116
B. H. HAGGIN
And when the editor asserted an editor's right to criticize the contribu–
tion even of a specialist, and to remind a contributor, however eminent,
of the audience he was writing for, Newman answered that he didn't
question an editor's general right to decide what shall or shall not go
into his paper, but was "amazed at the suggestion that I, who have
been in the musical world all my life, and in musical journalism for
nearly fifty years of it, know less about the mentality of the reading
musical public, the general level of its musical knowledge, the topics in
which it is interested ... than someone ... who is not himself a man
of musical culture and in daily touch with the musical world...."
The force of this statement didn't impel the editor to publish the
article he had rejected; but Newman was allowed to operate without
interference after that.
My interest in this incident is the result of my own experience of
this kind when in August 1955, because of
The Nation's
increasing
financial difficulties, Freda Kirchwey, who had been publisher and
editor of the magazine for most of the nineteen years I had been
writing my music column in it, turned it .over to George G. Kirstein as
publisher and Carey McWilliams as editor. Before describing what hap–
pened after August 1955 I must describe the conditions under which I
worked before that. Until 1953 the Books and the Arts section was
edited by Margaret Marshall with complete independence; and
The
Nation's
readers included those who disliked its political writing but
bought the magazine for its excellent book reviews, some of which pro–
vided a corrective for the political writing of
J.
Alvarez del Vayo,
Alexander Werth, 1. F. Stone and others like them, and its columns
on the arts-Miss Marshall's on the theater, James Agee's on films,
Clement Greenberg's on painting, mine on music.
*
It was admirable
of Miss Kirchwey to have permitted this independent operation in the
back section-which must frequently have embarrassed her-as long as
she did; but at the beginning of 1953 the need to economize was given
as an excuse for abolishing the position of literary editor, and with it a
large part of the section Miss Marshall had edited. It now offered only
one full-length signed book review and a few unsigned briefs; more–
over a number of distinguished writers who had reviewed books in the
section felt impelled by the dismissal of Miss Marshall to end their
writing for the magazine (as I wanted to do but could not, since I had
only my
Nation
job and was unable to find another of any kind). And
this deterioration caused readers who had been getting the magazine
*
EDITOR'S NOTE:
Not everyone who knew
The Nation
during this period
will agree with Mr. Haggin's assertion that the back section was not affected
by
the politics of the front. PR will be happy to publish comments.
