TRASH

In 1854, the librarian of the Astor Library, in New York City, writing to an officer of the Boston Public Library on books and tastes of the day, bewailed the fact that "Our young readers want nothing but trash--such as Dickens and Thackeray. "Vanity Fair", "Pendennis", "The Newcomes", and "Esmond", had already been published; "Oliver Twist", "David Copperfield", and "Nicholas Nickleby", to mention but a few of the illustrious list, had appeared some time before. A hungry myriad of readers was clamoring for more "trash".

Today Thackeray's position is comparatively secure and Dickens is still required by English courses--the final test of true greatness; but of contemporaries one never can tell. The sage Dr. Johnson refused to give a line of Richardson for all Fielding's novels. Posterity disagrees, although O. Henry is far more widely read at present than Stevenson in complete contradiction to the views of critics of their day, it is still impossible to forecast which will be required in English 104 in 2021 A.D.

No doubt if it was difficult to decide in 1770 whether "Humphrey Clinker" was a greater masterpiece than "Pamela" and whether "the Sentimental Journey" would outlive "Roderick Random". But today matters are infinitely more complicated by the hundreds of best sellers advertised in the book supplements and the far greater number of others each termed by some one the book of the hour.

Perhaps some critic of the next century investigating the dusty worn volumes of today will discover a master piece which has escaped unsuspected. "Tales of the Jazz Age" may turn out to be a second "Decameron" or "Conles Droliques"; "Java Head" another "Moby Dick".

Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately--there is no time to wait and sec. Choose at random and then enjoy yourself. At any rate the book will serve as something to talk about.