VULGAR IS AS VULGAR DOES

New Zealand Listener, Volume 3, Issue 77, 13 December 1940, Page 4

VULGAR IS AS VULGAR DOES

Sir--When I draw attention to the fact that Mr. L. D. Austin considers the use of vulgar illiteracy meritorious, and asked him why, then, he censures its use by others, I stressed sufficiently that it was the unethical attitude adopted by him which required explanation. I still wish to know if his ethical code

is really so conveniently adjustable that when it suits him he can regard what is instrinsically right as being intrinsically wrong, or vice versa. Mr. Austin says that I assailed his prose style, and in saying so, reveals his ignorance of the fact that "prose style’ and "literary style" are not synonyms for "prose." I said Mr. Austin was unethical in his prose, and I gave one example to support my statement. Here is another: Some time ‘ago, Mr. Austin said that Friedman was only a second-rate pianist, and not to be compared with a dozen other pianists whom he regarded as the only "real topnotch pianists." It would appear, however, that when he relegated Friedman to the second-class, he had not

heard the great pianist play a single note. He had heard no actual performance of Friedman’s, yet he did not hesitate to belittle him in order to sustain himself in his self-chosen role:of Sir Oracle. Mr. Austin was mistaken when he thought he saw me rising in the air. The apparent change in our relative positions in due to his having fallen into a hole, a-deep one, too, and one from which he will have some trouble in extricating himself. I suppose there is some sort of joke in Mr. Austin’s second paragraph. Unfortunately for his reputation as a humorist his original jokes are like Gratiano’s reasons, which, as any schoolboy should know, took all day to find, and when found, weren’t worth the search, . Mr. Austin’s preferring the illiterate vulgarity of the films to standard English needs no comment; but I shall refer briefly to his calling on that disgraceful old reprobate, Mrs. Gamp, to give evidence in his favour. He evidently believes that Dickens created her so that every time she spoke we might arrive at a deeper appreciation of the beauty of our mother tongue. Does Mr. Austin then believe that Dickens created Dick Swiveller, and described his hat and his manner of wearing it, for no other reason than to set an example for all men to follow? If he does, it need occasion no surprise if he appears in public wearing a hat like Dick’s which, as all well-read people do not know, was a very limp one, worn wrong side foremost to hide a hole in the brim. There is nothing impressive in the power of memory displayed so Austintatiously in Mr. Austin’s sixth paragraph. A negro vaudeville pianist, Blind Tom, born in Georgia (Mr. Austin introduced the American note), had remarkable power of memory according to E. B. Abbott in "The Etude": "In the list of his programme music was given concertos by Beethoven, Chopin and Mendelssohn; six sonatas by Beethoven; and a long list of works by the great composers . . . he had a repertoire of over 7000 pieces," But Blind Tom was "non compos mentis." Mr. Austin seems greatly concerned because I do not appear as champion of the "extremists," these being, I suppose, Debussy, Ravel, and especially that arch-offender, Bartok, who (whisper it, lest the children hear!), openly boasted of having broken all the rules of musical composition, or at least Mr. Austin ‘says he did. Well, I suppose someone wrote drivel about Chopin, Mendelssohn or Brahms-what would Mr. Austin expect me to do? A final word. Mr. Austin can see no good in the "extremists" music, which he seems to regard as some sort of rank growth, Even if this absurd estimate of it were true, well, what of it? For if Keats once failed to do so, Burns and Meynell have enriched our literature with the inspiration found in a

weed:

JOSEPH C.

McEVOY

(Dunedin).

More " Letters from Listeners" will be found on Page 19

LETTERS FROM LISTENERS (Continued from page 4)