EDITORS HARVARD HERALD : Is it not time that somebody should enter a protest against the kind of literature that our college fortnightlies are offering us? I for one want to record my positive disagreement with the method and the theory on which their editors seem to proceed, and, unless I am entirely mistaken in the tone of college feeling in this matter at Harvard, I think I am not alone in my opinion. I want to say as for the Lampoon that in general I enjoy its articles and witticisms immensely; and this simply for the reason that they do not have a chronic appearance of being forced out at the imminent risk of the sanity of their originators. But even the Lampoon sometimes dribbles. But as for the Advocate and Crimson, (it will do no harm to speak plainly, for I am sure they both will resent no well-meant criticism) for the last three months almost everything that has appeared in their columns, excepting their editorials (generally excellently written) and their venerable items, has been sheer nonsense; and nonsense that is not in the least amusing or laughable either, but nonsense of the most painful and tiresome kind. If it cost the writers one half the pains to write all of the stuff that it costs their readers to read it - why, I think they have our sincerest sympathy and commiseration in their woes. I call it rubbish and rot, and I claim that I am not too severe in doing so. Doleful writing makes doleful reading, and the Crimson and Advocate are reponsible for many dolorous pangs among their readers. I claim that I have a fair sense of humor and can appreciate wit when I see it; but if any unprejudiced judge will call an even majority of these articles humorous or witty, then I will yield myself utterly stupid and without the power of discrimination. I appreciate the straits in which editors are sometimes placed for copy, but I by no means believe that it would not be perfectly easy for these papers, if they tried to do so, and could persuade themselves to partially abandon their desperate attempts to be funny, to give their readers interesting and occasionally amusing articles - at least readable articles - and that, too, without falling back to the standard of pretentious heaviness of their Western exchanges. If they want models and examples let them look up certain of their own files of former years, and, if they can do no better, imitate the work done there. But as for the kind of matter they print now, who believes that such inanity is called for or enjoyed by the smallest class of readers in this university? Cannot Harvard have a literary fortnightly or weekly, that will fairly represent her standards and tastes? I hope so.

P. B.