• Letter ID: 1841
• Addressee: Leach, Henry Goddard
• Date: 1932-05-25
• Repository: Drew University Library, Special Collections and Archives

To Henry Goddard Leach,  May 25, 1932 ; Drew U (Adams 162) 

Received letters and thanks him for his sensitivity. The review [Granville Hicks, "Bright Incidents," Forum, September 1931, vi-vii] she discussed in the letter [see #1842] is the only one that ever hurt her personally. Thought the Forum was a friend even though business perspectives seem to overtake everything. Review will not inspire controversy, though, for a writer must not become defensive in print about her work. Has gotten over the whole thing. The two of them should get together to toast Mr. Hicks, or whatever his name is.   Willa Cather 

• Letter ID: 1842
• Addressee: Leach, Henry Goddard
• Date: 1931-09-01
• Repository: Drew University Library, Special Collections and Archives

To Henry Goddard Leach,  September 1, [1931] ; Drew U (Adams 162) 

It is not a review she wrote about, but an essay evaluating her writing and character generally [Granville Hicks, "Bright Incidents," Forum, September 1931, vi-vii]. People seem to think the piece reflected Leach's and the Forum's viewpoint, for Hicks was not cited in letters they have sent her. Understands an unobtrusive editorial relationship, but this went too far. At McClure's, would never have let such a destructive article be published, and no staff member would have let it through without explicit approval from Mr. McClure or herself. It is possible to be civilly critical, but the piece is so disrespectful that it never should have been published. The Forum is free to think what it pleases, but what editor can justify printing the following [Hicks's text is literally cut out and pasted on the letter]: "Like most of her books, it is elegiac, beguiling its readers with pictures of a life that has disappeared, and deliberately exploiting the remoteness of that life in order to cast a golden haze about it." "Deliberately exploiting" suggests she is manipulating her readers for self-aggrandizing reasons, and she is not. Other reviewers, like Dr. Cross, don't particularly care for the novel [Shadows on the Rock], but at least have enough sophistication to see what she was attempting [in Wilbur Cross, "Men and Images," Saturday Review of Literature 8 (August 22, 1931): 67-8]. The Forum's piece certainly damages her reputation, but even worse, it injures her personally, as the Forum has always been a friend. Is sorry that first letter of complaint sent to an editor is being sent to him.   Willa Cather