WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2011
The Miller likes false tales: Let’s be clear: Laura Miller isn’t a political writer. According to her bio at Salon, she is one of the site’s co-founders and “a frequent contributor to the New York Times Book Review, where she wrote the Last Word column for two years.” At Salon, she mainly writes about books—a very good thing to do.
(Admittedly, books can take too long. And they can be hard.)
Miller isn’t a political writer. But we were intrigued by her take on the flap about Three Cups of Tea, especially by her attitude about the role played by false tales.
Three Cups of Tea has been a very big book. Its author, Greg Mortenson, has now been charged with lying and misuse of money. According to Miller, “It's unfortunate that the Mortenson affair is being presented as a publishing scandal rather than a philanthropic one, because the case against the author (the lying) is less compelling than the case against the nonprofit director (the cheating).”
Just to be clear, Mortenson is both “the author” and “the nonprofit director” in that construction.
Miller seems to believe that Mortenson has lied and that he has misused money. For ourselves, we express no view on either score. But given the political history of the past twenty years, we were struck by Miller’s thoughts about Mortenson’s alleged lying. She doesn’t think it’s that big a deal. In this passage, she starts to explain:
MILLER (4/19/11): The evidence of Mortenson's financial improprieties is solid; just how much he may have lied about the recuperation and kidnapping stories in "Three Cups of Tea" is both murkier and a bit irrelevant. It's worth asking: Would it matter much whether either anecdote were true if Mortenson's charitable work were above reproach and impeccably conducted? Would we even be having this conversation if [Mortenson’s charity organization] weren't a hot mess?"Three Cups of Tea" belongs to that category of inspirational nonfiction in which feel-good parables take precedence over strict truthfulness. Its object is to present a reassuring picture of the world as a place where all people are fundamentally the same underneath their cultural differences, where ordinary, well-meaning Americans can "make a difference" in the lives of poor Central Asians and fend off terrorism at the same time. Heartwarming anecdotes come with the territory and as with the happily-ever-after endings of romantic comedies, everyone tacitly agrees not to examine them too closely. "Three Cups of Tea" is a wonderful tool for eliciting donations for the very worthy cause of educating Afghan and Pakistani children, which is its purpose.
To Miller, it’s largely OK if Mortenson lied—if he invented stories which never occurred. It’s OK if Mortenson because his lies served a good cause. We find that notion a bit strange on its face—presumably, many political liars think their lies are serving good causes—but we were especially struck by the semi-fatuous nature of Miller’s rumination. According to Miller, Mortenson’s alleged lies were intended to present “a reassuring picture of the world;” they were intended to picture the world “as a place where…ordinary, well-meaning Americans can ‘make a difference’ in the lives of poor Central Asians.” To Miller, “heartwarming anecdotes come with the territory.” She seems to applaud the idea that non-fiction writing should ape “the happily-ever-after endings of romantic comedies.”
Does this picture even make sense on its own terms? In one alleged lie from his second book, Mortenson allegedly concocted a story in which he was kidnapped at gunpoint by the Taliban! In what way could such a “heartwarming story” further “a reassuring picture” in which “all people are fundamentally the same?” Would this story make ordinary Americans want to rush off to help Central Asians? But let’s set aside the particulars of these alleged lies. As she continues, Miller enters a rather childish terrain:
MILLER (continuing directly): Comparisons to fabricating memoirists like James Frey are misguided. An artful account of the memoirist's own experiences is all that the memoir has to offer its readers; if it doesn't approximate the truth (at the very least as the author saw it), then it's in bad faith.But what "Three Cups of Tea" provides is something else, a feeling of comradely motivation and a symbol of plucky American virtue in the person of Greg Mortenson. If he has to massage some facts into a better story in order to create sentimental enthusiasm for his cause, many of his fans are more than willing to give him that. Pointing out that a couple of these stories aren't true strikes them as self-serving nitpicking and pettifoggery that, above all, misses the big picture. "Greg is a man who has done more good for more people than anyone else I know," read one comment posted to an interview with Mortenson about the controversy at OutsideOnline. "Yes, he's fallible. But the work that CAI is doing literally transforms lives."
That strikes us as strikingly fatuous. But here’s the larger problem:
Unfortunately, our national discourse has been driven by invented stories over the past twenty years. Some of these stories were invented to advance the greatness of certain pols (John McCain). Some of these stories were invented to demonize certain others (Bill Clinton, Al Gore). Many of these invented stories were constructed to feature “symbols of plucky American virtue,” thereby advancing good causes.
Do you like symbols of plucky? Various crackpot Clinton-accusers were endlessly hailed for their plucky virtues on endless cable programs. And let’s be frank: If these crackpots and their various handlers “had to massage some facts into a better story in order to create sentimental enthusiasm for his cause,” many of their fans were more than willing to give them that! Example: Chris Matthews was more than willing to ignore the “massaged facts” of Kathleen Willey and Gennifer Flowers. After all, his darlings were loaded with plucky virtue! Their massaged facts created great stories! This created sentimental enthusiasm for their cause!
Good God. Our nation had been turned upside down by several decades of false tales. And yet, at the top of the liberal heap, we keep saying this: Bring them on! By the way: If Mortenson can make up stories to serve his good cause, doesn’t everyone have to make up stories? It’s a bit like steroid use: How can other good causes compete if they don’t invent wild tales?
Basically, Miller likes these false stories, since they serve a very good cause. But how are they different from Donald Trump’s tales if you don’t like Barack Obama? How are they different from that Love Story tale—the tale Dowd and Rich once dreamed up?
Eventually, is anything true? To answer that, just look around.
People have always loved stories. For example, Jesus explained things through stories; in the entire New Testament, you won’t find a single graph. At bedtime, children say, “Tell me a story.” We doubt any parent has ever said this: “Go brush your teeth and get into bed. I’ll come and tell you some facts.”
Several hundred years ago, Europeans announced a new age of reason. Truthfully, the basic concept pretty much never took hold.
No comments:
Post a Comment