Further, I am not pleading for the suppression of comment and, if need be, condemnation.  But either to praise or condemn without instances is dull.  Neither the one thing nor the other is the chief thing in the review.  They are the crown of the review, but not its life.  There are many critics to whom condemnation of books they do not like seems the chief end of man.  They regard themselves as engaged upon a holy war against the Devil and his works.  Horace complained that it was only poets who were not allowed to be mediocre.  The modern critic—­I should say the modern critic of the censorious kind, not the critic who looks on it as his duty to puff out meaningless superlatives over every book that appears—­will not allow any author to be mediocre.  The war against mediocrity is a necessary war, but I cannot help thinking that mediocrity is more likely to yield to humour than to contemptuous abuse.  Apart from this, it is the reviewer’s part to maintain high standards for work that aims at being literature, rather than to career about, like a destroying angel, among books that have no such aim.  Criticism, Anatole France has said, is the record of the soul’s adventures among masterpieces.  Reviewing, alas! is for the most part the record of the soul’s adventures among books that are the reverse of masterpieces.  What, then, are his standards to be?  Well, a man must judge linen as linen, cotton as cotton, and shoddy as shoddy.  It is ridiculous to denounce any of them for not being silk.  To do so is not to apply high standards so much as to apply wrong standards.  One has no right as a reviewer to judge a book by any standard save that which the author aims at reaching.  As a private reader, one has the right to say of a novel by Mr. Joseph Hocking, for instance:  “This is not literature.  This is not realism.  This does not interest me.  This is awful.”  I do not say that these sentences can be fairly used of any of Mr. Hocking’s novels.  I merely take him as an example of a popular novelist who would be bound to be condemned if judged by comparison with Flaubert or Meredith or even Mr. Galsworthy.  But the reviewer is not asked to state whether he finds Mr. Hocking readable so much as to state the kind of readableness at which Mr. Hocking aims and the measure of his success in achieving it.  It is the reviewer’s business to discover the quality of a book rather than to keep announcing that the quality does not appeal to him.  Not that he need conceal the fact that it has failed to appeal to him, but he should remember that this is a comparatively irrelevant matter.  He may make it as clear as day—­indeed, he ought to make it as clear as day, if it is his opinion—­that he regards the novels of Charles Garvice as shoddy, but he ought also to make it clear whether they are the kind of shoddy that serves its purpose.