak in
Aeo OANh6 Vuilu, anu tHcu lC LuIilS "
and writes in proper background for
the story
When other suggestions have failed
ne has published a story with all it's
defects simply to show an author his
mistakes. There is vast difference
between the psychology of the type
written page and that of the printed
page. The weaknesses that are hidden
to the author in the lambcnt effulgence
Of his manuscript stand out pitilessly
in the glare Of the printed page. BY
this shrewd method he has taught the
lesson of form that is inherent in the
printed page. From it they learn a
sense of form that they could not
otherwise learn and have exclaimed,
MY God! | will never do that again"
Once Roy K. Moulton. who edits
'"rhe Evening Mail" column "Much
Ado About Nothing" addressed an
open letter to Davis, calling to his at
tention the statement of a former
magazine editor who said that he never
read story which was submitted by
an unknown writer. Moulton said the
statement was being discussed by a
group IF five men who claimed that
he had made writer's of them. Know
ing that Davis had started thousands
to writing, they asked his opinion of
this statement. And Davis's answer in
characteristic fashion gives all the
artcles Of his editorial faith in brief
letter: