36 / CHRONICLESnmay miss in these books the intellectualndaring they relish in a man who willndefy fashion to eall things by their rightnnames.nThe reasons for all these responsesnhave, I suspect, much to do with thenforce of generic conventions. It is notnthat Buckley excludes or softens in thennovels the unwavering opposition tonCommunism one finds in his editorialnwork. However, in the spy novel, onenmore or less expects the Reds to benvillains. In a newspaper piece or televisionndebate, Buckley is controversialn(refreshing or infuriating, dependingnon your outlook) when he argues withncustomary lucidity and wit that thenSoviet Union is in point of fact an evilnempire. In a spy novel, the same viewnwill likely pass as a given of the form,nunless the author underscores thenpoint with a heavy hand (and Buckleynis a better storyteller than to do that).nBuckley’s views do, of course, makena difference in these novels, but innways that strengthen the inherited conventions,nspecifically the traditionalndichotomy of heroes and villains. ThenOakes novels stand, thus, in polarnopposition to the books of John lenCarre, who has won praise for innovationnand seriousness because he depictsna moral equivalence between thenagents (and, by extension, the purposes)nof East and West (thereby replacingna convention of adventure tales with annewly hardened orthodoxy of despairingnintellectuals). For Buckleynand for Oakes, in contrast, there existsnno such moral obtuseness masqueradingnas a higher awareness.nThe agents of the Kremlin may, likenBoris Bolgin, be human enough—nfearful of a Beria, envious of the West,nor partiy deaf to the propaganda of thenParty; but they represent a system thatnseeks to enslave more of the world.nOakes’s adventures are not withoutntheir moral ambiguities and choices ofnthe lesser evil; but these moments donnot dissolve in a morass of guilt thenlarger differences between the twonsides—one offering a decent prospectnof independence and prosperity, thenother only poverty and gulags. Thusnfor Oakes there is no “cold” to come innfrom, no chilling moral wasteland tonbe escaped. With youthful ardor,nBlackford Oakes enjoys the battles.nParadoxically, then, Buckley’s claritynof vision about international realitiesnmakes Oakes a rather old-fashionednhero whose courage and skill make thenplot formulas produce typically satisfyingnconclusions.nThe exploits of Blackford Oakesncontinue to be well-done genre pieces,nentertainments with verve and brainsnbehind them. That should be enoughnto recommend the books. Some readersnwill find an additional satisfactionnin the novels’ unembarrassed adherencento the older conventions of selfconfidence,na welcome change fromnthe formulas of negation marking sonmany of our perceptions of ourselvesnand the world (in and out of fiction) forn20 years. What more fitting bonusncould we expect from someone whonhas spent over a quarter of a centurynfighting Western failure of nerve?nRobert F. Geary is head of the Englishndepartment at James MadisonnUniversity.nEntrepreneurs andnBureaucratsnby Roland A. Alum Jr.nInnovation and Entrepreneurship:nPractice and Principles by Peter F.nDrucker, New York: Harper & Row;n$19.95.nDespite his Viennese birth, PeternDrucker enjoys a reputation as a leadingnAmerican social analyst, particularlynon industrial and economic issues.nIn Innovation and Entrepreneurship,nDrucker interprets U.S.nmanagement theory and practice withinnthe framework of the free marketneconomy and the open society, as henseeks to define entrepreneurship as “ancraft” essential for the vitality of thenprivate and public sectors alike.nAnalyzing the United States’ economicndynamics, Drucker refutes thenself-appointed “prophets of doom”nwho in recent years have “bemoanednthe de-industrialization of America.”nHalf of the new businesses are now innmanufacturing. While premature memorialsnwere held for the “Frost Belt”nand rites de passage for the “born againnSun Belt,” only one-third of the newncompanies turned out to be in thenSouthern and Western states, and NewnnnJersey and other Northern states arenenjoying a remarkable renaissance. Asna Popperian-oriented thinker, Druckernthus contrasts armchair pontificationnwith empirical reality.nDrucker likewise deflates the theoriesnof fashionable “high-tech soothers”nsuch as John Naisbitt, author oi Megatrendsn(1983). In the last deeade-anda-half,na solid three-quarters of all jobsncreated in this country (about 40 million)nremain most decidedly “lowntech”; and those took place overwhelminglynin small and mid-sizenbusinesses, even during the minidepressionnof the Carter Administration.nBy contrast, the larger Fortunen500 corporations have been steadilynlosing jobs.nProbably the landmark contributionnof this book lies in its argument thatnreal “technology” is driven not bynelectronics, biogenetics or new materialsnbut by “entrepreneurial management.”nAdmittedly, the emergence ofnthe “entrepreneurial economy” is asnmuch a cultural (read anthropological)nand psychological event as it is anneconomic or technological one. In hisnassessment of the ways in which newnmanagement approaches have fosterednan entrepreneurial economy, Druckerndissents from the views of Riesman,nWhyte, Reich, Marcuse, and othern”prophets” of recent years. Druckernwarns that the rise of professionalnmanagement (a “social technology”) isnnot to be confused with the “worshipnof government centralization andnplanning.” Government bureaucratsntypically can teach businessmen onlynhow not to run their industries, perhapsnwith an exception here and there.nThe problem, as Drucker pointsnout, is that government institutionsnfind it more difficult to innovate thanneven the most bureaucratic privatencompany. And that seems to be anuniversal phenomenon.nDrucker regards innovation as thenonly way that entrepreneurs can “exploitnchange as an opportunity for andifferent business or . . . service.”nThe essence of economic activity is thencommitment of present resources tonfuture expectations—which requiresnboth the uncertainty of capitalist risknand the “delayed gratification” thatnsociologist Peter Berger has consistentlynstressed in his analyses of successfulneconomies.n