The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1934-06-02

EITEfs - r NAAfAfAFA ~
THE bourgeois literary press has
1 given considerable attention and
inordinste praise to the talented
Tess Slesinger's first novel The
| Unpossessed. " One Of the reasons for
this is that the novel presumably
deals with the so-called intellec-
tuals It is in the postwar trsdi-
ton Of futility. It's characters are
for the most part Intellectual talk
ers, frustrated self-deceivers. But
they differ from their literary pre-
decessors in that they talk not only
Of sex and drink. but also Of Marx
ism" That makes the narrativ
right no to the minute. But It must
be realized at the outset that there
are no real Communists in the
book. nor are any Of the charsct
seen with Communist eyes. We have
here z series Of connected. though
not integrsted. sketches about spe-
cislly picked types Of unsuccessful
liberal literad.
Intellectuals NAV be divided into
those who function and those who
are frustrated. You cannot lump
into the same group Joris Karl
HuySnans decadent aristocrst des
ESseintes. or Marcel Prousts deca-
dent bourgeois Swami, with the Wig
orous. if reactionary. lawyers, en-
gineers. doctors, and editors who
are part Of the ruling French bour-
geoisie. You cannot identify Prince
Mishkin with Premier Mulyukov: or
the characterless Rubin with the
counter-revolutionary Savinkov: or
Hemingway's lost generation" with
the intellectuals who today do err
rands for. the NRA. machine
There are important differences be-
tween an Intellectual Oblomov and
an energetic, dangerous Rsmzin.
These characters are three d.
nensional; Tess Slesinger has
drawn hers in two. Not because she
has drawn caricatures. Daumier
did his in three dimensions. What
she has drawn are comic strips.
Professor Bruno Leonard. the CEN
trail character Of the novel. is
Hemingway hero with Jewish &C
cent. His drunkenness. his wise
cracks in which he is at once the
gag-artist and the stooge. have
nothing in common with the pseu-
do-MarXists on the fringe of the
revolutionary movement These
may, within very limited sphere
and in a very small way. be harm
full; but they are not inactive. The
authors difficulties in visualizing
her characters from the inside are
frequently apparent. We see ges-
lures rather than characters: we
hear the voice Of mimicry rather
than Of reality, the voice not Of the
artist, but Of the trnpersonator. We
never get below the surface of the
people.
IRONY is more biting. humor
warmer, satire more penetrating.
analysis more instructive where the
author has a definite feeling about
his characters. Detachment which
springs from an anxiety to avoid
mistakes at any cost estranges the
author from his own characters.
Jeffrey's don Juanism appears to
Missis Flinders as the mere mono
logue Of an actor relying on pa
tient memory: Bruno Leonard. the
center Of the little group of serious
vac1llators, man with presumably
loftier interests, also talks like
play too often played before Peo-
pie seem unreal to us, like actors
on a stage, or puppets in a Punch
and Judy show, when we do not
like them, hence do not understand
them. Now note this significant
paradox: in a novel dealing with
intellectuals the only character who
seems real, adequately realized.
positively attractive beside the i'm
potent drivelers, is the successful
business man, whose son is a
"Marxist" and panSy: and the
most abstract, unreal. one-dimen-
sional characters are the Black
Sheep. the Communist students.
Possibly the author has standards
by which she Judges her characters?