Sherwood. "Four American Impressions." The
||XXXII (11 Oct.1922):
Short story writer Anderson offers a personal
as well as a professional appraisal of Lardner, Gertrude
Stein, Paul Rosenfeld, and Sinclair Lewis.
Anderson stresses Lardner's shyness and his
sensitivity; says he shows "more understanding of
life, more human sympathy, more salty wisdom" in a
paragraph "than in hundreds of pages of say, Mr.
Sinclair Lewis's dreary prose" (171), and also
observes that Lardner does not find the modern world
"altogether barren and ugly" (172) as does
Lewis; compares Lardner favorably with Mark Twain.
|---. "Meeting Ring Lardner."
The New Yorker 25 Nov. 1933: 36,38. Rpt. in
Mamoroneck NY: Paul P. Appel, 1970. 1-7.
Vividly describes two meetings with Lardner
and Lardner's friend Grantland Rice during the Mardi Gras
(probably 1926); depicts Lardner as an admirable yet
enigmatic character, who usually hid behind masks, either
that of the drunken entertainer, or a stoic Midwesterner.
Though Anderson often seems too interested in proving
his thesis that Lardner hid behind masks, his impressions
of Lardner are memorable and thought provoking.
Anderson describes the first meeting in a small
restaurant in the French Quarter as pleasant. The
waiters and seemingly all others who come in contact with
Lardner want to please him. Anderson counts himself
among those who have a "warm affection" (2) and
protective feeling for Lardner. The second meeting
takes place two days later. Lardner calls Anderson
on the way from one party to the next. Anderson
meets him at a party "in a swell house in a swell
part of town" (4). When Anderson arrives, Ring
is entertaining the crowd by singing and playing the
piano. Later Lardner introduces Anderson to various
guests as the author of The Great Gatsby, Tess
of the d'Urbervilles, or Moby Dick (5).
Lardner tells Anderson to get some bottles and
meet him outside. Anderson does so, but Ring
arrives with the host of the party they have just
left. The host, a banker, is afraid to ask to come
along, and Ring is afraid to ask him to come along.
The two stand awkwardly, and Anderson watches
Lardner's mask slip for a moment.
Robert C. "The Fate of the Funny
Men." Rev. of Say It With
||Oil, by Ring
Lardner. Bookman LVII
(June, 1923): 455-57.
Begins with a fable of three funny men
intended "to indicate a danger which may result in
the general extinction of American humor through quantity
production" (456). Lardner's book is used as
an example of a story written to please a magazine
editor, not the author. Despite the writer's
opinion that the piece is uninspired, he maintains that
it is very funny anyway and that "even magazine
editors can't kill Mr. Lardner" (457).
In the fable which begins this review, three humorists
are "contenders for the mantle of Mark Twain"
(455). The first is ruined by a newspaper editor
who wants him to be funny every day of the year and in a
way that appeals to a mass audience. The second is
ruined by a magazine editor who has all sorts of funny
ideas of his own for the humorist to write about.
The third tries to write for himself, but he too writes
too often in order to feed his family. He is
ultimately seized by "the Spirit of Service"
(456), wanting to show his serious side to the world.
In the review, though Benchley says the story is
not intended to apply literally to the writers he
mentions, H. I. Phillips is identified as the first
humorist, Gelett Burgess and Ellis Parker Butler are
identified as the third humorist, and Lardner is the
second, albeit with many qualifications. Benchley
says that the book is funny and that Lardner has put
"more laughs in it than you will find in the
collected works of any other humorist" (457).
That said, Benchley wishes aloud that Lardner would work
on other projects rather than "trying to rewrite
something that editors have been suggestion to funny men
for hundreds of years" (457). This response to
Lardner--that he is great but he could use his talent in
better ways--followed Lardner throughout his career (see
"Ring" by F. Scott Fitzgerald, for example).
|Berryman, John. "The Case
of Ring Lardner." Commentary XXII (Nov.
In response to the publication of Elder's
biography, which he characterizes as wordy but
"surprisingly candid for a work produced so soon
after its subject's death, and under the continuous
assistance of his surviving family" (417), Berryman
tries to separate Lardner the celebrity from Lardner the
writer; offers a concise review of Lardner's life and
works; advances the viewpoint that Lardner's best work is
the "accident of talent" (422), that he lacked
"purposefulness," and serious skills necessary
to be considered as an artist.
The article begins with a general statement about the
nature and role of the artist and critic in America and
the sometimes difficult task the critic faces in
determining who exactly is an artist before criticism can
be given. In America, says Berryman, serious
artists pretend to be common folk and popular
entertainers pretend to be artists (416-417).
Berryman next summarizes Donald Elder's book, Ring
Lardner (417-419). He concludes that Lardner's
biography shows a man without "purposefulness"
and "drive toward expression" (419), those
qualities which would make him a candidate for
consideration as an artist. Using "The Love
Nest" as a "random" example, Berryman sets
out to investigate Lardner's characters.
After summarizing the story, Berryman concludes that it
is "trite and implausible" (420), displaying
"gross carelessness, indifference" and points
out some inconsistencies in Celia's behavior and the
reactions of Bartlett and Gregg. His opinion of the
dialogue is not much better. Finally, he says that
the message of the story, the thing it exposes, namely
that big producers don't have happy marriages, is a
revelation to no one but "boobs"
(431). As to other stories,
"Harmony" is "one of his few affecting and
well constructed [of the baseball] stories" (421);
and "Haircut" and "The Golden
Honeymoon" are Lardner's two best. Oddly,
Berryman does not feel it necessary to discuss these
"good" stories with the same depth and
enthusiasm as he does for the story he considers bad.
To him, these good stories are accidents of
talent. According to Berryman, Lardner will not be
remembered as a humorist because the stuff of humor is
ephemeral. Nor is Lardner a short story writer of
note because "[h]e had no invention, little
imagination, a very limited sense of style, and almost no
sense of structure" (422). His satire is
"unimportant" (422) because Lardner does not
possess "imagination of a different past or future
condition for the object satirized" (422). On
comparisons made by other writers, says Lardner compares
to Swift only in bitterness (422). He does concede
that Lardner has talents for "mimicry, burlesque,
parody" (422) and for "what looks like
nonsense" (422). He singles out Clemo
Uti--"The Water Lilies" as his favorite of the
nonsense plays, but says that the genius shown in such
plays is not developed further in "more confident
studies or irrelation" (422).
|Bibesco, Elizabeth. "Lament
for Lardner." Living Age CCCXXXXV (Dec.,
A full reprint from London's Week-end
Review. Holds that Lardner
made a "devastating" indictment of American
civilization, is taken too lightly by critics who confuse
"complication with profundity," and that he is
a greater artist than Sinclair Lewis.
Bibesco begins her essay with her account of reading
the news that Ring Lardner has died. She finds
herself saddened and though she didn't know him
personally, she has a sense of "personal shock"
(366). She then explains why she feels he is
undervalued as a writer. The response to Lardner is
a class issue as much as a talent issue. To
Bibesco, Lardner offers an "indictment of American
civilization . . . devastating in its flat, unemphatic
finality" (367). She sees Lardner's world as
having "no redemption," "no souls,"
revealing "invulnerable barrenness of lives unlit by
any vision" (367) ("I know nothing more
devastating than the icy drip of Mr. Lardner's
writing" (367)) . She compares his dialogue
favorably to Chekhov's and his satire favorably to
Sinclair Lewis's (the main difference in her mind being
that Lardner maintains a distance from the targets of his
satire, but Lewis is too close to his characters,
simultaneously championing and attacking his
characters). In closing, she predicts that Lardner
will "forever elude criticism and defeat
|Blythe, Hal. "Lardner's
'Haircut.'" Explicator 44.3 (Spring
takes a look at the significance of the cinematic
allusions in "Haircut."
Blythe analyzes cinematic allusions, especially those
to the movie Wages of Death found in the story
"Haircut" and asserts that the plot of that
movie is the hidden plot of this story (essentially that
a group of people create an alibi for a sympathetic
killer). In this article, unlike the next, Blythe
still supports the view that the narrator of
"Haircut" is innocent and unaware of the real
circumstances surrounding Jim's death.
|Blythe, Hal and Charlie Sweet.
"The Barber of Civility: The Chief
'Haircut.'" Studies in
Short Fiction 23.4 (Fall 1986): 450-453.
As the title suggests, Blythe and Sweet set
out to prove that the barber/narrator is the mastermind
and chief conspirator of Jim's death in
Blythe and Sweet posit that Whitey, the narrator, is
not only aware of what is going on in the story and that
he condones the killing of Jim, but that he is "the
chief instigator of the town's deadly conspiracy"
(451). They methodically support their thesis,
using many examples from the story to establish motive,
means, opportunity, and indirect admissions of
guilt. Such a reading requires that one considers
the barber's comments about Jim (like his being a
"card") to be intentionally ironic. The
"motive to kill" may also be overstated. Whitey
has a motive for revenge or a motive to dislike Jim, but
the motive to kill is not established here.
|Blythe, Hal and Charlie Sweet.
"Lardner's Haircut." The Explicator 55
||(Summer 1997): 219-221.
Continuing their earlier argument that the barber/narrator is
the chief conspirator of Jim's death, Blythe and Sweet now explore the
barber's motivation in telling his self-incriminating story. Their
earlier suggestion that "hubris" is the motive is dismissed; "guilt"
causes the barber to "confess" his story.
After reiterating their reasons for believing that Whitey, the
barber/narrator, is "the chief instigator of the town's deadly
conspiracy," Blythe and Sweet admit their earlier explanation for the
barber telling his story is inadequate. They posit that Whitey
tells his story out of guilt. Central to their argument is their
interpretation of a scene in which the barber explains how things used
to be in the barbershop. When Jim was still living, he sat at his
reserved chair like a priest, and thus, they argue, the barbershop was a
secular church. "Haircut" is a "confession." Only two are in
the "church," and the barber is confessing his sin.
|Boomhower, Ray. "Covering
the Bases." Michigan History Magazine
Biographical account of Lardner's early career
in sports writing.
The article begins with an account of pitcher Ed
Reulbach (Notre Dame, Chicago Cubs) meeting Ring as a
would-be waterboy and as a reporter. The rest draws
on general biographical information and the
autobiographical articles Ring wrote for The Saturday
Evening Post to restate the Lardner legend, from
Niles, through South Bend, to Chicago. Most notable
is a reprint of a dialect letter (25) which appeared in
the 1917 edition of the University of Notre Dame's
yearbook, the Dome.
|Bordewyk, Gordon. "Comic
Alienation: Ring Lardner's Style." Markham
||Review 11 (Spring
Bordewyk studies Lardner's use of dialogue,
but goes beyond the standard discussion of authenticity
and related issues by connecting the communication
problems of Lardner's characters with their alienation.
Following Howard Webb's lead in the study of
non-communication in Lardner's fiction, Bordewyk puts
together a logical and well supported argument which
first establishes that Lardner's "characters use or
abuse language according to a consistent pattern"
(51), and then that the pattern "signals an
individual's estrangement in society" (51).
Bordewyk identifies "four types of communication
failures that contribute to alienation" (51) that
are demonstrated by Lardner's characters: first,
those who suffer from "inarticulateness" which
leads to despair or violence ("My Roomy" is
used as an example (51-52)); second, those who are
"excessively literal," unable to understand
others' subtlety (Jack Keefe provides the example for
this type (52-53)); third, those who use language as a
"social tool," talking but never listening
(Miss Lyons in "Zone of Quiet" (53-54), Hazel
Dignan in "Travelogue" (54), and Miss Rell in
"Dinner" (54-55) provide the examples); and
fourth, those who use "deceptive
language" to fool others or to conceal faults
("Horseshoes," "I Can't Breathe," and
"Champion" are briefly mentioned as
illustrating this type (55); "Alibi Ike," (55),
Celia Gregg in "The Love Nest" (55-56), and
"Haircut" (56-57) provide more in-depth
|Boyd, Thomas. "Lardner
Tells Some New Ones." Rev. of How to Write
||Short Stories, by
Ring Lardner. Bookman LIX (July, 1924):
Praises the accuracy of the language used to
present characters and the troubling humor of the stories
that "leave you silent and thoughtful long after the
merriment is gone" (602).
Boyd addresses the effect Lardner's humor and accurate
portrayal of language has on his stories, concluding that
these things create a "perfect style" (602),
essential to the telling of these individual's
tales. He singles out "The Golden
Honeymoon" ("every word, every abbreviation is
a revelation of this old man") and "Some Like
Them Cold" ("It evokes a greater feeling of the
uncertainty of existence and of active sympathy than all
of Charlie Chaplin's pathetic shoes") as example of
stories made that are great because of the Lardner style
(602). "The Champion," which Boyd
considers to be the only un-funny story in the collection
("born under a cloud of indignation"), fails in
his eyes because of the lack of the normal Lardner
style: ". . . that very honesty results in the
lack of verisimilitude at the close"
|Bruccoli, Matthew J. "Five
Notes on Ring Lardner." Papers of the
Society of America 58 (1964): 297-298.
|---. "Ring Lardner's First
Book." Papers of the Bibliographical Society of
Nathan. "Lardner's 'Haircut.'" Explicator
47.2 (Winter 1989): 47-48.
posits that Lardner uses proper nouns as thematic puns
"to reflect important themes in the narrative"
of "Haircut;" and that by studying these, the
reader can determine that Jim was a conspirator in his
own murder (suicide). While many of the individual
"puns" Cervo discovers in the text are both
convincing and illuminating, the overall
theory/interpretation is interesting but unproven.
Cervo's careful reading of the text results in many
fascinating discoveries and a thought-provoking
interpretation. First, Cervo identifies what he
terms "thematic nomenclature," "proper
names [used] to reflect important themes in
["Haircut"]." Several such words are
brought to light; particularly convincing are the cases
made for "whitewashing," reflecting the town's
urge to cover up its dirty secrets, for the title,
emphasizing Whitey's fashioning of the story, and
for the final line, "Comb it Wet or dry?"
signifying the two ways of interpreting the barber's
story (47). Less convincing are the cases for the
phrase "the dark of the stairs" as a pun on Doc
Stair (47-48) and for the Paul/"pall" pun
Cervo uses these puns to support his thesis that in
the story, Jim, Paul and Doc Stair "converge their
wills, independent one of the other, to murder Jim"
(47). The motives for each of the three are well
presented, but, after all is said, there is still room
for reasonable doubt. The pun that is supposed to
seal the case, Jim Kendall's name (Kendall = ken + all =
knows all) seems to be a bit of a stretch.
|Chamberlain, John. "Ring
Lardner Listens in on the Life About Him."
||of Round Up, by
Ring Lardner. New York Times Book
Review 7 April 1929: 2.
Chamberlain compares Lardner to his
contemporaries and calls him one of the "most adroit
and profound creators of character" and "our
best short story writer."
Though it seems at time much more of a sales pitch
than a serious review, Chamberlain's article is valuable
in that it represents one type of response to Lardner's
work and also in that it offers a number of surprising
comparisons. Chamberlain compares Lardner to
several contemporary writers. For example, while
reading Lardner "one always knows that he is on the
side of intelligence and civilization" unlike when
one reads Hemingway or Anderson. He considers
Lardner more humane than Hemingway without being too
preachy like Anderson. Lardner knows what he is
writing about, he employs a number of different
techniques, he provides a balanced point-of-view, and he
writes about characters from a wide variety of
backgrounds. In short, "Lardner is
pre-eminently our best short-story writer." He
briefly mentions a number of stories: "The
Facts" and "Champion" (examples of
"straight" stories), "The Golden
Honeymoon" (his best: ". . . one is
constantly on the lookout for satire, for kidding, but
all one finds is the story of every successful marriage
plus some startling characterization"), "The
Love Nest" (example of Lardner's portrayal of the
ritual of self-delusion: "Lardner understands
ritual as well as Marcel Proust"),
"Anniversary," "Mr. Frisbie," and
"I Can't Breathe" (examples of hypocrisy
revealed), "There Are Smiles," "Old Folk's
Christmas," and "Anniversary" (the best of
the new stories), and "My Roomy" (which he
reads somehow as a "burlesque").
|Cowlishaw, Brian T. "The
Readers Role in Ring Lardner's Rhetoric"
||Studies in Short
Fiction 31.2 (Spring 1994): 207-216.
Cowlishaw presupposes that readers interpret Lardner stories in a
generally consistent pattern, and uses reader response theory to
determine the reason for this. Using the stories of Round Up as his
representative sample, Cowlishaw constructs two different interpretive
models: one for the third person narratives, and one for the
In the third-person stories, the implied author and narrator are
virtually the same. This author/narrator and the implied reader/narratee
form an alliance of superiority over the characters in the stories (thus
the "lessons" of the satire are clear). Using "Zone of Quiet" as an
example, he clearly demonstrates how in this as in many Lardner stories,
"[t]he end is satire; the means, irony" (211).
In the first-person stories, "the rhetorical dynamic is significantly
different" (212). The narrators are diverse, eliciting various responses
and levels of sympathy. No longer are the implied author and implied
reader in direct partnership against the characters. Instead, there is a
sort of three-part coalition (though not necessarily composed of three
equal members) of the implied author, implied reader and narratees which
experiences various degrees of closeness with the narrator and
characters. Three stories are used to illustrate the varying degrees of
closeness between the "coalition" and the characters: "Haircut,"
distance and disgust; "Golden Honeymoon," mixed judgment; and "The
Facts," closeness and sympathy.
|Diedrick, James. "Ring Lardner's
Michigan." Michigan History Mar./Apr. 1985:
||Connects the writer to his home state
through evidence of influence on his writing and examples
primarily from his newspaper columns. Written by one of
the organizers of the1985 Lardner Symposium at Albion
|---. "Ring Lardner's 'New' Journalism." Arete
3.1 (Fall 1985): 107-119.
|Douglas, Donald. "Ring Lardner As
Satirist." Rev. of The Love Nest and Other
||Ring Lardner. The Nation CXXII
(26 May 1926): 584-85.
This review is full of praise
for Lardner, sees the stories in the Love Nest and the
world revealed within them as "a tragedy to the man
|Evans, Elizabeth. "Opulent
Vulgarity: Ring Lardner and F. Scott Fitzgerald." Notes
||Contemporary Literature 10.1
|---. "Ring Lardner's Bridge-Playing Spoil
Sports." Notes on Contemporary Literature
||(Jan. 1981): 5-8.
Takes a serious look
at Lardner's use of games in his fiction; how bridge is
used to show the disparity between what is and what
should be, and how something as simple as a game can
point out all the ugliness that accompanies the zeal for
|Everett, Barbara. "The New Style of Sweeney
Agonistes." Yearbook of English Studies
||(1984): 242-263. Also in "Parts of
|Fadiman, Clifton. "Pitiless
Satire." Rev. of Round Up, by Ring Lardner.
Nation CXXVIII (1
||May 1929): 536-37.
A first statement
of the viewpoint more fully developed in "The
Triangle of Hate," that Lardner "is the
deadliest because the coldest of American writers,"
and that his characters form a "democracy of snobs,
fools, and moral cowards."
|---. "Ring Lardner and the Triangle of
Hate." Nation CXXXVI (22 Mar. 1933):
||An entertaining and often quoted essay
which takes the extreme view that "the special force
of Ring Lardner's work springs from a single fact: he
just doesn't like people." Fadiman posits, with very
little evidence, that Lardner hated himself, hated his
characters, and that his characters hated each other.
|Farrell, James T. "Ring Lardner's success Mad
World." New York Times Book Review June
||1944: 3,18. Rep. as "Ring Lardner's
Round Up."The League of Frightened Philistines
and Other Papers. New York: The Vanguard Press,
An interesting discussion of the intense
competitiveness of Lardner's characters as it relates to
the competitive American capitalist system.
|Fitzgerald, F. Scott. "Ring." The New
Republic LXXVI (11 Oct. 1933): 254-55.
||Eulogizes Lardner as a talented and good
man, but one whose work fell short of its promise because
he had a "cynical attitude towards his work,"
was too limited by baseball, and failed to get personal.
|Flannigan, John T. "A Student of Literature
Looks at History." Michigan History 34,3
||(Sep.1947): 257-66. Gives brief mention
of Lardner as one link in the history of American satire.
|Freese, Peter. "Zwei unbekannte Verweise in J.D.
Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye: Charles .
||Dickens und Ring Lardner." Archiv
fur das Studium der Neueren Sprachen und Literaturen
211 (1974): 68-72
|Gilead, Sarah. "Lardner's
Discourses of Power." Studies in Short Fiction
Discusses the power
relationships, the "inequal exchanges between
speakers and hearers, writers and readers, narrators and
narratees" found in Lardner's fiction; establishes a
correlation between the literacy of the characters and
|Gugliemo, Wagner J. "Ring Lardner and 'The
Battle of the Century.'" Markham Review 14
||(Fall/Winter 1984-85): 12-15.
of the history of as well as analysis of "The Battle
of the Century."
|Hampton, Riley V. "Owl Eyes in The
Great Gatsby." American Literature: A
||Literary History, Criticism, and
Bibliography 48 (1976): 229.
|Hart, John E. "Man as Thing: Ring Lardner's You
Know Me Al." South Dakota Review 23.1
analysis of Jack Keefe; focuses on his myopic worldview
and his use by others as a commodity.
|Hasley, Louis. "Ring Lardner: The Ashes of
Idealism." Arizona Quarterly 26 (1970): 219-32.
||Overview of Lardner's life and career;
makes important divisions in Lardner's career (the
humorous stage, the satiric stage, and the nihilistic
stage); overall, considers Lardner's tone to be
|Hicks, James E. "Ring Lardner, Baseball, and
Japan: More Evidence in Support of Crepeau's
||Thesis." Arete 3.1 (Fall
|Jones, David A. and Leverett T.
Smith, Jr. "Jack Keefe and Roy Hobbs: Two
||Boys." Aethlon 6.2 (Spring
|Kasten, Margaret C. "The Satire
of Ring Lardner." English Journal XXXVI
Argues against Fadiman's
"Triangle of Hate" theory and the opinion that
Lardner is "just a comic;" compares Lardner
favorably to Sinclair Lewis, and gives examples of
college Freshmen's opinions of "Haircut." It is
interesting to see that as early as1947 people had
already begun to miss the satire in Lardner's stories.
|Lardner, James. "Ring Lardner at
100--Facing a Legacy." The New York Times Book
||31 March 1985: 3,27.
James reflects on
the life and work of his grandfather, Ring Lardner and
describes the Ring Lardner Centennial Conference held at
Albion College as well as a side trip to Niles.
|Lardner, Ring. "'Great Neck Is Like a Cemetery':
Ring Lardner to Thomas Boyd."
|Lardner, Ring Jr. "Ring Lardner &
Sons." Esquire March 1972: 98-103, 169-180.
||Lays the groundwork for his family
|Lease, Benjamin. "An Evening at the Scott
Fitzgeralds': An Unpublished Letter of Ring
||Lardner." English Language Notes
8 (1970): 40-42.
|---. "An Experiment in the Vernacular: An
Unpublished Letter of Ring Lardner. American
||Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic
Usage 53 (1978): 236-37.
|Lindsey, Jack L. "Lynford Lardner's Silver"
The Magazine Antiques April 1993: 608-615.
||Historical piece about the first Lardner
to come to America. Draws on a number of private and
public historical documents to construct a vivid and
interesting picture of the man and his times. Excellent
|Linneman, William R. "Ring Around the
Peninsula." The Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Journal
||of Florida Literature. 7 (1996):
|Littell, Robert. "Ring Lardner." Rev. of How
to Write Short Stories, by Ring Lardner. The
||New Republic 3 Sep. 1924: 25-26.
Praises Lardner's handling of the American idiom and
|---. ". . . And Other Stories." Review of The
Love Nest and Other Stories, by Ring Lardner.
||The New Republic 29 Sep. 1926:
Presents an amusing dialogue between R. L.
(the author and critic) and S. S. V. (still small voice,
the common reader) in order to present the views of both
of Lardner's audiences.
|Matheson, Terence J.
"Impressionists, Satirists, Radicals, and Romantics:
Investigating the .
||Eccentric Response." Canadian
Review of American Studies 14.3 (Fall 1983): 321-331
|Matthews, T.S. "Lardner, Shakespeare and
Chekhov." The New Republic 22 May 1929: .
Compares Lardner with the
others on the basis that all three had both a serious and
a popular audience
|May, Charles. "Lardner's HAIRCUT." Explicator
31.9 (May 1973).
||Suggests that the object of the satire in
"Haircut" is not just Jim or the small town in
which he lives, but it is the reader who so quickly
condones such extreme punishment.
|Mencken, Henry L. "A Humorist Shows His
Teeth." The American Mercury Jun. 1926:
||354-55. Commentary on The Love Nest
and Other Stories which commends Lardner for his use
of the American language.
|Moseley, Merritt. "Ring Lardner and the American
Humor Tradition." South Atlantic Review
|Mulder, Arnold. "Michigan's Writing Men." Michigan
History Sep. 1951: 257-270.