Q. Which do you prefer to criticize, a book that has already been reviewed or one that is perfectly fresh?
A. Oh, one that has been reviewed, and the oftener the better. I thus gain some idea of the trend of critical opinion and shape my review accordingly.
Q. Do you ever run counter to the general sentiment?
A. Yes; if I find that a book has been damned with faint praise, I sometimes laud it to the skies and thus gain a reputation for independence that is very useful to me. Or if a book has been heralded by the best critics of both countries as “the book of the year,” I sometimes pick it to pieces, taking its grammar as a basis, or some other point that I think I can attack without injury to my reputation for discernment, and again I score a victory for my independence.
Q. Why don’t you like to be the first to review a new book?
A. For the same reason that most critics hate to—unless, indeed, they are just out of college and are cock-sure of everything. I fear that its author may be one of the numerous coming men. I may be entirely at sea about the book. I prefer to get some idea of what the consensus of the best opinion is.
Q. Then you do not consider your own the best opinion?
A. No; no one critic’s opinion is worth much.
Q. Can you tell an author by his style?