202
PARTISAN REVIEW
out saying.
" "
two comic-book companies staffed entirely by
homosexuals and operating out of our most phalliform skyscraper." "Hol–
lywood homosexuals" - "Parisian fairies" - "pansy intellectuals" -
"bought psychologists" . . . there is no end to the hatreds of this cru–
sader against violence; he has learned more from the comic books than
he thinks.
I agree that one may reasonably be distressed by the culture repre–
sented by the comic books, but it is a mistake to base our criticism of
that culture on suppositions about its specific moral effects. To treat
Superman as we would not treat Henry Miller is only philistinism in
reverse, and like all philistinism contains the threat of censorship; in–
deed, Mr. Legman's pamphlet makes almost no sense at all unless one
reads it as a demand for censorship of themes of violence, though he
eventually denies this intention. (He proposes instead that the censorship
on sex be
lifted;
with this proposal I am in full agreement, but Mr. Leg–
man is deceived in thinking
it
would have any effect either in relieving
our sexual frustrations or in raising the level of our culture: its most
probable result would be a flood of pornographic comic books no less
violent than the present "clean" ones.) The "immorality" of the comic
books consists in their being ill-conceived, ill-executed, and vulgar ; but
in these terms Mr. Legman's pamphlet is possibly just as "dangerous"
as any of the materials it discusses.
Robert Warshow
HISTORY AND THE PROBLEM OF POWER
PROGRESS AND POWER. By Corl Becker. With on introduction by Leo
Gershoy. Knopf. $2.50.
The historians of the nineteenth century who wished to view
history as the product of broad impersonal forces generally felt uncom–
fortable when they confronted the necessity of describing the exercise
of power. Those who attempted to analyze the whole of human develop–
ment in turns of long trends found it hard to ascribe an effective role to
compulsion ; for the conception of compulsion seemed to imply tha t the
will of individuals-at least of those individuals who had power-had an
intrinsic and independent importance.
Historians generally then bounded the notion of power with all
sorts of limiting devices. Some, like Treitschke, claimed for power a
positive, creative function, but hedged by defining power as the surface
