Evening star., 1938-06-19
LUDWIG REVIEW Is APPLAUDED
Readers Agree With Critic That Bogapher on President
Roosevelt Was Written With american Market in Mind
Jesse Stuart Renders Uneven Performance.
to . totally different literary scene,

It to . totally different literary scene.
while the younger men and women.
coming on. daMaed BY the regulations
Of their predecessors, copy that man
ner In slavish enchantment and look
to their older colleagues for inspira-
Ston instead Of to the work which
actually lies before themselves. It b
time now for Q new generation Of
critical spade-workers 10 break up
this condition. even - the presently
established ones, In their youth, broke
up the monopoly Of the professors.
The public is aware Of 1t, even II the
critics themselves are not.
The reviewer has much moro 10 70
on IN making that statement than q
few letters. She seldom engages IN
conversation about her work without
hearing expressions c( discontent over
the routine book reviews. why"
people ask, do reviewers write 20
misleadingly about books? They seem
to think that they have to praise ev-
erything. Are they afraid, or are
they friends Of the authors, or are
they paid by the publishers? Or
what?"
Now the reviewer submits that when
profession becomes so suspect It ia
time to do something about it. But
OF course nothing can be done d.
rectly. It Is q condition to be cured
by natural growth. All that any one
critic can do is to keep hewing TO
his individual line, compromising
nothing and engaging regularly in
Iastlng ana prayer. The present re.
viewer follows that formula devotedlv
and 1t Is not as easy as 1t perhaps
LOOKS, either. 1t is q full-time lob.
decidedly. Consequently 1t Is grati.
Iyng. In more than q personal sense.
when readers indicate that they un.
derstand and appreciate the effort
ana The Star readers have been
most generous.
For . long time now the name q,
Mr.. Jesse Stuart has been an.
pearing with regularity in numbers
OF nlgh-grade magazines, and it
seems that the owner of this name
Is IN fair way to become a victim
OF his own success. For. while th.
young kentuckian can write extreme
~ well, he frequently allows himself
70 write very foolishly. And this folly
OF his can only result from his ap-
parent determination to write a treat
deal, to publish one story every month,
at least and to better that II he can
But his talent Is not up to such a
strain, or. If that does not explain
the uneven quality of his work, then
he simply does not care whether he
produces the genuine or the meretri-
cious, provided only that some editor
accepts his output and pays him de-
sirable dollars for it.
The reviewer Is moved to make
these comments by the nearly stimuli
taneous appearance Of two Stuart
stories Of most dissimilar quality.
One Is in the June American Mer-
curry and the other In the July e.
quire. The Esquire story is frst-rate,
The Mercury story is outrageous trash.
It exceeds anything ever written
by John Fox, jr., In its sentimentality.
and 1t uses one of the most creak-
tngly ancient themes ever employed
BY long line Of professional hill
billy penmen-that Of the romance
between the mountain gal and the
handsome "revenooer." Lord. what
drivel!
1t seems unlikely that Mr.. Stuart
committed that thing with his eyes
shut. It seems highly probable, in
stead, that he wrote 1t with CON-
pletely malicious cynicism. Well, of
course, If he wants to put his name
to such stuff, it is his own business.
But he can hardly 60 on doing 20 and
expect to be rated as q serious artist.
And he has the makings Of such q
one in him. Unquestionably he has.
The Esquire story, - said, b good
It is longer than 1t need be. but it
Is dignified and honest. What q pity
that . young man who can do such
work should degrade himself TO the
wholly contemplate level Of the Mer-
curry piecel Yes, what . pity-And
a shame