THE REPERTORY SOCIETY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 306, 9 October 1935, Page 6

THE REPERTORY SOCIETY.

• Sir, —The second effort of Laurel Hardy as appeai'ing in your paper of yesterday is, if such a thing is possible, weaker than his first. The letter is couched in the same vindictive terms, definitely manifesting the narrow limits of his .mental processes. He remains in the confines of vitriolic abuse and invective rather than giving a straightforward constructive criticism —something that would be of value to all concerned.

How this writer arrives at the conclusion that the Repertory Society members object to adverse criticism is beyondi me. The society invites criticism and harken to ft, but not of the style of Laurel Hardy. Wlxat atom of advice has this individual offered so far? Not a bit —and yet lie charges us for not accepting something not yet given (by him). I do think that the opening statements of his previous letter was a pen picture of himself. He admits that ho has been here 42 years, and if he does believe what he said, he has made his contribution to that narrowness, etc.

Laurel, what possessed you to compare Gilbert and Sullivan’s musical plays witli the productions of the Repertory Society? Just a'little mental lapse'—(we will be charitable and think that, anyway). Nobody 'wishes to detract one iota the credit 'due to* the Shakespeaiean Society, but I think you will agree that the standard of judging is far higher these days (the reasons I have already given). Let me assure you, Laurel Hardy, I am not in the least bit angry ; on the contrary, I am amused at your •effusions —I cannot say that I am teiribly impressed with the nonsensical statements you make —but I will make allowances. Who could not fail to be amused at the ridiculous suggestion contained in your last statement? So anybody -who 'is not on the roll of ratepayers or reached their majority is irresponsible etc. 'So that’s your line of reasoning is it—and you claim to he a “critics”? ONLOOKER