The books he chose to review were chiefly those which gave him a chance to use his historical information and imagination.

His ideas were concrete, as those of a great novelist must inevitably be.

Indeed the dividing line between creative work and criticism seems often to be obliterated in Scott's literary discussions, since he was inclined to amplify and illustrate instead of dissecting the book under consideration.

As a critic he was distinguished by the qualities which appear in his novels, and which may be described in Hazlitt's words, as "the most amazing retentiveness of memory, and vividness of conception of what would happen, be seen, and felt by everybody in given circumstances."[471] Scott felt that there was especial danger of futile theorizing in the criticism of poetry.

In writing about _Alexander's Feast_ he discussed for a moment the possibility of detecting points at which the author had paused in his work, but almost immediately he stopped himself with the characteristic remark--"There may be something fanciful ...