The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1906-06-30
Shaw Oh AAmateilr Actors


have strong srudge against
clubs Of amateur actors. because they
habitually insult the art thsy dabble,
In BY assuming that It Ii . sin which
can only be covered BY charity. Il.
is quite q common thing, writes d. B.
Shaw in the London Tribune, for or-t
ganisers Of amateur, performances to,
appeal to the author, to forego his
Tees on the ground that the proceeds
are to be given to some charitable
institution. That IL to say. o. popular:
auth0r 10 asked to hand over some
hundreds 9 year to amateur societies
20 give TO their pet charities and that,
too, without the slightest guarantee
mat the management Of the perform.
ance Will be business-l like enough to
realize for the charities the whole,
value Of his contribution, or indeed.
any part Of It at all. "A more unreal
s0nable demand; can hardly be imasin-
ed within the limits Of practicable hu.
man audacity. Even professional
millionaire philanthropists like Mr..
Carnegie and Mr.. Passmore Edwards
reserve the right to choose for them
selves the objects Of their endowment.
Besides, the charity Of amateurs 81
hardly ever really charitable In its
motive. It Is mere coat of;whitewash
for an indulgence which is regarded as
questionable, II not positively disreput-
able. It Is also adulterated by q desire
for the patronesses Of charities. And
the economic effect Of the performance,
when the expenses leave any. surplus,
is simply to relieve the rate-payers Of
their social obligations by helping to
keep hospitals out of public hands and
In private ones. Why on earth should
a playwright be expected to contribute
to the rates of places he has never
lived in? 5I
What makes this additionally ex-s
asperating Is that while there is
little difilculty In raising vast sums Of
ransom and conscience money from
the rich In the form of charitable SUBJ
scripd0nss It is hard to get q farthing
for the starving art of the theater
either from public or private sources.
II all the money that has been wasted
on charities by amateur actors had
been devoted to theatrical art by build
ing up local dramatic societies with
repertoires, wardrobes and even
theaters of their own, not only would
dramatic art be much more developed
tnan 1t Is now In England, but other
arts would have grown up round the
local theaters. Just think of what
a playhouse would mean to country
town IL 1t had its own dressmakers,r
its own tapestry weayers, its own
armorers, it's own embroideresses and
its own dress designers and painters
and machfnists What is to be said
in defense Of the stage struck stupid
ity and ignorance that Is content with
a basket of soiled secondhand clothes
and toy swords sent down by London
costumer and hired out for. a night at
about treble the price the whole par
Gel Of rubbish would sell for in
Houndsditch? Do you expect me or
any dramatic author. to be lenient in
the matter of fees to people who keep
up these nasty, vulgar, ignorant
practices? Rather let us heap crush
ing exactions on them and starve their
folly to death.
Almost all amateurs desire to initiate
the theater rather than to act a play.
They actually call their performances
"theatricals," and are as proud of that
illiterate insult as any genuine dram