American Communism (see page 23 ofnthis issue), of a Vivian Gornick, a formernand not-too-repentant communist:n”For 25 years I’ve been waiting for thisnbook . . . What a splendid, moving booknhas resulted. A book of such quality thatnit alone would justify a lifetime of writingn.. . Americans saw the CommunistnParty as a monolith composed of verminousnsub-humans: subversives, traitors,ndefilers of all America stood for. Theynwere pictured —often by those whonshould have been most aware of the falsitynof this collective portrait —as politicalnanimals who were fair game to benhounded mercilessly and routinelyndeprived of their basic rights asncitizens… Gornick has revived them asnordinary, which is to say as extraordinarynfor, as Gornick brings them to life innthese crowded, lively pages, the Communistsnwere often our best people.”n(Emphasis added) •nTime s OperationalnHypocrisynAfter years of avid participation innthe anti-CIA witch hunt, Time, in anrecent cover story on intelligencenagencies, featured this flabbergastingnsentence:n”There even seems to be a swing ofnpublic opinion in support of the CIA, anrecognition of the basic point that it isnnot a contradiction for an open democracynto have a secret intelligence agency.”nThe anti-intelligence campaign began,nsome years ago, with the aggressive andnpredatory articles of Seymour Hersh innthe New York Times. Soon, SenatornFrank Church began his investigation.nEven those free societies with longerndemocratic traditions than America hadntroubles with intelligence. But historynrecords no instances which equal thenspectacle of mindless destruction, callousndisregard for national interest and cateringnto a potential enemy for reasons ofncommercial sensationalism which haventaken place recently in the U.S. The rolen261nChronicles of Culturenof the American media in this affair isnreminiscent of an inebriated butcher whonperformed brain surgery with an assortmentnof cleavers. People were irrevocablynwronged, complex and vital relationshipsndestroyed, years of capital investment innthe national security and social confidencenannihilated.nNow Time, by suggesting that thenpublic opinion had something to do withnall that, wants to make the Americannpublic a part of the wanton devastation,nperpetrated solely by the media as in anspectacular trance. Actually, the media’snrage and outrage seemed to many a giantnshow, a put-on, in which civic and noblenindignation was just a guise from behindnwhich the media, with a gimlet-eyednsobriety, scouted for self-promotion andnthe enhancement of their power. And,ncurrently, Time, with a coquettishninsolence, reports that Americans havenchanged their minds. But what has beennthe opinion of American citizens of thenanti-CIA frenzy? Did anybody ask? Whennand where did Americans express theirnviews on all that went on? How manynletters to the editor in favor of the CIAndid Time throw into the wastebasket?nDid Time never notice that the writing,njudging, condemning, blabbing, reporting,naccusing, inferring and concludingnwas initiated and largely sustained bynthe media? DnPolemics & ExchangesnOn VietnamnThe war ended in 1975, and nownthe literature starts flowing. It took andecade before this occurred after WorldnWar I. Barbusse, Hasek, Graves, DosnPassos, Zweig, Hemingway, Remarquencame on the scene, and their condemnationnof insanity and cruelty was simplisticnand noble, strongly motivated by, or fullynsubmitted to, the Marxist interpretationnof history. World War II fermented anshorter time in writers’ souls, and soonnMailer, Waugh, Jones, Vailland, Merle,nnnNekrasov, Malaparte, Irving Shawnappeared in the bookstores. They projectedna more complex view of historicalnforces and individual destiniesnthan the previous generation. The ideologicalnNemesis and man’s murky passionsnreplaced Marxist cliches in theirnwork. In return for this refinement, theirnmoral attitudes became less pure, theirnintrospections were often tainted by anshrewd lassitude. They learned to callntheir stance existentialism and longed tonbe seen by the world as nonchalant sages,nperhaps even latter-day stoics.nNow, Vietnam’s imprints on sensibilitiesnhave begun to turn into literaryntestimonies. Vietnam was chiefly annAmerican affair, thus, unless somethingnworthy of attention comes from Indochina,nthe literature of that war mustndepend on American reactions andninsights. No one on the order of Barbusse,nMailer, or even Remarque has yet madena debut. Most remarkably—no novel ofnimportance has surfaced. It appears thatnthe massive journalistic reporting of thenwar, which ranged from manic impressionismnto lyrical exposures, has replacednthose literary forms which were mostneffectively used to portray war and itsndilemmas. Last year, Philip Caputo’s AnRumor of War, a personalized reportagenfrom the Vietnam battle front, attractednmore reverence than this kind of writingnusually does. Then, the National BooknAward panel—an esoteric body, recognizablenonly by the ideological uniformitynand conformity of its members—nominatednMichael Herr’s Dispatches for thatncoveted prize. Once again, it is not annovel; but in the liberal press it has beennmet with acclaim, usually reserved fornworks of art. Chronicles of Culturenreviews Mr. Herr’s book in this issue,nbut it seems that the event deservesnadditional remarks.nWhat happened in Vietnam has alreadynbeen given many interpretations. Wenoffer another. To our mind, Americannliberals seem to have decided, initially,nto defend democracy, a Judeo-Christian-nHellenic political notion, in Asia. ThenAsian array of civilizations and culturesnhad been grounded in philosophies andn