[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—The contentious question as to the propriety of broad- casting criticisms of books, plays, &c., might be settled with general satisfaction if the ethereal reviews of current works were published anonymously. There is little doubt that the responsibility and opportunity for influencing public taste by the verdict of picked pundits encourages pose and virtu- osity. The questionable mantle of Arnold Bennett has indeed fallen off many shoulders on to debatable ground.
There is, however, the excellent precedent of The Times Literary Supplement, as well as your own and other journals, for unsigned reviews. Such notices are accepted on their merits and are not notably less interesting for the anonymity of the reviewers. The B.B.C. might aim at a like imper- sonality, giving us a variety of critics—all " anon." It is not the names of current books, plays and films which should be suppressed, but the display and attitudinizing that a preten- tious critic may practise, intent upon establishing his " ipse di.rit."—I am, Sir, &c.,