ing aspect of this book is thentreatment of the computer engineers.nThese young dynamosnare the intellectual iron of ournday. They are the type of peoplenfor whom a 3-credit course wasnalways one credit shy of any earthlynvalue, the ones who realizenthat in a year or two they will benmaking as much as the professorsnat the University of Illinois,nthe University ofnMissouri, Northwestern andnGeorgia Tech (to mention a fewnfrom the book) who trainednthem so well. The engineersnfresh from school are gorgednwith the fuel of knowledge andnwant only to find a place to burnnit brightly. At Data General, innthis particular group, they gotnthe chance.nKidder had before him notnonly two dozen young engineersnoozing with peer pressure, butnalso a group of supervisors led bynan exciting character, the projectnmanager Tom West. In a sense,nthe bulk of the story is merely annillustration of West’s personalnpower and endurance in thenworld of business. West createdna dream team, and the teamnbuilt a great computer. And yetnthe story does not have a happynending. The prototype getsnbuilt, tested, retested and isngiven over to the manufacturingndepartment. Then what? Thennthe romance is over, the battle isnwon and it’s time to start updatingnthe resume. Within anyear of the project’s completionnthe entire supervisory staff (excludingnWest) had left DatanGeneral. Why? After such anthoroughgoing success, whynwould they pack up and gonelsewhere?nAt this point Kidder gets lost.nFirst he offers an historicalnperspective on the problem ofnjob satisfaction from none othernthan John Ruskin. Ruskin shedsnsome darkness on the subject bynpointing to those ancientnmasters of microcode and hiddennpassageways, the stonemasons.nwho received sustenance not inncoin but in the pure glory ofnbuilding churches. Certainly ancomputer engmeer s reverencenfor the laws of physics is not to bendoubted, and computer engineersnlove to see things beingnbuilt. But why must this benbread enough? Furthermore,nKidder repotts that some of thenengineers complained that theynhadn’t received “the recognitionnor the loot they hadnearned.” By using the wordn”loot” Kidder implies a certainnchildishness in their desire to benpaid. That seems unfair.nIt is possible for an engineer—nThe Prophet of TastenArthur John: The Best Years ofnthe Century: Richard WatsonnGilder, Scribner’sMonthly, andnCentury Magazine, 1870-1909;nUniversity of Illinois Press; Urbana, Il­nlinois.nRichard Waston Gilder diednin 1909, and the credo by whichnhe had guided Century Magazinenfor nearly thirty years—n”Beauty is truth, truth beauty”n—hadn’t long to live either.nGilder belonged to an era thatnbelieved that art should be anhandmaiden to morality in thenstruggle to refine and elevate thenbaser side of human nature:ngood poems produce good people,nand the moral poet writesnedifying verse. By 1909 bothnGilder and his credo had becomenanachronisms in a centurynthat insisted—or so it seemed tonGilder—on spying truth amidstnthe sordid and ugly.nTo the young rebels of then1890’s—the Cranes, Norrisesnand Dreisers—Gilder was thenschoolmarmish arbiter of goodnin any field—to grind out sixteennor eighteen hours of daily enthusiasmnfor a project once orntwice. But it is quite another tasknfor an engineer to stretch thenpower of a computer to its maximumnyear after year, while thencompany payroll department isnturning milliseconds intonmonths as it attempts to getnhis promised stock options in thenmail. Add to this the inevitabilitynof disagreements with othernengineers over credit for patentsnonce a project is finished—whonneeds it? Who needs such aggravationnwhen one’s only incentivenis the chance to be a part ofna great team? Perhaps this isnwhy the turnover among computernengineers closely resemblesnthat among organic foodnstore clerks. Dntaste who cast a baleful eye uponnany manuscript that might besmirchnthe purity of a fourteenyear-oldngirl. To literary historians.nGilder embodies the tepidnsentimentalism and pecksniffiannobscurantism of the GenteelnTradition; as Larzer Ziffnwrites in The American 1890’s,nGilder “most clearly epitomizednthe suppressing tone of the literarynestablishment.”nArthur John, by contrast, refusesnthe cheap satisfactions derivednfrom smirking at Victoriannmoralizers. His Richard WatsonnGilder emerges as a skillful editornwith a sharp eye and highnstandards who pushed the Centurynto the heights of high-tonedncultural journalism. One neednnot agree with Gilder’s conflationnof good art with exemplarynmorality to suggest that in ournown age, when the rage to mocknand destroy perverts the searchnfor artistic truth into a phantasmagoricncharade, we might learnnsomething from Gilder’s respectnfor good taste. Today’s Let-It-nnnAU-Hang-Out school of fictionnmakes Richard Watson Gildernlook more like a prophet thannlike the smug Victorian philistinenof the literary historians’ndemonology. DnHeresynJohn K. Rosemond: ParentnPower]; East Woods Press; Charlotte,nNorth Carolina.nThis book is subtitled “AnCommon-sense Approach tonRaising Children in the Eighties.n” It is a refreshing and muchneedednchange from the plethoranof child-rearing guides whichnintimidate parents by makingnthem believe that the so-callednexperts, furnished with all sortsnof degrees in psychology, are thenonly ones who really know hownto bring up children. Rosemondnstresses discipline rather thannpermissiveness; following one’sninstincts rather than heedingncurrent psychological jargon;nbooks instead of television;nimaginative play rather thanncountless toys; an occasionalnsmack instead of perpetual reasoning,npleading and nagging.nThe parent is supposed to assumenthe role of benevolent dictatornand to create an environmentnwith limits and guidelinesnfor children. He has the right tonstate firmly, “Because I say so,”ncreating an autocratic hierarchynwhere father really does knownbest. The chapter subtitles arendues to the heretical nature, in anchild-oriented society, of Rosemond’snphilosophy: “The BenevolentnDictatorship”; “YournMarriage Comes First”; “In Defensenof Inconsistency”; “PainlessnPunishment”; “Spare thenRod but not the Rule.”nRosemond’s book provides annantidote to the dissolution ofnauthority and parental confusion—withnits concomitant guiltnfor imaginary sins of omission orn^•^^^vianJuly/Augttstl98Sn