course, bad books tend to flop, but theynare not a part of this discussion). Eventually,nthe messages conveyed to the elitesnby these books will make their way downnto the middle and possibly ftirther. Thus,neventually, the plastic market is molded.nIf a writer seeks employment, then it behoovesnhim to go to a publisher withnwhom he is—or can be—in concert.nDoes this then mean that writers arentoadies? In Eden, the answer would benyes. In an advanced capitalistic societynwhere there is flreedom of choice, thenanswer is no.nJHohendahl’s concern is primarilynthe role of the critic. If, as claimed, thenartist must give in to a patron or publisher,nthen it’s feirly certain that the critic,nthe writer of secondary texts, mustngive in even more. Fairly certain but notntrue—^at least not as long as the statenisn’t the sole publisher. Hohendahl providesna curious history of the role of thencritic. Once a champion of the readingnpublic, the critic is now a lickspittle. Thenbiggest contribution of the FrankfurtnTheWayWe Are?nI’lerc arc- .sumr titles and .subtitles ofnrecent movies, and examples of how theynare advertised in America’s heartland fornthe coasumption of the young, thenmature, and the aged:nh’eelin’lipnMonty Pythoti: lix Meaning of Life—n’Sex. Sacrilege. .Sciitolof^’… An exhilaratingnexperience!’ [ThLs is an (ipinionnof a Time magazine reviewer, iiseil in anprinted ailverti!ienient|.nJ-‘lasbdtinie—‘It’s as far as you can go!’n[from the promotion copy].nYou’ve come a lung way (on the road tonthe tntsh can ) civilization, hahy … Dn161nChronicles of CttlturenSchool (i.e., Adomo, Horkheimer, et al.)nto socioliterary discourse is the termnculture industry. It has an ominous ring,nparticularly for those who don’t like tonmention the stratification of society. Itnbrings to mind the image of a bloated,nrapacious industrialist who is insanelynlaughing as he cranks the handle on anmachine from which novels, paintings,nfilms, etc. emerge. Hohendahl claimsnthat “literary criticism has become annappendix of the culture industry.” Henstates, “We cannot expect any interestnon the part of the media industry inndemocratizing cultural production andnreception, since this industry considersnthe population as an object to be administerednand not a participant in the discussion.”n(“Democratizing cultural production”nmeans, of course, that everyonenwould be equipped with or havenaccess to pencils, paper, mimeographnmachines, television equipment, etc. fornthe creation and criticism of “people’s”nart.) In Hohendahl’s rendition of thenstatus quo, those running the culturenindustry dominate and force-feed thenLIBERAL CULTURE~|nnnpublic. Critics are no more than vestigesnwithin the bodies of the industrialists.nNo one has his appendix removed unlessnit causes some trouble. Similarly, the criticncan remain in his slot as long as hendoesn’t disturb the digestive area of thenindustrialist. To a certain extent this isntrue: no conservative journal is going tonprint a panegyric to Stalin, nor will a liberalnreview promote the ideas of EdmundnBurke. While this seems rather evident,nit is treated in works like the one undernconsideration as an astonishing revelationnand as an indictment. It should benneither. Just as Michelangelo was able toncreate art while under a cotnmission,ncritics can—and do—^write honest assessmentsnof works. Some don’t, butnthen they aren’t critics; they are publicists.nTalk about the seemingly unlimitednpower of the culture industry is just sonmuch bunk: no matter how much inknand money are used to grease the rails,npigs still can’t be made to fly—^they maynsoar for a while, but then…nv-(ritics are under strict, though oftenntacit, guidelines that are imposed bynmembers of the elite group. But this isn’t,nMarxist fiilminations notwithstanding, andiflicult concept for anyone in a free, advancedncapitalistic society to understand:neven a worker of the lowest class kno’wsnthat he must not teU his boss to stuflf it ifnhe wants to retain his job. If a critic considersnhis role to be something othernthan that of a flack (or a vermiform appendix)nand if he discovers that thenguidelines in a particular situation forcenhim to become one, then he will leaventhat situation and find a suitable platformnfi’om which he can express his views.nPerhaps he will be unable to find one,nbut he does have a choice. The case isnconsiderably different in societies vsiierenpartiynost, narodnost, or the like arenthe rule—enforced by the threat of annopen-ended stay at a gulag. In such placesnartists and critics are indeed treated asnmere appendages that can be readilynamputated. And there the elite nature ofntrue art is made all the more evident bynthe production of mass “people’s” art. Dn