OCR Text |
Show EDITORIAL: Literary Criticism: A Defense This newspaper office was in a turmoil over the week-end, as we received phone calls and student delegations interested, pro or con, in the review I wrote on the Roosevelt high school play, presented Dec. 14. Many of these callers thought I had handled the members of the student cast a trifle too harshly. They wondered how "I could have the gall" to conduct con-duct such a vicious attack on individuals in a play. But, surprising sur-prising as it may seem to many, a bold few actually praised my criticism. I wrote my review with the idea that a literary criticism would be accented as one man's opinion, and would be received by the public. Literary criticism is completely impersonal; it does not vary, regardless of the individuals in-dividuals concerned. Some students were hurt because be-cause the play was staged to make money to apply to high school expenses. None will deny de-ny this is a noble purpose. Others Oth-ers had tried "so hard" to put the play over and in their opinions, and in the opinion of many, it was a great success. These are personal matters. A person proposing to review a literary piece, say a play, can take only one thing into consideration con-sideration the performance itself. it-self. If he doesn't like it, well, ; he doesn't like it. Extraneous ! matters, according to the rigid j rules of literary criticism,! should not influence his "opinion'." "op-inion'." What qualifications must a critic possess to review art? Actually, Ac-tually, he doesn't need any. A person learns to appreciate good music, whether he can play an Instrument or not; one often dp-Mops a taste for painting, even though he can't paint a stroke; a reader likes a certain cer-tain novel, but he would never attempt writing one. Two peo- pie go to a movie; one liks it the other does not. ' Literary criticism is, if Webster Web-ster is to be believed, "the art of judging and defining the merits of a literary or artistic 1 work." That's all. Many be sides myself have inevitably ' judged the performance under dispute, some favorably, others critically. The person sitting next to me that Wednesday night may have thoroughly enjoyed en-joyed the play. There was nothing vindictive in my review. I can even say I have nothing against the director di-rector or any member of the cast. If I was harsh, it was because, be-cause, according to what I look for in a dramatic production, the performance fell far below my expectations. Not that I believe be-lieve I could have done better. I am no actor, and have little intention of trying to make the profession. But I do believe this intangible appreciation of art, which I possess, along with millions of others, gives me the right to saw what I think of a play, novel, or anything else. And if I am writing a review, I am under obligation to judge impersonally and impartially, im-partially, the completed product itself. In connection with pro and con, there is the matter of tol-eran'ce tol-eran'ce toward the opinions of others. If you don't agree with a person, does that give you the right to call him a fool? A person per-son who says he knows everything every-thing may well be suspected of knowing just the opposite. History His-tory has proven time after time that infallibility always turned up fallible. I can appreciate a man's opinion opin-ion on principle. Who am I to say he is right or wrong- Intolerance In-tolerance personal, religious, racial, and otherwise is even today the root of much of the world's troubles. To paraphrase a quotation of Voltaire, "I don't agree at all with what you have to say, but I'll die for your right to say it." One other point. Anyone putting put-ting a literary or artistic work before the public for approval or rejection1 is automatically inviting in-viting criticism. This rule applies ap-plies to playwrights, directors, novelists, poets, journalists, and others. The courts have long held that art must run the gantlet of the press and individual indivi-dual chatter. G.W.H. |