ComtnendablesnA ConvincingnReglementndes ComptesnPhilip Roth: The Ghost Writer;nFarrar, Straus & Giroux; New York.nThis is a novel (actually a novella)nabout dilemmas. Big dilemmas, smallndilemmas, and those peculiar dilemmasnthat fit neither category. It’s about thenimpossibility of choices, which arenneither small nor big but inexpressiblenand unsolvable to the extent that it’sneven impossible to form a judgmentnabout them.nWith this novel, Roth has reached anmaturity which is unrelated to age. Suchnmaturity crowns a writer’s career andneffort. No one, in point of fact, knowsnwhen a writer will reach this maturityn—yet he and his critics know when he’snfinally there. The Ghost Writer displaysnsome of the subtlest structuring of anninfrareality in modern fiction. Itnachieves it by blending reality with subrealitynand hyperreality. It may soundnabstruse, but it’s quite obvious in thisnstory about two writers and two womennwho together try to settle something soncomplex that it becomes simple. It has andelicateness of narrative tone which isnrather new for Roth, hitherto a practitionernof assorted pungencies. DnMr. Dimitrovnof BulgarianCharles A. Moser: Dimitrov of Bulgaria;nCaroline House Publishers; Ottawa,nIllinois.nProfessor Moser came to the attentionnof all friends of reason during thenmid-60’s. He had been teaching Slavicn3SinChronicles of Culturenliterature at Yale when he correctlynpointed out in an interview that Russiannpoets of the Yevtushenko stripe arenactually operatives of the Politbureau, ifnnot outright tools of the KGB. Sincenthat was exactly the time that the Americannliberal intelligentsia was meltingnwith enraptured delight at the verynsound of Yevtushenko’s updated agitpropnserenades, it was perhaps not surprisingnthat he became a persona nonngrata. If this was a cause-and-effect, itnis a sad commentary on Yale’s commitment,nunder Chancellor Brewster, tonintellectual freedom and independentnscholarly inquiry.nBulgaria is best known to most ofnus as the country into whose army Voltaire’snCandide was incorporated bynforce. What makes Professor Moser, anman from Tennessee with the speechnmanner of Sergeant York (as played bynGary Cooper), get so deeply involvednwith Bulgarian literature, we do notnWaste of MoneynThe SharksnBob Woodward and Scott Armstrong:nThe Brethren: Inside thenSupreme Court; Simon & Schuster;nNew York.nNixon had to go, whatever his desertsnor failings, because the liberal establishmentnin the media hated him, for variousnreasons. It’s natural that a SupremenCourt featuring four Nixon appointees,nincluding the Chief Justice, would elicitnsimilar feelings from the liberal muckrakers.nThey have long seemed likensharks cruising toward blood in thenwater. Since the Warren Burger courtnhas recently taken a stand against somenof the more indecent transgressions ofnthe so-called free press, thereby earningnits hateful wrath, some kind of vendettanwas inevitable. This book is nothing butnrabid, unabashed revenge, adorned withnthe bogus righteousness of service to thennnattempt to fathom. However, Dimitrovnof Bulgaria may shed some light on it.nIn it. Professor Moser has captured onenof the fundamental dilemmas of thatnspecific region of the world, known asnEastern Europe, where talented, noble,nand far-sighted political idealists, whononly wished to serve their countries withnintegrity and dedication, were forced tonwaste their lives in endless escapesnfrom totalitarianism of either the rightnor the left. Mr. Dimitrov’s is the classicnstory of an East European populistnparliamentarian, leader of an agrariannparty, who had to combat the evils ofnboth nazism and communism—thenarchetypal situation for any East Europeannstatesman of decency, honor, andncourage. Professor Moser tells it withnan erudition and attention to detailnwhich results in insights invaluable tonanyone who wants to know somethingnabout Bulgaria and the Balkans, theirnhistory and their fate. Dnrepublic. A massive effort to drive itsnmessage into the nation’s consciousnessnis being made by the most powerful centersnof opinion making, which smacks ofnideological collusion.nMuckraking is called “New Journalism”nthese days, which makes it no lessnsmelly; its intentions are simply veilednwith a thicker layer of mendacity andnfalse civic virtue. Its most potent devicenis a sort of “reconstituted-lemon-juice”nstyle: the muckrakers simulate andncounterfeit situations and conversationsnwhich they have never seen, attended ornlistened to, which they learned mostlynfrom biased, often dishonest, informants,nand which they peddle as reality.nThey are about as real as reconstitutednlemon juice. Mr. Woodward is one of thenmost prominent exponents of the genre:nto an unprejudiced eye, his “work” is nonless than despicable. Dn