BOOK REVIEW

DEER PARK Norman Mailer

Just as he did with "THE NAKED AND THE DEAD," Norman Mailer, in his second novel, erupts a storm of controversy amonst critics and readers alike. While the former was heralded by many as the "greatest war novel of all time," it is doubtful that this latest missile will achieve such glowing plaudits.

Long associated with social reform, Hailer now aims his sometimes caustic, often scathing, but usually entertaining, pen at the nation's film capital. Hollywood and its citizens are dealt a heavy blow in this tale that makes ourrent "Confidential" stories seem like ohildren's lessons.

The plot, if there is one, is told in the first person by one Sergius Shaugnessy, a handsome, worldly slob who gets involved, much to his own liking, with the film colony at their own private desert resort. Through him, we meet and get to know prostitutes, pimps, homosexuals, dopo-addiots, alcoholics, Communists and any other of the so-called degenerates that make up the Park. It isn't hard to pick out the prototypes if one wants to bother.

Mailer's chief interesi seems to be, not in creating a plot, but in exprsing the wilful degeneracy apparently running ragast among those people. As the title implies, he likens it to a Government range where wildlife are allowed to run and play in the constant security of protection.

Certainly there is a great deal to be said for Mailer's theme. One often wonders if the movie star is a privileged lot. Yet, we can't help but wonder, too, if they should all be criticized for the guilt of a few. lailer forgets to mention thesé.

·

Unlike his first book, which this writer found difficult to absorb, "Deer Park," is delightful reading from start to finish. It is not for the sexually uninititated, nor for the family fireside readings on Sunday evening. But if you have a strong stomach and if you can look at his message objectively, this can be a highly enjoyable book.

D. O.

FRANKLY SPEAKING

156-157 was a time of flux for Los Angeles, the founding area of Mattachine. Interest flagged. Society vitality waned. The monthly office rental,

eked out from dwindling revenues, became a worrisome thorn in the tissues of an already harassed organization.

The annual summer slump hit hard. (It has hit hard this year too--only one member at the last Beach Party, and from 3 to 5 at discussion groups.) A reorganization attempt followed. At the same time some of the most active members in the area dropped out. The new officers made a valiant effort to revive a faltering organization. By Spring they had injected new life into the area, whether lasting or not remains to be seen. Hembership hit 25 (not the 22 stated on the next page). Discord reared its rankled head at our neetings. An aroused interest often manifests itself in the form of disagreement. We welcomed our dissentious moments as a sigu of returning health. Some of our meetings reached new highs in the excitement of altercation; by the same token they indicated a revitalized Area Council.

He realized also that, as a Society unit, we were not doing nearly enough. Impressive strides in "group discussion" in San Francisco--in group study sponsored by One Institute pointed out that we were somehow failing to keep abreast. It is a problem we still have not solved. We freely admit however that part of the problem is a lack of dedicated personnel willing to devote a sustained effort toward the work of the Society.

We wish to thank everyone who has sent in contributions during the past 12 months--a surprising mumber have made repeated donations. Letters from interested persons have been appreciated, too. May we thank One, Inc. individually and collectively for their encouragement and support. Two brunchos, which many persons interested in One attended, remain memorable and pleasant occasions. In particular, (concluded on back pare of L.A. Newsletter)