ENGLISH AUTHORS REFUSE TO WRITE HARROD'S HISTORY

Shannon News, 17 May 1929, Page 4

ENGLISH AUTHORS REFUSE TO WRITE HARROD'S HISTORY

Shaw, Wells and Bennett ENUNCIATE THE ETHICS OF THEIR PROFESSION LONDON. What is almost certain to be recognised as a definite outlining of a new und admirable standard of ethics for ail honourable writers, and for, literature in general has been stated byArnold Bennett, H. G. Wells, and George Bernard Shaw. They have outlined a creed in which their own assessment of their responsibility to theu* profession and to the public can hardly ■fail, in the judgment of competent critics, to raise and soundly establish the entire field of letters on a higher plane. The opportunity which these three writers have seized to define their attitude and their own estimation of their place in national and international life was supplied through, the enterprise of Sir Woodman Burbridge, head of the great department store ot Harrod's in London; . Bequest to Authors. { Sir Woodman's position was that although HarfodV and other great commercial enterprises are able to retain the best advertising talent and best artists, as well as architects, teennicians, and others of the professional classes, they had not had the real story of their growth, their amazing complexity and ramifications, and the romance of industry in general presented to the public as these great writers would be capable of presenting it. He thereupon wrote to ask if they would lend their pens in such a manner. All three declined, and in their reasoned replies is found a standard which is recognised as a noble statement of ideals* which lesser writers may strive to reach. In replying to the argument that a writer as a skilled professional who should place his talent at the services of commercial enterprise Mr. Wells said: '""' Takes Himself Seriously. "The answer is that, rightly' or wrongly, the writer takes himself more seriously than that. In his heart k* classes himself not with the artists but with the teachers and the priests and prophets. That may be an 010 view, and it ; may, be going out of fashion. "We all believe, of our generation, deep in our foundations, that our only paymaster ought to be the reader. We live on sales to readers and we don't accept fees. There is, we feci, an implicit understanding between writer and reader to that effect.'' Mr. Shaw prefaced his refusal with an account of the tremendous improvement which has taken place in journalistic, standards since he first began to write. Of the use of the best professional talent aside from writers with established reputations he says: Millais Starts Custom.

'"When Millais was' at the height

of Ms fame as a painter a very popular picture of his, representing a nice little boy blowing bubbles, was bought by the firm of Pear's, and used and reproduced as an advertisement. The Academy was shocked; but Millais took no notice; the advertisement had an enormous vogue; and advertising entered on its present phase, in which it > is a matter of course for commeTcia,l firms to employ the best available artistic and literary talent to advertise their wares and services. There is no reason on earth why they should not, and every reason why they should, now that the art of selling has so much more importance than the routine of production." Aubrey* Beardsley Poster.

Mr. Shaw then recalled that Aubrey Beardsley designed a poster for his first play and that there would be nothing questionable if he were to commission the president of the Royal Academy to design a poster for his next one. Then he continues: "But if I were to intimate to, say, Mr. St. John Ervine and Mr. Harris Deans that in the event of their notices of my play being sufficiently flattering to be usefully quoted as advertisements I should be prepared to buy the copyright from fhem for £SOO apiece, then Heaven knows what would happen. Probably both gentlemen would refuse to notice my play at all, and would say why. "By all means let our commercial houses engage skilled but nameless

scribes ... to write their advertisements as such. But a writer who has been consecrated by fame to the service of the public, and has thus become prophet as well as author, must take wages in no other service." Mr. Bennett's Opinion. Mr. Bennett bases his refusal on slightly different ground. He thinks there is not necessarily any ethical reason why he should not, under proper conditions, write advertisements, but doubts whether worthwhile public opinion would sanction such action on the part of writers whom it could, in a sense, be said to have made. He concludes: "The reason is 'that public opinion in Britain is not yet ripe to approve the employment of responsible imaginative writers to whom it has granted a reputation, in any scheme ofpublicity for a commercial concern. Personally I differ from public opinion in this matter; but the opinion exists and I will not flout it.''

Current opinion, in the short time it has had to express itself, does not see eye to eye with Mr. Bennett 'f view that in some future time recognised authors will sell their pens in the cause of commerce. Such a step seems to be generally considered retrograde, ,and in line with the practice of those days when literary men served the causes of the politicians who granted or procured pensions for

them and whom Dr. Samuel Johnson so unmercifully flogged with the vigor of his scorn. .. -