To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The CRIMSON bears diurnal testament to the fact that you are "only college students playing Newspaper." We who work at the Loeb, however, are not, as Mr. Brackman suggests, "playing Entertainment."

Our interest in the CRIMSON review, which Mr. Brackman so joyfully belittles, stems not from reverence for your writers' erudition. (Long experience has accustomed us to expect little in the way of illuminating criticism from a CRIMSON reviewer. We know, well before we enter the building, his piece will be an expression of himself, full of sly conceits and clever phrases that scarcely conceal his failure to appreciate a production insghtfully or his general ignorance of theatrical problems.) Rather, we are concerned with your reaction to a play because we must be. It is our misfortune that the Harvard community has only you to turn to for an evaluation of our efforts: Your reviewer's whimsey has often spelled the difference between financial success and failure.

All too often your reviewer arrives at an opening night, his piece already composed or, at least firmly in his mind. He has read the play in a lower level Gen Ed course, perhaps, and considers himself quite the expert. As a result, his article devotes 10 paragraphs to the text and playwright, and a meagre one or two to the production itself. Rarely does he deny himself a few cutting epithets in this space --although they are usually mistaken and just as often meaningless.

Doubtless he tosses off these cruelties-for-amusement's- sake rather carelessly, never comprehending that they often hurt or depress members of the company for days. While I myself have never minded being panned by the CRIMSON, many actors, and theatregoers, place undue stock in your frivolous insensitivities.

For ourselves, we would prefer a critical appraisal that evidenced some understanding and care to a blithe rave exhibiting zero sensitivity to what a director and his cast have attempted. It is difficult for us to obtain thoughtful and constructive assessments from outside sources, and we wish we could look to the CRIMSON for help, even in an astringent context.

I suppose we dare not hope that Mr. Brackman realizes the exuberance he caricatures is something of a release following several months of earnest labor; or that he and his fellow reviewers will rise, in the future, to meet their responsibility not only to the "world of drama" but to the Harvard Community at large. Bob J. K. MacCarran '65