Punch and Judy.

In another part of this paper a member of the Staff crosses swords with the Committee of the Debating Society. The question at issue is whether "The Lucky One," recently produced by the Club, was, or was not, a play of sufficient merit to warrant its selection. This paper feels that if sufficient stress is placed on the lack of initiative displayed in the past by the Dramatic Club, then we hope that in some idealistic future we may see an improvement in the standard of play chosen for production.

The Club has defended its choice on a number of grounds. The first of these is that "it provides a pleasant relief from the cruel brilliance of the sexual problem play of to-day and the crude emotions of the O'Neill type." The same remark might, with far more justice, be applied to a score of modern plays. If relief is wanted, why go to the other extreme and choose something that has not even the interest of these others. Milne excels himself in this play as a drawing-room trifler. Has the play a serious motive or is it humorous? Sometimes it seems quite farcical, and yet the curtain rings down on a scene intended, we thought, to be tragic. The maudlin pessimist is bad enough, but the maudlin nothing is worse. In plain English, the play "perishes miserably in its indecision."

Again we are told, "It is a pleasure to listen to the sparkling dialogue of Milne." The sparkling dialogue of Milne occurs so seldom that one is inclined to think that sparkle must be a rather precious and rare virtue with the playwright. Take this for example:—

Miss Farringdon: Smoke, Bob, and tell me how horrible the city is.

Bob (lighting a pipe and sitting down): It's damnable. Aunt Harriet.

Miss F.: More damnable than usual?

Bob: Yes.

Miss F.: Any particular reason why?

Bob: No.

At the very grave risk of driving the reader to utter boredom we give another example:—

Miss F.: How is Mrs. Wentworth?

Wentworth: Wonderfully well, thank you, considering her age.

Miss F.: Dear me, we first met in 1850.

Gerald: All frills and lavender.

Miss F.: And now here's Gerald engaged. Have you seen Pamela yet?

Wentworth: Not yet. I have been hearing about her from Tommy. He classes her with the absolute rippers.

Gerald: Good old Tommy.

Mises F.: Yes, she's much too good for Gerald.

It might be wiser after this to move on to another point submitted by the Dramatic Committee. Sparkling dialogue! The null and dull prattlings of a notoriously null and dull middle class.

The third head of favour is that "the play is enriched by the serious ideas which are introduced into the comedy." As we have earlier remarked, it was impossible to decide whether comedy or tragedy was meant. The only real comic scene was Gerald proposing ways and means to his brother of spending with profit a jail sentence. Listen to this:—

Gerald: Well, there'd be Some book there anyway. If it's a Bible, read it. When you've read it, count the letters in it; have little bets with yourself as to which man's name is mentioned most times in it; put your money on Moses and see if you win, etc., ad nauseam.

Can anyone imagine a brother talking in this fashion and in such circumstances? And a member of the Diplomatic Corp to boot. Comic, perhaps, but very sad for Mr. Milne's reputation.

Now we learn that "The principals are all young people and the play is well within the scope of the Society." There is not even the vestige of an argument here. Most plays contain young principals who rise above the level of machine puppets. Well within the scope of the Society is merely a lamentable admission—which, to our mind, is quite untrue. The Society is quite capable of doing better world than this.

The final point made is that "The characters are exceedingly well drawn." At least four of the said-characters are absolutely unnecessary, and in our humble opinion the play would be of much greater merit if written as a one-act comedy with three characters As it stands, who can say that either Gerald or Bob are satisfactory? Their character: vary from act to act. For Pamela, she remains greater mystery at the final curtain than any woman has the right to be.

In minor matters, criticism might be offered until further orders. Of the arrangement of entrances and exits it may well be said that they page 2 were farcical. One person went off and it was quite easy to know who was coming on next. Everything works so smoothly and so artificially in Mr. Milne's dramatic technique.

In their reply the Committee assures us that "The author regards it as his best work." The only authority for this statement we can find is contained in the Introduction to the volume, "First Plays." The outhor says:—

" 'The Lucky One' was doomed from the start with a name like that. And the girl marries the wrong man. I see no hope of its being produced. But if any critic wishes to endear himself to me (though I don't see why he should) he will agree that it is the best play of the five."

This half-hearted and rather apologetic praise then refers to five plays which are the earlier work of Mr. Milne. This rather derogates from the absolute statement that Mr. Milne regards it as his "best play." It would be absurd to even suggest that it is a better play than, say, "Mr. Pym Passes By."

We are told also that St. John Irvine and Arnold Bennett hail it as "a sheer delight" and "a most charming play." Assuming that these two quotations are slightly more correct than the preceding, all we can say is that St. John Irvine's opinion must always be respected—he is an Irishman of sorts— and, of course, the views of Mr. Arnold Bennett on anything are always interesting.

Les us have no more of these "Lucky Ones." Let us leave Mr. Milne to those edelightful trifles such as "The Mouse with the Woffelley Nose."

Crambe Repetita.

During the last term of the Session perhaps the most talked of event was the closing of the men's Common Room. Although we feel that the Executive placed a very great burden on students and added to the hardships of University life yet in common justice it is hard to see what other action could have been taken. The Executive issued a notice warning students of the damage that was being done and notifying them that the responsible person would be required in future to meet any breakages. Then followed more damage and another letter requesting the perpetrator to provide "a satisfactory explanation or state his willingness to pay the damage." This seems a perfectly reasonable demand. It is certain that if the person at whose door rested the responsibility had acknowledged the fact the Executive would have listened to any reasonable explanation. If the damage was done wantonly then surely the offender should pay. The mere fact of having paid a Students' Association fee does not give a license for wholesale destruction. Contrary to even a schoolboy's code of ethics the culprit failed to put in an appearance. This argues either cowardice or just lack of decency —for neither of which the Executive could be blamed. The Executive was left with the alternative of taking no further steps and therefore condoning the offence (and incidentally paying the damage caused by one student out of the general purse of the student body) or of closing the Common Room as a protest. It upheld the dignity of the body at the expense of the discomfort of the body. Harsh perhaps, but at least we have not had the ignominious spectacle of our student Executive ren-dered helpless by the irresponsible action of a coward or a lout.

* * *

We were delighted to welcome back at the College, as judge of a recent Debate, a very good friend of the students in the person of Professor Von Zedlitz. We enjoy all too rarely the privilege of "Von's" society, and this is the more regrettable as we have few opportunities of contact with such erudition, culture, and human qualities as his. At the time of going to press, the Free Discussions Club anticipates the pleasure of an address from him, and the students as a whole appreciate his continued interest, and the sacrifice of his time to them.

* * *

With the closing of the Men's Common Room a certain degree of hostility has settled on Mr. Plank. It is rather hard to see the reason why the Secretary should receive the greater part of the blame when he is merely carrying out the orders of his Executive. Be that as it may there is a more serious viewpoint. Many of the notices signed by the Secretary and placed on the notice boards have received additions from the hands of a person or persons unknown. Many of these were merely condemnatory of the action of the Secretary, but a few went further and were positively indecent. We feel that those responsible should call to mind the fact that there are women students in this University and that filthy remarks by men students add nothing to the pleasantness of life.

* * *

It is an encouraging sign to see that there has been a response to the Executive's application for the synopsis of an Extravaganza. We understand that no less than three efforts have been submitted. We submit that the Executive in making a choice should seek something which has a College interest and not merely a money-catching production.

* * *

In a few days a Special General Meeting will be held to consider amendments to the Constitution. Many of them are of a formal nature consequent on the work of a Revising Committee. Some, however, are of more than usual importance and are worthy of the close attention of the students. After this meeting we are to have the first Assembly of the College of Electors which is to go into conclave in the Council Room, no less. Elsewhere in this issue there is a protest against the paucity of Women's Representatives on the College. This is very true and very deplorable, and must be the subject of a change in the future, but we suggest that the College should be given a chance for one year. It is a new scheme which has very much to commend it.

* * *

It is at times hard to understand the attitude of Executives. Take the question of Club Grants. Last year the Executive refused a grant to the Science Society on the ground that it had expended its funds in the purchase of books of a scientific nature for presentation to the College Library. On the other hand the Free Discussions Club applied for and received a grant for the same purpose. Is this sort of thing to continue? If the latter Club is given a grant then why not the Science Society or the Mathematical Society or the Law Faculty Club? Have not these organisations claims equal to the Free Discussions Club? After all they cater for the students studying for a definite purpose and their sections in the Library are very much in need of additions.