36 / CHRONICLESnprofessional women who couldnbe considered feminists andnhave seen some among themnwith joyless, tight-mouthednfaces. Their obvious animosityncaused me to wonder, Why donyou hate me? I don’t agree withnyou on everything, but I don’tndislike you.nAccording to Jepsen, these toughfacednwomen are becoming exactly likenthe insensitive, dictatorial men theynonce found so offensive. Without questionnor reservation, they believed thenfeminist argument that if they receivedna good education, worked hard and hadna successful career, they would benhappy. They now sense something isnamiss in their lives, and that gnawingnrealization only heightens their anger atnmen and the world.nMrs. Jepsen devotes the bulk of hernbook to testifying of the need for modernnwomen to reject the hate, envy, andngreed which infect many feminists andnto accept Christ. Unfortunately, the lastnseveral chapters bog down in preachynrepetition. But the first third of thenbook, which recounts the history ofnfeminism and outlines the opportunitiesntoday available to women, is recommendednreading for all veterans of then”sex wars.”nLike millions of American women.nDee Jepsen has heard the seeminglyncontradictory messages: be independentnand get married, have children andnpursue a career. While sorting throughnthe various messages, she found hernanswer and is compelled to share it withnus. Regrettably, the book doesn’t makenfor particularly compelling or excitingnreading, but it does convey a sincerendesire to understand the needs ofnwomen. Through Dee Jepsen’s eyes, wensee a neglected side of the women’snrights debate. ccnEdward D. Snow ]r. is press secretarynfor Congressman ]ames V. Hansenn(R-UT).nJolly Good Fellownby Carl C. CurtisnSheridan Morley: A Talent to Amuse:nA Biography of Noel Coward; Little,nBrown; Boston; $24.95.n”The more I began to think about andnread Coward, the more convinced Inbecame that the history of British entertainmentnin the first half of this centurynwas essentially the history of his ownncareer.” With that observation, SheridannMorley, drama critic and arts editornof Punch, begins his biography of NoelnCoward. The remark is enough to makena serious student of the theater set thenbook aside permanently, for Cowardnjust doesn’t seem that special.nBorn in 1899 to lower-middle-classnparents, he shook the English theaternbefore he reached 25 with his play ThenVortex—an event as important to then20’s, according to Morley, as Osborne’snLook Back in Anger was to the 50’s. ButnCoward setded down within the spacenof a few years to write entertainingndrawing-room comedies that displayednhis “talent to amuse.” Successful henwas; but success could not save himnfrom the barbs of the critics who castigatednhim for his lack of high purpose.nTo this charge Coward merrily pleadednguilty, admitting, whenever asked, thatnhe had no religion, no philosophy, andnno special interest in anything exceptnNoel Coward. He was a long timenawaiting critical absolution for his artisticnsins.nLike Coward’s critics, we expectnmore of the theater and its playwrightsnthan Coward was willing to give. Wenwant ancient Athens and ElizabethannEngland, Aeschylus and Shakespeare,npassion and catharsis, philosophy andnpolitics. No doubt, we are right tondesire nobility and meaning on thenstage; only then can the theater trulyninform a community and direct itnmorally.nBut we would be foolish to think thatnwe could have that theater permanentlynwith us. The wise critic knows that anShakespeare or Aeschylus doesn’t comenalong every decade; they are the treasuresnof millennia. Noel Coward was nonShakespeare; but he was a gifted, energetic,nand witty man who knew how tonstage a charming and funny play, playnits lead, and write its theme song.nMorley readily admits that Coward’snplays don’t always read well; but theynperform well {Private Lives and HaynFever continue to draw audiences innperiodic revivals).nMany of Coward’s songs, especiallyn”Mad Dogs and Englishmen” and “AnRoom With a View,” remain enjoyable,npartly because they appeal to ournnostalgia, partly because they are superblynwritten. As an actor. Coward wasnnot the best if we measure him bynOlivier or Gielgud. But what betterntribute can one pay an actor than to saynhe stole nearly every scene he playednin. (As bad a movie as Surprise Packagenwas, I still smile when I remembernCoward’s rendition of the title song.)nAnd for all the vituperation Englishnnncritics heaped on him, he lived to seenhis plays revived and hear himself declarednthe grand old man of Britishntheater.nMorley does a decent but not flawlessnjob in presenting Coward’s life andnaccomplishments. His explicit purposenis to write “a critical theatrical biography,”nan arduous task even with a lessnflamboyant figure than Coward; thentemptation is to serve up more of thenprivate than the public, and Morleynoccasionally succumbs to it. Yet thenbiography falls short of being personalnor intimate, mainly because Morleynremains silent on the subject of Coward’snhomosexuality. Coward, who wasnstill alive when Morley began researchingnthe book (originally published inn1969), stated categorically that no mentionnshould be made of this side of hisnlife. Morley complied. In this newnedition of the book, he has chosen tonleave the matter untouched as Cowardnwished, even though the playwright hasnbeen dead for over 10 years. Such andecision may ensure the integrity ofnMorley the man; it cannot enhance thenreputation of Morley the biographer.nThe intimate biographer would tell thencurious public something about theneccentric and immoral behavior of hisnsubject; the critical biographer wouldnindicate how that behavior affected hisnwork. Morley does neither.nStill, A Talent to Amuse is a rewardingnbook. Morley is a solid critic: henknows Coward’s successes from his failuresnand doesn’t mind distinguishingnthem for his readers. And even thoughnhe paints Coward without the moles, hengives us a fair portrait of a man whonasked his generation to treat laughternwith some respect, and won his pointnhandsomely. ccnCarl C. Curtis is assistant professor ofnEnglish at Liberty University.nAnnus Mirabilisnby Edward S. ShapironRobert Kee: 194?: The World WenFought For; Little, Brown; Boston.nIn his State of the Union address ofnJanuary 6, 1945, Franklin Rooseveltnlooked to the future with confidence:n”The new year of 1945 can be thengreatest year of achievement in humannhistory,” he declared. “Nineteen fortyfivencan and must see the substantialnbeginning of the Organization of WorldnPeace. This Organization must be thenfulfillment of the promise for whichn