HAROLD BRODKEY
605
The New Yorker
has been the interpreter and furtherer of the line of
argument of Gandhi and Tolstoy for me.
And I follow, often unwillingly, Jonathan Schell's prescripts
and arguments concerning peace.
For me, they serve as people whose efforts I support, who are
agents of my concern for the world.
I know I am always partly in error. And so is everyone. I choose
their degree of error for its merit and to balance my own imbalances
in regard to my own errors. (I am more resigned to the inevitability
of evil than either of them. They have an optimism that ameliorates
my darkness.)
Is this a way to gain individual peace or satisfaction or a sense
of duty done in this world in this area?
I find it to be so .
lt
is an antipathy to being evangelical that moderates my lan–
guage here.
Coming in
PARTISAN REVIEW
• Pearl K. Bell: Fiction in Review
• William Phillips on Joseph Brodsky
• Peter Brooks on Psychoanalysis and Criticism
• Enrique Krauze on Mexico
• Barbara Rose on Jackson Pollock
• Conor Cruise O'Brien: Philanthropy and Culture in America
• Nathan Glazer on Life in the Bronx
• Barbara Probst Solomon on Marguerite Duras
• Poetry by W . S. Merwin and Allen Ginsberg
• Dennis Wrong on the Marxist Enterprise
• R aymond Aron:
A Memoir
• Steven Marcus on Ernest Hemingway
• Fiction by Michel Tournier
