have their horses and yachts and country seats, while immodest
merit is left to get about on foot and look up summer board at
the cheaper hotels. That is probably right, or it would not
happen; it seems to be in the general
scheme, like millionairism
and pauperism; but it becomes a question, then, whether the
newspapers, with all their friendship for
literature, and their
actual
generosity to
literary men, can really help one much to
fortune, however much they help one to fame. Such a question is
almost too
dreadful, and though I have asked it, I will not
attempt to answer it. I would much rather consider the question
whether if the newspapers can make an author they can also unmake
him, and I feel pretty safe in
saying that I do not think they
can. The Afreet once out of the bottle can never be coaxed back
or cudgelled back; and the author whom the newspapers have made
cannot be unmade by the newspapers. They
consign him to
oblivionwith a rumor that fills the land, and they keep visiting him
there with an
uproar which attracts more and more notice to him.
An author who has long enjoyed their favor, suddenly and rather
mysteriously loses it, through his opinions on certain matters of
literary taste, say. For the space of five or six years he is
denounced with a unanimity and an incisive vigor that ought to
convince him there is something wrong. If he thinks it is his
censors, he clings to his opinions with an abiding constance,
while
ridicule, obloquy, caricature,
burlesque, critical
refutation and personal detraction follow unsparingly upon every
expression, for
instance, of his
belief that
romanticfiction is
the highest form of
fiction, and that the base, sordid,
photographic,
commonplace school of Tolstoy, Tourguenief, Zola,
Hardy, and James, are
unworthy a moment's
comparison with the
school of Rider Haggard. All this ought certainly to unmake the
author in question, and strew his disjecta membra wide over the
realm of
oblivion. But this is not really the effect. Slowly
but surely the clamor dies away, and the author, without
relinquishing one of his
wicked opinions, or in anywise showing
himself repentant, remains
apparently whole; and he even returns
in a
measure to the old kindness: not indeed to the earlier day
of
perfectly smooth things, but certainly to as much of it as he
merits.
I would not have the young author, from this
imaginary case,
believe that it is well either to court or to defy the good
opinion of the press. In fact, it will not only be better taste,
but it will be better business for him to keep it
altogether out
of his mind. There is only one whom he can
safely try to please,
and that is himself. If he does this he will very probably
please other people; but if he does not please himself he may be
sure that he will not please them; the book which he has not
enjoyed
writing, no one will enjoy
reading. Still, I would not
have him
attach too little
consequence to the influence of the
press. I should say, let him take the
celebrity it gives him
gratefully but not too
seriously; let him
reflect that he is
often the necessity rather than the ideal of the
paragrapher, and
that the notoriety the journalists
bestow upon him is not the
measure of their
acquaintance with his work, far less his
meaning. They are good fellows, those poor, hard-pushed fellows
of the press, but the very conditions of their
censure, friendly
or unfriendly,
forbid it thoroughness, and it must often have
more zeal than knowledge in it.
X.
Whether the newspapers will become the rivals of the magazines as
the
vehicle of
literature is a matter that still remains in doubt
with the careful
observer, after a
decade of the newspaper
syndicate. Our daily papers never had the habit of the
feuilleton as those of the European
continent have it; they
followed the English
tradition in this, though they
departed from
it in so many other things; and it was not till the Sunday
editions of the great dailies arose that there was any real hope
for the serial in the papers. I
suspect that it was the vast