The St. Louis Republic., 1903-03-15

scintillating writer contending that per-
former is never satisfied with being told
that he is great: the critic must say Of
him. In order to win his good will. that he
is better than any other actor.
This IS all very well. and as true as that
cow chews cud: but It seems to me. as
| it must to Alan Dale. thafIt Is mono Of the
critics business whether or no the actor IS
pleased with his opinion OF his abilities. The
baneful effects of actor-critic friendships are
seen almost every day. and are quite suffi-
cient to cause the judicious to grieve and
grow weary.
No sooner does the critic fasten himself
to a dramatist or managers bank account
or tic himself to the apron strings OF an
actress than he strsightway loses his tnde-
pendence OF thought and rectftude OF action
A critic worthy of the name should be able
to tell a good play independent OF applause
or the absence Of IT. II seems to me that
the less attention 10 the burstings OF kid
gloves or cacophonous outlaws on frs,
nights the better.
NJ Sarcey. for instance. often attended a
performance a second time before record
ing his opinion in print
Has a manager the right TO exclude an
obnoxious critic from his playhouse Step
lightly and carefully, There is a row Of
sore corns ahead, What the outcome OF the
present fracas in New York will be remains
to be discovered.
Two well-known critics while back
were informed that they were persona non
srata at certain metropolitan theaters. and
that should they attempt TO enter these
playhouses they would be fo-cibly removed
The managers claim they have been ma
liciously prosecuted and grossly malisned'
BY these critics. and they saw no other way
to put a stop to their ''tormenting machina-
tions" Oddly enough. the critics have since
their ejectment been dumb as oysters re-
sarding the plays produced at these several
,heaters so TO all appearances both parties
are well satisfied with the present status OF
affairs.
All OF which proves that the critics had
better be real good little boys or Able the
"bcgie man will ketch EN- il they don't
watch out However. what criticism
would become under a too strenuous sppI-
cation OF this managerial prerosative can
easily be imagined.
As to whether II ts the province Of the
critic to teach the actor how 10 act: 1t is
the constant complaint OF the actor that
most critics are not able. owing TO their
lack Of acquaintance with the art" TO dit-
ferentiate between a good part badly acted
and a bad part well acted.
And. too. the assertion often made by ac-
tors that critic is unable. not being al
actor to tell good acting when he sees IL.
is. TO use Hopperesdre expression. DOWN
right errant p.ffie.'' Doctor johnson dis
posed of this question rather satisfactorily.
Somebody complained that so and 20 had
no right. not being poet, TO pass juas-
ment on what is good or bad poetry. The
good doctor beloved his Sisapprova,. and |
the question has remained as settled ever
since. What is true Of poetry Is true Of |
acting
1t IS no more the critics bushes to teach
the actor how to act than 1, ,s his trade to /,
make plays or instruct the dramatiss In the |
way of making them. 4
As Arthur B, waik,ey puts it. II /. not the |
function OF criticism 10 inculcate methods |
but TO appra;se results-to examine the
thing alone, but not tell the way to do 1t,
Finally. no actor was ever driven cfY the
boards in consequence OF Careless. Thoughts
less or mendacious criticism. while great