The Writers: A History of American Screenwriters and Their Guild by Miranda J. Banks

Estabrook, and Waldo Salt, wrote to SWG members to remind them that an attack on writers at this moment was, in many ways, an implicit attempt to shut down the AAA and to foment disunity within the SWG: “Remember that the French authors have for decades controlled the French stage, and the French authors were moving in the direction of royalties on motion pictures when the war intervened and demolished the French picture industry. Remember that British writers long ago instituted the leasing of literary properties instead of outright sale. Remember that the American dramatists control the American stage. Remember that American film writers, through their Guild, have been moving steadily toward a greater protection for writers and their work.” 99 These SWG board members hoped to impress upon the membership that the movement toward authorial control for writers was a universal concern in democratic nations and that opposition to this idea amounted to an attack on unionization in Hollywood.
    TSW
welcomed readers to decide for themselves how to respond, and the amount of space devoted to the AAA debate illustrates how important the editors thought the topic was to their community. The majority of
TSW
readers, most of whom were writers, were sympathetic to the plan. Soon, the plan itself—and the writers who backed it—were increasingly the targets of right-wing attacks. Studios and legislative committees like HUAC saw conversationsabout the AAA and anyone who wished to debate this issue as leftist and liberal and, therefore, dangerous. Ring Lardner Jr. saw several reasons behind this guilt by association: “Partly, perhaps, through my identification with it, [the AAA] became thought of as kind of a left-wing plan. Although Jim Cain who had started it was anything but left wing. But the same people in the Guild who had originally worried about the Guild being under the domination of Eastern writers in the Author’s League . . . became concerned about this 1 percent of the gross. [Some], I don’t know quite how, saw a very sinister implication through all this that it was somehow going beyond our status as salaried employees, or independent contractors, to demand a share of the take.” 100 As Lardner explained, many of the writers on the SWG board were interested in getting the AAA approved; however, some saw the AAA as an important cause that, while worth supporting, would never win. As allegations of communist infiltration in Hollywood intensified, the writers used their journal as a site for political expression and public outrage.
    In its first two years,
TSW
built an impressive reputation. Many pieces originally written for the journal were picked up by mainstream newspapers and magazines. The National Board of Review praised
TSW
and the journal
Hollywood Quarterly
, declaring that they provided readers with a more complete portrait of Hollywood and its denizens: “These magazines leave a double impression: of the high competence of contemporary filmmakers, and of the magnitude of their problems. Also they leave in mind a notion that the modern inhabitants of Hollywood are citizens of the world. The journals will gain more respect for the industry among leaders of American opinion than a million dollars worth of ‘public relations.’” 101 Even amid the politics, there was always a place in
TSW
for wit and great writing. Howard Koch, a master of sophisticated screenplays like
Casablanca
and
Sergeant York
, reimagined his daily exploits in light of the news that Congressman John Rankin (Republican of Mississippi) had declared writers to be workers and Reds: “Once accepting my class status of worker, and I don’t quite know how I can avoid it, I find myself in the company of labor unions, guilds, and, in fact, people in general.” 102
    By the end of 1945, as the tone in Hollywood shifted and the SWG board increasingly criticized HUAC and its “friendly” witnesses, some more rightwing writers began attacks