COMMENT
331
high. The fact is that Howe and I have been critical of neo–
conservatism on political and cultural grounds, though we grant that
they are right in some matters. And Trilling, aside from his political
convictions, did not like extreme positions of any kind. I recall
Trilling one evening telling Norman Podhoretz and Midge Deeter
that he felt
Commentary
was becoming too ideological and too
predictable.
I cannot leave the subject without noting that Barrett assumes
attitudes now that he did not have earlier. Why, for example, does
he now glamorize Mary McCarthy and Hannah Arendt? Aside from
ideology, it is hard to understand Barrett's personal reasons for
inflating Rahv's role on the magazine and in the intellectual
community as a whole. Nor can I comprehend why he dedicated his
book to Rahv and Schwartz, unless it was meant ironically. For, if
the truth is to be known, Rahv was bent on putting down everyone,
including Barrett, and I was kept busy defending him. On the other
hand, Barrett, himself, was always critical of Rahv's mind and
character.
Barrett's feelings
about Schwartz are more
understandable. They were those of a devoted friend-perhaps in
the beginning, too devoted - and though Schwartz lost no
opportunity to exploit that relationship, there was a good deal of
respect and affection between them, until Schwartz's madness made
any relation impossible. Could it be that Barrett is retroactively
putting himself in the same relation to Rahv?
If
so, the ideological
reason would be clear, but the personal one remains obscure.
It
seems to me that in placing himself now in this relation to Rahv,
Barrett not only distorts Rahv's role and character, and hence some
of the history of the magazine, but also does himself an injustice. For
in inflating Rahv, Barrett diminishes everyone else, including
himself. And although Barrett did not seek the limelight, he does not
have to yield it to Rahv.
Hilton Kramer's review of
The Truants
in the
New York Times
Book Review
follows Barrett's script, but, lacking Barrett's personal
memories, it is necessarily even more ideological. Kramer, of
course, is well known as an antimodernist and a leading spokesman
for the neo-conservative politics that dominate a number of publica–
tions in this country and command the allegiance of many writers
and social commentators .
w.p.
