PARTISAN REVIEW
389
which in her situation work to her advantage. She is not, lor ex–
ample, a facile writer; hence she never adapts her style to her role.
And her refusal to simplify her thinking, even at the risk of awk–
wardness, works like some kind of guidance system, constantly direct–
ing her toward herself.
My own view of Susan Sontag, I should say right off, is a biased
one, in her favor. I must also admit to some personal satisfaction
in her development into one of our most intelligent and exciting
writers. I remember the first time I met her, ten years ago, at one
of those brawls known as a cocktail party. I remember her shyness,
taking the form of self-assurance, as she asked me how one gets to
write a review for
PRo
Fumbling for a quick and clever reply, as
one does desperately on these occasions, I said: "One asks." "O.K.,"
she said, "I'm asking." I remember, too, her saying one day she
would like to do a piece on Camp. And I must confess that after she
explained what she meant I thought it was a very good idea but not
a headliner. And when I saw the manuscript, I thought it a remark–
able essay, but I had no idea it would sweep the world of fashion.
Nor did I foresee that she would become the intellectual darling of
those publications that try to merge the serious with the mass market
and make certain kinds of radicalism modish and profitable.
Of course, Miss Sontag
is
not responsible for this type of ex–
ploitation. Yet the posture of her thinking - and this involves her
strengths as well as her weaknesses - does lend itself to extravagant
and stylish responses. She seems to be staking out a new sensibility,
and like many critics in the past who made an assault on traditional
ideas her manner
is
strident, assertive and extravagant. (To what
extent hers is a genuinely new sensibility - or, for that matter, to
what extent any sensibility can be entirely new - is another question,
not immediately pertinent to the effect of her writing.) Furthermore,
since she
is
taken as a spokesman for The New, she is thought of as
someone to take a stand for or against. Hence, as with so many of
the younger writers, the reactions to her have fallen into the stereo–
types of polarization. But because she is so articulate and takes
all
questions as her theoretical province, because her writing has political
as well as literary implications, the polarization is both sharper and
more distorting.
The situation is not a unique one, for radical movements have
