litical and artistic priorities assertednthemselves, all with ansupposedly liberal slant. Thisnnew liberalism, however, tooknthe form of cultural hate andnnihilism, in which we are told,nfor instance, that the real revolutionnis the sexual one. We wondernwhether the old dissent wasnnot better than this new orthodoxy,nwhose invisibility makes itneven more insidious. (GMP) DnPerceptiblesnStanley R. Rader: Against thenGates of Hell; Everest House;nNew York.nMr. Rader, for anyone whonmight have missed his interviewnwith Mike Wallace on annApril 1979 “60 Minutes” program,nis Treasurer and GeneralnCounsel for the WorldwidenChurch of God, second in commandnonly to Herbert Armstrongnhimself, founder andnPastor General of the Church.nNow, Mike Wallace’s interviewingntactics could probably makenSaint Joan look hke a thief and/nor an idiot, so any conclusionsndrawn from that broadcast mustnbe, at best, open to question.nMr. Rader, however, throws littlenadditional light on the subjectnin his adulatory tome.nAgainst the Gates of Hell is antediously detailed account of thenattempt by the State of California—atnthe instigation of disgruntlednchurch members, includingnMr. Armstrong’s son—nto take over (thus, for all practicalnpurposes, destroying) thenfinancial and administrative controlnof the Worldwide Church ofnGod. But beyond his ownnchurch’s difficulties the real issue,nas Mr. Rader sees it, is thenproblem of the autonomy of anchurch, any church, against thenstate or federal government.nHow much privacy does—ornshould—a church (and churchrelatednschools) have while retainingngovernment sanction bynway of a tax-exempt status.” Itnis a valid question, particularlynin light of the recent IRS threatnto revoke the tax-exempt statusnof private religious schoolsnwhose student population doesnnot provide a specific racial mixture.nThere have also been equalrightsnfanatics at the governmentnlevel who claim that thenmembership of religious clubsnon campuses should be open tonanyone, regardless of his religion,nor lack of it. Unfortunately,nMr. Rader’s book doesnnot answer that question. Hisncry of “Foul!” is loud and clear,nand may be justified, but it offersnno solutions.(BK) DnWilliam H. Forbis: Fall of thenPeacock Throne; Harper & Row;nNew York.nFall of the Peacock Thronenis a popular, impressionistic accountnof Iranian history, customsnand culture, concentratingnon the Shah’s Iran and the country’sndevelopment since 1941.nReasonably accurate and easy tonread, it has interesting things tonsay about the texture of everydaynlife in Iran as well as aboutnIranian mores, values and attitudes.nOccasionally the authornexpresses surprise at, or labelsnas peculiarly Iranian, things thatnare common in other Moslemncountries, or to backward countriesnin general, but by and largenhe has a fairly sensible regardnfor context. Generally moderatenin attitude, he is critical of- thenlate Shah. Occasionally, Forbisncriticizes the Iranians unfairlynfor not duplicating the exactnpatterns of social attitudes nownde rigueur in the West, He isnmore interested in facts thannopinions, a praiseworthy characteristicnthat makes this a usefulnbook. (AJL) DnWaste of MoneynAll Possible CandournErica Jong: Fanny: Being thenTrue-History of the Adventuresnof Fanny Hackabout-nJones; New American Library;nNew York.nAn old bit of folklore in Englishndepartments in the laten1960’s concerned a professornwho offered a course in love andnlust in the eighteenth-centurynnovel and was dismayed to findnthat his students didn’t know thendifference.nThe same foggy vision seemsnto afflict Erica Jong in her fiction.nAfter the mindless sexualnadventures of Isadora Wing innFear of Flying and How to SavenYourOwnLife, she now anesthetizesnreaders with Fanny, whichnpurports to be the “true story” ofnthe leading figure of the book sonfamiliar to adolescents of all ages,nJohnCleland’sMemoirsofa Womannof Pleasure {1749), morenpopularly known as Fanny Hill.nJong’s new novel tediously relatesnthe endless sexual permutationsnof a young eighteenth-centurynroundheels who sleeps hernway through the “Who’s Who” ofnAugustan England; goes to thenmattress with anyone (whethernmadam, pimp, robber, slaver ornpiratess); makes her living as anwhore, a thief and a pirate; andnbecomes the author of a mocknepic, The Pyratiad. In the coursenof this journey, we are assurednby Fanny (and thus by Jong) thatnnnAlexander Pope was a sexualncripple, Jonathan Swift a voyeurnwho got his thrills from exhibitionsnof bestiality, and WilliamnHogarth a satyr. We are also intellectuallynennobled by learningnfour dozen eighteenth-centurynslang terms for prostitute andnas many more for variousngenitalia.nIn Chapter I (uncomfortablynreminiscent of the preface tonDeFoe’s Moll Flanders), Fannynclaims that “If these Pages tellnof Debauchery and Vice, ’tisnnot in any wise because theirnAuthor wishes to condonenWickedness, but rather becausenTruth, Stark-Naked Truth, demandsnthat she write with allnpossible Candour, so that thenInheritor of this Testament shallnlearn how to avoid Wickednessnor indeed transform it intonGoodness.”nThe statement is obviouslynintended to be ironic. But Jong’snpretentious “Afterword”—innwhich she claims the blessing ofna famous scholar (now convenientlyndead) to give her book anveneer of historical respectability,nand in which she boastsnof her own research labors—noffends anyone who knows anythingnabout the eighteenth century.nAll of this is compoundednby Jong’s attempt to make Fannyna kind of picaresque feminist whonlovingly dwells on primitive contraception,nthe joys of abortion,nand the culpability of men fornall of women’s problems.nThis book is neither history,nnor satire, nor parody, nornpastiche, nor persiflage—all ofnwhich it pretends to be. It is simplyna tasteless piece of fluff.n(RCS) Dnwmmmm^^^lQnMarch/April 1981n