I enclose the poems with a few suggestions. They require little
criticism of the sort that would be "helpful." As to their merit I
think them good, but not great. I suppose you do not expect to write
great things every time. Yet in the body of your letter (of Oct. 22)
you do write greatly--and say that the work is "egoistic" and
"unprintable." If it[4] were addressed to another person than myself I
should say that it is "printable" exceedingly. Call it what you will,
but let me tell you it will probably be long before you write anything
better than some--many--of these stanzas.
[4] "Dedication" poem to Ambrose Bierce.
You ask if you have correctly answered your own questions. Yes; in
four lines of your running comment:
"I suppose that I'd do the greater good in the long run by making my
work as good poetry as possible."
* * * * *
Of course I deplore your tendency to dalliance with the demagogic
muse. I hope you will not set your feet in the dirty paths--leading
nowhither--of social and political "reform".... I hope you will not
follow * * * in making a sale of your poet's birthright for a mess of
"popularity." If you do I shall have to part company with you, as I
have done with him and at least _one_ of his betters, for I draw the
line at demagogues and anarchists, however gifted and however
beloved.
Let the "poor" alone--they are oppressed by nobody but God. Nobody
hates them, nobody despises. "The rich" love them a deal better than
they love one another. But I'll not go into these matters; your own
good sense must be your salvation if you are saved. I recognise the
temptations of environment: you are of San Francisco, the paradise of
ignorance, anarchy and general yellowness. Still, a poet is not
altogether the creature of his place and time--at least not of his
to-day and his parish.
By the way, you say that * * * is your only associate that knows
anything of literature. She is a dear girl, but look out for her; she
will make you an anarchist if she can, and persuade you to kill a
President or two every fine morning. I warrant you she can pronounce
the name of McKinley's assassin to the ultimate zed, and has a little
graven image of him next her heart.
Yes, you can republish the Memorial Day poem without the _Post's_
consent--could do so in "book form" even if the _Post_ had copyrighted
it, which it did not do. I think the courts have held that in
purchasing work for publication in his newspaper or magazine the
editor acquires no right in it, _except for that purpose_. Even if he
copyright it that is only to protect him from other newspapers or
magazines; the right to publish in a book remains with the author.
Better ask a lawyer though--preferably without letting him know
whether you are an editor or an author.
I ought to have answered (as well as able) these questions before, but
I have been ill and worried, and have written few letters, and even
done little work, and that only of the pot-boiling sort.
My daughter has recovered and returned to Los Angeles.
Please thank Miss * * * for the beautiful photographs--I mean for
being so beautiful as to "take" them, for doubtless I owe their
possession to you.
I wrote Doyle about you and he cordially praised your work as
incomparably superior to his own and asked that you visit him. He's a
lovable fellow and you'd not regret going to Santa Cruz and boozing
with him.
Thank you for the picture of Grizzly and the cub of him.
Sincerely yours, with best regards to the pretty ever-so-much-better
half of you,