Mr. Simon’s English version is daft and sure, presenving ad-
mirably the ldge, sharpness, inclusive quality of the original.
Under the title "A mind’s dis0ection a la Schnitzler“ we read,
"The thing is corking! Quite as olever, as incisive a bit of
mind’s working analysis as we have read recently, and done in a
When now and then some
style that is reallyclascinating." (2)
adverse Kritcism is voiced it is always acompanied by an equal
amount of admiration. "Every fleeting thought, every half-formed
idea is carefully recorded. It is merely as paychology that the
book has weight: for the ordinary render it is dull and un-
plessant though it does revealed the author’s subtle understanding
of the human book;" (3) "It is a story of 'things' or 'event's
rather than one of 'characters', and so, it seems to me, gets out
of proper proportion. Schnitzler's love for drama played a track
of exäggeration on him. It comes so dangerously near to an out
and out triok ending that it could hardly be called anything else.
But there is keen introspection, splendid writing and a dramatic
Sovelopment that is superb." (4) F.D.ussith, looking at the en-
tire situation from a different point of view, thinks the story
"has a thrilling olimax." (5) B.R.Redman also sees both merits
and demerits, "As coming animated by a mildly satirical spirit,
the little book is entering enough; but that is all it is
and Ueaders will forestell disappointment by not (xpecting more).
Finally, "As a study of Gustl's manner of meeting experience,
of viewing life, it is astute, convincing, deft. finished, As a
novel by one of the most 18tinguished writers of our day it is
thin in substance and limited in conception.” (7) One observes
that by this time the stories were not judged merely as stories
but as a new work from the pen of a great author, the author of
Fraulein Else which became the standard against which every later
work was measured.
Dec. 4. l926, III. 399.
1. ) Saturday Review of Literature.
Newa (St. Paul, Minn.), Oct. 17.1926.
fimes (Los Angelos, Cal.), April 10, 1927,
4.) The San Franciscen (San Francisco, Cal.), Feb., 1927, p 31.
Newa (Dallas, Texas), Jan. 2, 1927,
New York Herald Tribune, Book Section, Oct. 3,ul-26, p 16.
7.) The DlÈl, F66.1927. LXXXII, 162.
mirably the ldge, sharpness, inclusive quality of the original.
Under the title "A mind’s dis0ection a la Schnitzler“ we read,
"The thing is corking! Quite as olever, as incisive a bit of
mind’s working analysis as we have read recently, and done in a
When now and then some
style that is reallyclascinating." (2)
adverse Kritcism is voiced it is always acompanied by an equal
amount of admiration. "Every fleeting thought, every half-formed
idea is carefully recorded. It is merely as paychology that the
book has weight: for the ordinary render it is dull and un-
plessant though it does revealed the author’s subtle understanding
of the human book;" (3) "It is a story of 'things' or 'event's
rather than one of 'characters', and so, it seems to me, gets out
of proper proportion. Schnitzler's love for drama played a track
of exäggeration on him. It comes so dangerously near to an out
and out triok ending that it could hardly be called anything else.
But there is keen introspection, splendid writing and a dramatic
Sovelopment that is superb." (4) F.D.ussith, looking at the en-
tire situation from a different point of view, thinks the story
"has a thrilling olimax." (5) B.R.Redman also sees both merits
and demerits, "As coming animated by a mildly satirical spirit,
the little book is entering enough; but that is all it is
and Ueaders will forestell disappointment by not (xpecting more).
Finally, "As a study of Gustl's manner of meeting experience,
of viewing life, it is astute, convincing, deft. finished, As a
novel by one of the most 18tinguished writers of our day it is
thin in substance and limited in conception.” (7) One observes
that by this time the stories were not judged merely as stories
but as a new work from the pen of a great author, the author of
Fraulein Else which became the standard against which every later
work was measured.
Dec. 4. l926, III. 399.
1. ) Saturday Review of Literature.
Newa (St. Paul, Minn.), Oct. 17.1926.
fimes (Los Angelos, Cal.), April 10, 1927,
4.) The San Franciscen (San Francisco, Cal.), Feb., 1927, p 31.
Newa (Dallas, Texas), Jan. 2, 1927,
New York Herald Tribune, Book Section, Oct. 3,ul-26, p 16.
7.) The DlÈl, F66.1927. LXXXII, 162.