Evening star., 1937-09-18
By NC. r.

BOOK review editor, in case
n you did not know it, is also
~ correspondent. That is, she
4 a receives lots of letters. She
doesn't--or this one doesn't always
get chance TO answer them promptly.
But getting them is ~ pleasure, and
also, sometimes q source of consider
able amusement.
Recent mail brings her letter from
Mr. Philip Freund, whose novel Even
ing Heron" she recently reviewed on
this page. She was complimentary to
Mr. Freund, although not wholly COM
plimentary TO his book, and Mr..
Freund is moved to comment
II remember" he writes. THE Stars
review of The Snow tthe collection
Of short stories which he brought out
last year,. Did you write it? 1t
began by saying that my publishers
laid claims to my being q genius.
Brave words, these continued the
review. but 1t must be admitted that
there is some reason for them
Il remember" continues Mr.. Freund
because on the same day 1 received a
review from some place in Oklahoma
roundly berating the publishers fol
making any such ridiculous claim. II
then listed an assortment of veritable
geniuses and scornfully compared me
TO each Of them. I don't remember all
the names. but 1t was rather strange
assortment that included Shakespeare
Cabell and Thomas Wolfe And the
review ended rather abruptly with the
remark, The man is no charlatan
though
THE Stars attestation to my genius
was highly pleasing, then. l cut out
the two reviews and put them in my
scrapbook opposite each other And
of course, thought The Stars review
was profoundly wise-wss it you?-
and the gentleman in Oklahoma very
wrong"
Mr.. Freund then goes on to say, very
Handsomely, that the reviewers stric-
lures as to his recent novels merits are
probably right. 1t Is nice to know
that he did not get angry about them
they were very slight structures, to
be sure, but the reviewer remembers
distinctly one author who was sc
indignant that he called her names
simply because one adverse criticism
had been made in some three para
graphs OF otherwise favorable COM
ment.
This gentleman, alas that it should
be so, was a Washingtonian, and a,
such the reviewer thought that HI
might perhaps know her name Not.
withstanding. he wrote to Mrs. Mary
Potter Roberts," and that seemed jus
4 curious error to make. some way OF
other. He was indignant about tha
single objection to the perfection O
his novel to such an extent that h,
wrote not a syllable of thanks for thu
several paragraphs of praise which
his book had been given. 1t reall,
wasn't much Of 4 book, at that, bu
showed q great deal OF study ant
research, and 30, in the reviewer,
opinion, deserved commendation o
some kind. But that Is what she go
for her generosityI
IN ALL honesty, however, let i
hestily be said that most author
show themselves to be good sports
Whether they simply do not car.
what reviewers think, or whethe
they think 1t useless to protest, the,
take most criticism in very good part
The present reviewer, in something
more than two years work on Tn
Star, has had exactly two letters from
authors objecting to her opinions
One was the one mentioned above
The other came from an old man,
veteran Of American letters, who. las
year, wrote his autobiograp ply. TIL
reviewer thought it a dull book an
unworthy his brilliant past, but sh
hated to say as much about q man Q
unquestionable accomplishment. Con
sequently she sort of filled up he
paragraphs, just mooching around.
And what was her reward for thi
tender respect Of the veterans record
He wrote her saying that it was tn
most pointless review he had eve
read in his life. Well, the reviewe
does not know about all the review
that he has seen, but she admit
freely that hers was pointless. 1t wa
pointless on purpose-to avoid sayin
|