Ironically, James felt that his lesser story was getting the credit that Roderick Hudson should have received but the test of time has shown Daisy Miller to be one of James's classics whereas Hudson is less acclaimed. The novella became incredibly popular; Howells commented once that he heard society dividing itself into "Daisy Millerites and anti-Daisy Millerites." By the early 1900s, the novella had been reprinted many times due to minor revisions James made for a New York edition. An unsuccessful play version was even published, first privately in England in 1882 and then in in Atlantic Monthly in 1883. In 1909, "James conscientiously attempted to supply for the definitive edition the psychological depth and nuances which he felt were lacking in the 1878 version?." Yet editors since, such as Geoffrey Moore, have felt that the 1909 edition clouds over the fine work of the original and tend today to print the version of 1878.
COPYING TO LEARN DRAWING
If children are taught to copy other people's artwork they are apt to be more frustrated with their real observation drawing. Observation from actual objects is harder than copying. Observation uses different parts of the brain and different observation habits. Copying can discourage learning to see from the real world. I do not criticize a child who copies, but I do not affirm or praise copied work. I feel that learning to copy is a fall-back method used by self-taught children who do not have a coach that can make observation drawing easy enough for them to learn to draw from observation. Copying can become a crutch that is hard to give up. Producing a 2-dimensional drawing of a 3-dimensional subject is a transformation. To transform, requires creativity. Each child's work will be more unique and individual than when they copy. Tranforming is solving a problem. Copying is repeating an answer.