New-York tribune., 1921-03-19

There is notion that q critic is a
person who sits in a bombproof shell
ter safe from reply and snipes at his
enemies. Of course this isn't true. They
do reply; often with distressing ac-
curacy. But the two charges most
generally brought against the critic
are seldom pertinent. These are that
he is insulting" or "flippant." Thus,
we noted in Bide Dudley's column in
The Evening World yesterday that
George Fl. Atkinson, author of "Survi-
val of the Fittest," declares "Never in
the history of theatricals have an au-
thor and his first night audience been
50 insulted by the New York press"
AS far as we can gather, the insult
lay in the almost unanimous opinion
of the New York press that Survival
of the Fittest" was one Of the quaint
est bad plays ever produced in New
York. 1t is entirely possible that the
press of New York was grossly mis-
taken. One hundred years from now
Survival of the Fittest" may be hailed
as the greatest play of the age. Dra-
matte critics are notoriously grave
shy and it may be that one or many
of them will endure long enough to be
humiliated by posterity's veto. 1t will
be most uncomfortable for US all and
MI Atkinson will have had his revenge.
But why should he wait? He has a
fine glowing contempt for the critics
even now, and what more does he want?
AS a matter Of fact there is nothing
insulting in making charge against
any man that he has written bad play
or bad book or committed bad piece
of acting. Estimable gentlemen fire.
quently write bad plays, and their
standing in the community is thereby
diminished not whit. After all, the
critic doesn't even pretend to say
whether or not play is good or bad.
There are no scales for examination.
| He simply hazards his opinion. The
greater the contempt of the author for
the critics judgment, just by so much
does his criticism decrease in weight
and Importance.
Mr.. Atkinson adds plaintively that
tne Of the critics wrote review of
Survival of the Fittest" which "took
an hour in the making, damning play
by an American which took fifteen
months to write" Here again the
dramatist is laboring under the delu-
sion that painstaking work is of neces-
sity valuable and hasty work of no mo-
ment. The world, as we remember, re-
quired six days in the making, and the
Tower Of Babel, which came to nothing,
was months in the marring. Harold Bell
Wright turns out approximately one
novel every two years, and Wells does
from three to half a dozen. Neverthe-
less Wells does it better. Very posi-
ply the critic accomplished no master
work in his hour, but for our part we
would not hesitate to stick to our opin-
ion that Survival of the Fittest" was
q poor play, even if it had been the
work of three generations of Atkinsons.
But the most irritating Of all back
fire against the critic is the charge that
he is "fiippant." No man who has ever
attempted to lapse into light vein for
a moment can possibly escape the ad-
jective. Some day or other we will feel
moved by terrific indignation to call
somebody or other murderer, knave
and complete rascal, but we know it
will not disturb him in the least. He
will merely frown and answer, please
don't be fiippan-r
Since we are devoting our space to-
day to counter charges, the acting pro-
tession should also be included "May
an actor have word back? ?" writes
Montagu Love, who plays in Survival