Giles Goat Boy Read Free Page B

Revised
New
Syllabus
, not for reasons of morality, law, or politics, but simply on aesthetic and commercial grounds. The thing won’t turn us a profit, and I see no ethical or “prestigial” justification for losing a nickel on it. Publishing may be a moral enterprise, as [A] likes to claim, but first of all it’s just an enterprise, and I for one think it’s as unprofessional to
publish
a book for moral reasons (which is what young [B’s] enthusiasms amount to) as to reject one for moral reasons. [A] quite obviously has personal motivesfor rejecting the book; I submit that [B] has motives equally personal, if more sympathetic, for pushing its acceptance. He’s new to our profession, and knows very well that discovering fresh talent is a road to success second only to pirating established talents from the competition. He has a young man’s admirable compassion for lost causes, a young scholar’s sympathy for minor talents, and a young intellectual’s love of the heterodox, the esoteric, the obscure. Moreover he’s a writer of fiction himself and no doubt feels a certain kinship with others whose talents have brought them as yet no wealth or fame. Finally, it’s no reflection on his basic integrity that on the first manuscript he’s been asked his opinion of, he might be less than eager to oppose the known judgment of the man who hired him; but that circumstance probably oughtn’t to be discounted—especially since his vote to publish is a “net sentiment” by his own acknowledging, arrived at over numerous and grave reservations.
    I think I may say that my own position is relatively objective. I agree that there are inferior books which one does right to lose a bit of money on in order not to lose a superior author, and there are superior books (very rare!) which one publishes, regardless of their commercial value, merely to have been their publisher. But the book in question I take to be neither: it’s a poor-risk work by a poor-risk author. It wants subtlety and expertise: the story is not so much “astonishing” as preposterous, the action absurd. The hero is a physical, aesthetic, and moral monstrosity; the other characters are drawn with small regard for realism and at times lack even the consistency of stereotypes; the dialogue is generally unnatural and wanting in variety from speaker to speaker—everyone sounds like the author! The prose style—that unmodern, euphuistic, half-metrical bombast—is admittedly contagious (witness [A’s] and [B’s] lapses into it); even more so is syphilis. The theme is obscure, probably blasphemous; the wit is impolite, perhaps even suggestive of unwholesome preoccupations; the psychology—but there is no psychology in it. The author clearly is ignorant of things and people as they really are: consider his disregard for the reader! Granted that long novels are selling well lately, one surely understands that mere bulk is not what sells them; and when their mass consists of interminable exposition, lecture, and harangue (how gratified I was to see that windy old lunatic Max Spielman put to death!), it is the very antidote to profit. Indeed, I can’t imagine to whom a work like
R.N.S
. might appeal, unless to those happily rare, more or less disturbed, and never affluent intelligences—remote, cranky, ineffectual—from whom it is known the author receives his only fan-mail.
    What I suggest as our best course, then, is not to “protect our investment” by publishing this
Revised New Syllabus
(and the one after that, and the one after that), but to cut our losses by not throwing good money after bad. My own “net sentiment” is a considered rejection not only of this manuscript but of its author. He has yet to earn us a sou; his very energy (let us say,
inexorableness
), divorced as it is from public appeal, is a liability to us, like the energy of crabgrass or cancer. Despite some praise from questionable critics and a tenuous repute among