The Spencerian

Three Cups of Flee

Just a quick word about the recent '60 Minutes' story on Greg Mortenson, who wrote Three Cups of Tea.

First of all, I saw the '60 Minutes' piece, linked above.  I have not read the book. 

But as a guy who aspires to be a published writer, I wanted to throw some questions out there.  As a public and media relations expert, I wanted to throw some cautions and some words of advice out there as well.

First the questions.  My initial impression is that Mortenson is getting a vaguely bad rap.  This is not a knock on Steve Kroft, the guy doing the interviewing for '60 Minutes' who ultimately runs down Mortenson at a book signing.  He's doing his job, as are his producers.  And I suspect they probably found real inaccuracies in the story. 

But here's why I say "bad rap" -- if Mortenson has exaggerated some of the points of his book, or has twisted details around, but still delivers a valid point, isn't it still a story worth telling?  Worth reading? 

Look, I get it.  The guy said he was captured by the Taliban for eight days.  He apparently wasn't.  He said he got lost on K2 and wandered into some village.  That's questionable.  But that's not really the meat of the story (as I understand it) -- it's the part about building schools.

Well, he's evidently on-record as exaggerating that as well.

You know, as a quick aside, this is one of the great things about David Sedaris.  He's pretty open about his exaggerations.  And it's one of the things I like to think I have in common with him (probably the only thing, as you'll see if you peruse this blog for long) -- it's not about re-telling a perfectly accurate recounting of history.  It's about telling a really great story.

When you're reading the Clintonaut stories I post here, I hope you don't interpret them as historical fact.  I'm exaggerating the hell out of a great deal of it.  I mean, it happened.  I worked in the Clinton Administration.  But you think I was taking notes the whole time?  You think I have detailed journals of my experiences? 

I should.  I don't.  It doesn't mean I don't have great stories to tell.   

Here's another question -- this one for '60 Minutes'.  Mortenson isn't the only author listed on the book.  There's this guy named David Oliver Relin with equal billing... and apparently the issue of who wrote what and what it means is not going well.

So, why didn't '60 Minutes' interview Relin?  I understand that a large part of the story was the work Mortenson does for his charity, but the charity work was borne out of the book.  I'd say '60 Minutes' had an obligation to interveiw Relin. 

Or maybe they did.  Did Relin not tell them what they wanted to hear, and his stuff is on the cutting room floor?  

Why anyone does anything like this is the question guys like me get paid to ponder and all too rarely answer in a satisfactory way.  Why do you lie when you don't have to? 

There's no good answer, but it is human nature.  It is who we are.  The guy is trying to do a good thing.  Every single American in uniform is required to read Three Cups of Tea, for God's sake.  Mortenson is under a little bit of pressure, here, don't you think?

Look, Greg Mortenson won't ever read this blog, but you will.  Here's some free advice for you.  Don't run away when '60 Minutes' -- or any other press outfit -- comes calling.  Stand your ground.  They're not sharks.  They're human, and they put on a show like they enjoy confrontation, but they're like the rest of us.  They don't.  Stare 'em down.  Stick to the truth.  If you don't know, say you don't know.  Tell your side of the story, and if you get the impression Steve Kroft -- or whoever -- doesn't like it, say so.  Steve, I can see that you and I don't agree, here, but I stand by my word.  I fell off of K2, grew a red cape, built twenty-seven bazillion schools, married Angelina Jolie, and cured cancer all in one afternoon.

Okay, don't say that.  But stand by your stuff.  Canceling your speaking engagement and running out the back door doesn't do a thing for you.

Cross-posted at my blog for writing, Clintonaut.

They Go Hand in Hand: Books & Politics

I'm lucky enough to come from a family that really loves books.  I grew up reading all kinds of stuff -- Stephen King, Carl Hiaasen, Dave Barry, comic books, violent pulp novels, those crazy choose-your-own ending books.  And I loved -- and still love -- literature, too.  I have always liked Ernest Hemingway.  Remember reading Steinbeck in high school, and it stuck with me.  P.C. Wren wrote one of my all-time favorites, Beau Geste.  Ralph Ellison.  Conrad. 

I love reading Edgar Allan Poe around Halloween. 

Maya Angelou.  D.H. Lawrence.  Langston Hughes. 

Orwell. 

Melville.  Woolf.

Oh, yeah.  Shakespeare.

It wasn't really until I got to Washington, D.C. that I started reading a lot of non-fiction.  Still love it, though I mix it up pretty well with fiction.  For variety. 

Right now I'm in the middle of The Omnivore's Delimma, by Michael Pollan.  At this point in the book, I am fairly confident I am never buying food again.  If I thought I had the room or the talent, I'd grow everything from now on.  Seriously, read the book -- it's quite something.

But back to the political stuff: I came across this great set of book club recommendations.  Actually, Flashlight Worthy Books is a great site generally (and you can follow them on Twitter @flwbooks). 

Take some time and check out the Politics & Current Affairs section.  I was depressed at how many of the books I hadn't read... and then I remembered: I love books.  My Christmas wish list is already set! 

Look, any list (Must-Reads From the Panelists of Flaming Politics) that includes Richard Scarry's Busy, Busy World A.) knows a lot about politics, and B.) is my kind of book list.

But FLW Books is not relegated to the political, of course.  There is a book list for Biography & Memoir, one category of which is Memoirs of Our Presidential Candidates.

It's a long story and you don't care, but I've pretty much had to give up drinking.  But for my friends who like to hit the sauce, there's Nine Booze-Soaked Books (of which I have read a dismal four: Big Sur; Tortilla Flat; Tender is the Night; John Barleycorn).  Anyone who has spent five seconds in politics knows that drinking and politicking go together like reading and... well... writing, I guess.  Something like that, anyway.    

I spend a lot of time on this blog smarmily congratulating myself on my time in the Clinton Administration and other political adventures.  But one thing I don't talk about -- ever -- is my writing life, such as it is.  Or such as I want it to be. 

I have finished a novel-length work (even I don't have the chutzpah to call it a "book") of fiction that is essentially a love story set against the backdrop of a war in the violent criminal underworld.  I'm looking for an agent.  I have begun re-writing a second work of similar length.  I've had small pieces of fiction and non-fiction published in some relatively small journals. 

I enjoy writing.  I enjoy the process, and I am enjoying learning about how the agenting and publishing world works (there is a lot to learn). 

Anyway, I found the Writing list to be a treasure trove.  It's the other half of my Christmas list.

So if you belong to a book club -- whether or not it's political -- please check out these book club recommendations.  Thanks to Flashlight Worthy Books, I bet you'll find something you like.

Bunch of Phonies

J.D. Salinger died.  He was 91.

I read a lot, and so it is difficult to single out general literary works which has most influenced me, my writing, and my life.  But whatever there is generally, it's easy to say that Catcher in the Rye is at the top.  I have re-read that book so many times, I've lost count.   

In Literary News

I meant to work in a quick mention somewhere yesterday, but didn't:  Thanks to my mother, I am in the middle of Neil Gaiman's "The Graveyard Book," which just won the Newberry Award.  Sure, it's a "kid's book" (whatever that means), but I am really enjoying it.  

But just when I'm taking great joy in seeing Mr. Gaiman's work honored by the American Library Association, I learn that literary giant and Pulitzer Prize-winner John Updike has died.  He was 76.      

Thank a Soldier this Memorial Day

Enjoy your Memorial Day.  Be safe.  And take time to honor a solider.

Q&A: Assault on Gore's Balanced Reasoning

Dear Spencerian Editors:

Will Al Gore run for president?

Bubba T.
Burlington, VT

Thanks for the very direct question, Bubba.  I've always known you Vermonters to be a proud peoples of few words, and you haven't let me or your fellow Green Mountain Staters down. 

I wish I could give you a straight answer as to whether or not Al Gore will run, but the truth is, I can't.  If it makes you feel any better, I'm not sure he knows, either.  The deal is this, Bubba.

Gore got destroyed in Election 2000.  I mean, he was robbed, literally, by no less than the United States Supreme Court, abetted by our old friend Kitty Harris.  Now, you and I can talk about that election in purely academic terms, in terms of history and all the "what ifs."  But think about it, for a moment, from Al Gore's perspective.  You win the popular vote... but you are not sworn in as President of the United States.  That has got to be a blow.

And then to have to sit back these last few years and watch the unmitigated disaster that is the Bush Presidency unfold.  Well, that's just the cherry on top, isn't it? 

So Gore went out and started his life over.  He made a movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which, if you haven't seen it, I strongly recommend it to you.  This is an important film.  And besides, it won an Academy Award.  That's worth something.

Gore has since been nominated for a Nobel Prize -- something you can rest assured the current occupant of the White House will never be -- for his work on the environment. 

Most recently he's written a new book, The Assault on Reason.  I have not read this just-released book, but I'd like to. 

Let's talk about right now and the presidential race.  An Inconvenient Truth is not Gore's first foray into saving the environment.  He wrote a book called Earth in the Balance a long time ago, so you know the environment thing means something to him today.  The Assault on Reason is not an environmental book, but my take on it is that the lessons can be applied to problems like climate change. 

In the horse race, you've got Senator Clinton who is losing ground fast to Senator Obama.  Edwards who seems more resilient every time I see him.  And the rest (God, don't make me link to Mike Gravel again... dangit!)  They've all begun sopping up the talent and the money.  In fact, they started that months ago.  And while it's true, there are a lot of people who'd switch allegiances faster than you can say "hanging chad," why would you want to start that fight?  This is as unified as the Democrats have been in a long time.  Gore has to realize that his getting in causes some problems with people who have signed up in one for or another for some pretty high-powered names out there.  Democrats are looking pretty good for 2008.  Why stir the turd?

Furthermore, you're Al Gore and you're nominated for a Nobel Prize, and you've got some DVDs of your Academy Award-winning movie to hawk and your new book to sell to the American Public...  let me ask you, Bubba.  What might be a good way to gin up some interest in these kinds of things?  What might draw attention and support to your movie and your book? 

Hm.  How about speculation around your possibly running for president?  Cynical, you say.  Well, look, I'm a fan of Al Gore, and were he to run, I'd have to give him a good, strong look, and given all the history and where we are today with America, I'd very likely support him.

But not everyone feels that way, and I bet Gore also knows that there are some folks who can, in fact, remember past the year 2000.  I know my friend Kevin over at Ghost in the Machine sure does.  We have to be objective on this deal, Bubba: Gore was a pretty lousy candidate in 2000. 

Alright, enough jibber jabber.  Here's what I think, Bubba.  I think there is a less than a fifty-fifty shot he'll get in.  All things being equal, he won't, as in will not.  For all the reasons we kind of just went over.  Someone will be good enough for him: Clinton (not likely) or Obama (more likely) or Edwards (less likely but more likely than Clinton) or even Richardson (a Clinton connection).  But unless there's some kind of radical implosion of those candidates on the Democratic side, I just don't see Gore getting in.

There's one final reason that I think makes it a little less likely that he'll get in, and it's not one I've heard mentioned yet.  It is the sense that he couldn't beat (or whatever) George W. Bush in 2000, that he didn't run in 2004, and were he to run now that the perception would sort of be a "sloppy seconds" kind of thing.  There are some real losers on the GOP side this time around -- though their apparent political savior is getting ready to jump in; I predict a major letdown for our Republican frienemies -- and the American people are pretty shrewd.  Would they get a sense that Gore was just biding his time until he could run against some two-bit amateurs?

Gore didn't win very many states in 2000 in large part because of the ego thing, that intellectual bully thing he does that actually translates pretty well into the environmental bit, but doesn't work so well when you're trying to sell yourself to Everyman.  Would we see that again from Gore?  That sort of unbearably condescending thing he does with the sighing and the eye rolling?  I don't think I could stand it, and I'll tell you, I don't think the American People could, either.  And I think he knows that he can't help himself, and that's anothe reason he won't run. 

Thanks for the question, Bubba.                        

   

Light Reading: The Stuff That Makes Politics Fun

I nearly passed out when I saw that Mitt Romney, pictured below, said his favorite novel of all time is Battlefield Earth.
 
You've got to be kidding, right? 

John Dickerson over at Slate has a great piece on the psychology of this interesting choice from one of the frontrunner GOP candidates for president in '08.  Says Mr. Dickerson:

Everything about the book is bad. Just a few sentences into the first page, you're confronted by this sentence: "Terl could not have produced a more profound effect had he thrown a meat-girl naked into the middle of the room." (A clothed meat-girl apparently gets a big yawn.) Hubbard's soundtrack for the book, when played, either attracts mice or repels dogs, or both. The movie, which starred John Travolta, is what therapists show to the producers of Ishtar and Glitter to help them feel good.

Well, I can't deny it.  The book, which I read a year or two after it came out in 1982, is bad and the movie is really, really bad.  Really bad.  Anyway, as Mr. Dickerson says, I don't think we should discourage answers like this when we ask our presidential candidates what their reading (especially the Republicans).

I, for one, would encourage my candidate to say something refreshing, all-American, deep, but not too deep.  Maybe some Hemingway or Salinger or Twain or Fitzgerald or Parker or Oates or Thoreau or Dickinson or Whitman.  Anything by any premiere author with a one of those last names would be wildly acceptable (though President Kennedy remains a standout for naming Ian Fleming, the author of the James Bond series). 

Now, if you wanted to mix up some of the classics with a little more "common" literature, then I say sure.  So, weirdly, I offer my kudos to Mitt Romney.  And urge him to pick up The Old Man and the Sea.  Or something.   

RIP: Kurt Vonnegut

Literary giant Kurt Vonnegut died on Wednesday.  He was 84, and one of my favorite writers.  Cat's Cradle, not one his most well known, is near the top of my most-beloved list.

His view of the world was unique, and one we sorely need these days.

I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different.
-- Kurt Vonnegut