Wrong for the Wrong Reasons

When the New York Times Book Review devotes three valuable pages to a mere essay—and that in its year-end issue—the canny student of the Establishment will conclude that something is afoot. Literary excellence alone is most unlikely to be the reason for such a display. Besides, the article in question, Mr. Van Wyck Brooks’ “Reflections on the Avant-Garde,” was not particularly startling in that respect.

Indeed, so sprawlingly and loosely written was it that the logic of the presentation was almost impossible to follow. One thing only was clear. The object of Mr. Brooks’ criticism was not the avant-garde as avant-garde, but the writing and thinking of anyone—advanced or traditional, experimental or safe—who refuses to accept the shibboleths of Liberalism and scientism, who cannot be satisfied that “the notions of Progress and Reason” are sufficient to comprehend all and everything in the cosmos.

FS

About the Author

Frank S. Meyer

Frank S. Meyer was a senior editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

When the New York Times Book Review devotes three valuable pages to a mere essay—and that in its year-end issue—the canny student of the Establishment will conclude that something is afoot. Literary excellence alone is most unlikely to be the reason for such a display. Besides, the article in question, Mr. Van Wyck Brooks’ “Reflections on the Avant-Garde,” was not particularly startling in that respect.

Indeed, so sprawlingly and loosely written was it that the logic of the presentation was almost impossible to follow. One thing only was clear. The object of Mr. Brooks’ criticism was not the avant-garde as avant-garde, but the writing and thinking of anyone—advanced or traditional, experimental or safe—who refuses to accept the shibboleths of Liberalism and scientism, who cannot be satisfied that “the notions of Progress and Reason” are sufficient to comprehend all and everything in the cosmos.