Publicly accessible
URL: http://www.nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/collections.html
copyright 2015, by the Victoria University of Wellington Library
All unambiguous end-of-line hyphens have been removed and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line, except in the case of those words that break over a page.
Some keywords in the header are a local Electronic Text Collection scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.
In order to make new content available faster this work has been uploaded but does not have comprehensive name authority mark up for sub-works and corresponding authors. We will endeavour to add this mark up as soon as possible.
First I would like to make it quite clear that the purpose of this article is primarily provocative. It is addressed especially to students in the social science departments. It rests on two propositions:—
This far many readers will agree, though, of course, there will be a number still bound to those scholastic traditions, alternatively termed the "Arm-chair" or "Ivory Castle" modes of thought. With these I am not here concerned. In time the attenuated stench of that corpse will blow by completely. Meanwhile, however, the two accepted propositions await solution. It is my purpose in the rest of this article to suggest such a solution in the hope that it will arouse others, especially from the Philosophy Department, which I propose should be abolished.
Generally, proposals to meet the first need outlined above centre round some sort of "common-core" suggestion, i.e., that all students entering the university should be required for a year or two to follow some prescribed course of study which traverses the major fields of human knowledge, i.e., the social sciences, natural sciences and humanities. In an elementary way the recent changes in New Zealand secondary schools follow such a pattern. The defect with such a procedure, as I see it, is that as far as the University is concerned, such a wide coverage of subjects may lend itself to superficiality. Imagine, for example, the knowledge one would gain by taking all the Stage I options at Victoria; nothing but an inadequate idea of a whole series of subject matters would result Still worse, the orientation courses in the various fields would not be planned as a preparation for further study so much as surveys complete in themselves. Gross oversimplification may well result. (It is, however, a debatable point whether or not such simplified knowledge might possibly be better than the vacuum that exists at present.) In any case it seems that the saving factor would arrive when the student, having carried on past the "orientation" course into his specialization, in the light of this, could look back and revise his previous elementary sketches of knowledge.
At this point we must consider our second proposition. What guarantee have we in any case that such an orientation course will be little more than another example of academic isolation? Even if our maturing graduate does look back to the broader sweeps of knowledge, will he be so conditioned as to create in them relevance to the concrete problems of his present living? Before answering these questions we will consider again the propositions above. These indicated two needs. First, orientation. From what has been said it will be apparent that I believe this can only be attained when it is approached through some specific angle. i.e., the economist must see the world as an economist, the historian as a historian, and so on. Without the special viewpoint there is no enduring frame of reference, yet on the other hand, without the general orientation we have that tragedy of the twentieth century, Ortega y Gasset's "learned ignoramus"—the specialist.
But, secondly, as the questions above suggest, such an orientation lifts us little above the mere "academic" unless it has some definite relation to life in the concrete, the urgent and the immediate.
The solution of these problems of orientation and relevance lead us quickly to the business of abolishing the Philosophy Department. A proposal guaranteed to shake its very foundations, from the minors fascinating themselves with that great new twentieth century science, "Psychology," to the more dignified elders communing with Berkeley. Kant and brother muses on the top floor.
This abolition of the Philosophy Department is calculated to help us as follows. From henceforth every other department will have to consider the philosophic implications of its study. Who else is more suited to do so? Any attempt to develop philosophy in this century has necessitated a study of some special, previously non-philosophic field, particularly one of the natural sciences. (Consider, for example, the cases of Russell and Whitehead.) It is my contention that by demanding that the various concrete bodies of knowledge make a sophisticated development of their own philosophic aspects, gradually the isolation between the various departments will be broken down. Thus will orientation be effected.
But this is not all. If there were a department of sociology it would also have to be abolished. Thus it is demanded of each sphere of knowledge that it develop its social aspects and implications as well as the philosophic. In this manner, besides the orientation, a more realistic connection with contemporary life would be established. At present, to my knowledge, the only department in the College admitting of a sociology course is the Education Department. But here, God forbid, it is treated as a somewhat mysterious and unrelated imposition involving little more than a set of arbitrary definitions imposed on a mass of common knowledge. The explanation is probably to be found in the fact that the philosophy section of that department most fittingly serves the sociological as well as the philosophical aspects of education in relation to contemporary problems.
Psychology naturally is included under philosophy. Our historian could make his studies more relevant with a little dash of psychological insight; likewise the economists and political scientists. In actual fact, some of the best recent studies in these fields have come from the hands of psychologists who by happy accident, happened also to have the specialist knowledge.
If the sociologist, psychologists and philosophers protest, the recent history of their own subjects is the best evidence against them. Sociology began with the grandiose claims of Comte and Spencer, has degenerated under the formalistic leanings of such as Tonnies and Simmell, and been completely absorbed by a host of new studies that have grown up round delinquency, leisure the family, and so on. The traditional speculations of philosophy have been vitiated by the advance of modern science and it has retreated—like the bad women of Timothy Shy—into syntax. From there it may as well he taken over by the English Department. Psychology, after plaguing all the other social sciences by popping in and out of the instinct theory, is still largely a body of confusion rather than knowledge (though I hear that "molar behaviourism" is just the latest word). What is valuable in it can best be used by departments such as economics, in the light of whose practical concerns it takes on relevant meaning—in this case industrial psychology.
The orientation I am proposing, then, is that which arises when the various areas of specialization—and this applies equally well to the natural sciences and the humanities—realise that they have a common body of problems—the sociological, psychological and philosophical (Proposition 1). As each specialist study includes these as relevant and urgent points of consideration and bodies of information to be developed, so the studies themselves will be both brought into line with contemporary problems and themselves enlivened. Proposition 2.)
This, as I see it, is the only realistic way of bringing our Universities into line with the needs of today. To create just another subject, namely, the "Philosophy of the Social Sciences," to solve this problem, as the sociologist Huntington Cairns has suggested, is in my opinion to perpetrate an "Americanism." It creates more problems than it solves. To the philosophers I am apologetic, and suggest that they should not be misled by that certain nostalgia for the traditional ways of thought, but rather should accept their demise with philosophic resignation. After all, philosophy, often considered the most remote and unrelated of studies, is at last to be placed in the most important position of all—in the forefront of important everyday events (this by way of consolation).
* * *
Erratum: Review of Poetry 22: "editorial In efficiency" should have read "editorial efficiency." Our apologies to the reviewer and to Mr. Hudson.
This issue is without an editorial. This is caused, not by any shortage of suitable subjects, but because the size of the paper, and the number of issues which it is possible to print in a year without exceeding the limited call we are entitled to make on the funds of the Students' Association, makes it impossible to include all the material we would like. The co-operation of contributors can assist us in this. Letters to the editor must not exceed 300 words. Those who write articles should remember that the idea of the paper is that it should be read. Verbosity and abstruse technicalities are not conducive to this. Sports notes, which are usually published ten days after the event, should be criticism and comment rather than report. In future, sports notes which are long and uninteresting will be cut. Other articles and letters are not cut without reference to the author.
Under the heading "Education or Dogma" "Salient" once more repeats the error that the broadcast complained of was making. In the words of the article, "to deny the process of evolution is equally futile": this is a repetition of one of the implications contained in the "Listener's" summary of the first six broadcasts. The fact is that Evolution is not a proved scientific theory. It is still a theory.
The approval of Professors Ford and Whittard is not sufficient to guarantee its accuracy. There is still a lot of disagreement among scientists as to the validity of the theory. How Tilings Began made no concessions to any of the widely differing views.
I have no wish to deny that Evolution with modifications from the pure evolutionist theory of the last century is reconcilable with Christian teaching. As it is the series was most competently presented and children are inclined to accept that type of programme together with the approval of teacher as dogma. Education is not the presentation of an unproved theory as important as this one.
"Solely a matter for the teachers to decide" seems to me almost as dangerous as your ignoring the real nature of the anti-evolutionists' complaint. It is no reflection on teachers to say that the responsibility is too great for them alone.
The suspension creates a dangerous precedent, but at least it demonstrates that the authorities are willing to concede that reason is often reasonable.
1. "Salient" may express opinion. If readers accept this as dogma, that is their business.
2. The theory of evolution is still a theory, which better fits the facts than any other idea so far advanced. The approval of Professors Ford and Whittard concerned the scientific approval of the facts presented.
3. "Solely a matter for teachers to decide" referred to the previous sentence, which read: "We wish to emphasise that no school is compelled to take the broadcasts, but each year increasing numbers do so."
4. The authorities conceded to the vociferous protest of a small minority without consultation of teachers or anyone else, without explanations and reason, and most certainly without a consideration of the case on its merits.
The announcement that net profits from the
Two years ago the Executive prepared a list of past students of this College with the object of approaching them to contribute individually for the fund. I may add that the Principal completely concurred in this plan and recommendations were then passed to the incoming Executive to go ahead with the job of approaching past members and other potential contributors. The present Executive of our Students Association has given a grandiose display of inertia in this matter. Nothing has been done during the past year. No meeting of the Building Committee was held. Apparently the view is entertained that the efforts of students during Extravaganza are sufficient to obtain our goal of £20,000. I know that I am speaking for many hundreds of students, past and present, in recommending to the incoming Executive to tackle the project seriously and efficiently. It can be done; tasks of a similar nature have in the past been achieved successfully. This is not the time for complacency and eloquent, meaningless apologies.
For those of us who build what beliefs we have upon a basis of solid facts, this book of essays and reviews by Hugh I'Anson Fausset will hold little meaning. In his preface he clearly states the purpose behind this apparently miscellaneous collection. "They have a common underlying theme, that 'destruction of the negation and redemption of the contraries' which I believe to be the task which humanity is called now, as never before, to undertake, if it is not to destroy itself."
Those, however, who see in this purpose little of worth or practical value may be reminded of the words of Gerard Hopkins:
That the realisation of an inward integrity seems a theme particularly suited to Mr. Fausset is attributable not only to his personal convictions but also to his sensitiveness as a reviewer. "All critical analysis," he says, "If it is not to be intellectually arid, must be rooted in a primary sympathy, a desire not to destroy but . . . . to appreciate the impulse and the toil of the writer who has failed to achieve effectively what he has set out to do." And in this presentation of the doubts and fears and faiths intrinsic in other men's philosophies, the sympathy which he has undoubtedly achieved brings him, to quote his own words, "into a communion of spirit and even a combined labour of expression" seldom realised by a reviewer.
As the title suggests, the book, apart from three addresses, is divided into two sections. The first deals with poets and their poetry, because, to quote Jung, "they are the first in their time to define the darkly moving, mysterious currents . . . they make known, like true prophets, the deep motions of the collective unconscious." Among other essays in this section are "Donne's Holy Sonnets," "The Hidden Tennyison," "The Death Theme in Rilke's Life and Poetry" and "The Cult of Symbolism."
The second section, called "The Realm of Spirit," includes among others, essays on Rabindranath Tagore, Kierkegaard, Santayana, and the poetics of religion and other meditative essays. The division, however, is merely one of convenience, and as he writes of Hopkins, who could not grasp peace; of Donne, who "to reach the heart of reality, to rest in it, needed a passion of faith which he could not summon"; or of Kierkegaard who "could never himself wholly compass that leap out of the solitude of self-conscious thought into the arms of God," one is conscious of the similar problems which in varying degrees beset all those who have the courage to admit that they exist. It is only by reconciling the contraries of mind and senses, life and death, body and spirit, nature and the machine, of finiteness and infinity, that we can find unity within ourselves; only then can we begin to understand reality.
The theme of "Poets and Pundits" is not a new one. Most of us are conscious of a need for some sort of inner reconciliation in our lives. The charm and meaning of the book is rather in the author's selection of subjects with which he illustrates the theme; men and women who, though divided in time and space, are so very human and understandable, not only in their limitations, but when they rise beyond them in the search for a philosophy which will bring them unity and peace. We have to thank Mr. Fausset for a sensitive interpretation of our spiritual needs. Nor does he at any time deny a solution to us. One can remember the "exquisite humanity" of Dorothy Wordsworth and the words of Santayana, who seems to be no longer in doubt; "knowledge is but faith moving in the dark; our joy a gift of grace, our immortality a subtle translation of time into eternity; where all that we have missed is ours and where what we call ours is the least part of ourselves."
"Poets and Pundits," by Hugh l'Anson Fausset. Our copy from Modern Books. 19/.
The history of men, civilisations and ideas is reflected in the history of words. The personality of a man is also mirrored in his use of words, as is Professor Weekley's in his latest collection of word-blographies, "Words Ancient and Modern" (John Murray,
In the first chapter, a la Plutarch, he deals with the established histories of words such as beefeater, bourgeois, gossoon, pikestaff, soviet, etc., but in the second he goes into a little original research on words like cozen, demure and foil. Many of the biographies are controversial, and an amateur philologist may amuse himself in criticising this god of the world of tongues—for instance, he may find the evidence for the vicissitudes of "plot" too unconvincing.
The book has been written both for the purpose of entertainment so solid fact is interlarded with a scholarly invective and with which, even if it seems to be accompanied by an old man's cackle, helps to make the whole work an entertaining night's reading.
"Words Ancient and Modem." Ernest Weekley. Our copy from Modem Books. 11/3.
Since its formation at the beginning of the year the activities of the Literary Society have been varied and considerable. Each of the four study groups is flourishing, and the only general meeting to date was very well attended. The only discouraging feature is the lack of spontaneous criticism—the only meeting held for this purpose was poorly attended.
There are four study groups which deal with these topics—the poetry of William Blake, the prose of the last decade, New Zealand poetry, and Elizabethan drama. People interested in these subjects should contact Pat Wilson, Erik Schwimmer, Bill Oliver or Elizabeth Millward (respectively). The Drama Group meets on a Sunday afternoon, beginning at 4.30 p.m. and proceeding with reading and discussion until a conclusion is reached. Ben Jonson's "Bartholomew Fair" will be dealt with next, on Sunday. June 29. At the first meeting of the Blake Group it was decided to deal with his works as philosophy as well as literature. The "Poetical Sketches" has been so dealt with, and the second meeting, the "Songs of Innocence and Experience, the "Miscellaneous Poems" and the "Book of Thiel" were studied. The next meeting will be held on July 10. and will discuss the "Marginalia to Swedenborg" and to Lavater's aphorisms, and the miscellaneous prose. The first meeting of the Prose Group was concerned mainly with definitions and the second with Greene's "The Power and the Glory." as this novel seems to lead up to the current Parisian philosophical distinction—"existentialism," an Illustrative reading of Sartre's play "In Camera" is planned. The N.Z. Poetry Group Is spending every second Monday evening on a specific poet—so far R. A. K. Mason, Ursula Bethell and Allen Curnow have been discussed. In most people tiara study is a revelation, and those it is who have a previous knowledge of the subject have helped greatly. On Monday, June 30, the next meeting will be held, with the works of Robin Hyde for subject matter.
Since the inaugural meeting only one general meeting has been held, when Professor Gordon ably discussed the writings of Katherine Mansfield, the biographies and other sources of knowledge in her life. On Monday, June 30, the second general meeting will be held, when Mr. James Bertram will speak on the poetry of W. H. Auden. Both, the speaker and the subject should be of great interest to students, and a successful meeting is expected.
The less satisfactory side of the Society's activities was revealed by a meeting held for the sole purpose of criticising material in the Broadsheet. The small attendance can be partially accounted for by the failure to circulate the Broadsheet sufficiently, but not entirely. Those present were vigorous enough in their criticism, but three times the attendance would have been desirable. To train the faculty of criticism is an essential part of the Society's business, without which the study groups and talks will be valueless, and if this can be done with locally-produced work, both writer and reader will profit. Another issue of the Broadsheet will be forthcoming in July, and a meeting will follow, in the hope that a more lively response will be the result.
So far things have been going pretty well, but there is room for more people in all activities. The Society alms at reaching as many students as possible.
In "The Hollow Men" Michael Gold succeeds in bringing into clear perspective the development and trends of American literature in the interwar period. His work stands out from the flood of confused vapourings of bourgeois critics, as one of the few that succeed in relating the literary trends of his time to their true determinant—the social and political factors of the period.
In his first chapter, in prose as magnificent in its abuse, as biting in its shrewd caustic evaluation, he analyses the literature of the boom period up to the
The tawdry defeatism of T. S. Eliot as evidenced in his "Wasteland" of the early twenties, with its despicable self-pity and its snobbish disgust with mass democracy and industrialism, Gold next contrasts to the great tradition of Emerson, Whittier, Thoreau and Walt Whitman, which had been closer to the people and hence courageously optimistic; and shows how foreign was the mood of the hollow men to the feelings and lives of the American people.
In the second chapter of his study Gold shows the change that took place in literature as a result of a decade of depression and the rise of proletarian and communist ideas in America.
The appearance of Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" and Richard Wright's "Native Son" marked the peak of realist literature at the end of a great decade of American writing when the battle for a people's culture was almost won, when proletarian literature had grown from a small movement into one of the major trends of American art.
The effect of a strong and culturally developed Communism in giving direction to the confused, groping American intellectuals cannot be over estimated. Other philosophies could not explain or show a way out of the great crash, but Marxism did.
Although no major poet arose out of this renaissance of proletarian literature, no new major poet came out of the bourgeois world during the decade. Not only did dozens of memorable proletarian poems come out of this period, but what is more important, a mass audience for poetry. Here Gold has skilfully sketched the rise of proletarian literature in its broad outlines and how it has been emasculated by bourgeois commercialism.
In the next chapter he shows the essential difference between the petty bourgeois intellectual and the worker. The former is so often completely unreliable and opportunist because his every fibre has absorbed the tradition of his class individual enterprise cut-throat competition and devil-take-the-hindmost philosophy which results, among other things, in a lack of human feeling, the absence of love for people. Hence the shoddiness of Nietzsche, T. S. Eliot. James Joyce. Ezra Pound, Dos Passos and their ilk. Gold's judgment of Hemingway will serve as a good illustration of this historical interpretation of the rule of the bourgeois renegades in literature.
Among these lackeys of Capitalism are many. Fascist apologists spreading the doctrine of Fascism under the cloak of "Democracy" and "Idealism" as contrasted with Materialism which they of course abhor. In them we find an echo of Mussolini's "Fascism denies the materialistic conception of history outlined by Marx. Fascism repudiates the concept of economic happiness whereby the sufferings and sorrows of the humblest can be alleviated. Fascism believes in heroism and holiness." Here, under the same idealist mask, is the very philosophy which the Mumfords, Cowleys and Mac-Leish's openly profess under the name Democracy. We saw what such a philosophy led to in France. After exposing the core of rottenness in bourgeois literature Gold in his epilogue strikes a more hopeful note and points out that renegadism, although so blatant, is yet not typical of this class. "It is out of this same bourgeois class that the whole idea of Democracy was born. It was their Miltons. Voltaires, Diderots. Lincolns, who struggled for eight long centuries to achieve the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man." Out of this same class were the great ideas of Socialism born. Marx, Engels, and Lenin were some of the many thinkers who crossed from the bourgeoisie to the side of the working class, bringing with them vast treasures of human culture.
Thus, far from being typical of their class, the renegades are actually renegades to the greatest and proudest traditions of their own class.
"It is capitalism that I have been indicting, not the petty bourgeouisie, a class that is exploited and degraded by capitalism as much as are the workers."
Thus Gold ends on an optimistic note, founded on a belief in the people—with historical justification—and the toughness of the democratic idea which is part of the flesh and bones of modern man.
On Sunday evening, June 18, Weir House residents heard Sir Thomas Hunter speak on "The Future of the University in the first of the fortnightly discussions this term.
Sir Thomas began by outlining the history of University Education, in New Zealand. He showed how the present system was largely built upon accident and compromise, and how the lack of any clear purpose had hindered its development. Few of his audience had much idea of the switches in policy, the provincial jealousies and the animated debates which preceded the establishment of the present system.
Future development, said Sir Thomas, would probably be towards the increasing independence of the various Colleges with its possible conclusion in each of the four Colleges becoming a separate University. The future development of Victoria College is, however, far less settled. The development which he himself would like to see would include a much closer connection with Massey College. Victoria was at present overcrowded and inadequate in buildings, equipment and staff. At the same time the need to adapt the lectures, particularly as far as hours were concerned, to the needs of the part-time students deprived the fulltime students of some of the benefits of a full-time University. Further, the site could never be increased sufficiently to provide adequate facilities for the number of students who would probably desire to attend a separate University in the future.
He would like to see these various problems overcome by a long range policy that would include Victoria and Massey as one University. It would then be possible, when the development at Victoria required the duplication of staff, for there to be classes in Wellington still open to part-time students and classes at Massey, where there is ample land, for students able to attend a residential University. This would also benefit Massey, which is at present suffering from the lack of general University education and research. The present site of Victoria would continue to serve as a University for part-timers, for which purpose it is excellently suited in its proximity to the city.
More buildings and better facilities would of course still be essential, but the land available would probably be adequate. The process of duplication would have to be gradual, but the outstanding lesson of the past history of the University should be borne in mind: that it is essential to have an exact idea of what is wanted and work towards it; not to drift into makeshift arrangements.
Answering the question about the possibility of obtaining another large site in Wellington in the same way as Auckland had acquired Tamaki, Sir Thomas said that it was now impossible to obtain land close enough to the city for this to be practicable. The nearest possible sites would be inaccessible to part-timers, but the establishment of a full-time residential University at Massey and the slight extension resulting from the proposed alteration in Salamanca Road would leave the present site adequate in size.
Following Sir Thomas's talk there was a discussion concerning a wide range of subjects, but showing very little dissension from the basic idea he had outlined.
July 4.—Socialist Club.
July 4-6.—Tramping Club.
July 11.—Drama Club.
July 15.—Combined Tramping Clubs Ball.
If you want your club functions advertised in Things to Come, hand the information in to "Salient" Room not less than a week before the publication date, i.e., a week after the appearance of the previous issue.
More than forty foreign correspondents attending the Foreign Ministers' Conference in Moscow visited the Soviet Union's largest university, named after its founder M. Lomonosov, a great Russian scientist of the eighteenth century.
At a Press Conference arranged by the University authorities. Professor llya Galkin. Rector of the University since
In answering the pressmen's questions. Professor Galkin said that in six years' time the University will celebrate its 200th anniversary. The University accepts students from all over the USSR and today has 8,200 undergraduates of 48 nationalities. In addition there are more than 1,000 post-graduate students and 1,700 taking correspondence courses.
In general, about 20% of the students sitting the entrance examinations get into the University (the examinations are conducted on a competitive basis). This does not mean that others who passed the examiners cannot get higher education. There are thirty-four similar universities in other cities of the Soviet Union, apart from numerous institutes and other places of higher education.
The Rector explained that students were admitted irrespective of their social origin, party membership, nationality and religious convictions. The only document required of a student was a high school graduation certificate. Those who graduated from high school with a gold medal, i.e., "honours," were admitted without sitting any examinations.
There are 1,380 teachers and professors at the University. 420 of whom hold doctors' degrees. Professors are elected by secret ballot by heads of faculties and professors of chairs.
The University has eleven faculties. The most popular are the faculties of law, philosophy, history, physics and philology. After the war there was a swing towards the humanities. All students must pass a full five-year term of study. The correspondents learned that Mr. Vishinsky had graduated from this University, and at one time was its Rector.
More than two-and-a-half thousand students of the Moscow University are veterans of the war. They are receiving their education free of charge, and get bursaries that cover their living expenses, plus pocket money.
The annual tuition fee is 400 roubles. But children of pensioners, war and labour casualties, and of parents with large families, are educated without any charge whatsoever, so only about 35% of the students attending courses at the University pay a tuition fee. One-third of the students are children of intellectuals (non-manual workers).
All students of the Moscow University receive a monthly bursary progressively ranging from 250 roubles during the first year to 450 roubles during the last year. The bursaries are calculated from the students' cost of living. Those who get first-class marks get their bursary increased by 25%. There are also 425 special scholarships, each giving 800 roubles a month.
Some of the correspondents could not understand why student received bursaries from the University and at the same time paid back a small sum for tuition. The Rector explained that this method put a certain moral obligation on a student to study better.
As a result of the war half the undergraduates are girls, as compared with the pre-war figure, which was only 35%. The entrance age is limited from 17 to 35. The majority of undergraduates are in the 17 to 25-year-old group. One-half of the undergraduates are the inhabitants of Moscow and its suburbs, the rest come from different parts of the USSR. All boarders at the University are lodged without any charge whatsoever (there are no mixed hostels). All students receive workers' ration coupons and buy their food at special "closed" stores or have their meals in "closed" restaurants where prices are much lower. The same applies to clothes. Every year students have a two months' summer and a two weeks' winter vacation. The University has its own sports club and has competitions with other universities in various forms of sport. Sport is also part of the curriculum.
After the press-conference, the correspondent's went on a tour of the University. Some of the buildings were badly damaged during the German air-raids in
The correspondents were shown the University library, which contained over two million books, half of which were on foreign literature.
There was a lively discussion between the students and the visitors in a room of the Biological Faculty at a lecture on "Darwinism." Each side was showered with questions on current affairs, students way of life in the Soviet Union and in foreign countries, exchange of students, etc. The students were surprised to learn from the correspondents that the teaching of "Darwinism" was forbidden in some of the American States. In vain the correspondents tried to prove that Truman's help to Greece and Turkey was not directed against the Soviet Union. The students considered that this help extended to Turkey, which did not take part in the war against Germany and was directed against all progressive democracy all over the world. The correspondents were pleased with the discussion and expressed the hope that the students knew their subjects as well as they knew politics. They promised to write "favourably." To that the students replied: "Do not write about us favourably. Just write the truth."
For some years it has been the policy of the Executive to provide something superior in the way of Extravaganza programmes. Victoria is the only University College in New Zealand to provide fare of a higher standard than that of a glorified school concert; and the public has shown its appreciation by flocking to the Opera House each year in increasing numbers. Now that the tumult and shouting has died on another successful Extrav., I should like to put forward a few ideas regarding next year's show in the hope that it will provoke further discussion.
During the period from about
Now comes the question of the length of the show itself. I am rather of the opinion that three short shows are preferable to one long presentation. The only two-and-a-half hours Extrav. I Have seen which really did sustain itself was Ron Meek's magnum opus, "Peter in Blunderland," and even parts of this show tended to drag somewhat.
The scheme I would suggest is similar to the earlier system:
The satire should be modelled on the lines of such sterling works as the "Book of Bob," "Hell's Bells," and "Adam Baba and the Forty Leagues." Ron Meek, writing some years ago, made this comment, which I think, is still relevant:
"In view of the well-deserved success of 'Bob,' 'Hell's Bells,' and 'Murder in the Common Room' it would be absurd to cut out this item or curtail it—indeed, to do so, would be justly considered an affront to the authors of these splendid plays."
And now to the Interlude. This has always been well received by the public. It also provides the ideal position for the introduction of the male ballet. The idea of attempting to sandwich it into the main show does not appeal to me.
I should like to see John Carrad write another Interlude. John has produced by far the best Extrav. tunes—witness the songs that are always sung at Extrav. Reunions and elsewhere when 'Varsity types gather together—and songs like "Treasure Trove," "The Governor of North Carolina," and "South Pacific Seas" will live for a long time to come. Ron Meek makes the following comments about the Interlude:
"The Interlude, so long as we have the Inimitable Carrad, should on no account be omitted. The men's ballet and the bright, original music are always appreciated."
Ralph Hogg, in surveying the
Now for the pice de resistance of an Extravaganza, namely the Extravaganza itself. This should include topical references, caricatures of politicians and other notorious people., a presentable plot, and a selection of good songs and choruses. It is not much use introducing songs if they cannot be reasonably well sung. Better to cut them out and let the character speak the lines.
A word about the opening chorus. This is generally believed to put the audience in good humour for what is to follow. However, unless it is a Good opening chorus, it is doubtful whether it does anything else but hold up the action. Compare a badly sung opening chorus with, say, the opening scene of the "Book of Bob," which depends for its opening on simple but effective stage setting and clever lighting (not by me). This, together with excellent acting, cast a spell over the audience which was not broken. Had this scene followed an "opening chorus" the effect would have been appalling. I mention this to illustrate that an opening chorus is not a necessity to any show and in some cases may be detrimental. Incidentally. Ron Meek used a similar effective opening in the "Zealous Zombies" and introduced the Zombies' Chorus later, without breaking the continuity of the act.
Finally a word about a new Extrav. innovation—the Interval Entertainers. This appears to me one of the most successful innovations of recent years and Ray Hannan, Jimmy Winchester and Mike Mitchell deserve to be congratulated for building it up to its present high standard. To know that intelligently planned, clever entertainment is proceeding in front of the curtain during a major scene change is very comforting to those back-stage. I do not see any reason why Weir House should not take over this branch of Extrav. activities in future years. It would be much better for them to expend their energy in a constructive manner rather than the usual puerile display of crayfish dangling, saveloy dangling, suspended human bodies, and toilet paper throwing. This may amuse the mighty Weir House intellects, but the audience, unable to appreciate genius, does not respond very favourably.
I do not suggest that the Haka Party be abolished. It does a very efficient job on the publicity angle, but I think if the Weir House people took over the responsibility of organising an interval entertainment on the lines of previous years, it would certainly be a step in the right direction.
The first impressions of the audience govern, to a large extent, their reactions to the remainder of the performance, and in this connection I remember Ron Meek made the following remark to me when we were discussing the setting of "Peter in Blunderland," which I think is worth recording:—
"Never is blatancy more blatant, never is good effect so effective, as at the very beginning of the show."—
I wish to draw your attention and that of your readers to the failure to report the debate held on April 18 last, at which, it will be recalled, a resolution hostile to the present foreign policy of the Soviet Union was moved by me and, after being supported by the majority of speakers from the floor, was convincingly adopted by the meeting. Three issues of your journal have since been published—the first on May 7, some 19 days after the debate, but it has received no mention in either.
I am sure many of your readers, like me, will find it passing strange of a journal which proclaims on its face that it is "An Organ of Student Opinion" at the College to fail to report the proceedings of a body which provides a forum for all students sufficiently interested and articulate to take advantage of it, and which provides the only occasions (except the AGM) at which the opinion of the whole student body is at least roughly gauged and given expression. I have been at the College since
I deliberately refrain from drawing any inferences from the omission, which at the moment seem justifiable, pending any explanation you may care to publish.
I must, nevertheless, observe that the incident gives the air of remarkable coincidence to what at the time I regarded merely as a minor instance of poor reporting, regrettably common, but otherwise of no significance, in connection with the account of the first debate of the year in your issue of April 2. On that occasion I was reported as making two points, viz., a distrust of American foreign policy based on its attitude to China, Iran and Palestine (the former of which countries I referred to only incidentally and in another connection, and the latter two of which I did not mention at all); and secondly, that America, in bolstering a reactionary government, was inviting opposition from all progressive countries. I may, perhaps, be forgiven for reminding readers that the judge that evening found the points which I actually made, whatever the faults of the speech, at least clearly presented. They were, first, that the blind application of ideology, whether of the "right" or the "left," to questions of foreign policy, is disastrous; and I gently chided the official affirmative speakers for a blind application of Communist ideology to the question, but pointed out that the American intervention in the Near East was likewise bad, being inspired by equally blind anticommunist ideology. Secondly, I drew attention to the failure of the affirmative speakers to refer to what was surely the most important point of all, that the American policy ran counter to a U.N. decision on Greece and represented unilateral action by the U.S.A. on a matter on which the United Nations had asked for concerted action.
I was, therefore, both amused and pleased to observe, Sir, that you yourself had not shared the inability of your reporter to grasp at least the second of these points clearly, for your leading article in that very issue was headed "U.S. Sidesteps U.N." and went on to elaborate the matter to which I drew attention. This but serves to emphasise the value of full and accurate reporting of proceedings at debates from which it seems that the texts of your own lessons to your readers may occasionally be drawn with advantage.
I hope, therefore, that this letter will at least serve to prevent a recurrence of the regretable lapse of which I complain.
I should like to quote two clauses from the policy statement of "Salient" drawn up at the inception of the paper.
1. Policy of the paper is to be criticism and comment rather than reporting.
2. That the paper depart from the usual reporting of local University news and adopt a more cosmopolitan attitude.
We have been attempting this year to return to this policy, giving less space to club reporting, including debates. Some club reports have been printed, but these have all, except the debating report mentioned by Mr. O'Flynn, been spontaneously written by club members.
If the Debating Society feels that its meetings should be reported in "Salient," and if it has any person competent to do it, we would be prepared to publish these reports. We agree that debating reporting in "Salient" in the past has been biased and inaccurate. This is a further reason for discontinuing them.
Although no team has played the same men for two consecutive Saturdays, individual members of the Hockey Club are showing signs of settling down to their games. If the happy day arrives when every team plays the same combination as was fielded the previous week, a string of successes can confidently be expected.
Saturday, June 7.—Pouring rain cancelled all games save senior and senior grade. Seniors v. Petone, drew 3-3. Hampered by the heavy ground, the absence of Gil Johnstone, and the exertions of the Massey trip and Capping Ball in the same week, the Seniors did well to draw. A feature of the game was the defensive play of the ubiquitous Hec Lawry, who broke up forward attacks repeatedly. Once again the lack of scoring forwards deprived the team of certain goals, while halves and wings, who took a lash in the inner circle, proved equally ineffective.
Saturday, June 14.—Seniors v. Karori, lost 0-2. In the second game of the season against the leading team the result was again a loss by a narrow margin. In goal Froome's kicking would have done credit to a rugby full-back. O'Connor at centre-half and Johnstone and Buxton at full-back marked the opposing inside forwards with their customary efficiency, but it was noticeable that wing-halves Persson and Staiemand were frequently caught out of position and outpaced by the wings.
Second Grade v. Wgtn. Coll., won 2-1. This team has been severely handicapped throughout the season insofar as it is used unavoidably as a collection of reserves for the Seniors. Against Wellington College a distinct improvement in combination between backs and forwards was noticeable. Close and Liddell were prominent in attacking movements and Church and Kennedy made a formidable defence line on the right. The seconds will probably be playing in Tournament this year, and their development as a team will be watched with interest.
Third A v. Karori, lost 2-10. This loss was probably due to the absence of several members. Ian Carran again gave evidence of his ability, and Silver showed up well in attack. Forwards still seem inclined to fall back in order to gain possession of the ball.
Third B v. Wellington College, won 6-1. Under England's leadership the team gives promise of settling down to play some constructive hockey. On Saturday Benge gave an outstanding display at right-half, and he was well supported by both half and back lines.
Third C v. Huia, drew 3-3. Poor positional play is again a failing with this team. Bob Stannard at centre-half proved to be the mainstay of the defence.
With the South Africans at our back door it's time we took a more realistic view of the incompetent foot-swinging that goes under the name of Soccer at Victoria. The fact that the Senior Eleven have won their last two games, the first against Hutt Rangers 3-0 and the second against Marist 6-3 is probably about the worst thing that could have happened to this bloated pack of self-satisfied pseudo-footballers. Somehow the team has to be made to realise that their game is about 5 per cent, of what it could be. The heading and passing are downright shocking. A ball thrown in should go to the foot of the player, not in his face; inside forwards should know how to pass with direction, and a few beefy barged goals are no exonerating compensation. But it would be invidious to mention names. The victories, generally piled up in the last ten minutes, are preluded by almost two spells of aimless meandering. Yet when it is decided that activity is urgent it is possible for the team to make their decadent opponents crumple hopelessly. Surely it is no compliment to score victories over the cripples and pensioned that constitute such an opposition?
The Thirds have beaten Upper Hutt 2-1 and lost to Seatoun B 1-2. In both cases they played short owing, to the defection of certain miserable individuals.
The Seconds, though having lost both their last two games by small amounts, are the most heartening factor in the club life. Here there is no pretension to skill, but there is boundless enthusiasm. These players will he glad to note the field practice now to be held regularly on Kelburn Park, Wednesday afternoon, 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. The elite mentioned with disparagement above may likewise gain some benefit if they would consent to drag their oh, so tired bodies along.
After five weeks of fine Saturdays the first postponement of games occurred on June 7. All games set down for that day were played last Saturday on heavy grounds. Most players do not seem to be as fit as they should be at this time of the season.
The Senior A team, after being surprised out of their lethargy by a goal scored by Y.W.C.A. after five minutes play, went to work with determination. Viv Rich, very much on her game, scored three goals, ably backed up by B. Young, who also contributed one and G. Simmers one. Lack of co-ordination between the halves and the forwards was offset to a great extent by the very efficient stickwork of M. Spiers, left full-back, who stopped many breakaways by the speedy opposition wing forwards. The game ended: Varsity 5. YWCA 1.
Of the Senior Reserve game much could be said. Enough that it was spoiled by poor refereeing and undue roughness. Varsity's only goal came from a melee in the circle, the goal being scored by combined effort. Better combination is now being shown by this team. Ever-ready 2. Varsity 1.
On Saturday, June 14, under perfect running conditions. Victoria College Harriers won for the first time in its 15 years of existence the Shaw Baton Relay, which comprises six laps of one mile and three hundred yards each. This race is mostly over road but there is a little strenuous country. The Varsity sextet took the lead early and won the race 14 sec. in front of the second team. Hutt Valley.
John Eceles was the first man to run and he was responsible for a most surprising performance. He is a confident fellow who had the right idea when he set a blistering pace from the start. He has competed for two seasons only (he used to play hockey) and stayed right out in front to beat A. R. Glen (Brooklyn), one of the best indent in the country. Eceles, who has plenty of native ability, covered the one mile and 300 yards in 5 min. 48 secs., only four seconds slower than that recorded by his club-mate Clem Hawke. Whose time in the last lap was the best of the day.
Alistair Hall was next to take on the Baton, but Eceles had given him a forty-yard start. Hall, a newcomer to the club (and has been doing remarkably well), not only maintained the lead but increased it and completed his lap in 6min. 1sec. From there the race was continued by Peter Whittle, who handed over to John Hunt. At this stage it was doubtful if Varsity could hold their lead much longer. Hunt ran against Bill Smith of Hutt Valley, a polished runner who notwithstanding his running into a camera at the commencement of the Masterton Relay finished at the end of that lap second to Hawke. B. Smith caught Hawke before half of the lap had been completed but Hunt at the end of the lap had not only caught up to Smith but increased the Varsity lead.
John Holden, who a fortnight previously in the Masterton Relay put up the fastest time for the lap from the summit of the Rimutakas to Featherston, revealed his form in the fifth lap and with the Varsity lead well established handed the baton on to Clem Hawke.
The usual standard of running was again carried out by the Club Champion and NZU and VUC Harrier Blue Clem Hawke, who ran the race in the amazing time of 5min. 44sec.
At the end of the sixth lap Varsity were 80 yards ahead of Hutt Valley, and Brooklyn a further 200 yards behind. The latter team unfortunately suffered from the absence of Colin Dickie, the provincial champion. The noticeable feature of the Varsity team was their freshness after running their laps. This was in marked contrast to other teams and speaks well of the training the members of the senior team have done in the past month.
For the first time in many years Varsity also fielded a junior team in the relay. The team finished fifth in the junior event. Mawson and Kelly, who have been doing remarkably well as juniors, must be commended on their exhibition. Still feeling fresh after their exertion in the race these keen youngsters went off afterwards and had their usual training run.
In the past the VUC Harrier Club has produced some notable individuals in fellows like the late Ross Scrymgeour, 1. C. MacDowall, G. Bagnall and F. D. O'Flynn, all who won N.Z. University Blues, and Clem Hawke is well up to their standard. Collectively the club in its 15 years existence has never revealed the strength displayed this season. The third placing in the Wellington-Masterton Relay indicated that the team had possibilities and though the Shaw Baton cannot be regarded as an exacting test of cross-country, at the same time it is one where speed is the essence of the contract. Our club sextet adequately demonstrated that they possess this necessary qualification by beating Hutt valley decisively. However, a more reliable guide to the team's ability will be provided by the Anderson Rally and the Dorne Cup, which will be held in a short while.
Fine displays by the Senior A team against Old Boys, the Senior B's against Eastbourne, and the Third B's against Plimmerton are the only events of note since the last set of notes was written.
Two events of the future, however, should be noted: the North v. South Varsities match and the game NZU v. Canterbury College, to be played at Christchurch on July 16 and 19 respectively.
The Senior side, after giving a very fine display of wet weather football to beat Old Boys, fell away last Saturday and were beaten by Athletic by 15-5, after a most uninspiring game. The forwards in particular were not nearly up to their best form.
It was a pity that the Senior B side lacked the little finesse necessary to finish their advantage against Eastbourne, a very strong team, and lost 3-10. The forwards, in particular, played their best game of the season.
The Junior A side got home from Mangaroa by 6-5 and from Te Tau Aroha by default, which leaves the; team with the creditable record of four wins, two losses and a draw.
The Junior B side has made great strides and on Saturday, playing, according to all reports, "the kind of football the crowds like," beat Marist by 8-3.
The Third A side has yet to be beaten, though a depleted team could only manage a 3-all draw against Wellington, a powerful combination on Saturday. It is hoped that the fair name of the side will not be sullied by a recurrence of this incident.
The Third B grade had an excellent win against Plimmerton, till then unbeaten, by 14-3 last Saturday.
The Third C side, although rather severely depleted the other Saturday, is suffering somewhat severely from the raids of the higher grades and has lost some of its players to other teams, but should nevertheless be capable of good things.
Published fortnightly by the Victoria University College Students' Association and printed for them by The Commercial Printing Co. Ltd., Boulcott Avenue, Wellington.