What London Is Reading

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 142, 18 June 1938, Page 10 (Supplement)

What London Is Reading

ByCharles Pilgrim

LONDON. AMERICAN literature occupies such an important place in the reading of the average intelligent Britisher these days that the annual Pulitzer awards for distinguished literary work done by American writers in the previous year receive almost as much attention here as they do in the U.S.A. I make no apology, therefore, for beginning my notes this week with a brief reference to the recent announcement of Pulitzer prizewinners for 1938. The successful novelist is Mr. John P. Marquand for "The Late Oeorge Apley," which, I believe, I called attention to last summer soon after its publication. The playwright's prize noes to Mr. Thornton Wilder for "Our Town;" that for history to Paul Herman Buck for "The Road to Reunion." The poetrv prize was secured bv Miss Marv A. Ratureuska with "Cold Morning Stay;" while the award for a distinguish**] American biopraphy was shared between Mr. Odell Shcpard ("Pedlar's Progress--the Life of Bronson Olcott") and Mr. Marqijjs James ("The Life of Andrew Jackson"). Poetry Before Drama , Lovers of Shakespeare will be interested in two recently pdfcfcshcd nnd authoritative books that shed an illnminuting light on certain aspects of the immortal Will's work. In "Shakespeare's Young Lovers" (Oxford University Press), Professor Elmer Stoll attempts an explanation— and I think suc-cessfully--of the riddle which must have puzzled many of us at some time or other, namely, why it was that, in spite

of the most disillusioning experiences, some of the finest of the Shakespearean heroines continued to retain a blind, unquestioning faith in lovers who were obviously unworthy of their devotionHelena, Imogen and Hero being the most glaring examples. Professor Stoll —with many apt quotations from the plays—underlines and supports with telling arguments what other scholars have already hinted at in their examination of this question. Put quite baldly, he says that the answer is to be found by remembering that Shakespeare was above everything else a maker of poetry; and as such he was concerned not so much with motives or the sources of action, but with the presentation of conflicting passions, which are the necessary elements for the making of a poem. In other words. Shakespeare must be respected for his poetry, lather than for his drama. This is a point that Bernard Shaw has been hammering away at for more than half a century; and there seems little doubt that as we get away from the false sentiment of an earlier Bardolatry most people will accept this sober estimate of the Swan of Avon. Who Was "Mr. W.H."? The other Shakespearean work. "The Sonnets of Shakespeare and Southampton" (Basil Blackwood, Oxford), discusses most ably the identity of that mysterious being, "Mr. W. 11.," to whom Shakespeare's sonnets weie dedicated. The author, Mr. Walter Thomson, states his case from the very outset in the title of his book. Sifting all the col* jectures which have been advanced so far iu regard to this curious matter, he arrives at the challenging conclusion that all the sonnets were not the work of Shakespeare, but that some of them were composed by his young friend, Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, who was in the habit of replying in verse to the compositions of the older man. "W.H.," according to this view, is nothing more than a compound of the two first names, "William" and "Henry;" and the published sonnets are a composite edition of the work of the two dear friends —one of them an accomplished poet revelling in his mature powers, the other a diffident amateur trying to express himself in a difficult medium. Whether one accepts this verv arresting theory—and I see no reason for not doing so —or not, there is no denying that it accounts for much that is obscure or confusing in the style and substance of the sonnets, as they have reached us. A Fine American Romance it is never safe to dogmatise about any country, least of all the United States of America, which has a habit every now and then of springing a literary surprise upon us. Who in these cynical days would expect a young .writer from the country which has set the style in the technique and terminology of gangsterism to turn out a beautifully tendpr story of t'hristmastide ? And yet this is exactly what Mr. Dan Wickenden has done in his very highly commended novel, "The Running of the Deer" (Dent). Here we are. brought face to face with a typical middle-class American family of the professional type. There is Arnold Thrace, the head of the household by courtesy, a gentle soul with a rather conservative outlook, who loses his job on the editorial staff of a magazine that is petering out. He is surrounded by the : ort of family and relatives that one expects to see attached to such an individual a prim wife, who is a bit of an invalid and has a sharp tongued sister to relieve her of most of the housework; an elder son at college, who is more hearty than intelligent; a lid a sensitive younger son. through whose percipient eyes much of what is really happening is seen; and in addition a widowed sister with two rather worthless children, and a long-absent brother, who turns up to spend Christmas with the jobless Arnold and his family. The story revolves round the doings of these Thraccs from December 10 till the last day of the year. It is told in simple but arresting language that is shot thrdugh with a sympathy and understanding that seems incredible in one who is still in his parly twenties. Every character gives one the impression of having been carefully observed and lived with even the less pleasant ones, whose good points are recorded with the bad: and at the end of it all one feels that this tender exposing of ordinary commonplace lives is done out of a belief in the fundamental goodness of human nature a belief which is summed up in the sentiment of the carol which the Thraces sing at Christmas. "The Rising of the Sun and the Running of the Deer."