Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / April 28, 1959, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
CVS xcZ ,11111 ItqetiO PAGE TV0 THE DAILY TAR HEEL TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1959 Th" ffin.il mini publication tT the Publication R.rd of hr University of North Carolina. her 1 r i published daily firrpl M nl.y anJ fxaminatirn period nd i'mmr ternn ti.ti rt (1 m second clas matter in ihe p si ulfn in Chapel Hill. N. C. unlcr lh net jf March 8 j70 Si.runyiion rt: $t'0 per ' TJi' fm'v Tar Heel It pnr'cd by th Nw Ire, Ciirrlxiro, N. C. r r . , V- .'' r-'.'?'r M. t;:u;n.: E liturs . -.i;l i ; cw Vtr of ilv V , r f-..vr I N-rih t. f-'t l its Ciynt lf 1 I' ' ' , 'J 1 DAVIS B YOUNG FRANK CROWTHER CHUCK ROSS RON SHUMATE WALKER BLANTON Advertising Manager News Editor lleview Editor v.t. New s Editor Spoil-; Editor Feature Kditor AW. Adv. Manager Circulation Manager Subscription Manager Photographers FRED KATZIN ANN FRYE ANTHON YWOLFF ED RINER uiwTcoblpER MARY ALICE ROWLETTE AVERY THOMAS BILL BRINKJIOUS TETEU NESS The D. A. R. a And The U. N. In .i tutiit 1 1 lci'i i ir in Washington, the I ui ;ii( i s t tiit- Amtiit.ui Revolution show l thru 1 1 rit inlnis. In two lihtin, moves, tliit ;i-uj) j .isM il i fsolntioiis calling lor Anuti' iii wiihdtanl horn the Unitecl Na-t--M mil lot I "A. withdiavsl Iroin U.S. soil. Ke.ilU lulus isn't this a little absurd? I !u unt.iiiu; and nauseating; aspect of r . m si vMiimiu U not necessarily that they wtit p.isid. I m 1 1 that they ueie p;med ly a sup!'. s Ti -spnnsiltle fTigani.ition, repe "ntii!; Hiillious n American women. Tor women, uho aie leaders in (ommunities ai nn l th, ftimti t take action suth as tins, tepiesents a nnst ominous trend. I his hni ill Mni indent need only read a ti nU in -..sj. pri in a simple histoiy text to i, i'i.'i tiiis the eia nl the M on row I)o trine, pi- !;..-, It ( ir,l.itv and general Ameri- ! iv. ' it i mm in is dead. In the year ioru. in ,i '. n ! i .! sti ilc and tension, theie is a teat n us i d ! t undet standing and aihitration on i'm mti m iti.n il leel. And the only chaiue !,.) f!nv is i!nnii-li the 1'nited Nations. Ilon.sth .Mils, il this is the best proposal thn u tan mine up with in .our national nnc tin:. ni hips ou ought to dissolve and i!u D A K. slionld -et off of Aineiican soil. Shades Of Emmett Till Mi. imiiiI Knelling is leliecd to have !,tii l hr.m tin name of Judge Charles In h. 1 1 -4. : 1 1 i i iustiie of the peace, who dm in; the Kcxnlution taused Tuitish loyal ivfs t,i he linked without tecourse to due pr. s id I. iu. 1 MKh'uigs have taken llic liv es t...,', whites and ;?.p;7 Negroes since .. Ainxim the States there hae been hii(hin;s in .it-two Mississippi is first uitii -,- t In Mitiit veais lyneliings hae been uel.itixeK ran one case in nj"i, three in in,''. ( ) i Sitnid ix inoiiiing in I'oplat illc. Miss., ; in : . I x ninns laie hateis broke into "ihe in vuii d.d ( mi thonse cell of a Nero acrns e 1 d i .i-iin- a pscat-old woman." He was di .uued l iiis abdiumis from the tell, splat t rMl stth his own blood and badly beaten. 1 h is not been seen suit c. OUiciaU in the T. si'h an a base given up hot, for bis i5iu.(i. and U .n tint be has been lynched h tin' ki'lu ippiir tiiob. : I his soit o mob iolente can never be io.id. ntd in i tonutiv whith pleaches judi (id tipi ilitx lot all It is probable that theie will be atitsts made in onjunction with this violent t itt k It t it . It is even more probable th, tlwise antsttd will be acquitted by a jm simi'.u to the one whith tried those peo ple t onnet ted with the brutal and fatal beat-fit- nl I mtiH tt I ill iu that same state a few sens ago. I ,,,i i.t,ti voi in Poi ib i villr will co back I i bein. a lav l il til Mississippi town. Peer x ill loigt t th. t this lynching has taken t . And the good white people of that ana will go luck to mutteiing "that ya gotta Hup them people in their place. . lint, those nl ns who are interested in sta te, iii s won't hrgct. We'll lemember that Mis- ss-ppi now has lynchings to be proud of. instead til ',7 J. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a judge and, twelve jutors put a few white people in I HI IR plate oner in awhile. More On Quarterly LETTER. 10 DENNIS PARKS: First of all. let's admit that the Quarterly is a dead horse here on campus, which makes all this beat ing you're doing kind of silly. But the Spectrum is not exactly alive cither. The success of your first is sue was not all you would like to think. Wc might run through your formular for success once, jiist to make sure that everyone under stands. First, play upon the hostility that is widespread on campus against the Quaiterly: put yourself in op position to what the Quarterly stands for: publication of student xvriters only when they measure up against the outside contributions. Run a fef articles in The Daily Tar Heel. State that many professors both here and at Duke are interest ex! and arc eagerly awaiting the first issue. Vhy shouldn't they be interested? Professors are put, per haps against their will, into the position of being interested in all kinds of things that students do. It becomes almost a reflex action.) Next, find a staff. The campus is full of the artsy-craftsy set. Then get a backer to put up enough money to publish an issue. Then publish yourself. Be a sort of vanity press. There is always an excuse. You didn't receive any thing from the campus that was better than the contributions of the staff. Finally . . . and this is the most important part . . . pray that some young politico will issue a statement that the magazine is obscene. Then sit back and watch the student apathy disappear. . . A sell out. You can now say that you have in terest in and for the campus. Now back to our talk of horses. I think on the tracks they call this doping the horses. It is a strange kind of success, based upon an out fade element which has nothing to do with the merit of the horse. "You Know, I Don't Think The U. N. Ever Replied To Our Ultimatum Last Year" Letter On Henderson Editor: You aslc your readers to write letters pro and con on the Hender son lock-out. First, let me congratulate you on your outstandingly good reportorial assistant, your editorials, and art icles based on truth and under standing, and the courage you have Last Of The Provincials Frank Crowther THE LAST OF THE PROVINCIALS. The American Novel, 1915-1925. By Maxwell Giesmar. New York: Hill and Wang. Cloth, $4.50; Paper $2.45. facts. LOCK Unrealistic & Impractical Crownover's Meeting Bill Editor: Then you send out issues and get comments. If there are com ments, perhaps you can't be blam ed for taking them seriously. Take the quotation from Donald Hall, which I assume is cither the best thing he had to say or the only thing. When he says that on the For a member of legislature who has made the charge of "unrealistic" and 'impractical" as many times as has Rep. Crownovcr, I am surprised at his indignation over the defeat of his bill. I would also be very glad to tell you, and anyone else who wants to know, why I voted against the bill. (Although I wonder whether the paper is really very interested in hearing the other side, since it saw fit to print the names of the legislators who defeated the bill whole Spectrum ts of low quality without asking any of them to make a statement de he is probably telling the living fending their stand to be printed along with the truth. Any comment he makes af- charge of "laziness" and the chastizemcnts of Rep. tor this is undoubtedly tempered by Crownovcr and the editor.) the realization that this is a stu- The reasons for voting against the bill are simple: dent-published, student-edited, stu- 1) As Rep. Blanton pointed out, the bill which was dent-written magazine. The pattern written to make the meetings compulsory had no is this: the truth and then a soften- provision for compelling except to have the names ing of it. Student publications are of the representatives who did not hold mcetngs not judged in the same way that read in legislature and perhaps printed in the paper. adults ones are. So what do we have left? If, as I think, the Spectrum's success was based upon sensationalism rather than merit, perhaps you'd better turn in your Savior of Campus Lit erary Scene Button. II could get to be an embarrassing pose. To your proposal that the Quart erly be given $200 and one year to prove itself, I'd like to make a few comments. The answer to the Quarterly's problems is not less money but more. There's no rea son that the University shouldn't have a literary magazine that matches up to the Virginia Quart erly or the Kansas City Review. I have no doubt that both these mag azines are subsidized by their uni versities or their states. They have jcnt spots paid permanent editors. Ihe Vir ginia Quarterly has enough money to make some minimum payment for contributions. The Kansas City Review does not pay, except in prestige. Regardless of how you feel about the bill, it would simply be unsound legislation as it was presented. 2) The meetings which the legislators were to have with their districts were to be, possibly, dormi tory meetings, and "more informal" meetings in fraternities and sororities. To sec inconsistancies of this one only needs to compare a meeting in a men's dormitory with one in a women's dormitory. There is a considerable difference in the percentage of the residents attending, since women, unfortunately, are "required" to attend their meetings. Perhaps Rep. Crownovcr can write a bill to make attendance at the compulsory meetings compulsory. I am in clined to believe that the people 1 represent would oppose such a measure. 3) The bill contained a special provision for dis tricts such as town men's IV where those meetings would be "impractical". (I maintain that they would be impractical in any district.) This provision pro vided for the representative's writing up a list of his accomplishments on behalf of his district to be mimergraphed and distributed or place at conven- The implication of this seemed to be that a "good" representative would he one who had pre sented a goodly number of bills and filled the leg islature with a goodly amount of hot air. I maintain that it is possible to be a "good" legislator without presenting a single bill and without uttering a word in legislature. Besides, what goes on in legis lature is printed in The Daily Tar Heel with varying degrees of accuracy and if anyone wants to keep ''closer tabs on their representative they arc free to attend any and all of the meetings of the legisla ture. So not only is this impractical from the point of view of the intention of the bill, it would also be a waste of the representative's time and the student body's money in having these "accomplish ments" mimeographed. Residents of other districts have equal facilities for keeping track of their representatives in legis lature. They are also free to propose and discuss ideas with their representatives on an individual basis, a far more effective method of getting and examining ideas, as many have done with me and I assume other members of the legislature. I agree that the actions of some members of the legislature may not always represent the feelings of the people they represent. I am not in a position to say for sure. I would only like to remind Rep. Crownovcr and all the other members of legislature who have so often made the charge that something is "too idealistic" that the representative system under which we operate is a most idealistic system. That is why it is a great system. It is a great system despite all the failings it might have. I believe there is a difference between being idealistic and being impractical. There is no such thing as being "too idealistic". So you see, an ideal- istic system will work, in which case you might call it "practical." So I am not saying that what you want to accomplish with your bill in the main tenance of democracy is so idealistic that it won't work. Being idealistic has nothing to do with it. It just won't do what you want it to do. I do not be lieve this is a pessimistic view and 1 would be will ing to submit it to the people I represent and to the campus, so it docs not disturb me that you print my name in The, .Daily Tar Heel. I cannot speak for the other twenty-five who voted against the bill, but my guess would be that they feel the .same way. Don Dotson Rather than restrict myself to a review of Max well Gcismar's THE LAST OF THE TROVENCIALS. I would like, in addition, to discuss Mr. Geismar s shown in getting through the fog of attempt to record the endeavors of our American misinformation in order to publish novelists over the past century. Thus far. the critic'. books include: (1) RhBLLS AND AiNChalUKb: lh American Novel, 1890-1915; (2) The above mention- At the University of Chicago, ed novel; (3) WRITERS IN CRISIS: The American where I taught for ten years, af- Novel 1925-1G10; and (4) AMERICAN MODERNS: ter many years of experience in From Rebellion to Conformity. A Mid-Century View the field of industrial relations, of Contemporary Fiction, there was always a group of in formed and spineful faculty mem- I have not read REBELS AND ANCESTORS and bers to take up cudgels for the have only briefly scanned WRITTERS IN CRISIS underdog if the pressure was my- (since I do not have a ccpy). The latter work ect opic in cases of labor disputes, cerns itself basically with the young writers whr-e Here, we have informed and intel- formative years were during the first World War ligent faculty members in our but chronologically is centered in the nineteen School of Business Administration; thirties, their most productive years, but, I suppose we must withhold censure of their spines in view of The fourth volume of Mr. Geismar's "difinitix? that body of august politicians in history of American fiction" (AMERICAN MOD Ralcigh. One of our most exper- ERNS is not a part of this history) is in preparation ienced arbitrators in the United and will treat Henry Jarnes, Edith Wharton and Wil Sfatt tcld me the other day that liam Dean Howells. the ason given by management for sfit wishing to continue the 14 The five novelists discussed in THE LAST OF yeaAld clause in the annual labor THE PROVINCIALS are II. L. M-ncken, Sinclair contract was that cases were usual- Twis. Willia Cather, Sherwood Anderson and F. ly decided against management Scott Fitzgerald. All of the essays are extremel xvhen the Harriet Hender.son Mills literate and demonstrative of Geismar's stature a submitted them to arbitration. a distinguished critic. And by God he is able to fulfill his role as critic without pedantry or snob Considering the careful gleaning bery. He isn't a pure semanticist, or an analyst of of men before they go on the na- technique, or a theory-of-the-novel-ist, and does not tional list of arbitrators, to con- need radiologist to discover what a novel is about, firm their ability to examine and Besides that he writes well, being both incisixre and judge evidence impartially, we interesting . . . even though one doesn't ilways agree agreed this was proof that manage- with what he writes (as of Hemingway and Bello.v ment might well have examined its in AMERICAN MODERNS), practices instead of blaming judges. Even Hodges said this The essays on Mencken and Anderson are proba present situation at Henderson bly the best, with that of Fitzgerald bringing up shows evidence of long-existing the rear (no pun intended), bad feeling between management and workers. Mencken was the stay-at-home expatriate, xvhoe escapes were limited to literati gatherings in New You are quite right in reminding York City but who always returned to Baltimore us that situations Ifke that exist- pistols blazing and sword slashing. ". . . from ing in the Harriet Henderson Mills the ballot-box and from Lohengrin, from women are evidence that "war is just and democracy, the good Lord had already delivered around the corner." But, generally h. L. Mencken. But not them from Mencken."' speaking, we Chapel Hillians don't He believe that the most dangerous animal was like being jolted out of our com- woman, but he would agree that man has let her be- fortable routine. So we side-step making any ef fort to get the truth .behind su perficial accounts of industrial dis- eome so. And democracy was probably a noble jff.v that should returned painlessly to moth balls. " great nation," wrote Mencken, "is any mob of peo ple which produces at least one honest man a ccn- turv." HaDDiness entailed "a cnnH hanV ir-niint a putes which appear so often in the negative Wassermenn, a clear conscience . . . A press. We are therefore quite satis fied to be unacquainted with both 4 . , , T , , 7 i.- u ,l courtroom is a place where Jesus Christ and Judas overt and covert practices both in . . f , ... . , .... Iscanot would be equals, with the odds in favor of Judas." Mencken, writes Geismar, allowed him self to become the ringmaster of the American circus, and then was forced to play Mencken as Mencken. "His value . . . lies as much in his oro- ritation in the minds and hearts of f0Und and unwilling reflection of a period as in workers. his brilliant reporting of it. If he helped to mould We just love to sleep comfort- the spirit of the post-war epoch, he also betrayed ably and think management is al- its underlying pressures. (Have they changed in the world of industry. Because there is no adequate machinery for handling grievances in many tex tile mills they cause increasing ir- ways right. Mary B. Gilson (Mary Barnett Gilson, Phi Beta Kappa, Guggenheim Fellow, and L.L.D., is one of the few women pioneers in the field of industry. She has been an employment su perintendent in factories, gov ernment worker in munition plants, research worker here and in Europe, mediator and consul tant. For 12 years. Miss Gilson was in charge of the Employment and Service Department of a large midwest factory employing 2.000 workers. From 1932-42, she was a member of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago. She has conducted courses in Industrial Relations at Webber College, University of Hawaii, and Cornell University. Ed.) character, lessened in their intensity?)" Today we think of WINESBURG. OHIO first, then of Sherwood Anderson. In a way, this is parallel to Geismar's observation that the author "became an ancestor before he became mature." Anderson on reflection appears to have been eclectic in decid in which stratum of society he associated himself with. He championed the downtrodden, lived with the aristocrats and probably thought of himself as ipsy. lie (and Hemingway) probably Night Editor GARY GREER Both thep magazines reflect their universities interest in litera ture wi'hout resorting to sensa tionalism, without being an outlet for the alphabetical publication of student writing ' Al nit ;etit d: the publication of all the student writ ers who names begin wi'h "A" this month, "B" next month). The solution, as I see it, is a state legislative grant or money from some rich angel, which will enable the University to set up a paid, permanent editor with enough money to compete in the little quarterly field. It might take a new Quaiterly ten years to rival the Virginia Quarterly Review. As a show of culture from the Uni versity it might be worthwhile. Of course, at the same time, there could be a student magazine where all the writers-this-year, businessmen-next-year cculd go about busily, happily, publishing them selves. Ralph Dennis 3 Z fTW xin BASEBALL I r IF il KEEPS CMf .THAtSY RAlNiNS, U)E MM)1RU.A IS AWlo IP alPNFVFP fiFT TO PtAY. tOE .WON'T TMAt's EVES GX BEATEN- J TRUE. CM. RAIN!! m 2 c Nothing being done iBwOr CQ watchina season at nana ana wno s i doing WJVobodyY YOU COULD WATCH M0, t?ACONl IS MOSS 02 t.g5&A0lRP. UsJKSjS5.v I I j ,irwwtkMi i I v r Tmsl-- I j y s. i 2 iJfW.' . x , - mm r rt's nottjery 1 rewarding 15 o a o a wandering g precip:tated the vogue of the mid-western dialect. not only in 'proper' writing but in speaking as well. (You cannot get an announcer's job with any of the major radio-television networks without this form of diction.) ft He was invoked by the post-war generation as a pioneer and prophet, writes Geismar. "He became a protagonist of the New Realism, with its resolute and even grim insistence upon the fundamentals of life, and especially the unpleasant fundamental?, and especially of American life." So he bore the standard of his time, wrote lyrical eulogies which so often deteriorated into lamentations and never quite knew whom to blame. This, however, does not detract from his prolific achievement as a writer. While we're at it. a brief note about AMERICAN MODERNS is in order. This book contains, for the mcst part, previously published essays on eighteen contemporary novelists from Dreiser, Dos Pas-sos and Steinback to Cozzcns, Salinger, Styron and Bel low. Geismar is saddened that we are "by Cozzen possessed," suggests that Faulkner possibly doesn't understand the South and hopes that Salinger will eventually emerge from "the nursery of life and art." He believes that James Jones, William Styron and John Howard Griffin are the bright lights of fiction in the 1950's. I agree with him in Styron's case, but will wait and see with regard to Jones and Griffin. (I'd be interested in knowing how many readers have heard of John Howard Griffin. Pro bably not one in ten.) In conclusion: if you are interested in literary criticism at its best, study all of Geismar; if you are concerned with ihe revival of interest in the 20's, read THE LAST OF THE PROVINCIALS; if you are interested in the contemporary novelists, read AMERICAN MODERNS; if you are interested in none of these, go back to your Westerns and ?. pox upon you.
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
April 28, 1959, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75