enthusiasm with which it was received by the English critics, contrasted with its milder reception in America, prompted several English critics to claim that they had "discovered" Crane, and prompted one reviewer to jest, "England took him up with a wild cry of delight almost before his own countrymen had begun to express their admiration" (Gilder, 125).
Statements like these angered many of the book's earlier American critics, who had given the book somewhat tame, but definitely favorable, reviews immediately after its publication. They viewed these comments as mocking their ability to recognize talented writers in their own country. Donald Gibson, an American critic, tried to explain the seeming indifference of those first reviews in his 1988 study of the novel. He felt it was not that the early American reviewers were any less positive about the book, it was just that the . . . British reviewers were more clear, explicit, and certain about who and what Stephen Crane was (11). . . . In some sense it seems that American critics did not have the confidence to believe that an American could do to and for literature what Crane did (12).
It was Stephen Crane's innate ability to capture the essence of war that shook the very foundation of literary tradition; for, at the time of its writing - between his 21st and 22nd birth- days - Crane had not yet experienced actual combat. He was not completely without resources, however, for his family had a strong interest in military history; his brother, for instance, was a noted authority on the battle of Chancellorsville, on which it is rumored the basic troop movements of the narrative are based (Covici 19).
...