Life, 1912-06-13 · page 12 of 44
Life — June 13, 1912 — page 12: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
This page from *Life* magazine contains an editorial essay titled "This Number" rather than a political cartoon. The illustration shows a figure at a desk, likely representing an author or writer, accompanying commentary about book publishing and literary standards. The text argues against proposed censorship of books and theatrical productions in England. It critiques the book industry's overproduction—claiming authors flood the market with derivative works lacking originality. The author satirizes the notion that limiting book output would help, noting that "nothing new has been written to date" and authors merely recycle existing plots. The piece advocates for merit-based standards rather than censorship, suggesting books should be evaluated individually rather than restricted by arbitrary quotas. The broader point criticizes both excessive literary production and heavy-handed government control of publications.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
SWEET DREAMS WILDAKERS VISUTS NEW YORK, AND, AFTER A LONG DRIVE This Number r has been recently proposed in England that a censorship be es- tablished for books as well as for theatrical productions, with the idea, presumably, of eliminating anything that may be meretricious. We do not think that a censor- ship of this kind is necessary. What we would suggest is that cach person in the nation be limited to a certain number of volumes, unless under some extraordinary condi- tion. No person, even in good health, should write more than one book a year. If this rule were ad- hered to there might be some chance of devoting a number of Lire like the present one to giving a fair idea of the principal books to be published. At present the hook industry is about the only one that has not been investigated, probably because the authors have never formed themselves into a trust. A million authors, each one working for himself on a com- petitive basis, can do more damage than-if they were con- solidated, because there is really no chance to get at them except to take up cach individual case. Our natural resources ought to be considered. The amount of paper pulp that is used in this country in the production of novels is appalling. When you add to this IN MIS SON-IN-LAW'S CAR, ENJOYS \ NIGHT'S REST the ink, and the labor of printing and binding, the results would shock almost any self-respecting patriot. The most dreadful part of the whole business is that the industry is really kept upon its feet by the fact that the public is constantly living in hopes that something new will be written. Nothing new has been written up to date. We know that in the nature of things nothing new will be written, and yet authors continue to flood the market with stories which are supposed to give an entirely new idea of human nature—to say nothing of plot. It was Thoreau who said that once having discovered the motives which lay behind murders he thereafter re- frained from reading accounts of murders in the papers, knowing that they were all alike. A modern book is a combination of words, more or less hastily arranged around old ideas. If it be stated that literary art is in reality nothing but personality, and that it doesn’t make any difference what a man writes about so long as he himself writes it, the answer lies in the fact that there are no longer any personalities. The author may just as well be labeled by a number and schedule in a certain cla , for example: 1. Erotic. 2. Detective. 3. Character, ete. This being a book number, however, we are obliged to do something, if only to show that there are books still heing published here. We have done the best that we could under the harrowing circumstances, but take no par- ticular pride in it. comicbooks.com