ARGUMENTS
125
Girl Crazy,
and it is even less its business
to
produce
Die Fledermaus.'
In its context the statement doesn't mean or imply that Leinsdorf said
he intended to produce
Girl Crazy-the
context being my specific state–
ment earlier that the two examples of light opera he decided to pro–
duce were
Die Fledermaus
and
Orpheus."
By this time, September 1956, Mr. Hatch was writing me angrily;
and in one reply I summed up the situation as follows:
As for the details of style, I agree with you that they should
not be argued about. To make writing that is unclear clear,
or writing that is logically incorrect correct, no amount of
trouble on your part and mine is too great; and I am grateful
to you for bringing it to my attention. But only such major
matters are, in my opinion, worth your trouble and mine;
and most of the details you refer to as minor-"courtesy and
consideration toward servants" instead of "to servants"; "the
aria" instead of "this aria"; "were justified" instead of "proved
justified"-in my .opinion are
not
worth your trouble and
mine. They are the slight idiosyncracies, and, if you will,
imperfections, which a writer should be allowed.
But this didn't persuade him to change his treatment of my writing.
What did produce a change was the letter of February 6, 1957 in
which Mr. Kirstein communicated what had been foreseeable from
his statement at our first meeting in October 1955. Pointing out what
was felt to be
The Nation's
inadequate coverage of painting and
sculpture, and the disproportionate weekly coverage of music, he wrote
that as of April 1 the magazine would publish a music column only on
alternate weeks. They would be glad to have me continue as music
critic under those conditions, but he could understand my preferring
to make other arrangements that were financially more advantageous;
and
if
this was my decision he asked me to let him know so that they
too
could make other arrangements. Mr. McWilliams, Mr. Hatch and
he would be happy to discuss the matter with me if I wished.
What came through to me strongly was Mr. Kirstein's confidence
in
his estimate of the situation: that someone who wrote for
The Nation
for what I was paid would continue to write for it for half that
amount. I therefore began my reply with the statement that in effect
he was asking if I would continue as
The Nation's
music critic for half
of what I was being paid; and the answer of course was no. And I
included the following:
If
there were not the financial reason for my decision I would
be
impelled to it
by
the continuing indignities I have been
