THE CRITIC CRITICISED.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume IV, Issue 963, 13 March 1917, Page 6

THE CRITIC CRITICISED.

To the Edilor of THE SUN. Sir, —Your correspondent, E. S. Luttrell, publishes a letter in Saturday's Sun which, I think, tails for a few remarks. Because a certain newspaper writes an article criticising the authorities for running a special train to Timaru races, your correspondent affects curiosity as to what the writer of the article co«ild have done in the way of calculatvag the amount of energy expended in running the train, had he engineer, etc., etc. What to do with the matter? If sarcasm it has no point. We are then offered a series of rather r r.> . plicated jokes at the expense of the editor for publishing racing news whilst holding the opinions expressed in the article; but, after all, one of the functions of a newspaper is to represent, within certain limits, the world as it is. An editor is not obliged to agree with all he reports; we look to the leading articles for an expression of his views. I must admit that I did not see the article in question, nor do I know in what newspaper it appeared, but if this criticism is all that can be urged against it, surely it must have been a very sensible piece of writing. I have no very definite opinions about racing, but it is surely quite reasonable for people to express tbeir views, if they think that it is too prominent a feature in these bad times, and that it should be somewhat checked. This, at anyrate, is a fair subject for discussion. Is racing the only thing that may nut be criticised in these days? Many people, apparently, have a strong desire to find a weak place in the armour of anyone who tries to improve matters, and to turn them, if possible, into ridicule. If I am not mistaken there was a former letter, from the same correspondent, on the subject of pictures. He seems to think that he has discovered a sort of patent and easy way of dealing with critics. No one is to offer any criticism about anything unless he himself is absolutely perfect and beyond reproach. This certainly is a way of getting rid of all criticism, but, whilst your correspondent appears to object to the editor for trying to check racing in these times (whilst making money by reporting these meetings), he seems to admit that he agrees with the editor that races should be reduced in number, but apparently he admits that he also is making money by racing, so that, according to him, there must be at least two Inconsistent men in Christchurch. Even the last sentence of the letter does not help us much, for after telling us that he has money in both racing and pictures, he assures us that he will not grumble "if it has to go into the Government melting pot." Does this mean anything more than that, if the Government takes it, he will give it up? What is the object of such letters? Do they help forward any single thing in this world? Surely, in such times as these, we might be spared such useless trivialities. —I am, etc., VERY IMPERFECT.