It puzzles me why reviewers complainnthat Miss Oates’s characters allnsound alike. Obviously, to Miss Oates,npeople are all alike. She frequently revealsnthis theory by ironic juxtapositionnof social classes. In the title story,nDuncan’s mother, a doctor’s wife, callsnthe police to her Maine summer home toncomplain about local vandals. ” ‘As fornthe girls,’ Mrs. Sargent says later tonfamily members, ‘Antoinette especially—Inhalfway wonder if they’re going tonbe safe on this island.’ ” Antoinette is,nof course, done in by the doctor’s son.nCertainly (ask Herman Tarnower) thenReality Probed & PitiednKazimierz Brandys: A Question ofnReality; Charles Scribner’s Sons;nNew York.nMilovan Djilas: Tito: The Storynfrom Inside; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich;nNew York.nby Charles A. MosernIhese two brief volumes, superficiallynquite different, display certainninner connections if only because bothnauthors have undergone the historicalnexperience of Eastern Europe since 1945nand once shared a commitment—nownformally abrogated—to the communistnvision of society which has been inflictednon that part of the world.nBrandys is a novelist, and A Questionnof Reality is offered as a novel in form,nalthough in fact it is a philosophicalnessay without any genuine plot. Thenanonymous narrator, born just beforenthe First World War, dedicated himselfnto philosophy, art and the theater innthe 1930’s, then fought with the PolishnHome Army during the Second WorldnDr. Moser is professor of Slavic at thenGeorge Washington University innWashington, D.C.n34inChronicles of Cultureneducated middle class is capable of violence.nThere is nothing wrong with exploringnthis phenomenon through thenliterary medium. Published individuallynin scattered magazines, these stories maynstand as legitimate artistic case studiesnof middle-class culture gone haywire.nBut to collect them, especially under anpretentious title like this one, is to representnthe bizarre as the everyday. MissnOates’s characters are not our neighborsnand friends. Her world is not our world.nAs a result, the fundamental problemnwith A Sentimental Education is that itntries to teach us something about ourselvesnthat isn’t true. DnWar. After 1945 he taught for somenyears; in 1970 he became a “theaterologist”nwith an office at the National Institutenof Fine Arts in Warsaw. Thentime is now 1976 or thereabouts, andnthe narrator is in Western Europe attendingna conference when he makes thenacquaintance of a Polish exile, now ansociologist, who asks him to respond tona questionnaire containing such queriesnas: “Do you think that the idea of freedomnfinds its embodiment in the coursenof history through the evolution of societynand the progress of civilization.'”nThe narrator spends his evenings atnnnhis hotel recording his responses tonsuch questions as an exercise in thenformulation of his own viewpoint onnsuch subjects as history, reality and thenquality of his own Polishness, which henconstantly emphasizes (to be sure, henintelligently declines to respond to certainnquestions, although he remarks atnone point how “extremely difficult” itnis for modern man “not to answer anquestion”). The narrator is clearly annintellectual and a philosopher, and in nonsense an actor on the historical stagenexcept, perhaps, during the SecondnWorld War. ,nDjilas, by way of contrast, was oncenvery much a shaper of history in hisnnative Yugoslavia as a communist leadernand close associate of Tito. Renownednfor his ruthless cruelty, he broke withnTito in 1953, thereafter spending somenyears in prison, and more years as annanalyst of the new society which henhad helped to impose upon Yugoslavia.nDjilas knew Tito well during the militarynstruggle of the Second World Warnand the period of conflict with the SovietnUnion before and after the 1948 breaknbetween Stalin and Tito, and he hasnsome interesting, though not especiallynprofound, observations to make aboutnTito during those years. However,nDjilas had virtually no contact withnTito during the last quarter-century ofnhis life, and he can tell us little morenabout him as an individual over that timenthan can the most ordinary, politicallynsentient Yugoslav citizen.nDjilas’s book purports to be annanalysis of Tito as historical hero, somethingnTito himself apparently believednhe was. But Tito is, in many respects,nan unsatisfactory book, the product ofnan intellect far less subtle and engagingnthan Brandys’s. Moreover, since Djilasnpictures Tito as a mediocre militaryncommander whose bungling cost hisnpartisan troops dear during the SecondnWorld War and who was exceedinglynsolicitous of his own safety, as a rulernwhose prime personal motivation wasnto become an “absolute monarch” whonlived in greater luxury than any kingn