REPERTORY SOCIETY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 305, 8 October 1935, Page 6

REPERTORY SOCIETY.

Sir, —When Laurel first wrote to your paper venting his spleen on the people of Ashburton in general, I thought his letter too utterly contemptible to merit a reply. However, as he still trails his coat tails I have decided to have a quigt word with him. First of all I would like to say that there is a certain form of perversion which is marked by a love o : f cruelty. L.H. possibly unwittingly, follows the Count de Sade in this respect. Where does he obtain his curious obsession that the members of the Society will not brook criticism? Never to my knowledge lias there been any public or private protest about criticism, nor have I heard of any individual resenting helpful criticism. Does he not confuse criticism with abuse? His repeated reference to the necessity for “brutal” criticism seems at variance with modern opinion which asks for sane and well-balanced comment. Vituperation is of the gutter. L. Hardy, apparently from personal motives, displays a virulent vindictiveness rarely met with in newspaper correspondents. I cannot wonder that lie hides under anonymity. Take for example liis criticism of the Turnkey in the locally-written play. This character, according to L.H. should have been a “simple, ignorant French peasant.” What authority has he for this? Does he know the meaning of peasant? — (countryman, rustic). Must all turnkeys be drawn from the peasantry? I would! have supposed that the author of the play could have drawn his character from the rabble of Paris. Might I suggest that if L.H. consults, some authoritative illustrated literature dealing with, the French Revolution he will be gjad that his ignorance is hidden under a nom de guerre. So far as his remarks about originality in play waiting are concerned, probably he does not know: that Shakespeare himself based his plays on old tales or previously written plays. G.B.S. (if known to L.H.) does not disdain using the well-worn theme. Doubtless with the “smugness” which he so deplores in others, L.H. can find a “brutal” criticism for the afore-men-tioned 1 .

I have frequently heard of the old Shakespearean Society which apparently put on some excellent work. It is significant that many of the old active members have been most helpful and kind in their advice to Repertory Society members. I can well believe that if his 42 years in Ashburton have been lived amongst such unpleasant individuals as he describes in his first letter, L.H. is deserving of sympathy for his warped outlook and enlarged spleen. One thing more, might I suggest that one who resorts to such abuse of others as your correspondent apparently delights ill, should at least se«? that he is above reproach in liis English. If be is “going to again” air his knowledge and write to the papers, might I suggest that his effort would not jar quite so much if lie refrained from splitting his infinitives.

CAiPTAIN HOOK