Correspondence
Disagreement
on Patchen
Sirs:
As a sometime champion of PARTISA:-1
REVIEW, I am mightily disturbed by
the fatuous and uncalled for review
of Kenneth Patchen's
Memoirs of a
Shy Pornographer,
which appears
in
your Winter, 1946 issue. Surely the
editors cannot excuse this by saying
that the "views of the writ<.:rs do not
necessarily correspond with those," etc.
It is high time that a grossly neg–
lected American writer whose integrity
and literary ability are of enormous
consequence in this age of self-indul–
gent cynicism, commercial morbidity
and smirking hypocrisy should be
championed by the only remaining
forces who avowedly have no material–
istic stakes in prolonging the evil of our
times. To be leftist in a political sense
loses all validity when conventional
cultural norms are embraced.
Miss Hardwick's sarcastic definition
of Patchen as a professional literary
rebel is a snide crack which would
:3ppear to backfire. Certainly he is a
literary rebel, and if Miss Hardwick
is unable to see more in his immense
satire on this country's cultural and
moral bigotry than shades of Joyce,
then perhaps she would do well to do
her reading a good deal more care–
fully and at a maturer age. That Ken–
neth Patchen makes a very meagre liv–
ing from the sale of his unballyhooed
books is true; if that is what she means
by
calling him professional then let
her say so. But let her point out that
unlike the big name boys in the field,
Patchen does not sell his integrity to
sustain himself.
If
this is the best that America's
most important cultural magazine .can
do, then perhaps it is time to withdraw
our support completely. Better to have
total lies to combat than mocking
half-truths.
Very truly yours,
New York, N. Y.
HoLLY BEYE
REPLY:
I disagree with the writer
of the above letter about Kenneth
Patchen's ability, but I am in complete
accord on the matter of his integrity,
if I may allow that word to mean that
he is faithful to his perceptions and to
himself. However, in my opinion, Mr.
Patchen's ;:ealously guarded selfhood
is dull and pretentious and his per–
ceptions are of a commonplace order.
I called him a professional literary rebel
because his numerous unorthodoxies
seem to me quite gratuitous, the mere
trademarks of a professional noncon–
formity, while the actual content of his
work continues to be without any of
those qualities of mind and imagina–
tion that would mark an original and
revolutionary talent. Also, I am not
surprised to learn from my correspon–
dent that Mr. Patchen is poor-an
unfortunate condition he shares with
a great many people; but even if it
could be proved that all good writers
are financially poor, it still would not
follow that all poor writers are good.
ELIZABETH HARDWICK
Good News
Sirs:
After reading your excellent French
number, I could not help wondering
why you rarely publish articles on lit–
erary items from the Spanish-speaking
world. It may interest you to know
that among Spanish-American intellec–
tuals PARTISAN REVIEW is most widely
read of American magazines and is
considered the best literary journal in
the English language; it was a rare
conversation in which some reference
to the PARTISAN didn't come up. I
