Mr. Anonymous Answered

(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld).

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

I should like to answer the personal attack made on myself and my article, "The Phoenix in the Babbitt Warren," which appeared in the February "Advocate." The author of this somewhat scurrilous attack chose, for reasons best known to himself, to remain anonymous, and so I must rely on you to call this letter of mine to his attention.

Mr. Anon., I take it, is a faithful reader of the "Saturday Review," perhaps even that legendary figure, the Oldest Living Subscriber. From his letter, one would never think that he regularly perused those delightful chatter columns of Christopher Morley and P. Quercus which are distinguished features of the "Review." For he seems to be one of those unfortunate souls that are devoid of the sense of humor that characterizes the work of Messrs. Morley and Quercus.

My comments on the "Review's" criticism were written "with tongue in cheek," as Mr. Anon, seems to have had a slight suspicion before the rage of the true Irate Subscriber blinded his sensibilities and launched him on a tirade against undergraduate pomposity in general and mine in particular. His unflattering epithets and choice of comparisons seems strangely out of keeping with the "sober and constructive criticism" that he recommends so strongly.

Mr. remarks, I suppose, were open to Mr. Anon.'s interpretation of them, but I scarcely thought anyone would be so gullible as to take them as seriously as he did. I grossly exaggerated, for effect, a lamentable condition which does exist. Molehill that my knowledge of literature is, in comparison to their mountainous fund, I have found that a good number of professors share my some what low opinion of the "Review's" criticism. They have found, as I have, a curious ratio in some cases between the amount of advertising of a book in the "Review" and the favorable tone of the criticism of it. I did not mean to imply, nor do I know, that there never is honest, "sober and constructive" criticism in the magazine's pages, I was referring to such phenomena as essays on Addison's small clothes and like subjects, and reviews like Mr. George Steven's recent "Syllabus of Syllables" (a parody comment on Miss Gertrude Stein's opera. "Four Saints in Three Acts.") Such items are "hogwash and balderdash," judged as criticism.

With the humility that I can muster, I assure Mr. Anen, that I sincerely doubt if the "Saturday Review" would "not only welcome, but publish a sensible criticism of its policies." Even if my doubt were removed. I should hesitate to disturb the peace in which the "superannuated professors" broad in one of their few stamping grounds. For these professors and their opinions have a real value as Early Americana, and I have always suffered from the collector's passion. H. M. Wade '35.