audience is not told what to believe,nbut is shown that the manner in whichna man gives or receives a blow revealsnhis nature.nThe novel opens with blows—fromnclubs, fists and feet—rained upon thenrecruits by Tech Sergeant Krupe andnBuck Sergeant Bennett, who give thennew arrivals a reception more suitednto a concentration camp than a militarynreservation. Corporal Sanders, an assistantndrill instructor fresh from hisnown training, bellows but does not beatnthe men. The personalities of the rulingntrio are quickly sketched and fleshed outnin later chapters; as the action procfeeds,nthe reader comes to know and form hisnown opinions about each of them. Thisnaction is, of course, motivated by a desirento make mature marines out of thenrecruits in the allotted ten weeks. TonSergeant Krupe, this is a task that, ifnsuccessful, will produce flawless soldiers,nmen who will not be tricked bynsavage Asian enemies, and who will notnweaken if captured. The last is important,nwe discover later, because his ownnbrother, captured in Korea, is nownmaking broadcasts against the UnitednStates over short-wave radio. SergeantnKrupe is humiliated by this betrayal andnlabels it treason. Corporal Sanders, whondoes not believe in violence against recruits,ndemurs. “Think of what theynmust have done to him, ” he says. Fortunatelynfor the emotional pace of thennovel, this dialogue comes late in thenbook, after the reader is already wellnacquainted with the unstated argumentnover methods brewing between Krupenand Sanders, while the sadistic SergeantnBennett creates havoc among the recruitsnand rage in the audience.nThe outlines of the argument are deceptivelynsimple. Sergeant Krupenbelieves that proper training can makena difference. If his brother had joinednthe Marines instead of the Air Force,nhe would not have weakened in captivity.nTherefore Krupe is capable of placingnone massive hand around the thinnneck of a late-adolescent recruit andnsqueezing the right answers out of him:nhis game is to make a warrior capable ofndefying the world, but who also obeysnhis superiors. Upon these points restsnthe ability to survive and win in war.nKrupe, in other words, has decided thatnabsolutes rule the world and constitutenthe laws of life. Corporal Sanders, however,nis a modern man. He acknowledgesnthat Krupe’s brother may broadcast fornthe enemy, but is not sure that meansnan actual move to the other side. Henbelieves discipline is necessary, but thatnit should be administered within reasonablenlimits and civilized rules. He softensnthe tactics of Krupe and Bennettnwhenever possible, and resolves to callntheir abuses to the attention of highernauthority. His argument, appealing tonintelligence and sensitivity, seems tonhave the best lines.nWhat is true of Sanders, however, isnuntrue of Sergeant Bennett. Bennett isna sadist both physically and psychologically.nHe not only punches and kicks,nbut he arbitrarily selects one haplessnrecruit for loud abuse on completelynspurious grounds, homosexuality.nThis campaign, which evokes horror,nis evidence of a deep and implacablenmalignity; the charge of homosexualitynis one that no one can deny without lossnof dignity, one that does not need proofnto achieve credibility. Its use by SergeantnBennett is accompanied by other loathsomenweapons: he abuses an Indian recruitnbecause of his race. This is uniquenin McDowell’s novel, though, an exceptionnnot pursued by the author.nThroughout To Keep Our Honor Cleannthere is an absence of contemporary cantnand stereotype that is a relief to thenreader. The hackneyed Marxist emphasisnon class is absent; there are no sociologicaln”flashbacks” ^ la Mailer, andnmen behave as spontaneously as in lifen—and as revealingly.nXerhaps the most remarkable aspectnof this novel is that the author’s opinionnof the Krupe-Sanders argument is nowherenstated. The outcome is notnloaded; the issue is left to the reader tondetermine according to his own experiencenand wisdom. The only flaw, andnthis may not seem like a flaw to others,nis a love interest which seems more digressiventhan essential. Even this, however,nis treated with a merciful tact; wenare spared the usual clinical descriptionsnof sex that so often betray a novelistnwho has nothing to say oii othernaspects of reality. DnCoercive Utopians Then and NownGavan Davids: A Dream of Islands;nW. W. Norton & Co.; New York.nby Arthur E. HipplernJiveryone knows how wonderful, denlightful and carefree the unrepressednSouth Sea Islanders are (or were), uncontaminatednby Europeans. Surelyntheirs was a culture to admire, envy andnemulate. But could it be that some ofnthat assumption of happiness and innocencenis the result of misperception, orneven of projecting oneself into othersnDr. Hippler is professor of anthropologynat the University of Alaska.nnnor even, in part, the outgrowth of a culturalnillusion.?nDaws wastes no time in this collectionnof biographies in raising the issue.nIt’s most unpleasant to those who’d likento have their Rousseauian cake and toneat it too. For example, at least part ofnthe reason behind the ease of sexual offeringnof Tahitian women to Europeannsailors was mercenary. Sex could bentraded for iron and goods. Of course, innlarge part it was simple concupiscence.nBut it doesn’t end there. Sweetness,nopenness, warmth, honesty and givingnways, on closer examination, became insteadncommonplace infanticide, bestiality,nthievery, despotism, cannibalismn•IH^B^HI^aMHHSlnXovcmbcr/Dcccmbcr 1980n