in with his views on matrimony, or the Sussex downs, or whatever his
ridiculous subject is. He expects one to say, "Mr. Blank's treatment
of _Hilda's_ relations with her husband is masterly," whereas what one
wants to say is, "Putting Mr. Blank's book on one side we may consider
the larger question, whether ----" and so consider it (alone) to the
end of the column.

Well, I reviewed Mr. Blank's book, _Rotundity_. As I expected, the
first draft had to be re-headed "A Corner of Old London," and used
elsewhere; Mr. Blank didn't get into it at all. I kept promising
myself a sentence: "Take _Rotundity,_ for instance, the new novel by
William Blank, which, etc.," but before I was ready for it the article
was finished. In my second draft, realizing the dangers of delay, I
began at once, "This remarkable novel," and continued so for a couple
of sentences. But on reading it through afterwards I saw at once that
the first two sentences were out of place in an article that obviously
ought to be called "The Last Swallow;" so I cut them out, sent "The
Last Swallow: A Reverie" to another Editor, and began again. The third
time I was successful.

Of course in my review I said all the usual things. I said that Mr.
Blank's attitude to life was "subjective rather than objective"
... and a little lower down that it was "objective rather than
subjective." I pointed out that in his treatment of the major theme he
was a neo-romanticist, but I suggested that, on the other hand, he
had nothing to learn from the Russians--or the Russians had nothing
to learn from him; I forget which. And finally I said (and this is
the cause of the whole trouble) that ANTOINE VAURELLE'S world-famous
classic--and I looked it up in the Encyclopaedia--world-renowned
classic, _Je Comprends Tout_, had been not without its influence on