We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
A REPLY TO MR. PLAYTER 251
promises to see that the Photodramatist Club and its members will not be slighted in the matter of real publicity.
Agnes Johnston, formerly with Vitagraph, and now with Thanhouser, said that she gets so much good from the meetings that she is only too willing to make the trip from New Rochelle. At present she is turning out a new brand of comedy-drama, and some of her friends look upon her as the "Barrie" of the screen. Her next release will be "The Shine Girl."
George L. Sargent, one of the best workers the club ever had, is expected to return from the Adirondack section, where he has been very busy directing the "Fall of a Nation," the coming sensation in moving pictures.
June Mathis, author of "The Snow Bird," and "The Great Price, " and now doing feature stories for Metro, came to the meeting and announced her intention of becoming a regular member.
Applications for membership were received from Fred Piano, Peekskill, N. Y., Adrian Johnston, assistant editor of Mirror Films, and one from a scenario writer in the Canal Zone. Applications for membership should be addressed to Mrs. Louise M. Farley, 607 West 136th Street, New York City.
A Reply to Mr. Playter
By Cruse Carriel Editor of "Out West"
After reading Mr. Playter' s dissertation in the May number of the Writer's Monthly I am wondering if young writers really do want the truth about their manuscripts and whether it would be the best thing to give it to them straight from the shoulder. It may be true that the present high cost of paper is due in no small degree to the number of rejection slips used by magazines, that the slips themselves are stereotyped and mean nothing and that they may cause the recipient author to pay postage due. But why the ether-splitting howl if, inadvertently, a manuscript is sent back without one?
On the other hand, an editor usually knows quite definitely just why he returns an offering. It would be a simple matter to list these causes and check the particular one responsible for the return. Some periodicals do so to a limited extent, but none of them, so far as I know, lists the real cause — hopeless, helpless, mediocre, rotten — actuating the return of many offerings, and for a very good reason.
This reason is that very few persons, as people are presently constituted, are able to stand the truth. Besides, an editor hesitates to condemn utterly what may be the offspring of a budding genius. The ruthless desecrator of buds is not a pleasant person — and, of course, all editors are. Think of the responsibility attaching to an editor who, through brutal, even though truthful, rejection, completely "douses the glim" of a future O. Henry, Mark Twain or Robert Louis Stevenson! While the possibility remains of writers believing that editors know their business, the "white lie" is better.