Skip to main content

#0647: Willa Cather to Zoë Akins, [November 21, 1922]

More about this letter…
Plain view:

Guide to Reading Letter Transcriptions

Some of these features are only visible when "plain text" is off.

Textual Feature Appearance
passage deleted with a strikethrough mark deleted passage
passage deleted by overwritten added letters overwritten passage
passage added above the line passage with added text above
passage added on the line passage with added text inline
passage added in the margin passage with text added in margin
handwritten addition to a typewritten letter typed passage with added handwritten text
missing or unreadable text missing text noted with "[illegible]"
uncertain transcriptions word[?]
notes written by someone other than Willa Cather Note in another's hand
printed letterhead text printed text
text printed on postcards, envelopes, etc. printed text
text of date and place stamps stamped text
passage written by Cather on separate enclosure. written text
NUMBER FIVE BANK STREET My Dearest Zoë1:

The play3 is a splendid thing—splendid! And it's a splendid production4. Jobyna5 is really wonderful, what vitality and variety she brings to it—meets every demand as if it were a joy to let herself out—simply tosses it off! Certainly she is the handsomest thing on the New York2 stage at present—dazzling, walloping good looks. She dresses it wonderfully, the most expressive clothes, they simply ravish the eye. And her voice is lovely. She does so many things with it. And she's charmingly tender—a new side of that lady to me. She is your "Hollyhock", absolutely—nobody could do it better. It's a wonderful character part, and she does it wonderfully. She and Raymond6 would make a play if there were nobody else in it.

The relation between them is the unique and absolutely original theme of the play—it's never been done before, no, nor anything in the least like it. It follows one out of the theatre and one goes on turning it over and thinking about it. I hadn't imagined Raymond could be so good—it's a wonderful piece of acting. If ever a part was "created" that one is. I kept holding my breath for astonishment. Arliss7, in his best days, used to do things like that, but he was always more artificial. This boy is really terrible, and so real that he hurts! The silly, conventional fellow who does the violinist oughtn't to be permitted on the same stage with him. Those two are good examples of the two qualities there are in everything; the first-hand that is expensive and the second hand that is cheap enough.

NUMBER FIVE BANK STREET

I didn't go up to your house last night simply because I had been in bed all day and I'm staying in bed today. Tomorrow, Wednesday, I'll be here8 from four till six. Run in if you can. I don't feel any anxiety about The Texas Nightingale. The play is too clever and too brilliant to be disregarded, and it presents two cases of superb acting. Jobyna is just as good as Raymond, and of course she carries the whole weight of the play on her gleaming shoulders—it's her reality and force that give Raymond and everybody else their chance to do anything at all. I don't know another actress anywhere who could do it. Look at that bunch of frumps9 in "Loyalties"10! There's not an English actress who could touch the part. She's glorious to look at, and her voice is all it should be. Then she puts into it what they've most of them simply not got to give,—drive and power—big power, with the smoothness and ease of the grandest, grandest French automobile—something big and gleaming that can drag a house and stop as quietly as a flower falls. That's a great combination, power and softness.

You may not be able to read this, for I'm writing in bed, but it carries my warm, happy, proud and affectionate congratulations to the author of "The Texas Nightingale" and the actress who so triumphantly impersonates her.

Yours always Willa