DE VOTO FINDS ADVOCATE IS TIMELY AND READABLE

The following review of the current number of the Advocate was written especially for the Crimson by Bernard De Voto '18, author of "The House of the Sun goes Down" and other novels.

In an extraordinarily interesting issue, the November Advocate conceals under pseudonyms the authorship of its two most controversial offerings. About the identity of "Richard Caxton", who writes "The Bloody Shirt, World-War Model", and "William Breaksbread" and "Kid Marlow", authors of "The Rally", an uninitiate reviewer had better hazard no guesses. He can assert, however, that these gentlemen handsomely assist the Advocate's announced intention of making itself both more timely and more readable. Both subjects, the American Legion and a department (or is one point of "The Rally" that, after all it isn't a department?) of the University, are far distant from the preoccupations of the journal ten or fifteen years ago. An editorial board that can recognize the possibility of interesting the undergraduate not only in affairs outside the college but even in those inside it has made a considerable advance in judgement and maturity.

Article First Rejected

Mr. Caxton's article, it appears, was first ordered and then rejected as too frank by the editor of another and more right-minded, publication. It good naturedly, but without palliation, stud- ies the activities of our twentieth century pensioners. One understands why the editor of a national magazine might reject It--but, if one has been a soldier, one realizes that Mr. Caxton speaks with authority. It is time that reminiscences of this sort were circulated, as it is to the Advocate's credit, and the discredit of American journalism at large, that what is the first of a series that will undoubtedly multiply with the years, makes its appearance under the familiar seals. The Advocate has, in fact, scooped the world.

Periodic Expose Made

One of the most endearing of Harvard customs is the periodic discovery, by some active-minded undergraduate, that some department of some portion of the faculty is throwing its weight about a little too promiscuously--and the prompt announcement of the discovery in print. I am profoundly ignorant of the situation exposed by Mr. Breaksbread and Mr. Marlow, and quite unable to pass judgment on their exposition. Certainly, their poem is amusing and their gay malice irresistible. An editorial suggests some hesitation, on the part of the board. None, it seems to me, is called for. The production justifies itself; it voices a typical Harvard impatience, whether well or ill founded makes no difference, and directs a perfectly legitimate undergraduate criticism at a subject of undergraduate, and University, importance. Criticism of any kind is a sign of health, implying not only intelligence, which may be assumed, but interest as well