hardly advances the story. What they dornnot understand is that the story line berndamned; the cameo appearance advancesrnthe portrait of the times and thernnovel. An editor could take a blue pencilrnto this, bat the loss would be the reader’s.rnAnd consider, O’Hara once remarkedrnthat he had invented Frank Sinatrarnin Pal ]oey, written when Sinatra wasrn18, and Elizabeth Taylor as the GloriarnWandrous of Butterfield 8 when she wasrntwo.rnThis was not a boast or a pat on a prescientrnback, for O’Hara had synthesizedrna category of individual which perforcernhad to exist—and would have existedrnwhether or not he had imposed his literaryrncookie-cutter. He never put himselfrnamong the immortal, though he was notrnmodest about what he believed was hisrnrise to the top. And he had some humorrnabout it—humor tinged with deprecationrnfor those who judged him. So herncould, in a letter to Charles Poore, thernNew York Times literary dumpster, state:rn”Ah, but I do write like Kafka. Somewherernin those 24 volumes of scrapbooksrnthat [my wife] has collected since wernwere married . . . there is a high-tonedrnthink-piece that groups me with Kafka,rnMOVING?rnTo assurernuninterruptedrndelivery ofrnCHRONICLESrnplease notify usrnin advance.rnSend change ofrnaddress on thisrnform with thernmailing labelrnfrom yourrnlatest issue ofrnCHRONICLES to:rnSubscription DepartmentrnCHRONICLESrnRO. Box 800rnMount Morris, Illinois 61054rnNAMErnNEW ADDRESSrnKierkegaard, Camus, and Sartre. Somewherernelse, of course, 1 am in the companyrnof Cain, Chandler, Hammett, andrnSpillane. And somewliere else, Zola andrnSinclair Lewis. 1 am a sort of utility outfielder,rnan all-purpose for-instancer. . . .rnKnuckle ball, slider, high hard one, letuprnball, I do it that way to sustain myrnown interest” and to write it as he saw it,rnwith a tremendous consistency thatrnother writers superior to him did notrnhave.rnJohn O’Hara was not a “great” writer,rnand he wrote too much in order to sustainrna lifestyle he had learned from thosernhe satirized. But he was an importantrnand a significant one. His style was deceptivelyrnclean, deceptively simple,rnwhich is the essence of good writing. Hernmight have remained the toast of thernmakers and breakers who congregated atrnthe Algonquin, gave their all for the LiberalrnEstablishment and Dorothy Parker,rnand treasured their invitations to arnCamelot which had forgotten that Guineverernand Lancelot were adulterers.rnFrom a tacit acceptance of the PopularrnFront idolatry and opiniatry, he movedrnunder the prodding of his keen apperceptionsrnof social mores to what we nowrncall a conservative tradition. So he couldrnwrite in 1962 to a friend at the New Yorker:rn”I am bothered by Bobby and by hisrnbrother . . . I am revolted by the filthyrntreatment they are giving [General Edwin]rnWalker”—charged with insurrectionrnand sedition for giving his troops anti-rnCommunist indoctrination. “I havernknown men like Walker, and some arerndead and some are wearing high medalsrnfor valor. I’m sure I wouldn’t get alongrnwith Walker, but I hate what they are doingrnto him. The ultimate discrcditation,rnthe brand of the psycho . . .rn”I condemned McCarthy . . . but theyrndisgusted me with their effort (whichrnthey couldn’t make stick) to make loversrnof him and [Roy Cohn], . . . There isrnnothing too vile for their enemies—butrnwhat about Sumner Welles? Acheson?rnHiss? What did Truman, no less, callrnStevenson. . . . No matter what happens,rnwe have already seen the Kennedy brandrnof fascism, and there will be more.rnWatch [Bobby]. I am told he is something.rnWatch John reaching for more executivernpower…. 1 was too New Deal tornrealize it at the time, but it all began withrnFDR This tribe will make FDR seemrnlike an ardent democrat.”rnBy 1964, O’Hara had moved furtherrnto the right. “The thought that [BarryrnGoldwater] has been chosen to run on arnconservative ticket has the liberals sweatingrnas though the first thing he plans torndo is disconnect the hot line and pushrnthe bomb button It is already a clichernof this campaign that the incited Negro,rnled by the irresponsible, blood-thirstyrnNegro racists, may [decide the election].rn. . . [Sixty-five words dropped by a politicallyrncorrect editor from O’Hara’s text.]rnI maintain that much of the guilt for thernevil race situation must go to the liberals,rnwhose conventional, strictly conformistrnview is that anything the Negro does isrnright, and everything that white manrndoes is wrong…. But whether [Goldwater]rngets it or not, the liberal movementrnis going to have a setback. And why not?rnThe word [liberalism] has lost its meaning,rnthe movement has lost its usefulness.”rnAnd he was also going after thernliberal reviewers. “Most of the peoplernwho are given books to review are as intolerantrnas any Ku Kluxer who ever lived.rnYou go along with them, or by Christrnthey will try to destroy you.”rnThat was the beginning of the end ofrnJohn O’FIara, chronicler of the Americanrnmiddle class. Suddenly he was depictedrnas a Catholic trying to be a Yale-PrincetonrnWASP and a darting of Wall Street.rnIt became a high crime that he worernCharvet ties, drove an MG, and had hisrnjackets tailored at Burberry’s in London.rnHis “bad manners” and “arrogance” wererndeplored, though never those of Gore Vidal.rnWhatever fruits of success hadrncome to him were described as a payoffrnfor his support of America’s rich malefactors.rnHe had sold out, sold out. Nothingrnhad changed in his work, and therngood, clear writing, the great ear forrnspeech, which had been praised to thernskies, were somehow evidence of his lossrnof literary talent—much as communistrncritics turned on Malraux’s early communistrnnovels after he had desertedrnMarx.rnJohn O’Hara went, as John Dos Passosrnhad gone. But the shelf of books he hadrnwritten was still there. High schoolrnteachers, paying their union dues, mightrnnot put them on reading lists. And afterrnhis death, posthumous sales would notrnproject him onto the New York Timesrnbest-seller list. But the books will notrndisappear, for they are a record which thernliblabs would destroy of a period inrnAmerican life. Mark Twain’s HuckleberryrnFinn may be a no-no to the NAACP,rnOliver Twist and The Merchant of Venicernditto to the Anti-Defamation Leaguern48/CHRONICLESrnrnrn