CRITICISM
TO the question, "What is fair criticism ? " few stranger answers have been given than the verdict of the jury in the case of " McQuire v. the Western Morning News," decided in the King's Bench Division before Mr. Justice Ridley on Monday. The Western Morning News published a criticism on a play which was recently performed at Plymouth. The critic pronounced the play to be bad. It was described as "nonsense, of a not very humorous character " ; it "would be very much improved had it a substantial plot," and if a good deal of the "sorry stuff" were taken out of it; the singers were said, with one exception, to have no voices, and some of the songs were characterised as "common, not to say vulgar." The plaintiff complained that such criticism was libellous, and that in consequence of its publication his play, with which he bad been touring the provinces for five years, had to be with- drawn. It was stated that the Western Morning News two years ago had favourably criticised the play, and that the plaintiff's receipts on that occasion were 2202 for a six-nights' run, whereas on the second ocasion he took only 2118. That, of course, might be the experience of almost any play; the plot and dialogue, for instance, might very well have gone out of fashion after five years. There was no serious attempt made, so far as it is possible to see, to prove that in some respects the play was not vulgar. Nor was it alleged that the libel was malicious ; it was merely pleaded that the critic's verdict—which, at all events in regard to the quota- tions from the play read in Court, was amply justified—had affected the plaintiff's takings. Whereupon the jury found for the plaintiff, damages 2100.
As to whether the play was, in fact, good or bad we have, of course, no knowledge, and express no opinion; but if a verdict of this kind is to be taken as a precedent, to what do we come ? To a conception of the proper function of criticism very different from that which should be, and we believe is, prevalent among dramatic critics. For what is it that the jury, in effect, say to the dramatic critic ? Imagine them, for the sake of argument, as inhabitants of Plymouth, possibly contemplating a visit to the play. They do not wish to be told the candid opinion of the local newspaper's critic on a piece produced at the local theatre. They do not think it right that the critics should say straight out what he thinks. "There are two courses open to )70a,ti they say in effect to the
critic. "Yon can either say that the play is good, or you can say that it is bad. If you say that the play is good, we shall go to the theatre and spend our money. If you say that it is bad, we shall stay away and save our money. But that would mean that the theatre manager will not get our money. Therefore you must always say a play is good. You may
consider it .bad, but if you say that it is bad, the manager will lose, and you will have to pay the difference." That is, of course, reducing matters, to an absurdity; but if the case has been properly reported, it is difficult to construe the jury's paradoxical verdict in any other way.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that such a principle as
that which appears to underlie the jury's verdict in this case were to be held to apply in the case of books and reviewers. Every year, speaking roughly, there are published some. where about six thousand books. Not all of them, of course, are reviewed, or could be reviewed, by a single newspaper ; not all, indeed, are sent to the offices of any but the most important papers ; but the numbers which are sent out for review genet.. ally are very large indeed. Since, then, it is not possible to devote time and space to all books sent in for review, what prin- ciple should guide the selection and the criticism of those which are noticed ? Clearly the newspaper's first duty is to readers rather than to writers. It is its duty to draw attention to books which are worth reading rather than to books which need never have been written, though it may be necessary on occa- sions to do this also. But it is difficult to draw a hard-and. fast line between the two. Of the six thousand books pub- lished yearly, a few are extremely good, many are good, more are moderate, many are bad, and some are without doubt very bad indeed. The reviewer sets before him the duty of pointing out and praising what is good and worth reading, but he may occasionally also think it necessary, in the interests of a profession, or a calling, or an art or science, to draw attention to what is in his opinion harmful, wrong-headed, or bad,— thereby in reality drawing people's attention to what is in his opinion good. He need not often call attention to what is bad ; it is only worth while to do so when silence on his part would have a damaging effect,—when silence, that is, might be construed into some kind of consent. He need only, therefore, say that a book is bad, or partly bad, when such a book is more or less important; when it is likely, because of its writer's name or for some other reason, to be widely read, or to have an important influence among a circle of readers perhaps in themselves small in number, yet accustomed to expect his papers verdict upon books that interest them. Otherwise the reviewer praises where he honestly can ; and when he cannot, and when it does not matter much one way or the other to his readers whether he praises or not, he criticises best by silence. It does nobody very much good to keep on shouting out that this or that is bad unless you clearly point out what is the good that is to be preferred to it.
But if the reviewer's praise is to be worth anything, he musk
be able to condemn ; if he is unable to condemn when be thinks right, his verdict in any case is valueless. Now the general verdict of reviewers does, of course, affect the sale of a book. But if, whenever a critic pronounced a certain book to be in his opinion bad, and thereby stopped or hindered its sale, the publisher of the book could haul him into Court, and say to the jury : "This man has run down a book I have pub. lished ; I think it a good book, but he has said it is not, Si' consequently nobody will buy it,"—and if the jury thereupon invariably awarded the publisher substantial damages, would, it be possible for the critic ever to condemn a book? course it would not, and of course the position is impossible as regards books and reviewers. But it is not impossible; apparently, in the case of plays and dramatic critics. Tt jury's verdict to which we have referred clearly lays it own as a principle that the critic's duty is not to criticise but t 'd refrain from condemnation. And the dramatic critic an the newspaper which employs him stand in one respe.cel do on a different footing from that of the reviewer. ainse reviewer, fortunately, as things are, can and does Praleat henew or condemn without fear of consequences. also keep silence; he could keep silence evenBifut h ek
so_me.
he must not condemn, because he could always find thing else to praise. The dramatic critic cannot kee? silence. The number of plays produced every year is small compared to the number of books published, and when. ever a play is produced people turn to their newspapers expecting criticism, and resent it if the criticism is not there. Criticism, therefore, there must be. If, however, it is taken by theatre managers as a settled matter, and as a right due to them, that such "criticism" shall be favourable, then "criticism" becomes the wrong word to use. That is not to the interest of the public, nor, surely, in the long run, to the interest of the theatre manager. "When everybody's some- body, then no one's anybody " ; and no manager of an im- portant London theatre of course expects, or would wish, dramatic critics to become mere signposts. He desires to put good playa before the public, and since there is con- siderable competition to secure good plays, when he has a good play he does not want the public to be deceived into going to plays that are bad. He certainly does not wish the public to become distrustful of the dramatic critic; and the public would become distrustful if the critic always praised. Fortunately, the public know that he does not always praise; but it is because the jury in the case brought against the Western Morning News were members of the public, and therefore presumably anxious that they, as members of the public, should be given honest criticism of plays and players, that their verdict of damages against the Western Morning News is the more muddle-headed and astonishing.
Previous page
