Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1921-07-12
Main Street

of the New York Evening Post there is
story told of Sinclair Lewis, author OF
Main Street." which is exceedingly interest
ing to every reader of books and every clt1-
zen who hopes for the finest in American lit
erature.
"It might interest you to know" writes
this correspondent of the Review, that SIN
clair Lewis told me a year or so ago-to De
nrecise one Sunday evening in washington
when we were wandering from grocery to
grocery trying to buy ham, olives ana cheese
for genial party of four-ot a novel ne ndu
just finished purely for his own amusement:
The correspondent then quotes Mr.. Lewis
as follows:
cts about woman's reactions to the
dullness of typical American small 1--WE st
wrote it because 1 enjoyed 1T, and L don I
give a damn if one else IN the Onlted
States reads it, I've written -FOUR I"aype
five) novels to suit other people, ana ulnP
steen short stories, and this is one time L got
a little fun for myself out of my writing. L
blew all | had writing 1t. NOW L suppose
T'll have to hustle and write some more snort
stories for few years and save up some
more money. Then, maybe, in three or touI
wears I'll try another novel to please myself
The novel MI. Lewis wrote just to please
himself, not caring if anyone else read 1t, ana
evidently despairing that they would was
"Main Street." which has not only been a
best seller that has broken all records, out
was recommended unanimously by dlstln-
guished committee of three for the Pulitzer
prize
The Significance of this is plain. For
wears the critics and the aeademicians have
been depIoring the general trend of American
fiction writing and placing the blame on the
public taste. So able craftsman as MI. 10
-seph Hergesheimer goes SO far as to declare
that American novelsts are pettlcoat ruled,
by which he means that the large majority OF
readers are women and that writer's, by ca
tering to womans taste, are producing MOTH
ing but froth, sentiment, flub-duo
Mr.. Hergesheimer generally knows what
he is talking about, but strong doubt arises
that in this view he is right There u.s. LOT
instance. "Main Street." The Pulitzer prize
committee stated that they recommended 1t
in spite of, not because of, It's popularity:
They considered that public favor Welgned
against it, if anything.
But taking "Main Street. for Illustration,
one must either hold it a coincidence that IL
is both popular and worthy, or admit that
Hergesheimer. critics. prize committees and
all the rest are wrong in their view OF JUST
what the public does want.
''They want flub-dub" say the editors and
the writer's. And so the editors and writers
have been giving them fltb-duD. But IL Is
the number of big successes that
have been scored in violation of this advice.
main Street. is not the only one. Glance
over American literature of any period ana
you will find the outstanding books were
those written to please the writer hlmseH.
It would really seem that while writer
may enjoy a certain amount of favor by
"playing to the gallery" if he wishes to
achieve real triumph he will forget all
about his public. 1t becomes, therefore,
quite aside from, question of art for arts
sake, but a question of art for the sake or
success.
The belief has obtained so long in the
realm of letters-and in other realms, too
that, to be popular, one must bow to Ger
tain supposed desires of the public, that II
is difficult to think otherwise. But, If Main
Street" be anything to go by, one must th!nk
otherwise The dream of the artist, Whether
of brush or pen, is of the day when no one
shall work for money and no one shall WORK
for fame" He thinks it is impossible TO DC
sincere and rich and famous, too. But IS IL!
Sinclair Lewis hasn't had to hustle mucn
since ''Main Street" appeared And SO WIN
others who wrote "to please themselves.
They received rewards for sincerity Iney
found that honesty, in literature as In llte'
is the paying policy.