How True …nArnaud de Borchgrave and RobertnMoss: The Spike; Crown Publishers;nNew York.nby Philip F. Lawlern1 ruth is stranger than fiction; that’snwhy fiction is more realistic, even whennit’s used as a polemical tool. Argue allnyou want about the perils of parenthood;nKing Lear makes the point more forcefully.nNo one who has read Orwell, ornSteinbeck, can remain innocent aboutntotalitarian states, or migrant workers.nAnd in the chiaroscuro world of internationalnintrigue, where even the mostnbasic facts are tinged with fantasy, fleshand-bloodncharacters—imaginary or notn—lend immediacy to the argument. Nonscholarly essay on the topic could matchnthe impact of The Spike.nNot that The Spike is on the samenlevel as 1984, or The Grapes of Wrath;nfar from it. The authors follow thenstandard formula for best-selling thrillers:nthere is plenty of sex, and readersncan pick up enough arcane facts andnphrases to flavor cocktail-party conversations.nMoreover, in this case there isnthe voyeuristic appeal of the roman anclef, and the tantalizing question ofnwhere the truth ends and the fictionnbegins. Messrs. de Borchgrave and Mossn(or whichever one constructed the plot)nadd an extra fillip by making historicalnreferences to the characters upon whomnfictionalized characters are obviouslynbased. Thus, in the novel. PresidentnJimmy Carter is succeeded by PresidentnBilly Connor of Flats, Mississippi. Butnusually there is no such confusion aboutnthe character’s identity, so the readernis treated to detailed speculation aboutnhow, say, William Colby (possibly recognizablenin the character of Crawfordnaccording to the Washington grapevinentelegraph), might respond to a given setnMr. Lawler is Managing Editor ofnPolicy Review.n36inChronicles of Culturenof circumstances. This, too, is a provenntechnique of contemporary best sellers:nWoodward and Bernstein have made itnfamous.nThe “Woodstein” comparison isndoubly relevant here, because the actionnof The Spike is a battle for control ofnthe nation’s media. Dozens of differentnpersonalities, acting on different motives,nsupply the leaks, the biased reportingnand the phony investigations thatncontribute to a massive KGB disinformationncampaign. Here, from a polemicalnpoint of view, the plot is morenimportant than the denouement. Withna montage of detail, the authors illustratenhow a hostile power can orchestratenall the petty jealousies and ambitions indigenousnto the nation’s capital, whichncan produce a tremendously powerfulnresult from a conglomeration of smallncauses. True, there are calculating, dedicated,nsubversive agents, and therenare ideological warriors committed tonthe same goals. But the greatest damagenis done by those who are not knowinglyninvolved: the “useful idiots” whom thenKGB has learned to manipulate sonskillfully.nSince the real-life “useful idiots” insistnthat the battle between CIA andnKGB is not a matter of clear-cut goodnV. evil, de Borchgrave and Moss stealntheir thunder by depicting a world innwhich actors on both sides play fastnand loose with the Golden Rule. Sinsnof the flesh abound; in fact much of thenbook’s first 100 pages is taken up withnthe sexual exploits of the characters.nAnd in the course of the action each sidenis able to “turn” an agent largely becausenhis lusts have compromised hisnposition. Nonetheless it becomes increasinglynclear that the sins of the CIAnare the sins of isolated men, while thensins of the KGB are endemic to theirnsystem. No one expects spies (or, fornthat matter, journalists) to exemplifynBoy Scout virtue. The crucial distinctionnis that one side revels in weakness,nnnand the KGB plans an entire internationalncampaign, aimed at world domination,non that basis.nOin makes good copy. The Spike isna legitimate thriller, ideal for a onenightnreading. If the hero. Bob Hockney,nis a bit too successful, and the coincidencesntoo pat, those are the risks ofnusing the novel as a means to treat anvast and complex subject. In the end,nHockney’s credibility is established bynhis horrified, grudging realization thatnhe has been used. He is not James Bond,nsuperspy; he is a callow young man livingnamong moral ambiguities, and hendoes considerable damage before realizingnhis mistake.nWhen Hockney does finally reversenhimself and sets out to expose the conspiracynto which he has unwittinglyncontributed, he meets with “the spike”n— his editors’ decision to kill his story.nOnce again, the edge of the conspiracynis blunted. A few editors do nurturenideological biases, but by and large theneditorial decision is prompted by annunspoken gentlemen’s agreement thatncertain topics simply should not be discussed.nHockney’s superiors do not wantnto seem overly nationalistic, let alonenexpose themselves to the inevitable accusationsnof McCarthyism. They are notnmalicious, but timid. So they bow to thenWeltanschauung; the story dies, andnthe conspiracy continues toward its climax.nThus de Borchgrave and Mossndramatically illustrate the point thatnconservative critics have been makingnfor years: today the New York Timesnis more inclined to berate the CIA thannto expose the KGB.nThe argument, then, is familiar. Butnthe treatment is novel. We know hownBob Hockney thinks and feels; we sharenhis frustration and outrage. And becausenwe have been introduced to thenother characters who populate the conspiracy,nwe realize the tangible implicationsnof the crisis. So, we, the readers,n