According to all the codes of the more serious kinds of fiction, the
unwillingness--or the inability--to conduct a plot to its legitimate
ending implies some weakness in the artistic character; and this
weakness is Mr. Tarkington's principal defect.... Now this causes
the more regret for the reason that he has what is next best to
character in a novelist--that is, knack. He has the knack of
romance, when he wants to employ it: a light, allusive manner; a
sufficient acquaintance with certain charming historical epochs and
the "properties" thereto pertaining...; a considerable experience in
the ways of the "world"; gay colors, swift moods, the note of tender
elegy. He has also the knack of satire, which he employs more
frequently than romance ... he has traveled a long way from the
methods of his greener days. Why, then, does he continue to trifle
with his threadbare adolescents, as if he were afraid to write
candidly about his coevals? Why does he drift with the sentimental
tide and make propaganda for provincial complacency?
4. In what direction lies Mr. Tarkington's future? Is he likely to become
more than a popular writer? What, if any, elements of enduring value do
you find in his work?
5. What "Hoosier" elements do you find in his work? Compare him with Ade,
Riley, Nicholson, and with the older writers of Indiana, Edward
Eggleston, and Maurice Thompson.