pressed in three digits; not all ofnhis works deal with the police inspector.nOne, for example, is AuntnJeanne, which first probes thenndelineates the feelings of a deterioratingnfamily that resides inna French village. It is the stuff ofnmainstream literature (i.e., incorrectlynassuming that the detectivenstory is an illegitimatenline, an assumption shown to benfallacious by a certain DetectivenOedipus). Simenon’s forte is description.nHe selects details—nphysical and psychological—nthat are apt: no more, no less. Henis masterful at that. While he isnclearly expressing himself withnprose in the novels, that prosenhas the evocative power of poeticnlanguage.nIn the various Maigret talesnMedia MenacenJohn G. Adams: Wittjout Precedent:nThe Story oftije Deattinof McCarthytSnt; W. W. Norton;nNew York.nApolitical thugs in New YorknCity typically subdue their preynwith a club, switchblade, or cheapnhandgun. Liberal journalists innthe Big Apple and elsewherenprefer a more lethal weapon:nthey beat their victims senselessnwith the name of Joe McCarthy.nNaturally, those who are sufficientlyntolerant of leftist subversion,nterrorism, and espionagenneed not fear such assault, butnjust let anyone hint that the threatnof communism must be opposednnot only militarily but also intellectually,nculturally, and politicallynand he will immediately benbludgeoned by a mob of commentators,ncolumnists, and pun­nIN FOCUSnthe police oflBcer does very littlenof a physical nature, certainlynnothing frantic or unusual. ThenMile Maigret Afraid, for example,nmight indicate to an uninitiatednreader that the character is putninto a life-threatening situation:nheld by a ruthless band of Parisiannthugs, perhaps. However, thenfear is actually a slight feeling ofnanxiety brought on by the ChiefnInspector’s realization that he isngrowing old, that his eclecticnmethods will be overtaken bynscientific uniformity. One of thenmost astonishing things in thennovel is Maigret’s acceptance ofna cigar. Still, Georges Simenonnhas held—and will continue tonhold—readers enthralled for yearsnwith his deft subtlety whichndoes not date. Dndits all screaming with meldednoutrage and glee: “McCarthyism!nMcCarthyism!”nOnly national amnesia permitsncontemporary journalists tonbrandish McCarthy’s name sonmenacingly, however, since itnwas the media themselves whonmade him a potent force innAmerican politics in the firstnplace. As John Adams observesnin WithcmtPrecedent, McCarthy’snpower was underwritten byneditors who trumpeted his unsubstantiatedncharges in headlinesnand reporters who weren”too lazy to check the fects.” Onlynthe force of “a strange medianmachine… fueled by hot air andnprinter’s ink” could transform annuncouth Wisconsin senator withnno real political convictions intona national power. McCarthy’sn”anticommunism” was nevernanything but successftil grandstanding:nhe conducted his red­nbaiting “hearings” not becausenthey uncovered spies (he neverncaught one) but because theyncaptured front pages. In an opennsociety, such tactics must eventuallynbe exposed. In McCarthy’sncase the turning point was thenArmy-McCarthy confrontation ofn1953-54 in which Mr. Adams wasna key participant as Army counselornunder Robert T. Stevens.nFor this he deserves the nation’snsincere thanks. He deserves somewhatnless for his book about hisnefforts. little more than a detailednrecord of his own involvementnin the much-publicized imbroglio,npunctuated with confident judgmentsnon the characters of thenother principals involved andnnarrated with self-congtatulationntinged with self-pity, Adams’snbook fails to analyze the largerncultural and political ramificationsnof the McCarthy debacle.nIt is particularly ironic that in anstudy which repeatedly quotesnfrom Michael Straight (a recentiynconfessed Soviet spy during thenTruman Administration), Adamsnnowhere discusses the need fornan acceptable and efficacious anticommunism.nCertainly we do notnneed more Joe McCarthys tramplingnthe Constitution underfootnas they stage ersatz searches fornsubversion; if not hamstrung, thenintelligence and law-enforcementncommunities can ferret outnundercover agents quietly andnlegally. What America does neednare principled, articulate, andnpopular spokesmen who cannnncombat the omnipresent naivetenconcerning communist intentionsnand tactics. In this regard, Adams’sncomplacent relief that TV coveragenof the Army-McCarthynhearings finally “exposed McCarthynin the flesh, without the distortingnfilter of headlines andnself-serving press conferencesnand phony ‘news events,'” mustnbe reevaluated. In a time whennphotogenic and suave telejournalistsnslyly manipulate misleadingn30-second snippets and contrivednnews-event interviews asnthey romanticize Central Americannand Palestinian terrorists,nmalign conservative politicians,nand promote no-nuke neurosis,nthe danger posed by the media isnwithout precedent. ( BC ) DnFrom Diadem tonDemocracynMichael Packe: King EdwardnIII; Routledge & Kegan Paul; London.nDenis Judd: King George VI;nFranklin Watts; New York.nAt the close of the War of Independence,na group of ofiicersnproposed that George Washingtonnbecome the first American king.nFortunately, Washington repudiatednthe very notion thatnanyone, himself included, shouldnever reign over the new UnitednStates as monarch. Nonetheless,nthe new republic that Washingtonnactually did help create representednan extension of, rathernthan a radical break from, thenBritish political tradition shapednduring centuries of diminishingnroyal sovereignty. Indeed, byn1776 the Crown had afready surrenderednto Parliament most ofnits power over Britain as well asnAmerica. This surrender began,nof course, when King John wasnforced by his vassals to put hisnseal to the M^na Charta in 1215.nWhen Edward III ascended thenSeptember 1983n