In less than twenty years we have seen wonderful changes in public taste and in the efforts of writers to meet it or to create it.  We saw the everlastingly revived conflict between realism and romanticism.  We saw the realist run into the naturalist, the naturalist into the animalist, the psychologist into the sexualist, and the sudden reaction to romance, in the form of what is called the historic novel, the receipt for which can be prescribed by any competent pharmacist.  The one essential in the ingredients is that the hero shall be mainly got out of one hole by dropping him into a deeper one, until—­the proper serial length being attained—­he is miraculously dropped out into daylight, and stands to receive the plaudits of a tenderhearted world, that is fond of nothing so much as of fighting.

The extraordinary vogue of certain recent stories is not so much to be wondered at when we consider the millions that have been added to the readers of English during the past twenty-five years.  The wonder is that a new book does not sell more largely, or it would be a wonder if the ability to buy kept pace with the ability to read, and if discrimination had accompanied the appetite for reading.  The critics term these successes of some recent fictions “crazes,” but they are really sustained by some desirable qualities—­they are cleverly written, and they are for the moment undoubtedly entertaining.  Some of them as undoubtedly appeal to innate vulgarity or to cultivated depravity.  I will call no names, because that would be to indict the public taste.  This recent phenomenon of sales of stories by the hundred thousand is not, however, wholly due to quality.  Another element has come in since the publishers have awakened to the fact that literature can be treated like merchandise.  To use their own phrase, they “handle” books as they would “handle” patent medicines, that is, the popular patent medicines that are desired because of the amount of alcohol they contain; indeed, they are sold along with dry-goods and fancy notions.  I am not objecting to this great and wide distribution any more than I am to the haste of fruit-dealers to market their products before they decay.  The wary critic will be very careful about dogmatizing over the nature and distribution of literary products.  It is no certain sign that a book is good because it is popular, nor is it any more certain that it is good because it has a very limited sale.  Yet we cannot help seeing that many of the books that are the subject of crazes utterly disappear in a very short time, while many others, approved by only a judicious few, continue in the market and slowly become standards, considered as good stock by the booksellers and continually in a limited demand.