"AS THE STORY GOES."

Press, 1 February 1930, Page 15

"AS THE STORY GOES."

TO THE r.DITOB OF THE I'EESS Sir—Having a shrewd idea of the identity of your literary critic, that brave knight in shining armour who has endeavoured to rescue Miss Betty Knell from the toils of my literary misdirection, I was fearful that in his reply to niv protest against his review of '''Ah the Story Goes," 1 would be shattered with the weight of his lauee. In short, 1 half anticipated that in courting a controversy with the paid servant of an important daily (whose editor must espouse his critic's cause, be he right or wrong) might would vanquish right. Hence mv amazement when I read the. reply to my letter in your issue of the 18th. The reply is characteristic of the futile criticism of Miss Knell s book — au evasive string of words, made pitiful now, by cheap abuse. It has at least revealed one thing, and that is that your critic, used Miss Knell in the first place, as a chopping block to aim a blow at myself. In an oblique manner, he now admits, that in his opinion' Miss Knell is not to blame for her poetry, but myself for praising her verse "immoderately." Oh the chivalry of this gentleman of the pen! , That Miss Knell's verse is not praised immoderately will be evident to any reader of her poems, which, as I stated in my introduction to her book, indicated that "more precious things would be born of her maturity." Were these words of mine "immoderate praise ''.' There is oue other point calling for correction in your critic's reply. He suggests that I resent hi- criticism of Miss Knell's poems because of her sex and her youth. I plainly stated in my letter that I would be foolish indeed to resent criticism. And, now I repeat, that from all the critics who have praised Miss Knell's book, the Christchurch Pp.es- stands alone in its mean, paltry, and ineffective criticism cf the work*of one of its own countrywomen. The criticism was ineffective because it consisted of vague generalities. I asked for details of technical defects. Your critic has been unable to reply. In conclusion. Your critic is abusive — he calls me "silly." I was kind —I called him a "gentleman." Your readers mav agree that we are possibly both mistaken in our estimation of each other. —Yours, etc., PAT LAWLOE. Wellington, January 21st, 1930. [We regret having embarrassed Mr Lawlor bv calling him "silly." He was entitled to the truth without flattery.—Ed. The Press.]