Liar, Liar

I finished (finally) When Presidents Lie, but I must admit I fast-forwarded through much of it, not only because there were a great many details, but also because many of those details were distressing.

The chapter on LBJ was upsetting in that it seems those at the top spent little time thinking about the many American men and women (not to mention the many Vietnamese people) who would die or be forever maimed, mentally and physically, before committing us to a war no one (including the South Vietnamese) seemed to want. Who benefited? Other than companies supplying the war effort, no one, it seems.

The chapter on Reagan was worse, in that not only did we get involved in conflicts that were unnecessary, but our involvement was almost wholly secret (and arguably criminal) and covered up by our government (both executive and legislative branches, apparently).

None of the presidents featured in the book (FDR, JFK, LBJ, Reagan) came off looking very noble, attractive, or even moral.  They were all described as pathological liars and they seem in the book to have little feeling for the people who were hurt by their lies.

The point Alterman is ultimately making, however, is not just that the presidents were bad men and talented liars, but that their lies hurt our country and our democracy.  After reading and skimming the book, I would agree with him.  But his solution--to never lie--seems not only impossible, but also not the best course in every situation.  Maybe our presidents could try a little harder, though, to determine when a lie is absolutely necessary and whether it is worth its considerable cost before launching into one (or two or 300). 

I can't say I enjoyed reading this book, but I did learn a lot from it--some of it I'd rather not have known.

Next up: some fiction, I think.

American Wars, South and North

I finished The House of the Spirits last week and did finally get the answers to my questions posed in the last post.  The other "I" of the story turned out to be the granddaughter of the main character, Esteban.  And I decided that we occasionally get Esteban's narration to provide some perspective on a character who might otherwise be seen as wholly negative. For those who might read the book, I won't reveal what happens at the end, but for me it ended satisfactorily, if not entirely happily.

Toward the end of the book I was starting to get impatient with the narrative's many, many rich and evocative details.  Though I found them enjoyable throughout most of the novel, I got a bit bogged down by them when the narrative reached modern times.  Maybe because much of what was being described was the country's political turmoil, I wanted to move through those grisly details more quickly.  I had no idea Chile was going through so much; I want to read more about this country's history when I get the chance.

It's an odd experience, though, reading novels that incorporate real history, especially when it's history I'm not aware of.  The descriptions of the terror, corruption, torture, and other shocking events seem almost cartoonish in The House of the Spirits.  I had the same reaction to a book I read that was set in India, Six Suspects. (See my blog  8/14/11.)  It makes me think that this style of presenting terrifyingly real details in a comic light is frequently employed, probably to make the subject more palatable to those who would otherwise be repulsed by it.  It reminds me of how Native American writers jokingly tell of the despair that continues to haunt their people.  The ability to rise above suffering through humor not only reveals the suffering, but also shows the bravery of those who suffer.

Interestingly, in her novel Allende does not seem to take sides.  She presents each side of the socialism vs republicanism debate (and the negative consequences of each type of government) from multiple perspectives, primarily through the eyes or voices of the characters, while the omniscient narrator stays mostly neutral, except to condemn dictatorship.

As I said, I enjoyed the book but was ready to move to non-fiction for a while, so I jumped the alphabetical list a little bit to choose the next non-fiction book, When Presidents Lie, by Eric Alterman, a columnist for The Nation and author of many books about politics and history.  Though published in 2004, When Presidents Lie does not take up George W. Bush's lying to start a war with Iraq, but past instances of presidential lying about international conflicts that had, Alterman believes, grave consequences.

At the moment I'm in the section about Kennedy's lies during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The book is not a story, but an analysis, and for that reason is a bit dry, but it is interesting since it discusses events I know very little about.

I'll let you know how it goes. Stay tuned!