VARIETY
127
devoted to serious criticism and in–
tellectual candor, for the gross error
involved in printing this irrespon–
sible attack.
If
the editors feel that
the time is already ripe for a re–
valuation of Muriel Rukeyser, if
they really feel that she has been
over-rated as a poet, and that she
can be proved imaginatively flawed
and intellectually dishonest--on
the basis of her work, which is of
course the only basis possible–
then a serious critique is in order,
based on the
truth,
and written
with justice, intelligence, and
honest principles. But not this set
of illogical accusations, this medley
of non-sequiturs, this tearing out
of context; not the nauseating bad
taste and pure venom of the last
paragraph of this "Poster Girl"
piece.
REBECCA
PITTS
Comment:
Besides the communi–
cation from Miss Pitts, we have re–
ceived letters from Miss Babette
Deutsch and Mr. Thomas D. Ma–
bry sharply protesting the publica–
tion of the article, "Grandeur and
Misery of a Poster Girl." All three
correspondents cover much the
same ground; and if we have cho–
sen to give space only to Miss Pitts,
it is because her statement is the
longest, the .most comprehensive
and also the most vehement.
Miss Pitts expresses her indigna–
tion in a tone of innocence and
benevolence. But the fact is that in
the extremity of her innocence and
benevolence she fails to answer
specifically
any of the points made
about Miss Rukeyser. Generalities
about Miss Rukeyser's seriousness
and good intentions scarcely per–
suade us of the value of such works
as
Willard Gibbs
and
Wake Island.
In our opinion both works are ob–
vious examples of that nee-Amer–
ican inspirational literature which
is the product not of a healthy na–
tional consciousness but of intellec–
tual demoralization. In
Wake Is–
land
Miss Rukeyser celebrated the
battle fought by the marines in ex–
actly the same style and seemingly
from the same point of view as that
recorded in her poems about the
Spanish Loyalists. Now we submit
that regardless whether one is "for"
or "against" the present war, there
is still a world of difference be–
tween the anti-fascist struggle of
the Spanish people and the war
now being waged in the Pacific.
To change one's mind is one thing,
but to show oneself unaware of the
historical meaning and tragic im–
plications of certain changes of
mind is something else again. Sure–
ly it is possible to support the mili–
tary war against Hitler for reasons
of political strategy, as Sidney
Ho~k
and many other leftists do,
without succumbing to the coarse
political rhetoric of the "crusade
for democracy." Nor is Miss Pitts
any more plausible in her defense
of Miss Rukeyser's piece, "Words
and Images," a piece about war–
posters all the assumptions of which
prove her adherence to what Ran–
dolph Bourne, writing during the
last war, called the "new orthodox–
ies of propaganda."
Miss Pitts is shocked by the viru–
lence of the satire directed against
Miss Rukeyser. But is not her shock
symptomatic of the gentility by
which American literary life has
been ruled in recent years? For the
the more murderous the realities
