636
ness, and consecutive thought. Mr.
Reed does himself and other blacks
a disservice by yielding up these
virtues so readily and coming on
all cool and hip and liberated.
Considering how often black peo–
ple have been victimized by racial
stereotypes it's ' astonish ing to see
them playing the same game. My
essay argued that black writing
should be taken more seriously,
more personally, by white critics
and readers. Mr. Reed, positively
offended by this attention, seems to
insist that it be taken less sel,iously.
Like Jezebel, he seems determined
to come to a bad end.
FOR THE RECORD
Sirs:
I hesitated whether to add my
name to those protesting against
the Ford Foundation's allocation of
a considerable sum of money to
Encounter,
since the statement
seemed couched in terms applic–
able excl usively to American edi–
tors and publishers.
However, recently I read in the
New York H erald Tribune (15
September 1972 ) an article which
took the form of an inten'iew by
the ir correspondent Mr. Ir\'ing
Mander with Mr. Meh'in Lasky.
The article was entitled, perhaps
ironicall\·.
E17counter
-
a cultural
bridge.
'Mr. Mander reports Mr.
Lasky as saying that at the time
of the l'e\'elations about the CIA
sub\'ention of
Encounter,
"in effect
Spender wished to kill the maga–
zine." The
Herald Tribune
did not
publish a letter from me repudiat–
ing this grotesque misstatement –
only cOlllprehensible if you iden–
tify
l:'llcoullter
with Meh-in Lasky
-- so I welcome the opportunity of
,i ~ning
your statement as an occa–
sion for making my position clear.
At the time of the re\'elations of
the CIA support of
Encounter
I
LETTERS
thought that all editors should re–
sign so that the trustees could
make their independent decision
as to the future of the magazine.
I nstead of this, Mr. Lasky - the
, American editor who had not con–
fided in his colleagues as to the ori–
gins of the American support–
did not resign, the trustees dis–
solved themselves and Mr. Ker–
mode and I resigned , being unwill–
ing to work further with Mr. La–
sky. Soon after this Mr. Nigel
Dennis became coeditor with Mr.
Lasky bu t himself resigned two
years later in strong disagreement
with his coeditor, as he made
clear in a short letter - a master–
piece of sarcasm - which was I)ub–
lished in the London
Times.
What seems astonishing and, in–
deed, "nearly scandalous" to me is
not so much that the Ford Founda- ,
tion shou ld support an English
magazine as that they should "in
effect"
(as Mr. Lasky would
doubtless pu tit ) su pport an Amer–
ican editor who
ha~
a lienated three
Engl ish colle'lgues wi thou t their
ever ha\'ing addressesd any inquiry
to these three men - who are not
unknown in English life - or seem–
ingly to ha\'e inquired into the cir–
cumstances of
Encounter.
It is
rather as if I were to edit a maga–
zine in :--lew York supported by
English funds, behave to my Amer–
ican colleagues in such a way that
three of them refused to hm'e
further dealings with me, and that
after this I shou ld continue to re–
ceiw subventions from English
sources, without my English spon–
sors e\'er bothering to inquire into
the circumstances.
r
t seems to me
that I am bound to join your pro–
test though
Ill)'
grounds of protest
are different fro
III
those of the
other signatories. I will be grate-
ful if yOli will Dublish this elucida–
tion. ·
Stephen Spender, London
