New-York tribune., 1922-07-16


had already. before the war, established
stylo and rcputation--I aaked
Frlesz, I think~-'Es les 5enaesp Nous
sommes les jeanes' was the reply. -
Give Bell in "Since Cezsnne."
-xx-w yE FALL short In America Of
Va "a I the authentic tragedy Of that
Y v brief reply. The younger
generation survived some
what, and is. it seems, not wholly for
given. Perhaps that is why we fall
short, too, Of the question, so dabonar,
so interested in what les jeunes might
be doing, so full Of intellectual Curl
osity, so ready with sym pathy and
critical severity. These are not the ac-
cents in which one has heard the
younger generation spoken Of in the
last two or three years. Controversy.
denunciation, publicitv--all trivial, sll
family nauseating have left no room
for interest In the object itself, the
possible artistic production Of young
men and women. Now Mr.. Spingarn
has issued his manifesto, and, through
no fault of his, those who have com
m ented upon IL have forced some of US
who had sworn never to be eatangled
In the business to decide that, for one
thing. If the words. are to be used
again they must be used with som e
definite sense Of what they mean.
Not that Mr.. Spingarn was at all
vague. He knew Of whom and for
whom he was writing. He was not ad
dressing himself to the editorial writer
of "Thc New York Times; nor was it
in his power to prevent "The Free
mans" reviewer from contemplating
his navel and evolving the following
climax to his argument:
THE next step in criticism. which
is indicated by every aspect of pres
ent circumstances, is to show the rela
ton OF every activity Of the human
spirlt-literature, religion, art, music.
science-to the economic system under
which it is practiced.'
Benighted, and supremely belated
that sounds to Us who seem for the
last fifteen years to have been crushed
under "the next step" 1t is all Of five
years since Mr.. Van Wyck Brooks (who
IS not the writer of the above) went
oenind that position to fairly solid
ground in Letters and Leadership" ."
The doctrine appals not because of it's
critical theory, but because OF it's blind
:rreleYancy to any of the problems
which the men of my years and NV in
clination-the inclination pre-eminent-
ly to value the creative over the ac-
quisitive ife-have to confront. The
formulation OF those problems is not
easy; propose only to make it posi-
Bile by defining common ground.
TEDIOUS as it may be. must with
out calling names, not even first
names, analyze the eouivocal phrase
Is "the younger generation" (younger
than what?) anything mere than an
epithet, wholly without definition ard
descriptivity? I doubt it. Omit the
fappers and the Jazz hounds and the
'politicals" and we are still left with
2 loose phrase. Even if we follow Mr..
Bell and say chose who had not, before
the war, established q style and a
reputation shall we be precise
enough? That would include those who
were intensely and personally affected
by the war and many who were not; a
confusion which both parties might
properly resent and which no criti-
cal writer could tolerate. Nor can the
phrase mean those who are radical in
art and letters, because some Of its
most notorious members ere adherentz
OF the safest order. If it does not
mean every enc between the ages of
fifteen and thirty-fve who gets into
print, it means, as a descriptive term.
exactly nothing.
If it lacks unity of being, does the
variety of the younger generation pro-
duce unity Of effect? Again l doubt
1T, because l doubt entirely it's effect
veness. The vogue of the younger gen
Grafton, as vogue, is due largely to Mr..
F. Scott Fitzgerald. and to him not
because he wrote good book or a bad
one, but because he wrote one which
sold. He did something less than
Byron and 1T was natural that many
other young men and women should
try, to do as much; but they did not
succeed-not even in being praised by
Mr.. Candy. Mr.. John Dos Passos, Mr..
+. +. Cummings and, 20 an extent, Mr..
Ben Hecht tried something different
and are agreeably without influence.
In poetry-T speak still of effect--the
torch rests in those hands which held
It, not quite. SO firmly, in 1910. Crit
lclsm Is the only field, after fiction,
in which young people have been ac-
tive; subtract Mr.. Brooks and their
influence is pathetically slight.
NO. The newspapers younger gen
Grafton doesn't exist. it is no doubt
possible to find spiritual common
denominator for all the young people