was Chilton Williamson Jr., then bookneditor of National Review and nownsenior editor at Chronicles: conservativenon conservative, in other words.nOn April 2, 1989, we published anreader’s letter: “How could you assignnHorowitz and Collier’s book to a seniorneditor of the National Review for review?nThat is like asking Roy Cohn tonreview a defense of Joe McCarthy.nThere isn’t a critical — in any sense ofnthe word — sentence in the review.nWilliamson’s review is a rehash of theneditorial page of The Wall Street Journalnand the lies of the Bush campaign.n… I am disappointed in ThenTimes.”nAlongside the March 18 review ofnDestructive Generation we published anreview of Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals.nOur reviewer was Russell Jacoby, authornof the decidedly liberal The LastnIntellectuals: liberal on conservative,nthis time. On April 2, 1989, we foundnourselves publishing a letter that read:n”I have just read with disgust yournpaper’s review by Russell Jacoby ofnPaul Johnson’s latest book. . . . Jacobynneither reviews the book’s content, norneffectively refutes either Johnson’snpremise or his supporting data. Rather,nyour collegiate reviewer seems contentnto demonstrate an intellectual phenomenan[sic] which probably encouragednthe creation of ‘Intellectuals’ innthe first place: Hysterical intolerancenfor any thought that is not ideologicallyncoUectivist in content, sympathy orntone.”nTo both letter writers our choice ofnreviewer seemed perverse because thenoutcome seemed predictable. Surelynwe knew in advance that Williamsonnwas likely to approve of DestructivenGeneration and Jacoby to disapprovenoiIntellectuals. But I maintain that thenfact that advocacy or antagonism maynbe foreseeable in a given case does notn48/CHRONICLESnLIBERAL ARTSnUNHOLY FOOLSnmean that the means of the advocacynor antagonism will be foreseeable. Andngetting there can be all the fun. Itncould have been predicted that ChristophernHitchens, writing for The Nation,nwould dislike Johnson’s Intellectuals.nIt could not have been predictednthat he would express his dislike bynmeans of a wealth of scurrilous andnhilarious ad hominem stories aboutnJohnson. (I add, in Hitchens’ defense,nthat this is the sort of attack thatnJohnson does to all the subjects of hisnbook.) And it surely could not havenbeen predicted that Joe Sobran, writingnin National Review, would also dislikenJohnson’s book.nThe real problem is that a politicalnbook cannot be reviewed three times innone publication: once by an ally, oncenby an antagonist, and once by a neutral.nIn the particular context of booknreviewing under newspaper auspices, Indo take the responsibilities of basicnreporting with extra seriousness. Andnyet even here the book review as angenre contains within it elements ofneditorial and “op ed” writing as well asnelements of art criticism. If authors arenso often enraged by their reviews, itnmay be in part because these newspapernfunctions, normally dispersed, arenin book reviewing so compressed.nIn the end, even if it is the principalnduty of the newspaper to report rathernthan to opine, fairness can only benapproached by tacking and countertacking,ncruel or capricious as this mustnseem in individual cases. It simply mustnbe arranged, in other words, that onnsome occasions a liberal will commentnon a liberal, a conservative on a liberal,na noncombatant on all partisans, and sonforth. If readers are not sometimesnexposed to the kind of argument thatnonly a polemic or an apology canndeliver, they will miss the whole flavornof the thing. A measure of detachmentnI cannot condemn a man for ignorance, but behold him with asnmuch pity as I do Lazarus. It is no greater charity to cloath his bodynthan apparel the nakedness of his soul. … To this (as calling myselfna scholar,) I am obliged by the duty of my condition; I make notntherefore my head a grave, but a treasure of knowledge; I intend nonmonopoly but a community in learning, I study not for my own sakenonly, but for theirs that study not for themselves.n— Sir Thomas Browne,nReligio Medicinnnmay be vital, but a surfeit of it is fatal.nVariety, here, is not the spice, it is thenvery staff of life.nI have not yet addressed the implicationnin Ms. Dalton’s piece that, in thenmainstream press, most liberal booksnare reviewed by friendly liberals, whilenmost conservative books are reviewednby unfriendly liberals. A full responsento that charge would involve somethingnlike a book review head count, annimpossibility in practice, and so I offernonly a suggestive example or two.nA recent issue of The New YorknReview of Books — surely the paradenexample of a mainstream left/liberalnpublication — quoted at length AndreinSakharov’s grave reservations, thennonly just voiced, about the concentrationnof Soviet power in the hands ofnMikhail Gorbachev. Another example:non March 30, 1989, The New YorknReview of Books offered a discussion ofnSebastian Haffrier’s still-untranslatednPact With the Devil: German-RussiannRelations from the First to the SecondnWorld War. Ideologically speaking, thenSoviet Union lives and breathes byn”The Great Fatherland War.” But,nwho armed Germany after World WarnI? Who trained its officers? Haffner’snbook is potentially far more devastatingnto the Soviet self-image than evennRobert Conquest’s The Great Terror.nIn these two cases The New YorknReview of Books offers either primaryndocumentation or early intelligence onnthemes dear to the conservative heart. Inknow of no conservative publicationnwith a comparable record either on itsnown conservative agenda or, much less,non the liberal agenda.nMy own hope is that these twonexamples from the last two or threenissues of a quintessentially liberal publication,njoined to the politics of booknreviewing at the Los Angeles Times as Inhave outlined it, may make KatherinenDalton and the readers of Chroniclesnthink twice before speaking of thenliberal literary establishment. Call us annestablishment if you like. But, reversingnthe proverb, don’t miss the individualntrees in that liberal forest.nJack Miles is book editor of the LosnAngeles Times. The article bynKatherine Dalton to which he refersnis “Books and Book Reviewing, ornWhy All Press Is Good Press,” in thenJanuary 1989 issue o/Chronicles.n