Mutual relationship between writers, whatever their age, is always delicate, not so much ― as commonly supposed ― on account of jealousy, but because of the intensely personal nature of a writer's stock in trade. For example, St John Clarke seemed to me a 'bad' writer, that is to say a person to be treated (in those days) with reserve, if not thinly veiled hostility. Later, that question ― the relationship of writers of different sorts ― seemed, like so many others, less easily solved; in fact infinitely complicated. St John Clarke himself had made a living, indeed collected a small fortune, while giving pleasure to many by writing his books (pleasure even to myself when a boy, if it came to that), yet now was become an object of disapproval to me because his novels did not rise to a certain standard demanded by myself. Briefly, they seemed to me trivial, unreal, vulgar, badly put together, idiously phrased and 'insincere'. Yet, even allowing for these failings, was not St John Clarke still a person more like myself than anyone else sitting round the table? That was a sobering thought. He, too, for longer years, had existed in the imagination, even though this imagination had led him (in my eyes) to a world ludicrously contrived, socially misleading, professionally nauseous. On top of that, had he not on this earlier occasion gone out of his way to speak a word of carefully hedged praise for my own work? Was that, therefore, an aspect of his critical faculty for which he should be given credit, or was it an even stronger reason for guarding against the possibility of corruption at the hands of one whose own writings could not be approved?
