returning is that one is dealing here withrna “psychological phenomenon” foundrnamong “self-defined victims” and theirrnproponents. Weissberg is right about allrnof this, but he misses the political contextrnthat shapes such behavior. As LinornGraglia has repeatedly asked: Whatrnwould our universities be like if the federalrngovernment, directly and throughrnthe states, did not impose afFirmafive action?rnThe answer must be: very different.rnAffirmative action is the entering wedgernfor mandated “diversity training,” therncreation of “non-hostile” work and livingrnenvironments for minorities, and nonstoprnsensitivity classes.rnWeissberg is correct in saying thatrnsuch coercive policies work well in thernscrewball environment in which he andrnI perform our jobs. But the social deviantsrnwe meet there would not be havingrntheir way were it not for governmentrnsteadily endorsing their projects, anyrnmore than the Waffen-SS would havernbeen honored as servants of the Germanrnstate 60 years before Hitler. The administrativernclass promotes “tolerance” for itsrnown interest, which requires turningrnmiddle-class communities into collectionsrnof therapeutic subjects. And a highlyrnuseful means toward that end is thernsanctification of the “psychological tolerance”rnexamined by Weissberg. The demandrnfor ecstatic public acceptance ofrnwhat until quite recently would havernseemed lunatic and perverted to everyonerninterferes, as Weissberg shows, withrntraditional community and the socialrnspace in which it must function. That isrnthe reason state managers, who are busyrneradicating the institutional and culturalrnpast, push for the new tolerance and imposernit on their client-subjects, descendedrnfrom what once were Americanrncitizens.rnWeissberg intermittently makes thisrnobservation, while accepting the notionrnthat public administration is being drivenrnby radical pressure groups in an intolerantrndirection. My own reading of thernsituation is less optimistic: that a revolutionaryrncentral state favors and fundsrnwhatever wackiness increases its hold onrnsociety.rnPaul Gottfried is a professor of humanitiesrnat Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown,rnPennsylvania, and the author,rnmost recently, of After Liberalism: MassrnDemocracy in the Managerial Statern(Princeton).rnA BeautifulrnFriendshiprnby Mark Royden WinchellrnCleanth Brooks andrnRobert Penn Warren:rnA Literary CorrespondencernEdited by fames A. Grimshaw, fr.rnColumbia: University of Missouri Press;rn444 pp., $39.95rnThe story of their first meeting hasrnbeen told so many times that it hasrnbecome part of the folklore of modernrnSouthern literature. One day, during thernfall of 1924, Robert Penn Warrenrnstopped by Kissam Hall on the Vanderbiltrncampus to visit his friend and classmaternSaville Clark. With Clark wasrnhis new roommate, a freshman namedrnCleanth Brooks. Although only a yearrnand a half older than Brooks, the precociousrnWarren was already a senior and anrnimportant member of the group of poetsrnthat called themselves “Fugitives.” Despiternhis local eminence, “Red” Warrenrntook enough of an interest in his new acquaintancernto look at one of Cleanth’srnfreshman themes and to complimentrnhim on his “natural style.” As HumphreyrnBogart said to Claude Rains at the end ofrnCasablanca, it was the beginning of arnbeautifiil friendship.rnThat friendship flourished for the nextrn65 years, ending only with Warren’srndeath on September 14, 1989. For mostrnof this time, the two men were in closernproximity to one another. When Brooksrnarrived at Oxford as a Rliodes Scholar inrnOctober 1929, Warren had already beenrnthere a year. Over the next 12 months,rnthey became much better acquaintedrnthan they had been at Vanderbilt. Then,rnfrom 1934 to 42, they were colleagues inrnthe English department at LouisianarnState University. During the last seven ofrnthose years, they edited the original seriesrnof the Southern Review. By 1947, Brooksrnwas teaching at Yale, where he wasrnjoined by Warren in 1950; they would bernneighbors in Connecticut for the nextrnfour decades.rnBecause both men (particularly Warren)rntraveled a good deal, it was necessaryrnfor them to keep in touch throughrnthe mail. James A. Grimshaw, Jr.’s recentrnedition of over 350 letters exchangedrnby Brooks and Warren for betterrnthan half a century helps us see somethingrnof the private personalities of tworndistinguished public writers. The greaterrnvalue of this volume, however, lies in thernperspective it gives us on a working relationshiprnunique in 20th-century literature.rnJohn Palmer, who knew both menrnlong and well, said that they remindedrnhim not so much of two agreeable colleaguesrnas of two different parts of thernsame person. Warren was a brainstormingrngenius. When he was at work, thernsurrounding area soon became a mess.rnHe would jot an idea or an image downrnon a piece of paper, wad that paper up,rnand start again with a fresh sheet. Veryrnfew of the wads ever made it to the wastebasket.rnIn confrast, Brooks kept a tidierrndesk and a more orderly mind. If Warren’srnlight could be as blinding and diffusernas the sun itself. Brooks’ was morernlike a laser beam—less primal but morernfocused. This partnership produced, inrnaddition to the Southern Review, a seriesrnof textbooks that would change the wayrnAmerican students studied literature.rnAlthough Cleanth Brooks and RobertrnPenn Warren: A Literary Correspondencernis a valuable scholarly resource for anyonerninterested in the mechanics of editorialrncollaboration, the magic of thernfriendship shared by Brooks and Warrenrndoes not come across as often as it mightrnhad they been separated for longer periodsrnof time: Because they could so easilyrnenjoy each other’s company, letters didrnnot have to serve as a poor substitute.rnOne can find more literary gossip inrnBrooks’ correspondence with RobertrnHeilman, who was stuck a continentrnaway at the University of Washington.rnMore brilliant discussions of literaryrntheory are contained in the letters Brooksrnexchanged with Allen Tate and MurrayrnKrieger. When Cleanth and Red wroternto each other, they usually meantrnbusiness.rnThe history of the original SouthernrnReview has been capably recorded inrnThomas Cufrer’s Parnassus on the Mississippi.rnWhat becomes evident from therncorrespondence in Grimshaw’s volumernis the degree to which Cleanth Brooksrnwas the workhorse who kept that journalrngoing while Red Warren was away fromrncampus (spending a guest semester at anotherrnuniversity or the summer in Italy)rnand the Review’s nominal editor, CharlesrnPipkin, was drinking himself to death.rnForhmately, Cleanth had the assistancern32/CHRONICLESrnrnrn