Maybe I'm Wrong (Vol. 2, Issue 7)
As the Commentator’s commentator, I consider it a professional obligation to pen several comments in the nature of prolegomena to a careful study of the ruthless battle being fought on the pages of this dignified publication between my dear friend of the Hoi Polloi and my equally esteemed comrade Mr. Louis Werfel.
***
I will begin by positing the existence of two combatants, thus assuming that Mr. Werfel is not charging into a windmill or employing his highly developed art of invective against his own ego writing under the name of its genus. It will also be necessary for the purpose of this discussion to assume that the two opponents know what they are writing about and mean what they say.
***
The postulation of our first assumption is necessitated by the hidden identity of the given member of the Hoi Polloi. It will be observed that this postulate requires that the class Hoi polloi contain more than one member. Were this not the case we would be forced to maintain that Mr. Werfel is either fighting no one (if the class under consideration contained no members) or himself (if the class contained one member). We cannot go into this now, but will leave the discovery of the other premise required for the last inference to the reader. Evidence for it will be found in Mr. Werfel’s letter of last week.
***
Our first assumption seems, nevertheless, to be fairly reasonable and may be accepted for all practical purposes. As for the second postulate, we must admit that it is very questionable and our sole justification for accepting it is that it offers a more convenient basis for discussion than does its denial.
***
Some doubt may be raise regarding the sufficiency of these postulates. It may be argued that they do not give us enough information to gain a knowledge of the matter. They throw no light on the issues raised in the two letters.
***
In answer to this objection I should like to suggest that if unfairness, “raw deal”, and similar virtues are the issues requiring consideration they would perhaps be most properly studied with reference to the [illegible] in which this controversy was carried on.
