THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS · CHAPEL HILL·N.C

December 16, 1939

Mr. Cleanth Brooks
The Southern Review
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, La.

Dear Mr. Brooks:

I just remembered a few minutes ago that I had
never written to explain why I have not done anything with
<u>**American Earth**</u>, by Carlton Beals.

I read this book a long time ago, and it seemed
to me so utterly worthless as to merit no attention what-
ever. The only basis on which I could write a review was
to state at length why the book is such a bad one.

I inteneded going ahead with the job but put it
off from time to time and excused myself by saying that
anyway the book was not worth reviewing.

I hope I have not inconvenienced <u>The Southern Review</u> by not reporting on this matter earlier. Since the book is now so old, I believe the best thing to do is to forget about it. However, if you still want a review, I will be glad to write one; but frankly, this volume is hardly worth arguing with, it is so completely worthless.

With best wishes for a pleasant holiday season,

wtc b

January 11, 1940

Mr. Cleanth Brooks, Jr.
The Southern Review
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, La.

Dear Mr. Brooks :

I am sending you herewith my review of Mr. Beals' volume,
<u>American Earth.</u>

I am sorry I am unable to say anything good about the
book. If there were any such thing as a list of the hundred worst,
I think this volume would come near the top.

I tried to read the book when you first sent it to me
months ago. It seemed to me unutterably stupid, and whenever I
started reading I was unable to keep my mind on the text. The
author's stupidities did not make me angry, but on the contrary
put me to sleep, that is, whenever I already felt like going to
sleep. I cannot help valuing very highly any book which succeeds
in putting me to sleep, but this one never achieved this effect
except when I was already sleepy.

Very few books that I have ever examined I have con-
sidered entirely worthless. This one has top ranking among the few
I would place in this class.

In order to comply with your desire to have a review,
in spite of my feeling about the book's worthlessness, I had to
read it, all of it, and read it several times. Even though I
have read the whole thing at least three times and portions many
more times, I have probably overlooked details that should have at-
tention because somehow the author never succeeded in arousing in
me the slightest curiosity as to what he ~~thought~~ about anything.
Reading, re-reading, and reviewing the book has been the toughest,
most distasteful task I have had in a long time. If I were not
convinced that doing very unpleasant jobs is sometimes good for the
soul, I doubt whether I would ever have gone through with this.

Now that I have done the job, I take no pride whatever
in it. In fact, my review is to me almost as uninteresting and un-
important as Mr. Beals' book. I am not sure that the thing is not
one of those that had best be forgotten. If you should decide,
therefore, not to print the review, you will certainly not hurt my
feelings.

The January 13 issue of *The Saturday Review of Literature* contains a very favorable review of your book by Louis Untermeyer.

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS • CHAPEL HILL • N • C

March 21, 1940

Mr. Albert R. Erskine, Jr.
The Southern Review
Louisiana State University
University, Louisiana

Dear Mr. Erskine:

I returned Tuesday the corrected galley proofs of
my review of Carleton Beal's *American Earth*. I found only one
typographical error, the proofs being unusually clean.

If it is not too much trouble, I would like very
much to have as many as 25 reprints of this review. You may
not have any regular procedure for providing reprints and if
so please forget about this.

I look on the publication of this review with mixed
feelings. So many rotten books are written and published and
get by with little disapproval and perhaps even with praise that
I feel it is somewhat unfair to pick out any one person and
review his book unfavorably. Even though it may be said, as I
have said in my review, that the work is typical of a lot of
others, the reader will not know which others are meant because
readers apparently are almost totally unable to discriminate.

Several days ago I wrote Cleanth Brooks asking him
to check on my subscription. Somehow I have either not received
or have lost your last two or three issues. I believe there has
been an issue in the last year in which you published an article
by Vann Woodward. I do not have this and would appreciate your
sending it to me with an invoice for any numbers following this
one and for a subscription from now for the next year.

With best regards,

wtc b