PARTISAN REVIEW
405
own comic logic - the logic of farce, of burlesque, of slapstick–
rather than the logic or demands of a political satire, or of an indi–
vidual, "integrated" psychology.
But there is certainly satire in this novel, directed, however play–
fully, at aspects of American popular mythology. The comedy may
not be so free of polemical intent, or even of «redeeming" social or
moral value as you might like to think. And why would you want to
think that anyway?
The comedy in
The Great American Novel
exists for the sake
of no "higher" value than comedy itself; the "redeeming" value
is
not
social or cultural reform, or moral instruction, but
comic inventiveness.
Destructive, or lawless, playfulness - and for the fun of it.
Now there is an art to this sort of thing that distinguishes it from
sadism, nonsense, or even nihilism for the fun of it; however, the
sadistic, the nonsensical, and the nihilistic are strong ingredients in the
making of such comedy, and in the enjoyment of it. I don't like the
word "satiric" because the suggestion of cruel means employed for
a higher purpose doesn't square with what I felt myself to be doing;
it's too uplifting. "Satyric," suggesting the sheer pleasure of exploring
the anarchic and the unsocialized, is more like it.
I think that the direction my work has taken since
Portnoy's Com–
plaint
can in part be accounted for by my increased responsiveness to,
and respect for, what is unsocialized in me. I don't mean that I am
interested in propagandizing for the anarcho-libidinists in our midst;
rather, that
Portnoy's Complaint,
which was concerned, in a general
sense, with the comic side of the struggle between a hectoring super–
ego and an ambitious id, seems now, in retrospect, to have realigned
those forces as they act upon my imagination.
Can you explain why you are trying to come on like a bad boy–
although in the manner of a very good boy indeed? Why quarrel, in
decorous tones no less, with decorum? Why insist, in balanced sen–
tences, on libido? Why ((reckless" and «anarchic" to describe one's
work, rather than ((responsible," and «serious," and «humane"? In
((Writing About Jews," the essay you published in
Commentary
in
1962, answering charges of ((self-hatred" and ((anti-Semitism," your
argument consisted almost entirely of an attempt to demonstrate your
righteousness
through the evidence of your work. Does that now seem
to you so much defensive obfuscation?
