as the edelweiss romancenGraustark (1901) and the farcicalnBrewster’s Millions (1902);nnevertheless, the biographynA.L. Lazarus and VictorH.Jonesnhave written about him lendsnsome substance to the GreatnCham’s general observation.nThe man Lazarus and Jones portraynwas, like the minor poetsnDr. Johnson treated in his lives,nmerely one of those “writers ofnminor but creditable achievement,n” but his life story reveals ansurprisingly complex man. Afterna number of early failures, Mc-nCutcheon discovered that hencould win popular success by indulgingnin romantic idealism,nbut he hated himself for doing itnand therefore doggedly persistednin expressing ironic humornand satirical realism in playsnwhich Lazarus and Jones findncomparable in many ways tonthose of O’Neill and Ibsen. Un­nWASTE OF MONEYnfortunately, because he “alienatednhimself from . . . that fashionablencoterie, whose literarynand political criticism in suchnmagazines as the Nation, thenNew Republic, and New Massesnbecame the dernier cri of thenNew York intellectuals,” hencould never find an audience fornhis plays nor win a serious criticalnresponse to his more careful fiction.nAlthough this study appearsnto be the kind of “judiciousnand faithfiil narrative” Dr.nJohnson called for, it probablynwill not appreciably affect thenaccepted image of McCutcheonnas a Hoosier yokel who wrotenpotboilers. For that depictionnstill has the approval of a contemporarynManhattan elitenwhose reign over cultural concernsnis so literally pickled that itsnstale vapors forced Messrs. Lazarusnand Jones to look for a publishernin Port Washington. (BC)nAnesthetic Thought in ActionnPatricia Geaty: Living in Ether;nHarper & Row; New York.nDoris Betts: Heading West;nAlfred A. Knopf; New York.nby Allen BtodskynWhy read fiction? The primarynimpulse for most readers isntheir desire to be entertained: tonbe made to laugh or cry, or to bentransported in imagination tonexotic places and times. Anothernreason is to have one’s prejudicesnreinforced: high-minded peoplenread books about refined socie-nMr. Brodsky is a teachingngraduate student at TemplenUniversity.nS8inChronicles of Culturenty; bored housewives read aboutnracy worlds they know must exist.nThese novels fall somewherenin between. Patricia Geary’s iwingnin Ether and Heading Westnby Doris Betts (whose previousnbook was a National BooknAward finalist in 1974) are attemptsnat literature. The twonbooks are unexceptional artistically,nbut worth attending tonbecause they and their jacketnadvertising reveal a certainnunhappy attitude shared bynmany writers and readers. Bothnbooks have the same plot: anwoman, dissatisfied with her lotnin life, does little to improve it,nand accidentally finds herself involvednwith a man who causes anchange in her way of life.nThe protagonist of Living innEther vs, young, single, and livesnin Hollywood. She earns her livingnas a medium, and she findsnherself sexually attracted to anmale client who wants to contactnthe spirit of Yukio Mishima. Thenman seduces and abuses her; shendoesn’t resist. She abandonsnspiritualism and yoga for a life innwhich she practices karate andnBuddhism with the Mishimanfan, her new lover. The protagonistnof Heading West is an34-year-old single woman withnthe instincts of an adolescentnwho finds her life in the Southnoppressive. A conscienceless,nodd young man abducts her.nShe does not resist the abduction,nand, as a consequence,nmeets and falls in love withnan ordinary man who lives innthe West. Both protagonistsnare aimless, self-centered, andnineffectual.nThe dust-jacket copy ofnHeading West says, in part, thatnthe novel:ntakes us into the life of anbright, spiky, vital womannin her thirties, fleeing thenmurderous boredom of hernspinster life—and into herndeepening and mysteriousncomplicity with the unbalancednstranger who kid­nnnVol. 7, No. I January 1983nPolitics & Culturennapped her . . . [S]he comesnto realize that, beneath hernterror, she is engaged innsome kind of strange, silentncollaboration with her abductor.n. , . [S]he both confrontsnher truest self and encountersnthe agents of hernunforeseen and miraculousndestiny.nApparently, the publishersnassume that readers are interestednin a character whose lifenis “murderously boring,” who,ninstead of fighting an unpleasantnand potentially fatal turn ofnevents, collaborates with it, andnwhose “destiny” is completelyncontrolled by unknownn”agents.” Such a woman isnhardly a human being; shenreminds one more of a stray bitnof spaghetti bobbing about in anpot of boiling water. But obviouslynshe appeals to many of thenpeople who write, edit, publish,nand read.nNovels should tell storiesnabout being human and havingngoals in life. Drifting leaves on anriver, or rocks sinking through anlake, are not literary characters.nBooks about them do not entertain,ndo not instruct, do notndivert; they chill, for they revealnthe void that publishers publishnand which reviewers acknowledgenas novels. DnMoser: Comment; CongdononIsserman and Barrett (WbichSide Were YounOn?, The Truants); Vasilash on Dillard and Edel (Living by Fiction, Stuff ofnSleep and Dreams); Caiazza on Wills, Davidson and Lytic, Kersaudy (ThenKennedy Imprisonment, After the Fact, Churchill and de Gaulle); C. Daly onnThurber and Weeks, Carpenter and Tolkien (Selected Letters of JamesnThurber, The Letters ofj.R-R. Tolkien); Francis on Crozicr and Herman (ThenMinimum State, TheRealTerrorNetuJork);C3J:hononBznm (The Holocaustnand the German Flite); Tanner on Hawkes and Adams (Virginie, To See YounAgain); Hawkins on Summers (On Strategy); Christensen on Sommer andnBarron (Last Resort, Groundrush); Montgomery on Davis and Reedn(Hometown, One South); Walsh on Piercy, Atwood, and Stade (BraidednLives, Bodily Harm, Confessions ofaLadykiller);ClemensonF:shwick,l.e^,nand Smith (Common Culture and the Great Tradition, Changing My Mind,nAmong Others, The Real Marijuana Danger); Commendables; In Focus;nPerceptibles; Waste of Money; Screen; Art; The American Proscenium;nLiberal Culture; Journalism,n