responsible. Yes, I know that sexual encounternhas become the chief means ofnexpressing freedom and control of one’snlife, of finding “meaning,” even simplenadventure, in a world that seems increasinglynregimented and senseless. And Inknow that every “with it” author and directornmust show us this in wonderfulndetail. But there is a terrible irony, unrecognizednby Wachtel or Morris, innshowing protagonists who engage innsexual adventure as an expression of liberationnand self-direction and at the samentime implying, even claiming, moral justificationnfor them on the ground thatnlust is irresistible. Each shows graphicallynthe devastating effects of infidelityn—^the loss of self-respect, even of self,nthe wounds and corrosive jealousiesndespite all the claims for tolerant maturity—butnmakes no connection betweennthat and the feilure of the hero’s “searchnfor himself and for salvation from a life ofnfutility.”nUltimately, the Mure is in the authorsnthemselves. Before Wachtel can give usnhemmed-in blue-coUar protagonists ablento emerge as significant and self-directed,nhe must himself believe in both individualnresponsibility and meaningfulnconnections; he must understand thatnpersons can control themselves andntheir appetites, can make covenants andnkeep them. Since for Joe there is onlynlust, whether with his wife or a casualnpick-up, his “screw-ups” are merely literal.nAnd Morris cannot help us understandnhow a woman can find herself ifnshe simply empathizes with her heroine’snconfusion, as exemplified by the accountnof Debbie’s first casual, uncontrolledn(and supposedly uncontrollable) sexualnencounter after separating from hernhusband:nI didn’t want to go but I found myselfnwalking, climbing the stairs..,. Thenwhole house, I suddenly realized, wasndone in yeUow wall-to-wall carpeting.nI thought to myself, I can’t make lovenwith yellow carpeting everywhere.nAnd suddenly it was the carpeting andnnot the arms of an eighteen-year-oldnboy I couldn’t bear.n24inChronicles of CulturenAs the understandable confusion of annewly deserted woman this might benpassable, but it continues throughoutnthe novel. Sex is treated as either overpoweringnor a willed solution to problemsnranging from loneliness to boredom.nIt is neither, of course, but rather a confirmationnof unconditional as well asnromantic love and thus an expression ofnwillingness to bear responsibility fornwhat love produces, including children.nSexual intercourse is the ultimate expressionnof the individual in relationshipnand of our ability to create new things,nincluding life, in such relationships;nwhen that expression is made in a contextnthat does not include total fidelitynto the partner and readiness (includingnstable marriage) to accept all the impliednresults then it is inherentiy corrupt andncorrupting. The evidence of all majornmoral codes, of history, and of great literaturensupport that conclusion and itsnconsequences. Morris and Wachtel givenfiirther evidence, but they do not acceptnthe consequences. DnHistorians as Used-Car SalesmennGround Zero: What About the Russians—andnNuclear War? PocketnBooks; New York.nGeoflfrey Barraclough: From Agadirnto Armageddon; Holmes & Meier;nNew York.nby Alan J. LevinenWhat About the Russians—andnNuclear ‘War? is the work of the disarmamentnorganization Ground Zero, anvolume crafted—of course—^to supportnthe nuclear-freeze movement. It hasnbeen said that an elephant is an animalndesigned by a committee; this book,ncreated by dozens of people under thenloose direction of Earl and Roger Molander,nis in the elephant tradition, with allnthe irregularities that that implies. It isnalso a contribution to a less gloriousntradition—^that of twisting history fornpoUtical purposes. On the whole, thisnbook is not as awfiil as it could have been,ngiven its political orientation. Whichndoes not mean, however, that it is good.nIt is not grossly inaccurate; it is slantednand simplistic, which may be muchnworse.nGround Zero’s interpretation of thenSoviet regime contains a curious contradiction.nIt argues that the Soviet regimenDr. Levine is a historian in New Yorknnnis a logical end product of an inflexible,nmonolithic Russian tradition, emphasizingnRussian rigidity and changelessness,nbut it suggests that the Soviet regime itselfnis more flexible than it is usually givenncredit for. It attributes Soviet foreignnpolicy to the alleged necessities and influencesnof Russian history. Russians,never since the Mongol conquest, havenbeen obsessed about invasions, withnwhich they have been often menaced:nThe frequent invasions have creatednan obsession about security on itsnborders. The response has been expansionninto adjacent areas wherenpossible, epitomized in the Soviet determinationnto retain its buflfer of EastemnEuropean satellite states and itsnnear-paranoia at the prospect of WestemnEuropean deployment of cmisenand Pershing missiles, which couldnoverfly those European borders withnease.nAccording to Ground Zero, Russians arenxenophobic and feel inferior to WesternnEuropeans. The unattractive side of thenRussians derives from this tragic insecurity.nThis notion of Russian history, whichncomes close to arguing that Stalin’s monstrousnr^ime was practically the Russiannnorm, is ridiculously simplistic. It is anreadily verifiable fact that Russia has sufferednmuch less from invasion in modemntimes than most continental Europeann