best swimmer needs all his wind and muscle
and skill to keep afloat? If success is sometimes 'unfeeling' towards
failure, failure is often unfair to success. Of course, 'it is He that
hath made us and not we ourselves,' but that is a text that cuts both
ways; and when all is said and done, the failure detracts from the force
in the universe; he is the clog on the wheel of fortune. To say that the
successful man benefits by the failure of others is as true as it would
be to say that the ratepayer benefits by the poor-rates. You use the
word 'charlatan' somewhat profusely of several successful writers, and
no doubt you are right. But you must remember that it is a favourite
charge against the gifted and the fortunate. Because we have failed by
fair means, we are sure the other fellows have succeeded by foul. And,
moreover, one is apt to forget how much talent is needed to be a
charlatan. Never look down upon a charlatan. Courage, skill, personal
force or charm, great knowledge of human nature, dramatic instinct, and
industry--few charlatans succeed (and no one is called a charlatan till
he _does_ succeed, be his success as low or high as you please) without
possessing a majority of these qualities; how many of which--it would be
interesting to know--do you possess?

Indeed, it would seem to need more gifts to be a rogue than an honest
man, and there is a sense in which every great man may be described as a
charlatan--_plus_ greatness; greatness being an almost indefinable
quality, a quality, at any rate, on which there is a bewildering
diversity of opinion.

You seem a little cross with publishers and editors. They have not
proved the distinguished, brilliant, and sympathetic beings you imagined
them in your boyish dreams. No doubt, publishers and editors enter
hardly into the kingdom of heaven. But then, you see, they don't care so
much about that; they are much more interested in the next election at
certain fashionable clubs. It is really a little hard on them that they
should suffer from the ignorant misconception of the literary amateur.
It is only those who have had no dealings with them who would be unfair
enough to expect publishers or editors to be literary men. They are
business men--business men _par excellence_--and a good thing, too, for
their papers and their authors. You lament their mercenary view of life;
but, judging by your letter, even you are not disposed to regard money
as the root of all evil.