and to no one’s surprise, becomes intenselynjealous and possessive of him,nendorsing once again the do-as-I-saynot-as-I-donphilosophy She lives bynthroughout the novel. Add a long, totallynirrelevant scene in which He spendsnmonths watching a young woman atnbreakfast at the Morning Kettle, onlynto be rebuffed when He introduces himselfnand endeavors to make his “move,”nand the blandness of the novel reachesnits high point.nUnderlying the plot of a good novelnis a substratum of meaning and philosophicalninsight. The thicker and deepernthe substratum, the more significantnand lasting the novel. The substratumnof He/She, however, is paper thin, fornthis is a novel without much substance,none which meanders and gropes its waynthrough many mazes and yet somehownmanages not to illuminate a single darkncorner. A few more ironic twists andnthis novel could well be viewed as anparody of itself in which all of thesencharacters would become absurdist cartoonsnof the eniptiness of modern life,nthe futility of deep and meaningful emotionalnrelationships, the better joys ofnhedonism over personal growth andnfulfillment. But He/She is not a failednattempt at satire and parody; it is obviouslyna novel which asks to be takennseriously. And that is unfortunate, fornit is in the asking to be taken seriouslynthat the novel fails most completely,nlargely because He/She is a guttednnovel. Missing are the innards and thencomplexities which would make thisna good novel, and present are only superficialitiesnand caricatures of real-lifenstruggles and defeats. In the first halfnof He/She, He seeks explanations fornwhat has happened to him and to hisndream of true love. Halfway throughnthe novel. He abandons this search fornreasons and goes, instead, with thenflow of events deterministically outsidenhis control. He/She reads as if Gold,ntoo, began this novel as a journey ofnexplanation, but halfway through abandonednthe quest and settled for generalities.nJrerhaps the most intriguing questionsnsuggested by He/She are preciselynthose which it fails to explore:nwhy do people fall out of love, why isnsexuality such a deep and yet oftennmalevolent bond, why do people useneach other, why do people cling, whynare people so often self-deceived, andnwhy do people hang on to destructive,nincomplete relationships when theyncould choose better ones.? In the absencenof any attempt even to search outnthe implications of these questions andnissues, He/She remains a largely skeletalnnovel. Whatever emotional irnpact itnmight have had upon the reader is sac­nUpdating the Doctrinenof the Two SpheresnCarl N. Degler: At Odds; OxfordnUniversity Press; New York.nMarriage and Family in a ChangingnSociety; Edited by James M. Henslin;nThe Free Press; New York.nby Gordon M. Pradln^Schizophrenia appears to be thencharacteristic mental disturbance ofnour age. This splitting of the personalityninto two distinct selves parallelsnour society’s increasing failure to providenthe conditions necessary for thendevelopment of an individual’s innernexperience. With privacy, patience andncommitment ever more suspect virtuesnin our disposable technocratic culture,nour better feelings are denied, and wenare systematically foiled in our effortsnto establish relationships of true intimacy.nTo understand this poisonous,nhate-filled milieu which nullifies thennorms of our humanity is to begin tonappreciate the malaise currently af-nDr. Pradl is professor of English educationnat New York University.nnnrificed to the easier requirements ofnstasis. The journey of He/She is circuitousnand leads nowhere. The charactersnhave talked themselves out early innthe novel, yet they keep on talking. Theynhave deeply hurt each other, yet theynkeep on wounding. Perhaps most important,nthey know the relationship hasnpeaked and died, yet they keep on clinging.nTo have been given one glimpse ofnthese characters by Gold is to have seennthem for all they are. Many glimpsesnput together do not add substance orndepth, only tedium. He and She quicklynwhittle themselves down to indifference,nbut the reader has beaten themnthere by a mile. Dnflicting our fundamental social arrangement:nthe family.nTraditionally in America the womannhas stood at the center of the familynnexus, while it in turn has served tondefine her responsibility and mission innlife. Such an intertwined relationshipnsuggests prima facie a compelling explanationnfor the deteriorating position ofnthe modern family and the subsequentnerosion of its moral authority: the dramaticnshift in women’s allegiances,nespecially with the last generation. Nonlonger content to focus her identitynexclusively around hearth and home,nserving the needs and desires of hernwage-earning husband and their children,nwoman has begun to move outwardnfrom the family looking for newnconnections, new meanings for existencenaway from the world dominatednby the male. This so-called “liberation”nhas supposedly sent shock wavesnthrough existing family patterns. Suchnan appealing analysis, however, notnonly ignores the real assault on ournnormal human relationships, but furtherndeludes people into thinking thatnour domestic problems would all benIVovcmber/Dcccmbcr 1980n