It hurt me to write that letter to you yesterday, and it hurts me more today since I have read yours of the 15th, just received. I know the sort of man you are — sincere, enthusiastic and generous; and I prize your friendship. But I can't see that it would be the right thing for me to leave here in May under the circumstances. You have been working unselfishly for me, and that's what hurts.
But, of course, you can get someone in my place who will doubtless make more of an impression, and there is still plenty of time left you.
Mrs. Newman's letter is amusing, for she utterly misses the point in surmising that Cheney was left out because he is not a "new" poet. O damn that word "new"! It makes my head ache. I have fought "newness" more than Cheney has, I am sure; and by "newness" I do not mean any serious modification of tradition. I know this is no static universe. I am pragmatist, and I know that the world of men and things is dynamic. I welcome change. I do not honor upstart idiocy. If I have prejudices, they would most decidedly be in favor of Cheney. The reason for his exclusion was simply this: he sent work that does not represent his powers, and Mrs. Newman would agree, if she could see what he contributed. However, it is right that we should not hurt the old man; and as for me, I respect his and like much of his work. You may say that he was left out of the list by mistake. You may say that the mistake was mine; but you need not tell that the mistake consisted in my not thinking of Cheney's sensibilities. Yes, by all means, let us include some of Cheney. I send his contributions herewith. They are worthless, and I leave it to you to choose what should be used. It would be better if we could get the right to use one of his finer things — something already published. When I see the proof, I will know what can best be dropped by way of making room for the Cheney additions. Please understand that I do most heartily what the old fellow represented. Make it plain to anyone who wants to know, that Cheney's name was omitted by a mistake of the editor-in-chief.
I understand much that you do not say about the Moody affair. I am not in good standing with the Monroe-Henderson crowd, for I have taken the trouble to sting them more than once in the Minneapolis Journal. Also, I have fought some of their pet curiosities just for the fun of it. The difference between the crowd and myself is this: I am not trying to be literary; I'm doing something. To me, poetry is not a social stunt. It's merely a means to an end — the preservation of a great race-mood of courage that was developed west of the Missouri River in the 19th century. I am not interested in schools and movements; and I knew too much of literary history and of the changing attitudes of mankind through
the centuries to be greatly moved by mountebanks and their antics.
Well, I hope to see you and Mrs. Seymour and a few other sincere people next winter when I pass through.
By the way, I have just heard that the Nebraska Legislature has passed House Roll 467, declaring me "Laureate of Nebraska and the Prairies". It's the first time in America. How is that for a state said to be concerned only with corn and hogs? The house vote was 80 to 2, the Senate was unanimous, and the Governor promised weeks ago to sign the bill.
Jno. Neihardt
Better state that this was said in a personal letter. Of course, use it if it's of any value to you
J. G. N.
