Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-06-28
HowELLs ON PLGYs AND CRITICS.

H0WFLLS ON PLEYS AND CRITICS
W. D. Howells, in Harper's Magazine for
June, reviews the drama in America, and
is very severe upon American dramatic
critics, but is equally courageous in his
praise of American playwrights, and in
cidentally of American acting. This is
perhaps, even-hanaed justice, since Amer.
lean critics, as a rule, have been merciles.
toward American playwrights, and MOI
tender of American actors.
Mr.. Howells' charges, and we incline tc
the belief that he is mainly justified by
the facts, that American dramatic criti
clsm has shown unwearied perseverance in
undertaking whatever was native OIL
novel in the efforts of our playwrights
Nevertheless, he believes that we are well
on our way toward the promise of an Am
erican comedy. Mr.. Howells thinks that
in their admiration for the extreme neat
ness of carpentry in the plays the French
dramatists give us, the newspaper critics in
America have acquired habit of over
looking native merit of higher order
and in consequence Of uplifting the nose
at American productions.
There is just enough of truth in the
averment to make his very severe handling
of the subject decidedly crisp and interest
ing, and to suggest to the men of the press
who are driven to their criticisms by proof
readers and foremen between midnight
and cock-crow, that there is large meas
ure of injustice in their treatment ofhome
talent. 1t may be due, probably is, to too
near view of American life and too dis
tant a view of foreign subjects that
compose the groundwork of French and
German plays.
The truth is about as Mr.. Howells so
ingeniously puts it, that while the average
American critic can tell us what is good
and what is bad acting, since he has seen
enough of both to distinguish, there his
usefulness too often ends, as the essayist
has it, mot certainly by his fault, for no
man can be blamed for not telling more
than he knows" That is to say, to put it
more generously and kindly that Mr. How
ellis seems disposed to do, the American
dramatic critic too often cares little for the
life which the true drama should
represent He judges the play rather
by the action than the motive,
and instead of seeking out the true func-
tions of the drama, and adopting them as
the standard by which to estimate worth
and ascertain failure, he falls into the error
of substituting his idea of acting, and his
own conceptions of what the ideal play
should be, whereas he should Judge the
mimic by life as it was, or is, in the at
mosphere treated.
By this method Mr.. Howells thinks that
the American playwright has been brought
to state of nervous dread of the Amer
lean critics, who outnumber his class so
greatly and possess such powerful lever
age against it. They have come to think
that there must be something low and vul-
gar in presenting on the stage American
life as they see it upon the street and in
society. Because they are thus unneryed
they do not venture to be true to life.
There is enough of justice in this severe
judgment to cause the native critic to
think it over and debate with himself
Have ! been unjust with the American
playwright? Is the nearness of my view
binding me TO the truth? Have I, as
Howells charges, been cowing the Ameri-
can dramatist by refusing to see the real
tiles in American life as he sees them, and
by condemning him for not adopting ''the
artifcialities which exist in the Miller
Compiler & Buffer pattern of French
drama?" Have l wronged him because
his plays have not that systematic linking
of facts together like train of cars with
eouplers and buffers at each end, that dis
tinguishes the regular rigidity of the
French play?