A CRITICISM
Sik,—Whateven is your object in publishing a piece of writing in your issue for March 22nd entitled "Nature and Character," by W. J. Turner? It is certainly not poetry, .although it is divided into lines which profess to make it appear to be verse. It makes no sense and it invites no thought. Why should what .professes to be the leading weekly review publish such stuff? At any rate, the prose articles in your paper are intelligible, though they lack imagination, and are for the most part written in a very dull, prosaic English style, rather like the action of a labouring cart-horse. But it is an insult to the intelligence of your readers to print a thing like " Nature and Character " and pass it off as poetry or intelligible. I see that there is in the same issue an article on "Return to Tennyson," which is readable though not very sparkling or attractive. The Spectator is supposed to have a reputation for writing good English ; but it is certainly dull and prosaic enough at the present time, and for pity's sake let us have no more of this stuff which is a caricature of poetry. The Spectator could or should be able to do better than this.—Yours truly, WM. BURNEU.. Dinder Rectory, Wells.
[Then why read such a paper?—ED., Spectator.]
Previous page
