Evening star., 1933-09-12

As q matter Of fact, the name Zola
doesn't mean much any more to riost
Americans, Il 1t ever did, but that
makes no difference. The man could
write. It is manifest in every page Of
his, q distinct impression to be boiled
down to one phrase, interest compelling.
And whether one is q writer, or not,
all boils down at last to whether one
is born writer. Really there is no
other kind. Today there are Thousands
Of men writing, and often writing well,
but they are not born writer's. The
gift Of CAB Is not In their pens. They
do not love words, they do not handle
them. they man-handle them in an ef-
fort to do a job with them.
That is all very well, 1t Is necessary,
1t brings in the bread and butter, and
often 1t earns one reputation as q
writer, but every such man knows, down
in his heart, that he Is no writer. He
Is just earning his living with words.
II
And then there are the real writer's.
Just how many Of these there have
been, In the worlds history, it is diff
cult to say, but one thing n sure, there
have not been as many as have been
given the credit.
The real writer has q way Of throw
ing certain grace. in It's better sense,
over everything he writes. n Is resident
in the words. but more 50 In the way
they are used together.
Dickens may have been verbose, but,
verbosity and all, he did manage to Sc
cure a certain effect. Some London
gentleman has rewritten David Cop
perf1eld" nearer to his own personal
liking, but the chances are that "The
True David Copperfield," as it is called,
will be forgotten within the year, while
the one Dickens wrote (Which, after ALL
Is the true one, Of course), will be read
in the years to come as 1t has been in
the past.
Another one of these wise New York
critics. in telling about this attempt to
remedy a bad situation, takes the op-
portunity to say that nobody reads
Dickens any more, anyway.
The truth Is that he Is still read, as
you can find out by asking any librarian.
And he is read. Just as Priestley Is
read, because he can write
Too many words and all, including
senttmentality. over doing 1t, and Ger
tain adectations, his works neverthe-
less possess the faculty Of evoking pic
lures with words.
They possess this faculty, it must be
ADMITTED, only II the reader Is willing
to play fair with the author.
y
If q reader emulates q New York
critic. II he assumes the naive attitude
OF the youngsters after the World War,
that youth had never existed before. if
he refuses to accept what is, mostly be-
cause 1t Is not like something else, or
akin to his preconceived ideas of what
novel really ought to be, then no
doubt he will find Charles Dickens
wholly bad, and John Priestley worse.
Mr.. Priestley's new novel starts of
with an ordinary young man eating an
ordinary breakfast in an ordinary
boarding house. II that were all there
were to it. the thing wouldn't be worth
reading. but it isn't; the writing gift of
the man evokes interest In the reader
for the ordinary young fellow and his
perfectly ordinary situation.
1t seems to us that Wonder Hero"
is better story than the dear New
Workers give it credit for being. but
then. we like Priestley, every line Of his
we have ever read, in book or magazine.
or paper, so perhaps we are prejudiced.