Complete Works of Ambrose Bierce (Delphi Classics)

by Ambrose Bierce

  “Shifted” is better, I think (in poetry) than “joggled.” You say you “don’t like working.” Then write a short story. That’s work, but you’d like it — or so I think. Poetry is the highest of arts, but why be a specialist?

  Sincerely yours,

  AMBROSE BIERCE.

  [Army and Navy Club, Washington, D. C., November 11, 1910.]

  DEAR LORA,

  It is nice to hear from you and learn that despite my rude and intolerant ways you manage to slip in a little affection for me — you and the rest of the folk. And really I think I left a little piece of my heart out there — mostly in Berkeley. It is funny, by the way, that in falling out of love with most of my old sweethearts and semi-sweethearts I should fall in love with my own niece. It is positively scandalous!

  I return Sloot’s letter. It gave me a bit of a shock to have him say that he would probably never see me again. Of course that is true, but I had not thought of it just that way — had not permitted myself to, I suppose. And, after all, if things go as I’m hoping they will, Montesano will take me in again some day before he seems likely to leave it. We four may see the Grand Cañon together yet. I’d like to lay my bones thereabout.

  The garments that you persuaded me were mine are not. They are probably Sterling’s, and he has probably damned me for stealing them. I don’t care; he has no right to dress like the “filthy rich.” Hasn’t he any “class consciousness”? However, I am going to send them back to you by express. I’ll mail you the paid receipt; so don’t pay the charge that the company is sure to make. They charged me again for the two packages that you paid for, and got away with the money from the Secretary of my club, where they were delivered. I had to get it back from the delivery man at the cannon’s mouth — 34 calibre.

  With love to Carlt and Sloots,

  Affectionately yours,

  AMBROSE.

  [The Army and Navy Club, Washington, D. C., November 14, 1910.]

  DEAR LORA,

  * * * * *

  You asked me about the relative interest of Yosemite and the Grand Cañon. It is not easy to compare them, they are so different. In Yosemite only the magnitudes are unfamiliar; in the Cañon nothing is familiar — at least, nothing would be familiar to you, though I have seen something like it on the upper Yellowstone. The “color scheme” is astounding — almost incredible, as is the “architecture.” As to magnitudes, Yosemite is nowhere. From points on the rim of the Cañon you can see fifty, maybe a hundred, miles of it. And it is never twice alike. Nobody can describe it. Of course you must see it sometime. I wish our Yosemite party could meet there, but probably we never will; it is a long way from here, and not quite next door to Berkeley and Carmel.

  I’ve just got settled in my same old tenement house, the Olympia, but the club is my best address.

  * * * * *

  Affectionately,

  AMBROSE.

  [Washington, D. C., November 29, 1910.]

  DEAR LORA,

  Thank you very much for the work that you are doing for me in photography and china. I know it is great work. But take your time about it.

  I hope you all had a good Thanksgiving at Upshack. (That is my name for Sloots’ place. It will be understood by anyone that has walked to it from Montesano, carrying a basket of grub on a hot day.)

  I trust Sterling got his waistcoat and trousers in time to appear at his uncle’s dinner in other outer garments than a steelpen coat. * * * I am glad you like (or like to have) the books. You would have had all my books when published if I had supposed that you cared for them, or even knew about them. I am now encouraged to hope that some day you and Carlt and Sloots may be given the light to see the truth at the heart of my “views” (which I have expounded for half a century) and will cease to ally yourselves with what is most hateful to me, socially and politically. I shall then feel (in my grave) that perhaps, after all, I knew how to write. Meantime, run after your false fool gods until you are tired; I shall not believe that your hearts are really in the chase, for they are pretty good hearts, and those of your gods are nests of nastiness and heavens of hate.

  Now I feel better, and shall drink a toddy to the tardy time when those whom I love shall not think me a perverted intelligence; when they shall not affirm my intellect and despise its work — confess my superior understanding and condemn all its fundamental conclusions. Then we will be a happy family — you and Carlt in the flesh and Sloots and I in our bones.

  * * * * *

  My health is excellent in this other and better world than California.

  God bless you. AMBROSE.

  [Washington, D. C., December 22, 1910.]

  DEAR CARLT,

  You had indeed “something worth writing about” — not only the effect of the impenitent mushroom, but the final and disastrous overthrow of that ancient superstition, Sloots’ infallibility as a mushroomer. As I had expected to be at that dinner, I suppose I should think myself to have had “a narrow escape.” Still, I wish I could have taken my chance with the rest of you.

  How would you like three weeks of nipping cold weather, with a foot of snow? That’s what has been going on here. Say, tell Sloots that the front footprints of a rabbit-track

  [Illustration: Rabbit tracks]

  are made by the animal’s hind feet, straddling his forelegs. Could he have learned that important fact in California, except by hearsay? Observe (therefore) the superiority of this climate.

  * * * * *

  AMBROSE.

  1911.

  [Washington, D. C., January 26, 1911.]

  DEAR LORA,

  I have just received a very affectionate letter from * * * and now know that I did her an injustice in what I carelessly wrote to you about her incivility to me after I had left her. It is plain that she did not mean to be uncivil in what she wrote me on a postal card which I did not look at until I was in the train; she just “didn’t know any better.” So I have restored her to favor, and hope that you will consider my unkind remarks about her as unwritten. Guess I’m addicted to going off at half-cock anyhow.

  Affectionately,

  AMBROSE.

  [Washington, D. C., February 3, 1911.]

  DEAR LORA,

  I have the Yosemite book, and Miss Christiansen has the Mandarin coat. I thank you very much. The pictures are beautiful, but of them all I prefer that of Nanny bending over the stove. True, the face is not visible, but it looks like you all over.

  I’m filling out the book with views of the Grand Cañon, so as to have my scenic treasures all together. Also I’m trying to get for you a certain book of Cañon pictures, which I neglected to obtain when there. You will like it — if I get it.

  Sometime when you have nothing better to do — don’t be in a hurry about it — will you go out to Mountain View cemetery with your camera and take a picture of the grave of Elizabeth (Lily) Walsh, the little deaf mute that I told you of? I think the man in the office will locate it for you. It is in the Catholic part of the cemetery — St. Mary’s. The name Lily Walsh is on the beveled top of the headstone which is shaped like this:

  [Illustration: Headstone]

  You remember I was going to take you there, but never found the time.

  Miss Christiansen says she is writing, or has written you. I think the coat very pretty.

  Affectionately,

  AMBROSE.

  [Washington, D. C., February 15, 1911.]

  DEAR GEORGE,

  As to the “form of address.” A man passing another was halted by the words: “You dirty dog!” Turning to the speaker, he bowed coldly and said: “Smith is my name, sir.” My name is Bierce, and I find, on reflection, that I like best those who call me just that. If my christen name were George I’d want to be called that; but “Ambrose” is fit only for mouths of women — in which it sounds fairly well.

  How are you my master? I never read one of your poems without learning something, though not, alas, how to make one.

  Don’t worry about “Lili
th”; it will work out all right. As to the characters not seeming alive, I’ve always fancied the men and women of antiquity — particularly the kings, and great ones generally — should not be too flesh-and-bloody, like the “persons whom one meets.” A little coldness and strangeness is very becoming to them. I like them to stalk, like the ghosts that they are — our modern passioning seems a bit anachronous in them. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m sure you will understand and have some sympathy with the error.

  Hudson Maxim takes medicine without biting the spoon. He had a dose from me and swallowed it smiling. I too gave him some citations of great poetry that is outside the confines of his “definition” — poetry in which are no tropes at all. He seems to lack the feel of poetry. He even spoils some of the “great lines” by not including enough of the context. As to his “improvements,” fancy his preference for “the fiercest spirit of the warrior host” to “the fiercest spirit that fought in Heaven”! O my!

  Yes, Conrad told me the tale of his rescue by you. He gave me the impression of hanging in the sky above billows unthinkably huge and rocks inconceivably hard.

  * * * * *

  Of course I could not but be pleased by your inclusion of that sonnet on me in your book. And, by the way, I’m including in my tenth volume my Cosmopolitan article on the “Wine” and my end of the controversy about it. All the volumes of the set are to be out by June, saith the publisher. He is certainly half-killing me with proofs — mountains of proofs! * * *

  Yes, you’ll doubtless have a recruit in Carlt for your Socialist menagerie — if he is not already a veteran exhibit. Your “party” is recruited from among sore-heads only. There are some twenty-five thousand of them (sore-heads) in this neck o’ woods — all disloyal — all growling at the Government which feeds and clothes them twice as well as they could feed and clothe themselves in private employment. They move Heaven and Earth to get in, and they never resign — just “take it out” in abusing the Government. If I had my way nobody should remain in the civil service more than five years — at the end of that period all are disloyal. Not one of them cares a rap for the good of the service or the country — as we soldiers used to do on thirteen dollars a month (with starvation, disease and death thrown in). Their grievance is that the Government does not undertake to maintain them in the style to which they choose to accustom themselves. They fix their standard of living just a little higher than they can afford, and would do so no matter what salary they got, as all salary-persons invariably do. Then they damn their employer for not enabling them to live up to it.

  If they can do better “outside” why don’t they go outside and do so; if they can’t (which means that they are getting more than they are worth) what are they complaining about?

  What this country needs — what every country needs occasionally — is a good hard bloody war to revive the vice of patriotism on which its existence as a nation depends. Meantime, you socialers, anarchists and other sentimentaliters and futilitarians will find the civil-service your best recruiting ground, for it is the Land of Reasonless Discontent. I yearn for the strong-handed Dictator who will swat you all on the mouths o’ you till you are “heard to cease.” Until then — How? (drinking.)

  Yours sincerely,

  AMBROSE BIERCE.

  [Washington, D. C., February 19, 1911.]

  DEAR LORA,

  Every evening coffee is made for me in my rooms, but I have not yet ventured to take it from your cup for fear of an accident to the cup. Some of the women in this house are stark, staring mad about that cup and saucer, and the plate.

  I am very sorry Carlt finds his position in the civil service so intolerable. If he can do better outside he should resign. If he can’t, why, that means that the Government is doing better for him than he can do for himself, and you are not justified in your little tirade about the oppression of “the masses.” “The masses” have been unprosperous from time immemorial, and always will be. A very simple way to escape that condition (and the only way) is to elevate oneself out of that incapable class.

  You write like an anarchist and say that if you were a man you’d be one. I should be sorry to believe that, for I should lose a very charming niece, and you a most worthy uncle.

  You say that Carlt and Grizzly are not Socialists. Does that mean that they are anarchists? I draw the line at anarchists, and would put them all to death if I lawfully could.

  But I fancy your intemperate words are just the babbling of a thoughtless girl. In any case you ought to know from my work in literature that I am not the person to whom to address them. I carry my convictions into my life and conduct, into my friendships, affections and all my relations with my fellow creatures. So I think it would be more considerate to leave out of your letters to me some things that you may have in mind. Write them to others.

  My own references to socialism, and the like, have been jocular — I did not think you perverted “enough to hurt,” though I consider your intellectual environment a mighty bad one. As to such matters in future let us make a treaty of silence.

  Affectionately,

  AMBROSE.

  [The Army and Navy Club, Washington, D. C., March 1, 1911.]

  MY DEAR RUTH,

  It is pleasant to know that the family Robertson is “seeing things” and enjoying them. I hate travel, but find it delightful when done by you, instead of me. Believe me, I have had great pleasure in following you by your trail of words, as in the sport known as the “paper chase.”

  And now about the little story. Your refusal to let your father amend it is no doubt dreadfully insubordinate, but I brave his wrath by approval. It is your work that I want to see, not anybody’s else. I’ve a profound respect for your father’s talent: as a litérateur, he is the best physician that I know; but he must not be coaching my pupil, or he and I (as Mark Twain said of Mrs. Astor) “will have a falling out.”

  The story is not a story. It is not narrative, and nothing occurs. It is a record of mental mutations — of spiritual vicissitudes — states of mind. That is the most difficult thing that you could have attempted. It can be done acceptably by genius and the skill that comes of practice, as can anything. You are not quite equal to it — yet. You have done it better than I could have done it at your age, but not altogether well; as doubtless you did not expect to do it. It would be better to confine yourself at present to simple narrative. Write of something done, not of something thought and felt, except incidentally. I’m sure it is in you to do great work, but in this writing trade, as in other matters, excellence is to be attained no otherwise than by beginning at the beginning — the simple at first, then the complex and difficult. You can not go up a mountain by a leap at the peak.

  I’m retaining your little sketch till your return, for you can do nothing with it — nor can I. If it had been written — preferably typewritten — with wide lines and margins I could do something to it. Maybe when I get the time I shall; at present I am swamped with “proofs” and two volumes behind the printers. If I knew that I should see you and talk it over I should rewrite it and (original in hand) point out the reasons for each alteration — you would see them quickly enough when shown. Maybe you will all come this way.

  You are very deficient in spelling. I hope that is not incurable, though some persons — clever ones, too — never do learn to spell correctly. You will have to learn it from your reading — noting carefully all but the most familiar words.

  You have “pet” words — nearly all of us have. One of yours is “flickering.” Addiction to certain words is an “upsetting sin” most difficult to overcome. Try to overcome it by cutting them out where they seem most felicitous.

  By the way, your “hero,” as you describe him, would not have been accessible to all those spiritual impressions — it is you to whom they come. And that confirms my judgment of your imagination. Imagination is nine parts of the writing trade. With enough of that all things are possible; but it is the other things that require the hard work, the in
cessant study, the tireless seeking, the indomitable will. It is no “pic-nic,” this business of writing, believe me. Success comes by favor of the gods, yes; but O the days and nights that you must pass before their altars, prostrate and imploring! They are exacting — the gods; years and years of service you must give in the temple. If you are prepared to do this go on to your reward. If not, you can not too quickly throw away the pen and — well, marry, for example.

  “Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.”

  My vote is that you persevere.

  With cordial regards to all good Robertsons — I think there are no others — I am most sincerely your friend,

  AMBROSE BIERCE.

  [Washington, D. C., April 20, 1911.]

  DEAR LORA,

  Thank you for the pictures of the Sloots fire-place and “Joe Gans.” I can fancy myself cooking a steak in the one, and the other eating one better cooked.

  I’m glad I’ve given you the Grand Cañon fever, for I hope to revisit the place next summer, and perhaps our Yosemite bunch can meet me there. My outing this season will be in Broadway in little old New York. That is not as good as Monte Sano, but the best that I can do.

  You must have had a good time with the Sterlings, and doubtless you all suffered from overfeeding.

  Carlt’s action in denuding the shaggy pelt of his hands meets with my highest commendation, but you’d better look out. It may mean that he has a girl — a Jewess descended from Jacob, with an hereditary antipathy to anything like Esau. Carlt was an Esaurian.

  You’ll have to overlook some bad errors in Vol. V of the C. W. I did not have the page proofs. Some of the verses are unintelligible. That’s the penalty for philandering in California instead of sticking to my work.

  * * * * *

  Affectionately,

  AMBROSE.

  [Washington, D. C., April 28, 1911.]