Introduction: “Luck in Literature” by William Mathews
“Luck in Literature” by William Mathews first appeared in the December 1890 issue of The North American Review (Vol. 151, No. 409, pp. 774-776), published by the University of Northern Iowa. Mathews explores the role of serendipity in literary success, arguing that many writers owe their fame to a singular stroke of inspiration rather than sustained literary genius. He illustrates this phenomenon through examples of poets and authors who, despite overall mediocrity, produced one extraordinary piece that cemented their legacy—such as Wolfe with The Burial of Sir John Moore and Lady Anne Barnard with Auld Robin Gray. Mathews critiques the tendency of aspiring writers to pursue literary careers based on fleeting moments of brilliance, emphasizing that true poetic greatness is rare and cannot be manufactured through persistence alone. His essay contributes to literary theory by engaging with the idea of artistic merit versus happenstance, questioning whether enduring literary reputation stems from talent, effort, or sheer luck. This perspective offers insight into the unpredictable nature of literary fame and aligns with broader discussions on the valuation of literary works in the canon.
Summary of “Luck in Literature” by William Mathews
- The Role of Chance in Literary Fame
- Mathews argues that many authors achieve literary immortality not through consistent brilliance but through a single stroke of luck—a solitary poem, story, or phrase that resonates with readers (Mathews, 1890, p. 774).
- This phenomenon parallels painters who, despite mediocrity, create one masterpiece that defines their careers.
- The “Single-Speech Hamilton” Writers
- Mathews categorizes several writers as “one-hit wonders” whose literary fame is based on a singular successful work (p. 774).
- Examples include:
- Pomfret, whose poem The Choice was praised by Dr. Johnson and Southey, but whose other works were forgotten.
- Lady Anne Barnard, who gained renown for Auld Robin Gray but diminished her reputation with an unsuccessful sequel.
- Wolfe, whose The Burial of Sir John Moore remains widely known, while his other attempts failed to reach the same artistic heights.
- The Illusion of Consistent Genius
- The essay highlights how fleeting moments of inspiration can be mistaken for sustained literary genius (p. 775).
- Mathews notes that many aspiring poets believe that one great work implies they can produce many more, but this is often not the case.
- He cites Sir Egerton Brydges, who gained admiration for his sonnet Echo and Silence but failed to replicate its success despite lifelong efforts.
- The Power of a Singular Artistic Achievement
- Some of the most famous literary pieces were written by authors whose other works have faded into obscurity (p. 775).
- Joseph Blanco White wrote the widely praised sonnet Night, which Coleridge considered one of the greatest in the English language, yet White was not known as a poet.
- Francis Scott Key, famous for The Star-Spangled Banner, never produced another work of comparable significance.
- The Harsh Reality of Literary Endeavors
- Mathews warns against the mistaken belief that one moment of poetic excellence guarantees further success (p. 776).
- He criticizes friends and admirers who encourage mediocre writers to continue producing uninspired work, quoting the French line:
Calliope jamais daigne leur parler, et Pegase pour eux refuse de voler (“Calliope never deigns to speak to them, and Pegasus refuses to fly for them”).
- Quality Over Quantity in Literature
- The essay concludes by advocating for the importance of conciseness and literary precision (p. 776).
- Mathews cites Carlyle’s view that booksellers would be better off publishing fewer but higher-quality works.
- He argues that it is preferable to write one exceptional poem than to produce countless mediocre ones that dilute an author’s reputation.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Luck in Literature” by William Mathews
| Term/Concept | Explanation | Reference in the Article |
| Serendipitous Literary Success | The idea that some writers achieve fame due to a single stroke of inspiration rather than consistent talent. | “It is curious to note in the history of literature how many authors have owed their fame to a single thought, the chance inspiration of an hour.” (Mathews, 1890, p. 774) |
| One-Hit Wonder in Literature | Authors who produce one remarkable work but fail to replicate the same success. | “There have been poets, ordinarily only second- or third-rate, whom a solitary ode or sonnet has lifted to the level of the masters of song.” (p. 774) |
| Ephemeral Genius vs. Sustained Talent | Distinguishing between authors who produce a singular masterpiece versus those with a lasting literary career. | “He devoted all his life to the most patient courtship of the muse… but she never gave him another smile.” (p. 775) |
| The Fallacy of Literary Potential | The mistaken belief that an author’s one success implies an ability to continually produce great works. | “Because, in a lucky moment, one has dashed off a few verses… does it follow that he has ‘the vision and faculty divine’ of the inspired bard?” (p. 776) |
| Momentary Inspiration vs. Real Genius | The contrast between spontaneous poetic brilliance and the cultivated mastery of literary craftsmanship. | “The first shot struck the very centre of the ring; the others could not be found.” (p. 775) |
| Literary Immortality through a Single Work | Some works endure in literary history despite their authors being otherwise forgotten. | “Joseph Blanco White was not a poet; yet… he wrote a sonnet on ‘Night’ which Coleridge does not hesitate to pronounce the grandest.” (p. 775) |
| Overproduction as a Literary Pitfall | The idea that quantity often dilutes literary quality and reputation. | “It is better for a poet’s fame to have produced a few good verses than a thousand mediocre ones.” (p. 776) |
| Literary Fortune vs. Merit | The debate over whether literary recognition is earned through skill or a matter of luck. | “It was not the result of natural temperament—a flash of fancy only, not the steady blaze of genius.” (p. 775) |
| The Cult of Literary Fame | Society’s tendency to celebrate an author for one exceptional work, often ignoring the rest of their output. | “Dr. Johnson and Southey both declared that his poem entitled ‘The Choice’ was the most popular one in the language.” (p. 774) |
| Critical Reception and Canon Formation | The role of critics in determining which literary works remain influential. | “Amidst the wilderness of nonsense there was a sonnet… which was so beautiful as to merit a place in every anthology of English sonnets.” (p. 775) |
Contribution of “Luck in Literature” by William Mathews to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Theories of Literary Canon Formation
- Mathews critiques the arbitrariness of canonization, arguing that many authors achieve fame through a single, lucky composition rather than through consistent literary merit.
- He highlights the phenomenon of “one-hit wonder” authors, showing that literary recognition does not always correspond to sustained talent.
- “It is curious to note in the history of literature how many authors have owed their fame to a single thought, the chance inspiration of an hour.” (Mathews, 1890, p. 774)
- This perspective aligns with Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of the literary field, which suggests that external factors (e.g., historical circumstances, critical reception) shape an author’s place in the literary canon.
2. Romantic Theories of Genius vs. Constructivist Theories
- Mathews challenges Romantic notions of genius, which emphasize innate talent and inspiration as the source of great literature.
- He argues instead that literary greatness can be accidental and is not always the result of deep artistic mastery.
- “The first shot struck the very centre of the ring; the others could not be found.” (p. 775)
- This critique supports constructivist literary theories, which argue that cultural production is influenced by social conditions rather than individual genius.
3. Reception Theory & Reader-Response Criticism
- The essay underscores how literary success depends largely on reader reception rather than the author’s sustained skill.
- Mathews implies that a single well-received poem or story can overshadow an entire career, reinforcing Stanley Fish’s reader-response theory, which argues that meaning and value emerge from readers rather than from the text alone.
- “Because, in a lucky moment, one has dashed off a few verses… does it follow that he has ‘the vision and faculty divine’ of the inspired bard?” (p. 776)
4. The Economics of Literature & Literary Market Theory
- Mathews highlights how commercial and critical success do not always align with literary quality, prefiguring later discussions in literary market theory.
- He echoes Carlyle’s criticism of mass literary production, arguing that excessive output diminishes artistic value:
- “It is better for a poet’s fame to have produced a few good verses than a thousand mediocre ones.” (p. 776)
- This supports Marxist literary theory, particularly how capitalist publishing structures influence the literary marketplace and the valuation of texts.
5. The Role of Contingency in Literary History (Historicist Theories)
- Mathews’ argument aligns with New Historicism, which suggests that literary success is shaped by historical and cultural factors rather than purely artistic intent.
- He provides examples of poets who became famous through external circumstances rather than through sustained literary merit:
- “The life of his intellect seemed to run itself out in one effort. All the pure juice of the vine flowed into a single glass.” (p. 774)
- This reflects Stephen Greenblatt’s view that literary works are deeply embedded in historical contingencies rather than individual talent alone.
6. Literary Judgment & Aesthetic Criticism
- Mathews critiques the unreliable nature of literary evaluation, noting that a work’s legacy often depends on subjective and inconsistent factors.
- This prefigures post-structuralist critiques of aesthetic judgment, such as Derrida’s deconstruction, which challenges fixed notions of literary greatness.
- “Calliope jamais daigne leur parler, et Pegase pour eux refuse de voler” (Calliope never deigns to speak to them, and Pegasus refuses to fly for them).” (p. 776)
Examples of Critiques Through “Luck in Literature” by William Mathews
| Author & Work | Critique by William Mathews | Reference in the Article |
| John Pomfret – “The Choice” | Mathews argues that Pomfret, despite being an otherwise mediocre poet, accidentally produced a work of high poetic quality. His literary reputation rests solely on this single poem, while his other works remain obscure. | “Dr. Johnson and Southey both declared that his poem entitled ‘The Choice’ was the most popular one in the language; but, though it won boundless praise in the author’s lifetime, who ever thought of wasting time on his other effusions?” (p. 774) |
| Lady Anne Barnard – “Auld Robin Gray” | Although Mathews acknowledges the ballad’s literary significance, he criticizes Barnard for attempting to continue the story, which he deems a poetic failure. He argues that her later works diminished rather than enhanced her literary reputation. | “Lady Anne Barnard, who wrote the inimitable ballad, ‘Auld Robin Gray,’ but committed poetical suicide by a continuation.” (p. 774) |
| Charles Wolfe – “The Burial of Sir John Moore” | Mathews praises this poem as one of the finest of its kind but argues that Wolfe’s subsequent works did not match its brilliance, proving that his initial success was a matter of chance rather than sustained talent. | “Had the author of ‘The Burial of Sir John Moore’ published only those memorable lines… who would have suspected his poverty of imagination? As it was, his succeeding failures betrayed the secret, and showed that his inspiration was fortuitous.” (p. 775) |
| Joseph Blanco White – “Night” | Although White was not a poet by profession, Mathews acknowledges the extraordinary quality of this single sonnet, suggesting that it is among the best in the English language. However, the author failed to produce anything of similar caliber. | “Joseph Blanco White was not a poet; yet… he wrote a sonnet on ‘Night’ which Coleridge does not hesitate to pronounce the grandest and most finely-conceived sonnet in our language.” (p. 775) |
Criticism Against “Luck in Literature” by William Mathews
1. Oversimplification of Literary Success
- Mathews reduces literary success to mere luck, ignoring factors such as craftsmanship, perseverance, and contextual influence.
- Many authors, even those with only one widely recognized work, engaged in years of practice and refinement. Their success cannot be dismissed as purely accidental.
2. Neglect of Structural & Cultural Influences
- Mathews fails to account for literary institutions, publishing practices, and historical conditions that influence an author’s success.
- New Historicist critics would argue that literary fame is shaped by political, social, and economic factors, not just the random brilliance of an individual.
3. Romanticization of the “One-Hit Wonder”
- While Mathews critiques the idea of innate genius, he paradoxically elevates certain single works as masterpieces, reinforcing a Romantic notion of spontaneous literary creation.
- He does not fully consider how editorial intervention, literary criticism, and audience reception contribute to the perceived greatness of a single work.
4. Dismissal of Lesser-Known Works
- Mathews unfairly dismisses the rest of an author’s body of work if they fail to produce another equally famous piece.
- This perspective devalues the effort and innovation present in an author’s other writings, which may still hold literary and historical significance.
5. Lack of Consideration for Evolving Literary Tastes
- He does not acknowledge that literary reputations change over time. Works once dismissed as secondary can later be reclaimed by scholars and critics as essential contributions to literature.
- His argument assumes static literary value, whereas canon formation is dynamic and influenced by shifting cultural attitudes.
6. Failure to Recognize the Role of Marketing & Popular Reception
- Mathews overlooks the impact of literary marketing, periodical culture, and public reception in shaping a work’s success.
- A poem or novel might gain prominence due to wide circulation, favorable reviews, or nationalist sentiment (as seen with The Star-Spangled Banner), rather than purely by chance.
7. Bias Against Non-Traditional Literary Figures
- His focus is primarily on male, Western poets and authors, neglecting how marginalized writers (women, colonial authors, or non-English poets) may face systemic barriers to recognition.
- This Eurocentric and male-centric lens ignores alternative literary traditions where oral culture, collaborative authorship, or unpublished works shape literary legacies.
8. Contradiction in Evaluating Quality vs. Fame
- Mathews criticizes overproduction, stating that a poet should strive for a few quality works rather than many mediocre ones.
- However, he also criticizes authors who only achieve one major success, implying that singular excellence is not enough either.
- This contradiction makes his criteria for literary value inconsistent and unclear.
Representative Quotations from “Luck in Literature” by William Mathews with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “It is curious to note in the history of literature how many authors have owed their fame to a single thought, the chance inspiration of an hour.” (p. 774) | This statement introduces Mathews’ central argument that many literary figures achieve recognition due to one fortunate moment of creativity, rather than sustained literary excellence. |
| “As there have been painters, not generally much above mediocrity, who have scaled the heights of excellence in a single picture, so there have been poets, ordinarily only second- or third-rate, whom a solitary ode or sonnet has lifted to the level of the masters of song.” (p. 774) | Mathews draws a parallel between visual and literary artists, emphasizing that a single masterpiece can elevate an otherwise unremarkable career. This challenges the idea of consistent artistic genius. |
| “Pomfret was a poet of this ‘single-speech-Hamilton’ class. Though endowed with one of the most prosaic of minds, he yet chanced one day to blunder upon a lucky theme, and to treat it in a true poetic style.” (p. 774) | The reference to Pomfret illustrates Mathews’ belief that even an uninspired writer may produce one great work purely by chance. This reinforces his skepticism of sustained literary genius. |
| “The life of his intellect seemed to run itself out in one effort. All the pure juice of the vine flowed into a single glass.” (p. 774) | This metaphor suggests that some authors expend all their creative energy on one work, leaving nothing of equal value in their later career. |
| “Had the author of ‘The Burial of Sir John Moore’ published only those memorable lines, which have been declaimed in schools and academies… who would have suspected his poverty of imagination?” (p. 775) | Mathews argues that Charles Wolfe’s reputation rests entirely on one poem, suggesting that literary greatness is often a result of isolated bursts of inspiration rather than enduring skill. |
| “Joseph Blanco White was not a poet; yet… he wrote a sonnet on ‘Night’ which Coleridge does not hesitate to pronounce the grandest and most finely-conceived sonnet in our language.” (p. 775) | This highlights how a single work can defy expectations—Blanco White was not known as a poet, yet his Night was highly regarded. This supports Mathews’ argument that literary success is unpredictable. |
| “Because, in a lucky moment, one has dashed off a few verses… does it follow that he has ‘the vision and faculty divine’ of the inspired bard?” (p. 776) | Mathews critiques the Romantic notion of innate genius, suggesting that one moment of poetic brilliance does not confirm an author’s true literary talent. |
| “It is better for a poet’s fame to have produced a few good verses than a thousand mediocre ones.” (p. 776) | He argues against overproduction, believing that a single remarkable piece is more valuable than a large body of mediocre work—contradicting the common idea that quantity enhances literary legacy. |
| “Calliope jamais daigne leur parler, Et Pégase pour eux refuse de voler.” (p. 776) (Calliope never deigns to speak to them, and Pegasus refuses to fly for them.) | Mathews borrows this French aphorism to mock aspiring poets who mistakenly believe they possess divine inspiration, reinforcing his belief in literary luck over sustained talent. |
| “Carlyle says that booksellers would get more for their money if they got less—that is, if they paid for quality instead of for quantity.” (p. 776) | Quoting Thomas Carlyle, Mathews critiques the publishing industry’s tendency to favor quantity over quality, reinforcing his idea that literary fame should be based on merit, not sheer output. |
Suggested Readings: “Luck in Literature” by William Mathews
- Mathews, William. “Luck in Literature.” The North American Review, vol. 151, no. 409, 1890, pp. 774–76. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25102106. Accessed 1 Feb. 2025.
- Davis, Jefferson, et al. “From the Periodical Archives: Notes, Comments, and Editorial Practices at the Back of the Magazine.” American Periodicals, vol. 18, no. 2, 2008, pp. 239–53. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41219800. Accessed 1 Feb. 2025.
- Williams, B. A. O., and T. Nagel. “Moral Luck.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, vol. 50, 1976, pp. 115–51. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106826. Accessed 1 Feb. 2025.
- Ballantyne, Nathan. “Does Luck Have a Place in Epistemology?” Synthese, vol. 191, no. 7, 2014, pp. 1391–407. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24021550. Accessed 1 Feb. 2025.