"Classics," of course, is a variable term, but even when not
specifically defined it serves the general purposes of the question.
Of 113 answering, 58 found the classics useful to their craft; current
authors, 49.
Some benefit: classics, 10; current, 13. Yes: classics, 32; current, 21.
Much: classics, 14; current, 13. All: classics, 2; current, 2. Little:
classics, 11; current, 10. None: classics, 13; current, 18. Waste of
time: classics, 0; current, 1. Harm: classics, 3; current, 4. Don't
know: 17. Not classified: 4.
The tabulation is on both influence and value. From the answers one
gathers that the classics are read for: the fundamentals, highest art,
clearness, vocabulary, characterization, style; current authors for
vocabulary, what not to do, modern style, popularity, short-story
structure.
While allowance must be made for those deriving benefit from both, the
107 who found benefit from reading other authors contrast strongly with
the 25 who stated either elementary or advanced benefit from classes,
courses and books (all or any) on how to write.
It must be borne in mind that what some consider benefit would be
considered a loss by others.
A rough checking up of the answers shows that, while some 90 authors or
books were mentioned, no one of them was mentioned often:--Kipling 8;
the Bible, Dickens and O. Henry, 4; Maupassant, Conrad, Jack London, 3;
Milton, Emerson, Scott, Homer, Sophocles, Hall Caine, Balzac, Anatole
France, the Russians, Poe, Gautier, Mary Roberts Rinehart, Richard
Harding Davis, 2. Since no general expression as to particular books or
authors was called for, these chance expressions are not indicative of
anything except that no particular ones seem found sufficiently valuable
to bring about much spontaneous mention. Among the manuscripts (the
total submitted, not merely the accepted ones) coming in to my own
particular magazine the writers whose influence seems most marked are
Kipling, O. Henry, Conan Doyle, Jack London, Stevenson. The list would
vary at other editorial desks, but at most of them these five would
probably be included.
Only 7 of our answers warn against the dangers of imitation. The warning
is badly needed, particularly by beginners. The essence of style is
expression of self, not of some one else, yet the manuscript world is
tragically full of writers who are straining every nerve--and killing or
drugging the individuality that alone can get them to any place really
worth reaching--in a silly effort to write like some one else. They
can't, for the simple reason that they can't be this some one else. And
meanwhile, instead of expressing themselves, they are burying
themselves.
Possibly O. Henry, Kipling and Doyle produce the greatest numbers of
imitators, but current fiction provides many ephemeral models that
produce noticeable waves of imitation.
Even with successful writers, who can say where the benefit from
studying other authors ends and harm begins? Of what value is technique
if gaining it has suppressed any of the individuality whose expression
is technique's only warrant for existence?
Few indeed are the writers who can not profit from a study of good
models, yet few are they who can unerringly reap the undoubted benefit
without paying for it in some loss of individuality. Perhaps those most
safe against the danger are those least in need of the benefit. There
can be no question of the benefit to be derived, but to every
beginner--and to most writers on the highway of success--there is need
to shout a warning against letting the models absorb him instead of his
absorbing the models.