Omaha daily bee., 1902-06-22

Mr.. Richard Mansfield, In his letter 10 the 1
New York Herald on the forthcoming Of
tn, American actor, blames the newspapers
tor the apparent success of much that is
mediocre, alleging that by the repetition
Of fattery the actor Is Encouraged in the
continuation Of faults, Until the fault be-
comes a fixture, and the course OF the
actors ability is turned awry thereby. Some
foundation doubtless exists for Mr.. Mans
fields criticism Of the critics, but he opens
up the question as to what Is the real
function Of the critic. The primary def
milton Of the word is one who is able
(qualihed) to discuss, skilled in judgment,
a reviewer. Its secondary definition is a
harsh Judge, a %reviler. a carper. Which OF
these shall the dramatic critic be? Is he
20 go to the playhouse and look for what
there Is in the performance to praise, or
must he assume the role Of fault-hnder
and point out only those things that are
bad or lack merit at most? It is %unpleas-
ant for most people, especially newspaper
people, to be forever sitting in judgment
on the actions Of others, to be everlastingly
telling them do this or that thusly and
to always be looking for a mistake. A
man who earns his daily bread by doing a
stunt on a busy newspaper once confessed
that all the pleasure of reading had been
destroyed for him by the routine of his
work. ut has come to such a pass" said
he, that whenever ] take up a magazine
or book. no matter what 1t is, l find myself
looking for typographical errors, for blum
ders OF construction or for unnecessary
words that should be blue-penciled.' Very
recently he found two typographical errors
within a few pages in a costly edition OF
a standard author gotten out by one OF
the big publishing firms. He has only a
hazy impression of the story, but he knows
Just where to locate those misplaced letters.
Does Mr.. Mansfield want to reduce his
friends. the dramatic writer's, to this con-
dition OF slavery to routine, or Will he
allow them still to dispense the milk of
human kindness by now and then saying
a good word for an actor whose perform
ance, poor though 1T may be. shows him to
be doing his best, and thus maybe en-
courage him to efforts that will in time
win. Mr.. Mansheld's personal experience
has been such as might render him a little
bit sceptical on the point Of milk of human
kindness as a product Of the newspaper
yet he must own that even with the as
sured possession OF the spark OF genius,
the divine a%f1atus. the actors road to
success is long and weary.
Honest criticism Is necessarily kindly.
When one has com to a point where the
nanae OF critic in it's first meaning may be
riRhtly assumed, one has also undergone
the hardships, the disappointments, that
line the road. and, unless one Is altogether
a misanthrope. some charity for others who
are struggling up the toilsome way naturally
tends to soften the discussion or review,
end unless the performance be wholly bad
nr utterly hopeless the criticism by one
auaHAed is likely to take more Of the char
acter Of a review which seeks to praise
what is good than to unsparingly condemn
that which Is lacking. From points of view
ether than a mere spectator must the critic
approach his discussion of the actors work.
In the first place the critics highest duty
Is to protect the public. Here he can or
should know neither friend nor foe. He
must, in order to be fair, give due weight
to all the incidentals that surround the
performance on which he Is sitting in judg-
ment. The success of the actor. often his
bread and butter, depend on the critics
announcement as to his ability. On the
other hand, a person has no right to sell
to the public that which is not up to grade
and the critic must decide between these
two conditions. He must determine If the
actor is giving the public due return and
should frankly state it. But 1t is a question
u II SAdeN NAANNNpA . NV hApAS W bAahhN
than the critic for the continuation of an
actor in his faulty work. 1t is just as much
the part of the stage manager to detect
laws in a performance as it Is the news
paper writer's, and far more is 1t the
stage managers duty to see that they are
corrected. In this respect Mr.. Mansfield is
q model. His productions are brought as
nearly as possible to perfection through his
own untiring work as a stage director and
his unsparing effort both as one able to
Judge and as a harsh Judge when required.
Actors who are spoiled by iattery cannot
be reached by honest newspaper criticism,
for the reason that they are encased in an
lmpervieus suit of vanity. Competent
actors are not likely to be spoiled by notices
praising their work, and critics, who are
In tho main human. really like to repay an
evening of pleasure afforded by a good
actor by ~praising what they find in him to
praise and overlooking as far as possible
his faults. Even Mr.. Mansfield. close
searcher after truth as he is, would hardly
wish to o~yerturn this condition and thereby
add to the misery of a world which already
has troubles enough.
m discussing the Mansfield letter the
New York Dramatic Mirror says 1t is the
commercial spirit that Is responsible,
rather than the careless critic. for the
number OF bad actors now on the stage.