the writers who separate Marxian interpretation
from esthetic judgment and who superimpose one
upon the other, instead of developing an organic
critical system. He demonstrates that great literary
works .have a "relatively inherent persistence-value"
over and above their social usefulness. He denounces
the critics who "fly the banner of Marxism" but who
still conceive of the relationship between economics
and ideology as a "straight equation, one leading
head-on into the other." He shows that the problem
of finding a relevant tradition is more than a matter
of searching for writers who were Marxists, but of
assimilating usable elements in past culture. He
points out that the terms "proletarian" and "bour-
geois" as applied to literature are not, in them-
selves, terms of merit or value, but are simply de-
scriptive.
He does an excellent job in the chapter on "Indi.
vidualism and the Class Struggle," exploding a pop-
ular myth: "Because a novel happens to deal with
the particular predicament of a particular man
or woman in a particular period of time, it
does not necessarily follow that it is tainted with
individualism," :he says with characteristic blunt-
ness; "nor does it necessarily follow that it belongs in
a lower category than the collective novel; nor is it
necessarily implied that the novelist has failed to
understand the working of social forces and social
influences." Equally important is the chapter on
"Literature and Propaganda," which is perhaps the
first adequate, balanced presentation of this subject
to be found in American criticism; it should be re-
quired reading for every reader, student and writer
of proletarian literature.
In spite of its title and its too modest foreword,
this book is more than a mere "note" on literary
criticism. True, it is far from being a complete esthe-
tic, or even a thoroughgoing contribution toward
a philosophy of literature; it is deeply involved in
immediate issues and is written at a polemical heat;
yet it is the first lengthy statement of a critical stand
that must, I firmly believe, become the dominant
emphasis of Marxian criticism if proletarian litera-
ture in the United States is to grow instead of stag-
nate. For the critical position represented by Farrell
is not solely destructive; in place of the vulgar prac-
tices of "leftism" which he demolishes, Farrell
stresses the importance of literary and human values
in dealing with central social experience. Thus his
book is itself a sign of the growth of revolutionary
literature. It is, I think, one of the first road-signs
indicating that American proletarian letters is en
route to a more expansive and fertile territory which
promises to yield richer harvests.
I am not sure, however, that the book will be re-
garded in this manner, particularly in view of its
scathing criticism of so many prominent leftwing
critics. I suspect that some will call it "pure"
8
estheticism. Some may even damn it as "menshe-
vism" or "revisionism." Others will probably assure
us they were always for the principles which Farrell
advocates, while they will continue in practice to vio-
late them. These objections will, in all likelihood, be
matched on the other side by dishonest penmen who
make a racket out of sniping at revolutionary writ-
ing, and who will probably "interpret" Farrell's diag-
nosis of an internal ailment as an external attack
upon proletarian literature.
Distortions of the latter type aren't worth bother-
ing about. Many of the best talents in American
letters are working within revolutionary culture-
and just as many more are moving in the same gen-
eral direction. Proletarian literature has become an
entire movement, has already passed through several
stages of literary and social struggle. The funda-
mental task of Marxian criticism today is not to
waste time in philippics directed at unprincipled ene-
mies; its main function is to do its part in creating
an atmosphere where literary talent will have the
best chance to breathe and grow.
More damaging are criticisms of the first kind.
They are usually made, with the best of intentions,
by irresponsible critics who bog our literature with
notions that become gospel to many writers and
readers; and which compel other critics to expend
their energies trying to drain these swamps instead
of preparing a firmer soil for literary effort. In in-
veighing against the functional extremism of these
critics, Farrell may seem to be too dogmatic; but if
he argues with so much conviction it is largely be-
cause he
is
attacking a dogma.
V\-'hat Farrell's book does reveal is a sense of di·
rect and clear, thinking-a rare gift not only for a
"creative" author but for the kind of critic whose
lack of ideas leads him to fall into easy formulas,
like some of the oversimplified beliefs which Farrell
dismembers. This ability to handle intellectual con-
cepts is apparent in numerous footnotes and paren-
thetical remarks, as well as in the central thesis of
his book-which is a reservoir for all sorts of acute
observations, culled from a fair amount of reading
and thinking, although not entirely germane to the
main thread of Farrell's argument. This critical
equipment should help to explain how the author of
Judgment
Day
was able to preserve the inner con-
sistency of his character, Studs Lonigan, avoiding
the variety of wish-fulfillment which has punctured
a good deal of leftwing fiction.
In his
Note on Literary Criticism
Farrell is con-
cerned largely with the vestiges of a narrow, anti-
esthetic attitude in proletarian literature today. He
does not deal with the origins and development of
this trend in Marxian literary thought. This is an
important omission. If he had filled this gap, Farrell
would have given us a more thorough understanding
of the subject; and he would at the same time have
JUNE,
1936
