When John O'Hara writes about the world surrounding the legitimate theatre and about Hollywood, the pages come to life. The Instrument is set in the heyday of The New Yorker, the years of the Algonquin Hotel lunch bunch of authors, critics, and comedians/comediennes.
Although I initially suspected that the novel was semi-autobiographical (O'Hara was the son of a doctor in a small Pennsylvania town while the protagonist of this novel was the son of a college professor in a small town in Pennsylvania (Spring Valley).), The Instrument is actually about a playwright rather than a novelist/short story writer (as is O'Hara). O'Hara wrote some plays (five are published in a collection), but his only success on Broadway was a musical adaptation of his Pal Joey, a stage vehicle for Gene Kelly and a screen vehicle for Frank Sinatra. However, O'Hara was known to be difficult to get along with and the protagonist of this novel, Yank Lucas, is accused of being misogynistic when, in truth, he was primarily a misanthrope. O'Hara was known to have a splendid ear for dialogue, as does Lucas. O'Hara was excoriated in some reviews (and banned in more prurient cities and nations) because of his nonchalant and frank discussions of sexuality. The protagonist, who happens to be The Instrument of the title, has a rather mundane and amoral approach to sexuality, as well.
But if you really want to get a perspective on O'Hara, check out his epitaph (which he penned himself) in which he claims to have described his times more honestly than and certainly "Better than all the rest." This undisguised narcissism or prodigious insecurity is a useful foundation for understanding the character in the book, as well as the author. Yank Lucas insists that the doesn't believe in "love." In several conversations, he exults in espousing his philosophy that "love" is a product of "wishful thinking" or "need" and has no empirical existence. He actually sounds more like an "evangelistic atheist" (if you'll pardon the oxymoron) than an authentic commentator on the human condition.
Yet, the strongest element in this novel for me was not only the interweaving of the creative/writing process with personal experience (though certainly, that was interesting), but it was also how far a character could merely toss off moral responsibility for relationships, events, and life choices. No, I didn't really LIKE this character, but I wanted to see how far his discipline and philosophy would take him.
Frankly, this is not a modern "morality play" where all of the injustices and irresponsibilities are wrapped up in a neat bow to teach us how to live. However, it is a precision-crafted observation of the cost to one's own humanity in total self-absorption. Indeed, perhaps "better than all the rest," O'Hara has described the tragedy of his own disappointment with life. In the midst of an artistic success, I cannot help but see the well-lit stage of personal failure. Of course, that's just one reader's impression.