Punch, or the London Charivari, Volume 156, May 21, 1919Various
General
Punch, or the London Charivari, Volume 156, May 21, 1919
Various
English wit and humor -- Periodicals
A most unfortunate thing has happened to a friend of mine called ----
to a friend of ---- to a friend of ----. Well, I suppose the truth
will have to come out. It happened to me. Only don't tell anybody.
I reviewed a book the other day. It is not often I do this, because
before one can review a book one has to, or is supposed to, read
it, which wastes a good deal of time. Even that isn't an end of the
trouble. The article which follows is not really one's own, for the
wretched fellow who wrote the book is always trying to push his way
in with his views on matrimony, or the Sussex downs, or whatever his
ridiculous subject is. He expects one to say, "Mr. Blank's treatment
of _Hilda's_ relations with her husband is masterly," whereas what one
wants to say is, "Putting Mr. Blank's book on one side we may consider
the larger question, whether ----" and so consider it (alone) to the
end of the column.
Well, I reviewed Mr. Blank's book, _Rotundity_. As I expected, the
first draft had to be re-headed "A Corner of Old London," and used
elsewhere; Mr. Blank didn't get into it at all. I kept promising
myself a sentence: "Take _Rotundity,_ for instance, the new novel by
William Blank, which, etc.," but before I was ready for it the article
was finished. In my second draft, realizing the dangers of delay, I
began at once, "This remarkable novel," and continued so for a couple
of sentences. But on reading it through afterwards I saw at once that
the first two sentences were out of place in an article that obviously
ought to be called "The Last Swallow;" so I cut them out, sent "The
Last Swallow: A Reverie" to another Editor, and began again. The third
time I was successful.
Of course in my review I said all the usual things. I said that Mr.
Blank's attitude to life was "subjective rather than objective"
... and a little lower down that it was "objective rather than
subjective." I pointed out that in his treatment of the major theme he
was a neo-romanticist, but I suggested that, on the other hand, he
had nothing to learn from the Russians--or the Russians had nothing
to learn from him; I forget which. And finally I said (and this is
the cause of the whole trouble) that ANTOINE VAURELLE'S world-famous
classic--and I looked it up in the Encyclopaedia--world-renowned
classic, _Je Comprends Tout_, had been not without its influence on
Mr. Blank. It was a good review, and the editor was pleased about it.
A few days later Mr. Blank wrote to say that, curiously enough, he
had never read _Je Comprends Tout_. It didn't seem to me very curious,
because I had never read it either, but I thought it rather odd of him
to confess as much to a stranger. The only book of VAURELLE'S which I
had read was _Consolatrice_, in an English translation. However, one
doesn't say these things in a review.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account