MR J. M. BARRIE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LI, Issue 9139, 11 July 1906, Page 6

MR J. M. BARRIE.

WHO TYPIFIES THE SUCCESS ATTAINABLE IN LITERATURE.

Mr Deakin, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, promises to provide a Civil List for the widows and orphans of eminent literaiy Australians who in their lifelime were unable to make any provision for their near ones themselves. In this lie is going on the lines of the British system, but the history of the latter vr\\ want to be well digested in Melbourne if a mistake is not to be made in conjunction with a benevolent establishment. Mr Deakin gives as a reason why literary men should be rewarded after their death at the public cost tih© alleged fact that they were so very poorly paid in life ; but even if the latter were true could it not be argued that if literary men are entitled to consideration on, this score, so, too, are other men, clerks and others, the pay of whom is, generally speaking, a mere existence. But is it true that literary men are badly paid in life? If they are on the press they at least get a good living income, ranging from £150 a year up to JMOOOjOven in, Australasia, while if they are "free ■lances*' then they make anything practically that their talent is able to command. The world is particularly the literary man's oyster, and London, oi course, is the centre of it. Will it be contended that high literary talent is not well paid in the Empire's capital, that Mecca which is as free to the colonial aspirant as to the man on the spot? Take the "King" of writers, going"on income— J. M. Barrie — and the reply will be given in at least £10,000, for such is the sum that author and playwright earns each 33 rear.r car. Then Kipling, who was at one time ft struggling Incrian journalist, Hall Came, Marie Corelli, and a dozen or even a hundred others, each of whom has a princely income the result of an appreciated pen. The Civil Pension List in England contains pensions to the widows of literary men who in their life earned large sums of money and in some cases squandered them as fast &n they were earned. Barrie or any of his co-equals could do that if .they wished, but would their extra\agance in life be an excuse for making the public Seep their families after death? Th<» reason why these great writers are in their present position Is not wholly :he result of their talents, but of the power which they have bean able to exorcise through making themselves independent of the "market.'" Shakespeare didn't scorn to be a good business man as well as a fine writer, but Goldsmith did, and so the former died well off and the latter a bankrupt. The life of a man like J. M. Barrie, who is accepted as a type, proves that literature has its market just like any other commodity, and that if a man who is singularly gifted wants to succeed and become substantial, instead of being handicapped by a lack of appreciation, he is encouraged by the rarity of his commodity. For the State to say that literary talent and poverty are "related of necessity is surely most foolish; and for the State to so approve of improvidence with talent as to offer a premium for it at the public expense is to do the frugal toiling multitude a grave injustice.