F
Fredric L. Rice
Guest
Talkfest of the week: Romney and "Battlefield Earth" - The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/brainiac/2007/05/romney_and_batt.html
Friday, May 4, 2007
Talkfest of the week: Romney and "Battlefield Earth"
Forget Mitt Romney's untruthful statement, last month, that he's been a
"hunter pretty much all [his] life" (read: he's hunted twice). And
forget what he said to the Associated Press, last week, about how it's
"not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just
trying to catch [Osama bin Laden]." These slip-ups may cost him a few
votes, sure.
But when the ex-Mass. gov. told Fox News, on Monday, that one of his
favorite novels is the 1982 sci-fi epic "Battlefield Earth," by L. Ron
Hubbard, the media went berserk.
The Times's Jim Rutenberg blogged about it immediately, coyly noting
that, when posed to a presidential candidate, "What's your favorite
novel" is a question "the answer to which presumably gives insight into
leadership," wink wink nudge nudge. He said no more.
Two WaPo writers were less cautious, and made much of the fact that
Hubbard was not your run of the mill SF writer, but also the founder of
Scientology. "Yikes, that doesn't strike me as the way to go for a
candidate who's trying to convince Middle America that Mormonism is not
exotic," commented Congressional reporter Lyndsey Layton, in a live chat
on Tuesday. In a live chat on Wednesday, WaPo Book World columnist
Michael Dirda mused: "Hmmm. Is Mitt Romney a Scientologist? This is the
only logical explanation."
Why is this the only logical explanation? Because, America's critics and
pundits -- whether left or right of center -- seem to agree,
"Battlefield Earth" has no redeeming qualities. It is such a lousy novel
that nobody could possibly enjoy or admire it, we're informed by the
chattering class; so Romney could only have been making a political or
religious point of some kind by claiming it as one of his favorites. At
TNR's website The Plank, Michael Crowley said: "Isn't naming a novel by
the hilariously nutty founder of Scientology more than a little loaded?"
David Weigel at Reason magazine's blog Hit & Run said: "'Battlefield
Earth' is awful. Nobody reads that book except Scientologists and
smartasses who want to giggle at Scientologists, and even they start to
cash out by the 7000th page or so."
"The whole tumbling horror of the 'Battlefield Earth' experience is so
profound it nearly comes out the other side and achieves a kind of
perfection of awfulness," insisted John Dickerson, in a Slate essay on
Wednesday. "There must be something we can learn about Romney by
examining this answer," he claimed, only to shrug his shoulders a few
paragraphs later and conclude: "You simply need a deep level of weird to
like 'Battlefield Earth.'" (Conservative pundit-turned-MSNBC anchor
Tucker Carlson agrees: On Wednesday, he told viewers, "I am concerned
about what our potential president is putting into his brain. If you are
reading for fun, and not some sort of twisted research project, but
voluntarily reading L. Ron Hubbard, as a novelist, I think it's a real
red flag.")
So... we all agree that there's obviously some hilarious and telling
point to be made about Romney, based on his enjoyment of "Battlefield
Earth," but none of us can figure out exactly what that point is? I, for
one, get suspicious when pundits agree to trash something. What is so
threatening to everybody about "Battlefield Earth," anyway?
Dickerson is honest enough to admit that he hasn't actually read
"Battlefield Earth," and I strongly suspect that none of these other
folks have, either. I, on the other hand, have read the whole thing. In
1983, when I was 15. Yes, it's badly written, for the most part. But as
post-apocalyptic science-fantasy novels go, it's not the worst one I've
ever read. (That honor goes to: the 1971 Roger Zelazny novel "Damnation
Alley." Or maybe Michael Crichton's "Andromeda Strain.") Romney's high
school English teacher should have turned him on to "On the Beach" or "A
Canticle for Leibowitz," maybe, but if enjoying schlock fiction means
you're crazy, I don't want to be sane.
What does it mean that Romney likes "Battlefield Earth"? Here's an
answer: IMHO, people who enjoy post-apocalyptic novels have a
reactionary and/or utopian streak running through them; they enjoy
narratives about the collapse of Western civilization because they're
unhappy with the state of that civilization and would like (or imagine
they'd like) to see the slate wiped clean. Once upon a time, James
Fenimore Cooper novels thrilled educated Frenchmen for the same reason.
Romney's brand of idealism may be jejune, but he's no more crazy than
are the readers of other 1982 post-apocalyptic novels: "God's Grace," by
Bernard Malamud; "The White Plague," by Frank ("Dune") Herbert; or the
first installment of Alan Moore's "V for Vendetta" comic book series. If
this sort of thing holds absolutely no appeal for Tucker Carlson and
Michael Dirda, perhaps it's because they're (worryingly) satisfied with
the current state of affairs?
If Romney had named the Book of Revelations as his favorite apocalyptic
fiction, then there might be reason to worry. But "Battlefield Earth"
has a happy ending: Rugged, never-say-die humans from around the planet
join forces, educate themselves, work hard, and finally restore
democracy on Earth, and in the rest of the universe. That's not so
worrisome, is it? So cut the guy some slack about his taste in
literature. Let's get back to bashing him about his flip-flopping on
abortion, shall we?
Posted by Joshua Glenn at 03:54 PM
The New York Times Company
---
Christian terrorism murders another half a million people:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21675862-1702,00.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/brainiac/2007/05/romney_and_batt.html
Friday, May 4, 2007
Talkfest of the week: Romney and "Battlefield Earth"
Forget Mitt Romney's untruthful statement, last month, that he's been a
"hunter pretty much all [his] life" (read: he's hunted twice). And
forget what he said to the Associated Press, last week, about how it's
"not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just
trying to catch [Osama bin Laden]." These slip-ups may cost him a few
votes, sure.
But when the ex-Mass. gov. told Fox News, on Monday, that one of his
favorite novels is the 1982 sci-fi epic "Battlefield Earth," by L. Ron
Hubbard, the media went berserk.
The Times's Jim Rutenberg blogged about it immediately, coyly noting
that, when posed to a presidential candidate, "What's your favorite
novel" is a question "the answer to which presumably gives insight into
leadership," wink wink nudge nudge. He said no more.
Two WaPo writers were less cautious, and made much of the fact that
Hubbard was not your run of the mill SF writer, but also the founder of
Scientology. "Yikes, that doesn't strike me as the way to go for a
candidate who's trying to convince Middle America that Mormonism is not
exotic," commented Congressional reporter Lyndsey Layton, in a live chat
on Tuesday. In a live chat on Wednesday, WaPo Book World columnist
Michael Dirda mused: "Hmmm. Is Mitt Romney a Scientologist? This is the
only logical explanation."
Why is this the only logical explanation? Because, America's critics and
pundits -- whether left or right of center -- seem to agree,
"Battlefield Earth" has no redeeming qualities. It is such a lousy novel
that nobody could possibly enjoy or admire it, we're informed by the
chattering class; so Romney could only have been making a political or
religious point of some kind by claiming it as one of his favorites. At
TNR's website The Plank, Michael Crowley said: "Isn't naming a novel by
the hilariously nutty founder of Scientology more than a little loaded?"
David Weigel at Reason magazine's blog Hit & Run said: "'Battlefield
Earth' is awful. Nobody reads that book except Scientologists and
smartasses who want to giggle at Scientologists, and even they start to
cash out by the 7000th page or so."
"The whole tumbling horror of the 'Battlefield Earth' experience is so
profound it nearly comes out the other side and achieves a kind of
perfection of awfulness," insisted John Dickerson, in a Slate essay on
Wednesday. "There must be something we can learn about Romney by
examining this answer," he claimed, only to shrug his shoulders a few
paragraphs later and conclude: "You simply need a deep level of weird to
like 'Battlefield Earth.'" (Conservative pundit-turned-MSNBC anchor
Tucker Carlson agrees: On Wednesday, he told viewers, "I am concerned
about what our potential president is putting into his brain. If you are
reading for fun, and not some sort of twisted research project, but
voluntarily reading L. Ron Hubbard, as a novelist, I think it's a real
red flag.")
So... we all agree that there's obviously some hilarious and telling
point to be made about Romney, based on his enjoyment of "Battlefield
Earth," but none of us can figure out exactly what that point is? I, for
one, get suspicious when pundits agree to trash something. What is so
threatening to everybody about "Battlefield Earth," anyway?
Dickerson is honest enough to admit that he hasn't actually read
"Battlefield Earth," and I strongly suspect that none of these other
folks have, either. I, on the other hand, have read the whole thing. In
1983, when I was 15. Yes, it's badly written, for the most part. But as
post-apocalyptic science-fantasy novels go, it's not the worst one I've
ever read. (That honor goes to: the 1971 Roger Zelazny novel "Damnation
Alley." Or maybe Michael Crichton's "Andromeda Strain.") Romney's high
school English teacher should have turned him on to "On the Beach" or "A
Canticle for Leibowitz," maybe, but if enjoying schlock fiction means
you're crazy, I don't want to be sane.
What does it mean that Romney likes "Battlefield Earth"? Here's an
answer: IMHO, people who enjoy post-apocalyptic novels have a
reactionary and/or utopian streak running through them; they enjoy
narratives about the collapse of Western civilization because they're
unhappy with the state of that civilization and would like (or imagine
they'd like) to see the slate wiped clean. Once upon a time, James
Fenimore Cooper novels thrilled educated Frenchmen for the same reason.
Romney's brand of idealism may be jejune, but he's no more crazy than
are the readers of other 1982 post-apocalyptic novels: "God's Grace," by
Bernard Malamud; "The White Plague," by Frank ("Dune") Herbert; or the
first installment of Alan Moore's "V for Vendetta" comic book series. If
this sort of thing holds absolutely no appeal for Tucker Carlson and
Michael Dirda, perhaps it's because they're (worryingly) satisfied with
the current state of affairs?
If Romney had named the Book of Revelations as his favorite apocalyptic
fiction, then there might be reason to worry. But "Battlefield Earth"
has a happy ending: Rugged, never-say-die humans from around the planet
join forces, educate themselves, work hard, and finally restore
democracy on Earth, and in the rest of the universe. That's not so
worrisome, is it? So cut the guy some slack about his taste in
literature. Let's get back to bashing him about his flip-flopping on
abortion, shall we?
Posted by Joshua Glenn at 03:54 PM
The New York Times Company
---
Christian terrorism murders another half a million people:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21675862-1702,00.html