Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/368

 ORI

lady novelists." 65 It is probably true that “ the days when post card notices from Gladstone secured a record in sales are over; and, from whatever combination of causes, we hear no more of

famous reviews.” 66 But it has been seen that reviews may be famous without thereby being admirable - Saintsbury speaks

of Macaulay's criticism being " choked by its own parasitic plants ” — and that reviews may, like Macaulay 's, be admired

“ for their vivid eloquence, extensive learning, and splendour of illustration ,” without in the slightest degree conforming to the

canons of literary criticism. Literary criticism and the book review have thus far been considered as if the two termswere equivalent terms, yet Robert

Lynd points out that “ a review should be, from one point of view, a portrait of a book ," and that “ book -reviewing is some thing different from criticism .” 67 The “ something different” is best stated by R . B . Johnson who makes the distinction between

the review, — that introduces the reader to a book, offers com ment and analysis, and leaves him to form his own opinion of the merits of the work, - and the criticism that assumes some familiarity with the work on the part of the reader and thus

discusses and illumines a judgment already formed. The reviewer hazards prophecy and is only interesting as a sign of the times. The critical essay is a permanent contribution to literature. The review thus seems more congenial to the daily press, the critical

essay to the weekly, monthly, or quarterly ,68 and each type of

periodical is prone to believe that it is best adapted for presenting to the public the merits or demerits of literary works.69 65 J. A. O 'Shea, Leaves from the Life of a Special Correspondent, II, 173. 66 R. B. Johnson, Famous Reviews, p. ix.

67 R. Lynd, “ Book -Reviewing,” British Review, April, 1915, 10: 92– 106. 68 Famous Reviews, pp. vii - viii.

69 " The review that, with fairness and simple directness, handles 'books as news' is far more apt to convey a just idea of the author 's purposes and actual achievement than a review that is either a learned presentment of its writer's ideas on art or a clever essay at the expense of the book that is being slaughtered .” — New York Times, February 18, 1917.

“ There are probably a hundred newspapers in the United States which pay more or less attention to books, and a few of them include surprisingly

good book reviews.” — E. L. Pearson, Book-Reviews, p. 33. It is probably true to say that these book notices serve as a sieve, - sifting out those that are worthless, so that only those works that are fairly good reach the monthlies and the quarterlies.