Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1922-09-10

lis the critics private concern, some
may say. ehying instantly at tho un-
popular word. and no were best TO
keep II TO himself. But criticism 10
. not highly specialized profession.
= Hike medicine or the law. writes
John Middleton Murry In the Lon
= don Times. Every reader Is po-
|tential critic, and In 80 far as ne
reads we'll. an actual one. Some
people try TO communicate and i'm
pose their critical opinions pur-
suit which Is branch OF the art
Eof literature; these are tho profess
sional critscs--if you like. the
lcritics for excellence. But It Is
not because they are critics that
they arc race apart. but because
they are. or try 10 be. artlsta: Just
"a artists. In the larger sense. have
perceptions OF tho same kind as
3thorr Of other people. and are dis
(einguished only by the will and
that when We say that nothing Is
harder for the critic than 10 pre-
sent an unbiased mind to now
book. No arc not airing profes-
sional hardship. but a genera! dis
ability
Tn" difficulty is most sensible when
fwe come 10 tn" oncrous and delightful
act OF passing Judgment Onerous.
1becHuEo in tho act OF judgment We
AFRO ourselves Judged: delightful. be-
4 cause tho majority OF new books are
3.ot worth judging at nil. and the ac,
Sot' judgment Ia tho pinnacle -. rare
enjoyment which IS incomplete with
out IT, by fnilinr 10 judge wc "blunt
4 the nnc point OF Seldom pleasure
IL book has made "a vivid impression
ON our minds Wc lean back in our
|chair and say 10 ourselves. "Now, how
| good Is It. really" "" have s'is-
Ipic!on that We may have been taken
I'm. We arc RELUCTANT 20 trust our
1scivc,, and instlncttvely we reach out
.. or the staff OF authority 10 lean upon
we obey Arnold's prcccpt and coniure
1up fragments 81 tho writings tina, are
Immortal. Alas they give no hclp
THE new thing is not like thcm simply
because II is new.
Instinct to Hedge.
our instinc, is TO hodge. Yes. VIC
1tay. the hook made vivid imprcs-
sion bu, how crude Is tho writing:
Tn. visions arc definite. but may not
that be because they are soullcss7
or. contrariwiee. VIC say OF a book
that has appeared 10 uB misty aud
stale and Na.. But how beautifully
the characters arc hidden we llkcn
To the cloud IN which the loving god
wrapped tho iiomcrlc hero; II is
poetic. imaginative. In either case
'Ho are seeking In the pas, for a
hu'1r"Fs TO our present Insecurity
Tho writing OF tho misty book is
Ike tho writing We have learned to
admire: the writing OF the vivid
book Is quite unlike a. II !e not de.
coTOus and polished. II Ia not main.
tive and musical. /, makes us. nov
mat 80 hav" escaped from It's tpcli.
vaguely uncomfortable that it should
so have moved US pcrhaps-can
II hc-God forbid-tha, we arc
Nck!ns IN taste?
II YOU have tho Instinct for such
ORGANIZATIONS YOU can pick up tho
tran OF this uncertainty all through
contemporaries criticism. You will
ind tho reviewer who has evidently
been moved ny a book shrinking away
from H. Yes. Il wda vivid. no admits
but lacking In Imagination. AS
though book really could he vivid
without Imagination. What he is
really lamentinE is tho absence OF
po"t!c!zation. OF what H. called lima
tSinat!ve writing" He cannot get rid
OF tho sneaking feeling that II Is
wrong TO admire a book that does not
contain II. To cast a vivid light u,i
TO reality, without mitigating mists.
seems to him. IN spite Of himself.
almost cruel. even little vulgar.
But when he finds his Imaginative
writing no is comfortable again: he
feels tho presence OF art" and he
Is happier. or no pretends to he.
Artistic Snobb~ry.
VT
berry, and Il is truly a kind of snob-
berry In that tho critic has not the
courage 10 judge the book in and for
Itself. He is like n man In n railway
carriage who, when an acquaintance
enters. breaks OF an interesting CON
vcrsation with shabby-lookin fol-
low because he Is afraid Of the up-
lifted eyebrow. Another manifesto
ton OF this same snobbery IL the
Ihalf-convinced ecstasy OF praise which
bursts forth when "A book appears In
tho raiment OF poetry" on the
contrary. truly Imaginative writing
seldom reads like II. Our concept Of
Imaginative writing is composite
. picture OF all the styles which have
at ono time or another been g.ven
that name: and 1t is obviously I'M
possible for piece OF good writing 10
correspond with that.
This IS ono OF the reasons why
some OF the more original writer's
today never receive their fair share
OF critical attention. SupernciaIly
they do not look like literary artists.
as. for instance, w. w. Jacobs. But
.Mr. Jacobs has created world.
little world. IL Is true. but a world
Of his own. He Is much more i'm
portant figure in literature than a
dozen younger writer's whose works
are always received with respectful
attention. But Mr.. Jacobs IS comic
and popular: snob!sme ohliGe. How
can serious criticism deal with a
figure like tho Night Waterman?
And there arc so many cases like
his, Of writer's who do their business
unobtrusivcly without pretension.
who never air their Views on liter
.tturc at large or the future OF the
novel, and for their modesty arc
never taken into consideration, that
at times We wonder whether a hum
dred years hence criticism may not
appear to have been as wide OF the
mark ms tho critics OF hundred
years ago seem to us now
Perhaps II all comes TO this: that