Life, 1910-08-18 · page 30 of 36
Life — August 18, 1910 — page 30: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
This page combines editorial commentary with advertising. The main content is "The Literary Zoo," an article defending editors against accusations of poor judgment. The piece references **O. Henry** (the pen name of Sydney Porter), a short story writer who faced repeated rejection—thirteen editors refused his work before the fourteenth accepted it. The article uses this as evidence that editors make difficult but principled decisions: they must reject personally appealing work if they judge it unmarketable to their general readership. The article argues editors deserve respect for resisting the "temptation" to publish what they personally enjoy but believe won't appeal to readers—a form of professional self-sacrifice. The large advertisement below promotes an article in *Metropolitan Magazine* by **Johnny Evers**, second baseman for the Chicago Nationals, predicting who will win the baseball pennant—typical sports content for the era. The page reflects early 1900s literary gatekeeping culture and the emerging celebrity athlete magazine feature.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
"LIFE: EC suffer, in consequence, regrets even We cite his case because it happens rugs are to be needed keener than the customary kind. No come uppermost. Here was a wrtg in the Fall, Summer is less than thirteen editors successively of marked originality, proffering tie the time to buy them. resisted the appeal in a too original most marketable of wares—the sho | tale by an unknown young man named story, yet unable to sell it to a KRENT-COSTIHKYAN Sydney Porter; the fourteenth took a the thirteen editors. TNCORPORATED chance, and O. Henry swam into our must have seen; its quality, of Murray Hill Building ken? they enjoyed. Our fane: 8 West 38th Street, _ Was Sydney Porter an exception? (Continued onrpapeas supply tio a stor hfe fr ears a An Impertinent Talk to Editors We have an immense respect for edi- tors, in spite of the circumstance that the pleasureable emotions which they \ old for experience in reading certain manu- scripts submitted to them are so often q ‘. And mingled with the pangs of regret. The ! ‘other self-efiacement constantly required of 5 { =f N zines d them in reshipping literary wares per- i y inary ; sonaily enjoyed, yet of problematic in- < , — seiie terest to their readers, is, on the whole, . neverth greatly to their credit. Perhaps the Chester editor’s greatest and most frequent and go temptation is to print the stories, poems instruct and articles which appeal to him be- aA cause of their unusual quality, but thr ma which, nevertheless, may prove unpala- view. table to his immense mixed audience. “paved A theatrical manager—such as Mod- yelt anc jeska’s—may occasionally defy the known public demand by producing an him personal pleasure; but for the edi- tor such a debauch of self-gratification is impossible. He must, and he man- fully does, resist the temptation to please himself at any price. And so it b happens that, however low may be our a i opinion of an editor's adverse decision, ll it is generally in inverse ratio to our 5 db £ Chi Nati admiration of his moral strength. | econ aseman o 1cago ational There are times when a blue slip con- tains a kind of spiritual message, and pi becomes, as it were. the token of fast- in the ugu st ing and pray Editors, of course, do sometimes err in purveying to a whimsical public, and | LIVER UPSET? Try Janos NATURAL APERIENT WATER Avoid Unscrupulous Druggists