A PLAY FOR SOUTHLAND

New Zealand Listener, Volume 37, Issue 932, 21 June 1957, Page 11

A PLAY FOR SOUTHLAND

Sir.-Peter Harcourt’s recent hypercritical attack upon The Moritgomeries of Glenholme is more evidence of how hard the idea dies that a play is a literary exercise. Unless Mr Harcourt came to Invercargill for the only performances the play has yet had, he is

assertive about something he has not experienced. He therefore does not fully appreciate what he is talking about and his letter must thus be very largely irresponsible. The Montgomeries proved itself in the theatre. Like the Invercargill Repertory Society’s performances, it not very strangely revealed a dozen weaknesses and faults, but, amusingly enough, almost none of those which Mr Harcourt so dogmatically defines. It is, indeed, the full measure of his indiscretion that what he sees on paper ag in the nature of caricature and distortion are the play’s most effective, most theatrical situations and characters. Mr Harcourt’s attack upon the judge of the Southland Contest (Mr Frank Newman) is in every way unjust and unfortunate, and, in one respect at least, rather objectionable, And that is his reference to authors suffering in reputation by having to see their work stand below The Montgomeries. As Chairman of the Competition Committee who ultimately read most of the entries, I cannot be sure who it ‘is he is putting in a word for, but I can perhaps meke a guess. Can neither Mr Harcourt, nor any others concerned understand that such entries as failed to gain top places were simply not good enough to do so? His "regional" argument is beyond me. We did not care if authors chose Invercargill or Timbuktu as their locale, as long as they gave us quality. We were concerned with the greater, not the lesser, and, now that the best work is being produced, let it be remembered that two sieves have been at work. The first sieving was by Mr Newman, and there is in New Zealand no more experienced judge than he; the second was by the Invercargill Repertory Society which undertook to produce the plays, but was not bound to do so. Mr Harcourt may be sure it has not committed itself to such foolishness.as he has been at pains to describe. It would have been so easy for him to say his piece in balanced terms. What he has done is to put in doubt the competence of an_ excellently-qualified judge, to disparage an important! artistic event and to belittle the effort of those who would help raise the stature of our writing. It is a contribution as peculiar as it is uninformed.

A. R.

DUNLOP

(Invercargill).