To the Editors:

I read John Simon’s essay on Brecht in his letters (“The Amoral Superman,” December 1990) with great interest. But since Mr. Simon is a stickler for accuracy, I would like to call to his attention that the appellation of Alfred Döblin as “the Marxist novelist” is an oversimplification. While it is true that Döblin embraced Marxism after World War I, the record also shows that he did so in a highly un orthodox and free-wheeling manner. After his conversion to Catholicism in 1941, Döblin’s work reflects a radical break with Marxism and a pro nounced interest in Christian mysticism and relig ious renewal (cf. Der unsterbliche Mensch, 1946). His frank criticism of atheism and clericalism, neo-capitalism and Marxist orthodoxy made him an outsider in either part of Germany to which he returned in 1945 after spending most of the war years in the United States. Since according to Mr. Simon, Döblin remained Brecht’s “life-long friend,” I would have liked to hear what Brecht had to say about Döblin’s break with Marxism and his subsequent conversion.

Franz Schneider
Professor of English and Comparative Literature
Gonzaga University
Spokane, WA

John Simon replies:

There is only so much Döblin one can put into a review of Brecht’s letters. It is the Marxist Döblin who was closely linked with Brecht, not the later Catholic convert. The crucial incident that could have scuttled the relationship—when the pros elyte Döblin insulted both Brecht, who was giving