"I am entirely willing to have the article cut down as you suggest,"wrote the former President."I find sufficient reason for this in the fact that the matter you suggest for elimination has been largely exploited lately.And in looking the matter over carefully, I am inclined to think that the article expurgated as you suggest will gain in unity and directness.At first, I feared it would appear a little 'bobbed' off, but you are a much better judge of that than I....Ileave it altogether to you."
It was always interesting to Bok, as a study of mental processes, to note how differently he and some author with whom he would talk it over would see the method of treating some theme.He was discussing the growing unrest among American women with Rudyard Kipling at the latter's English home; and expressed the desire that the novelist should treat the subject and its causes.
They talked until the early hours, when it was agreed that each should write out a plan, suggest the best treatment, and come together the next morning.When they did so, Kipling had mapped out the scenario of a novel; Bok had sketched out the headings of a series of analytical articles.Neither one could see the other's viewpoint, Kipling contending for the greater power of fiction and Bok strongly arguing for the value of the direct essay.In this instance, the point was never settled, for the work failed to materialize in any form!
If the readers of The Ladies' Home Journal were quick to support its editor when he presented an idea that appealed to them, they were equally quick to tell him when he gave them something of which they did not approve.An illustration of this occurred during the dance-craze that preceded the Great War.In 1914, America was dance-mad, and the character of the dances rapidly grew more and more offensive.Bok's readers, by the hundreds, urged him to come out against the tendency.
The editor looked around and found that the country's terpsichorean idols were Mr.and Mrs.Vernon Castle; he decided that, with their cooperation, he might, by thus going to the fountainhead, effect an improvement through the introduction, by the Castles, of better and more decorous new dances.Bok could see no reason why the people should not dance, if they wanted to, so long as they kept within the bounds of decency.
He found the Castles willing and eager to cooperate, not only because of the publicity it would mean for them, but because they were themselves not in favor of the new mode.They had little sympathy for the elimination of the graceful dance by the introduction of what they called the "shuffle" or the "bunny-hug," "turkey-trot," and other ungraceful and unworthy dances.It was decided that the Castles should, through Bok's magazine and their own public exhibitions, revive the gavotte, the polka, and finally the waltz.They would evolve these into new forms and Bok would present them pictorially.A series of three double-page presentations was decided upon, allowing for large photographs so that the steps could be easily seen and learned from the printed page.
The magazine containing the first "lesson" was no sooner published than protests began to come in by the hundreds.Bok had not stated his object, and the public misconstrued his effort and purpose into an acknowledgment that he had fallen a victim to the prevailing craze.He explained in letters, but to no purpose.Try as he might, Bok could not rid the pages of the savor of the cabaret.He published the three dances as agreed, but he realized he had made a mistake, and was as much disgusted as were his readers.Nor did he, in the slightest degree, improve the dance situation.The public refused to try the new Castle dances, and kept on turkey-trotting and bunny-hugging.
The Ladies' Home Journal followed the Castle lessons with a series of the most beautiful dances of Madam Pavlowa, the Russian dancer, hoping to remove the unfavorable impression of the former series.But it was only partially successful.Bok had made a mistake in recognizing the craze at all; he should have ignored it, as he had so often in the past ignored other temporary, superficial hysterics of the public.The Journal readers knew the magazine had made a mistake and frankly said so.
Which shows that, even after having been for over twenty-five years in the editorial chair, Edward Bok was by no means infallible in his judgment of what the public wanted or would accept.
No man is, for that matter.
