Strategies &nSchemesnPeter Hutchinson: GamesnAutitorsPlay; Methuen; New York.nDuring a conversation withnJorge Luis Borges at the IngersollnPrizes ceremony in Chicago lastnDecember, we were informednthat, in his estimation, “Literaturenis supposed to be enjoyed.” Henadded, “It is fun, is it not?” Therenwas what can only be describednas a whimsical look on his facenwhen he uttered that rhetoricalnfoimulatioa Many persons, whennconfronted with Literature, tendnto drag on long feces. It becomesnsomething to be endured, suffered,nor otherwise undertaken.nPerhaps this response stemsnfrom the fact that most encounternLiterature as a subject,nsomething taught in realms thatnare more often Gradgrindiannthan not. Consequently, thenwould-be reader cowers, quails,nscrews his courage to you-knowwhere,nor turns on the TV. Part ofnthis reaction can be ascribed tonthe history of English Literaturenas a bona fide Subject: when Eng.nlit. courses were established innthe late 19th century, they werenjustified on the basis of HighnSeriousness; talk of games wasnrestricted to the bowling greens,nand even there the discourse hadnlittle to do with anytWng that cannbe loosely defined as “fiin.” Manyncreators of Literature—^ThomasnNashe, Shakespeare, Donne,nSterne, Wilde, Joyce, Nabokov,nBorges—^have a sense of “play,”nand throughout their worksnthey, indeed, “play games” withntheir readers through the use ofnallegory, allusion, parody, puns.nCOMMENDABLESnred herrings, and various andnsundry other devices. Academicsntend to handle the works as ifnthey are archaeological relicsnthat are ready to disintegrate andnwhich will do so If not approachednin the proper, respectablenmanner; it’s a sourpuss (notna Cheshire cat) they resemble asnthey advance crab-like towardnthe Light (Sweetness causesntooth decay, don’t you know [tonborrow a flourish from Sayer’s SirnPeter]).nDr. Hutchinson, as his titlenmay connote, is a serious man.nYet he undoubtedly cracks ansmile every now and then. Thentide Games Authors Play alludesnto Eric Berne’s 1964 GamesnPeople Play and not to, as somenwag might point out, Joe South’sni960 jukebox hit with Berne’sntide. The existence of things likenMr. South’s record points outnthat one had better be preparednto apply a little bit of seriousndiscrimination when it comes tonchasing down literary hares. Dr.nHutchinson provides some aptninstructions. DnOf Prosenand PietynJames J. Thompsonjr.: ChristiannClassics Revisited; Ignatius;nSan Francisco.nAmong the many ends tonwhich writers may put theirnwords is that of leading thenreader toward the divine Wordnof Christian belief In the secularizednworld of modernity,nsuch efforts, even when practicednwith subtlety, insight, andncreative intelligence receivenremarkably little attention,nhowever. As a devout RomannCatholic writer with a keen mindnand a lucid style, James J.nThompson, Jr., former associateneditor of Chronicles of Culture,nmakes a laudable effort in ChristiannClassics Revisited to providengreater visibility to authorsnand works in which the searchnfor God and the exercise ofnhuman talent fruitfiiUy combine.nThough the emphasis on Catholicnand Anglo-Catholic writersnsuch as Ignatius Loyola, CardinalnNewman, T. S. Eliot, G. K. Chesterton,nand Evelyn Waugh doesnIN FOCUSnSemitrivial PursuitsnRoger Scruton: Kant; OxfordnUniversity Press; New York.nPeter Singer: Hegel; OxfordnUniversity Press; New YorlcnJ. O. Urmson: Berkeley; OxfordnUniversity Press; New York.nMichael Howard: Clausewitz;nOxford University Press; New YorlcnPeter France: Diderot; OxfordnUniversity Press; New York.nPeter Stansky: William Morris;nOxford University Press; New YorknWhile most things liberal tendnto be perverse, distorted, ornsomehow malign, we do, however,nsupport one thing that hasnthe word liberal appended to itnas an adjective: liberal education.nCertainly, in this age of computerized,ntechnocratic specialization,nthe world of bytes andnbauds, wherein a degree in engineeringntranslates into bignbucks and hefty perks and andegree in one of the humanitiesnoften leads—^if not to the door—nto a low-paying job in a onceunimaginednprofession (e.g., annnreflect a discernible bias. Dr.nThompson proves himself catholicnas well as Catholic in hisnperspicacious examination notnonly of Protestant writers such asnJohn Woolman, WiU CampbeU,nand Emil Brunner but also of thenextremely marginal ChristiannJames Agee. Primarily because ofntheir brevity, his essays are onlynsuggestive rather than definitivenin their evaluations. But thennanyone who agrees with GerardnManley Hopkins that “JesusnChrist is the only true literaryncritic” does not expect definitivenJudgment of books or men untilnanother Day. (BC) Dnhistory major pushing fiimiturenat Sears), there is something tonbe said for those people who trynto internationalize the Amoldiann”best that has been known andnthought.” They deserve support,nnot saliva tests. But there is andanger inherent in the contemporarynsituation if the alternativento the specialist, the person whonknows a great deal about a fewnthings, is seen as being thengeneralist, //that generalistnperceives his or her role as being,nfiguratively speaking, that of anriver that’s a mile wide and anninch deep. Such a person wouldnknow virtually nothing about anwide gamut of things; he or shenwould be qualified to be, at best,na champion player of TrivialnPursuit (i.e., “What was Newton’sndog’s name?” not “Talknabout the Newtonian universe”).nThese thoughts are provokednby a series of slim—averagingn100 pages each—volumes onnphilosophers and writers producednby Oxford Universityni23nAugust 1984n