dently eschewing atomic holcx:aust fornthe more languid destructions of obesitynand tooth decay. “Phoebe knew onlynone thing, which was that those . . .npeople wouldn’t endorse a product madenby Synthetic Technologies Corporation,nand she’d have to cancel the campaign.”nIt is curious that Gloria Steinem isnportrayed as concerned with the naturalnorder against encroaching technology.nDoes she think that suction machinesngrow on trees.”nEqually troubling to Phoebe, who hasnbeen known to pollute her body withnmartinis and Lucky Strikes, are the livesnof her children. Despite a Ph.D., hernpregnant daughter Alice is showingnsigns of wishing to raise her own childnin her own home. By contrast, son Rogernis out of Phoebe’s grace for not devotingnenough time to his son.nPhoebe’s relationship with the statenof Texas has also hit the skids: “She’dnnever liked Texas, not even when shenwas nearly its neighbor growing up innArizona, and Dallas made it definitenby letting an assassin live there.”nSubmerged in all this pathology arenthe women’s independence theme, thenemployer-employee theme, the parentchildntheme, and the anti-Richard Nixonntheme. Barely mentioned is DwightnNewcomb, Phoebe’s ex-husband, whoncourageously bailed out of the marriagenas fast as he could. According to thennovel, he now lives a normal life in thenNew York City area. We should havenlearned more about Dwight. He wouldnbe the one with the story to tell.nJohn Givens, in Living Alone, hasntried to satirize self-indulgent life innSouthern California. This mission,nwhile noble, is hardly the most difficultnin the world. To succeed, an authornneeds an ear for the currently fashionablennonsense, the ability to spot a charlatannand a killer instinct. By these criteria,nMr. Givens has produced a disappointing,neven cowardly, work.nThe focus of the novel is a casual,nnarcissistic group of weirdos who sleepntogether, smoke dope and carry firearmsnto their parties. Narrating the scenesnis an unidentified divorced man livingnalone but looking for affection. He remainsnfriendly with his ex-wife, but believesnhimself to be in love with Blythe,na self-obsessed model with problems ofnher own: “Daily life troubled Blythe.nThe medication she took to relieve anxietynmade her torpid. This depressed her.nsure, perhaps, he nevertheless possessesnbasically good instincts. In the end, henwould be unable to join this group or,nalternatively, be finally destroyed by it.nBut here the narrator is exceptionallynweak, obtuse and uninteresting. Whoncares whether he is corrupted or not.’*nOf the preoccupied Ms. Bismark, hensays, “She was a wonderful therapist.”n” ‘Living Alone’ exhibits an almost perfect union of talent and subject. Givens is anbrilliant satirist …”n—Chicago TribunenThe medication that lightened her denpression made her nauseous, and thatnwhich settled her stomach left her nervousnand apprehensive.”nDuring the course of this novel, thennarrator visits his trendy therapist, Ms.nBismark, who is alternately tuning upnher motorcycle, sleeping or skindivingnduring their sessions. He beds the nursenwho cares for his aunt at a sanitarium,nand near the end of the novel an asthmaticnfellow party guest shoots him innthe chest.nThe problem is that, for all the activity,nMr. Givens has not provided usnwith a single reason why any of thesenpeople or their pastimes should matternto us. The world is full of crazies. It alwaysnhas been and it always will be.nOther than acknowledging this unalterablenstate of affairs as regrettable, whatndifference does it make.”nFor Mr. Givens has failed to integratenany of these people into our society.nNone of them seems to hold a job orngo to school or even run out for groceries.nThe author has chosen a target fornhis satire, therefore, that does not reallynexist. Even if such a group did exist,ndue to its patterns of living it wouldnbe in no position to infect the rest ofnour culture.nA different narrator could havensaved this novel. In a Woody Allennmovie, the point of view is from a sympatheticncharacter: the audience’s representativenin the author’s artifice.nThough too susceptible to peer pres-nnnLikewise it is difficult to see what emotionalninvolvement could develop betweennthe narrator and Blythe. WoodynAllen would not have spent three minutesnwith either of them.nNot that there aren’t a few gems. Tonthe woman who pumped his chest fullnof lead, the narrator says, “I’m sorrynyou shot me.” How often are crime’snvictims expected to apologize to itsnperpetrators! His description of thenclothing designers’ new “Numb Look”nis also well done. “Day wear would benunsympathetic to the plight of others.nThe old accessories would be replacednby cool new ones reflecting a sense ofnhigh tech callousness. Evening wearnwould span the gamut from indifferencento outright hostility.”nBut too much of the book is stalencomedy:n’What’s wrong with that.” A commercialnhad appeared featuring peoplendressed like pieces of dancing fruit.n’It doesn’t hold your attention.’n’What doesn’t.”nWorse, Mr. Givens seems peculiarlynreluctant to push his point. For thentruth is that the people he describesnhave climbed out of their swimmingnpools and into seats in universities, thenmedia and the professions where theynare actually doing some damage. Anyonenwho doubts it has only to read TendernOffer, which is, though unintentionally,nthe better satire. Dn^^^^HH^^S^ZXnXovember/December 1981n