literature ceases to be an art and becomesnartifice” (“Southern Writers innSpiritual Exile”). To illustrate hisnpoint, he compares the work of onendead white female writer with that of anlive white one: Bobbie Ann Mason,nSullivan (to my mind incredibly) asserts,nhas a “talent and technical virtuositynequal [to Flannery] O’Connor’s,”nyet hers is a kind of “no-fault fiction”nin which one human value is no betternthan another. “Unlike the fiction ofnO’Connor, in which underlying meaningsnare significant and the vision isnapocalyptic, in Mason’s work everythingnis on the surface: what you see isnwhat you get.” Sullivan continues:n”When the commonly held sense ofnthe sacred is lost, you can shout asnFlannery O’Connor did, but you havento have something to shout about;ntherein lies the difficulty. If you arendevout, as O’Connor was, you cannwork from your own sense of thendivine, but if you do not have thensacred within yourself, your work is innjeopardy because society will no longernfurnish it for you.”nProfessor Sullivan is not saying that,nin order to be a great writer, one mustnbelieve in Cod: he is saying that greatnwriters cannot develop in that state ofnmoral detachment in which one nonlonger asks the question. Cormac Mc­nCarthy, who is probably the finestnAmerican novelist working today,nwrites, as Sullivan justly remarks, like anformer altar boy, as beautifully as “anfallen angel”; yet McCarthy’s parodynof God in the figure of the Judge innBlood Meridian “must take seriouslynthe idea of Cod or it has no significance.”nStill, Sullivan has to wonder: isnMcCarthy really a “Southern novelist,”nheir to Faulkner and Allen Tate?nSullivan believes that Southern writersn”are writing about [the South] badlynnow,” perhaps because, with pietynlargely evaporated from the South asnfrom every other region of the UnitednStates, novelists can no longer trust innwhat was the birthright of eadier generations.n”Writers of fiction begin withnthe concrete, not with the abstract.nFaulkner began with what he saw andnheard, with what his senses told him,nand in the shaping of details and sequences,nhe discovered the southernnpiety that undeday them. My contentionnis that under present circumstances,nwith the sense of the sacred gone.nthe shaping of details that are specificallynsouthern will lead the writer tonthink he has done what Faulkner did,nbut he will not have done so. Rather henwill have created work similar to that ofnBobbie Ann Mason, whose stories arensouthern all right but are bereft of pietynand meaning. “n”In Praise of Blood Sports,” comingnat the end of the book, ties thesenthemes together by a comparison ofnblood sports with the literature ofngames (meaning team sports), fromnwhich Sullivan discovers that the crucialndistinction between the two typesnof activities involves the locus of theirnmeaning. Hunting, as a ritual of death,nfinds its meaning beyond the act ofndrawing a bead, pulling the trigger, andndowning the bird; while baseball andnfootball discover theirs in a self-reflex­nBRIEF MENTIONSnive codification of artificial rules. Thisnexplains why, as Professor Sullivanndemonstrates, all good “sports literature”—nmeaning in this country primarilynbaseball stories and novels —nsucceeds as literature only by venturingnoutside the game itself, into that uncodifiednworid where life proceeds accordingnto the ancient ways of humannfolly, weakness, and true heroism.n”When Modern Fiction Studies invitednsubmissions for a special issue onnsports fiction (Spring, 1987), the editorsnreceived many manuscripts, butnnone on blood sports. Representednamong the fourteen essays chosen fornpublication were swimming, track,nboxing, football, and other, less-wellknownnsports; six of the pieces werenabout baseball.” Who is surprised? In anculture that has become deaf and blindnTHE PATH TO NATIONAL SUICIDE: AN ESSAY ONnIMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURALISMnby Lawrence AusternMonterey, Virginia: American Immigration Control Foundation, 90 pp.nAuster is hardly the first commentator to deal trenchantly with the disaster that isnAmerican immigration policy and the colossal scam known as “multiculturalism.” Henis, however, to my knowledge the first one to relate the two by showing how thensecond issues ineluctably from the first. “It is,” he writes, “only since the 1960’s, withnthe great increase in the numbers of people from non-European backgrounds, that thenbattle cry of cultural relativism has become ideologically dominant. In demanding thatnnon-European cultures, as cultures, be given the same importance as the European-nAmerican national culture, the multiculturalists are declaring that the non-Europeanngroups are unable or unwilling to assimilate as European immigrants have in the past,nand that for the sake of these non-assimilating groups American society must benradically transformed.”nCurrent U.S. immigration policies, however “revised,” stem directly from thenImmigration Reform Act of 1965, by which the quota system based upon the nationalnorigins plan first adopted by Congress in 1921 was redesigned to avoid “discrimination”nagainst would-be immigrants of non-European origin. Proponents of the billninsisted that its effect would not be to change the European complexion of Americannsociety and culture, while deliberately misrepresenting the numbers of immigrantsnprovided for by the nonquota allotment contained in the bill. In 1990, the U.S.nadmitted over fifteen times the number of Asians (16,000) Secretary of State DeannRusk had predicted would arrive annually on American soil; while the numbers ofnpeople admitted from Latin America and every other part of the Third World innthe past twenty-five years were also never remotely imagined by the Reform Act’snsupporters. “As a result [of massive immigration from the Third World],” Austernargues, “when the nation unexpectedly found itself by the mid to late 1970’snexperiencing unprecedented diversity . . . having abandoned traditional notions ofnself-interest … it therefore had no choice but to turn around and endorsendiversity as an end in itself. … we gave ourselves a new national myth of diversitynto accommodate ourselves to that fact.”nBut the new national myth is a delusion, and multiculturalism is a snare laid bynthe weak to trip up the strong, who fail deliberately to watch where they put theirnfeet. “The end of multiculturalism is not some Utopian, ‘equal’ society, but simplynthe end of American civilization.” Two centuries from now, Africa will still benAfrica, Latin America will still be Latin America. The United States, however, willnprobably have ceased to exist as we know it. „, .„ ,,,.„. jn•^ •’ —Chilton Williamson, jr.nnnAPRIL 1991/39n