MARXIST THEORIZING

Last week we made the mistake of soliciting English explanations of the Marxist theory of art. We even offered a free trip to Chernobyl. Though we received a bunch of responses, much mystery remains. We appreciate the help, but we’re kind of sorry we asked.

In answer to your request for clarification of the “Marxist theory of art” (May 11), that theory utilizes a common denominator--the more common, the better. (I am quite sure of this because I have studied a lot of PDQ Bach.)

Begin with a useful concept--say the epic of the sturgeon. Any sturgeon will do. In Marxism they are theoretically all alike. Express how society ought to view the fish, and emphasize aspects likely to gain emotional response. Large is an excellent evocative quality, for instance. If the tail is of no use, save to the fish, ignore it. Also, one may deplore the exclusionary traits of caviar (a by-product), while at the same time extolling the fish’s role in a lagging economy.

Conceptually, the sturgeon may be improved, perhaps by putting it on skis. Once the notion that sturgeon slalom becomes entrenched, a society will see problems of national transportation as more easily solved.

Further, the idea that sturgeon are not pretty may be refuted by additions to imagery such as mascara or expressions of admiration for thick skins--or heads. Indeed, under Marxism, one may invent the sturgeon without reference to God, Evolution or Republicans.

(Note: I have used the Marxist theory of counting the allowed “100 words or less.” I do not want to go to Chernobyl. I want to go to the Omsk Skinny-Dippers’ Diving Fete in December.)

PATTI D. HALL

Seal Beach