t not to do than to tell him exactly
what to do. The faults in dramatic reporting are far more evident than
the virtues; and yet there are some positive things that may be said on
the subject.

The first important question in the whole matter is "Who does dramatic
reporting?" One would like to answer, "Skilled critics of broad
knowledge and experience." But unfortunately almost anybody does it--any
one about the office who is willing to give up his evening to go to the
theater. To be sure, many metropolitan papers employ skilled critics to
write their dramatic copy and run the theatrical news over the critic's
name. Some editors of smaller papers have the decency to do the work
themselves. But in most cases the work is given to an ordinary
reporter--and not infrequently to the greenest reporter on the staff.
Worse than that, the work is seldom given to the same reporter
continuously, but is passed around among all the members of the staff.
Even a green cub may learn by experience how to report plays, but if the
work falls to him only once a month his training is very meager. It
would seem in these days of much discussion of the theater that editors
would realize the power which they have over the stage through their
favorable or unfavorable criticism. But they do not, perhaps because
they know little about the stage, and the appeal must be made to their
reporters. Every reporter, except upon the largest papers, has the
opportunity sooner or later to give his opinion on a play. In
anticipation of that opportunity these few words of advice are offered.

The first requisite in dramatic criticism is a background of knowledge
of the drama and the stage. To children, and to some grown people, too,
the stage is a little dream world of absolute realities. Their
imaginations turn the picture that is placed before them into real,
throbbing life. They do not see the unreality of the art, the suggestive
effects, the flimsy delusions; to them the play is real life, the stage
is a real drawing room or a real wood, and they cannot conceive of the
actors existing outside their parts. But the critic must look deeper; he
must understand the machinery that produces the effects and he must
weigh the success of the effects. He must get behind the play and see
the actors outside the cast and the stage without its scenery; the
dramatic art must be to him a highly technical profession. For this
reason, he must know something about dramatic te