pulse perhaps most distinctively sets usnapart from the lower forms. As Longernhas so poetically expressed her insight,n”Of all bom creatures, man is the otilynone that cannot live by bread alone.”nvFardner is especially interesting innhis discussions of the actual creative expressions,nboth linguistic and visual, ofnchildren. The developmental tendencyntoward realism in both perceptions andncreations presents a uniquely excitingnproblem for study. Why, for instance, donchildren in their early st^es of linguisticngrowth show such a happy and naturalnaffinity for metaphor (he cites charmingnexamples of a young child wlio describesnher naked body as ‘”barefoot all over,'”nand another who sees a trail of vapor leftnby a skywriting plane as “‘a scar in thensky”‘) only to pass into a literal-mindednsti^e which demands realistic presenta­nDrugs & Other Toxic W«A-|<‘SnLIBERAL CULTUREnTimothy I^ary, who shoiikl hi- knownna.s Dr. Doom rather than us I niii’ ‘liin. isnback on the TV talk-show colli’ijc circuitnagain, his eyes betraying the s:mic :ic;ini->thatnthey’ve displayed for .sonic 20 years.nLeary, in a recent newsp;i]X-r iiniT ics’.nwas asked whether he Mill l;ikes i.lrii};s.nYes. Does he still take liD, tlic drug tliatnhe touted and which has destroyed countlessnlives (our interpretation: the interviewernwould never dare alienate thenman with the truth)? No. I^ary weni tmnto remark:nThe ones I use are improved dni)j<.nwhich increase intelligence and improvenmemory.nGiven (A) his past exploits and (B) his recentncomments (e.g., “All drugs will benlegalized within ten years”), it’s eiilentnthat Leary would need the output of anntion at the expense of metaphoricalnfency? And why does children’s art—nthose surrealistic drawings which oftennseem so revealing and archetypal in theirndistortions—give way with the adventnof social maturity to the demands fornrepresentational naturalism? And what,nfkially, can be made of the self-consciousnreturn to the primitive in so many modems?nTo review a chronological perspectivenof Picasso’s art is to be exposed tonmore lessons on the creative impulsenthan the whole history of psychologynaffords. Fittingly, the master himself isnquoted on his “development”: “1 used tondraw like Raphael, but it has taken me anwhole lifetime to learn to draw like anchUd.”nIf such questions are baflOytag, Gardnernusually has enough humility and cautionnto confess his ignorance. He poses, forninstance, such unanswerable questionsnentire pharniaceutical liiiility lo providiihi-nilrugs needed lo improve his intelligencenand memory to I he leel of one ofnour simian ancest< )rs. TInnnas why certain children seem to losentheir creative instincts forever at an earlynstage while others regain them with a renewednvigor after languishing throughnadolescence. How are we to understandnthe prodigy (Mozart is the example parnexcellence) who develops his talent almostnwithout interruption right intonmaturity, or those few masters (Verdi,nThomas Mann, W. B. Yeats, Picasso) whonseem to retain their creative powers tonthe ends of their long lives? (Interestingly,nGardner does not deal at all withnthe phenomenon of performing musiciansnwho seem, of all artists, to have thenkey to longevity.) Is it valid, in the firstnplace, to discuss the “creations” of children—whethernstriking figures of speechnor hauntingly expressive drawings—^asnart? And, perhaps most important, v^iiatnis the role of the individual talent; “why”nor “how” do some individuals createnmore and with acknowledged hi^erntalent than others? On such questions,nGardner’s answers tend to be limp andnunsatisfectory: A supportive environmentnwiQ encoiurage the budding artist, and itnhelps if the artist has a consuming interestnin his work, and so on. At some points,nthough, the psychologist admits his ignorancenof the whole affair.nGardner’s book is obviously intendednas an inconclusive progress report onnhis project’s work As one who has, fornabout four years, observed firsthand thenimaginative development of a lively andnbright child, I find Gardner’s study interestingnbut ultimately unsatisfactoryn—^as he would probably admit. I mustnconfess that I am not wholly sympatheticnto his mission. Mysteries, as such, are important.n1, for one—^and I am not frivolousnhere—^am eternally against thosenscholars who are always searching fornLoch Ness Monsters, or AbominablenSnowmen, or the trae author of Shakespeare’snplays; something indefinablenbut irreplaceable would be lost if “positive”nanswers to these questions werenever found. But this prejudice, which Inhope is only human, points to what I believenis the book’s most serious flaw: ansia of omission.nOctober 1983n