The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, September 25, 1904, Page 7

) e COPKIRAPS | 1 b —————— these, when the neces- 1 or oth- —t » at the s 1 of ghest its poetic eople do T T st and u i those whose b for the press or ness it is to hose whose nde. This wvague sieve-like quality of brain and general mental inabili to compr nd or retain impressio of & r or events, which is becoming e modern so-called aders” of books, can but make ge very difficuit for authors who tly seek to contribute something utmost best to the world of e. Most men and women who “divine afflatus” and who are able to write in a style above the aver- age must be conscious of a desire to se yet higher than any of their own attempted efforts, and to do something strong and true enough to hold fe, and lasting in it when other con- rary work is forgotten. It is the ing of the “sick eagle looking at =ky” perhaps, nevertheless it is a le craving. In taking an alm it is THE SAN FRANCISCO SUNDAY CALL. TTAL. fly at the moon, even if e t when fiery- yo dull vn which I r my own . con- Hope t my t their opir had read it ac of such that 1 t without having what “the blue bag’ witness to its color t was the most deligh ever read. When I character in it e Oh, Simon, who was And Lorna herself! And then I found talking of “Lorna Doone.” but that’s by Blackmore.” “Yes, rse!” she agreed vivaelously— & the man you meant, isn’t it?” “Not exactly,” I answered. “I was speaking of ‘Simon Dale,’ by Anthony Hope. An-thon-y Hope—vou know his name, of " Her face fell. “Oh she He ote ‘Dodo.’ I 't like ‘Dodo’!™ , I think, be agreed that it was no use entering into any discussion as to the merits of “Simon Dale” with this excellent tlewoman, who, however, is only one of the very large “educated” class who do not know how to read. They have never learned—and some of them will never learn. They cannot realize able delight and charm of self up to one's author, sans prejudice, sans criticism, sans everything that could possibly break or mar the spell, being carried on the wings of gentle romance away from self, away from the everyday carles and petty personalities of social con- vention and observance and Hving “with” the characters which have been created by the man or woman whose fertile brain and toiling pen have unit- edly done their best to give this little respite and holiday to those who will take it and rejoice in it with gratitude. But unfortunately these are few. >, Ol L2 == .//(".s'»: ‘u twenty admire Dur- r ns 1 that not one like to —~—— YRS fifi«/ PR e larger is the class of people who up a novel or a volume of essays 1 wlt with it and fling aside h unread. The attitude of the bad-t ered child who does not know what toy next to break is the attitude of many modern readers. Nothing is more manifestly unfair to juthor than to judge a book by the skimming” of its pages, though ustice becomes almost felon- vhen the merits or demerits of the work are decided without reading it all. For instance, Mr. Smith meets Mr. Jones in the train which is tak- ing them out to their several “little places” in the country and says: “Have you read So-and-So’'s latest book? If not, don't!” . Whereupon Mr. Jones murmur: So bad as all that! Have you read it?” To which Smith rejoir rudely: “No! And don’t intend to! I've heard all about it!” And Jones, acquiescing feebly, decides that he must “taboo” that book, also its author, lest, per- haps Mr. Jones' virtue be put to the blush at the mention of either. Now, if Mr. Smith were to dare to condemn a tradesman in this way and depreci- ate his goods to Mr. Jenes in such a wise that the latter should be led to avoid him altogether, that tradesman could claim damages for injuring his character and depriving him of cus- tom. Should not the same rule ap- ply to authors when they are con- demned on mere hearsay? Or when their work is willfully misrepresented and misquoted in the press?, It may not perhaps be out of place here to recall a “personal reminis- cence” of the willful misrepresenta- tion made to a certain section of the public of a recent novel of mine en- titled “Temporal Power.” That book had scarcely left the printer's hands when W. T. Stead of the Review of Reviews wrote me a most cordial letter congratulating me on the work and averring that it was “the best” of all I had done. But in his letter he set forth the startling proposition that I “must have meant” King Ed- ward, our own gracious sovereign, for my “fictional” King, Queen Al dra for the Queen, the Prince of Wales for my Prince Humphrey. and . Chamberlain for the defaulting Sec- retary of State, who figures in the story as Carl Perousse! L 77 1.5 770RE 2 CHSE OF SHIITIT . THERAN READING ° I was so aniazed at the curlous “free translation” of my ideas that at first I thought it was “Julia” who had thus persuaded Mr. Stead to see things up- side down. But, as his criticism of the book had not yet appeared in the Re- view of Reviews, I made haste to write to him at once and earnestly assured him of the complete misapprehension he had made of my whole scope and in- tention. my part, however, Mr. Stead wrote and published a review of the book main- taining his own fabricated ‘case” against me, notwithstanding the fact that he held my denial of his assertions in his possession before the of his criticism. And though a. dealer in meat, groceries and other foodstuffs may obtain compensation if his wares are willfully misrepresented to the buy- ing public, the purveyor of thoughts or ideas has no remedy when such thoughts or ideas are deliberately and purposedly - falsjified to the world through the press. Yet the damage is surely as great—and the injury done to one’s honest intention quite as gratui- tous. From this little incident oc- curring to myself I venture to say in reference to the assertfon that people do not know how to read, that if those who ‘“rushed through” the misleading criticlsm of ‘“Tem; Power” had honestly read the book so criticised for themselves, they would have seen at once how distorted was Mr. Stead's Despite this explanation on* ublication view of the wnole story. But, while many who had read the book and not the review laughed at the bare notion of there being any resemblance between my fictional hero-king of romance and the soverelgn of the British empire, others, reading the review only, fool- ishly decided that T must have written some “travesty” upon English royalty and condemned the book without read- ing it. This is what all authors have a right to complain of—the condemna- tion or censure of their books by per- sons who cannot read. For though there never was so much reading mat- ter put before the public, there was never less actual “reading” in the truest and highest sense of the term. To read, as I take it means to sit down quietly and enjoy a book in its every line and expression. Whether it be tragic; or humorous, simple or ornate, it has heen written to beguile us from our daily routlne of life and to give us a little change of thought or mood. It may please us, or it may make us sad—it may even anger us by upsetting our pet theories and con- tradicting us on our own lines of argument, but if it has taken us away for a time from ourselves it has ful- filled the greater part of its mission and done us a good turn. Those who have really learned to read are no en- couragers of the free library craze. The true lover of books will never want to peruse volumes that are thumbed and soiled by hundreds of other hands—he or shq will manage 1o buy them and keep them as friends in the private household. Any book, save the most expensive “editions de luxe,” can be purchased for a few ghillings—a little saving on drugged beer and useless finery would enable the ordinary mechanic to stock him- self with a very decent library of his own. To borrow one's mental fare from free libraries is a dirty habit to begin with. It is rather like picking up eatables dropped by some one else in the road and making one's dinner on another’s leavings. One book, clean and fresh - from the bookseller's counter, is worth half a dozen of the POINT CF EDUCATI AL ON soiled and messy knackabout vo which our medical men carry disease germs in their too wid fingered pag: Free lbr doubtedly very useful re ting men. They can ran the latest “sporting it out again. But why ratepaye suppert. such houses of call gentry remains a mystery wh would have to pierce through wecol and wobble of porations to selve. An / fessor” (there are spoke to me the oth termg of Andrew ( cute,:you bet!”™ he rem one better than Pear has got to pay for the hoardings, but Carneg down in the shape of 1 gets the British ratépayer them all going! Ain’t he Apfopos of Amer American, there is jt little story started sides of the water no longer being wanted in States. The children of the going to make their fiction t¥ All power to their elbows. lish authors will do then harm by inquiring carefully i s report. It may even pay some to send over a private agent on own behalf to study the America: stores and take count of the tho of English fiction which are there “like hot cakes,”to quote a choice expression of trans-Atlantic slang. It is quite evident that the ch ¥ eagle purchase English fi equally evident that the pul for things pretty cater for the children of the eag anxious to get English fiction cheap, and are doing this little “deal™ of the “no demand” business out of an ac sense of urgency. It is all right, of course! If I were an American pub- lisher and had to pay large prices to popular English authors for English fiction (now that no longer possible), I st tell those E not wanted in America and th very good and condescending of consider their wares 3 give a well-known Engl £100 to £ th rights of h and proc profit out of it. always called never suspect the . En, being so base as to send over legal statements as to how B book was selling, or to take note ¢ thousands of coples stacked v ; day in the stores to melt away as soon as stacked In the hands of eager pur- chasers. No! As a strictly honorable person I should hope that the English author would stay at home.and mind his or her business. But let us suppose that the American publisher’s latest delicate “feeler” respecting the ‘“no demand for English literature” were true, it would seem that Americans, even more than the British, require to be taught “how” to read. If one may judge from their own output of literature the les- son Is badly needed. Ralph- Waldo Emerson remalns as yet their biggest literary man. He knew how. to read and from that knowledge learned how to write. But no American author has come after him that can be called greater than he, or as great. Concern- ing the art of fiction, the American “make” of it, as exemplified in “David Harum” and “Mrs. Wiggs of .the Cab- bage Patch,” is, whatever the imme- diate “catching on” of it may be, dis- tinctly ephemeral, of the utmost ephemeral. Such “literature” would not exist even in America if Americans knew “how” to read. What is called the “yellow journalist” would not exist either, because a really educated reader of things worth reading would not read it—and it would, therefore, be a case of the wicked ceasing to trouble and the weary being at rest. There is a general complaint nowa- days—especially among authors—of the “decadence” of- literature. It's true enough. But the cause of the “deca- dence” is the same—simply and solely that people cannot and will not read. They do not know how to do it. If they ever did know in the bygone days of Dickens and Thackeray they haye for- gotten. Every book is “too long™ for them. Yet scarcely any novel is pub- lished now as long as the noyels of Dickens, which weré so eagerly de- voured at one time by tens of thou- sands of admiring readers. A short, risky, rather “nasty” book (reviewers would call it strong, but that is only a. little joke of theirs—they speak of this kind of literature as though it were cheese) finds most favor with the “up- per” circles of soclety in Great Britain and America. Not so with the “mil- lon.” though. The million prefer sim- pler fare—and they read a good deal— though scareely in the right way. It is more a case of “skimming” than read- ing. If they are ever taught the right way to read they may become wiser than political governments would like them to be. For right reading makes right thinking — and right thinking makes right living—and right living would result in what? Well!—for one thing, members of councils and other “ruling” bodies would be lazler than ever, with less to do—and the education bill would no longer be necessary, as the fact of simply knowing “how” to ‘rea@ would educate everybody without further trouble. Dear sir or madam—read! Don’t “skim”! Learn your letters. Study the pronunciation and meaning of words thoroughly first, and then you may proce¢d to sentences. Gradually you will be able to master a whole passage of prose or poetry In such a manner as to actually understand it. That will be a great thing! And once you under- stand it you may even possibly remem- ber {i* And then—no matter how much you may have previously been educat- ed—your éducation will only have just begun! (Copyright 1904, by Central News and ¢ Press Exchange.)