Miller calls “a lateral dance of interpretation.n” In this sideways movement of deconstruction,nthe text is shown to have nondeterminate meaning, for the readernnever reaches “any passage that is chief,noriginal, or originating, a sovereign principlenof explanation.”nD enis Donoghue’s Ferociom Alphabetsnshould be viewed in the context ofnthis battle. Through a series of penetratingnreviews, Donoghue—like M.H.nAbrams, Wayne Booth, and GeraldnGraff—has taken up the challenge ofndeconstruction, articulately reassertingnhumanistic attitudes. Although his bookndiscusses the ideas of nearly 20 modernncritics and is a kind of polemic, it has annengaging personal quality. It is brief andnhighly readable—a refreshing contrast tonthe abstruse and jargon-laden writing ofnmany of the radical theorists.nDonoghue introduces the book as beingnmainly about reading and only incidentallynabout writing. He is concernednwith the recent shift of interest away fromnthe author and toward the reader. Thenauthor, of course, is the principal casualtynin the development of poststructuralism.n”It is about time,” says MichelnFoucault, “that criticism and philosophynacknowledged the disappearance orndeath of the author.” “hs institution,”nsays Roland Barthes, “the author is dead:nhis civil status, his biographical person,nhave disappeared.” Donoghue believesnthe author is dead or missing only in ancertain minority approach to reading andncriticism. For most readers the author isnvery much alive, and his voice andnpresence are vitally important. Donoghuendistinguishes between communionnand communication and uses conversationnas a model. The principal object ofnconversation, he suggests, is not communication,nthat is, conveying preciselyna specific message. It is communion, ansharing of voice, feeling, and presence.nHe would like to replace a theory of communicationnby a theory of communionnand argues that what writers want is ansystem of exchange much like conversation.nSpeech and conversation have highn121nChronicles of Cttlturenpriority in his notions of language andnliterature. Consequently, as the dustnjacket summarizes, he “divides thenideological front line into two opposingncamps: the Epireader, who believes thatnliterature must have a ‘voice,’ a ‘speaker’nbehind it; and the Graphireader, whonjust as stubbornly asserts that literature isn’writing,’ that any translation of wordsnon the page into ‘speech’ or ‘personality’nis one more bourgeois delusion, anothernattempt at self-mystification.”nEpireading, says Donoghue (he coinsnthe term from the Greek epos, meaningnspeech or utterance), is unwilling to leavenwritten words as it finds them on thenpage; instead, “it wants to restore themnto a source, a human situation involvingnspeech, character, personality, andndestiny construed as having personalnform.” According to this approach, wenread a poem not for knowledge or informationnbut rather to commune or interactnwith another person: “we have anIn the forthcoming issue of Chronicles of Culture:nThe Open Mindn”Contempt for formal language and literary tradition is an unfortunatenpart of our Romantic heritage, as it has been refmed into the gospel ofnprogress. The trouble with giving up the past is that it subjects us tonCicero’s condemnation that ignorance of the past makes us eternalnchildren. By ourselves, in a single generation, we can do little or nothingnof value. When we.fail to preserve what our ancestors have handed downnto us, we find ourselves refighting their wars, rethinking their thoughtsnand rediscovering their wheels. Generations that seem to accomplish thenwork of an eon always owe their success to a rich inherited tradition. . . .nWe live, to be sure, in an age that takes pride in its liberations from thenpast. Our poetry and out music owe little, if anything, to tradition. Ournpoets have succeeded in abandoning all the trappings of rhyme, meter,nstructure, form and—most recently—English syntax. Theirs is a pristinenand private art, utterly individual, absolutely ignored …”n—from “The Visions Forever Green”nby Thomas Flemingn”Next to the American West, has any region exerted a greater pull onnour collective imagination than Hollywood? Both have transcended thennotion of mere locale and become part of the national mythology, completenwith gods and demons, heroes and scoundrels. . . . The fiision ofnHollywood as both industry and entertainment was not only the realitynof moviemaking but, judging by Hawks’s commentary, the ideal as well.nThe system was good: it worked, it produced the largest number of successfulnmovies, the pnes the public wanted. In effect, the financialnfailures were usually those that failed to satisfy their audience.”n—from “Hollywood Revisited”nby Mary Ellen FoxnAlso:nOpinions & Views—Commendables—In Focus—Waste of MoneynPetceptibles—The American Proscenium—Stage—Screeti—ArtnMusic—Correspondence—Liberal Culture—Sodal RegisternJournalism—In My Solitudennn