Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1933-07-18

brand Of fault finding, which Is Moth
ing more, in the last analysis, than a
failure to appreciate the vast difference
between the gifts Of the senses.
Consider sweet and sour, especially in
regard to foodstuffs. He who likes but
one spoonful Of sugar in his cup Of cof-
fee almost invariably is amazed at Q
friend who demands four spoonflils.
The man who never stops short Of
five or six spoons Of sugar per cup won
ders how any one on earth could get
slong with just one.
So 1t goes. Everybody protesting
establishment at every one else, when
all the time there is nothing to be
astonished at, only difference. and
heaven knows every one ought to realize
by this time that no two are alike,
truly.
Every one, woman as we'll Is man,
has different standard a. to what and
who constitutes pretty girl"
Careful observation shows that to one
observer pretty girl means simply q
well dressed girl. to another 9 girl with
good figure, to another girl with q
certain "air" about her. to another q
sweet" girl, to still another q gal with
"devil-may -cAee" attitude.
observer will fight, II necessary, for his
own opinion as to whether q given girl
is pretty or not, not according to his
own standards simply, but according to
theoretical measurements Of theorett-
cal pretty girl.
It is all very confusing, and has no
solution a all, unless one Is willing to
admit, at least upon occasion, that he
Is by no means the standard himself,
but only one Of the many millions Of
standards now in operation.
While most persons are willing to
admit that another has a right to like
or not to like a certain food, down in
achs?-they seriously doubt the sanity
of any one who does not care for one
of their own favorites.
A man who publicly says that he does
not like oysters Immediately arouses the
wonder, and in some cases the con-
tempt, OF those who like oysters.
The beer drinker does not "see" how
another could not like beer. Too bit
ter? Why, 1t isn't bit bitter!
X
It Is no wonder, then, that men differ
even more widely on what constitutes
good book" or q fne painting. or
great piece OF music.
Often the theoretical agreements
which seem to be arrived at are Moth
ing but complaisances, brought about
by the ready shame Of most human
beings to be placed in q position of at
tack against some work Of art" which
they know their contemporaries have
agreed to call great"
English critics find no words too Sc
we're to apply to an American author
Of history Of literature who fails to
bow down to the orthodox gods Of
literary history He has no stand
ards" they assert, thereby meaning
mostly that their standards are not his
May 1t not be that all amazement
expressed by one person Is to the tastes
Of another Is mostly a form Of anger
over the failure Of this other to accept
the law as delivered in the personal
judgment?
No one honestly can be surprised at
difference Of opinion, there are too
many opinions. but one can pretend to
be amazed ct It. And this y what hap
pens every day. in 80 many countless
forms that in time one comes to accept
II without question. But every one
ought to question 1t. now and then. II
for no other reason than to help break
up this querulous ault-fnding which
masquerades as amusement over dr.
ferences Of taste.