i-xxii Front matter.qxd - Brandeis Institutional Repository

72 / Neel’s Social Realist Artever simplistic its argumentation, the magazine courageously refused to acceptwithout protest governmental censorship and denial of rights, the “redbaiting”of the McCarthy era. Its stated aim was tore-enter the arena in deƒance of those who would outlaw dissent and chain theAmerican people to a program of fascism and war . . . Our speciƒc intention is toƒght on the cultural front, in the battle of ideas. Our editorial viewpoint—thoughnot necessarily the viewpoint of every contributor—is Marxist. 24By Marxist Sillen meant Zhdanovist. 25 Several years later, in a two-partarticle “Communists in Novels,” Charles Humboldt centered the concept offorward progress in the new communist hero: “He must, ƒrst of all, be able tomaster the forces that overcome others, to resist oppression instead of beingcrushed by it...” 26 Yet the small cadre of communist writers and artists inNew York at the time were well aware of the weaknesses of Zhdanovism, despitewhat they said in print, and throughout the 1950s its members argued activelyabout alternative deƒnitions of a Marxist art. For instance, Neel occasionallyparticipated in the Writers and Critics group that met monthly at theUpper West Side apartment of Annette T. Rubinstein, a literary historian andteacher at the New York Marxist School. Neel was invited to join by CharlesHumboldt, and the Masses & Mainstream crowd attended regularly. Signiƒcantly,V. J. Jerome was not invited, as he was considered too dogmatic. 27 Thegroup wrestled with the relationship of literature to Marxist theory by readingand discussing the advocates for opposing viewpoints, such as Brecht andLukacs. 28 According to Rubinstein, within the CP literati, “there was no embraceof anything like Zhdanov’s debased and fraudulent ‘socialist realism.’” 29Although Neel did more listening than speaking, she was made aware of thecontradictions within Marxist cultural theory, and of the need to ƒnd her ownresolution to them.In a 1955 letter to the editor of Masses & Mainstream, Neel articulated herown alternative to Zhdanovist heroism. Her friend Phillip Bonosky, in reviewingLars Lawrence’s Morning, Noon and Night, had taken the author to taskfor an overly idealized depiction of the working class. In his ensuing editorialargument with Albert Maltz, Neel sided with Bonosky, whostands up for something to my mind much more important and ethical in the deepestsense: the relation of art to life and the responsibility of the writer to re„ect inthe most advanced and humanistic way any part of the life of his day . . . I think wehave all realized for many years now that the “hero” lives and has lived . . . [L]iterature,unless it re„ects truly, becomes only a pale and falsiƒed re„ection of life. 30