Letters, Apr. 29, 1946

How to Float a Loan

Sirs:

… In our rural retreat we have time to mull over our contacts with French people of all casts and classes, and to ponder over the events which are plunging our unfortunate country in the depths of despair. We wonder that no one has come forward to say that if the Government of France is poor and reduced to expedients, it is because the war-weary people have lost confidence and interest. Though they sadly need the aid that the U.S. might proffer, they know that it is not reasonable of such a government to ask it. But we feel certain that if the U.S. Government or any responsible organization would float an American loan in France, at almost any exchange rate, and almost any interest, it would be covered overnight by the French people, who would thus guarantee the sums necessary to provide what they so greatly need. . . .

(NAME WITHHELD) Poncey-sur-L’Ignon France

Brooks’s Union Suits

Sirs:

Will TIME [April i] agree that Brooks Brothers’ Union generals’ uniforms, or for that matter all Union uniforms, particularly privates’, were the ugliest, bulkiest misfits of all military history? Far snappier were those of the Confederate officers.

JOHN F. O’CONNELL Andover, Mass.

¶I Snappier, but not so winning.—ED.

What’s Wrong with the Army?

Sirs:

. . . During this entire war the War Department has, by its actions and activities, acknowledged poor morale in the enlisted man’s ranks. Some of the possible causes of this trouble:

The vacillating policies of the Selective Service Board in Washington and the local draft boards. . . .

The E.M. frequently found that his officers were considerably less intelligent than he … but had more extensive facilities for living and recreation. . . .

E.M. with a pay of less than $100 a month often worked side by side with physically fit but deferred civilians drawing $3,200 per annum. . . .

The personal actions of officers have been the most obvious cause of resentment by the E.M. … If an officer becomes particularly odious, his superiors merely transfer him. … Punishment of officers is considered oldfashioned. . . .

I recommend the following changes:

1) Reduce the types of physical disability which cause deferment to a point where any man who can hold any job in civilian life will be inducted if there is a similar activity in the Army.

2) Do not change draft board regulations without giving all men previously inducted an opportunity for release from the Army if the new regulations would exempt them from service.

3) Eliminate civilian employes in military establishments where enlisted personnel are employed.

4) Select officers for candidate schools and for promotion to a higher grade on the basis of: a) a verbal examination by three disinterested field-grade officers chosen for this special work and assigned permanently to this activity; b) a written examination; and c) the recommendations of the immediate commanding officer with emphasis on the individual’s ability to get along with men. . . .

5) Enforce the Articles of War promptly and with justice. This . . . will necessitate a thorough cleansing of the War Department in its highest branches. . . .

(SIGNAL CORPS CAPTAIN’S

NAME WITHHELD) Caserta, Italy

“That Elects Peron”

Sirs:

What is the matter with U.S. diplomacy? It slips, it fails to hit the mark, it brings scorn and criticism down upon itself and defeats its own ends.

After the “Blue Book” was published [TIME, Feb. 18], I happened to meet a very intelligent gentleman from Chile’s next-door neighbor who is an opponent of the Strong Man. He threw up his hands and said, “That elects Peron.” A prominent Chilean gentleman, graduate of one of the best universities in the U.S., about the same moment, bet 1,000 pesos (about $40) that Peron would be elected, and he now has the thousand in his pocket. I understand that the Peron crowd are saying that they have to thank Mr. ”Spurious Braden,” some say “Puerile Braden,” for their victory. Are there no Statesmen?

W. C. BUTLER

Santiago de Chile

Reactions to a Review

SIRS:

PLEASE KNOW HOW GRATEFUL I AM FOR YOUR GENEROUSLY GRACIOUS REMARKS ABOUT HENRY v [TIME, APRIL 8] BOTH FOR MYSELF

AND FOR THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH ME IN MAKING THIS FILM. I PERSONALLY FEEL YOUR KIND WORDS MEAN NOT ONLY MUCH TO HENRY V BUT TO EVERY PRODUCER-DIRECTOR BOTH HERE AND IN HOLLYWOOD WHO DREAMS OF ATTEMPTING FINER THINGS IN FILMS. IT HAS INSPIRED AND ENCOURAGED ME TO WANT TO DO SOMETHING NEW AGAIN AND I AM BOLD TO HOPE THAT MEN LIKE KANIN, WYLER, CAPRA, WELLES AND MANY OTHERS IN HOLLYWOOD WILL NOT SCORN TO SHARE THIS FEELING WITH ME. . . .

LAURENCE OLIVIER

LONDON

Sirs:

Of course I have not yet seen Henry V, but can tell from your writer’s discussion thereof that he much overrates it. Why in the name of justice is it that you always make the biggest hullabaloo over movies which at best are never more than upper-middle-class? . . . Furthermore, your reviewer of Henry V says works of great art in the movies are rare, and to this I take definite exception. Movie outfits of the French Republic, before the war, made one sublimely great film after another: Garnet de Bal, Tragedie Imperiale, Mayerling, The Lyons Stagecoach, Carnival in Flanders, Amphytrion, etc.

WALLACE PALMER

Independence, Mo.

¶I Has anybody here seen Henry?—ED.

Sirs:

Like Disraeli, who said you should “lay it on with a trowel,”*this TIME you’ve really done it!

From the exordium, to the “new” series (stature, splendor, medium, spaciousness, mobility, radiance), and on to the “one-of-thes” (“most gratifying payoffs,” “few outstanding scores,” “great experiences”), my reaction to your [review of] Henry V is much the same as that Dorothy Parker suffered when she reported that “Tonstant Weader fwowed up.”

I’m sorry for Mr. Olivier, if his picture is as fine as you report. How could anyone, obfuscated after reading your glowing review, come away from Henry V feeling other than it didn’t come up to expectation? Boy, you’ve certainly led us to expect a hell of a lot!

F. C. CARTER Elizabeth, N.J.

Humbug, Anyhow

Sirs:

In the April 8 issue of TIME, Arch Oboler speaks of radio advertising as “Bughum”—”humbug backwards”. . . .

“Bughum” is “humbug” sideways. Tell Arch Oboler, whoever he may be, to be more luferac—careful spelled backwards.

EARL SCHWARTZ

Outremont, Que.

Churchill, It.’s Him

Sirs:

As a mild protest against Churchill’s “This is me” [TIME, April 1], one might note Tennyson’s:

The baby new to earth and sky, What time his tender palm is prest Against the circle of the breast, Has never thought that “this is I”; But as he grows he gathers much And learns the use of “I” and “me”. . . . Apparently we have arrived at a point where it is not necessary for the baby or anyone else to learn the difference between the nominative and accusative cases. … Is this perhaps a Churchillian bit of undress in order to gain the approval of the masses? . . . Perhaps Churchill’s “me” does even include “us.”

HERBERT SANBORN

Brentwood, Tenn.

Which Came First?

Sirs:

. . . Trivial . . . were your reviewer’s rather snide remarks [TIME, April 8] about my “sub-historical” stuff (in Intimations of Eve), and my Tarzanish and Alley-Oopian portrayals; but of greater moment is his deft effort to conceal his ignorance and suggest his erudition with such remarks: “Experts may wish to argue . . . whether the principle of the canoe was grasped before the principle of the baby.”

. . . Post-canoe Aristotle thought the baby was formed entirely of menstrual blood, a notion still held by certain moderns, including the Maoris. Not till the 17th Century did Swammerdam show that in conception it was necessary for the male fluid to make contact with the female, a heresy that outraged certain authorities of his time who argued that fertilization by the male was not necessary; not till the 18th Century were male germ cells discovered; only within living memory has the fusion of male and female germ cells been demonstrated. . . .

VARDIS FISHER

Hagerman, Idaho

About Clocks

Sirs:

For years I have argued that the hands of a clock move counterclockwise. Few have listened. Those who listened laughed. Now I find that Variety [TIME, April 1] agrees with me, or has reached the same conclusion independently.

Which is the left side of a clock? Looking from the front, the steering wheel of a car is on the right side; the starboard running light of a ship is on the left. To determine the “side” of anything else, you look at it from behind or, really, you consider the object’s own viewpoint. Why slight the clock ?

G. G. CARLSON Ann Arbor, Mich.

“That Foul-Minded Public”

Sirs:

TIME, March 25, made some rather misleading statements regarding “Bebop” music, Harry (“The Hipster”) Gibson, “Slim” Gaillard, and modern jazz in general. The impression you gave was that all lovers of hot jazz are zoot-suited marijuana-smoking characters who stay up till the wee hours of the morning saying: “Zoot! You’re as mellow as a cello, ‘gator, let’s have some mellow-rooney jive.”

Unfortunately, there are some people like this, but . . . the true jazz lovers are quite sane, conservative, and immensely enthusiastic about promoting understanding of what good jazz really is.

Be-bop is definitely not overheated jazz with dirty lyrics and doubletalk. It is a word for ultra-modern jazz, such as “Dizzy” Gillespie and others play. . . . The type of music played by Hipster Gibson, Slim Gaillard and others of that type is not really be-bop at all. . . .

It is your attitude that is doing so much to prevent people from realizing that jazz has real musical value. You want to think that hot jazz fans are immoral alcoholics, taking those reefers out of their mouths just long enough to take another slug of gin. It makes a much better story, no doubt. . . . When you print material on jazz, you should carefully consider whether or not you are unconsciously slanting it toward what the public (that foul-minded public) wants to hear.

FRANKLIN R. WILLIAMS Glendale, Calif.

¶I Who put the Benzedrine in Reader Williams’ Ovaltine?—ED.

Hanging Fire

Sirs:

It’s confusing (to civilians, anyway) for you to say that Lieut. General Lee “up & fired” [TIME, April 8] the Rome Stars and Stripes publications officer. . . .

When you get “fired” as a civilian, or “quit,” you are free to go your way, but not so in the Army. Instead, you get transferred to some disagreeable job, such as mess officer, or permanent kitchen police (if enlisted man). It’s a courageous man who “quits” his job in the Army, or incurs the wrath of the brass and gets “fired.” The consequences are unpleasant.

JOHN H. CALDWELL

Hartsdale, N.Y.

*Borrowing the phrase from Celia in As You Like It: “Well said: that was laid on with a trowel.”.—ED.