enough to let his reading interferenwith his writing.” Maybe that is whynArtaud so fascinates her; he is “relevantnand understandable as long as onenmainly refers to his ideas without readingnmuch of his work.”nAnother rhetorical abuse characterizesnher prose: the grandiose commentnon the relatively minor figure, the commentndefying debate since it is utterednso confidently as fixed dogma. Fornexample, of Elias Canetti: “Rarely hasnanyone been so at home in the mind,nwith so little ambivalence.” Since thenstatement is not proved, the rhetoricalnstance must be noted; the statement insistsnby inference that everyone knowsnthis to be true. Sometimes the parentheticalnreference is used in the samenway: “(expressing the Church’s perennialnfear of the open crowd).” The parenthesisnconfirms the self-evident characternof the statement, since one neednonly be reminded of it. At times likenthis, the reader can only halt the breathless,nphony urgency of her prose bynasking for hard evidence. What of sainthoodnby acclamation, the architecturalndesign of churches with huge squares,nEucharistic Congresses.” Or this:n”Artaud changed the understanding ofnwhat was serious, what was worth doing.nBrecht is the century’s only othernwriter on the theater whose importancenand profundity conceivably rival Artaud’s.”n(Artaud.? Brecht.?) What ofnShaw, Claudel, Synge, O’Neill andnWilder.? The statement is made evennmore puzzling when we are subsequentlyntold that “there is no way to use Artaudnthat stays true to him,” that hen”remains profoundly indigestible.” Thenevaluative judgment above is the kindnof thing one might say to a class ofnsophomores when grown-ups are notnaround to challenge it. A final examplenof her rhetorical incivility is, “The protagonistsnof this trilogy about Germanyn—Ludwig II, Karl May, Hitler—are allnmegalomaniacs, liars, reckless dreamers,nvirtuosi of the grandiose.” A prettyngrandiose statement in itself, but whatn16nChronicles of Culturenis the intent? Is Hitler made smaller ornare Ludwig and Karl May (Karl May.?)nmade somehow larger.? Surely, they arennot equally nor with the same intensitynof attitude and purpose megalomaniacs,nliars and dreamers. Is it anninstance of making a fuss over the unimportantnor a way of reducing the significancenof the threatening? Oh, well,nall are probably fascists and deservenequal censure for their failings.nIt is a large net Sontag casts whennA first fiiii- oilii’.. . Sontai; niaki’s rluui^lii j^nivv.”nics of perception, because she is moreninterested in labels. Is there also andemocratic aesthetics, a monarchicalnaesthetics, an oligarchical aesthetics?nSuch labels, I think, make most of usnuncomfortable.nJ-«et me be specific in showing hownshe applies her yardstick. A Riefenstahlnfilm, not one of the documentaries,nis described as illustrating thenfascist aesthetics. It is concerned withn—eic York Timesn. oiii.’ lit our most fami-sl. lii^h-minilcil. and DITITI brilliiint liltrary i-ssavisis.”n— Chicuiio IrihiiHCndiscussing “Fascinating Fascism”: Hitler,nthe subject of the 20th century,nLeni Riefenstahl, Busby Berkeley’s ThenGang’s All Here, Stanley Kubrick’sn2001, Walt Disney’s Fantasia (Disneyninvited Riefenstahl to Hollywood), thenAfrican Nuba and the art of the gymnast—amongnothers. Fascist aestheticsnincludes the celebration of the primitive:n… a preoccupation with situationsnof control, submissive behaviour,nextravagant effort. . . the endurancenof pain . . . egomania and servituden. . . dominion and enslavement takenthe form of characteristic pageantry;nthe massing of groups of people; thenturning of people into things, thenmultiplication or replication of things;nand the grouping of people/thingsnaround an all-powerful, hypnoticnleader-figure or force.nThe list above is problematical but instructive.nLooking at it with care, onensees that it can be made to apply to almostnanything. One has a convenientnweapon, by way of the paradigm, to condemnnanything. But what of the mixednprinciple of classification: fascist aestheticsnis confused with fascist art andnfascist themes. She avoids the more difficultnand interesting question, that ofnwhether a pohtical ambience can affectnthe senses so as to alter the metaphys-nnnmountain-climbing, since mountainclimbingnis a visually irresistible metaphornfor unlimited aspiration towardna higher mystic goal, “concretized laternin Fiihrer worship.” (“The Snows ofnKilimanjaro”?) The film also suggestsnthat the ultimate affirmation and escapenfrom self is in a brotherhood ofncourage and death. (The Three Musketeers?)nWe are warned against thosenworks which contain a longing for highnplaces, the challenge and ordeal of thenprimitive, achieved community, everydaynreality transcended through selfcontrolnand submission, concerns withnpower. Her one attempt at a philosophicalnbase for all this nonsense is thenidea that fascist aesthetics is based onncontainment of vital sources, somethingnconfined, held in. Is this different fromnGoethe’s notion that art exists withinnlimitations? If so, how? How much shenmust fear and hate the very idea of authority.nNeed she be reminded thatn”author” has the same root?nSontag spends so much time on thisnsubject because she feels we are unablen”to detect the fascist longings in ournmidst.” Sontag-Comstock will ferretnout the enemy of her choosing by givingnit a label against which it has no defense.nHere is the yardstick syllogism she uses:nFascist aesthetics is to be feared andn