Prejudices, fourth seriesMencken, H. L. (Henry Louis)
History
Prejudices, fourth series
Mencken, H. L. (Henry Louis)
American essays -- 20th century; American literature -- History and criticism; Literature -- History and criticism
The causes of all this are not far to seek. The American Legion is
right: we won the war. It cost us nothing in men; it brought us a huge
profit in money; as Europe has gone down, we have gone up. Moreover,
it produced a vast discharge of spiritual electricity, otherwise and
more injuriously dissipated in the countries more harshly beset. The
war was fought ignobly; its first and most obvious effect was to raise
up a horde of cads, and set them in authority as spokesmen of the
nation. But out of that swinishness there was bound to come reaction,
and out of the reaction there was bound to flow a desire to re-examine
the whole national pretension--to turn on the light, to reject old
formulæ, to think things out anew and in terms of reality. Suddenly the
old houses of cards came tumbling down, and the professors inhabiting
them ran about in their night-shirts, bawling for the police. The war,
first and last, produced a great deal more than John Dos Passos’ “Three
Soldiers.” It also produced Lewis’ “Babbitt,” and Cabell’s “Jurgen,”
and Fergusson’s “Capitol Hill,” and O’Neill’s “The Emperor Jones.” And,
producing them, it ended an epoch of sweetness and light.
2
The young American literatus of today, with publishers ready and eager
to give him a hearing, can scarcely imagine the difficulties which
beset his predecessor of twenty years ago; he is, indeed, far too
little appreciative of the freedom he has, and far too prone to flee
from hard work to the solace of the martyr’s shroud. When I first
began practise as a critic, in 1908, there was yet plenty of excuse
for putting it on. It was a time of almost inconceivable complacency
and conformity. Hamilton Wright Mabie was still alive and still taken
seriously, and all the young pedagogues who aspired to the critical
gown imitated him in his watchful stupidity. This camorra had delivered
a violent wallop to Theodore Dreiser eight years before, and he was
yet suffering from his bruises; it was not until 1911 that he printed
“Jennie Gerhardt.” Miss Harriet Monroe and her gang of new poets were
still dispersed and inarticulate; Miss Amy Lowell, as yet unaware of
Imagism, was writing polite doggerel in the manner of a New England
schoolmarm; the reigning dramatists of the nation were Augustus Thomas,
David Belasco and Clyde Fitch; Miss Cather was imitating Mrs. Wharton;
Hergesheimer had six years to go before he’d come to “The Lay Anthony”;
Cabell was known only as one who provided the text for illustrated
gift-books; the American novelists most admired by most publishers,
by most readers and by all practising critics were Richard Harding
Davis, Robert W. Chambers and James Lane Allen. It is hard indeed, in
retrospect, to picture those remote days just as they were. They seem
almost fabulous. The chief critical organ of the Republic was actually
the Literary Supplement of the New York _Times_. The _Dial_ was down
with diabetes in Chicago; the _Nation_ was made dreadful by the gloomy
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account