Courtship and marriage, servants and children, these are the great objects of a woman's thoughts, and they necessarily form the staple topics of their writings and their conversation. We have no right to expect anything else in a woman's book.

Is it the feminine novels only that courtship, marriage, servants, and children are the staple? Is this not true of all novels, -of Dickens, of Thackeray, of Bulwer2 and a host of others? Is it peculiar to feminine pens, most astute and liberal of critics? Would a novel be a novel if it did not treat of courtship and marriage? and if it could be so recognized, would it find readers? Where I see such a narrow, snarling criticism as above, I always say to myself, the writer is some unhappy man, who has come up without the refining influence of a mother, or sister, or reputable female friends; who has divided his migratory life between boarding-houses, resturants, and the outskirts of editorial sanctums; and who knows as much about reviewing a woman's book , as I do about navigating a ship, or engineering an omnibus from South Ferry, through Broadway, to Union Park.³ I think I see him writing that paragraph in a fit of spleen-of male spleen- in his small boarding-house upper chamber, by cheerful light of a solitary candle, flickering alternately on cobwebbed walls, dusty wash-stand, begrimed bowl and pitcher, refuse cigar stumps, boot-jacks, old hats, buttonless coats, muddy trousers, and all in the wretched accompaniments of solitary, selfish male existence, not to speak of his own puckered, unkissable face; perhaps, in addition, his boots hurt, his cravat-bow⁴ persists in slipping under his ear for want of a pin, and a wife to pin it,(poor wretch!) or he has been refused by some pretty girl, as he deserved to be, (narrow-minded old vingar-cruet!) or snubbed by some lady authoress; or, more trying than all to the male constitution, has had a weak cup of coffee for that morning's breakfast.
But seriously- we have had quite enough of this shallow criticism (?) on lady-books. Whether the book which called forth the remark above quoted, was a good one or a bad one, I know not; I should be inclined to think the former from the dispraise of such a pen. Whether ladies can write novels or not, is a question I do not intend to discuss; but that some of them have no difficulty finding either publishers or readers, is a matter of history; and that gentlemen often write over feminine signatures would seem also to argue that feminine literature is, after all, in good order with the reading public. Granting that lady-novels are not all that they should be- is such shallow, unfair, wholesale, sneering criticism (?) the way to reform them? Would it not be better and more manly to point out a better way kindly, justly, and, above all, respectfully? or -what would be a much harder task for such critics-write a better book!

1857

1. First printed in the New York Ledger on May 23, 1857. 2.English novelists: Charles Dickens, William Makepeace Thackeray, and Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer-Lytton. 3. A line of omni-buses, which were public horse drawn carriages. Sort of an 1800's MetroTrain! 4. A form of bowtie.

Go back to the main page

©2001 Jezreél Otto I don't mind if you take stuff or whatever, just credit me. All media on this site is trademarked and copyrighted by their respective companies,
please don't sue my arse off, I'm just a crazed fan. Oh yeah, and if you see something on this site that you specifically created, email me at hino_ryuu@hotmail.com and I'll give you the credit that you deserve! *I've been collecting stuff since '96, so I can't keep track of where stuff came from.