New-York tribune., 1922-01-19
Books p.,., Ss,,,,,,, b.

The newspaper drama "critics" in
the past week or two have been sub
Jccted more than is usual to the harsh
condcmnations of their kinsmcn Of the
stage and the weekly press. illustr-
Gus commentators, out Of patience with
the dull stupidities of everyday ere
vlcw'ng,' have been banging the empty
cockIofts together until the process be-
gins to resemble a cruel sport. The
prevalent accusations arc not the Gus
tomary ones of vcnality and cowardice.
1t is being said now that the culprits
are but fools and ignoramuscs.
Mr. Duncan in "Thc Critics" holds
them squirmng between his thumb and
forefinger while he charges them with
all sorts of humiliating asininities.
Cosmo Hamilton, writing TO "The Eve
ming Post" says they are "play-report-
crs who go to the theatcr at the end of
the first act and leave it at the end of
the second" to deliver their farfetched
and brawling judgments. In "The Free
man. Walter Pritchard Eaton dcplores
their delinquencies more gently and
explains the absence of dramatic crtj
c1sm from the daily newspapers by say
lng that the "so-called critics" are
Handicapped by the intolerahlc burden
of "incessant petty play-rcvicwing
For instance, Mr.. Eaton has seen no
truly critical article about Frank Cra-
vcn's "The First Year." and he believes
it would be interesting for critic to
trace that play from the earlier Amer
lean genre comedies through the farces
of Hoyt and the supcrficially realistic
entertainments of George M. Cohsn.
Again in "The Freeman" Ernest
Boyd. completely indignant about the
critical approval of Ben Ami and "Thc
Idle Inn" describes the "log-rollers
braying in unison another volume Of
banality." All the newspaper accounts
Of "The Idle Inn" that read reported
it to be rather terrible The Tribune
man, an obscure member of the local
banalia, wrote that it was "sprawling,
incohcrcnt, intirm and ridiculous botch."
But Mr.. Boyd says that on the morning
after the first performance the claoue
duly announced triumph amid thun-
derous applause. "Thus," he continues.
"the peculiar state of dramatic review
ing in New York is rather the result of
mere ignorance than of deliberate cor
ruption. Sociability and d-fellowship
are the virtues chiefly cultivated by the
ingenious exponents of this gentle art
of boosting. Criticism is, after all.
nasty, cold-blooded thing which will, at
best, take refuge in silence where speech
might involve too violent clash with
the purely human emotions of friend
ship. That, however, does not suit the
lobbyists Of the arts, for they must all
ways speak and never offend, unless it
be some weak or obscure person. Con-
sequently, they evade the hard tasks of
criticism They take no chances, but
chatter endlessly and amiably about the
doings Of regular fellows like them
Selves"
Even George Jean Nathan in his
vigorous and learned work "The Critic
and the Drama" (Knopf), cuffs all but
\ half dozen of his lowlier brethern with
slaps, as he, more than
most others, is qualified to do. He calls
hem provincial, cowardly, humbly-
born, underpaid, dowdy-lived, plush ,
covered, suburban, sheeplike, stag
'antly optimistic and shackled. The ,
Xix who escape Mr.. Nathan's pertinent ,
are, it is inferred, Brander ,
Matthews, Clayton Hamilton, William
lyon Phelps, Dean Quinn, Professor
Richard Burton and DR.. Stuart Pratt !.
sherman. Mr. Nathan in a. sympa-
'hetic moment blames the newspapers