um I l W W H {I I”! ”If M“! — ~ W I J VIII ._l 131’: I, _mo>cn THE CRSTQCAL RECEPTiON OF RING LARDNER Thesis for The Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE COLEEGE Damfhy Wuerfel Lassing 1943 I . I I I l I I . I I I II I I I II I I | I II III. I I I I IlIIIIl IIIIIIIIIII . . t I In I . I .J In .lI‘ II t, .y A. .. o: M! II I t. J9. I \I ~ .II a. .I. .. u . Ail . .. . b— la. .. n v I. {lg n. “I‘d” . I III. I \III« . I I . . I . I I - . .nae . I I . I v I. I. o. x u I - .tIv.vJ I'm-Menifilf-“r-WIWIHO . I . . . . . I . II II I . u I . . I I. .5 :l I I I-z‘wv: .I I hum-I‘Nwm I t ... II. on I a I I . l e. u .. I I I I... n I I I. . e t o/ . DD l I 1 I 7 I III I u IlI L'INI lrIll II I II I .lir I I r I; I IIIVLII I I II lkII’I l Illll a! o I 1' ll l u | WP» .. ... If. I. T. ..K \ .I . I , . I. .m . .. .. .. I . .. «J‘v .. . .. I I ., .‘Iaan IVA“-— k}! I . .. I I.. ....” .I . .I .3 _. .. ... . .. III; ... . _. . .. . .- . ,- . I . A . . I. I . . ... I . .. . Major professor cuts for thesis entitled presented by of ther Thisistoeertifgtlmtthe Mrs. Dorothy W. Leasing ms . 7. 0 1. 0.. has been accepted towards fulfillment Mm 2 1 . m3 l The Critical Reception of Ring Lardner I I. I ‘I III . .. I I I .. ... I . .I. . «\I .v.i1 I... I. ... ..... . I, .I. . . o. .I. I... .. .. I I»... ..I 1 . I ,. II . i . v Q. I I . . . . . ...,II.. I . . .. . .. I I v n .lt. V . I . . . .I . I I . I . . . . . III I I . .. I I . ... . I. .I ‘I I Ir .. In. ..c ... .4 I. ..a 1 I I ..f nrle..rn~...1..n I.. .. . s . .. I ... I .. .. . . I .I I , . . . fin. I I. .I gatirun 35?. . 4M... «8 ..:.”.f A?“ 251...: ...j . . _. I. . ,I. . . . .. .. .. .... ... . . . . . . _.\,_ ...o. . x .. q .I. ..I . - III. I . m . . . . . I ..I . . ... .JI We I. v J... .I _ ..c .. . n .I , .. I .I I, .. . II .... v .. .... > . .... , f - ...... . H. .. .. w' .ul ‘0} VHS 4 H e. . ... I. . _ ... I . ...: Ir a! i! JW’ . h‘v. I e .n ‘l *n. . .D. ~.II’.O~_ If f o . ...12..III._...,.I ...... n... .1. . I . b. . .. a . , . . w . u... .I \‘fiiwfi \Ifio... .. I _ .... .. 3.. I1 I. . I . ”INHI‘cI. ‘Iw Q . .A...\.u ‘.~...a. .V.\I\..l.. . .. . . I. . I . . .I ... . ”v: [-3 e “a I...'IWI ...?!‘eLV I f . . .0! I [ll Ill | \“‘l|l||\l:llll‘.[[|\[llllll|l I a”? ‘5 "K III ‘ III. I III!- ‘II Illllllllt 'THE CRITICAL RECEPTION OF RING LABDNEB By DORDTEI WUERFEL LOSSING W A.THESIS 1 Submitted 36 the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in.partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of HASEEB.OI‘AE!S Department of English 'il9h6 /// PREFACE It is not the purpose of this study to support a pro-con- ceived argument by selective use of source material. But rather it. represents an investigation into all available sources of in- formation in order to present an objective account of the critical reception of the works of a much-debated author, Ring Lardner. By this means it is possible to formulate an unbiased conclusion as to Lardner's relationship to the tastes and tempo of his times. Because of Lardner's contemporary standing. I am chiefly indebted to periodical literature and newspaper reviews of his work. The investigation is almost exhaustive of source material on the sub: ect except for some anonymous reviews in the kriggield gepublican and the m Transcript which were not available to me. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Dr. E. P. Lawrence. who devoted such of his time to aid in the preparation and final presentation of the thesis. 13.1.15. hst Lens ing. Michigan June 1, 19118 203303 Part II III VII VIII TABLE OF COMMS IntmductionOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0...... IheBiographical Background. . . . . . . . . . . . .. TheProblemMnerges.................. fhe Critical Reception of Lardnar's Plan ofGonposition................... Ihe Critics Look at Lardner's Characters . . . . . . . The Critical Reception of Lardner's Style . . . . . .. fheAuthorAddsHisOpinion. . . . . . . . . . . . .. Gonelusion....................... Bibliogapm O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 1h 23 39 67 71 nrrsonucrxor ‘ A study of the critical reception of an author is important because it is a means of arriving at certain conclusions about his relationship to his milieu. lirst. a gradual change of critical eval- uation on the part of the reviewers should reflect a similar change in the literary tastes of the times: and second. by comparing past critical predictions with contemporary evaluations. it should be possible to Judge the soundness of past predictions, and, perhaps. ' to ascertain a path that opinions concerning the future influence of the author may follow. In the study of the critical reception of Ring Lardner there is still another factor that adds interest to the problem; the critics have not been able to agree whether Lardner should be classified as a realist. a satirist. or a humorist. Some reviewers praise him for his “genuine understanding of life'1 while others laud his "wild mamas-m1. laughten'z fhe problem concerning the extent of Lardner's realism. satire, or humor is further complicated by the fact that few critics will risk a general statement of opinion that covers the entire body of Lardner's writings or the different aspects of Lardner's 1Lewis luford. '11:. Salt of Our Generation', Books (April it. 1929) 5. aAnon” “ling Lardner', Egg Iggy}; fines (September 27. 1933) 20:3. .1- writing. l'or example. one critic my classify his depiction of character as realistic but maintain that his dialogue is merely literary. Another reviewer may take Just the opposite stand. Humorous writing has always been linked with realistic writ- ing in America. Shortly after the Revolutionary War when all the polite novels of the day simply superimposed characters from Inglish fiction onto an American background. it remined for the humorists to utilise local characteristics and Yankee types. Therefore. comic writers were our first realists.1 the Civil War humorists continued this tradition with variations and refinements. flthough Billings. Easby. Ward. and their contemporaries seem unrelated to any modern develOpment. yet their realistic. cynical. somewhat pessimistic out- look is hailed by some critics as the forerunner of king Lardner's attitude.2 fhe question of whether Lardner is a realist-satirist or a clown is especially significant because of the nature of his writ- lags. Because his subject is America. and his characters Americans. and his treatment a little contemptuous. if his writing is inter- preted as realistic or satiric it must be accepted as social criti- cism. On the other hand. if his purpose was merely good natured humor. there is no reason to search for motivation. llapier Wilt. Some American Humorists. II. 2 Oscar Cargill. Intellectual America, l4-05. he reviews of Lardner's work follow no rigid chronological pattern. Iowever. in the la'lyrinth of critical opinion. one thread of thought is apparent which. eventually enforced by the fiber of evidence. seems to lead out of the use. i'herefore. time is a def- inite factor in the evaluation of Ierdner's critical reception. m BIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND Ihen Ringgold Iilmer Lardner was born in Iiles. nichigan. on larch 6. 1335. he arrived in a newly industrialised world that was to furnish him with subjects for his stories three decades later. “Big business'. 'free enterprise '. 'assembly line production“: that is the vocabulary he grew up with. !he effects of big business. free enterprise. and assembly line production on hm beings: those were the things he was to write about. Ihat he alternately condemned end ridiculed his competitive environment is ironic. for it was this same industrialised world that provided an outlet for his stories. he mass production of goods dennded advertising. which. in turn. demanded periodicals as media; and these same periodicals welcomed short stories as the form of writing best adapted to their use. Ihus was created an mrecedented market for short stories.1 Ludnor did not immediately become a writer. however. after his graduation from high school in 1901. Instead. he studied a ‘ year in Chicago at the Armour Institute of Iechnolog in accordance with his father‘s wishes. end later he left to sample a few odd Jobs. Il'inally he tried newspaper work and continued as a newspapermsn until his death in 1933'.2 1mm: Sullivan. 93 fines. 101-2. 2bed. 3. lillett. W American Authors. ‘29. .1... His first big chance came in 1913 when Hugh II. Keogh of the Chiggg tribune died and Lardner started to write his sport column. “By Eek.“ At first the fribune got twenty letters of complaint a day. So Lardner tried writing in dialect. During the lorld Series he created the character of a “south-paw“ pitcher to report the games. and the resulting stories were so effective that Charles 1|. Van Loan suggested he send one to the Saturday hang; £033. mother this first story was accepted is uncertain1 but it was not long before editors were anxious to print stories by Ring Lardner. His earliest stories were for the M and Collier's: his last fiction was for the American Eagle and the Delineator. After six years he Joined the Bell Syndicate end his sports articles began to appear in papers from coast to coast. fhe Leg Log; 32.9.! con- sidered him important enough to mention in connection with the new management and the new policy of the Morning m. which had appeared with “changed format and formula and Ring Lardner. '2 fhe height to which his reputation rose in the barometer of popular acclaim was indicated at the Democratic lational Convention of July 6. 1920. Lardner received one vote for the nomination to the presidency.3 fi‘ Bred B. Killett (W Amiga Authors. 1129) said it was re- Jected. but a detailed biographical sketch in the leg {gr}; times (September 26. 1933. 22:1) said it was mummy accqted—E. investigation resulted in no more conclusive informtion. due to the lack of available evidence as to which story was the first one sub- mitted. 2Anon.. “A Second Blooming.“ Le! [21;]; fines (Dec. 5. 1928) 30:5. 3Anon.. “How the Convention Voted at the Day Session Yesterday.“ ggw Iork i'imes (July 6. 1920) Ml. .5- l His 193 [now _I_l_e_ _A_l_ stories were appearing regularly in the 'slicks' by then. but Lardner lamented. at the time of the publication of Oullible's !ravels in 1917. '1'. tired of this sort of writing #- .1 I'd give anything to be able to step writing dialect stories. A few years later. aftughgflygpgandm 'EMendfllgg my; in m. the critics got tired of it, too. It seemed to be generally agreed that “he has not yet writtai his best work. In fact he is only Just beginning. '2 his first serious critical rscogition. Kencken had already praised the accuracy of his dialect} but this new critical approval was «11:- fersnt. l'hcy began to say that he 'is more than a humorist. he is a fondanntal realist)” and that 'he is dcvcleping a strain of wild ingination of something approaching fantasy.'5 and that “there are indications in this volume that he is trying to cut away now and then from the path he has beaten for himself.'6 Ehsse early reviews had set the pace. !he others responded even more enthusiastically to 333 _L_9_v_e_ 1°31 two years later. Henry Logan Stuart rmsarked: l'rhree Stories a tear are Rough for a Vriter.‘ leg York: limes. Y1 (larch 25. 1917) um. 211mins L. Hanson. O_1_1_r_ American Humrists. 196. 3-111. Library.' American m. 11 (July. 192k) 376. ”11111“ a. Benet. manna Laughter.‘ mum m1“ of the m 19;; Evening Post. IV (flay an. 1924) 772. Sailbsrt Seldes. 2.9.9. Seven Lively Arts. 12%. 5:. 3. Adams. 'ling Lardner Iritin' Serious.“ !_s__w {egg rmes, 11: (Kay 25. 1921;) 16:2. —— .5; So his work remains to us. full of drollsriss which create laughter. but which laughter never created. full of a certain bitter and mature in- tention. but fullest of all of rich and pregnant silences} And Stuart 1‘. ‘ Sherman said that “It is quite possible that ten years hence these stories will be sought for as the tales that 0. Henry wrote in lens are sought for. or the tales that O. Henry's master. Kipling. wrote before he came out of India.“2 3031; a. his next book of short stories. included the stories which had previously appeared in periodicals as well as be- tween the covers of his other books. Yhey were praised as “among the few that will be readable twenty years hence“3 and John Chamberlain reached the conclusion that “Lardner is pro-eminently our best short story writer. “u During these years he wrote M if. it}. a collection of saucy essays and nonsense plays; 1h: gm g_f_ a 19293.3 195. his burlesque autobiOgraphygs and a baseball scene which featured I111 Rogers in the Ziegfield Il'ollies. he collaborated with George )1. Cohan on llmer the Great. a baseball epic. which opmsd on Broadway 1%. Lardner at the Passing Show.“ 13;: York times (April A. 1926) 5:1. amnud Americans.“ Books (April 13. 1926) 1. 3Lewis Mumford. “YheSalt of Our Generation.“ 5. h“Ring Lardner Listens In on the Life About Him “ Le! York fines (April 7. 1929) 2. ‘ ‘ " 5Iillett. 33. £13.. l#30. with Valter Huston playing the title role.1 In 1929 Lardner wrote the lyrics for £323 £933. and four years later his last book. Log: 1113; 3 i113. was released for publication. It reverted to the original baseball pattern of his earliest fiction. concerning these works. a few unappreciative critics affirmed that "Mr. Lardner's mdownents are not remarkable"? and that his latest books were 'funny in spots. but thin. a little forced and restless.'3 and the mggmyg 'read in broad daylight ... .h resolves itself into Just so much piffle. But for every dissenting comment there were three or four complimentary ones. Iith his plays he was not so successful. Lardner has never been fortunate in his stage ventures. Seemingly unable to write a play hin- self. he has turned to collaborators who could point up his wise-cracking fun. but could not. or would not. get to the bitter neat below.5 linen" 'Ring Lardner Dies: Noted as Vriter.’ lew _Y______ork Iines (Sept. 26.1933) 21:1. 2Allan levins. 'The American Moron.“ Saturg____ Review of Literature. 1 (June 8. 1929) 1089. !he complete quotation is: “fit beyond skill in quorting. thorough knowledge of the ordinary American and his mind. and a satirical talent which gives the slightest of his sketches an edge. Kr. Lardner's endowments are not rmarkable ... We fail to find in him that richer comprehension of life. that in- tensity of feeling. which we find not merely in a very great short story writer like Kipling. but in the short stories of Mary I. Wilkins or Hamlin Garland. Ihe ability to identify himself with his characters. to present their strongest emotions. to show how even the noron has his relations with heaven and hell. to touch on the deeper chords of life. love. and death-«his ability he lacks.“ 3111 :1 review of up; 91‘ It? by Robert Littell. l_e_w_ 112nm“. 1:2 (‘93-‘11 159 1925) 3. hAnon..Ind magnum. 11s (Apr-11 9. 1927) too. 5'alter hton. “June soon: a revisw.‘ ZBooks (June 29. 1930) 17. .3. Lardner died at his home at Great Heck. Long Island. in September. 1933. Messages of condolence came from all parts of the country and from all types of peeple. Irving Berlin. Alexander Voollcott. Irvin S. Gobb. and members of the Hollywood motion picture colon sent telegrams of sympathy to his family} One of his closest friends. 1'. Scott l'itsgerald. regretted that he “get less percentage of himself on paper than any other American author of the first fligith And an anonymous editorial stated: And we suspect that if his publishers can be persuaded to bring out a value of carefully selected short stories. his best writing will prove to belong to the really inpo t litera- ture in English of this generation. A post mortem anthology of his work. 113:; _an_d_ _L_a_s_t_. was accordingly collected and published the following year. end after the reviews disappeared from the newspapers. the critics continued to evaluate Lardner's reputation in terms of humor and realism. Ihe growth of his acclaim had been smasing. In twenty years he had grown from an obscure sports writer to an outstanding author of short stories. novels. and plays. In the years after his death. when no new books were forthcoming. his pepularity with the public waned a little. but his reputation with the critics seemed to in- 1'll'or informtion about the funeral and more complete lists of celebrities who sent messages refer to 'Ring Lardner's funeral racer." 19y York fines (Sept. 28. 1933) 21. end to 'Lardner luneral win be r—rivi‘te.‘ ng York I'ines (sept. 27. 1939) 21. 2'31ng,’ 1:! 1121mm. 76 (October 11. 1933) 255- 301611011; Lardner.' eater-g; Review 35 Literature. 1 (October 7. 1933) 1 e -9- crease nore than ever. In 1939 a writer from his home state of Hichiyn spoke guardedly of him as Hichign's 'one slim chance“ for literary fame} But almost a decade after his death. William Iyon Phelps expressed the opinion that 'he was a brilliant short story 2 writer: his influence will be felt for years to com.‘ J'Ai-nold fielder. 'Authors and Iolverines.‘ Saturday Review 3f Literature. 19 (March h. 1939) h. 2'1 'ish I'd net ....' Good gm. 11" (“an 19‘?) 39- .10?- m PROM mm In 1927. with the outlook on Lardner's rqmtation becoming increasingly Optimistic. it is no wonder that Will Guppy remarked: It is ancient history now that Hing Lardner has comletely lived down the disgrace of being funny and is sitting pretty with the hidi-priced critics. as well as with us poer. benighted lowbrows. who practically invented him. The very Shakespeare comentators now treat him on terms of perfect equality and laugh fit to kill at all the wrong P1”..e 1 But even at that time Ir. Guppy was mistaken. and the situation did not greatly change throughout the years. !he critics have not yet come to a complete agreement as to whether Lardner's rqiutation is to be built upon satire or upon humor. Realist or clown! ihey still dispute the question. Yet. in fairness to Hr. 0W. it must be admitted tint the tendency is increasingly toward accepting Lardner as a realist-satirist end not as a mere humorist. Since this new critical estinte appears as a trend. we are led to inquire the cause. three factors: the era. the critics. and the author himself. determine the reception of Lardner's literary work. and in his case the emphasis seems equally divided among the three. An editorial in the 111! York fines on the occasion of his death ascribes Lardner's reputation as a realist-satirist to the wave of disillusionment that accompanied the depression. 1"Believe It or Hot.‘ Hooks (Key 8. 1927) 2. .1],- It was the fashion to satirise and debunk and dissect. and the established practice was to seise upon a humorist and discover that he was really nothing of the kind. He was at bottom a forciless realist. or at least he should have been. It was in the spirit of the times to desipate Lardner as 'the satirist of morons and illiterates.'2 A similar instance is that of Van chk Brooks. who. in _r__h_e Ordeal 3g llark m (e 1920). interpreted Mia's writing as that of a frustrated person. 9. S. Iatthews substantiates this. writing: It always becomes fashionable. among civilised people at a certain point of decadence. to admire the low. the vulyr and the criminal: and though there may be other qualities which Hing Lardner's stories best exemplify. these subJects are present in his work. and they form the principle reason. I think. why he has become almost a fed with the inte11igenteie.3 _ Simon Strunsky 'obJ ects: he blames Lardner's new reputation on the critics. these 'lonely inhabitants of the ivory tower.‘ he says. enJoying Hing Lardner's work Just as much as the crowd below. try to Justify their enJoyment by discovering some latent artistic basis for their appreciation. As an example. note that Charlie Chaplin was praised as a tragedian. not a comedian. by these same critics. "the intellectmlist has consented to like the same thing that the vast maJority of his neighbors like. but insists on a totally different reason.'“ linen" 'Hing Lardner.‘ Le! York Times (Sept. 27. 1933) 20:3. 21bid. 20:3. hm”, Shakespeare and Ohekhov.’ How ngblic. 59 (W 22: 1929) 35- h'dbout Books. More or Less - the Permanent Oontributor.’ fig Iork fines 122nm (flay 2. 1926) it. A third opinion is that Lardner himself was most responsible for his tardy acclaim as a 'serious' writer. because he did not take himself seriously until the last decade of his life. Oscar Oargill. in his volume entitled Intellectual America. points this out. Another writer agrees that although the earlier stories did contain the ele- ments of satirical realism in that the characters were “eccentric Yahoes' or 'boasting braggarts. irrascible and childish in their vanity.' it was not until later that he emphasised these points with 'greater melancholy. with increased scorn.'1 But whatever the cause of Lardner's reputation as a realist- satirist. the argument continues as to the extent of his realism and his satire. Satirist or funmman -- opinions are divided. This bone of contention is the main inyedient in any critical stew over Lardner's merits. so that all discussions of his plots. characters. and style are flavored by it. while they. at the same time. add their own piquancy to the brew. Let us investigate what the critics have to say on each of these points. turning to Lerdner's works in order to substantiate or disprove their arguments. lemes !. Farrell. 'Bing Lardner's Success-led Vorld.’ Leg York fines genius (June 18. 191434) 3. .131 m cmzon. REMION 01' mum's PLAN 01‘ COMPOSITION l. he Oritics Review His Plots Lsrdner's plots or story outlines are often criticised as the weakest part of his work. lhose who refuse to consider him a realist point out this shortcoming. Ihe others tend to ignore the problem of plot altogether. or else try to avoid a discussion of the mechanics in favor of a discussion of the moral purpose behind the subjects chosen for satire. ' Admittedly. if one sits down to read a volume of his short stories at any one sitting. one perceives that the characters are different. the locale changes. but the effect is much the same. A few short stories even seem to use. not only similar. but identical plots. this is an unavoidable coincidence if a writer's repertoire runs into the hundreds. but is rather significant when encountered in such a stall collection as Lardner's. tor instance. “A Caddy's- .5 Diary“ and "Ir. Irisbie' both describe golfers who are unable to I play the game nerely for the sake of playing. but instead must cheat for low scores in order to build up their own egos. In the first story. the caddy explains that he is writing in order to practice composition. because some day he hopes to become a 'pre' and write books. Kr. Irisbie's chauffeur writes the second story in the hope that he will be able to sell it to the newspapers. l'he caddy re— .. 3'! lates that all the 'best people' at the golf club falsify their scores. Only the good players tell the truth. and they are forced -lll- to. because a falsified score would be impossible to attain under the circumstances. So if they make a It and claim a 3 why people would Just laugh in their face and say how did the ball get from the fair way on to the green. did it fly? But the boys that taka'l and 8 strokes to a hole can shave their score and you know they are shaveing it but you have to let them get away with it because you cant prove nothing. But that is one of the penaltys for being a good player. you can't cheat. to hear Joe tell it pretty near everybody are born crooks. well saybe he is right;L Ir. l'risbie's chauffeur caddies for his employer on lonely rounds of golf and witnesses his lapses of memory where the score is con- cerned. Ir. Irisbie‘s ego is also extremely sensitive. Your father will not play golf with anyone and certainly not with a good player and besides that your father is not the kind of a man that wants anyone giving him pointers. Iersonally I would Just as leaf go up tickle him as tell him that his stance is wrong. Another pair of stories that show startling similarities are “I can't Breathe. and “Zone of Quiet.I Both have as their story outline the amours of a young woman. stressing her fickle- ness. insincerity. and thoughtlessness. '1 Can't Breathe' is the rapt exclamation of a high school girl who has become enmed to several young men at the same time and cannot bring herself to 1 M he 399 . zma. . s3. .15- break off with any of them. because. as she rationalises. she doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. “Zone of Quiet' is the saga of a slightly. but not much. more mature individml. a nurse who recounts to her recuperating patient the long sad story of her life and loves. '11.: her current conquests include the 31' (boy friend) of her 01' (girl friend) she rationalises that the 61' didn't appre- ciate the young man nearly enough. 30th stories mention night- clubbing at 'ZBarney Gallant's.' although this particular name does not appear again in Lardner's works. It is interesting to speculate if the repetition of theme and style in the two stories forced the author's mind into an involuntary iterative pattern in which even details are recalled and recorded. Beside this occasional sameness of story outline and detail. another common criticism of Lardner's plots is expressed by Robert Littell when he says: i'here is a curious contrast between the re- . straint and naturalness of his dialogue. his language and his characters and the artificially farcical mechanics of the story.1 To find an example of this patness we have only to turn to a story entitled 'low and fhen.’2 a series of letters written by Irma to a girlfriend on two different occasions. The first group of letters. pained during a honeymoon in lassau. describes a tenderly devoted ) 25. 2mm 23. 237. 1 a rm" 0 m m [rite Short Stories. gmublic. ’40 {goat- 3. 192§ _ -16- bridegroom. fhe second group. sent from the same place three years later. reveals that the husband is definitely more interested in avoiding his wife than in wooing her. The same details are included in each group of letters. and they occur in almost identical chronological order. i‘hese details. of course. provide material for contrasting treatmmt. but the contrast seems too perfect for realism. here seems to be no room for the inconsistancies of daily life. The pathetic qulity of the situation is lost because the reader gradually recognises the stereotyped path that the author followed in setting up the plot. Let us look at a few samples from the first group of letters and note how carefully they are counterbalanced in the second group. 1. ...I was deathly seasick all the way down on the boat. but it my sound funny but I am honestly glad I was because Bob was so perfectly dear and. would not leave me for a minute ... 2. I thought it was quite rough. but Bob said it was Just like a billiard table and he was quite provoked at me being sick and threatened to leave me home the next time he was going anywhere on a boat. ’ 1. As you know I don't play bridge and :Bob says he can't take any interest in games unless I am in them ... 2. After dinner he phoned up to say that he get tangled up in a bridge game with these people and Ihadbettergo to bedandnotwait forhim. l. I had some pictures taken ... and Iwanted to buy two or three of each ... but Bob said I could only bw one of each and that would be for him and he didn't want me sending my pictures around to other peOple. 2. ...he said I needn't waste money on pictures of melf for him as he already had enough of thu and I better send these to IV friends ... ..17- 1. ...Bob won't use the automobiles here as he says the carriages look more in keeping with the place they are so quaint and it would be sacrilegious to use the automobiles. 2. ...Bob says it is silly to ride in the old broken down carriages they have got here when you can get a car and get to places ten times as fast. 1. I don't read aloud very well. but he says he loves to have me as he can sit and look at me while I read and it don't make any difference if I read well or not ... 2. He said ... he could hardly understand me when I read because I mumble my words so ... lven Lardner's play. 32311293. is criticised on the basis of its story outline. If held to its story values. the play would obviously be inconsequential. as would Hr. Lardnei's own short stories were thq similarly restricted. Carl Van Doren firmly believes that these occasional labored contrivances destroy any effect of realism in the stories in which they occur. he admits that Lardner 'has created convincing charac-._.1 ters: he has put convincing words into their mouths: he has set them going in a convincing dance of life. But there he has stopped. too often content to play old tricks until the action seems mechani- cal and his audience wonders whether hischaracters are convincing after all.’2 i fhis stereotyped patness of plot is not found very often in 10‘. Butchins. “June Ileon.’ theater Arts Hont_l_fl_y_. XIII (Decaber. 1929) see. " " " aCarl Van Doren. 'Beyond Grammar. Ring 1. Lardner.‘ Gent_u_11. 106 (July. 1923) I175- ~18- Lardner's works. however. On the other extreme are most of his full length novels and some of his short stories which appear to lack any definite outline or plan. Lardner himself said. When I begin a story I have no idea what it is going to be about. I force sysalf to make a start and than Just flounder along. '1 his is instantly interpreted by one critic as a discovery that Icontemporary life being an entirely fortuitous affair. the literature that sought to convey it not only did not gain but lost in effectiveness by being conducted on any settled plan. J'or this reason admirers of form have not often praised his technique. law of his sentences ud paragraphs begin with an air of conscious adventure and end with a sense of having forgotten Just where they started.“2 his critic. therefore. would classify Lardner a realist. 2. he Critics Review His themes On the other hand. the nJority of the critics who call Lardner a realist or satirist maintain that the mechanisms of the plots have nothing to do with the question. Instead they point to the 'themes. or story ideas. and praise them as being both the true reflections of the American scene and as being salutary in their moral effect. As one critic phrases it: 1'alter fittle. 'Glimpses of Interesting Americans.' Gen «than 110 (July. 1925) 31h 3:. L. Stuart. 'flr. Lardner at the Passing Show.“ 5. :19; It is a world in which the principle of cath mtor applies recurrently in social relationships. in humn relationships of love. friendship. or family. i‘hus the satire of Ring Lardner reveals the working out of the mechanisms of American civili- sation. By depicting in terms of social life. an extension of the competitive system. Lardner reveals certain consequences of thf rise of American econony and American civilisation. Ibis critic believes that Lardner's story ideas all prove to the reader that contemporary society looks on the decent person as a 'sucker' and regards the person with genuine feeling as a 'comic.' regardless of the deficiencies or excellences of the story outlines. Other critics. agreeing that the satiric quality of Lardner's themes overshadows the mechanisms of his plots. point to his em- phasis on hypocrisy and rationalisation. As an eagle. 'Anni- versary' is the story of a woman who cheats at solitaire in order to compmsate for an unbearable marriage. “The Caddy's Diary. stressed the idea that every man has his price: that Ir. Crane. who ran away with the bank funds and a pretty girl. is no more dis- honest than Hr. l'homs. the bank president. who falsifies his golf score for a tournament prise of three golf balls. Well I said it seems to me like these people have got a lot of nerve to pan Hr. Grams and call him a sucker for doing what he done. it seems to me like $8000 and a swell dame is pretty fair re- ward compared with what some of these other peOple sells their soul for. and I would like to tell them about it. Yell said Joe they might tell you this. that l M911. 9. as... 30 when Mr. Thomas asks you how many shots he has had and you say h when you know he has had 5. why you are selling your soul for a $1.00 tip. And when you move Mrs. Doanes ball out of a rut and give it a good lie. what are you selling your soul for? Just a smile. Louis Mumford compares Lardner with Chekhov in respect to his story ideas. saying that neither had any intention of preaching but that 'there is scarcely a story in Round 22 that does not have a salutary moral sffect.‘ And he adds: ...his stories betray the reaction of a sensitive spirit. a man who values kindliness and human decency and intellectual distinction in a society that has crabbed kindliness. given decency a price. and mde intellectual distinction one of the major sins.1 Still another group of critics. believing that Lardner is more than a humorist. maintain that the realism in his stories derives from the skillful blending of the moral effect of his themes with the mechanical contrivances of his plots. fhis. they say. is a faithful facsimile of the “ritual“ of life itself. Just as Marcel Proust understood and applied the principle of self- lypnotism in depicting characters. so does Lardner. lake. for example. the story in which a movie mte continually refers to his home as a 'love nest' and to his wife as a 'perfect little housebodyJ2 Despite the billings and cooings. the reader instantly comprehends that all is not what it seems in the supposedly happy Imam. 220 23.0! 5. 2'Love lest.‘ Round 92. 1929. home. but the honwed vocabulary is the ritual “by which that af- fluent gentleman fools himself into believing in his own importance.“ nr. Chamberlain concludes that “the ritual is part of the Impocrisy ' of life. and Lardner is a great student of hypocrisy. both conscious and unconscious.“ Ihus we find that no critic will dispute that Lardner's plots are mechanical and occasionally labored. but we do find a definite difference of opinion as to whether this is a shortcoming or an advantage; as to whether this was involuntary or premeditated. a literary failure or a triumph of realism. lohamberlain. 32. 933.. 2. m GRHIGS LOOK A! W's CHARACTERS It is in Lardner's depiction of character that the critics hunt for clues to his intentions. serious or otherwise. And it is in their critical interpretations of Lardner's characters that we find many amusing contradictions. When we see the various ways in which trained readers react to the same set of characterizations. we begin to give credence to the story of the three blind men and the elephant. Some critics finger the surface and say that Lardner is innocently amused. Others grope cautiously along the entire length and decide that his amusement manifests kindly condescension. fhe third gram) grabs at the powerful sweep of the tale and says the author's motive is unadulterated hate. foremost among the advocates of considering Lardner's por- trayal of character merely a comic device is Henry Longsn Stuart. who says of the bumbling ball-player in 19.329139. £8 Jack Keefe is a great creation. In view of the inexhaustible supply of dullness on hand. his creator is in the nation's debt for proving that amusement can be extracted from it. And Stuart P. Sherman tends to agree with Mr. Stuart. Al- though he suspects that Lardner reflizes that he is depicting “Vanity lair.“ he feels that. at the last minute. “his primitive western rumor sardonicelly bursts through his “defense mechanism'. 1“Ir. Lardner Burlesques America.“ 12! York lines. 111 (April 19. 1925) 1:1. 4-23- and he can't quite bring himself to go to press without divulging his sense that it is impossible to take these hard-boiled Americans of his seriously.“1 from there it is only a step to Allen levins' opinion that Lardner is a good reporter. but a satirist as well. But note how he qualifies this statusent: If not precisely an urbane satire. it is nearly always kindly. here is nothing sardonic. mordant. or superior about it. It is the satire of a nu who takes it for granted that most human beings are rather little. limited. and dull. and a good may are mean-souled. without particularly caring about it: who strips without condemning: and who is some- times quite Olympian in his detachment. lhen he goes deepest. you find that his noteais rather amused pity than scornful amusesent. Other coments in the same spirit are that “there is often a touch of human sympathy. even in the cruel strokes: the humor. far from being metallic. sometimes has the deepening quality of pathos.“3 Ehis writer uses as an example the story of the girl who is unable to attract her husband because she is moronic. and who pours out her heart to her girl-friend. not comprehending that she is explaining more than she understands. fhe satire focuses on her trenendous stupidity. and we laugh at it. and yet there is a hint of tragedy. toe. in the manner in which it 1. presented. 1“Ring Lardner: Bard-Boiled Americans.“ _!_h_e lla___i_n_ §_____tresm. 1714. 2“The American Koren.“ Saturday“ Review of Literature. Y (June 8. 1929) 1089. 3Lewis llumford. “fhe Salt of Our Gmeration.“ Books. 5. -2h- A reviewer of she Love Nest also remarks that in eight out of the nine stories in this book. Lardner benevolently despises his chief characters. fhe single exception is “Haircut.“ the tale of a village practical Joker whose Jokes are more painful than amusing. his review accuses Iardner of despising the Joker. Jim Kendall. nlevolently instead of benevolently “but Mr. Lardner is not at his best when he is righteously wrathful.“1 At the final extreme are the critics who maintain that Lardner is almost a complete misenthropist. and that his stories reflect the most bitter realism as well as the most sardonic satire. He becomes the deadliest. and the coldest. of American writers in their eyes. If a few of his more serious stories are taken into consideration. such as “haircut.“ “champion.“ “A Day with Conrad Green.“ “the Golden Honeymoon.“ and “fly Boon.“ we find the Judgment passed on his attitude toward his characters as this: He really hates his characters. hates them so much that he has ceased to be indignant at them. there is almost no action left. His satire is absolutely negative: that is why it will never canse a revolution in American numers. as “Main Street“ in its minor way did. no one is uneasy under the whiplash of Mr. Lardner's scorn for he is really not worked up about anything ... He never rails at tae crowd because he has passed beyond raillery. 1’l'rancis news-n, m Review. 71 (April 10. 1926) 3. Perhaps Ir. low-an should be regarded with an uplifted qebrow and a grain of salt. for he is guilty of referring to £91 _t_g Tell Short Stories. when the author's original intention was to describe fig! 23 Yrite Short Stories. 2(Slifton l'adiman. “ritiless Satire.“ Nation. 128 (Kay 1. 1929) 537. .4254 B. L. Kencken does not limit his rues-ks to a consideration of only a few stories. He includes all of Lardner's work from the very beginning. and he condemns it all as bitter and acid satire. Like Swift's. it lacks “the least weakness of amiability. or even pity.“ Although the author enjoyed his characters as comedians. he held them in contempt. according to the reviewer. But Mencken abandons the objective interpretation of Lardner's attitudes and ends with a characteristically sweeping observation: I can recall no character in the Lardner gallery. early or late. sale or female. old or young. who is not loathsome. Although not all the critics are so emphatic. most of them do agree that Lardner's characters are “the most terrible collection of in- dividuals who mags to be at once selfish and brainless that any single writer has ever gathered together in one book ....“2 fhe reason for this unattractiveness becomes apparent as we read on. rhese characters are symbols: they stand for futility. or stupidity. or competition. depending on the story. and. of course. the critic. Lardner's trick is to take some familiar national trait. one that is usually treated with good-natured humor. and to show the basic viciousness beneath it. Il'or instance. “Sun cured“ demonstrates the unpleasantness of washroom sociability. practical Joking becomes repulsive in “Haircut“ and “The Naysville Minstrelz“ 1“A Humorist Shows His Iseth.“ American gem. VIII (June. 1926) 255- zladiman. 92. 933.. 537. “Liberty Hall“ and “Mr. and Mrs. l'ixit“ take all the charm out of good old American hospitality; and marriage becomes dull and deadly in “The Golden Honeymoon.“1 Keeping in mind. therefore. that the characters are symbols. the preface to :32 _K_n_o_! 352 _A_l_ becomes meaningful as well as humorous to us. Lardner says that the original of Jack Keefe was “not a ball player at all. but Jane Addams of Hull House. a former lollies girl.“ and S. P. Sherman cements that there is this much truth in that statement: “Jack is a gross bulk of human nature. who would retain all his essential points of“ interest if he were exhibited as an ice- man aspiring to be a sausage manufacturer. rather than a 'busher' aspiring to hold down a position with the hits 80:.“2 utility is the keynote to so many of these characters.” What could 'be more futile than the life led by the principles in “The Golden Honeymoon?“ This elderly couple on a trip to l'lorida has be- come “so drained of“ inner life. of feelings. of curiosity. that the “3 In order to time-table itself has become highly meaningful ... emphasise this feeling. Lardner has all his characters dwell on the insignificant and the trivial. They are preoccupied with prohibition. or with their golf scores. or with the mistakes of their partners at bridge. Under these three classifications would come almost a half IOlifton radimsn. “Ring Lardner and the Triangle of Hate.“ Nation. 136 (March 22. 1933) 316. zinerman. Q. 933.. 171. hen-e11. pp. 931.. 3. -27- of the stories that he wrote. And the majority of the remainder are the baseball stories. those epics of the diamond. which ponder in devastating detail each second of every game that Jack Keefe pitched or watched. Lardner is constantly criticised for his inclusion of so much nterial of limited appeal. Perhaps he intended it as part of a grand plan to show. again. futility. lo one in his stories escapes it. the rich have often been portrayed as feelish and foot- lsoss; here the poor are likewise denied. lo one has a goal. nor even an interest. that extends beyond the gratification of the primry senses. ll'arrell sums it all up with: ...the terrible iron emerging from his stories is that here they are. these rugged individualists. doing what they claim they want to douenjoying the fruits of money. fame. prestige. bwing the comforts available to American wealth—here they are. alike as rubber stamps. Their main desire is to be a better rubber stamp than the neat sun. And they are so proud of themselves! ... As is usually the case in satire. vices are paraded as virtues; bl”. they strut. eager for praise and applause! Another symbol expressed in the characters of Lardner's stories is the result of free competition. from the pro-Civil Var days. when the thinking men of low hgland first eaprsssed a fear of the consequences of the industrial revolution and its rigorous cometitive system on the society of America. we have not been without erasples of attempts of this same society to escape from the system. Brook l'arm was Just such an escape. It failed. for 11m. 3. the system defeated it. Lardner's characters are the offspring of several generations of competition. railing to escape from their en- vironment. they have become conditioned to it. Like certain tropical fish. thq change their color according to their habitat.1 And Just as the fish cannot prevent their scales from glistening brown or yellow or green on the variegated ocean floor. even if there is no danger. Just so do Lardner's characters react competitively. whether there is Justification for such a course of action or not. fhey apply the principles of hard-boiled business to their social re- lationships. so that friendship becomes a utter of utility. and mriage. a problem in economics. fheir happiness is measured in victories: a bigger car. a “ritsier“ vacation. a more expensive house. they are cynical and sarcastic. for the more they can die-- credit the success of others. the more superior they will appear by comparison. Ivan their recreation has become so competitive that it no longer remains recreation. An outing on the golf course is exhilarating only to the victor; it is a tragic interlude in the lives of the losers. fhis competitive instinct is so deep rooted in Lardner's characters that t_h_gz m coyote with thenselves. 'hy else does a solitary golf player like Hr. Frisbie cheat on his score? thy else the cheating at solitaire in “Anniversary?“ lhy else the rationalisation. the hypocrisy? rhese creatures not only must convince others of their prowess in a “success-sad world.“ but 18ome of these are the lediterranean flat-fish (Platophrys podas). .29. they must convince themselves over and over again. As this happens. the attainment of their goal becomes so over-emphasised that any means to the end is fair play and the rules of the “game“ are quietly dis- regarded. when no “one is looking. fherefore. Lardner's characters demonstrate that competition. turned and twisted into matural outlets. results in Mpocrisy and in the absence of ethical standards. If nature has provided the tropical fish with a protective change of coloring in order to adapt it to its environment. she has gone a step farther with the barracuda. Kore the conditioning is for offensive. not defensive purposes. In the world of the survival of the fittest. the barracuda intends to survive: in order not to be overcome. he becomes the aggressor. So it is with certain of Lardnsr's characters. In “Champion“ Oscar Cargill points out that: Lardner has produced without a quiver of emotion and without yielding the slightest to the temptation to accord poetic Justice. a pee-wee brained sadist. irresistible in achieving his desires because of the singleness of his purpose. everything concentrating on self. Such a portrait belongs fonspicususly in the new gallery of superman. not only do these futile. hypocritical. and competitive creatures symbolise past and present problems. but-they may fors- shadow future ones. In a discussion of Mark fwain's Huckleberry l‘inn. Y. 8. Pritchett says that the title role shows that “he peculiar power of American nostalgia is that it is not only barking 1 Intellectual America. 3141. 2. back to something lost in the past. but suggests also the trageu of a lost future...!hese people are the price paid for building a new comtrle If we look for similarities in Lardner's works. we need not hunt far. 'The Caddy's Diary' shows the boy still wonder- ing at the compromises that peeple make with themselves. but grad- ually realising that these compromises are universal in his small world. He will eventually comply. i'herefore. we find that as a symbolist. Mr. Lardner is un- animously acclaimed. His characters are effective symbols. But are his symbols effective characters? Here again the old question of realism versus humor determines the attitudes of the critics. Are his characters realistic? Yes. comes the answer from some directions. Louis Mumford. especially. believes that Lardner was apt in creating convincing people. and compares him quite favorably with Sinclair Lewis in this respect. morass Lewis documents and describes. he points out. in Lardner's writing 'the story itself is the document and it needs no other aids. The coarseness and flatuluce of Conrad Green. the theatrical manager. is portrayed in and through Conrad Cream.2 Again. are Lardner's characters realistic? No. comes the answer from some directions.“ An anonymous reviewer of £3.19. 15:21. 5 Smile says that here the author 'descends to the mechanical .... 2l"'Husl!':le‘berry Il‘inn and the Cruelty of American Humor“. .111". Statesman £1 Nation. 22 (August 2. 19141) 113. arm-rm. 32. £41.. 5. -31.; One doesn't know whether Danny (the baseball hero) is nature's nobleman under the skin. or Just plain thick and unconsciously cruel. Ring Lardner doesn't bring Danny's fundamental quality out.“1 Kr. Van Doren states it a little differently. but is apt to agree. He regrets that Lardner's principals merge so that only two characters appear from the crowd; “one is Jack. bragging about his prowess in love and war (including baseball). and the other is a case-hardened low-brow. under whatever name. seeing the world with his slightly snobbish wife.“2 Having already considered Lardner's attitude toward his characters. the symbolism implied in his characters. and his skill in depicting character. let no follow Mr. Van Doren's lead into the subject of the types of characters that Lardner employs. l'irst let us inquire what is his source of character? fhen let us in- vestigate what he finally does with them. Iran the early American humorists Lardner has drawn the types for his characters. He has developed them and modernized them. but their eighteenth century beginnings are evident. From the tall tales of the boastful backwoodsmen like Davy Crockett come his brawny bragging athletes of :33 £131 113 Al and L253 11.5.19. 5 Egg-3. as well as of individual stories like “Harmony,“ “W Room,“ 3" Bookie's Letters.“ Ls! York Times M_a_ga_sine (March 26. 1933) 6. 2“Beyond Grammar.“ 147,4. “Llibi Ike.“ and “Hurry Kane.“ From the Yankee glorification of flu. shrewd untutored businessman. such as Jack Downing and Hosea Biglow. comes Lardner's wise-cracking. penny-pinching husbands of Gullible's havels. 1133 2.1.5 32.19.! and several short stories. Irom the southern Civil Var rascals who delighted in torturing the gullible and un- suspecting. such as P. Y. flashy. Sut Lovingood. and Simon Suggs. come the characters of the practical Jokers in “Haircut“ and the “Maysville Minstrel“ and the minor characters that manufacture hoaxes in all the baseball stories. Since almost all his creatures. even the females. fall into one or more of these categories. it is no wonder that Henry L. Mencken accused him of having but two stock characters. and both of them “lowly ignoramuses.“1 Those critics who claim Lardner is merely a humorist are inclined to use Lardner's indebtedness to the humorous tradition in America to prove their point. On the other hand. those who be- lieve he is a realist-satirist say that human life is merely a series of repetitions. and that Lardner's method of utilizing stock characters is not only effective satire. but that “the effect is indistinguishable from that of life itself.“2 Ihus the controversy continues. Having discussed the externals of characterisation in such detail. it might be interesting to turn to a few direct examples. 1?reJudices. Fifth Series. 377. 2“Ihe Library.“ American m. II (July. 192%) 376. -33- i is my have to read an entire story before we can prove that the people in, it are lowly. but it takes only a minute to discover that they are ignoramuses. Jack Keefe is a prime example. He says I will spare you this one for three dollars. I says You must take me for some boob. Ea says No I wouldn't insult no boob. So I walks on but if e had of insulted me I would have busted him. Yhen later in the same book. Jack's prowess at pitching comes in for a little criticism. and he says: This smart ales flcGraw. was trying to kid me to-day and says W did not I make friends with Mathewson and let him learn me some thing about pitching and I says Mathewson could not learn me nothing and he says I guess that right and I guess they is not nobody could learn you nothing a bout nothing and if you was to stay in the league 20 years probily you would not be no better then you are now so you see he had to add nit that I am good Al even if he has not saw me work when in arm was 01.2 ‘ . 7Lardner's characters are further distinguished by the com- plste lack of a sense of humor. but they. of course. are unaware of this. ' They go bumbling along. getting their biggest laughs from the most trite Jokes. and congratulating themselves on their own second-hand wit. Jack Keefe is notorious for the typical snappy I comeback: . And then he says I wish we had. of sent you to nilwaukee I come back at him. I says I wish you had of. ’10.! .....nov so. a. 53. znid., 220. 31116... 55. As well as; He hit it all right but it was a line drive rigat in Chase's hands. He says Pretty lucky Boy but I will get you next time. I come right back at him. I says Yes you will. If this is a horrible. but typical. example of the wit of the brawny athletic type in Lardner's works. should we sweet more from the shrewd wise-cracking husband type? We should. but we are bound to be disappointed. Note this sparkling originality: I suppose you peOple wants to hear about my trip across the old pond. then I say the old pond. I mean the Atlantic Ocean. Old pond is what I call it in a kind of Joking wq. Well. the wife hadn't never been to Europe. but she was half scared to go on account of sea- sickness which she even gets it on a bicycle. Personally I am a good sailor. Of course when I say good sailor I don't mean I would be any good sailing a boat. but it's Just an eqression I got up for a person that don't get sick easy. Along with this happy confidence in their own wit. Lardner's characters have inherited from the early backwoods humorists a supreme ago. which manifests itself in other directions. Yhey was a letter here from Violet and it pretty near made me feel like crying. I wish they was two of me so both then girls could be happy.3 And another example is: So I says I would do the best I could and I thanked him for the treatment I got in Yerre Baute. they always was good to me here and though I did 111514.. 57. that 2533}. 3. 333. Know 5. g. 66. more than nw share I always felt that my work was appresiated. We are finishing second and I done most of it. I can't help but be proud of my first year's record in professional baseball and you know I am not boasting when I say that Al.)- As a result of this egotism. these same peeple are repulsive for their self-centered thoughtlessness. They are tight with their menu; they are callous and hard-hearted; and their lack of tact shows that they never, no. never. give a single thought to the other person's feelings. Even romance cannot make Jack Keefe loosen up. and marriage is Just another business deal with him. My new brother-in-law Allen told me I should ought to give the priest 5 and I thought it should be about & the same as the license so I split the difference and gave him $3.50. I never seen him before and probily won't never see hit: again so why should I give him anything at all when it is his business to marry couples? But I like to do the right thing. You know me Ll. Ehe callousness of the husband in she 11.5 Leg, although often cropping out. is so exaggerated that it gives the reader the impression that it is Just for effect. as if the characters are ashamed of showing emotion, and so cover up by going to the other extreme. On the other hand. regardless of their motives in acting hard-hearted. their actions prove that they do consider anyone with any sensibilities a comic. You have to be hard to survive in Lardner's world. In mung or the death of his rich father-in- lnm. . 10. ZIbid. . sh. law. the husband says: I immediately had a black bandage sewed round 1w left funny bone. but when they read us the will I felt all right again and tore it off. Our share was seventy-five thousand dollars. This was after we had paid for the inheritance tax and the amusement stamps on a horseless funeral. . Lndthe women are more cold and calculating,‘ if possible. than the men. One poor girl was deeply in love with a young aviator who was perfecting a new plans. which crashed. killing his. Ber brother-in-law describes her insurmountable grief: Sis is taking it pretty calm. She's sensible. She says if that could have happened. why the invention couldn't of been no good after all. And the Villimses pregably wouldn't of give hill a plugged dime for it. In some cases it is hard to determine whether stupidity caused un- conscious thoughtlessness. or whether the cruelty was directly in- tended. Is it possible that anyone writing a letter to a friend and his wife could be so obtuse as not to know how this sort of thing would make the recipient feel? You and Bertha and I and l'lorence will have all kinds of good times together this winter because I know Bertha and l'lorence will like eachother. norence looks something like Bertha at that. I am glad I didn't get tied up with Yiolet or Basel even if they was a little bit prettier than l'lorence. 122.: an .....rm. 2. 21:33 1;; ram. 133. 3.1.0.2 .....Inov £2 .41: 81- And what Jack asks Al to do a favor for him. you suspect how it will turn out. .As a satire on human nature in general. this is particup" larly appropriate. I am grateful to you Al for trying to fix it up but maybe you could of did better if'you.had of went at it in a different way. I am not find- ing no fault with my old pal though. Don't think that. then I have a pal I am the man to stick to him thru thick and thin.1 Iron these critical appraisals of Lardner's characters it is possible to draw the following conclusions. Yhe critics are in substantial agreement on two points: that_the author despises his “puppets. although he sometimes softens his scorn.with.hnmor. and that he uses his characters as symbols of unpleasant attributes of the human race. But. since all of his characters fall into certain limited and well-defined groups characterized by stupidity.. vulgarity. and callousness. the critics continue to debate two other points. Ihey are prone to doubt his skill in.portrayal of individual characters and to question his range of artistic and realistic characterisation. to risk a generalisation is dangerous. in view of the dif- ferences of opinion expressed. but it may be assumed that.Lardner is realistic in his depiction of character within.the.limdtations.\ that have been mentioned above. IMO.- . 95. m 03.1!!ch REFINE 01' W's ms l. he Critics Evaluate the Quality of Lsrdner's Humor Besides his plots and his characters. Lardner's style of writing is the third factor that one must consider before classify- ing him as a hustorist or a realist-satirist. Any discussion of his style should include an investigation into the aptness and accuracy of his dialogue and into the types of literary devices that he an- ployed. Since a critical Judgment on the quality of his humor must rest on these external evidences. it is surprising to find such varied opinion among the reviewers as this: Along with a few other men who have lived. Kr. Lardner has the power to make even the most stra- bilious reader laugh out loud...Ee is. to me at least. the funniest writer alive todw... Is were not amused. keept for an occasional twitching smile. we found ourselves impervious. ...Ye hape it will have a large sale in kgland. where they admire American humor. They could not possibly understand it there. but tgey would be perfectly certain that it was funny. With the first critic. two others side: one calls Lardner's prose 'sheer irresponsible nonsense. of the kind that only Lardner can turn out—easy. uneven. surprising. not quite up to his ark as a In. . . . .B. . . . . 'l'he Reigning Jester“ . Independent. 1111 (Kay 23. 1925) 590. 2Anon.. 'How to Write Short Stories: a review.“ Outlook. 138 (Sept; 17. 192k) 100. .39- whole. but dotted with those wild flashes of 21% carat craziness which make one laugh out loud. '1 The other states definitely. I1'01:- llr. Lardner is a humorist. not a satirist. not even an ironiet.‘2 Siding with the apposition are critics who cement that 'some'peOple think he is very funny—but that is Just his collection of professional humorists bag of tricks."3 and 'there is hardly a trace of good-natured humor in him)“ Ordinarily this wide discrepancy of Opinion could be accred- ited to the individual tastes of the critics. some of whom have a wider appreciation of humor than others. But another factor is also involved in Lardner's case. This factor is the interpretation of humor. not merely its appreciation. Some reviewers classify Lardner as a mere humorist and Judge his humor for amusement's sake alone. Would they not tend to be more exacting in their demands on the qmlity of his humor than those reviewers who believe Lardner is primarily a realist-satirist and only incidentally a humorist? l'or example. 111th Walton suggests that Lardner cannot be evaluated by external evidences because it is his stunt to 'play dumb. to indulge in comic misspellings. to imitate the meager moronic lingo of most Americans-4nd so to heighten the satiric humor which crackles Just below the surface.'5 1L(itte11). B(obert). “The Story of a Wonder Man: a review.“ £335 Baublic. 50 (Harch 30, 1927) 178. 2Anon.. IBing Lardner's 'Autobiography' is Buoyant Burlesque.‘ yaw York Times (April 3. 1927) 5. 3Stuart Sherman. The Main Stream. 17o. l‘LGilbert Seldes. 'The Singular—Although Dual-1Iminence of Bing Lardner.“ American Criticism. 227. ed. by William A. Drake. 5'Eomage to the Genius of Ring Lardner.‘ §_e_w York Times Maine (June 10. 19810 2. 4:0- 2. The Critics Evaluate the Realism or Lardner's Language If it is true that Lardner_uses humorous devices not for the sake of humor alone. but to characterise his people and to develop the story idea. then the accuracy of his reporting must be considered. In the first place. the accuracy or realism of the moronic dialogue and illiterate letters of his characters are causes for controversy. Since 1818. when John Russell Bartlett published his Dictiom pi Americanisms. reviewers have been very conscious of the philelog of their authors. In his introduction. Bartlett said that literary writing was poor. but praised writing in the vernacular as practised at that time by the creators of Jack Downing and Sam Slick. Later he added Lowell's 3.152.! m to his recom- mended list.1 Lowell. who was noted for his scholarly approach to the study of linguistics. wrote. 'True vigor of emression does not pass from page to page. but from man to men. where the brain is kindled and the lips are lilbered by downright living interests and by passions in the very throe.‘2 But writing colloquial language has its disadvantages; thq are threefold. l'he writer must avoid the influence of the past: he must avoid misspelling words merely for a humorous effect of illiter- acy: and he must be on his guard against words which are misspelled in order to appear phonetic. but actually are not. llalter Blair. Native American Humor. 52. 2Atlantic Monthly. 17 (Bovember. 1859) 538. 4n;- In order to be realistic. each writer who attempts to report contemporary speech must chart his own path; his pitfalls occur where the going was smoothest for his predecessors. Since the spoken language of a. peeple is changing constantly. he has no tra- dition to follow. fhe linguist-humorist has a dual problem in this respect because of the great temptation to capy comic ideas and dialects from his predecessors. and because his humor must sound perfectly spontaneous although the language must be worked over carefully. Lardnu- has been accused of unoriginality by critics who point out that his Young Immigrunts resembles Harkj'l‘wain's Innocents M and that there is more than a suspicion of Mrs. Kalaprop in some of his most successful characters. However. it is difficult to find any criticism directed at the ease and seeming spontaneity of his dialogue. Again. in order to be accurate. each writerpmust be constantly aware of what he is writing. and must make the fine distinction be- tween misspelling for phonetic purposes and misspelling merely for the effect of illiteracy and humor. Lowell analyzed the problem in regard to his Hosea Biglou: As for Hosea. I am sorry that I began by making him such a detestable speller. There is no fun in bad spelling itsflf...You see I am getting him out of it gradually. _ 1 Blair. 22. 2.3.3." 5“. !here are many traditional misspellings utilised to produce humor- ous effects. and. among them. the letter 'r' has developed special comic sigificance. In an article entitled 'Notes on the Vernacular.' Louise Pound states: !e return to a. we have been educated in these days to recognize its omission as well as its addition to be humorous. The moment we encounter the added 5's of m and dorg in our reading we know that we have to do with humor. and so with school-mam. The added con- sonants are supposed to be spoken if the words are uttered. but. as a matter of fact. they are less often uttered than seen. the words are. indeed. visual forms; the humor is chiefly for the eye.)- Vith this principle in mind. Artemus lard wrote of his 'orfice.’ his “pollerticksfl' and his "perlitical' connections; Josh Billings and P. V. Nasby used I'hoss.' 'fust.’ 'pusley' (parsley). and similar misspellings. In Lardner's works we find few counterparts except in the 'arsked' and 'becarze' of 'The Young Immigrunts." Another method of obtaining a facetious. but not exactly an illiterate effect. was through the use of final 'r.' 2 Although other humorists have written 'feller.' 'otter' (ought to). 'pOpper.' and 'mommer.‘ Lardner is innocent of the artifice. Admittedly he does use 'holler' (from halloo) and 'idear.' but the one has become a standard word in American colloquial speech and the other is re- gional. 1American harem, :11 (1921+) 233. anus” 23h. 4+3- Dialect writers often resort to adding the wrong termination to unexpected adjectives in order to designate illiteracy.1 When Dickens wrote “leakingest' and Valt Vhitman wrote 'lovingest.' there was novelty in the idea. Such is no longer the case. But it is Lardner's publishers. not the author himself. who are guilty of using this device. Their advertisement for M 'Em M calls it 'the latest and laughingest book by the author of fly 1932 M1 is. 1121.122.” finally. one other linguistic pitfall for the humorist is the temptation to misspell a word in order to make it appear a phonetic representation. although the misspelling does not change the actual pronunciation of the word. “fluz' for "was'I and “a2' for 'as' are our most common examples. Although these misspellings cannot be condemned as inaccurate. they should not be praised as a contribu- tion to realism for they are of much more value to the humor of the writing than to the linguistics. Lardner is not even tempted to try this. except again in "The Young Immigrunts' and in a few other instances where 'nerly' and 'haveing' and “curage' occur in letters written by his characters. and not in dialogue or exposition. Thus they testify to the supposed youth or ignorance of the authors and absolve Lardner of any responsibility for their use. Clearly. Lardner does not regularly utilize any stock 1Ilfbid. . 235. method for producing an effect of illiteracy in the written or spoken English of his characters. He does not sacrifice accuracy to entertainment. Therefore. humor seems to be the result of his misspellings. but realistic reporting seems to be their motivation. The illiteracy of Lardner's characters points not to a lack of formal schooling. but to a peculiar state of mind. They are all handicapped by that slappy kind of thinking that results in common grammatical errors. substitutions of words that sound alike. and weirdly Jumbled sentences. His characters are not aware that they are illiterate and comical. Instead. they seem to be trying their best to be correct. In their letters. for example. they will use 'am not“ instead of 'ain't.‘ and 'do not“ instead of "don't.'I in an attempt to be formal in the midst of a mass of grammatical blunders} Lardner seems to emphasise the sloppy thinking itself. not the errors which it produces. Gilbert Seldes said that “Lardner has understood the habits of mind which 'make' our speech much more than our mispronunciations do.'2 The authordraws an indirect moral: that a person who cannot think logically. cannot speak clearly. With this purpose in mind. Lardner does not merely record language. He does not reproduce. like a court secretary. every slip and every error. Instead. he exercises an extremely selective lhsnryL. Mencken. The American Language. 276. 2Seldes. American Criticism. 22!}. 445-4 Judgment in order to sketch illiteracy with deft. light touches; but not to 'mirror it completely. Thus he earns the praises of critics who commend “the consistancy of his character and his talk”)- and say that he I'writes vernacular like an artist and not merely like a clever Journalist ....2 Therefore. in order to emphasize this careless habit of mind. when Lardner's characters depart from the grammatical path mapped out by authority. they depart along rambling detours. by way of the double negative and along amazing tenses of verbs. Jack Keefe writes: I guess you have not never had no chop suye Al and I am here to tell you you have not missed nothing but when Allen was going to buy the supper what could I say? I could not say nothing) And he also writes: They have gave me plenty of work here all right. I have pitched fourhtimes but have not went over five innings yet. 'The Young Immigrunts' represents the attempt of a small boy to chronicle a vacation trip. and since it attempts to reproduce a child's efforts at phonetic spelling. can scarcely be Judged by the same standards that we use in evaluating the dialogue or letters of a more mature character. However. it often exemplifies the 1mum. 1.1 ggpublic. ha. 1. eldmund Wilson. “How to Write Short Stories: a review.“ Dial. 77 (311179 192,4) 700 33.0.2 ....me is 9.1.- :5. ”ma. . 23. type of Jumbled sentence that does double duty as humor and realism. It was nerly midnight when we puled up in frunt of m ants and uncles house in Detroit that had been siting up since 7 expecting us. To add to their errors. Lardner's uneducated Americans often confused words that are phonetically similar. They are among the first to recognise 'of' as an auxiliary verb. Thus they say: 'I opened the serious here and beat them easy but I know you must of saw about it in the Chi papers.’2 and 'They should only ought to '3 And his char- of had one but Bodie misJuged a easy fly ball ... acters substitute “another" for 'or other.’ as in this example: ”... and for some reason another when authors starts. in on that subJ act it ain't very long till they've got a weeping Jag)“ Even when his characters were not so illiterate. Lardner found their foibles of speech and reproduced them. Evidently it was these attempts on his part to recreate realistic speech that led an hglish reviewer to remark that "his gift of dialogue was as great as Chekhov's.'5 Certainly it is true that the dialogue of his characters was tailored to fit them exactly. and. because of this they spoke for themselves. with very little help from the author.6 One of his short stories in Round k. entitled 'Dinner.‘ J'Ihat 93; 32, 231. 23.02 Law he. a. 6-2. 31m... 23. 1122 'I_B_i_g Town. 15. Snisabeth Bibesco. “Lament for Lardner.“ Living 553. 315 (December. 1933) 3670, ’ ittell. is; Baublic. 25. an. revolves completely around the characterization of two young ladies by their small talk at a party. It describes the plight of Harry Barton who is seated at table between Miss Bell. who talks continually. and Miss Coakley. who never finishes a sentence. Mr. Burton. I was Just telling Mr. Walters about -- I don't know whether you'd be interested or not - maybe you don't - but still every- body I've told. they think - it's probably -- And so Miss Coakley goes 'on and on until poor Harry turns to his other partner. Miss Bell. who asks him: Do you play golf? Yes. » You ought to try it. It's lots of fun especially for a man. I mean men seem to have such good times playing together. the nineteenth hole and all that. And I should think it would be such wonderful re- laxation for you over the week-end after that Wall Street grind. I'm not in Wall Street. Oh. now that I've got an expert here. I wish you'd tell me what are bulls and what are bears ... A final evaluation of Lardner's use of the vernacular should determine if it is mere humor. or literal transcript. or satirical in intention. We find reviewers with all three views. One says that because of his language '...he has produced true humor—a kind of humor that carries along with it a gentle glow of freshness and 2 gsyety....' Another maintains that “...he has an unexcelled. almost 1'This story finally becomes hilarious when Harry Barton leads Miss Bell right around in a conversational circle so that she starts all over again with golf and Wall Street. having never once listened either to his remarks or to his answers. 2Masson. Q__ur_ American Humorists. 187. Jig- unrivaled. mastery of what has come to be known as the American language. '1 A third critic calls his characterization through dia- logue. satire. saying. 'His gift of mimicry has possibly been praised because it is accurate. but tint is the wrong reason. He uses it to show up the dull miserable mind of the American moron. '2 l'inally. a fourth group of critics appeared who claimed that Lardner's linguistics were neither accurate nor realistic. Dis- senting opinions accused him of using a vernacular 'which is hardly the American language. but Mr. Lardner 's own invention'3 and which “appears merely as a refinement on the daily efforts of a dozen sports-writers and Journalists whom one might readily call to mind.” Henry Longen Stuart disputes Lardner's claims to originality of diction. saying that “some of his 'vulgarisms' are no more vulgar than the Vulgate' and adding as an example that Chaucer used 'Be told me how ...' Mr. Stuart goes on to say that Lardneri's use of the double negative and his preference for the strongly inflected verb. such as 'clang' for 'clung' is 'a return to the pre—Addisonisn fleribility which makes hglish of the sixteenth and seventeenth J‘uiimi. 22. 931.. 70. iman. ration. 136. 317. 3Donald Douglas. “Bing Lardner as Satirist.' lation. 122 (May 22. 1926). 5811. hradiisan. Iation. 128. 536. 4:9- emturies. even when tinkers and sailors wrote it. so noble an instrument for thought and emotion. '1 Regardless of the Opinion expressed by these last few critics. the majority of the reviewers agree that Lardnu's dialogue is orig- inal. accurate. and even brilliant. In fact. it is in his careful use of contemporary speech that his greatest claims to realism seem to lie. 3. lbs Critics Evaluate Lardner's Literary Devices for a while it looked as if the emphasis on the vernacular in Lardner's writings would completely overshadow the other merits of his work. As Gilbert Seldes phrased it. 'Perhaps when 193. Egg! 1e. _A_l_ had run as long as it needed to run. one might have feared that Mr. Lardner. having discovered the American language as his medium. simply didn't now what to do with it.'2 Yet Lardner eventually overcame this obstacle. Es solved the problem by making l'llr. Lardner Burlesques America.“ 2;. In an article a year later (In 1111; fines (April 1}. 1926) 5:1 fir. Stuart allowed himself to be rather carried away by his subject. and made the statement that 'It is interesting to note. as one proof the more of a scholar- ship few contemporaries suspected. his revival of a device comon with De Joe and other pro-Addisonian writers. namely. the rather free use of the phrase 'I mean!“ lo amount of money is too much to spend on home. I mean its a good investment if it tends to make your family proud and satisfied with their home. I mean every nickel I've spent here is like so much insurance...(from the 'Love Nest") i'his latent scholarship must have surprised Lardner himself. 22h: Seven Lively Arts. 112. —50- this casual colloquial English the keynote of his entire style. so that the emphasis on the vernacular eventually became evenly dis- tributed over all the component parts of his writing. l'hat he was‘ successful in coordinating dialect to style is evidenced by this comment from another critic: By itself. his practised illiteracy is unim- portant except as it contributes to the wealth of Americanisms. But in clothing his stories this vernacular creates a perfect style. less melodious than Moore's. less colorful than Cabell's. less conscious than Doughty‘s. yet fully as agreeable and perhaps not so tiresome as that of the last two named} Since the language of his characters is loose and casual. the remainder of his style appears Just as unconscious and innocent of literary subterfuge. But the sentences and paragraphs that appear so casual. prove to contain. on closer observation. many skill- fully planted literary devices. humorous and otherwise. Although Lardner gives ambitious young writers this warning. he does not follow his own advice: We was taught in rhetoric class that the main thing to remember in writing was to be terse and concise and etc. and not to use no wds. that was not necessary. I don't lmow if this teaching is still in vogue. but if so I advice young men who expects to write for a living to forget it as soon as possible a specially if they aspire to member- ship in the Baseball Writers Assn. of America.2 There are no useless sentences in Lardner's novels. no useless words in his short stories. His style of writing 'Haircut.‘ a famous 1Thomas Boyd. “Lardner tells Some low Ones." Bookman. 59 (July. 192”) 602. 2What I Ought to of Learnt in High School.“ American ms. XOYI (November. 1923) 78. -51- short story supposedly narrated by a town barber. is praised as an example of conscious econonw of words. Though the method chosen to narrate this tale would seem to one unacquainted with it waste- ful. actually every word is probably more effec- tive than the accompanying snips of the barber's scissors. Lardner had become marvelously adept at securing econonw within garrulity. and at the height of his powers produced models that imitators have found spare enough when they tried to secure the same results with eqml brevity. Ihe only occasions when Lardner appears to ramble is in his baseball stories. where paragraph after paragraph of minute detail concerning the game becomes dull and tedious. Perhaps this was a concession to the lovers of the sport. but it is an unfortunate concession. for it gives his fiction a false appearance of athletic didacticism and anchors his lightest wit. A paragraph or two from a single story should demonstrate the point. The story is entitled Women." and is a pitcher's account of the many times that the 'fair sex' brought about his downfall. Well. we come into the ninth innin's with the score tied and it was gettin' pretty dark. Ve got two of them out. and then their first baseman. Jansen. he got a base on balls. Bill Boone caught a hold of one Just right and cracked it to the fence and it looked like Jansen would score. but he was a slow runner. Davy Shaw. our shortstop. thought he must of scored and when the ball was thrown to him he throwed it to me to get Boone. who was tryin' for three bases. 1 Oargill. 32. cit.. 3’42. .52. Well. I had took in the situation at a glance; I seen that Jansen hadn't scored and if I put the baseball on Boone quick enough. why the run wouldn't count. So I lunged at Boone and tagged him before Jansen had crossed the plate. But Pierce said the score counted and that Boone wasn't out because I'd missed him. Missed him! Say. I bet that where I tagged him they had to take stitches! Anyway. that give 'em a one run lead. and when the first two fellas got out in our half everybody thought it was over. But Davy Shaw hit one to right center that a man like I could of ran around twice on it. but they held Davy at 1 third base. And it was up to me to bring him in. This quotation neither brings the these of the story into focus. nor does it further the plot.2 It is almost completely extraneous. And yet the material above was preceded in the story by three paragraphs of similarly detailed matter and followed by one para- graph. making seven paragraphs in all to delay the action of the story. With the exception of the detail in the baseball stories. Lardner's method of writing moves the stories along rapidly without apparent effort. there seems to be an easy swing to his style. and a sprawling lack of consciousness of his form. Although his humor appears natural and spontaneous. it is founded on the traditional elements of exaggeration. surprise. and faulty reasoning. 1Bound 23. 155. 2'.l.'here is a possible eqlanation of the inclusion of this detail. Lardner may have put it in Just because it was tedious in order to demonstrate the garrulity of his character “and to emphasise the monotony of his conversation. -53- Like the old Yankee humorists he delights in exaggeration for effect. both in oven-emphasis and in flat understatement. His description of the main character in 'Hurry Xane' is in the old ante bellum tradition. Standing six foot three in what was left of his stockings. he was wearing a suit of Arizona store clothes that would have been a fair fit for Singer's youngest Midget and looked like he had pressed it with a tractor that had been parked on a river bottom. He had used up both the collars that he figured would see him through his first year in the big league. This left you a clear view of his Adam's apple. which would make half a dozen pies. You'd have thought from his shoes that he had Just managed to grab hold of the rail on the back platform of his train and been dragged from Yuma to Jackson- ville. But when you seen his shirt. you wondered if he hadn't rode in the cab and loaned it to the firemen for a wash-cloth. He had a brown paper suitcase held tagether by bandages. Some o them had slipped and the raw wounds was exposed. One of the characters in 'Frame-Up' handles a description in a similar manner. He was made up for one of the hicks in "Way Down East'. He'd bought his collar in Akron and his coat sleeves died Just south of his elbow.. l‘rom his pants to his vest was a toll call. He hadn't never shaved and his w'iskers was Just the right number and len'th to string a violin. Thinks Howard to himself: “If you seen a stage rubs dressed like that. you' say it was overdone.” 1'3on go. 88. Ibid. . M9. .52;— Lardner's figures of speech are as far-fetched and exaggerated as his descriptions. and yet are perfectly suited to both the charac- ters he portrays and the form in which he writes. If. in his dialogue. his metaphors are fantastically muddled. it is because these metaphors are spouted by characters who never knew what a metaphor was and would probably deny emphatically that they ever used one. When the sarcastic husband in The _B_i_g 2012 has to wait in the diner of the train with his wife and sister-in-law. he tells of his experience with the two hungry. impatient ladies like this: ...I've often wondered what would of happened in the trenches Over There if ladies had of been occ‘qaying them when the rations failed to show up. I guess the bombs bursting round would of sounded like Sweet and Low sang by a quextette of deaf mutes. Anyway. my two charges was like wild animals. and when the can finally held up two fingers I didn't have no more chance or desire to stop them than as if they was the Center College Football Club right after opening prayer. Lardner's characters may lack grammtical sense. but they are richly endowed with the talent for using out-of-the-way modes of expression. Therefore. instead of telling us that a man is elderly. the shrewd husband says: He'd seen baseball when the second bounce was out. If he'd of started his career as a barber in Washington. he' of tried to wish a face massage on Zachary Taylor. 455- Thus. exaggeration makes up one elanent of Lardner's humor. Another element is surprise. Sheridan invented Mrs. llalaprOp for the express purpose of surprise. and succeeding humorists are greatly indebted to him. Shillaber's Mrs. Partington carried on the tradition in America. And so. from Artemus Ward. with his 'Book of Goaks'. to Ring Lardner. with his "Gullible's Travels“. we have a fairly clear line of tradi- tional humor. a kind of philosOphical ribaldry. and the creator of a new set of trick words is generally well rewarded. George Ade did it. Peter Dunne did it ... In Mr. Lardner's case it consists of a combination of bad spelling and bad grammar. often unerringly applied in a par- ticular way.1 Lardner's particular application results in a number of humorous devices. such as puns. misuse of learned terms. misquotee. tri- umphant use of trite emressions. etc. Therefore we find that his use of the vernacular was realistic in its conception. but that the end result is often humorous. Basil Davenport points out that Lardner differs from a great many humorists in this respect: that he used his illiteracy for comic effect. and not merely to display it 'as medieval Jesters displayed idiocy.‘ We do not feel tempted to laugh at Lardner's characters because they are stupid. but be- 2 cause their stupidity leads to insane and ridiculous puns. 1Thomas L. Masson. .... Literary Review of the Ike! York Evening Post. 7 (May 2, 1925) 6'"“"". “—- Z'Lardner at his Best.’ Saturday Review 2; Literature. I (July 7. 1931*) 793- -55. what have you been doing even since 3 oclock arsked 11w mother as it was now nerly 5. Eaveing a high ball my father replied. I thought Detroit was dry said my mother s 1y. Did you said 11w father with a rye smile ... The young "illlmigrunt'I writes about his father's experience with a short cut. which ended. as most short cuts do. quite unfortunately. The lease said about the results of 11y fathers grate idear the soonest mended in a word it turned out to be a holycost of the first water as after we had covered miles and miles of ribald roads we sud- denly came to a abrupt conclusion vs the side of a stagnant freight train that was stone deaf to honks. My father set there for nerly i a hour reciteing the h Horses of the Apoplex in a undertone but finely my mother mustard up her curage and said affect why dont we turn around and go back somewheres. Another of Lardner's gentlemen made the sage observation that 'the ladies was shaking like an aspirin 1eaf."3 and Jack Keefe wrote to his friend that "She wasn't no good Al and I figure I am well rid of her. Good riddance is rubbish as they any.“l When he writes a personal essay. Lardner is Just as surprising and irrepressible. Telling us how it feels to be thirty-five years old. he demonstrates an advanced vocabulary. terribly mutilated. Lardner. “The Young Immigrunts.' What 33 £27. 232. Rid... 238. mid U The Big Town. 70. .r 103 bowie Al. 148. When a guy is named Bing W. and is expected to split their sides when ever somebody asks if your middle name is Worm which is an average of 365 times per ennum over a period of 35 annums. why it can't help from telling on you. 11911 it was 5 or 6 yrs. ago when I realised that I was past nw nonages as they say. I seen then that I wasnt no longfr a larva and I guess maybe it hurt at first. Such humor. depending on surprise for effect. is humor on a very low plane: it is terrible. But that recalls one characteristic of Lardner's characters. They have no sense of tumor themselves. so that when they indulge in terrible repartee. and everyone laughs derisively at them. they think they are being original and witty. Dan Longwell points out that Lardner occasionally pretends this same egotism. and 'loves to pass off poor stories and puns. knowing full well that a story can be Just as funny for the wit it lacks as for the wit it has.'2 In addition to exaggeration and the element of surprise. Lardner depends on faulty reasoning to draw a chuckle from his readers. We have already discussed his use of rationalization in the depiction of character. This same rationalization is equally effective as a humorous device. There is something irresistibly funny about a person who misconstrues his own motives. or who draws a faulty conclusion when confronted with facts. as in the following exsmple. Lardner looked at statistics concerning age groups and 11mm 3; 337. 266. 263. 2"Loud Laugiterfl 1e: {ark Tribune. I (May 10. 1925) 9. -53- found that 7’49 out of 10.000 peOple die between 10 and 11 years of age. and that: ... After that the older you get the longer you live up to when you are 59 and then you can Just about count on liveing IN and seven-tenths yrs. more. In other wds.. if you ain't one of the 7‘49 that crokes between 10 and 11 why you are safe untill about June of the yr. when you are 73. So a person is a sucker to try and take care of himself at m age and from my on I am going to be a loose fish and run wild. Upon Lardner's linguistics and style rests the final evalua- tion of his reputation as a realist-satirist or as a humorist. The accuracy of his language and the naturalness of his dialogue tend to assure him the former title. On the other hand. he is not com- pletely innocent of misspelling for comic effect. and not for linguistic reasons. Moreover. his literary devices label him a humorist. for he employs time-tested methods to obtain humorous exaggeration. surprise. and faulty reasoning. As a result of the effect of his linguistics as opposed to his manner of egression. the debate of style, too. ends in a draw. 1"Symptoms of Being 35." What pf it]. 262. -59- THE AUTHOR ADDS HIS OPINION Ring Lardner never seems to have made any direct statement as to his intentions in writing. nor has he given any clue to the inter- pretation of his work. In turning to his few personal essays and to his numerous interviews for indirect evidences. we find ourselves somewhat frustrated for two reasons. l'irst. there is so little material that appears to be frankly sincere: and second. there is so much spoofing on Lardner's part. even in his interviews. that it is almost impossible to determine where the funnyman leaves off and the honest thinker takes over. Henry Longan Stuart comments that although some satirists had formed the practice of writing with their tongues in their cheeks. it was Lardner's great discovery that writing with his tongue stuck out lent impressiveness to his work.1 A typical instance occurred when a newspaper womn asked several prominent authors to contribute to a symposium. Each author was to write an essay showing how his wife had helped him in his career. Lardner wrote: I was never one to keep a diary. and so must depend on an unsteady. Volsteady memory for the things aw wife has done for me. In 1911‘ or 1915. I think it was July. she cleaned m white shoes. In 1918 she told the man at the draft board that she and three kiddies were dependent on me for support. In 1921 and again in 1923 she brought in some ice. Vhite Rock. and glasses. 1 'Mr. Lardner at the Passing Show.“ 5. -50.. She dusted aw typewriter in 1922. Late one night in 1921+ we got home from somewhere and I said I was hungry and she gave me a verbal picture of the location of the pantry ...1 Another poll of famous men asking the question 'To what do you attribute your success?I received this unqualified answer from Lardner: To Home Run cigarettes and a family with extravagant tastes which always needs money. 2 Be poked fun at established conventions in writing as well as at conventions in living. Yet it is hard to determine if his feeling is genuine satire or merely humor for humor's sake. His introduction to £91 1:2 m §_1_1_<_>_r_t_ Stories is a hilarious parody of the advice given in all 'how to write' books. When his publishers suggested an autobiography. Lardner responded with The. _S_tp_1_-_y p_f_ 3 192.1211 M32, 9. 'burlesque autobiograplw made up of nonsense and absurd anachronisms.'3 As he lambasts with laughter all the time- worn tricks and familiar literary cliches. 19333; 353.3 deserves the recomendation that 'it should be made compulsory reading for all who are about to undertake an autobiography; after reading it. no one could possibly take himself seriously.‘ 1 John 1!. Wheeler. “Bing Lardner.‘ Oollier's (March 17. 1928) 141%. 211nm. nu. 3.1mm. 'The Story of a Wonder Man: a review.’ Booklist. 21}. (October. 1927) 17. Anon" 'The Story of a Wonder Man: a review.‘ Nation. 125 (July 20. 1927) 69. .61.. Bvan Lardner's Christmas cards. containing original Jingles by the author. were humorous and materialistic. Instead of a serious appeal for support of the second Liberty loan. Lardner wrote a characteristic 'J’ack' letter which was pub- lished in the newspapers. In his illiterate bumbling manner. the bush league baseball player tells how he is going to invest his portion of the prize money of the I'World Serious“ in Liberty bonds.2 Lardner's comments in advance of the showing of his Broadway ventures were calculated to leave no doubt in the readers' minds that the dramatic productions would be both gay and unpredictable. He seemed to be foreswearing all responsibility for their outcome. which was. perhaps. a prudent and somewhat clairvoyant action. since none of his plays found an appreciative critical audience.3 In an interview concerning his musical. Lung m. a satire on Tin Pan Alley life. Lardner strains to keep his answers funny. A good pianist was required for the role of Katie. Mr. Harris did not realize this and siged Harry Hosenthal. who at once admitted that he knew nothing about the piano, but thought he could pick it up in two weeks. They say the country's hospitals are littered with people who thought they could pick up a piano in two weeks. 1l'or the complete cards see the Reader's .Digest. 28 (January. 1936) 86: and also see Wheeler.o pp. cit.. "Lardner Bends One Over for the Loan.'. New York Times. LXYII (October 22. 1917) 22m. 3101- remarks concerning Smiles see "The Slave's Lament“ by Lardner in the H___e__w Y_9__rk Times (Nov.. 16. 1930) 2:2 and for the announcement of the collaboration in Hlm____e__r _t____he Great see “New Baseball Comedy by Lardner and Cohan“ in the _Lw ”York _T_____imes (Sept. 29. 1927) 31:2. 2 ~62- Even two men. working in shifts. are likely to find it irksome. Hr. Hosenthal. however. took it as a duck to golf and at the same time learned to say his lines with so many variations that the authors have to attend the thefter every night to find out the name of the play. These Joking reJoinders to everyday situations are frankly flippant. and their intentions cannot be misinterpreted. In other instances it is not so easy to distinguish the satiric from the sincere. Although Clifton l'adiman insists that Lardner 'Just doesn't like people.'2 and Heywood Broun in the 1932.114. Telggam maintains that this accusation worried Lardnu because he did not believe that it was true that he despised the human reee.3 still it seems impossible to find any sincere direct statement from the author on the sub.) set. A few words would have cleared up the controversy as to his satiric or humorous intentions. Lardner preferred to deer and to keep everyone guessing. In only one story can we find a definite indication of personal interest. In “Contract" Lardner ends with an “Author's Postscript“ that lanazts: This story won't get me anything but the many I'm paid for it. Even if it be read by those with whom I usually play -- Mr. 0.. Mrs. W” Hr. T.. Hr. B. and the rest -- they will think I mean two other fellows and tear into me likehwolves next time I bid a slam and make one odd. lmr. Lardner Has His Fun." is! York Times. 1: (Oct. 6. 1929) 1m. 2“Hing Lardner and the Triangle of Hate.' 315. 3See Anon.. 'Hing Lardner. Interpreter of Life.“ Litergfl Digest. 116 (Oct. 1t, 1933) 19. "Round E2. 139. .53. O Also. the collection £33.13 ;a_n_d_ Lagt includes some Jocular comments on politics which could be taken as indicative of the author's opinions in this field. On the other hand. almost all his other stories are objec- tive: he seems to be very careful that none of his own personality or his own opinion creeps in. This has been labelled an attempt to imitate naubert's objective method} but no matter what its cause. its result is a complete routing of all attempts to classify a Lardnerian philosophy or aesthetic viewpoint. However. in two articles about his favorite subjects. sports and writing. the author did step out of character long enough to deve10p what appears to be a perfectly sincere commentary. In a volume entitled Civilization _i_n 1132 M m. Harold D. Stearns collected an antholog of essays pertaining to contempor- ~ ary American life written by authorities in each field. and Lardner's contribution was on "Sports." Here the former baseball reporter and the creator of moronic sportsmen attacks the spectator sports; A baseball. football. racing horses. and boring. as unhealthful for the spectators. and sometimes even for the participants. Ve are not a sports-loving nation. he maintains. because we do not play; we merely watch.2 This is a result of a lack of imgination and a 1 Stuart. 'Mr. Lardner at the Passing Show.' 5. 2muted by n. r. Stearns (sew York: Harcourt. Brace 5. Co.) 1922. 1453. morbid predisposition toward hero-worship. which he calls: ...the national disease that does most to keep the grandstands full and the playgrounds empty. To hell with those four extra years of life. if they are going to cut in on our afternoon at the Polo Grounds. where. in blissful asininity. we may feast our eyes on the swarthy Champion of Swat. shouting now and then in an excess of anile idiolatry. “Come on. you Babe. Come on. you Baby Doll!“ And if an hour of tennis is going to make us late at the Garden. perhaps keep us out of our ringside seats. so close to Dempsey's corner that (O bounteous God!) a drop of the divine perspiration may splash our undeservin snout -- Hang up. liver! You're on a busy wire! After reading this straigatforward condemnation of hero-worship. it seems that a critic could scarcely be Justified in saying that Lardner wrote l'(‘Jhampion.' the story of a bully who became a famous fighter. as good-natured humor. Nor would one insist that there is nothing morbid about his bridge fanatics and baseball lovers. When a writer writes about writers. he is apt to be very careful that he cannot be misinterpreted. so again. in another article. we find an apparently sincere discussion. In a critique of writers. two things which he applauds most are careful workman- ship and contemporary portrayal. The first is not significant ex- cept as a clue to his style: the second points directly to an ap- preciation of realism as opposed to mere humor for humor's sake. 2 Lardner criticised Theodore Dreiser for sloppy work and 1 Ibid.. I461. anon" “Ring Lardner. Interpreter of Life.’ 19. -65- praised Henry Sydnor Harrison as “our best short story writer' because he 'seems to take pains with his writing.‘1 Ehis attitude may account for Lardnsr's small output of stories and for their highly polished veneer. lhen it comes to humorists. he prefers George Ade before Mark Twain because “he belongs to our time.“ and enjoys Booth Tarkington more than Mark Twain. also. because 'I've known Booth Tarkington's boys and I've not known those of Mark Twain.'2 In writing this. Lardner is not pretending to set critical standards; he is merely ezqaressing his own preferences. However. if he places such emphasis on timeliness and realism in his reading. it stands to reason that he would not ignore it in his writing. Ihis one honest commentary from the author is of value in determining whether he intends to be a realist or a humorist. Iherefore we find that Lardner left a great deal of good- natured spoofing and very little sincere opinion in his personal writings. But the little serious material he did leave. points to a desire on his part to ridicule useless conventions. to lambast undesirable characters and customs. and to portray realistically the foibles of contemporary Amarican life. 1Lardner. -"'l'hree Stories a Year Are hough for a Writer.I 1h. ' 2Ibid.. 1h. -66- COHGLUS ION The investigation of the critical reception of the writing of Hing Lardner has made three contributions to the understanding of the author's relationship to his milieu. Even though too little time has passed since his writing for the critics to have formulated any definite Opinion from an aesthetic distance. still. certain con- clusions are Justified. first. mny of the predictions of the earlier reviews can be evaluated by comparison with modern reviews. Those who forecast literary oblivion for Lardner within two decades are already proved wrong. Even H. L. Mencken's rather ambiguous statement that “professors“ would 'shy away“ from Lardner for fifty years1 must be discredited. for contemporary anthologies used as texts in college composition courses usually include one story by Lardner. In fact. the prediction that 'in the years that follow his death he will be regarded with increasing respect as a remarkably gifted man. a genuine artist of wide and powerful influence'2 seas to have come true. Hot only is his work admitted occasionally to acadmic cir- cles. but a testimony to his perpetual appeal to the public is seen in a recent advertisement from Hollywood. announcing the filming of 2.12.2 gig Town. l'fhe Library.“ American Mercy. 2 (July. 192,4) 376. 2Anon.. ”Ring Lardner. Interpreter of Life.‘ Literal Digest. 116 (October 114. 1933) 19. , .57.. Hsvertheless. this optemistic outlook on Lardner's influence must be qualified somewhat. Since Lardner's plots. characters. and style of writing were inspired by his early days of Niles and base- ball. his limitations are severe and should be recognized as such. One critic phrased it: “However deeply Bing might cut into it. his cake had the diameter of Frank Chance's diamond.“1 Second. this investigation of the critical reception of Hing Lardner contributes to our knowledge of the times. We find a majority of the reviews discrediting humor for humor's sake and praising repertorial accuracy or satiric intent in writing. The critics wanted to be entertained. but they were suspicious of more entertainment. As a steady diet their literary appetites demanded that even humor should have a serious purpose at bottom. Lardner. writing for the public. reflected the tastes of his reviewers. He was not equally humorous or equally realistic in all his stories and books. His early baseball works seem to be created primarily for amusement. but. taught by the reviewers. his later short stories. such as “Champion.“ “There Are Smiles.“ “Haircut.“ “Love Host.“ and “The Golden Honeymoon“ became much more realistic and satiric. In the final analysis. a more nearly accurate classification of Lardner's place in literature would be that humor, satire. and ll‘itsgerald. 22. 341.. 25k. -68- realism are combined in all his works in varying amounts. The author's intention was probably satirical; he used realistic detail; and he acheived.humor as an end result. This is best expressed hy an annonymous reviewer. who said: He loved generosity and truth in all things. hated human depravity. and expressed his resentment by using the writer's most power- ful weapon - laughter.1 Third. this conclusion that Lardner is basically a realist- satirist is significant for one reason. It has been shown that the reviewers agree that Lardner's characters are repulsive and moronic. If the reviewers admit that these characters are also realistic; if “his stories develop the basically democratic character of America;“2 than it is evident that these works are as bitter and condemning a social criticism as has ever been written about American life. In addition. the reviewers who accept Lardner's works as realistic are likewise participating indirectly in social criticism. This is an example: ...the devastating thing about Lardner's work is that no American exists who has not a thousand times heard these accents. seen these faces. observed these gestures. These bitter and brutal stories belong not only to lfiterature but to the history of civilization. ¥Anon.. Scholastic. 35 (September 25. 1939) 12. gradiman. “Pitiless Satire.“ 537. 3Ludwig Lewisohn. Expression _i_n America. 515. -69. Therefore. it may be reasoned that Lardner's influence is recogized by the majority of the recent critics as both social and literary in import. Those critics who claimed that he was a mere humorist were probably attempting to discredit the social significance of his work. rather than its literary value. BIBLIOGRAPHY I TEXTS Lardner. Hing W. “Battle of Palm Beach.“ Collier's. 81 (March 21}. 1928) 12, 51. .eeeeeeeeeeOOOQ. 111-225 mm. new York: scrimer“8. 1925. ................ first and Last. New York: Scribner's. 1931;. ................ Gullible's Travels. New York: Scribner's. 1917. ................ How to write Short Stories. New York: Scribner's, 1925 ................ “Lardner Bends One Over for the Loan.“ H__i__ew York Times. m1: (October 22, 1917) 22:14. ................ “Kr. Lardner Has His J'un.“ H_sw_York Times. II (October 6. 1929) #81. ................ The Portable Hing Lardner. ed. by Gilbert Seldes. New York: Viking. 19,36. 3313 Real D02 . Indianapolis: Hobbs—Merrill. 1919. ................ 2.119; Reader's Digest. 28 (January. 1936) 86. ................ Bound k. New York: Scribner's. 1929. ................ “The Slave's Lament.“ New York Times. 1 (November 16. 1930) 2:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. “Sport and Play.“ Civilization _in_ the United States. ed. by Harold Edmund Stearns. New York: Harcourt. Brace 8: Company. 1922. Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 221-9- Sto £9- Wonder £32.. New York: Scribner.3. 1927. ”‘1 ""“"" ................ “Three Stories a Year are Enough for a Writer.“ New York Tines. VI (March 25. 1917) 11m. ................ What I Ought to of Learnt in High School.“ American Higgins. 1071 (November. 1923) 10. .71- r ‘ . . . c - { e I ' O 2 ~ ' . , O ‘ e ‘ S > x l ‘ . , _ . e e . e v . . ‘ ‘ \ _ V l g s . . . 1 P o a .‘ \ . e I O ' ' I ~ ~ e - J . , . e ' ' . . . . l O a f s . l f C . . . . e - . . ' O . . - . . . . , ' I ' ‘ e i e . e V _ . o 1 ‘ ' D e I “ . ' l * . . C . w e e e I I e e I Q . ‘ s e 1 I I D O s u I e I e C s s Q o e e n e I O ' e O o e I I Q 0 e I Lardner. Ring 1!. hat 9; _I_t} New York: Scribner's. 1925. ................ Youhowfigg. New York: Scribner's. 1925. II BIOGRAPHY Anon. “Biographical Sketch.“ Scholastic. 35' (Septanber 25. 1939) 12. ..... “How the Convention Voted at the Day Session Yesterday.“ Lew Y_9____rk Time____s_ (July 6. 1920) 11:1. ..... “Lardner Funaral Will be Private.“ New York Times (September 27. 1939) 21:h. ..... “New Baseball Comedy by Lardner and Cohan.“ New York T_i_.___mes. (September 29. 1927) 31: 2. ..... “Ring Lardner Dies: Noted as Writer.“ New York Times (September 26. 1933) 21:1. ..... “Ring Lardner's Numeral Today.“ New Yo___r_k Tim____e_s (September 28. 1933) 21:1. .. . . . “Hing Lardner Sole Author of Play.“ New Y__ork _T______imes (October 12. 1927) 31:2. ..... “A Second Blooming.“ New York Times (December 5. 1928) 3085. Millett. Fred B. Contemorary American Authors. New York: Harcourt. Brace & Company. 19140. Overton. Grant. “Hing V. Lardner's Bell Lettays.“ American Bo___o___hnan. @(soptenbar. 1925) hh-h9. Tittle. Walter. “Glimpses of Interesting Americans.“ Century. 110 (July. 1925) 313-17. Vheeler. John N. “Bing Lardner.“ Collier's (Narch 17. 1928) 16. mi. III BACKGROWD Blair. Walter. Horse Sense 2.1. American Humor. University of Chicago Press. I955 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Native American Humor. New York: American Book Company. 1937. -72.. Kazin. Alfred. 93 Native Grounds. New York: Reynal 8: Hitchcock. 191:2. Pound. Louise.~ “Notes on the Vernacular.“ American Mercu_rz. III. (1921*) 23537. . Pritchett. V. S. “Huckleberry Tina and the Cruelty of American Humor.“ Le! Statesman 229; Nation. 22 (August 2. 191:1) 113. Sullivan. Mark. 39:1; Times. Vol. IV. New York: Scribner's. 1926-33. Tandy. Janette. Crackerbox Philosophers. New York: Columbia University Press. 1925. Wilt. Napier. Some American Humorists. New York: Thomas Nelson 8: Sons. 1929. IV cnmcxsu Anon. “Book Notes.“ gel Republic. 71: (May 10. 1933) 373. “First and Last: a review.“ Booklist. 30 (July. 1931:) 3115. ..... “first and Last: 9. review.“ Christian Century. 51 (June 13. ..... “First and Last: a review.“ Wisconsin Libra Bulletin. 30 (Jul-Ye 193,4) 153. ..... “Gullible's Travels: a review.“ Outlook. 115 (April ’4. 1917) 622. ..... “How to Write Short Stories: a review.“ Booklist. 21 (November. 1921:) 68. ..... “How to Write Short Stories: a review.“ St. Louis Bulletin. XXII (November. 1921:) 380. ..... “How to Write Short Stories: a review.“ Outlook. 138 (September 1¢. 1921:) 100. ..... “June Moon: a review.“ Booklist._26 (June. 1930) 3’49. ..... “June Moon: a review.“ St. Louis Bulletin. 28 (September. 1930) 215. ..... “Love Nest: a review.“ Booklist. 22 (June. 1926) 377, 434- Anon. .0000 Adams. “Love Nest: a review.“ Independent. 116 (April 21:. 1926) 1198. “Love Nest: a review.“ Outlook. 1113 (June 9. 1926) 221. 2. “My Four weeks in France: a review.“ A. L. A. Booklist. 15 (October. 1918) 21. _ “1w Four Weeks in France: a review! Independent. 96 (November 16. 1918) 222. “Hing Lardner.“ 119;: York Times (September 27. 1933) 20:}. “Ring Lar‘Odner.“ m Review pf Literature. 10 (October 7. 1933 l . “Hing Lardner's 'Autobiography' is Buoyant Burlesque.“ Leg York Times (April 3. 1927) 5. “Ring Lardner. Interpreter of Life.“ Litorgrz Digest. 116 (October 1t. 1933) 19. “A Hookie's Letters.“ New York Times gazine (March 26. 1933) 6. “Round up: a review.“ Booklist. 25 (July. 1929) 395- “Hound Up: a review.“ Christian Centgz. ’16 (June 5. 1929) THE. “Story of a Yonder Man: 1927) 17. “Story of a Wonder Man: 266. “Story of a Yonder Man: (April 9. 1927) hoo. “Story of a Wonder Man: 1927) 69- “Very Small Fry.“ N_:_e__w York Times (December 27. 19140) 18:1}. 9. review.“ Booklist. 21: (October. a review.“ Dial. 83 (September. 1927) a review.“ Independent. 118 a review.“ Nation. 125 (July 20. “What of It?: a review.“ Booklist. 22 (October. 1925) 311. Franklin 1?. “Lardner - Last and Best. if Not the First.“ Books. 10 (June 10. 193k) 2. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee .Lfie I." Just a: Game of Baseball... BOOk', 9 (March 12. 1933) h. .7b. Adams. J. Donald. “Ring Lardner Writin' Serious.“ New York Times. III (March 25. 1921:) 16:2. "" ""“ Anderson. Sherwood. “Tour American Impressions.“ lg Rgublic. 32 (October 11. 1922) 171-73. . Benet. William Hose. “But You Can't.“ Saturday Review 35 Litera- ture. 9 (April 1. 1933) 513. "'"“" .................... “Civilized Laughter.“ Liter Review of the ;N_e_w York Evening Post. 14- (May 21+. 1921)) 772. - eeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeee .In the vmflarg. 58.th Rain-2; Literature. 2 (April 10. 1926) 700. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 'POIItIVQly Laughable.“ Saturday Raving: Literature. 3 (May 1M. 1927) 818. Bibesco. Elizabeth. “Lament for Lardner.“ Living 33. 315 (December. 1933) 355-8. Boyd. Thomas. “Lardner Tells Some New Ones.“ Bookman. 59 (July. 192k) 601-2. Cargill. Oscar. Intellectual America. New York: Macmillan. 1941. Chamberlain. John. “Ring Lardner Listens In on the Life About Him.“ _Ngw York Times (April 7. 1929) 2. Guppy. Will. “Believe It or Not.“ Books (May 8. 1927) 2. Davenport. Basil. “Lardner at his Best.“ Saturday Review 2f Literature. 10. (July 7. 1931*) 793. < Douglas. Donald. “Ring Lardner as Satirist.“ Nation. 122 (May 26. 1926) ssh-5. Eaton. Walter. “June Moon: a review.“ Books. 6 (June 29, 1930) 2. N..... J. “Humor. British and American.“ Bookman. 61 (July. 1925) 587. Iadiman. 211nm. “Pitilsss Satire.“ Nation. 128 (May 1. 1939) 53 . 7. ................. “Ring Lardner and the Triangle of Hate.“ Nation. 136 (March 22. 1933) 315-17. Farrell. James T. “Ring Lardner's Success-Mad World.“ New York Times l_l_a_,gazine (June 18. 191114) 3. 18. Fitzgerald. Francis Scott. “Ring.“ New Rgublic. 76 (October 11. 1933) 251F550 Hutchins. J. “June Moon: a review.“ Theater Arts Monthly. 13 (December. 1929) 880-1. Lewisohn. Ludwig. ression _i_n America. New York: Harper 8: Brothers. 19 . Littell. Robert. “How to Write Short Stories: a review.“ New R3- public. to (September 3. 19214) 25. ................ |'Story of a Wonder Man: a review.“ 113! Rgublic. 50 (W611 30. 1927) 173. ................ “What of Itl: a review.“ £2! Rgublic. ’42 (April 15. 1925) 1. Also in Read America l‘irst. New York: Harcourt. Brace and Company. 1926. ................ “And Other Stories.“ _N_e_g Rgublic. ’48 (September Longwell. Dan. “Loud Laughter.“ _Ngg York Tribune. I (May 10. 1925) y. Nanly. John Matthews and Rickert. Edith. Conte or American Literature. New York: Harcourt. Brace and ompany. 1929. Masson. Thomas L. “hat of It?: a review.“ Liter Review of the _N__e_w York Evening Post. 5 (May 5.: 1925) 6. ................. O__u_r_American Humorists. New York: Moffat. Yard and Company. 1922. Matthews. T. S. “Lardner. Shakespeare and Chekhov.“ .N_e_w. Republic. 59 (May 22: 1929) 35. Mencken. Henry Louis. The American Lenguagg. New York: A. A. Knopf. 1929. ..................... “A Humorist Shows His Teeth.“ American New. 8 (June. 1926) 2511-55. ..................... PreJudices - Second Series. New York: A. A. “CPI, 192 O Mencken. Henry Louis. Prejudices - Nifth Series. New York: A. A. Nngpf. 1926. Also in the American Mercury. 2 (July. 1921:) 37 ‘77- ‘ Mulder. Arnold. “Authors and Wolverines.“ Saturday Review 33 Literature. 19 (March ’4. 1939) 14-5. Mumford. Lewis. “The Salt of Our Generation.“ Books. 5 (April 114. 1929) 5. Nevins. Allen. “The American Moron.“ Saturday Review 3.6. Literature. Newman. Francis. “Love Nest: a review.“ Litera_ry Review. 6 (April 10. 1926) 3. Phelps. William Lyon. *1 man I'd Met ..." Good Housekeeping. 111: (January. 19112) 39- a..." n. “The Reigling Jester.“ _Ygdependenu. 11h (say 23. 1925) 590. ' Rourke. Constance. American Humor. New York: Harcourt. Brace 8: Company. 1931. Seldes. Gilbert. The Seven Lively Arts. New York: Harper. 1921!». ................ “The Singular - Although Dual - Eminence of Ring Lardner.“ American Criticism. ed. by William A. Drake. New York: Harcourt. Brace and Company. 1926. Sherman. Stuart P. The Main Stream. New York: Scribner's, 1927. Also in Books. 2 (April 18. 1926) 1. Simon. Robert A. “This 'Autobiography' Looks Like a Hoax.“ Literary Review. 7 (April 2. 1927) 6. Strunsky. Simeon. “The Permanent Contributor.“ lie! York Times (May 2. 1926) h. ‘ Stuart. Henry Longan. “Mr. Lardner at the Passing Show. “ N_e_w York Times. III (April 14. 1926) 5:1. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 'HI‘. lard-n91. Buluques America.“ M YOIt Times. III (April 19. 1925) 1:1. Van Doren. Carl. Han Minds. New York: A. A. Nucpf. 19234. Also in Centgy. 106 W. 1923) 1+73-“:75‘» .77. Walton. Edith. “Homage to the Genius of Ring Lardner.“ H3! {or} Pines Egggzine (June 10. 193”) 3. Wilson. Edmund. “How to Write Short Stories: a review.“ Dial. 77 (July. 1921:) 69. -73..