Our reviews attacked

Sir—Your reviewer, Bob Lord (Salient, March 19), is better at making snide cracks than at reviewing. He spends so much space on them he never gets to telling us what are the flaws he perceives in the third act of the play. How, I wonder, does Mr. Lord know Mr. Mason "strived" for pathos in his last act? that it was not achieved in the eyes of more sensitive members of the audience? But he finds pathos in the bald listing of an unpublished book of essays in the programme notes: well, bless him then for his cute tender little heart.

He appears to take exception to the inclusion by Downstage's secretary of a briefly stated author's biography in the programme. Is this because Mr. Lord is more knowledgeable than the rest of us? But I found the list valuable and intend to preserve it. (And the Lions Club would have done well to read it when they booked an entire performance and sent a circular to their members attributing the play to another playwright.)

Bruce Mason has the normal writer's concern for how his piece emerges, he has had wide experience as a producer, the opportunity offered. Why is it then "a fanatical concern for the correct staging of his plays" that he produced Birds in the Wilderness for Downstage? Bernard Shaw advised writers to produce their own plays. In any case, Mr. William Austin, Artistic Director of Down-stage this year and a producer in two mediums, acted as Mr. Mason's assistant.

The tone of this review was always patronising and sometimes offensive. I don't know how the suggestion that Mr. Mason's "fanatical concern" extends to "the maintenance of his image as New Zealand's leading playwright" would stand up in a libel action. If—though it is unlikely—this gratuituos statement came from some international giant of letters, it might be borne, but from Mr. Lord, well, hardly.

I suggest, sir, that you subedit unwarranted spleen from his future reviews (if any), also see he gets his dates right.

Marie August.