The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1928-01-21
DEAR JOHN DOS PASsoS:

Ofa@Ihe International dld not please
= You, and regret even more that you
sent us letter with the request that
it be published. l regret the public
alton of your letter, not because you
cast aspersions on my talents as
dramatic reviewer, but because you
force me TO divulge a few of my
real thoughts about Lawson's play
and about the policy of the New
Playwrights Theatre toward reviews
in The DAILY WORKER.
In general, it seems to be the policy
of your theatre that merely because
you announce yourself as labor
theatre or advertise one Of your plays
as Communist play, that therefore
Communists are under a strict moral
obligation to like everything you pro-
adce. This policy of yours is to me
the most Revolutionary" aspect OF
your organization, because it departs
from every principle of criticism In
bourgeois, liberal, and Communist
groups. Because theatre calls it
self bourgeois or patriotic or liberal
does not render it immune to the
criticism Of Joseph Wood Krutch,
Woolcott or George Jean Nathan.
And this holds true of every intellec-
tual or artistic expression in every
class of society.
II there were times that the Pollt-
buro of the Russian Communist Par
ty could afford to criticize some OF
the policies of it's leading members
who were tried and proved Commun-
lists. certainly a DAILY WORKER
reviewer can reserve to himself the
right to criticize play which its
advertising man labels as Communist.
You may be surprised that l raise
the whole question of Communism in
connection with Lawson's play.
You apparently keep double sys-
tenn of bookkeeping. If we criticize a
play on account Of your ideas you
say we are too rigid: we should not
expect a play to be Communist
thesis. But if we shut our eyes to
certain obvious nonsense in the play,
from our point Of view, and criticize
!, it for it's technical confusion, you say
we don't know anything about tech
niuue-we are careless" half
hearted" and then ask us to support
the play for It's Communist" con-
tent.
suppose that by "expert" drama
tic reviewers you mean people who
like the play, because | notice that
gentlemen esteemed as expert critics
Tor the bourgeois press took an awful
whack at The play for it's technical
Weaknesses. In fact, to Judge by your
circular issued today, the only expert
dramatic reviewer writing in New
York is the gentleman who writes
Tor the Morning Telegraph" since
: he alone furnished you a quotable SEN
tence. 1t secnS to me that if a re-
porter for racing sheet can like
your play, that reporter for The
DAILY WORKER can dislike it; and
if you have anything against my
own form Of apology and beg you to
forgive me on the ground that l am
a labor reviewer.
/ like your theatre. l have great
faith in it and in it's ability to grow
into q mass theatre, even a labor
theatre, even revolutionary theatre.
7 am more Interested in what the
New Playyrights are doing than in
the activities of any other theatre in
the United States. But your group
is like every political, social or econ
onlic group. 1t can grow only thru
a healthy regard for the criticism
of the audience it appeals to. For
us, especially intentions and past
services are CT secondary importance.
Every act and every piece of work
must be judged on its own merits and
must be defended on the basis of its
internal logic and not by pointing to
wound stripes, croix de queries, or
love for the working class.
My review did not indicate my
real feeling land, incidentally, that
of some other people,. 1t is that the
play is based on misconceptions of
the nature of the world revolution
and of the key-figures who dominate
it's operations. Many of the scenes
in the play which l liked best seemed
to me irrelevant.
You say, obviously our theatre is
not Communist or definitely tied up
with any section of the labor move
ment." A. the time wrote my re-
view you attempted to create the
precisely opposite impression. You
ran advertisements in The DAILY