The new novel by Curtis Sittenfeld, American Wife, is described as a thinly veiled fictional portrayal of Laura Bush's life both pre- and post-dubya. According to msnbc.com, the author takes many actual facts of Laura's life: her job as a librarian, her high school car accident that killed a classmate, and her courtship and marriage to "the roguish son of a privileged family of Republican bluebloods." Apparently the novel gets into the steamier side of couple's love life (P.S. the characters are named Alica and Charlie Blackwell--hello, oil reference). Sounds interesting (except for the sex stuff--ick--I don't ever want to imagine Bush sex--even if it's disguised as Blackwell sex).
Within the article is a link to an msnbc poll: "Are books like this ethically okay to publish?"
Huh? Am I missing something? What is the ethical problem here? It's fiction, right? So, the author takes some details from ol' Laura's life and uses them to create Alice. Aren't most fictional characters embellished versions of real folks a lot of the time? Again I ask: what is the ethical problem here?
Perhaps my fellow Situationers can explain? Or at least chime in...
6 comments:
Here is MoDo praising the book. From today's NYT piece.
Writing about Larua's car accident, MoDo has a line Board Members will find interesting:
"How could a novelist not be drawn to such a tragedy? It’s easy to imagine all that guilt, shame, conscience, fear, sex and nightmares in the hands of Eudora Welty or Larry McMurtry."
As for your question, what is the ethical problem, Townhall's greenblooded "reporter" Amanda Carpenter complained about the book on exactly those terms, Monday.
"The plot, supposedly linked to Mrs. Bush, revolves around various incidents of incest, lesbianism, abortion and explicit, intimate relations with the President. Some of these scandalous excerpts are available on Radar's website. (Townhall doesn't find them suitable for reprinting.)"
The warrant is, such graphic treatment sinks violates our sense of the dignity of the office. It isn't that its a fictionalizatio of a real person's real experiences. Not that, nearly so much as the breathless outcry:
"It's the First Lady for God's sake!!! Is nothing sacred?"
(For Harrogate's part, certainly any humanization of the Bushes [sex humanizes] at this point, given all that has gone down, Harrogate finds a bit suspect.)
Finally, if ye go to the Radar link that Carpenter, holding her nose, provides, you'll see some pretty graphic prose, including a description of W's penis.
My first reaction when hearing about the book was "Where's the fiction?" Though I am not familiar with the author's work, it seemed more biography than fiction on its face...
I would be interested in know what the connection is between Laura Bush and the author and why the author chose to write about the first lady in the first place. Is there a larger political point to the book, such as the larger hypocritical public/ private distinct with the first family?
"It's the First Lady for God's sake!!! Is nothing sacred?"
I am struck by my reaction to this statement, Harrogate. My immediate reaction is No, nothing is sacred. But then I recalled a conversation you and I had recently about an article in this month's issue of Vanity Fair. The article details former President Clinton's business and political dealings since leaving the White House. Since 2000, Clinton has associated himself with some relatively shady people and made some interesting business choices. He has also been heavily criticized for various things by his fellow Democrats. One person close to Clinton (sorry, I can't remember who, and I'm too lazy to go look it up) commented on Democrats tendency to critique Clinton, who is the only Democratic president since FDR to be reelected. The comment compared Democrats willingness to harp on Clinton's faults only 8 years after he's left the White House to Republicans tendency to idolize Reagan some 20 years after the end of his presidency. The commenter's point was that the Democrats are willing, for whatever reason, to throw stones at people who they once viewed as able to do no wrong, whereas the Republicans tend to remain united in their view of their former (and even current) leaders. Thus, Republicans manage to stay united while Democrats squabble amongst themselves.
My point is this: maybe, somethings should be sacred. That said, I'm not sure those things include the life of the First Lady.
M:
Harrogate responds by uttering his conviction that there is political expediency, and then there is Higher Ground.
It often hurts not just Democrats, but indeed liberal minded people writ generally, that we do not march in lockstep under sacred banners. The Nader fiasco is a superficial example; the lesser-popularized animosities between Marxist critics and Feminist critics in academia, another.
But still, Harrogate takes it as a badge of honor that his attitudes are contingent upon reflecting on a given Rhetorical Situation, and therefore not quite so predictable.
Of we win less elections, we contribute more fruitfully to the culture, and when we do elect someone, that candidate tends to be leagues more decent than their GOP counterparts. Perhaps the disharmonies involved have something to do with all this.
The ability of conservatives to fall in line may reflect their political culture's adherence and reliance to arguments by authority (religion, tradition, popular leaders, etc). Most liberals do not adhere to arguments concerning those topics, which makes sense since the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democracy concerns the people and not their leaders.
I think the comparison between Reagan and Clinton overlooks their political sins.
Though there may be substantial evidence of Reagan's involvement in Iran-Contra, there is no direct proof, giving Reagan "plausible deniability." Besides, even if there were evidence, conservatives would be able to defend his actions under American Exceltionalism and spreading democracy.
Besides, Reagan returned optimism to a party stained by the corruption and unconstitutionality found in Nixonland.
With Clinton, there is direct of evidence that he committed an unconstitutional act (perjury). Though it is minor in the grand scheme of things, (who really cares about his sex life and his ability to discuss it) his actions hurt the party's long-term interests, especially relating to Congressional elections and Al Gore's presidential hopes.
Further, Clinton failed to infuse the Democrats with the liberalism necessary to its strength throughout the twentieth century. During his administration he is known for developing policies against liberal and Democratic ideals. On top of this, Clinton's lack of party virtue made him an undesirable figure to many Democrats. Again, his recent political dealings, in and out of the primary, reflect this lack of virtue for its shows his commitment to himself and then to the party.
If there were not so much partisan tension during the 1990s and if the Clinton/ Lewinsky affair were not so much of a partisan witch hunt by Republicans, many Democrats would have been wiling to do away with him while he was in office. It is possible that Democrats could have impeached Clinton if they did not have to defend him from Republicans (never let another eat your own). That way Gore would have been president before the 2000 election, providing him with a better reform platform on which to run as it is much better to argue that you can clean up your own party.
Saying that Clinton deserves some special reverence because he is the only two-term Democratic President since FDR perpetuates the Cult of Personality around #42 and diminishes the Democratic Party.
If something is to be sacred, then the sacred must possess qualities to be sacred for its own sake rather than just for the need for something sacred.
And the Democrats tendency to "eat their own" after Presidential losses (Dukakis, Kerry) reflects a lack of quality in terms of candidates and their ability to conduct campaigns. Gore rises above that criticism though he cares less about the party than his other adventures.
Post a Comment