There were no large critical hurrahs but the reviews were, on the whole, friendly. Clemens has no reliable sense of propriety,'' and the public library in Concord, Mass., was confident enough to ban it: ''the veriest trash.'' The Boston Transcript reported that ''other members of the Library Committee characterize the work as rough, coarse, and inelegant, the whole book being more suited to the slums than to intelligent, respectable people.''Īll the same, the novel was not too unpleasantly regarded. The Springfield Republican judged it to be no worse than ''a gross trifling with every fine feeling. Melville's Quakers are wretched dolts and drivellers and his mad captain is a monstrous bore.''īy this measure, ''Huckleberry Finn'' (published 100 years ago this week in London and two months later in America) gets off lightly. ''Show me one page,'' says The Odessa Courier, ''that contains an idea.'' ''Moby-Dick'' was incinerated: ''Graphic descriptions of a dreariness such as we do not remember to have met with before in marine literature''. Is there a sweeter tonic for the doldrums than old reviews of great novels? In 19th-century Russia, ''Anna Karenina'' was received with the following: ''Vronsky's passion for his horse runs parallel to his passion for Anna''.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |