BENTSTO LITERATURE

Otago Witness, Issue 3802, 25 January 1927, Page 75

BENTS—TO LITERATURE

By Colonel Arthur Lynch, (Fob the Witness.) LII. . When a boy or girl shows signs of literary genius the classic way of dealing with this disturbing manifestation is to place as many obstacles as possible in the way of its development—that is to say if the parents or the wise pundit whom they consult be “philistines.” I have no claims to that safe title, nor to the advantages which, in spite of the apparent disfavours of the name, the qualifications imply; but for once and without cynicism I am inclined .to be on the side of those who discourage the literary talent. The reason is that I have seen so few examples oi success; while on the other hand my recollections are full of pictures of lives wasted by the deceiving lure of letters. This is especially the case if the literary gift be yeally something of originality in outlook based on the power of deep thought.

.Let us consider it from the point of view of the general public; and as the critic interprets for the mass we may direct our attention to him. There are no recognised canons of criticism, and I have come across only one or ?two authors who have ever employed any great talent of analysis in the search for such standards; consequently, no matter how pompously the critic may deliver his judgment, he is only giving his personal opinion, and that is moulded in great part by his prejudices, or, so as not to be unfair to human nature, by his enthusiasms or predilections. Moreover when he attempts to rise above that warping he unconsciously refers to something in the form of literature which is thought to be excellent, and which has a vogue in his day. Already, therefore, it will be seen that the writer who is most likely to be appreciated is one who brings nothing essentially new either in matter or manner.

But there is something unfortunately which goes deeper than any kind of literary canons, and that is the influence of politics. Over a century ago Littleton said that opinion in Great Britain was governed by politics. The remark struck me peculiarly when I first read it, and keeping it in mind I tested it in a hundred ways. lam sad to say I found it verified. Many a critic will arise and cry that he scorns the suggestion. Yes, but the influence of polities is indirect and often insidious. A man may refuse to be biased if a book put jnto his hands comes from a political opponent; but already by reason of his outlook, his associations, his education he has had his own ideas set in a certain direction, and he would be almost superhuman if he could resist such tendencies. Now critics are rarely superhuman; looking at the matter coolly I say that of all the arts tliat of criticism is the most backward and the least worthy of respect. All this does not promise a rosy view of literature, and yet men achieve renown and gather money at the trade, and even in the.mere pedestrian ranks of journalism fortunes are made. Yes, but these fortunes are generally made not by the writers, but by those often incapable of composing half a column, who employ them. But when we come to the everyday moil and toil of journalism we find 'a profession perfectly honourable, and year by year beconiing more esteemed, but in which lhe situation of writers is precarious, and the glamour, if ever it existed; vanished. With the great writers. Ah, how wonderful the great works! What achievement! What glory! Yet look at their actual lives. lam still astonished that Sartor Resartus caused Frazer’s Magazine tc descend, that Borrow ate his heart out unrecognised, and I might weep, if weeping could avail to move the decree of fate, at the destiny of the brightest and best of all —John Keats.