the book. Sometimes he simply digressesnin order to make a point. Vonnegut’sncase against America requires persuasivenimages of violence and injustice, butnhe fails to invent them in his fiction. Insteadnhe simply refers to Sacco andnVanzetti from time to time; they providenhim with ready-made means for the evocationnof political outrage. A similarndigression is the story of the “CuyahoganMassacre,” which Vonnegut inventsnto explain how Alexander HamiltonnMcCone came to take an interestnin Starbuck. Traumatized by watchingnstriking workers shot down at his family’snfactory, McCone became a stutteringnrecluse and turned to young Starbucknfor companionship. Vonnegut describesnthe “massacre” with loving care in thenopening pages, and informs us that itnis “a legend in the mind of the leadingncharacter.” Nevertheless, after the firstnlurid description, the massacre practicallyndisappears. Once it has served itsnpurpose as an illustration of capitalistniniquity, Vonnegut tends to forget it.nMore damaging than the disorderednstructure is the superficiality of characternand setting that afflicts the novel’snmost pretentious scenes. Vonnegut’sntreatment of an episode in the life ofnDr. Robert Fender, one of Starbuck’snfriends from prison, exemplifies thisnfailing. Fender—who is an authornknown to the literary world by suchnpseudonyms as Frank X. Barlow andnKilgore Trout—has been sentenced tonlife imprisonment for treason committednduring the Korean War. A veterinarian.nFender worked as an army meatninspector in Japan, where one night henwas seduced by a North Korean spynnamed Izumi. Learning by chance thennext morning that she was being soughtnas a spy, Fender hid her in his apartmentnfor eleven days. What she toldnhim during those days about her devotionnto communism seemed “just commonnsense on the part of a good personnfrom another universe.” At last he wasndiscovered trying to help her escapenfrom Japan; he was convicted of treason,nV^mmm^mimS^nChronicles of Culturenand she disappeared, probably to be shotnwithout trial in South Korea. Naipaulnwould have made something out of thisntale: he would have taken the time toncreate characters and a setting adequatento the complex moral and political problemnthat the episode establishes. Hadnhe chosen to, he might have won respectnfor Fender’s choice even from readersnwho do not sympathize with treason.nVonnegut, however, does not bother tonconstruct a solid and credible imitationnof life. Of the lovers’ feelings for eachnother, we learn only that she admired hisnsensitivity to Oriental culture, and henfelt for her much as he had felt for an”young deer, a doe he had raised whenna boy.” Of the atmosphere of ambiguitynand intrigue that surrounds Americannmilitary bases in foreign lands, we arengiven nothing beyond a brief, stereotypednscene in a nightclub. Nevertheless,nVonnegut wants us to admire Fendernand feel pity for the helpless doe, Izumi.nOnce again, Vonnegut’s political ideasnbetray him: he relies on the modishnessnof his opposition to American anticommunismnrather than on the novelist’snproper art.nFurthermore, the story of Fender andnLawful Killing innthe Barbaric PresentnStephen H. Gettinger: Sentenced tonDie: The People, the Crimes, andnthe Controversy; Macmillan; NewnYork.nby Clarence B. Carsonnx.rbitrary and capricious” are favoritenterms of this author in describingnthe decisions made by juries for the executionnof murderers. Arbitrary andncapricious in comparison with what, wenare entitled to ask. Certainly not arbitrarynand capricious compared to thenDr. Carson is an essayist from Alabama.nnnIzumi points to an inconsistency thatnlies at the heart of the book’s message.nVonnegut’s attack on America consortsndubiously with his celebration of thenSermon on the Mount. Again and again,nhe returns to “the prediction by JesusnChrist that the poor in spirit would receiventhe Kingdom of Heaven . . . thatnthe meek would inherit the earth.” Butndo Izumi, the striking workers killednin the Cuyahoga Massacre, or Sacco andnVanzetti qualify as “the poor in spirit”nand “the meek”.^ Izumi is, after all, anspy seeking to aid the communist conquestnof South Korea; the strikers atnCuyahoga were not sitting quietly atnhome; Sacco and Vanzetti, althoughnperhaps not guilty as charged, werenpolitical activists; and Vanzetti, by Vonnegut’snown admission, may have beenna murderer. One might approve of allnof these characters and their causes,nbut one ought to have the honesty tontake the consequences of one’s convictions.nTo extol spies, demonstratingnstrikers, and agitators as heroes ofnChristian meekness deserves contempt.nJailbird lacks even the elementary coherencenthat one demands from a politicalntract. •ndecision of my teen-age daughter as tonwhat, if anything, she will eat for breakfast.nShe will, as that incomprehensiblenspirit which moves those of her vintage,nmoves her, eat cake, a bowl of ice creamn—or nothing at all. Not arbitrary andncapricious compared to the decision ofnmy younger daughter as to what dressnshe will wear to Sunday School. She cannbe arbitrary, capricious, awt/adamant.nBut, it may be objected, the decisionnto execute a person is a grave one,nwhile those about what to eat or wearnare merely frivolous. Not only do I concurnin the objection but insist on thenvalidity of the distinction. My mainn