Untitled

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 78, 8 May 1914, Page 6

Our contributor who last night waxed wroth at Mr Hopkins's judgments in the elocutionary competitions seems to have been hurt through his preference for one performer. That is undoubtedly talented and possesses much more artistry than the average competitor in elocutionary competitions, and it does seem that in some of hiß placings the judge has been inconsistent. Yet the judge is the judge,, and it is to his conception of a recitation or dialogue that the performer must appeal. If the judge considers a performer to be '' clever, graceful, dainty,'' to have given an artistic performance, and yet to have lacked humour in a humourous test, one musj; abide by a decision which depends on the judge's conception of humour, and if he conceives humour to be what 90 per cent, of the public conceive it to be, he is surely right, even though 10 per cent, disagree. If Mr Hopkins gives points for artistic ability and subtracts points for lack of humour, he has not passed over the performer's ability — he has given a favourable verdict. But, still taking this humourous recitation as an instance, m when he gives highest points for humour he is awarding them because the main object of the performance is humour, not artistry, and humour is to be defined by every individual for himself. If it seems that Mr Hopkins has been inconsistent in some awards, one must add together the total of points gained in the various items and then it will no doubt be found that this particular performer over whom our correspondent is stirred to wrath, and some others not mentioned, stand out as the best all-round performers in the contests, and that is no mean position, nor does it prove a lack of discrimination in the judge. After all, there is no reason why a competitor, having gained first place in a couple of contests, should necessarily gain first place thereafter in all other- contests he or she may enter.