HARE'S REPLY

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The CRIMSON during these past weeks has maintained a continual critical fire against the various manifestations of what seems to it a militant anti-intellectualism now abroad in the land. Yet the editorial page of your issue of the twenty-third displays this very tendency: as one has perhaps always suspected, the CRIMSON's left hand has no idea of what the right hand is about. For Mr. Halberstam, in his review of the latest Advocate, is simply proclaiming from the Senate floor, so to speak, that it is not very good. If Mr. Halberstam did not like the issue, he might tell us why with some specific criticism, rather than simply indulging in generalities: to cry pointless at every story is hardly very edifying.

Certainly any story appearing in the Advocate's pages might be criticized, but there is no reason why this cannot be done intelligently; no reason why we should not be told wherein and in what way the author is at fault. Mr. Halberstam makes the attempt in his discussion (sic) of the Hoagland story, but he does not try again. Rather, he asserts that the Cumming story cannot structurally stand by itself; and proves his point by mentioning imagery in one of Cumming's sentences (!) He furthermore groups Sean Sweeney's stories with the poetry, says he "plays with words" (nothing could be further from Sweeney's technique, as even a quick glance at the stories would show), and implies that these stories rely upon alliteration for their effect. He provides no evidence for any assertion. Having placed Sweeney among the nightengales, Mr. Halberstam finds it unnecessary to even mention by name those authors who seem to be contented to write verse in traditional forms. He would evidently have us believe that they are all alike, for he accuses them collectively of not yet being T. S. Eliot--a remark that might be leveled against everyone except Mr. Eliot. Mr. Halberstam is evidently not sure if these poets have nothing to say, or are trying to say too much; unfortunately he neither tells us which is his final judgment, or what these authors are trying to say. Perhaps Mr. Halberstam was the wrong reviewer for such an assignment. A newspaper seldom assigns the garden editor to an atomic physics column.

This is not to say that anyone cannot read creative writing and form his own judgments; it is simply to say that not everyone has the critical tools to express these judgments well, and not everyone has the interest to write a competent review for those readers who are also interested.

Charles E. Neuhauser '53

The reviewer has what, in the opinion of the editors, are the necessary qualifications; knowledge of modern fiction and poetry, the ability to express that knowledge in clear English prose, and a sympathy with the writer of short stories and poetry--he is currently enrolled in an advanced composition course. Thus if a story leaves a confused and listless impression in the critic's mind, it is reasonable to assume that the author, not the reader, has failed. To blame that failure upon the critic Instead of the author is a classic maneuver, and, of course, is in some cases justified. But not, I believe, in this instance. In a conflict between critic and author, a good thing for the by-stander to do is consult an impartial authority on the subject--and in this case most of those questioned agree with the reviewer. But the best thing to do in such a case, is for the reader to consult the story itself. I invite all those stirred by the controversy to buy a copy of March Advocate and see for themselves. M. J. H.