"The Answer of tho Dead" in " Zealandia."

Otago Witness, Issue 1974, 19 September 1889, Page 9

"The Answer of tho Dead" in " Zealandia."

Sib, — I have been amused by your reviewer's notice of this story in your issue of the sth instant. A mere matter of opinion as to the merits or demerits of the contribution would not occasion me the remotest pleasure or pain, but I have beon slightly sur priced at certain wilful misstatomento, or culpable errors, on the part of the person entrusted with the apparently too difficult task of reviewing the roagszino. Until your reviewer, in the courteous manner which bo distinguishes his notice, drew my attention to "Foxglove M.-mor," I bad not read the book or heard of its contenls. On comparing the two incidents relating to a statue— that in the novel with the one in my story — I find them totally distinct, presenting, indeed, no points of similarity — only a brain affected by influences which make a man see two moons and many snakes could assume a resemblance and consequent plagiarism. The only points in " The Answer of the Dead " referring to matters which an unclean mind could misconstrue into pruriency are the accidental sight by a wxomjed lover of his promised and stolen wife's bast— -a eighs to

which in a more. general sense your bashful reviewer would Boon get accustomed in a London ballroom— and the carving from the recollection of a marble statue. Wandering a little further yet, your reviewer makes the rash assertion that "the author revels in describing the perpetration of the foulest practices upon a putrefying corpse." l)o ttie " foul practices " consist in the temporary re animation of the body? If so, the raising of Lazarus would have met with youx reviewer's disapproval. It is a pity he was not present at the miracle. Had he been there and forbidden it, we should have been spared much polemical theology. Or, Sir, do the "foul practices" embrace only the inßulta offered to the powerless corpse? Insultß which in this my story I have held up to execration as the work of an evil minded, inhuman monstrosity. Your reviewer speaka of one of the gentlemen figuring in my contribution being dismissed to hell. I didn't dismiss him there. Ido not claim to be an authority on hell. As an intending emigrant, your reviewer has possibly the advantage of me. Anyway, I have looked through " The Answer of the Dead " and found not the remotest reference to this fiery laud ; not enough hell to roast one reviewer — and his little soul would not take up much space !

The writer of the notice, however, at the close of his mistaken effort makes up iv part for his numerous follies by telling the truth in saying: "We have not done the eubjaofc justice." Any thoughtful mind would see, even on a first perusal of the Btory, that there are indicated therein behind the details of the fiction certain awful possibilities and solemn truths.— Youra &c, The Author of " Thr Answer of the Dead."

[In reference to the above, we can only Bay that by denying the charge of plagiarism the writer involves himself, as our note clearly indicated, in a responsibility cf a much graver kind — that, namely, of originating, instead of merely copying, a wanton indecency. This, however, was pot the part of the atory which deserved or elicited our gravest censure. We regret that the author should in defence take refuge in the evasion and trifling shown in the above letter, and in the foolish suggestion that the writer of our article was drunk ; and we dismiss the unpleasant subject by expressing the pain with which we find ourselves compelled to adhere fully to the opinions we expressed upon the tale in question. — Ed.]