Complete Works of F. Scott Fitzgerald UK (Illustrated)

by F. Scott Fitzgerald

  (5) — The Briary Bush. Another rotten novel by Floyd Dell, which, because it is without a touch of grace or beauty or wit, will be hailed as a masterpiece by all the ex-policemen who are now critics.

  Will you send me that Brentano sketch when it appears?

  Sincerely,

  F. Scott Fitz —

  626 Goodrich Avenue

  St Paul,

  Minnesota

  December 12, 1921

  Dear Mr Perkins:

  Have just received your letter in re Bible anecdote in novel and I’m rather upset about it. You say:

  ‘Even when people are wrong you cannot but respect those who speak with such passionate sincerity about it.’

  Now in that remark lies, I think, the root of your objection - except to substitute ‘be intimidated by’ for ‘respect.’ I don’t sup pose any but the most religious-minded people in the world believe that such interludes as The Song of Solomon or the story of Ruth have or ever had even in the minds of the original chroniclers the faintest religious significance. The Roman Church insists that in The Song of Solomon the bride is the church and the lover is Christ but it is almost universally doubted if any such thing was even faintly intended.

  Now I feel sure that most people will know that my sketch refers to the Old Testament, and to Jehovah, the cruel Hebrew God, against whom such writers as even Mark Twain not to mention Anatole France and a host of others have delivered violent pyrotechnics from time to time.

  As to the personal side of it don’t you think all changes in the minds of people are brought about by the assertion of a thing - startling perhaps at first but later often becoming, with the changes of the years, bromidic. You have read Shaw’s preface to Androcles and the Lion - that made no great stir - in fact to the more sophisticated of the critics it was a bit bromidic. His preface, moreover, is couched with very little reverence even the it treats of Christ who is much less open to discussion than merely that beautiful epic of the Bible. If you object to my phrasing I could substitute ‘deity’ for’god almighty’and get a better word than bawdy - in fact make it more dignified - but I would hate to cut it out as ifs very clever in its way and Mencken - who saw it -

  and Zelda were very enthusiastic about it. It’s the sort of thing you find continually in Anatole France’s Revoit of the Angels - as well as in furgen and in Mark Twain’s Mysterious Stranger. The idea, refusing homage to the Bible and its God, runs thru many of Mark Twain’s essays and all through Paine’s biography.

  In fact, Van Wyck Brooks in The Ordeal criticizes Clemens for allowing many of his statements to be toned down at the request of William Dean Howells or Mrs Clemens. If it was an incident which I felt had no particular literary merit I should defer to your judgment without question, but that passage belongs beautifully to that scene and is exactly what was needed to make it more than a beautiful setting for ideas that fail to appear. You say:

  ‘Even when people are altogether wrong you cannot but respect those who speak with such passionate sincerity.’

  I can imagine that remark having been made to Galileo and Mencken, Samuel Butler and Anatole France, Voltaire and Bernard Shaw, George Moore and even, if you will pardon me, in this form once upon a time.

  ‘You don’t like these scribes and pharisees. You call them whitened sepulchres but even when people are altogether wrong - etc.’

  I haven’t seen the proof with your notation and have only read your letter. But I do feel that my judgment is right in this case. I do not expect in any event that I am to have the same person-for- person public this time thatParadise had. My one hope is to be endorsed by the intellectually élite and thus be forced onto people as Conrad has. (Of course I’m assuming that my work grows in sincerity and proficiency from year to year as it has so far.) If I cut this out it would only be because I would be afraid and I haven’t done that yet and dread the day when I’ll have to.

  Please write me frankly as I have you - and tell me if you are speaking for yourself, for the Scribner Company, or for the public. I am rather upset about the whole thing. Will wait until I hear from you.

  As ever,

  F. Scott Fitzgerald

  P.S. Besides, as to the position of the thing in the story, it is necessary to show the growth of Maury’s pessimism and to do this I have invented a fable in which the hoi poloi do more than refuse to believe their wise men - but they twist the very wisdom of the wise into a justification of their own maudlin and self-satisfactory creeds. This would discourage anyone.

  626 Goodrich Avenue

  St Paul,

  Minnesota

  Before December 21, 1921

  Dear Mr Perkins:

  Your second letter came and I want to apologize to you for mine. I might have known you did not mean what in haste I imagined you did. The thing was flippant - I mean it was the sort of worst of George Jean Nathan. I have changed it now - changed ‘god almighty’ to ‘deity,’ cut out ‘bawdy,’ and changed several other words, so I think it is all right.

  Why, really, my letter was so silly, with all those absilrd citations of Twain, Anatole France, Howells, etc., was because I was in a panic because I was afraid I might have to cut it out and, as you say, it does round out the scene.

  I hope you’ll accept my apology.

  Is the girl beautiful in the W. E. Hill picture? Are you going to have a light blue background on the jacket as I suggested - I mean like you had for your Lulu Ragdale book two years ago? And did you catch that last correction I sent you before it was too late?

  I have put a new ending on the book - that is, on the last paragraph, instead of the repetition of the Paradise scene of which I was never particularly fond. I think that now the finish will leave the ‘taste’ of the whole book in the reader’s mouth as it didn’t before - if you know what I mean.

  I can’t tell you how sorry I am about that silly letter. I took that ‘Oh Christ’ out as you suggested. As you say, ‘Oh, God’ won’t fill the gap but ‘Oh my God’ does it pretty well.

  With my changing of the extreme last and fixing up the symposium I am almost, but not quite, satisfied with the book. I prophesy that it will go about 6o ooo copies the first year - that is, assuming thatParadise went about 40,000 the first year. Thank God I’m thru with it

  As ever,

  F. Scott Fitzg —

  626 Goodrich Avenue

  St Paul,

  Minnesota circa January 31, 1922

  Dear Mr Perkins:

  The books came and I’m delighted with the blurb on the back which I suspect you wrote yourself. I think it strikes exactly the right note, gives a moral key to the stupider critics on which to go, and justifies the book to many who will think it is immoral I Thank you.

  I like the way it is got up - it surprised me to find that it is half again as long asParadise.

  I wired you last night about the color of the jacket, which has come out, in my copies at least, a sickly yellow. It was a deep reddish orange, you remember, in the jacket you sent me before.

  The more I think of the picture on the jacket the more I fail to understand his drawing that man. The girl is excellent of course - it looks somewhat like Zelda - but the man, I suspect, is a sort of debauched edition of me. At any rate the man is utterly unprepossessing “and I do not understand an artist of Hill’s talent and carefulness going quite contrary to a detailed description of the hero in the book.

  Note these divergencies -

  1. — Anthony is ‘just under six feet’ - Here he looks about Gloria’s height with ugly short legs.

  2. — Anthony is dark-haired - This bartender on the cover is light-haired.

  3. — Anthony’s general impression is described on page 9 - in not a single trait does this person on the jacket conform to that impression. He looks like a sawed-off young tough in his first dinner- coat Everybody I’ve talked to agrees with me and I’m a little sore. When a book has but one picture to give the impression, the illustrator ought to be careful. The Metropoli
tan illustrations were bad enough, God knows, but at least the poor botcher of an illustrator tried to give Anthony the physique and atmosphere assigned to him.

  As you can see I’m an ill-natured crabber. I ought not to be. The girl is excellent and I suppose Hill thought it would please me if the picture looked like Zelda and me. But I’d rather have the man on the Paradise jacket even with his tie tucked neatly under his collar in the Amherst fashion. Hill has done about 9 figures for my covers altogether and I suppose 8 good out of 9 is a good average.

  Excuse this letter - its just to get rid of an inhibition of anger so I can get back to my play this morning. Wilson’s article about me in the March ist Vanity Fair is superb. It’s no blurb - not by a darn sight - but it’s the first time I’ve been done at length by an intelligent and sophisticated man and I appreciate it - jeers and all.

  As ever,

  F. Scott Fitzgerald

  626 Goodrich Avenue

  St Paul,

  Minnesota circa

  March 5,1922

  Dear Mr Perkins:

  This is to thank you for the money. I was in a tight place - had actually cashed a bad check and didn’t know it. However, the Metropolitan has begun to pay a little and I think I’m out of the woods.

  When I wrote you about The Mind in the Making * I’d only read two chapters. I have finished it and entirely changed my views on its importance. I think it’s a thoroughly excellent book. It states the entire case for modernity’s lingering hope of progress. It is a depressing book, I think, as are Wells’ and Shaw’s late things, and all those of that brave company who started out in the By James Harvey Robinson.

  go’s so full of hope and joy in life and faith in science and reason. Thomas Hardy survives them all. I think when I read Upton Sinclair’s The Brass Check I made my final decision about America - that freedom has produced the greatest tyranny under the sun. I’m still a socialist but sometimes I dread that things will grow worse and worse the more the people nominally rule. The strong are too strong for us and the weak too weak. I shall not write another novel for a year but when I do it will not be a realistic one. At least I don’t think it will.

  The more I think of The B. and D.’s chances the more I think that your blurb will save it if anything can.

  Nathan writes me: ‘A very substantial performance. There is a wealth of sound stuff in it. You are maturing rapidly. It pleases me to have so good a piece of work dedicated in part to me. You have done a first rate job.’

  I don’t want to use this though as he’s funny about that sort of thing.

  I’ve read my book over and I’ve decided that I like it fine. I think it is as good as Three Soldiers - which is high praise from me.

  The Knopf man was here a while ago and I had quite a talk with him in Boyd’s bookstore. It seemed to me that he was personally dishonest and utterly disloyal to his company - that is, he was trying to sell one of his sample books and he said that Knopf was as honest as any publisher with a wink! I doubt if Knopf gives his authors a full 15% on those $2.50 books - of course he shouldn’t as they cost more. I had an interesting time with Herge- sheimer - he came through and came to dinner. However, what I started to say was how favorably Knapp compared with the Knopf man.

  Please don’t get the impression that I was fooled by the size of the St Paul orders. I knew they were chiefly ‘on sale.’ I think I’m going to have a great non-fiction book ready for you about next January. And if my play is a big success, will you bring it out in book form - or do you think it best to wait until I have three of them, as O’Neill has done, following Shaw and Barrie and Galsworthy?

  I’m glad you liked In One Reel* Wait till you see the stories.

  You haven’t seen half of them. Read Chrome Yellow. Best to Roger. Knapp seemed devoted to you, which was our chief bond of union.

  Yours ever,

  F. Scott Fitzg —

  626 Goodrich Avenue

  St Paul,

  Minnesota

  April 19, 1922

  Dear Mr Scribner:

  I am consumed by an idea and I can’t resist asking you about it. It’s probably a chestnut, but it might not have occurred to you before in just this form.

  No doubt you know of the success that Boni and Liveright have made of their Modern Library. Within the last month Doubleday, Page & Company have withdrawn the titles that were theirs from Boni’s Modern Library, and gone in on their own hook with a Lambskin Library. For this they have chosen so far about 18 titles from their past publications - some of them books of merit (Frank Norris and Conrad, for instance) and some of them trashy, but all books that at one time or another have been sensational either as popular successes or as possible contributions to American literature. The Lambskin Library is cheap, bound uniformly in red leather (or imitation leather), and makes, I believe, a larger appeal to the buyer than the A. L. Burt reprints, for its uniformity gives it a sort of permanence, a place of honor in the scraggly library that adorns every small home. Besides that, it is a much easier thing for a bookseller to display and keep up. The titles are numbered and it gives people a chance to sample writers by one book in this edition. Also it keeps before the public such books as have once been popular and have since been forgotten.

  Now my idea is this: the Scribner Company have many more distinguished years of publishing behind them than Doubleday, Page. They could produce a list twice as long of distinguished and memorable fiction and use no more than one book by each author - and it need not be the book by that author most in demand.

  Take for instance Predestined and The House of Mirth. I do not know, but I imagine that those books are kept upstairs in most book-stores, and only obtained when someone is told of the work of Edith Wharton and Stephen French Whitman. They are almost as forgotten as the books of Frank Norris and Stephen Crane were five years ago, before Boni’s library began its career.

  To be specific, I can imagine that a Scribner library containing the following titles and selling for something under a dollar would be an — enormous success: —

  1. — The House of Mirth — Edith Wharton — (or Ethan Frome) —

  2. — Predestined — Stephen French Whitman 3- — This Side of Paradise — F. Scott Fitzgerald 4- — The Little Shepherd of — John Fox, Jr — Kingdom Come —

  5- — In Ole Kentucky — Thomas Nelson Page 6. — Sentimental Tommy — J. M. Barrie 7- — Some Civil War book by — George Barr Cable 8. — Some novel by — Henry Van Dyke 9- — Some novel by — Jackson Gregory 10. — Saint’s Progress — John Galsworthy 11. — The Ordeal of Richard — George Meredith — Feverel —

  12. — Treasure Island — Robert Louis Stevenson 13- — The Turn of the Screw — Henry James 14- — The Stolen Story — Jesse Lynch Williams — (or The Frederic —

  — Car rolls) —

  15- — The Damnation of — Harold Frederick — Theron Ware (I think —

  — Stone used to own this.) —

  16. — Soldiers of Fortune — Richard Harding Davis 17- — Some book by — Mary Raymond Shipman Andrews 18. Simple Souls — John Hastings Turner Doubtless a glance at your old catalogues would suggest two dozen others. I have not even mentioned less popular writers such as Burt and Katharine Gerould. Nor have I gone into the possibilities of such non-fiction as a volume of Roosevelt, a volume of Huneker, or a volume of Shane Leslie.

  As I say, this is quite possibly an idea which has occurred to you before and been dismissed for reasons which would not appear to me, an outsider. I am moved to the suggestion by the success of the experiments I have mentioned. They have been made possible, I believe, by the recent American strain for ‘culture’ which expresses itself in such things as uniformity of bindings to make a library. Also the selective function of this library would appeal to many people in search of good reading matter, new or old.

  One more thing and this interminably long letter is done. It may seem to you that in many cases I have chosen novels whose sale still nets a steady revenue at J 1.75 - an
d that it would be unprofitable to use such property in this way. But I have used such titles only to indicate my idea - Gallagher (which I believe is not in your subscription sets of Davis) could be substituted for Soldiers of Fortune, The Wrong Box for Treasure Island, and so on in the case of Fox, Page and Barrie. The main idea is that the known titles in the series should ‘carry’ the little known or forgotten. That is: from the little-known writer you use his best novel, such as Predestined - from the well-known writer you use his more obscure, such as Gallagher.

  I apologize for imposing so upon your time, Mr Scribner. I am merely mourning that so many good or lively books are dead so soon, or only imperfectly kept alive in the cheap and severe im- permanency of the A. L. Burt editions. I am, sir, Most Sincerely,

  F. Scott Fitzgerald

  626 Goodrich Avenue

  St Paul,

  Minnesota

  May 11,

  1922

  Dear Mr Perkins:

  After careful consideration by the Fitzgerald menage, two booksellers and several friends, I am strongly in favor of keeping the Jazz Age title.

  doubtedly right - the word flapper, or jazz, would be passé and kill a big sale.

  (2) — Short stories do not sell and Flappers was an exception chiefly on account of my first novel and what was then the timeliness of the title.

  (3) — I do not expect the new collection to have an advance sale of more than four or five thousand, and the total will never reach more than nine or ten thousand (that is, the first year or so).

  (4) — It will be bought by my own personal public - that is, by the countless flappers and college kids who think I am a sort of oracle.

  (5) — The question of Jazz or not Jazz is Scylla and Charybdis anyhow. If I use such a title as Half Portions, etc., or Chance Encounters, no one will buy it anyhow - it will just be another book of short stories. It is better to have a title and a title-connection that is a has-been than one that is a never-will-be. The splash of the flapper movement was too big to have quite died down - the outer rings are still moving.