America 1929: John F. Kennedy, the Great Writer

Hemingway exclaimed excitedly, "Let's celebrate! Let's celebrate Shaw's statement!"

Hemingway poured himself a few glasses of wine: "I went to a few newspaper offices today and sat in the press club for a while. Everyone was talking about it."

"Some say George Bernard Shaw was meddling, others say he didn't understand the situation in America. But many more say that Shaw was right: theater should belong to the people."

Hemingway raised his glass.

"Most importantly, those critics who criticized you before have now shut up, at least for the time being. They don't dare to openly oppose George Bernard Shaw. In the art world, some people's words carry a different weight."

Hemingway laughed and, emboldened by the alcohol, began commenting on the remarks of the critics he had previously made.

"Robert Benchley said you don't understand dramatic structure, but George Bernard Shaw said you have a deep understanding of the absurdity of bureaucracy, a precise satire."

"George Jane Nathan said you were wasting social resources at the wrong time. But George Bernard Shaw said you were creating real drama and bringing it to the people who needed it."

"John Anderson listed five real-world difficulties, implying you're a naive idealist. But George Bernard Shaw said that real drama doesn't need grand gestures."

Hemingway took a sip of his drink and continued:

"George Bernard Shaw's statement was like a perfectly timed uppercut, landing squarely on their chin—it hit hard!"

Arthur also took a sip of the drink; the alcohol burned his throat, bringing a surge of excitement.

"Mr. Hemingway, I truly don't know how to thank you. Without you sending me the script..."

"You're welcome," Hemingway waved his hand, interrupting him.

"I just did what I felt I should do. George Bernard Shaw was the same. When he saw something valuable being thwarted by those in power, it was natural for him to stand up and speak out."

"We are all writers. We know that true works need protection, protection from being silently strangled in the cradle by power. George Bernard Shaw's statement is that kind of protection."

Lawson walked in with a message: "Arthur, I just received news. There's been some activity at the city hall."

"What's that noise?" Arthur asked.

"They held an emergency closed-door meeting that afternoon, attended by several heads of the Ministry of Culture, the Department of Building Safety, and the police. It was supposedly to discuss how to deal with the public pressure brought about by George Bernard Shaw's statement."

Hemingway pressed further, "What would they do?"

"I don't know the specifics yet. But my informant said that Walker got angry at the meeting. He felt that George Bernard Shaw, an Englishman, was overstepping his bounds and 'interfering in American domestic affairs.'"

Upon hearing this, Hemingway couldn't help but chuckle and took another sip of his drink.

"Interference in internal affairs? If this counts as interference in internal affairs, then Walker is essentially admitting to the world that his government is so fragile that it is afraid of an art review from London."

Lawson nodded, but his expression remained serious.

"Mr. Hemingway is right. But you still need to be careful. Walker is on the defensive now and has lost face, but he won't give up. He still has a lot of cards up his sleeve, both overt and covert. We can't assume he can't get back up just because he took a heavy blow."

"I know." Arthur put down his glass, his expression becoming serious.

"George Bernard Shaw's statement is a shield, but not a get-out-of-jail-free card. In the final battle, we still have to play our part well. If the play itself is not solid, any external support will be meaningless."

That evening, Arthur returned to the newspaper office and wrote a new column. The title was: "When the Masters Speak, Power Remains Silent."

Mr. George Bernard Shaw published a commentary in The New York Times.

He supported our theatrical projects, our rehearsals, and our efforts to expose the absurdity of the bureaucratic system.

This statement makes me feel honored and responsible.

I completely agree with Mr. George Bernard Shaw's view that drama is not for praising the country or whitewashing the truth, but by its very nature, for revealing the truth.

Although such truths are often absurd, ridiculous, and laughable.

But our drama is meant to showcase this absurdity to the general public.

George Bernard Shaw said, "True drama does not need a magnificent theater, expensive sets, or the patronage of the powerful. It only needs a true story, courageous actors, and an audience willing to listen to the truth."

This sentence gave us tremendous encouragement.

The city hall can close the auditorium doors, issue rectification notices, and use permits to obstruct us. But they cannot shut out the truth, block out art, or stop the awakening of the people.

I would like to borrow a quote from George Bernard Shaw to illustrate this point: I firmly believe that we are doing the right and good thing.

Please believe that we will definitely present you with one wonderful performance after another.

This is our response to Mr. George Bernard Shaw, and our commitment to all our supporters.

The article received an even stronger response after it was published.

Many readers wrote in to express their support.

Some people say, "George Bernard Shaw was right, theater belongs to the people. We look forward to seeing your plays."

Some say, "The city hall should be ashamed. Even a great British writer couldn't stand it anymore."

Some people said, "Keep going. The whole world is supporting you."

However, there are also dissenting voices.

The New York Times published an editorial entitled: "Foreign writers should not interfere in U.S. domestic affairs."

George Bernard Shaw was a great playwright, and we respect his achievements.

However, his criticism of New York City Hall was based on one-sided information and misunderstanding.

New York City Hall has never banned any theatrical performances. City Hall is simply fulfilling its regulatory responsibility to ensure that public spaces meet safety standards.

This is something any responsible government should do.

Mr. George Bernard Shaw was far away in London and unaware of the actual situation in New York. He should not criticize local governments in the United States based on the one-sided account of a journalist.

We welcome art criticism, but we do not welcome foreign interference. New York's affairs should be decided by New Yorkers themselves.

This editorial immediately sparked controversy upon its publication.

Some people supported The New York Times, saying that George Bernard Shaw really didn't understand the situation in America.

But many others disagreed, saying that The New York Daily was trying to divert attention.

"If George Bernard Shaw's criticism is incorrect, would New York City Hall dare to publicly stage Kennedy's play?"

Another source familiar with the matter stated, "The New York Daily News says City Hall is fulfilling its oversight responsibilities? Then why didn't they inspect those sites before, and only now are they doing so?"

Netizens commented, "If this is interference, then the British have done something quite respectable."