Play the game!
Sir: I am told by friends more experienced in the literary world than I that it is poor form for an author or anyone connected with him to reply to a review. I really must protest, however, at Mr Szamuely's alleging (30 August) that my father 'has profound contempt for ideologies'. My father happens to have very strong beliefs, and, I am told by friends who know both my father and Mr-Viamuely, they are not too far from those of Mr Szamuely himself--except, of course, on the Arab-Israeli question on which they are bound to differ. Had Mr Szamuely's reactions been to the content of The Game of Nations, rather than to my father's presentation of it, they would have been fairly near to what my father hoped for in any reader.
It happens that I edited this book myself, at my father's request, for the express purpose of ensuring that it was as much as possible a straight-faced expository state- ment o‘what sort of things go on behind the scenes in international diplomacy. My father did not say, 'there are no winners, only losers'. Nor did he expound 'hare- brained sociological principles', or come anywhere near to saying 'the main thing is to be tough'. Nor did he even remotely suggest that 'the man who wins the game is playing chicken while his opponent is playine rhecs'. or that 'morality is for punks', or that 'political assassination is a damned useful thing'. The first of these allegations of Mr Szamuely's refers to an excerpt, clearly labelled, which my father took from the speech of an Egyptian-. official; the second refers to 'prAndiples' which, harebrained or not, did in fact guide the thinking of both the Egyptian revolutionaries and their American friends —and on which my father carefully refrained from expressing his own view. The others are outright inventions of Mr Szamuely. See for, yourself. They appear nowhere in my father's book. Miles Ctipeland III 21 Marlborough Place, London4w8
Previous page
