tual terms. He confronts an incompletenessnof utterance, an indeterminacy ofnmeaning, a seemingly unconscious ornrandom association of images, whichnsimultaneously demand and defynexegesis.”nEven clearly recognizing this problem,nWatt refuses to accept the aestheticnand symbolist doctrines of the separationnof art from life, and he claims fornConrad the same refusal. His interpretationsnof Conrad’s novels include welldevelopednsections on biographical andnhistorical sources and ideological perspectives.nHe recommends in interpretationn”a primary commitment to thenliteral imagination” that will enable thenreader to see “the larger implicationsnof the particulars which confront him.”nThe symbols will be extended in a “centrifugal”nway. “The opposite kind ofncritical reading starts from an esotericninterpretation of particular objects . . .nand combines them into a centripetalnand cryptographic interpretation whichnis based, as in allegory, on a single andndefined system of beliefs, and is largelynindependent of the literal meanings ofnthe details presented and of their narrativencontext.”nIn short. Watt refuses to allow criticismnto divorce itself from moral andnethical concerns—from what life is likenand how it should be lived. This runsncontrary to much of modern criticismnand, consequently, within the context ofnrecent criticism Watt’s approach is radical—evennthough all he has done is reaffirm,nintelligently and persuasively,nthe common-sense core of the best ofntraditional literary interpretation.nWatt has the good sense to recognizenthe good sense in Conrad and therebynrescue him from the cult of irrationality.nA constant foil for his interpretationsnof the novels are the readings that portraynConrad as unremittingly nihilisticnin his basic vision of reality. Watt’snportrait is of a writer, dedicated to confrontingnthe dark aspects of life withoutnconfusing individuality with alienation,nwho constantly posed the question (asnISMM^^^^IHInChronicles of CulturenWatt formulates it): “Alienation, ofncourse; but how do we get out of it.'”nWatt sees Conrad as maneuveringnthrough puzzling realities toward annethics of “work, duty, and restraint.”nPeter Keating, in his review of the book,nis correct in saying, “To refuse to seenthe power of affirmation in Conrad isnto surrender (as Kurtz surrendered) tonirresponsible and self-destructivenforces.”nWith impressive breadth and depthnof scholarship. Watt has demonstratednwhat in the face of much misguided antimimeticncritical theory needed demon­nstration once again: the value of a literarynwork is determined by more thanninternal coherence. We can and do judgenliterature by tests of internal coherence,nbut we shouldn’t stop there. Criticismnshould involve both intrinsic and extrinsicnconcerns, and often extrinsic concernsnimpinge in important ways onnintrinsic ones. Recognizing this wouldnnot only restore some common sensento the interpretation of a complex andnelusive modernist author like Conrad,nit would also enable us to appreciatenmore fully the more modest and quitendifferent achievement of a riovelist likenMarquand. DnIneptitude, Mendacity & IgnorancenRonald Steel: Walter Lippmann andnthe American Century; Little,nBrown & Co.; Boston,nby Paul GottfriednUespite Ronald Steel’s secularistnsympathies (abundantly evident in hisnbook), the biography that he wrote renminds me of a particular medievalnmonkish chronicle. Gregory of Touss,nin his history of the Prankish kings, setnout to show how Providence had favorednthe Franks ever since one of their chieftains,nClovis, had embraced the Churchnof Rome. Needless to say, Gregory himselfnwas a Roman Christian and, drivennby a desire for a “usable part” (a favoritenNew Left phrase), depicted the convertednFranks as always victorious overnpagan and heretical enemies startingnwith Clovis’s reign. Like his pious predecessor.nSteel attempts to justify thenways of Providence by reconstructingnthe historical past. But he does so whilenintroducing distinctly modern twists.nFor divine guidance he substitutes liberalnconsciousness, or just plain leftishntrendiness; instead of exalting ClovisnProfessor Gottfried teaches history atnRockford College.nnnand the Franks, he presents the edifyingnexample of Walter Lippmann and thenAmerican intellectual community.nLike most knights of faith, youngnLippmann was apparently predisposednto political conversion. Signs of gracencould be seen even before he displayednhis oracular wisdom by denouncing anticommunismnto a younger generation.nBefore the First World War Lippmannnhad already begun his move toward socialism;nas cofounder of The NewnRepublic, he exposed the alleged decrepitudenof American capitalism. Duringnthe war he urged American interventionnon the side of the Allies, taking thisnhard line because of his firm convictionnthat a German-Austrian victorynwould have politically reactionary consequencesnin Europe. Steel never makesnclear exactly why Lippmann broke withnthe neutralist and pacifist left—and,none might add, with his own German-nJewish background—in declaring hisnearly support for the Allies. He speaksnwith apparent approval of Lippmann’sn”severing his ties” with the socialistsnin 1915 and drifting into the “Wilsonncamp” soon afterwards, but he offersnno plausible explanation as to why suchnthings occurred. The reason, I suspect,nis that Steel, although a shrieking anti-n