44 / CHRONICLESnhappens to hold the spotHght.nIt’s a lot like a musical comedynroutine. All the pretty girls arenlined up across the stage. Onensteps out and does her specialtynand, for a moment, attention isnfocused on her, along with thenspotlight. Then she steps backninto line.nThe dancing girl metaphor did notnfit the Esquire of the 30’s nearly so wellnas it did the Esquire of the 40’s, whennthe magazine became decidedly lessnliterary and far more titillating. Gingrichnexplains the decision to includenmore and larger “pinups” as an effortnto “curry favor with the War ProductionnBoard,” which gave more paper tonthose magazines that could show theynwere trying “to enhance the morale ofnthe troops.” The same winds of warnthat blew in the partially unclad youngnwomen also blew out most of thennattily dressed male models, as wartimenausterity enforced a Spartan simplicitynon the world of male fashion.nGingrich left in 1946 to becomenEsquire’s European correspondent,nand, with the other key founders—nBOOKS IN BRIEFnincluding Bill Weintraub and MeyernLevin—otherwise engaged, there remainednno “strong voice to insist on anrestoring and reinvigorating of thenmagazine’s original fashion policy.”nThey also gave up any “pretense atnmaintenance of the original literarynstandards.” Cheap Western and detectivenfiction replaced the work of Hemingway,nDreiser, and Fitzgerald.n•; But in 1952, the Esquire managementnbrought Gingrich back to thenhelm and gave him a mandate tonrevitalize the magazine, whose circulationnwas beginning to show the effectsnof a decade of drift and confusion.nGingrich made it a top priority tonget the girly pictures out of the magazine,nand he credits Hugh Hefner withnhelping him accomplish that goal.nHefner worked for Esquire in the postwarnyears, but left in 1950 to begin hisnspectacularly successful Playboy—n”the magazine that is what Esquirenused to be.” Playboy’s success onlynmade Gingrich even more “determinednto work the opposite side of thenstreet . . . [by] ridding Esquire of anynlast vestigial traces of the girly flavor.”nWith the girls gone, the Esquire ofnLoving With a Vengeance: Mass-Produced Fantasies for Women by Tania Modleski, NewnYork: Methuen; $6.95. What can be worse than a Harlequin romance? Try feminist hteraryncriticism of Harlequin romances.nPolitics and Tyranny: Lessons in Pursuit of Freedom by Milton Friedman, ef al., SannFrancisco: Pacific Institute; $7.95. Friedman and Company explain the evils of governmentnspending and the ineffectiveness of the Reagan Administration in combating them.nThe Responsibihty ofHermeneutics by Roger Lundin, Anthony C. Thiselton, and ClarencenWalhout, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans/Paternoster; $8.95. A serious attempt to apply thenlatest ideas on literary criticism to the reading of Scripture. Paul de Man, deconstruction, andnreader-response theory arc bad enough on Wordsworth. Imagine what they can do to thenSermon on the Mount or the story of Job.nRewriting Enghsh: Cultural Politics of Gender and Class by Janet Batsleer, ef a/., New York:nMethuen; $11.95. A by-now-predictable argument that English studies should focus onnwomen’s issues, working-class literature, and all things wild and wonderful.nToo Many People? A Problem in Values by Christopher Derrick, San Francisco: Ignatius. AnChristian rejoinder to Malthusian propaganda.nPeople in Space: Policy Perspectives for a “Star Wars” Century, edited by James E. Katz,nNew Brunswick: Transaction Books; $14.95. Looking at everything from particle-beamnweaponry to UFO’s, a dozen contributors assess humanity’s future in the stars.nBrigham Young and the Expanding American Frontier by Newell G. Bringhurst, Boston:nLittle, Brown; $16.95. A capsule biography of one of the most controversial figures in thenAmerican West.nThe Way of My Cross: Masses at Warsaw by Father Jerzy Popieluszko, Chicago; Regnery. Antranslation of the homilies, prayers, and Scripture readings of a priest whose resistance toncommunist oppression made him a national inspiration—and a martyr.nnnthe 50’s could turn to important thingsn—like the Hawaiian shirts and Romannstriped pants that were suddenly all thenrage with fashion-conscious men.nCowboys and shamuses also gavenway to brand-name pieces by AldousnHuxley, Tennessee Williams, OrsonnWelles, William Faulkner, AlbertnCamus, and Truman Capote. But besidesnreturning the magazine to thenpinnacles of fashion and fiction, theneditorial policy during the 50’s developednsome provocative new twists.nGingrich explains that in trying tonrestore life to the magazine, he gavenencouragement “to the ideas … nonmatter how harebrained or wild-eyed,nof the young editors.” Harold Hayesn(recruited by Gingrich in 1956 as “anSouthern liberal”) explained in a prefacento an Esquire anthology that theneditors took it as their task to challengen”the banality of the Fifties.” “From thenraspberry to the hoax . . . and occasionallynwith some loss of dignity, thenidea was to suggest alternate possibilitiesnto a monolithic view. And hownmonolithic it was! The passivity of thenFifties was shared by garage mechanicsnand college presidents.”nThings moved fast in the 60’s, and itnwas hard to stay out in front. Withinnfour years after publishing Lee Oswald’snletters to his mother and TomnWicker’s reverential tribute to the fallennPresident, Esquire brought outnTimothy Leary’s paean to LSD andnJean Genet’s graphic account of then1968 Democratic Convention; storiesnon topless bars, on the “New Sentimentality”nof sharpness and selfgratification,nand on “The Life andnDeath of a Hippie” (one Jamesn”Groovy” Hutchinson, murdered withna wealthy girlfriend); and inevitably annissue devoted to “The Beautiful People:nCampus Heroes for ’68/69,” withnfeatures on the hi jinks of Herbert Marcuse,nNoam Chomsky, and HowardnZinn.nGingrich soon sensed a tremendousn”generation gap” between him and hisnnew readers. He didn’t speak the samenlanguage as his new editors. He didn’tncare for the “bop talk” that filled thentrendy new articles. The contrast betweennthe gifted writers of the old daysnand the incomprehensible new “experimentalnfiction” unsettied him, and henwas annoyed at the way “instant celebrityn[was] turning young authors andn