SIR.--Mr Edward A. Armstrong's letter (January 27) hopelessly misrepresents my
article 'Literature and Censorship'; but the way it dots so is psychologically interesting. Why does he need to bring in 'sexual ex- cesses and perversions' or the notion that 'sexual repression' (whether of the self or of other people he does not make clear—perhaps he equates these) is `vile,' insidious' and perverse? He did not get any of this from what I wrote. But the association of sexual puritanism and hypocrisy is not new, at he rather pathetically implies—has he read Measure' for Measure?
1 argued for official freedom for serious writers to deal with sexual subject-matter as they wish—in order that they might further examine the depths of their own and human self-ignorance. According to Mr Armstrong this is an 'extreme view of sex.'
How does he deduce this? And whence arises his diffidence in stating his own ('extreme'?) view that such literature as offends him should be suppressed?
36 Hauliers Hill, Bexhill. on-Sea, Sussex
Previous page
