MASOCHIST OR PARANOIAC?
Stk—I have seen in World's Press News a reference to a bright remark made recently in the Spectator say- ing that John Connell's book on Suez had two good reviews, one in the Evening News, of which he is leader writer, and the other in Time and Tide, of which he is a director.
The inference was that reviewers have to praise books written by their colleagues on the same paper.
As the reviewer of Mr. Connell's, book in the Evening News I desire to point out to you the follow- ing: (1) I asked for the job of reviewing this book because it dealt with a subject which interested me as diplomatic correspondent of the paper.
(2) 1 praised the book in my review because it expressed a number of views with which I found myself in agredment and which I believed to be right.
(3) Thee were other good reviews of the book— including one in the rival Evening Standard. I am painstakingly seeking the possible reasons why you made your innuendo that I praised Connell's book for venal reasons.
Is it, perhaps, that you cannot conceive the existence of people who write from conviction and not from ulterior motives?
I hope this is not the explanation. For it might suggest that your mental make-up is akin to that of 95/ the Communists, who invariably accuse others Oft doing the sort of things they do themselves. There'' an old saying. you know, that foxes always smell their own scent.
You are fully entitled to dislike my revie' disagree with it, to criticise it. But you are in case under the obligation to state your reasons. you have not done. Instead, you have imputed worthy motives. This, my dear Sir, is a form °f literary Teddyboyism. Finally, I would say this: unlike you I am Ot a member of the National Masochist Club : that 15 to say that, as a Briton, I do not enjoy seeing 111/ country's nose rubbed in the dirt.—Yours faithfully 0-11' C. F. MELV Diplomatic Correspondent' , to
thol
To
ure
Carmelite House, EC4 The Evening et° [Pharos writes : 'I have not read Mr. Melv review but his letter makes it easy to believe that l praise of the book was entirely genuine.'—Edit°6 Spectator.]
Previous page
