PARTISAN REVIEW
Jewish writers is to invite compari–
sons to Martin Bormann or some–
body.
I appreciate Dickstein wishing
me the same career as Jezebel. At
least on an "unconscious," "un–
witting" level the sucker knows
where we stand. J ezebel was a
priestess of Baal. I don't mind Baal
too much, this delightful "phallic
god" who enjoyed good food and
wines; I mean, you don't see Baal
recklessly, viciously, and intolerant–
ly trampling upon other people's
altars (like some shiftless and lazy
critics I know.) And I wouldn't
be
too sure about who will suffer
the "bad end" Dickstein desires me
to have either. Since Jezebel and
I finally have an opportunity to
tell our side of an old, old story
perhaps it will be Dickstein who
will suffer the "bad end."
ISHMAEL REED
P.S. Ask
Time
magazine about the
irate letters they received after
erroneously attributing a poem
by Claude McKay to the au–
thorshipof an "illiterate," At–
tica prisoner.
Mr. Dickstein replies:
There's no need for me to repeat
points I've made twice already,
simply because Mr. Reed continues
ever more stridently to misstate
them. The concerned reader will
judge for himself whether my es–
say attributes the successes of con–
temporary black writing to "most–
ly Jewish" models. Aside from a
comparison to
Portnoy
and a few
references to Norman Mailer, no
Jewish writer is even mentioned.
And far from describing Mailer
311
as the ongma.tor of the personal
essay, I specifically trace his use of
it ,to the example of James Bald–
win. That Cleaver later preferred
Mailer to Baldwin is not my asser–
tion but a matter of record, in
Soul
on Ice.
Furthermore, I can't see what
Bernard Malamud has to do with
it, for in reviewing
The Tenants
in ·the
T imes Book Review
I made
much the same criticism of his un–
convincing portrayal of Willie
Spearmim that Mr. Reed does. Mr.
Reed, however, prefers to remem–
ber Anatole Broyard's review in
the daily
Times,
since it better suits
his stereotype of "white" criticism.
As far as rape is concerned, it
would be nice if 'all questions of
interpretation and morality could
be settled by reference to the dic–
tionary, but Richard Wright
showed no inclination
11:0
portray
Bigger as a simple thug or label
him a rapist. His view of Bigger,
despite ,the terrible things he is
driven to do, is more complex and
sympathetic than Baldwin (or
Reed) would wish.
Far from wanting Mr. Reed to
come on like a savage, I only ask
him to overcome his cultural chau–
vinism at least to the eX!tent of not
distoI1ting my essay, whicih itself
was a plea for a more disinterest–
ed criticism. Mr. Reed's la.test car–
toon does not augur well for any
such development.
CORRECTION:
P.R.
apologizes for neglecting
to
credit Pantheon as the publisher of
Juliet Mitchell's
Women's Estate.
