that the practice can improve sexual performance and versatility, and revivify flagging sexual desires, and that it must be much more thoroughly investigated before it can be universally condemned.

The fifth essay, on his own "Personal Sex Experience," is precisely that, and within its small compass manages to make Frank Harris' "Life & Loves" insipid by comparison; but in his sixth essay, he relapses into philosophy once more, this time on the subject of "Intellectual Facism," in which the confusions he creates in his first essay between "being" and "doing" as criteria of human worth, are infinitely compounded. Here, Dr. Ellis attempts to defend the thesis that increasing degrees of human talent in relation to cultural productivity do not establish any degrees of intrinsic superiority on the part of individuals exercising such talents. The valuation placed by Dr.

Ellis on culture thus seems to be on a par with that of the person who once dismissed culture (and presumably civilization as well) with the remark that it consists merely of "what man does that monkeys don't." Trouble is, Dr. Ellis begins by setting up a fallacious standard of comparison, and ends by becoming well mired in his own quicksands. Thus he describes different degrees of talent (in terms of intelligence, creativity, achievement, etc.) as analogous to differences in race or sex. This is such a palpable absurdity that it seems incredible that anyone could be deceived by it. The proper analogue to mental ability or talent (if one is needed) is physical ability or talent. Thus the culturally productive and capable individual corresponds with the physically robust and capable individual, irrespective of other biological differences; whereas the "stupid" or moronic individual compares with the physically frail and inept individual, also irrespective of other biological differences. When

correct analogies are constructed, then correct distinctions and inferences can be drawn, and they are far from the illogic propounded in this essay.

The final essay is a seemingly interminable paraphrase of the "Golden Rule," which Dr. Ellis regards as a corollary to the precept: "To thine own self be true." This essay also contemplates various tenets, such as that "first of all, humans invariably are fallible or mistake-making individuals, and therefore to some extent must commit mistakes all their lives. Secondly, they normally only learn by trial and error, and therefore it is actually good for them to make many mistakes." Everyone has "a right to be wrong," and no one has any obligation or even a legitimate incentive to pattern his behavior on someone else's activities or preachments. Further, 'Immorality or wrongdoing consists of doing things that needlessly harm yourself or others." In spite of all of these liberal views, Dr. Ellis still harps away that there are "Sex misdeeds . . . such as confirmed homosexuality, which defeat your own ends and deprive you of harmless satisfactions." As for bisexual behavior, or other "deviate" practices, "to blame yourself for any past, present, or potential sex mistakes is highly unethical and immature. Whether you are sexually right or wrong, wise or stupid, your first and foremost responsibility is still:-To thine own self be true!" But the question of how one can be "true to oneself" without some degree of intelligence and self-awareness is again left hanging, as are most of the critical questions raised in this collection of

Ellisiana.

R. H. C.

THE PAPER SNAKE, by Ray Johnson, published by The Something Else Press, 423 Broadway, New York 10013, 1965, hard cover, 52 pages (many of them slack filled), 8-1/2 x11 inches, $3.47.

29