on this problem or is he too absorbed
in his studies of American chastity?
Which brings me to my personal
history, a subject 1 am forced to touch
upon by the manner of
Mr.
Warshow's
polemic. (I shall put aside the tittle–
tattle with which he opens his letter,
except to ask by what authority he
places direct quotes in my mouth. But,
to be sure, the fact that he wasn't
present at this alleged conversation
doesn't matter: he had it s-traight from
Emil Ludwig.)
I wrote for
The Nation
book section
as long as Margaret Marshall, an anti–
Stalinist, was its editor. My final re–
view for
The Nati()n
was of Whittaker
Chambers' book, a review so violently
anti-Stalinist that despite its obvious
news value and unusual length the edi–
tors refused to display it on the cover.
When Miss Marshall was fired, 1
ceased writing for
The Nation.
1 worked at
Time
for the same
reason (at least 1 hope it's the same
reason) that Mr. Warshow works at
Commentary:
to support my family.
My arrangement at
Time
gave me the
free time to write what I wanted–
and not merely books of criticism, Mr.
Warshow, but many articles
defending
civil liberties. (Mr. Warshow shouldn't
underestimate my energies. ) I was a
socialist before working for
Time :
I
wrote frequently for the socialist press
while working there; and I remain a
socialist. A good many of my critics
managed, without working at
Time,
to
shed almost every trace of their radical–
ism and/or intellectual rebelliousness.
One thing more: Mr. Warshow has
managed to drag almost everything in–
to his letter. But how curious it is that
as an editor of
Commentary
he has not
even tried to answer the charges I
directed against it. Let me refresh his
memory and, more important, bring
the discussion back to the main track.
Mr. Warshow's senior colleague, Elliott
Cohen, wrote just before the last pres–
idential election that Senator Mc–
Carthy's "only support as a great na–
tional figure is from the fascinated
fears of the intelligentsia." This appall–
ing remark is far more important than
whether Irving Howe is chaste, full–
time, part-time, or just during the time
he wrote for
Commentary.
On
this
I
would even consider another exchange
with Mr. Warshow. But I do not think
he will put me to the trouble.
Wellesley, Mass.
Irving Howe
SIRS:
Congratulations on your publication
of Irving Howe's article on conformity.
As an old-time PR reader who has
sorrowed over your increasing gentility,
1 was glad to see that the magazine
still has some guts.
Let me add a couple of items to Mr.
Howe's list of animadversions:
Literary CTltlClsm.
The past few
years have seen a revival of that type
of criticism which wrenches texts in
an attempt to save all renegades for
the religion of their fathers. Witness
the writings of those who must make
a "good Jew" out of Franz Kafka, the
attempts of Hugh Kenner and others
to save James Joyce for the Church
(non urlliam
doesn't mean
non credo!),
and the writings on French literature
of the omnipresent Wallace Fowlie
which-when they are not simply re–
ducible to aesthetic quiverings of the
"oh" and
"ab"
variety-try to make
us believe that the French writers who
claimed they were atheists were really
good Catholics after all.
Sociology.
There is a real enough
drift from independent scholarly work
to the Rand Corporation, market re–
search, and industrial relations (trans–
lation of this last: how to keep the
workers happy without raising their
pay). Another kind of sellout to con–
formity, perhaps more dangerous be–
cause it is more subtly rationalized,
does not involve direct participation in
big business or government. In this
type of "scholarship" the level of pub–
lic awareness is allowed to determine
which topics are relevant for investi–
gation. I have actually met sociologists
of the David Riesman school who
equate sociological investigation with
the study of "popular culture." This
allows them to watch television with
clear consciences. Inner-directed-ha!
Yours truly,
Chicago, Ill.
Ned Polsky
