LETTERS: Kay Boyle-William Shawn Correspondence
Kay Boyle – William Shawn Correspondence
1952-1953
Boyle, Kay and William Shawn. Kay Boyle–William Shawn Correspondence and related material, 1952 – 1953.
Four long letters and one telegram from Kay Boyle to William Shawn, together with telegrams, carbon copies, drafts and final versions of three of Shawn’s letters to her, and related interoffice memos.
Boyle began writing fiction for The New Yorker in 1932; by 1946 she was living in Germany and was acting as the war correspondent there. Her first letter to Shawn is dated May 11, 1952 and asks for his help; she was blacklisted as a Communist and faced legal repercussions. She blames herself for her husband’s dismissal from his position at the State Department in Bonn:
… Joseph has been declared a security risk, after so many years of loyal service, uniquely and solely because of me. For this reason I am writing to you, you who stood behind my work, and who surely know what my beliefs and ideals are, asking that you write a brief statement concerning ‘The New Yorker’s’ faith in me.
A sense of urgency and helplessness are palpable in her letter.
The New Yorker interoffice memos follow in the sequence; apparently, their lack of immediate reply prompted Boyle to send a telegram on June 5, asking again for their help. On June 11, Shawn sent a one page letter to the Bureau of German Affairs (included are drafts of this letter, autograph and typed). Shawn writes that he does not know Boyle well, but, attests, “I have read her writings, and in my few meetings with her I have formed a personal impression, and everything leads me to have confidence in her loyalty to the United States and to our form of government.” He also sends Boyle a telegram informing her that a letter had been sent on her behalf.
On September 20, Boyle sends Shawn another letter, saying that a hearing is scheduled in Germany for the next month, and she requests help again, this time in the form of legal support. She describes the case as “truly outrageous,” and expresses hope that The New Yorker can send a lawyer to Germany to defend her cause.
Boyle writes next on February 1, 1953; she accuses The New Yorker of not offering any support to her when she needed it most, and also raises the issue of her accreditation not being renewed. She asks,
How can I not but conclude that this sudden action on the part of ‘The New Yorker’ is in some way related to the recent loyalty and security hearing to which my husband and I were subjected? My conclusion is, unfortunately, strengthened by the sad fact that no one in the New York office has expressed the slightest curiosity as to the outcome of the hearing.
Shawn clearly did not know how to respond to this; interoffice memos are present, as well as several drafts of letters in response. The final version was sent to her on March 11 (nearly a year after the blacklisting proceedings began), and Shawn eloquently, but firmly, defends The New Yorker’s position on this issue. He mentions many points that had been mis-communicated and misunderstood by both parties; in fact, he claims that the staff at The New Yorker were baffled by the lack of communication from Boyle regarding her trial.
Boyle’s response – a five-page letter dated March 21, 1953 – is equally firm, but explains her thinking and her actions; she encloses copies of relevant letters regarding her case from other people involved (included here), and she admits to misunderstanding and mis-communication. In closing, she writes,
I am sorry this letter has drawn itself out to such a length. There is nothing more to add except that we ourselves are still waiting official word from Washington as to our clearance. We have heard unofficially that the local board cleared us, but the decisions of these local panels are sometimes reversed by the final authorities in Washington.
This, effectively, terminated Boyle’s relationship with The New Yorker; there are no further
Print Inquire