'Thanks for your letter & the book. A word in reference to the former. I can?t boast that I discovered what purports to be the "central idea" of the novel for myself. I first heard of Barr?s in an article bY Edward Delille in the "Fortnightly." Next I read a criticism of this very book in the latest volume issued of Anatole France?s "La Vie Litteraire". Lastly there was a rather striking article in a recent "Scribner" on new ideas in French Literature generally in which the name of Barr?s was prominent. So when I actually bought the book I knew just what to expect. As I understand the thing, the author is at direct variance with Flaubert, Zola & Guy de Maupassant, who at all costs aim at an impartial, impersonal presentment of life. He prefers to take a character & describe events and men solely in relation to their effect on that character. In a word his novel is all hero. He cares nothing for absolute perspective. He interests himself in nothing but what affects his hero. Everything is described through the hero?s eyes, & consequently everything is intentionally coloured & distorted. He utterly despises the "one-eyed apathetic insight of the camera". You mention his symbolism. I believe that the presence of numerous symbols & analogies in the actual writing is only a minor & unimportant manifestation of the symbolist theory. The whole book in its main outlines is a congeries of symbols. . . '