MIDNIGHT HOUR "
SIR,—The review of Midnight Hour published in your issue of Novem- ber 13th last, which decries the value of that book upon the grounds that its author is a laggard who has failed to serve his country in her need and a liar whose plain statement that the book was not written for publication is false, seems to demand a reply in justice, not to the author —a matter of no importance—but to the cause of Christian candour which Midnight Hour tries to affirm.
The author fought for his country throughout the war of 1914-18. He was on the Special Reserve of Officers from the time of the Munich crisis and a member of the Home Guard from its inception in June, 1940. .He offered his services to four separate Government Departments in 194o and 1941. He filled his house with houseless strangers. He has had two children serving in the Forces, one in the R.A.F. Since his rejection for ordination he has been and is both in Government service and civil defence. These facts can, if necessary, be proved to your somewhat sceptical reviewer. They are only stated in order that readers of Midnight Hour may not be averted from its contents by such baseless accusations.
The second charge of perjury can only be as emphatically denied. The journal of which Midnight Hour is mainly composed was written for private and not for public use. It was only published, with great reluc- tance, on the advice of eight responsible persons that it was, in their view, a Christian duty to do so. This also can be proved. An attack so violent upon grounds so weak suggests a disinclination to confront the challenge which Midnight Hour seeks to convey, which is, perhaps, more difficult to dismiss for more valid reasons.—Believe me, Sir, yours faith- [Our reviewer writes: " I was thinking of this war, not the last, and all that was in my mind was that as safeguard against an excess of introspection it might have been for Nicodemus' own good as well as for the general welfare if he had, for example, lent a hand on a farm. That does not seem art outrageous suggestion. As for the charge of perjury, it consisted in the single observation, 'It is explained that this journal was never intended for publication, but it is hard to conceive wherein it dffers from a journal that was.' "]
Previous page
