Since the early 1920’s the most persistentnand obtrusive example of an Americanntout for Bolshevik business has beennArmand Hammer (“indubitably thenKremlin’s favorite capitalist”). Finderndevastatingly recounts Hammer’s careernof dissimulation which began when hisnfather’s Communist coimections led to anbrief meeting with Lenin in 1921, andnwhich reached its twilight only with thendeath of Leonid Brezhnev. Hammer’snwheelings and dealings with the Bolsheviknleadership constitute 60 years’nproof of the principle (bluntly stated byna Chekist defector as long ago as 1931)nthat the Soviet Union dispensesneconomic favor in return for politicalnassistance; any doubt that Hammer hasnconsciously lied to serve the Bolshevikncause can hardly survive his comparisonnof Lenin with Christ, his characterizationnof Leonid Brezhnev as “kind, human andnwarm-hearted,” and his fantastic descriptionnof Mikhail Suslov as “a scholarlylookingnindividual with a kindly smilenand an … intelligent face.” Hammer isnnot describing St. Francis of Assisi, but anhideous Stalinist living mummy whosenonly known contribution to humannhappiness was the joy that he caused byndying; when he finally did die at the agenof 80, the emigre writer AlexandernZinoviev celebrated the event with annarticle entitled “At Last!”nSuslov was the ideological symbol ofnSoviet society. He did not create thenideology. His contribution to thenideology was precisely zero. But notnwithstanding this fact his role in Sovietnideology was enormous. He was thenspirit and personification of thenideological machine which attainednmonstrous dimensions in the SovietnUnion after the Second World War.nThis machine was characterized bynformalism, tedium, drabness, creativeninfertility and, despite these characteristicsnor even because of them, by anvast capacity to manipulate millions ofnpeople by lobotomizing their consciousnessninto conformity. Suslovnwas equal to the machine; it is impossiblento dig up a single Marxistnideologue more mediocre than henwas. He was beyond all comparisonnthe most outstandingly undistinguishednof all the superlatively undistinguishednSoviet ideologists. He was anspectacular proof of the fact thatnamong the Soviet leadership evenncreatures who are at most half alivenand at least half demented can play andecisive role. He was perhaps thenmost powerful goose-egg among allnthe nullities who hold power in thenSoviet system. (A Zinoviev, Ni Svobody,nniRavenstva, ni Bratstvan[Neither Liberty nor Equality nornFraternity] X^u^^nna, 1983) p. 68.nIn comparison with Hammer’s detestablenconduct, the antics of Finder’s othern”heroes” are merely contemptiblenrather than repulsive. Cyrus Eaton, ann”inveterate iconoclast” and congenitalneccentric, promoted the PugwashnnnUnotablesnKaiv Materiiiln’•j. 1). Salingers coiililhe son hasnrelumed fnmi ihe I nknovvn!” Tliat’.s (henreaction lliat Thomas Pynclion’.s SlownIvctnieriMtik: hnm n; liostoit) vill (ililnalreail ha.sn’l) evoke I’roiTi Ihose hooknreviewers who are always on the lookoutnfor something that’s liold liul not loonrisky: homogeni/ed ^vnn.v>. Sloir I eanurncoii.si.sts oTlive stories tliat saw hlllen(Kcnyon Kcrieir) or ii^{‘l’foc.Sulurelaynliivnitiji I’osI) maga/ine publication bi’iweennlyS^and ls)(> i. hy way of ri-ferenienit shouki he noted that I’ynehon w^.snhorn in l’;.-^7 and that V. appeared inniy(i3. Tl.if Crying ofl.ol ‘I’) in ()(>. andn(irurily’sKiiinlxiir m’~fi. The stories are.nas I’uiehoii admits in his introduction,nelearh- the works t)f a college student andnrecent grailuaie. Some people, those win inare more skeptical ahout Pyiiehoii’s valuen(remeinher Ihe hrouhaha surroundingnihe National hook .Vwiird pre.sentalion tonwhat many considered the unreailahlen(inifily’s Raiiihoir’r ). will remark.n”I’vnehon’s pulling a last oiu:. turning anhiiek h) reissuing material thai wouki henotherwise forgotten in a librarv storenroom ilhe wasn’t a semiculi (iguri’.” I’artnolthal may he true, yet weri’ iherr •.oieesnraisi’il against thi’ shade ol.john (iardnernwhen his workbook lor would-be writersnwas puhlisheil last yeari”nWhile Shiif l.i’uriiii-ciM be mined lornsome of the ore i>l’ V. and (irnrily’snRtlinhoii: ihals not the point of ihenpublication, ii’il can he accepted Ihal thenproject isn’t a purely merienary oni’.n(!ommonl. people who pick up a liic ornslap a di.sc into a vNoril processor thinknthat they can move from point (writing)nlo point / (an inter iew on (!arson’.snshow ) without experiencing the iliserctieventsnof a learning curve. I’ynihon’sncollection .show.v—with all of its puerilenphilosoplu. stilled ilialogue. and otherncommon characteristics of a maturingnwriter —that it’s a li )ng \ ay from /{to >! snDr. Johnson noted, example is morenellicacious than precept; Sloir Imnier isnnothing if nol working papers or anblueprint.nJuly 1984n