for contributions; we are using the methods of publicity common at this moment. It is only a question of taste whether publishers shall have "stunt" advertising or no—there are books, wares as they are called, to which the method is eminently suitable.
The danger, already envisaged in France, is in the effect upon independent criticism. A common item in foreign reviews, for example, is the "publisher's section" in which appear signed, critical reviews of books—with which the editors of the journal have nothing to do; they do, in fact, print on the last page preceding that section some note indicating that here editorial responsibility ends. These arranged-for, or bought, reviews, are not fatal; the same thing occurs all too often in the body of publications. And we ourselves have seen the results of adverse criticism in the case of books where "millions" are being spent on advertising. It is agreeable to attack a book which is becoming popular through advertising; but few critics are in such a position that they can give themselves the bad name of independence; few editors can remain permanently in command of their papers if publishers can use advertising as a weapon. As far as we know, no publisher has withdrawn advertising from The Dial on account of adverse reviews; but we know of cases elsewhere. We know that some publishers are so intent upon the immediate good that they do not understand the cumulative value of adverse criticism—if it is intelligent and honest—as a basis for confidence when favourable criticism appears. One of the most influential organs of criticism in America has praised countless thousands of books—and sold them so. We are aware of that power. But the number of individuals who are growing sceptical, and who are caring for independent intelligence, is growing. Prizes and publicity will increase that number. Perhaps that is their only function.
