Until one draws hair one never realizes what large heads people have. Doing the hair takes the whole of a speech, usually, even one of the chairman's speeches. This is not one of my best men; I am sure the ear is in the wrong place. And I am inclined to think he ought to have spectacles. Only then he would be a clergyman, and I have decided that he is Mr. Philip Gibbs at the age of twenty. So he must carry on with his eye as it is. I find that all my best men face to the west; it is a curious thing. Sometimes I draw two men facing each other, but the one facing east is always a dud. There, you see (Fig. 6)? The one on the right is a Bolshevik; he has a low forehead and beetling brows--a most unpleasant man. Yet he has a powerful face. The one on the left was meant to be another Bolshevik, arguing with him. But he has turned out to be a lady, so I have had to give her a "bun." She is a lady solicitor; but I don't know how she came to be talking to the Bolshevik. [Illustration: FIG. 6] When you have learned how to do men, the only other things in Drawing are Perspective and Landscape. PERSPECTIVE is great fun: the best thing to do is a long French road with telegraph poles (Fig. 7). I have put in a fence as well. LANDSCAPE is chiefly composed of hills and trees. Trees are the most amusing, especially fluffy trees. Here is a Landscape (Fig. 8). Somehow or other a man has got into this landscape; and, as luck would have it, it is Napoleon. Apart from this it is not a bad landscape. [Illustration: FIG. 7] [Illustration: FIG. 8] But it takes a very long speech to get an ambitious piece of work like this through. There is one other thing I ought to have said. Never attempt to draw a man front-face. It can't be done. O. HENRY _By_ O. W. FIRKINS Several years ago I turned to _Who's Who in America_ in hope of finding some information about O. W. Firkins, whose brilliant reviews--chiefly of poetry--were appearing in _The Nation_. I found no entry, but every few months I would again rummage that stout red volume with the same intention, forgetting that I had done so before without success. It seemed hardly credible that a critic so brilliant had been overlooked by the industrious compilers of that work, which includes hundreds of hacks and fourflushers. When gathering the contents of this book I tried _Who's Who_ again, still without result. I wrote to Mr. Firkins pleading for biographical details; modestly, but firmly, he denied me.