The Secretary during the last month has dealt with seven fresh cases, in three of which he has already been successful. With the exception of three cases which are still in the course of negotiation, he has satisfactorily terminated those that were before him at the date of publication of last month's Author. The Committee have determined to take counsel's opinion on behalf of one of their members in a complicated case on the interpretation of an agreement where a large amount of literary property is involved.

The Committee have decided to call a meeting of the Copyright Sub-committee, with a view to again raising the question of the Copyright Bill. The course that the Copyright Sub-committee adopts will be reported in due course in these columns.

Sir Walter Besant Memorial.

THE Committee feel that the debt of gratitude owed by the Society to their founder, Sir Walter Besant, should be adequately recorded in a permanent memorial, and are sure that all members of the Society will share this feeling. In their

OF AUTHORS.

only his distinction as a novelist, and as an historian and a citizen of London, but also his services to his fellow writers, and the special position he occupied amongst them.

The summer holidays intervening have caused a certain amount of delay in the Committee's action, but they have conferred with Lady Besant, who gives the project her cordial approval. The approval of George Meredith, the President of the Society, has also been accorded to it, and it has been decided, with the sanction of the Dean and Chapter, to place a memorial in the crypt of St. Paul's, adjacent to the tablet that commemorates Charles Reade.

Mr. George Frampton, A.R.A., has promised to undertake the work, and it is hoped that such a sum will be raised as will enable the scheme to be carried out in a manner worthy of its object.

A letter has already been sent to the members of the Council of the Society, and in due course a circular containing further particulars will be sent out to all members, and from time to time the list of subscriptions will be published in The Author.

The Committee make this statement as a preliminary notice, in order that it may not appear to those who loved and admired our late founder that any unnecessary delay has taken place in organising the expression of the affection and regret felt towards their founder by the members of the Society.

We have inserted a notice in The Author concerning the bona fides of the cases quoted in its pages. It has been necessary to do so owing to the fact that a great many detractors of the Society have stated that these cases never really occurred. The

main reasons for withholding names are generally two. Firstly, the fear of the member concerned lest he should be involved in an action for libel; and secondly, his dislike for any publicity which he considers may prejudice him should he be seeking further publication.

The latter point, no doubt, acts as a very strong lever. Members of the Society used to fear the publication of the fact that they were members, on the ground that publishers would refuse to deal with them, and even now there are some who are afraid

of this position. This is one of the reasons why the votes of the members of the Society were against the publication of a list of members. This fear, however, has to a great extent passed away, and subscribers to the Society are only too anxious to proclaim their membership when they are in difficulties with publishers. As a matter of fact, there are those who are not members, and never have been, who are only too glad at times to make a false statement in order to bring a publisher to a reasonable understanding.

It may be instructive to draw the attention of the members of the Society to the opinion of publishers expressed by Sir Walter Scott, quoted in "Lockhart's Life," vol. 2, chapter 4. Sir Walter states as follows::

"The publishers are very like farmers who flourish best to high rent, and in general take most pains to sell a book that has cost them money to purchase."

From experience at the Society's office, it is quite clear that Sir Walter Scott was well aware of the peculiarities of the publishing trade, and his statement continues as true now as it was then. If an author will but value himself at his proper standard, he is much more likely to obtain satisfactory arrangements, and have his books more liberally pushed, than his fellow who may be constantly underselling his own market.

The above paragraph points the reason of the failure of the commission book. A publisher has nothing to work for if he publishes a commission book, and therefore, in the great majority of cases, a work put on the market under an arrangement of this kind is bound to fail. If it is successful, it is generally owing to the action of the author, not of the publisher.

Until the publisher rises up who will publish nothing but commission books, the same result will always occur.

The discussion of this subject calls to our mind. the question of the one-book man, which has been mentioned in The Author from time to time. Now that the war has been raging in South Africa for some time, the point is perhaps brought more forcibly before the public.

Many on their return from South Africa desire to publish their reminiscences, and laying their maiden effort at the feet of a publisher are met of the kind on the market, but that, if the author with the usual answer that there are too many books publish the book on commission. cares to pay for the cost of production, he will This is the

publisher's harvest. It is quite certain that the one-book man, whether he is a yeoman returning from the war, or whether he is a man of distinction

writing his memoirs, will not, as a rule, obtain himself to the publisher as he would to his confidential adviser-the pity of it.

advice on a matter of this kind. He will trust

The

The absurdity of the position has often been mentioned, but the fact remains the same. consequence is, a considerable outlay by the author usually exceeding the ordinary market price of the cost of production of the book, and no return in the way of profits. The reason of the lack of profits arises, firstly, because-coming back to Sir Walter Scott's statement-the publishers have no stimulus charge (this word is not the word used by the to push the book; secondly, because of the overpublishers) for printing, paper, advertising, and other details of the cost of production.

It is curious to note that in the case of theatrical performances the tendency of the public is to demand pieces which are light, pleasing and amusing. For every serious drama that is produced there must be at least two of a lighter and more amusing kind, yet, on turning to literature, we see wonderfully few amusing writers compared with the number who write serious, problematical and heavy fiction.

It would be interesting if some of the latter-day philosophers would write an article dealing with

this question from the psychological point of view. It is impossible to think that those who read the works of fiction placed on the market read them with a view to a serious study of life, rather than with a view to their personal amusement.

The following paragraph taken from the New Zealand Times will have a mournful significance to many members of the Authors' Society :

"A visit to the grave of R. L. Stevenson would disappoint many people. While some time back visits to this famous hill were most frequent, the limit must now be six persons yearly. And no wonder! The place is quite overgrown with weeds, and perhaps will some day be hard to discover. I understand that on receiving a complaint from a Sydney resident, a little while back, the British Consul sent some of his men up and the place was cleared. It is now time for another clearing."

We have taken the liberty of printing the late James Runciman's opinion on the subject of literary men being businesslike; it is pithy and powerful. It may act as an antidote to those who from time to time objected to some of the methods of our Founder.

"No babble sickens me so much as that about the fading of noble aspirations. The talk about contempt for money mostly comes from men who are too self-indulgent to undergo exertion, but who will readily take whatever they can get without trouble. In my own experience of life, I have found that if you want to see an unscrupulous grabber of the worst type you must seek out a wild poet who despises Philistines. He will not deny himself anything; he will feed from any hand, and he will write lightsome sarcasms about everyone who feeds him. He is generous to himself, and he is overpoweringly bitter towards those who make life an affair of half-pence; but he snatches half-pence greedily enough when they have been earned by other people. He is secretly ashamed because his own impotence reduces him to being beholden to the Philistine, and he eases his shame by making scornful comments on his providers.

"The men who do the lordly acts of generosity, the men who are beneficent to their families, to the poor, to the State, are the hard fellows who take their work as they find it, live rationally, forego indulgences, and gather the form of force which we call money. They can afford to be munificent, and they are good citizens, for the simple reason that they recognise the laws of existence and preserve their self-respect. There is more real poetry in the heart of a merchant who goes soberly homeward wondering what he can do to gratify his wife and children than there is in the whole tribe of fribbles who think that the main duties of life are to wear ugly hats and derive impressions.' People like Firth and Nasmyth and Armstrong have given more happiness to the world than have all the rhymers and prosers that ever moaned about the waywardness of fate and the accursed influence of dross.' "JAMES RUNCIMAN."

We have put forward in the last number of The Author and are printing in this number some remarks on the production of educational works.

If any member of the Society, or the public,

will forward statements containing figures-that is, of the price given, of the circulation, and of other details-we will gladly work out the returns to the publisher and the author, and again test the truth of the publishers' statement regarding the profits from school books.

"To write a book is an easy task; it requires only pen and ink and some patient paper. To print a book is slightly more difficult, because genius often expresses itself in illegible manuscript. To read a book is still more difficult, as one must struggle against sleep. But the most difficult task that anyone may attempt is to sell a book.-Felix Dahn."

The above cutting from the Publishers' Circular is mildly satirical. It is also inaccurate. We let it pass. It is not the first time The Author has been reminded that genius lies with the publisher, and that the great literary undertakings of the world would fall flat without "a goose to lay the golden egg."

In the last number we had reason to make some remarks about epigrams; the following, culled from a comic paper, may suggest an idea to some member on the point of writing an article on the subject. She (to unromantic brother): He called me the apple of his eye. Is that an epigram? He: No, it's piffle.

Mr. Robert MacLehose, of the well-known Glasgow firm, has kindly written an article on "The Net System," which is published in this month's Author.

The matter may not appear of much importance to members of the Society, but the price at which books are sold to the public, and the maintenance of a flourishing book trade throughout the country, should not be looked upon with indifference by the producers.

With the author should lie ultimately the power of determining in what manner and at what price his wares should be marketed, that he may receive the fair reward of his labour.

In those countries where the publisher and bookseller by strong combination rule the market, the author suffers and the tradesmen flourish.

The policy of all should be to obtain a just return. It is to be hoped that further articles on the book trade in future numbers may lead to the clearing up of certain disputed points.

Quite recently a case came before the Society of a book published in cheap form in England under an author's name which had never been written by the author.

The Society readily dealt with the matter and the book was withdrawn from circulation with apologies.

We regret to say that the same mistake has frequently occurred the other side of the water, and is much more difficult to deal with.

The American pirate has in many cases grown bold, through freedom from persecution. He finds an English writer whose works sell in quantities in America, proceeds to take a certain amount of copy -Heaven knows where he gets it from-binds it up in cheap form, and publishes it, with the name of the popular writer referred to.

This naturally causes the author in England many heart-burnings, as his literary reputation is at stake, and the damage that may accrue may possibly be very large.

To strike at this grievance, although a matter of import, is a question of considerable difficulty, as it is very often the case that the author, unwilling to journey to the other side of the water, does not care about starting an action in America. He accordingly refrains from taking up the matter, with the exception, perhaps, of writing a few letters to the American papers, and the pirate flourishes on his ill-gotten gains. The Society, however, has some influence in New York, and has succeeded on one or two occasions in settling cases of this kind, owing to the weight of its name, without the necessity of commencing action.

There is another amusing trick that some of the American publishers indulge in. This is not so harmful from the literary standpoint, but to the author is rather a cause for amusement than a reason for alarm.

When in America we noticed several cheap editions of books written by famous authors, with the portraits of the authors on the paper cover outside. In many cases the portraits bore no resemblance whatever to the author in the flesh as we knew him in England, and in many cases went beyond this and bore an extremely strong resemblance to other well-known authors with whom we have the honour of being acquainted.

A

G. H. T.

AUTHOR AND LITERARY AGENT.

I.

S the Secretary of the Society of Authors asks my opinion on the utility of the Author's Agent, I wish to say that in most cases he seems to me a useless and expensive excrescence.

To take first the exceptions. For an English writer, an American agent is a necessity, and the converse may to a lesser degree hold true for

American writers. For Continental rights, too, an agent in each of the countries where translations are issued is a necessity if anything like the full pecuniary value is to be extracted for them. Then again, for an English writer living abroad (say, in a colony) or travelling, a London literary agent is, if not a necessity, at any rate a luxury. The literary agent may be of service also to the "onebook man-the writer who publishes only now and again, the writer who knows that his books will not sell, and does not look to get a profit out of them.

As to whether the London literary agent will consent to handle the work of this latter class, is another matter.

But for the professional writer, the writer who pens matter which sells, the writer who looks to make a living, or part of a living, out of his books and serial rights, I emphatically hold that the literary agent, as at present on offer in London, is a clog and a hindrance.

The literary agent's first object is very naturally to make his own living. Observe how the author's interest clashes with this at the very outset. The agent has, say, three short tales by three tolerably well-known pens, A., B. and C., in his hands, each worth for serial use about £20. He wants to sell all three to one magazine, as he knows that other markets are crowded. He knows quite well that the pay-sheet of that particular magazine will not stand £60, though it would be quite equal to taking one tale at £20, which at 10 per cent. commission would produce him £2. This also would leave the other two tales on his hands and cause him further trouble. But instead of selling this one tale at full price, he prefers to make a bargain for the three at £40, which produces him £4, and the bother of the thing is over as far as he is concerned. It is a case of small profits and quick

returns.

I think a point of view has been missed over this matter. Authors should remember that they are all in competition against one another, and why competitors in the same affairs should employ the same agent to represent them, is a riddle which no sane business man can answer.

Authors should remember, too, that they are personally responsible for anything this agent chooses to bind them to, accidentally or otherwise. Literary agents are notorious for making slipshod agreements. Literary agents are constantly ignoring their principal's definite instructions on the doubtful ground of expediency. Literary agents (presumably on the old plea that all writers are fools) charge, at the lowest, the grotesquely excessive fee of 10 per cent. on all monies received.

From a beginner this charge might not be exorbitant; but then the literary agent is far too

wise to handle a beginner's work. For a writer whose writing income is over, say, £500 a year, a charge of £50 per £500 is ridiculous. A man in that position would, with the exercise of a little common sense, have no trouble whatever in selling his wares, and if he grudged the hour or two a week necessary to attend to a few simple letters, he could with his £50 hire the services of a clerk or secretary who would serve him far more profitably than any general agent.

Finally, what does experience show? How many of the writing men and women, who are at the top of the ladder to-day as regards money receipts for their work, employ a London literary agent? There is one doubtful exception: all the rest do not. (Remember, I am not speaking of American or Continental agents.)

The writers to whom the services of the present literary agents may be recommended, are those who are lazy, incompetent, or self-indulgent. The others should give up one entire half-day to mastering the very simple business aspects of the matter, and then either handle their own affairs personally, or (if they are abnormally large) put them in the hands of a secretary, or an agent or solicitor who in literary matters acts for them, and for no one else. OMEGA.

II.

I HAVE been asked to offer some reply to Mr. Heinemann's straightforward letter in the October number of The Author.

I do not propose to discuss the agent from the publisher's point of view. That is not my business. But as an author I may perhaps be allowed to hold a strong opinion with regard to writers generally and literature.

What is this nonsense about the author's "greed" for an "immediate money return"? This snobbish attitude in the matter of an artist and his fees was never found at any time among the distinguished. Michael Angelo wanted his money paid, and his contracts arranged, many years in advance. Shakespeare, Molière, Balzac, George Sand, George Eliot, de Maupassant, and Sir Walter Scott were never so vulgar as to affect indifference to financial affairs. I take it that of all peculiar signs of an essential commonness in an artist, this one of prattling about the indignity of accepting money for "art' is the most striking. I have never met a person with such insincere views who did not live on the complaining generosity of relatives and friends. Art is work; the artist is a working man or woman, and the moment that an author, or a critic, or a craftsman seeks to better a condition of such honesty by making it a mood or a pose instead of a necessity and a calling, he may be counted

:

among the incompetent. Mr. Heinemann, with protective zeal, complains that it is against the interests of literature that an author should be pledged body and soul "years ahead." An author who can be overworked by his agent, or forced by "pledges" into over-production, is an author who will ruin himself in any case. Tragedy of this kind depends on those circumstances of life which drive other men than authors to desperate-invariably killing-efforts to fight an unphilanthropic world. So far as my own experience of agents is concerned, I can but say that in the first instance I managed my own transactions. I did not manage them badly I have no grievances to air: I am quite willing that the publisher should make his legitimate profit on what is always for him not merciful patronage, but speculation absolutely. I have now given the arrangement of my contracts to a well-known, very able, and very courteous agent. I do not find my "physical and mental health sinking under his influence. I write when I please, as I please, and for a sum of money which I myself fix-either on account of royalties, or for a fee outright. My agent collects this, deducts a reasonable commission for his trouble, sees that my agreements--subject to my own approval--are in order, that my interests are protected abroad and elsewhere. Publishers may not like him: I have no fault to find.

In the case of the author with his first success-An agent will not advise him against his interest. This is certain. In the case of the unknown author--who wishes for information, for an introduction, the agent will not mislead him. Quite the reverse. He will tell him actual facts about the commercial side of "art." And why not? What is the matter with commerce that a person of supposed refinement is expected to shrink from it with disgust? If men have been expressly taught to get their bread by preaching the Word of God, there is certainly no reason why they should rate their own compositions as too precious for any earthly payment, or too sublime to be treated with in legal contracts. Mr. Heinemann has the reputation of being a generous publisher and an appreciative one. He cannot have had a disheartening struggle with the "literary" classes. But he must know that the weak among them were born weak, and not made so by unscrupulous middlemen. Authors are marred by over-advertisement and worthless praise-never because they insist on adequate payment, and are represented by efficient men of business.

PEARL MARY TERESA CRAIGIE.