Los Angeles herald., 1909-12-05
ny w. HERBERT BLAKE


q INCE the days of Hazlitt few
critics of the drama or literature
~ have seriously tried to explain why
or how they did it. There has been
enough heterogeneity In method aud
product to satisfy even Herbert Speh-
Ger. Many writer's have frankly
modelled their opinions after what has
appeared to them TO be the popu.1r
taste Some have sneered at It; some
have ignored it; some have frowEtd
upon it, a few have wondered at il
and tried vainly to comprehend II
without sacrificing personal sincerity.
Now all is to be changed. In the
Illustrated London News Gilbert X.
Chesterton, the pride and the perplex-
ity of London, takes his measure of the
critics. He finds them separated by a
great chasm of culture and fastidious-
ness from the people for whom they
write THE right condition." he cas-
ualy informs US, lis that the people
and the critics should have the same
basic joy in beautiful or comic things;
but that the people should not know
why they feel the JOY, while the critics
should tell them. This Is the sensible
state of things with regard to critics;
they are the analysts of pleasure. As
men they should laugh or cry a; a
theater; and then afterward. as
critics, defend themselves for having
done so. They should justify to the
public its own feelings in the act of
justifying their own"
OF modern critics this critic says:
\ "They never attempt to explain why
humanity likes this or that; generally
they get no further than explaining
why they do not like it themselves.
In a theater one can hear the
people, the pack in full cry.
And nothing is more startling than the
contrast between the positive unanim- |
ity of the people and the strange
isolation and perpleXity of the |
critics. A critic even If
he differs from the human crit
icism, ought to be able to explain it, |
That is his business. But the dramatic
critics. even those like Max seer |
bohm, whom / both like and admire, |
have altogether surrendered the at |
tempt to lead the human march They |
merely walk in the other direction. |
=. The critics are like Wine |
tasters who should really prefer claret |
sour; they are like horse doctors who
should have an aesthetic preference
for lame horses"
one may agree with Mr.. Chesterton
that the ideal state of criticism would |
be a bridge of perfect sympathy be-
tween audience and critic. That bridge |
has yet to be built. Any modern drama
is such a hybrid and variant thing thai
IL is not vet capable of producing a |
unified and catholic impression upon
an audience. Few applauders at
brilliant or a ludicrous play know why
they are pleased. AS a matter of factl
very few appear to be pleased for the
same reason: To represent an audience
in any accurate way a critic would
have to take a census of impressions
among those about him. The resultant
would be rather a collect than an in"
dividual opinion.
OF course everybody has the same
joy in beautiful or comic things To
maintain the contrary would be TO
strike a blow at the fundamental
democracy of art, which is as far as
may be from the aristocracy of culture
or even the leveling pantisocracy of
modern education. The joy is the same,
but its expression-even its reception
differs in every individual case. The
analysts of pleasure'-the critics
must experience the joy in order to
write of It, But they cannot experience
and analyze too. Most of them are
human. They like to be happy. They
prefer to experience first and analyze
afterward. The result is a purely in
ulVluudl IMPRESSION, related TO Iue pop
ular feeling only in so far as the critic
is a man of the people. And most of
us are communists only while the
crowd surrounds us. AS. the last cur
tain descends we reach for our hat
and coat with a sudden instinct in
favor of private property. The same
instinct governs the forthcoming crit
icism.
For some mysterious reason enjoy
ment and analysis, in the heart of man,
seem always at swords points. The
critic who enjoys forgets to analyze.
The artist seldom is a success as a
logician. His dazzling intuitions blind
him to the truth that parallel lines
may never meet in the certainty that
they are nevertheless bound for the
same goal. The idea of criticism as
elf-defense is characteristic of Mr.
Chestertons besetting controversial
mood. But controversy which seeks
too vicariously for agreement will fail
of it's purpose. The critic who merely
tries to agree with the gallery will
eventually fail to agree with himself
On the other hand, the man who
honestly and casually states his opinion