108
inism of the
New Masses.
But shrill–
ness is not a political category;
and one may be self-righteous and
yet right in believing that Stalinism
is a totalitarian menace. Moreover,
any equation of the anti-Stalinism
of PARTISAN REVIEW with the Stal–
inism of the
New Masses
is so fan–
tastic that one can only believe
that it is inspired by a love of pa–
radox and a fear of politics.
Here again we touch upon the
genteel reader's innermost feel–
ings: when he dislikes politics, or
any political position, he does not
make
political
objections to it, but
expresses his distaste by speaking
of "shrillness" and "churlishness,"
invoking the canons of gentility as
if
the most important political is–
sue of our time, totalitarian Com–
munism, were a question of good
manners, to be decided, perhaps,
by Emily Post. In justice to Scho–
rer, it must be said that he adds
the very fancy and now very mod–
ish distinction between being "anti–
Stalinist" and being a "Stalino–
phobe." Presumably
if
one says
politely and discreetly, "I do not
like Stalinism," then one is anti–
Stalinist; if one attacks Stalinism
in serious political terms, one is a
Stalinophobe.
If
the distinction
has any other real content, it has
not yet been announced publicly
and Schorer certainly fails to ex–
plain what it means.
Shorer also appears to ad–
mire certain aspects of PARTISAN
REVIEW. It has "year by year, pro–
vided us with some of the very best
of current writing and with most
PARTISAN REV' IEW
of the very best living writers."
But this admiration is qualified. In
presenting the best writing of our
time, the editors, Schorer thinks,
have somehow violated their own
"intellectual bias." This can only
mean either that the editors should
not have published the best writers
of our time or that somehow these
writers made their way into the
magazine while the editors were
not looking. Is it fanciful to sup–
pose that this is the projection of an
academic experience, say, in a uni–
versity where good teaching pre–
vails while the president is looking
the other way, making believe that
his faculty is not teaching in a
fashion that contradicts his own
intellectual bias?
Perhaps this is mere fancy. But
it is a literal fact that Schorer has
sought out a formula for condemn–
ing the program and principles of
PARTISAN REVIEW while at the
same time praising the writings
that appear in it. We submit that
the contents of PARTISAN REVIEW
flow directly from its policy and
principles, such as the principle
that the value of a literary work
cannot be reduced to its ideological
allegiances. It would be superfluous
to make this obvious point, if
Schorer had not brought forward
the absurd notion that what is good
in the magazine violates our edi–
torial aims, thus turning PARTISAN
REVIEW into some kind of weird
accident that has now been occur–
ring for more than ten years.
THE EDITORS
