John Angus Burrell

Strangely disappointing collection. It is difficult to discern the principle of selection. If "famous" is truly the key, that at least explains the inclusion of some old chestnuts that are really not very good. But then there are quite a few that just aren't well known. There is a great skew toward very dark stories. It is tempting to see the collection as a good representation of mid-twentieth century malaise and worse. There's also a skew toward the clever, and clever doesn't work well on the second and subsequent readings.… (mere)

[Preface to Cosmopolitans, Heinemann/Doubleday, 1936:]

The University of Columbia a little while ago very kindly sent me a little book entitled Modern Fiction written by two of its professors. I read it with interest and edification. It offers the best guide I have ever met across the fog-bound swamps, shining mountains, pleasant oases and dreary deserts of Mr. Joyce’s Ulysses. It treats of no book that it does not make one wish to read again. It is tolerant, perspicacious and stimulating. But there is one thing about it that very much surprised me. The books of which it treats are discussed in the most improving way. Their technique is acutely analysed. Their value as psychological, sociological or ethical documents is estimated. But I can find nowhere a reference to their entertainment. So far as I can make out these two professors in all the years during which they have thought the ardent young who have attended their lectures never even hinted to them that a novel should be read for fun. The novel may stimulate you to think. It may satisfy your aesthetic sense. It may arouse your moral emotions. But if it does not entertain you it is a bad novel. It is merely laziness that induces people to go to novels for instruction on subjects that are the province of experts. There is no short road to knowledge and you will only waste your time if you seek it in a work of fiction.… (mere)