Pretty's ring

Sir,—In publishing a second article by Mr. Ron Pretty on Wagner's opera-cycle The Ring, Salient 23 is perpetuating an error begun by his first article—aborgation of the critic's function. Any would-be reviewer should regard his task as the arousal of critical perception. He may theorize, question, rant, shatter social norms and indulge in iconociasm, provided the dullard perusing it comes away with some intellectual stimulus How is this achieved? By scintillating prose and lucid argument. Mr. Pretty's myopic vision includes no such objectives. His prose is muddled and laborious, rumbling along like an elderly bassoon stuck on A flat, and with as much grace as a tuba. One prize example occurs in his first review—the heroine's "state of expectancy". After wondering whether public transport was unusually erratic in those days, one realises that in fact the woman was pregnant. Critical remarks and argument? Mr. Pretty is unaware of their existence. The whole review reads very much like the work of a rather below-average third-former.

Appalling as these defects are, Mr. Pretty goes on to commit a erine unpardonable in circles concerned with a high standard of criticism. Two-thirds of his review (the plot synopsis) is cribbed without acknowledgment from the comprehensive booklet supplied with every record-set. This booklet is amazingly detailed. It contains the original German with an excellent translation in English printed above. Every act, every scene has the setting described, along with detailed stage directions for all the characters. Mr. Pretty must revise his opinion of himself. Far from being a second-rate reviewer, he is the unashamed plagiarist.