really is. Its vocation is to be absolutely true and honest. To narrow down
its function to the particular task of finding "pearls" is as deadly for it
as it would be to make Levitan draw a tree without including the dirty bark
and the yellow leaves. I agree that "pearls" are a good thing, but then a
writer is not a confectioner, not a provider of cosmetics, not an
entertainer; he is a man bound, under contract, by his sense of duty and
his conscience; having put his hand to the plough he mustn't turn back,
and, however distasteful, he must conquer his squeamishness and soil his
imagination with the dirt of life. He is just like any ordinary reporter.
What would you say if a newspaper correspondent out of a feeling of
fastidiousness or from a wish to please his readers would describe only
honest mayors, high-minded ladies, and virtuous railway contractors?

To a chemist nothing on earth is unclean. A writer must be as objective as
a chemist, he must lay aside his personal subjective standpoint and must
understand that muck heaps play a very respectable part in a landscape, and
that the evil passions are as inherent in life as the good ones.

3. Writers are the children of their age, and therefore, like everybody
else, must submit to the external conditions of the life of the community.
Thus, they must be perfectly decent. This is the only thing we have a right
to ask of realistic writers. But you say nothing against the form and
executions of "Mire." ... And so I suppose I have been decent.

4. I confess I seldom commune with my conscience when I write. This is due
to habit and the brevity of my work. And so when I express this or that
opinion about literature, I do not take myself into account.

5. You write: "If I were the editor I would have returned this feuilleton
to you for your own good." Why not go further? Why not muzzle the editors