Literary and Dramatic Criticism

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 250, 18 July 1931, Page 9

Literary and Dramatic Criticism

Sir, —Might I intrude again into your valuable space in order to reply to 'Struggling Dramatist,” and also to discuss another aspect of literature and trama, that of constructive criticism? Would it be a too sweeping assertion to say that there are none, or very few, heople in New Zealand capable of offering discerning criticism in these two arts? Those who would reply indignantly, let me refer them to Guy de Maupassant's definition of a critic. A critic, he says, tnust set aside preconceived notions, prejudices of “school,” or partisanship for any class of artists, and appreciate, distinguish, and explain the most antagonistic tendencies and the most dissimilar temperaments, recognising and accepting the most varied efforts of art. I have yet to read or hear a good criticism in this country. Take, for example, the recent Repertory production, “The Pelican.” Is it of any use to be told that eo-and-so was good or poor, or that the author has written better work; was there any real criticism on that play, either in respect of the acting or the author’s work? If so, I never read it. But this is only one example; let me fluote others. I recently read a criticism, local criticism, of a new novel just published in London. The critic describes it as a very dismal effort, chiefly, I should imagine, Because he happened to rend ®n the outside cover that the author had not yet reached the age of twenty-one. I law that same book reviewed in English periodicals, but what a difference! After making due allowance for the author's youth, enthusiasm, and inexperience, Jhey tell us that his undoubted talent will overcome these difficulties, etc., etc. To my mind, the greatest critic of to■fay is Hannen Swaffer. “Oh. but he’s Ito rude I” a friend remarked to me recently. I did not agree. Damaging he may be, but not rude. And, after all, true criticism must be damaging to a certain '•xtent; it spurs the author to better and greater efforts. We do not want round condemnation, nor yet do we want unstinted praise. Hannen Swaffer has the genius, in a few well-chosen words, of laying bare a. literary or dramatic work With all the mistakes and errors glaringly apparent, for the author to gather up and discard, moulding something better from his experience. He is cruel, in order to be kind.

“Struggling Dramatist” tells us that rf some plays offered to the Repertory Society and returned as unsuitable for production, one has since been accepted by the Dundee Repertory Society. Bravo! struggling Dramatist! I do not suggest for a moment that the Dundee Repertory Society is one whit better than i>ur own, but I do say that it is a fact that locally-written work is never given the praise it deserves, and anyone gaining recognition in this country would be torn avis indeed. I would refer to Katherine Mansfield as an example. Wns Jhe ever appreciated locally until the test of the. world showed us the way? it was another example of the old adage, 'Familiarity breeds contempt.” It is a fcell-known psychological fact that the fellow next door is incapable of writing k good play or noved. Whyit should be so I do not attempt to explain. i Therefore, O struggling dramatist, jrrite on I Be not afraid of the comments !f the common herd; keep your eyes on he stars and remember that no one in the mblic eye can please everybody.—l am, *»tc., BACKSTAGE. Wellington. July 16.