Open letter to Larry Beinhart

Larry Beinhart is the author of a book I enjoyed immensely over the Christmas break. He invited emails, so I copy mine below as an open letter. Larry sent a quick and gracious reply, but I'll respect his privacy and not release it here. Larry is also the author of American hero, which became the wonderfully clever and black film, Wag the dog. He's also just written Fog facts : searching for truth in the land of spin, about the concept discussed in the letter below.

Larry

I’ve just read your book, The Librarian (Scribe, Carlton Nth, Victoria, 2004) You invite readers to email: “if you like the book and want to tell him so … email”. Well, I do (like the book) and I am (emailing).

Why do I like the book?

Partly because I too am a male librarian, so I can claim the central character as a role model … I am a male librarian. But really I jest.

Partly, because I discovered your book American Hero after seeing the film Wag the Dog and enjoyed it immensely and was informed by it. I’ve been recommending it regularly to friends ever since.

But I am informed by this book: this is why I write. I am interested in politics, somewhat so in US politics (we all have to be; we are all influenced by your overwhelming global power) but also by our national conservative politics, which is also triumphant, and busily cloning itself on US conservative models. You can see my occasional musings on my blog: http://aginspin.net

I learnt something that’s not new to me or to the world, but is new to me as an emotional or visceral understanding: that fiction can offer more understanding than fact, especially during times of spin and confusion. I learnt to think of possibilities as conceivable rather than just conspiratorial. Suddenly being aware of these more unlikely possibilities is a reasonable response. It’s interesting to me that this comes from the power of the fiction (even where the fiction is so closely related to reality as in both your novels). It allows the rationality of the conspiratorial to display itself, and make the logical possibility a real feasibility. It frees the mind to be creative in responding to limited facts. It allows the spun mind to be open to what may be happening. I like the result, so, thanks. It’s valuable work you are doing. I don’t want to sound like I am discarding rationality (I remain grounded in enlightenment rationality, scientific humanism and the like). But we are surrounded by spin, and misinformation, and conceiving the possible and the likely and the self-interest is helpful in determining just where to look for the facts. Excuse my lack of clarity, but I guess you see what I mean.

Perhaps we are seeing the high point of radical conservatism. I hope so, and others have been suggesting it recently. But I’m not too hopeful and I fear the possibilities of continuing on this path. We have seen fascism, nationalism, autocracy, and the like often enough in the last century. We pat ourselves on the back for defeating them, but that’s the direction we are headed in.

So I fear the worse, but then I’m not an optimistic type.

How to deal with it? I think you said it right: “It depends on you. Sorry about that. But it does” (p.431). So another revelation: individuals matter. But of course you have to get them to understand the importance of civil rights, good polity, etc, and not just be bought off by consumer comfort (which is nice enough too). It’s a matter of responsible citizenship. Demanding, yes; satisfying, also yes. Nothing new here to your noble American ideals, but, in practice, pretty much divorced from reality. Our British tradition is that we are subjects of the monarch, not citizens of a republic. It’s not so admirable, although perhaps as effective in practice.

Another new idea I liked was “Fog Facts”. Is that a term you use in the US? It’s not one I’ve heard, but the concept’s known well enough. We can know lots, if we just read or seek out the facts. But who has the time? Fog facts can appear after the event, but they are more interestingly, and frequently enough, found during it. The tale of WMD is a perfect example of Fog Facts, and we had a goodie here during a recent election campaign. You probably haven’t heard of it. Check it out if you wish to be exposed to excellence in government media manipulation (the Children Overboard affair during the 2001 Australian Federal Election). In my books, our Prime Minister John Howard is a political master well above the skill level of your current president. Just look at his comfortable place in politics (despite endless support for Bush and involvement in Iraq) compared with the messes George Bush and Tony Blair are in.

I’ve also discovered recently the importance of conversation. It’s a great test, but tests are not comfortable and they are often ignored. I’ve learnt it by sitting at work next to a politically-interested conservative, engaging in conversation, and having to justify to my own ideas. You discover that your own ideas can also be wooly and unsupported. It’s a valuable realisaton. It reminds me of that quote used by Jacob Bronowski in The Ascent of Man (as he steps into a creek outside Auschwitz; originally from William Blake?) “I beseach thee in, the bowels of God, think it possible you may be mistaken”. My version is prosaic: always test your ideas. There’s nothing new in all this, but a wise procedure none the less.

I’ll look forward to your next political thriller to help me further on this quest :->

Thanks again, and keep it up.

Eric