Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1886-09-04
To the ssTines,n HyprrcriticnI
6.rfffc.

EDITOR HERALD-I believe voice a
very prevalent sentiment when l take
exception to the general tenor of the
Times dramatic criticisms, which has
been well exenplifed in this present
Margaret Mather season. To briefly
express my idea of the matter, believe
that our theater going people and lovers
of the drama feel not little indebted 10
whatever circumstances have brought
this weeks privileges within their reach,
especially when they recall that it is
only recently we have had the opportu-
nifty to witness this grade Of perform
ance here. That there are drawbacks
to their thorough enjoyment goes with
out saying, but any one who will reflect
moment knows that no manager could
afford to set piece in Los Angeles as
he might in New York. In the present
ms lance, to bring here and put upon the
stage the six carloads Of scenery used
for Miss Mather and her troupe would
cost something like thousand dollars.
This tlay would be almost entirely
unreiurned, and while l am not in Mr..
Hills counsels, he is presumably work
ing for money rather than glory. We
are not yet large city, bat we are fast
growing away from rrovincialism, and
the appearance here of such performers
as Nevada, Materna, Jaunaschek, RhSa,
Barrett, Modjeska and Margaret Maiher
is one of the pleasantest evidences of our
growth. AS to the character Of Miss
Mather's performances, nothing need be
said. Our people have Joined in the
verdict Of unstinted praise which her
real genius and painstaking eforts have
called forth everywhere. Ono thing is
certain, Mr.. Hill has brought to Los
Angeles q troupe comprising more good
performers than any before on our
boards, with the possible exception of
Barreta's, and cur enjoyment of the rich
charms Of Miss Mather's voice and pres
ence, the flashes of her rare genius. and
the exceptionally good support, would
have been complete and satisfying bat
for tho chilling consciousness that We
SD ould probably find by to-morrow's
Times that, while they were very nice,
it was not quite the thing. l consider
1t uncAlled for and uniting for Mr..
Dobnson or any one else to harp on fac
points Of criticism, appreeiable only to a
handful OF biase theatre-goers who, fast
nearing the "Seventh Stage" pipe TO us
in childish treble that the world will
never again see acting ike that they
Witnessed sin London" half century
ago.
Could lie not afford 10 drop for awhile
this hypercritical spirit and recognize
the fact that we have enjoyed genuine
treat in the appearance here OF one OF
the foremost actresses of the age !?
Until we have grown q little more
metropolitan, whenever his sensitive
intelligence discovers offensive short
coming in these performers whom the
world is willing to call great, would he
not be willing 10 drop over them the
mantle OF charity for the sake OF us
more ordinary mortals, to whom it is o
greater pleasure to enjoy them in our
own untutored fashion than to have
pointed out to us how we should criticize
by the rules of arithmetic.
Ike elect OF such crlticisuls as lar aus
it goes, is to destroy public interest,
cheaper the success OF the performers,
and in so much stand in the way of our
enjoying such privileges in the future.
Just and kindly criticism harm no one,
but think discover in the Times critic
and unwillingness to accord full need
of praise to any star ever coming here,
and apparently for no worthier motive
than to gain cheap reputation for dis
elimination aud Independence. / will
gladly accord him that on the spot, and
now in the name OF theatre lovers cry
enough" MoMus.