taste of the public, which good sense and commercial necessity
alike impose upon the editor. I would not have the American editor
less practical, less sensitive to the popular wave; I would have
him more so. But I would have him less dogmatic. All forms of
dogmatism are dangerous for men whose business it is to publish,
not to criticize, contemporary literature. But an unsound and
arbitrary dogmatism is the worst. If the editor is to give the
people what they want instead of what they have wanted, he must
have more confidence in himself, and more belief in their capacity
for liking the good. He should be dogmatic only where he can be
sure. Elsewhere let him follow the method of science, and
experiment. He should trust to his taste in practice as well as in
private theory, and let the results of such criticism sometimes,
at least, dominate his choice.

In both our "popular" and our "literary" magazines, freer fiction
would follow upon better criticism. The readers of the "literary"
magazines are already seeking foreign-made narratives, and
neglecting the American short story built for them according to
the standardized model. The readers of the "popular" magazines
want chiefly journalism (an utterly different thing from
literature); and that they are getting in good measure in the non-
fiction and part-fiction sections of the magazines. But they also
seek, as all men seek, some literature. If, instead of imposing
the "formula" (which is, after all, a journalistic mechanism--and
a good one--adapted for speedy and evanescent effects), if,
instead of imposing the "formula" upon all the subjects they
propose to have turned into fiction, the editors of these
magazines should also experiment, should release some subjects
from the tyranny of the "formula," and admit others which its cult