IV.

I doubt, indeed, whether the earnings of literary men are absolutely as

great as they were earlier in the century, in any of the English-speaking

countries; relatively they are nothing like as great. Scott had forty

thousand dollars for ‘Woodstock,’ which was not a very large novel, and

was by no means one of his best; and forty thousand dollars then had at

least the purchasing power of sixty thousand now. Moore had three

thousand guineas for ‘Lalla Rookh,’ but what publisher would be rash

enough to pay fifteen thousand dollars for the masterpiece of a minor

poet now? The book, except in very rare instances, makes nothing like

the return to the author that the magazine makes, and there are few

leading authors who find their account in that form of publication.

Those who do, those who sell the most widely in book form, are often not

at all desired by editors; with difficulty they get a serial accepted by

any principal magazine. On the other hand, there are authors whose

books, compared with those of the popular favorites, do not sell, and yet

they are eagerly sought for by editors; they are paid the highest prices,

and nothing that they offer is refused. These are literary artists; and

it ought to be plain from what I am saying that in belles-lettres, at

least, most of the best literature now first sees the light in the

magazines, and most of the second-best appears first in book form. The

old-fashioned people who flatter themselves upon their distinction in not

reading magazine fiction or magazine poetry make a great mistake, and

simply class themselves with the public whose taste is so crude that they

cannot enjoy the best. Of course, this is true mainly, if not merely, of

belles-lettres; history, science, politics, metaphysics, in spite of the

many excellent articles and papers in these sorts upon what used to be

called various emergent occasions, are still to be found at their best in

books. The most monumental example of literature, at once light and

good, which has first reached the public in book form is in the different

publications of Mark Twain; but Mr. Clemens has of late turned to the

magazines too, and now takes their mint-mark before he passes into

general circulation. All this may change again, but at present the

magazines--we have no longer any reviews form the most direct approach to

that part of our reading public which likes the highest things in

literary art. Their readers, if we may judge from the quality of the

literature they get, are more refined than the book readers in our

community; and their taste has no doubt been cultivated by that of the

disciplined and experienced editors. So far as I have known these, they

are men of aesthetic conscience and of generous sympathy. They have

their preferences in the different kinds, and they have their theory of

what kind will be most acceptable to their readers; but they exercise

their selective function with the wish to give them the best things they

can. I do not know one of them--and it has been, my good fortune to know

them nearly all--who would print a wholly inferior thing for the sake of

an inferior class of readers, though they may sometimes decline a good

thing because for one reason or another, they believe it would not be

liked. Still, even this does not often happen; they would rather chance

the good thing they doubted of than underrate their readers’ judgment.

The young author who wins recognition in a first-class magazine has

achieved a double success, first, with the editor, and then with the best

reading public. Many factitious and fallacious literary reputations have

been made through books, but very few have been made through the

magazines, which are not only the best means of living, but of outliving,

with the author; they are both bread and fame to him. If I insist a

little upon the high office which this modern form of publication fulfils

in the literary world, it is because I am impatient of the antiquated and

ignorant prejudice which classes the magazines as ephemeral. They are

ephemeral in form, but in substance they are not ephemeral, and what is

best in them awaits its resurrection in the book, which, as the first

form, is so often a lasting death. An interesting proof of the value of

the magazine to literature is the fact that a good novel will often have

wider acceptance as a book from having been a magazine serial.

Literature and Life (Complete) · 第 9 / 228 题