Interracial sex is also prohibited.rn(Would you want “our son to marrv arncolored boy?) There seems to be no objectionrnto interspecies sex. Novels mustrnhave “a minimum of 50 percent eroticrnaction. (We prefer cxcnlv spaced, fiveto-rntcn-page sex scenes.)” They must alsorncontain four-letter words in dialoguernand narrative. (“Never use medical,rnanatomical, or euphemistic terms.”)rnKeep it simple, stupid. And enclose arnstamped, self-addressed envelope.rnThe result of all this careful screeningrnis a txpically thin (150-page) volumernwith a crude but suggestive line drawingrnon the cover. On page one, the femalernlead is described, and her passionate desiresrnhinted at. By page three, she beginsrna ten-page intimate encounter with a totalrnstranger. Curious friends and neighborsrnthen proceed to drop in (m the busyrncouple, followed by mailmen, peddlers,rnand meter-readers. By page 75, the plotrnis abandoned, and the remainder of thernbook consists of unrelated sexual incidentsrnlovingly, if confusingly, described.rnHeroines are all large-breasted, sexuallyrnuncontrolled, slightly masochistic, andrnfoul-mouthed. I lerocs all well-endowed,rnsupremely confident, slightly sadistic,rnand foul-mouthed.rnJudging from the paltry $500 fee paidrnthe average author, there might be somernjustice in the popular conception of thernwriters as strange introverts molderingrnin garrets. No such stereotype holds forrnthe publishers, though. Clean, modernrnoffices, with a yoimg and pretty rece]3-rntionist who smiles sweetly at you andrninquires about your specialty. If you canrnanswer her without embarrassment,rnyou’re in. “Most of our editors and paidrnreaders are wf)men,” boasts one managingrneditor. “The’re more articulate, andrnopen to new ideas.” You watch seeralrnlady typists replying to hopeful inquiries,rnand preparing reader reports. “This writerrndoesn’t have enough explicit action.rnHis peo]3le talk too much before gettingrndown to business.” Signed “Maryanne.”rn”The hero (or the writer) is too much ofrna prig. He doesn’t even know how to dornit.” Signed Susan. The ultimate rejectionrnslip.rn”You’d think that ex’cry siekic in thernworld would be sending us reeking, slimyrnmanuscripts,” says the editor. “Actually,rnmost of them are too tame. Or repetitious,rnunimaginative. They can’t seemrnto get the juiciest of their fantasies on paper.rnMaybe they’re still ashamed of theirrnthoughts.”rnI can’t imagine whv.rnEgon Richard Tausch is an attorney inrnSan Antonio, Texas.rnU R O PErnLeft and Right inrnEastern Europernbv Thomas MolnarrnNot much can be understood aboutrnthe new role of the political leftrnand right in E’,astern Europe without takingrninto account two fundamental factors,rngenerally ignored by both criticalrnand enthusiastic observers of the post-rn1990 years. One is the historic trauma ofrnthe five-ccntury-old division of Europerninto two halves, effected by the Turkishrnoccupation before and after the yearrn1 500. It interrupted the Renaissance,rnand while the West cultivated its art, science,rninstitutions, and law, developmentrnstopped in the devastated East. Thern”two Europes” remained essentiallyrnseparate, and the separation was reinforcedrn—and this is the second factor—rnalong the same line drawn at Yalta, torrnexample, Vienna, which the Turks werernunable to take then, remained also outsidernthe Soviet orbit. Erom the Baltic tornthe Adriatic, the line of division is arngeopolitical realitv as well as a culturalrnbarricade on whose two sides conceptsrnand ideals do not possess the samernmeaning.rnTwo such concepts are the right andrnthe left. In the West today, both conceptsrnmanifest themselves in a tamedrnform, the left as social-democratic, thernright as liberal-conservative. There isrnhardly any difference between the twornpositions, between Clinton and Chirac,rnexcept the label: both policies are shapedrnby industrial imperatives and vague aspirationsrntoward unity. For Clinton, thernNew World Order; for Chirac, the continentrnshaped in Brussels. In the West, thernleft has lost its Utopian drive sincernMoscow’s collapse, while the right deniesrnany continuity with the recent past:rnLe Pen with Maurrassian’ini with fascism and the MovimientornSociale Italiano, and the Allianza Popularrnwith the Franco years.rnThe taming of political concepts inrnthe West has no genuine counterpart inrnF.astern Europe, where the brutal antagonismsrnare now camouflaged but still isiblernbeneath the politicalh’ correct labels.rnThis is because left and right have deep,rnblood-soiled roots; and since they are onlyrnsuperficially economic in nature andrnin realit national-cultural, thev arernsturd-, hardly changing, “i’et the will tornescape from decades of communism isrnsuch a basic, popular thrust from Riga tornSarajevo that neither left nor right wishesrnto think of Marxism. Nominally, atrnleast, both embrace democracy, pluralit’rnof parties, and the free market, althoughrnthis stance is not dictated by convictionrnbut by Western pressure. At any rate,rnhere the similarity ends; the two positionsrndo not even dream of a synthesis.rnAll told, the fundamental motives ha’ernremained much the same as thc werernbefore 1948, the “ear of communistrntakeover.rnThe leftist believes that the Marxistrn”experiment” was not all negative, andrnthe intellectual echo from the West doesrnnot contradict this view. In spite of thernReagan/Thatcher ears, the Westernrnintelligentsia has hardly modified itsrnWeltanschauung; its Utopian substantumrnhas survived, and the intellectuals grantrntheir faors to the Eastern European left,rnnot to the right, which the equate withrnfascism. Proof of this is that no clamorrnfor a “Nuremberg trial” followed liberation.rnThe West opposed or ignored therncase for such a tribunal on national levels,rnand the local potentates, the nomenclatura.rnunderstandably resisted it. Thusrnthe rightist protest oer this scandalousrnimpunity died out: the constantly deepeningrneconomic troubles distractedrnpeople’s attention toward daily survival.rnThe left now pays lij) service to pluralism,rnconforms to the multiparty system,rnand enters coalitions. Is this a temporaryrnmask, a series of smart moves? At anyrnrate, regardless of slogans and tactics,rnwhat takes place is not the kind of ideologicalrntaming familiar in Western politics,rnsince “democratization” has hardlyrntaken place in the public areas. In fact, itrnhas remained superficial, a set of slogans,rna kev word for all pkuers, good only tornreassure Western circles about thern”change” that followed the collapse ofrnthe Beriin Wall.rnKeep in mind that the intellectualrn46/CHRONICLESrnrnrn