style can be an effective one, providednthe author is skilled enough to evoke ‘nthe proper emotion. But Irving is nonThomas Maiiory. For all the destructionnand mutilation, grief does not existnhere.nWhen John’s grandfather, Iowa Bob,ndies in his arms of fright (second onlynto suicide as the most common causenof death in this novel), John silentlyneulogizes him: “as heavy and meaningful,nto me, as our family bear.” Touching,nisn’t it.’ Or, right after the Halloweenngang rape, victim Franny remarks,n”Boy, are you ever made to pay for anlittle fun.” Gosh yes. Whether the eventnis an incestuous sexual marathon, anbombing or a plane crash (no survivors),nIrving’s tone remains one of amusedncondescension. Life certainly is a hodgepodge.nWhat do you know about that.nJohn Irving’s novel fails, really, notnbecause it is too violent but because itnis not violent enough. He needs to hearnthe story of someone who has actuallynwitnessed death and mutilation at closenrange. Let him interview the victim ofna gang rape to discover how she reallyntalks. His imagination cannot help himnwith this task, for his novel covers anperiod of history (preWorld War II tonthe present) which witnessed unimaginablenatrocity and pain: the Holocaust,nnumerous wars and revolutions, anchanged Europe (in which much of thisnnovel blithely takes place), mass starvationnin Africa and Southeast Asia. Millionsnhave endured unbearable sufferingnof an order that Mr. Irving will nevernknow. It is not satisfactory for an authornwho professes to describe the way ofnthe world to dismiss human misery withnsuch cavalier good humor. Irving tellsnof a ‘V^iennese clown who reserves tonhimself the final word on the relationshipnbetween art and life. He announces,njust before he leaps to his death, “LIFEnIS SERIOUS BUT ART IS FUN!”nHow remarkable that Mr. Irving’s latestneffort resembles neither.nAs much as anything. The Hotel NewnHampshire is a book of slogans. Most ofnthem impart obscure, rather perfunctorynadvice. “You’ve got to get obsessed andnstay obsessed” is Iowa Bob’s contribution.nBut the biggie, relentlessly repeated,nis “Keep passing the open windows,”nthe ultimate recipe for withstandingnthe lure of death, the formulanfor survival.nHere’s something just as effectivenand a little rnore concrete: keep passingnthe open bookstores. DnForeign Fiascos & Domestic MirenOscar Handlin: The Distortion ofnAmerica; Atlantic/Little-Brown &nCo.; Boston.nby Alan J. LevinenIt is now generally clear, even to thenostrich-headed, that the United Statesnand the rest of the Western world arenfacing the gravest sort of threats fromnthe outside. Most people would agreenthat less-dramatic changes within thenWestern countries have not only exac-nDr. Levine is a frequent contributor tonthese pages.n121nChronicles of Culturenerbated the external dangers but alsonpose a serious threat df their own. OscarnHandlin, one of America’s leading historians,nhas attempted to examine thesenproblems. Unfortunately, the resultingnbook, though worth reading, does notnsupply any new insights. It is inferiornto the same author’s Truth in History,na far more interesting discussion of thentwisting of history for fashionablenideological purposes.nAs Handlin sees it, the consensusnthat sustained postwar foreign policynhas disappeared—even policy itself maynhave ceased to exist. Under PresidentnCarter “a sense of helplessness, of drift.nnnof inability to control events often lednto indecision.” The Soviets are more aggressiventhan ever, while commitmentsnto international law have weakened allnover the world. Within the UnitednStates “the intellectuals, who shouldnhave articulated the country’s views,nceased to do so and adopted an adversarynposture that contributed to the dualnloss of will and sense of purpose. Furthermore,nliberalism by its own successndestroyed the basis for consensus, withoutnwhich Americans faced dangerousnproblems of security. All too often itnwas easier to evade or postpone problemsnthan to confront them.” Unfortunately,nhowever, Handlin’s book concentratesnon the international situationnand foreign policy. His analysis of it isngenerally quite accurate and sensible.nBut it is also often superficial—exceptnfor his examination of “neutralism,”nwhich is exceptionally penetrating andndamning. It might have been better hadnProfessor Handlin, a man of unrivalednknowledge of American social history,nspent more time on examining our internalncrisis; the parts of the book devotednto this topic are by far ‘the mostninteresting and informative, dealingnwith something Handlin is uniquelynqualified to explore. In contrast, hisnviews on foreign affairs are mostly thosenwhich have long been conventionalnamong neoconservatives and anticommunistnliberals, and, on the whole, hisntreatment of these issues is less skillfulnthan Norman Podhoretz’s. Yet what hensays is useful because it reveals some ofnthe weaknesses of this line of thought.nAlthough men like Podhoretz andnHandlin deserve praise for their unremittingnefforts to arouse the nation tonan awareness of its danger, their viewsnon how^the peril arose are not alwaysnconvincing.nHandlin, like anticommunist liberals,nneoconservatives and perhaps manynconservatives, sees the foreign policynof the Truman-Eisenhower era as anstandard of excellence to emulate. Hencomments: “Regarded from the perspectivenof the historian, the presentn