and ideological order in her mother’srnmanuscripts. “This kind ofrnwriting is called ‘ghosting,’ and nornwriter of my reputation does it,”rnshe had written. . ,.rnActually, “this kind of writing” is notrncalled ghosting; and one mav well wonderrnwhat experience, if any, ProfessorrnHoltz has had as a manuscript editor.rnThe improvements he describes, inventedrnscenes aside, are in fact routine editorialrnwork at all serious publishing houses,rnincluding what Holtz describes (in anrnastonished tone) as “moving whole chapters”rnaround. Bv his editorial standards.rnMaxwell Perkins and Edward Aswell atrnScribner’s ghosted every novel publishedrnunder Thomas Wolfe’s name, and thernname of Ezra Pound belongs with that ofrnT.S. Eliot over The Waste Land. Clearlyrnit would have been helpful, to Holtz’s argumentrnas to his readers’ conclusions,rnhad the author been more preciselyrnquantitative in estimating how many instancesrnof Rose’s inventions and rewrittenrnpassages occur in Mrs. Wildcr’srnbooks. What is “sometimes”? How oftenrnis “often”? And at what “point” dornthe books become at least as muchrnRose’s work as Laura’s? In his acknowledgments,rnWilliam Holtz thanks ClairrnWilleox of the University of MissourirnPress “for his skill in converting myrnmanuscript into a book.” Are we to inferrnthat Mr. Willeox ghosted The Ghost inrnthe Little House, and that Mr. Holtz isrnguilty of vanity and dishonesty in notrnhaving placed the name of his ghost onrnthe title page of the book, equally prominentrnwith his own?rnI loltz never settles on a fixed meaningrnof the word “ghost,” as with matchingrnconfusion he is unable finally to identifyrnthe Wilder books as either the children’srn”novels” he claims Mrs. Wilder intendedrnor the straightened-out “tangle of fact”rnhe adverts to in the passage quotedrnabove. If one thing seems sure, it is thatrnwhat he calls the “fictional Laura” ofrnthe Little House series is no more a fictionrnthan the Mama Bess of Rose’s diariesrnand letters and of Mr. Holtz’s biography.rnMr. Holtz’s animus against Mrs.rnWilder is astonishing, and derives, apparently,rnfrom his uncritical acceptancernof Rose’s anger and ambivalence towardrnher mother. Of course he should havernknown better. The wodd is full of womenrnresentful of their mothers for their allegedrnlack of affection and perceivedrnsmugness, stodginess, snobbery, andrnother infuriating as well as—above all—rnembarrassing qualities; indeed the wom-rnGARRETT HARDINrnhas done it again! PaulR. Ehrlichrn”Wonderfully rich in original ideas and insightsrn…a compelling examination of the centralrnquestion facing our civilization…. Bound tornbe enduringly influential.”rnPaul Demeny, Editor, {rnPopulation and Development ReviewrnThe acclaimed author of “The Tragedy ofrnthe Commons” points out the hard choices —rnwe must make—and the solutions wernhave been afraid to consider.rnLIVINGrnWITHINrnLIMITSrnEcology, Economics,rnand Population Taboosrn^ ^ ^ ( « , . ya- ^ s f ^ ^ j j . ^ ‘rnO X F O R DrnAt better bookstores.rnU N I V E R S I T Y P R E S Srnan who loves-hates her mother is asrnmuch a stock figure of fun as the jealousrnhusband or the doting mama’s boy.rnWhether with or without her daughter’srnapproval, Laura Wilder was an equalrnpartner with her husband in the labor ofrnmaking Rocky Ridge Farm a success andrnapparently served as a loyal and supportivernwife for almost 64 years—a humanrnachievement that Rose Lane never triedrnand actually scorned to equal. Holtzrnhas included a single photograph of LaurarnIngalls Wilder in his book, and—not Irnthink coincidentally—it is by far thernmost unflattering I have ever seen of her,rnresembling as it does Lizzie Borden’srnstepmother. “She says she wants prestigernrather than money,” Rose reported ofrnLaura. We have only her word for it; butrneven if that were true, what of it? Rose,rnby her own and her biographer’s admission,rnwanted money—a far, far lessrnhealthy ambition for a writer, and onernthat kept her career from proceeding beyondrntriviality, however well rewarded atrntimes.rnRose Wilder Lane died a heroine tornAmerican libertarians, who are wont tornlionize her to this day, along with IsabelrnPaterson. It is hard to say why since,rngranted that she was an early and vociferousrnanti-New Dealer, she also becamernan apologist for the American Centuryrnand a staunch advocate of the VietnamrnWar. “My attachment to the U.S.A.,”rnshe wrote to Jasper Crane,rnis wholly, entirely, absolutely tornThe Revolution, the real worldrnrevolution, which men began herernand which has—so to speak—arnfoothold on earth here. If reactionariesrn[her word for leftists]rnsucceed in destroying the revolutionaryrnstructure of social and politicalrnhuman life here, I care nornmore about this continent thanrnabout any other. If I lived longrnenough I would find and join thernrevival of The Revolution whereverrnit might be in Africa or Asia orrnEurope, the Arctic or Antarctic.rnAnd let this country go with allrnthe other regimes that collectivismrnhas wrecked and eliminatedrnsince history began. So much forrnpatriotism, mine.rnCould Joshua Muravchik and thernMenshevik apparat of global democratsrnhave spoken any plainer?rn28/CHRONICLESrnrnrn