348
PARTISAN REYJEW
both sides of any picture. Its outlook should be broader, more temperate,
and more confident."
"Its all too Olympian, condescending attitude towards everything and
everybody except a few big-shot European authors and idea-men.... Too
much tooting of the editors' own horns. Too many pets get printed over
and over again with any and all cackling they have to offer."
"You seem to have a penchant for what I call the hoodlums in words."
"a tendency to be esoteric"
"only one thing, its sectarianism"
"too much closed shop, though I like these people; not experimental
enough''
"a certain priggishness in your editorials and pronunciamentos (for
that's what they are) on Literature and the Times.
Literature is not a
'serious' thing.
There is nothing more important, of higher value; but in
your sense it should never be serious. You need a few charlatans, who
know what they are."
The most interesting thing about these evaluations is that the "dis–
likes" are mostly restatements in negative terms of the same qualities
praised in the "likes," which seems to show at least that the magazine has
a definite editorial character. On the score of general literary quality and
intellectual level there is almost nothing but praise, only one reply of the
entire 250 expressing any criticism here. The bulk of the criticisms fall
into two categories: (1) PR is too "highbrow" (esoteric, snobbish, over–
intellectual, pedantic, precious, ivory-towerish); (2) editorial policy is
too partisan (sectarian, narrow, negativistic, destructive, hypercritical,
humorless, unfair). On category (2), it is true, there is some disagree–
ment on fact between the "likes" and the "dislikes,'' with a number of
readers praising PR's "broad," "catholic," and "liberal" editorial policy.
But even here a number like precisely its "partisan" quality, its refusal
to compromise and conform. And in category (1) the positive-negative
evaluation pattern holds good throughout. The ma2;azine is "esoteric"–
and it is "not a band wagon publication.'' It is "highbrow"-and it is
"serious." It is "snobbish"-and it is "stimulating,'' "provocative." It is
"over-intellectual"-and it "refuses to talk down to its readers."
"'WHY NOT
KEEP QUIET?"
Sirs:
The number of pages (two-thirds)
which you gave to political theorizing in
the last issue of
PARTISAN REVIEW
must
be justified, it seems to me: because a
new politico-intellectual discovery is being
made which is eventually, no matter how
remotely, to affect society- and hence
also affect cultural endeavor; or because
the situation is so acute that the politi–
cal-moralistic issue takes precedence.
pARTISAN REVIEW
has officially aban–
doned any political "line" which is at
this point relatable to important organ–
ization activity- unless we except the
domestic · fascist movements. In other
words, your "let's not help England" may
be stuff for Lindbergh and his followers
to feed on. It is an isolated recommenda–
tion, and a purely negative one, in rela–
tion to your own theory. You don't care
