Feb. 18/84.
My Dear Howells:
You will not be able to see the force of your objection, if you will look it straight in the face.
It amounts to this: If an actor plays the piece under our backed by our names ‸alone,‸ his reputation for indecency will soil us, smirch [us. If] But if he plays it so, ‸additionally‸ backed by the Mallorys names, that will make everything respectable; we suffer no smirch, because the name of the Mallorys is our protection.
Now the facts are, that you & I ‸are‸ respectable men, & quite well known to be so; whereas, from the Atlantic to the Pacific the Mallorys are just as well known to be thieves & ghouls, cheats & liars.
You seem to think that the Mallorys could lift up a foul man, & the public would forget, in the dazzle of this connection, that he was foul—but that you & I could not do this miracle. I confess to you it would have taken many centuries for the idea to beget itself in my head that the Mallorys could make a thing respectable which you & I could not make respectable.
Goodwin is an unknown man; grant that he is all you say: nobody knows it. Inquire—inquire: in 39 out of 40 cases you will have to go into a lot of tedious details in order to enable your man ‸to‸ remember that he has ever heard of Goodwin before—& then all the chances are that he will remember having seen him as the Grave-digger, or Con the Shaughran, or some other eminently decent character.
A man whom nobody knows, doesn’t need the Mallorys’ great name to protect or re-create his reputation.
I have stopped the negociations with Goodwin by telegraph. Of course I cannot act upon your suggestion to let the play pass as my sole composition—I could not do that, even though the other writer were a totally unknown person. Could you?
Raymond’s new piece is profitable in the large cities only. From what I could hear in New York, it is not likely to have a very long life. If you would like to try Cullington, go ahead & do it; I am perfectly willing, but I think he will be like the others, & require that the name be changed. If he does not, I shall have a poorer opinion of his character than you have of Goodwin’s. ⟦Meanwhile, I’ve got to write Goodwin & explain my telegram—which I wish I knew how to do it without leaving with him the conviction that I am shabbier than any one can suppose him to be. Be Jasus, if you ‸had‸ telegraphed so important a matter, instead of trusting it to the mail when the time was so short, I’d have got it before I left home; & then I shouldn’t have any explanations to make, now. However, I am used to disagreeable work, & am & don’t mind it as much as I am letting on to.⟧ To go back to where I was: if Cullington should fail you, or should not seem to be the right man, suppose we try your suggestion of a day or two ago—wait for Raymond. It seems quite within the possibilities that we might not have to wait long.
If I haven’t said it all, or ‸have not‸ said it clearly, fog forgive it & charge it to fatigue; for I’ve just got home from New York quite han[d]somely fagged out.
Yrs Ever
Mark.
P. S. I’ve fixed it, & without trouble: told Webster to tell Goodwin you are not willing that the name shall be changed. That will end it.
Textual Commentary
Source text(s):Previous publication:
MTHL, 2:473–75.
Provenance:
see Howells Letters in Description of Provenance.
Emendations and textual notes:
us. If • ~.— | ~
