Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Spike or Victoria University College Review September 1924

The Extravaganza

page 28

The Extravaganza

"From a man with a grudge in our College productions, good Lord deliver us."—"Spike," No. 41, p. 87.

Dear "Spike,"—So P.J.S. finds it necessary in your last number to pour out his troubled soul in two long and embittered articles concerning the recent Extravaganza—pouring out the vials of his wrath especially on one "Professor Trezise." I wonder why.

Is not P.J.S. he who was the author or at least part author of an Extravaganza entitled "The Last Trump"? And did not "The Last Trump," after many vicissitudes, fail to be produced? And did not the aforesaid "Professor Trezise" give it as his opinion that it was impossible to produce "The Last Trump "—an Extravaganza which, presumably, was full of "College originality, College intellect," "literary merit," etc., for was not P.J.S. part author? I think so.

Well, then, let us examine the tale. In the first place, the title of one article—viz., "The Trezise Benefit"—can hardly be justified. The title surely means either (1) (as it has been taken by many to mean) that the object of the production was to put money into Trezise's pocket—that the "please the public party" were friends of Mr. Trezise, and desired to put some business in his way; or (2) that the result was that only Mr. Trezise derived any pecuniary benefit from "Pep."

If the first be the meaning intended, then I can only assure your readers and P.J.S. that no such object ever entered the minds of the "mercenary party" (let us call them that for short). Grossly mistaken though they may have been, they acted in what they considered to be the best interests of the College, and with no eye to the interests of Mr. Trezise. If (2) be the meaning, then it might surprise and disappoint P.J.S. to learn that the profits accruing from "Pep" were very much greater than even the apparently princely fee received by Mr. Trezise. While on this subject, might I refer to the first few lines of this article, where P.J.S. mentions the "financial results" of "Pep" in a way which obviously conveys the impression that such results were disastrous. Yet he goes on to say that "these (the financial results) have not yet been disclosed." Oh, no! They were not disclosed and could not be disclosed at that stage because they were not known. But perhaps P.J.S. is gifted (?) with second sight, or perhaps the "wish was father to the thought."

The real reasons why a "paid professional producer" was engaged this year may interest your readers. In the first place, no one at the College has any brief for Mr. Trezise. Even the "mercenary party" have stated time and again that it would infinitely prefer a College producer. What, then, was the position? Mr. Evans, who had so successfully produced the Extravaganza for some years past, was unable to act. This year, when those who were so violently opposed to Mr. Trezise's introduction were asked to name a College producer, the only name really seriously mentioned was P.J.S. It may have been treasonable, but the "mercenary party" considered that P.J.S. was not in the least capable of producing an Extravaganza—nor, I believe, was he at all anxious to produce it. However, his name was persistently mentioned and, I believe, was the only name seriously mentioned as a College producer. A certain page 29 section of the students, no doubt, would have been willing to risk allowing him to produce, but as he had had no experience whatever in that line the "mercenary party" felt that the risk was too great. There was a possibility of a greater financial disaster than even P.J.S. hoped was the result of "Pep."

P.J.S. refers to "the easy money produced by the compulsory levy." There seems to be an idea abroad that as a result of the compulsory levy money simply rolls into the coffers of the Association, more than sufficing for their every possible need. Might I point out that had it not been for the profits of "Pep" practically the whole of the compulsory levy would this year have been Swallowed up in current expenses of the various Clubs and the Association.

We have for years past been living a hand-to-mouth existence—hardly ever a penny to spare for even very necessary purposes. Is it not time that the students endeavoured to set aside some money every year and create at least a small reserve?

To mention one thing, the Gymnasium has for years past been badly in need of a coat of paint and various repairs, merely to preserve it against the weather. On several occasions quotations have been obtained for this very necessary work, and on every occasion the Executive has been compelled through lack of funds to postpone it. There is also the question of common rooms. What is the position at the College to-day? Ninety per cent, of the men never come near the College until five minutes before their lectures start, and they are away again five minutes after their lectures end. The place is not a University: it is a night school.

If we can induce the men to spend a little of their time, apart from lectures, at the College; if we can induce them to mix with one another, to talk of University affairs, and to take an interest in University problems, we will have made a start in turning the College into a University instead of a night school.

How are we to do this? P.J.S.'s idea seems to be that if we murmur "sapientia magis" in their ears a sufficient number of times we will achieve our purpose. The "mercenary party's" idea is that we must do it in a somewhat less direct fashion. If we can get. the men to spend more of their time at the College and to work for the College instead of looking on it as a necessary evil on the road to a degree, they will insensibly become imbued with the real spirit and meaning of a University. A common room made a little bit attractive instead of bare rooms with bare tables and chairs seems one feasible means of inducing the men to spend some of their time at the College, and meet the other students; but even to make a common room attractive needs money. Stephen Leacock, in one of his books, says that if he had the building of a University the first thing he would do would be to build a smoking room where the men could meet and argue. Allowing for the exaggeration, this is precisely what the "mercenary party" is contending for. All the talk in the world of "sapientia magis" will not have the slightest effect on a single student.

In saying this, I am not for one moment sneering at the College motto—" Wisdom is more to be desired than gold." Unfortunately, however, in this imperfect world a certain amount of that "demoralising trash" is necessary even in a University. P.J.S. accuses us of desiring to jettison College traditions. Not at all. It is true the College traditions have been largely lost, so far as the majority of page 30 the students are concerned, and that, by the operation of forces outside the control of any section of the students. The large increase in the numbers of students—the war—have been some of the contributing causes.

"It is difficult," says P.J.S., "for a new body of students unacquainted with the past of V.U.C. to realise the character and worth of College traditions." True, it is difficult. A new spirit has to be created amongst the students, and P.J.S. has propounded no feasible method of producing that spirit. The "mercenary party" look on money not as an end in itself, but as a means to very desirable ends—ends with which, I think, even P.J.S. will not quarrel.

Probably the greatest question of all is that of residential hostels, the subject of P.J.S.'s somewhat sneering allusion. Some people hold the opinion—the "we-want-money" party amongst them—that without adequate residential hostels we will never have a real University. As a matter of fact, that opinion is so widely held that it is not necessary to enlarge on it. Again, however, a substantial amount of "gold" is necessary. If the students make a little money now and again it might bring the residential hostel and the real University a step nearer.

A few other misstatements of P.J.S. call for some short comment. "An outside dancing master "was not" given complete control of the Extravaganza, its production and its policy." The Extravaganza was not "surrendered to the dictation of a paid professional producer." P.J.S. seems to quarrel with the "we-want-money" party because there was no Capping procession to advertise the Extravaganza this year, but he certainly knows that the party was no more responsible for that than he was himself. It was no doubt good business for him to imply that the fault was theirs.

By the way, "Spike," far be it from me to cast even a shadow of a doubt on the "logic" of your scribe, but perhaps you can explain the following sample: "They (the mercenary party forgot . . . that each Extravaganza advertises the one that comes after it. . . . The result was that 'Luv' owed its success not to its own merits but to the expectations raised by its predecessor. . . . Even had 'Luv' succeeded by its own merit, the success of a similar show twelve long months afterwards was not a reasonable anticipation."—The Trezise Benefit, p. 41.

God bless you, "Spike.—I am, etc.,

H.McC.

Dear "Spike,"—The most exhilarating adventure that can befall a critic is to be himself criticised. It tells him that his existence has been noticed—that some other immortal soul has cast the light of his attention across the void that separates mind from mind and for one hectic instant stared him right in the eye, with (oh rich experience!) the awe-inspiring expression of a half-brick. Thus it is with a shiver of delightful terror that I scramble to my feet to receive the shock of H. McC.'s blighting accusations of "grudge," inability to produce an extravaganza, capacity for making misstatements, treasonable wishes to see College ventures result in failure, faulty use of logic, and other enormities barely hinted at, all of which I display in "two long embittered" articles in the June "Spike"—a total of four and three-quarter pages! What a record one or other of us achieves!—H.McC., I timidly suggest.

page 31

Better to be quarrelsome than lonely, an Irish writer points but. H.McC.'s (and Stephen Leacock's) vision of a University with "a smoking-room where the men could meet and argue" is foreshadowed in the pages of this very issue of the "Spike;" surely, when the smoke clears, the reality will be in sight. In the meantime, let us enjoy the smoke, for where there is smoke there is fire—in this case, the fire of a burning interest in College affairs. The day of "strong silent men with empty heads like gourds" has passed, and a Bolshevistic excitement takes its place. Let H.McC. burn me at his stake; it has been a genial year.

First I will praise H.McC. If my daring guess at his identity is correct, he (in the words of Cervantes) "hath a face like a benediction" (despite a quill that scratches) and an invincible regard for the College interest. At no time have I ever thought or suggested that he or any member of the "Please the Public—We Want Money" party acted in this Extravaganza affair other than with the very best intentions. I heartily concur in his statement that "grossly mistaken though they may have been, they acted in the best interests of the College, and with no eye to the interests of Mr. Trezise." And I am in no agreement whatever with his application of the term "mercenary party" to himself and his associates, for this carries an unmerited implication of self-seeking. It is a dummy he sets up himself for the sole purpose of knocking down. On the other hand, the description "Please the Public—We Want Money" I applied to H.McC.'s party because they made bold and frequent use of the words to explain and excuse their introduction into the College of Mr. Trezise; but I know (and never did deny) that the employment of Mr. Trezise was genuinely meant to benefit the Stud. Ass. finances.

The narrowest question was whether it would benefit the Stud. Ass. finance's. The answer is, did it? The usual profits of the Extravaganza are (I understand) somewhere about £150. For his services this year Mr. Trezise received (and quite probably earned, as things go) £30; and the net profits accruing to the Stud. Ass. were (I understand again) £80. When H.McC. remembers that the debasement of the Extravaganza to the character of a third-class revue and the employment of Mr. Trezise were fondly looked to to bring in an extra profit, will he still cavil at my satiric description of the whole thing as "the Trezise Benefit"? Is is of course lamentable that any student should think the show was staged solely to benefit Mr. Trezise; but who benefited the more—Mr. Trezise with his personal profit of £30 or the student body (800 odd) with its £80? It makes little difference that the profits were greater than the poor houses and the authoritative rumours current at the time J wrote my article led me to expect. Measured with previous results and judged in the light of the mighty expectations of the P.P.W.W.M. party, "Pep" was a miserable failure. Instead of a gold mine, it was very nearly a gold brick.

It is natural for H.McC. to dislike my effort to drive the lesson home, but why hint at a "grudge"? Is that the only possible explanation of my criticism? Was there no criticism before Mr. Trezise came upon the scene? Am I dreaming when I recall a stormy time commencing with the very first mention of Mr. Trezise—one general meeting which carried a certain resolution and another which revoked it, resignations of President, Secretary, and other members of the Stud. Ass. Executive, the vain attempt of page 32 "the Rump" to construct a "Stiffy and Mo" extravaganza, and so on and so forth? What a tremendous eddy has the lonely voice of my "grudge," reaching as it does to the time of "Luv," rippling even through a private discussion between myself and H.McC. in 1923, well before the then Executive asked me to collaborate with Mr. Beaglehole—and Mr. Byrne—in writing an extravaganza which would break with the tendencies of "Luv"! "Grudge," forsooth. I'd help to write a dozen still-born extravaganzas and consider them all well lost in the effort to prevent a breach with the fine tradition made in a fuller day by wiser men than we. And please do not hurl against Mr. Beaglehole and myself the fact that we compromised with expediency when a general meeting went to the length of swallowing its previous decision. It was good work to bring the matter to an issue, and we could afford a concession, even to comrades.

We withdrew our Extravaganza because a general meeting demanded a certain Paid Professional Producer. When an attempt to write a substitute extravaganza had not succeeded,. another general meeting revoked the resolution in favour of the P.P.P. and left the matter to the discretion of the Executive, which was the compromise suggested by us at the beginning. Whereupon we handed "The Last Trump" back and agreed to help. Whereupon the Executive appointed the P.P.P. that all the trouble had been about, and in our innocence we continued to help. Whereupon the said P.P.P. rejected the said Extravaganza in favour of one which had not then been written, but which was about to be written under his supervision. To condense the story, two Executives, separately and under different circumstances, with plenty of time to think, voted for a bird in the hand, but the P.P.P. insisted upon a bird in the bush. Is "dictation" a wild word to bring in here?

I am not going to enter upon an examination of Mr. Trezise's motives for rejecting the Extravaganza so thoroughly accepted by the Executive. As to his grounds, he said it was unproducible. I went to some pains to find out why it was unproducible, but he didn't seem to be able to get past a few general statements such as that it "violated all the canons of the dramatic art" (or was in some other authority who passed this judgment?), lacked "a central idea, such as Beauty"—in short, was unproducible. One expects more from an expert. My conclusions were that Mr. Trezise was accustomed to producing a type of show very different from the traditional College extravaganza and found that he could get such a show specially written for him. Indeed, who can blame an acute business man, of specialised talents and dependent upon advertisement in a particular line, for being unwilling to project himself into an unfamiliar world when he could carry his own world along with him? Shade of the old "Social Course"!—who can even blame the P.P.W.W.M. party when he remembers the reverence abroad in the College in March last for the very name of Trezise? Could the poor mountain do aught but go to Mahomet? The ex-students experienced in Extravaganzas who considered "The Last Trump" to be quite producible belonged to another day, that was all.

As to my capacity to act as producer: pray do not charge me with the excesses of my friends, H.McC. They were more willing to experiment than I was. To me a producer is very like the famous purple cow—" I'd sooner see than be one." I once attended a debate between Mr. Robert Hogg and another, in which

page break
V.U.C. Cricket Club First Eleven, 1923-24 Winners of Junior "A" Championship

V.U.C. Cricket Club First Eleven, 1923-24 Winners of Junior "A" Championship

Back Row:—A.M. Wilson, G.U. Martin, F.H. Mullins, G.C. Kent, C.H. Arndt. Sitting—J.C. Greig, E.C. Wiren (Club Captain), R.H.C. Mackenzie (Captain), A.M. Hollings, C.H. Hain, Front Row:—L.J. Evans, R.L.A. Crosswell. Absent.—J.L. Dighton, W.E. Anderson.

page 33

the other complained of his inability to "make a silken purse out of a hog's ear." Mr. Hogg replied that "it was not the fault of the hog but of the fool who tried to do it." Perhaps my friends were fools; they did not, at any rate, try to make a silken purse out of "Pep"!'

Much of H.McC.'s letter is sound common sense. When the nonsense regarding myself is winnowed from it—such as that I "hoped" for a "financial disaster" to "Pep" or that I blame the P.P.W.W.M. party for not having held a Capping procession—the result is a substantial contribution to the movement for a keener interest" in College affairs. The whole Extravaganza discussion has been beneficial in this regard, and the Extravaganza itself an experience too rich to be wasted. Next year should sec the Luv-Beauty-Pep stuff flung aside for something more the measure of a Varsity's imagination.

H.McC. is welcome to his point in logic. Restated, however, the argument stands. What the public looks for in a College Extravaganza is novelty, and each Extravaganza advertises the one which comes after it. The advertisement of a previous Extravaganza will fill the booked seats and provide a crowded first night, but only novelty will draw the non-booking public on the second and third nights. A mere revue like "Luv" is terribly out-of-date in twelve months of these sated times.

Pax vobiscum, "Spike," and my thanks for this opportunity of replying.—Yours, etc.,

P.J.S.

P.S.—Must I apologise to anybody for referring to Mr. Trezise as "Professor"? And, if so, to how many?

Dear "Spike,"—Might I remind P.J.S. that the W.W.M. party did want to produce "The Last Trump," as witness the fact that they were parties to the "compromise with expediency" mentioned by him. One trifling difficulty, however, cropped up. The P.P.P. pronounced the show unproduceable—an opinion which was also expressed by quite a number of others, including some "ex-students experienced in Extravaganzas," who also "belonged to another day." Hence "Pep"—admittedly a rush show.

The point at issue may perhaps be stated thus:

It will probably not be denied that the great majority of present-day students are divorced from the old traditions of the College and have no conception of the true meaning and spirit of a University. The W.W.M. party holds that in order to remedy this, in order to make a real University, we have to start and rebuild "from the ground up." We suggest that the most feasible means of doing this is to do our utmost to procure the erection of residential hostels, etc. And for this we must get money. The students can help in this by making and putting aside as much as possible every year. Now the question is, "Was it worth while to make even £80 out of the Extravaganza this year, and put that sum aside as a nucleus of a fund for Residential Hostels, etc., bearing in mind the fact that, to put it as mildly as possible, there was very great doubt as to the possibility of producing 'The Last Trump'?" As P.J.S. would say, "the answer is 'was it?'" In any case it seemed to be a case of £80 or nothing. I am pleased to learn that P.J.S. did not intend by his article "The Trezise Benefit" to suggest that we had any eye to the interests of Mr. page 34 Trezise. However, the suggestion was not a dummy set up by myself. Perhaps P.J.S. has heard of such a thing as a "benefit performance," and he will perhaps admit that the word "benefit" in such a connection denotes the purpose of the performance.

H.McC.

(This correspondence is now closed.—Editor "Spike.")