B.B.C. AND NOVELS
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—In the Spectator of January 10th " Autolycus" misstates the case as a proposition that one State department must not " commit " itself on matters regarded as controversial by another State department and pretends to champion, when in fact he desires to coerce, the B.B.C. The true position is that, justifying to some degree the declared policy of the B.B.C., I pointed out in effect that the Corporation, virtually a State concern, cannot be expected to pursue a line declared by State authority to be against public policy. Beyond that point the B.B.C. has no choice. I maintained, incidentally, that even up to that point there was something else to be said for the B.B.C.'s decision and that the selective mention of the work of certain authors, since under public discussion in your columns, was not justified. I did not "censure" Mr. Huxley. Excellent as is Mr. Huxley's stride, I am not alone in believing that he has not yet found his direction.
"Autolycus " reveals his true motive' s a desire to call off bludgeoning the reviewer. A comparison of many (I do not say of all) reviews of contemporary fiction shows a violent contradiction and confusion that can be explained away neither by conflict of literary criteria, nor by diversity in canons of judgement, but suggests stamped reading. If this dishonesty, this practice of shaft-sinking into a dozen novels a week which the reviewer, besides other work, must get through, is inevitable, why increase the zone of mischief
by broadcasting ?—I am, Sir, &c., EDWARD MOUSLEY. 5 Pump Court, Temple, E.C.
Previous page
