An RCC colleague referred me to “rumble 101” a printing history blog by Walker Rumble. Rumble’s series of articles pertaining to the Roycroft, Arts & Crafts, The Philistine and Elbert Hubbard are well worth reading. I have taken the liberty of quoting a portion of one of Rumble's essays here:
“Elbert Hubbard seems tacky. The poet Philip Larkin thought a writer’s reputation was twofold: what we think of his work and what we think of him. “What’s more,” said Larkin, “we expect the two halves to relate: if they don’t, then one or the other of our opinions alter until they do.” Everybody tugs and pushes, judging Hubbard in terms of art or literature. Hubbard was a mediocre writer (as an essayist, sometimes better; as a novelist, worse) and never, personally, a craftsman. He was energetic, well-intentioned, and average. Somehow, famously, the Roycrofters of East Aurora—“America’s Kelmscott”—came out of that mix. Compared with the actual Kelmscott of William Morris, Roycroft was a con game and Hubbard a poseur. That’s a problem, but who cares? And why?
“A hundred years ahead of time and without knowing it, Hubbard did what, ten minutes ago, a thousand people did online. He wrote something that resembles “creative nonfiction.” His package was a codex, but his early essays read like blog copy. Hubbard anticipated electronic literature, the sidebar story. This requires explanation. But here’s the thing: some always loved and admired Hubbard, while from the start others thought he was a charlatan. Find yourself. It’s a pop culture.”
From "Hubbard, Will Rogers, Vince: Who?" June 14, 2010, Essay number 2 of “Elbert Hubbard,” a printing history series. Posted by rumble101
Thank you Walker Rumble,
- Sue
