TA-RA-RA BOOM-DE-AY.
[To- the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,—May I be allowed, as one of your readers, to correct an inaccuracy in Mr. Osbert Sitwell's review, last week, of Mr. Alfred Noyes's new poems—an inaccuracy that may mislead other of your readers, as it might have misled me, had I not already read the book for myself ? Mr. Sitwell quotes twelve lines from this book, and says they are " the most typical, the most perfect examples," of Mr. Noyes's work. As a demonstrable fact, the lines he chose are about
the poorest in the volume, and if you would spare space (in justice to the author, as well as to your reviewer, who has doubtless done his best) to quote those twelve lines again at the foot of this letter in company with almost any other poem from the book—I would suggest " The Visitant"—your readers would be in a position to decide how far they can trust themselves to be guided by Mr. Sitwell's taste. He has, of course, written honestly, but many honest men are unable to tell good poetry from bad. And one's confidence in his taste is rather shaken by the old-fashioned coarseness of his style, his references to Mr. Noyes as " Alf," and as " the latter gent " (the former " gent " being Mr. Kipling), all of which seems so foreign to the native language and decent courtesy of your review that I am wondering whether be really wrote his article for the Pink 'Un and it got into the Spectator by accident. I hope so, for the sake of critics in general, who may otherwise Lel disqualified from ever again, even in the Spectator, lamenting the decay of manners in Parliament and ascribing that sad degeneration to the natural vulgarity of the Labour Party.—I am, Sir, &c.,
ST. JOIIN ADCOCK. 6 Queen's Gardens, Richmond Hill, Surrey.
[We are sorry that we have not space to publish the lines. Probably Mr. Adcock and Air. Sitwell agree as to which are the worst lines in the book. The review was ironical. Irony, we know, is a dangerous medium in a journal for ordinary reading, but that is no reason why it should be withheld from those who understand it. It is disagreeable to have to explain irony, but our correspondent's letter makes it neces- sary.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
