After finishing The Natural I was trying to think of what Joe Klein’s theme for the book was. There seem to be several that can be pulled out.
The first, and the most prevalent in the book, I thought was the wasted potential of the Clinton presidency. Klein obviously has heaps of respect for President Clinton, especially with regards to the president’s emotional radar, his ability to sense the emotional needs of his audience and deliver on them, which made him such a great public orator. Klein also appreciates Clinton’s incredible policy knowledge and desire for reform, but despite these admirable qualities of the man, the administration was bogged down by scandals, indecisiveness, and disorganization. Klein speculates that the disappointment in the administration was not so much because of these reasons or for the policy failures such as healthcare and the Israel-Pakistan negotiations, but because of his inability to inspire the increasingly apathetic public.
Another extremely prevalent theme was Klein’s belief that both the media and the politicians went ballistic about the personal lives of not just the president, but many other public servants of his time. The Clinton presidency seemed to start the era of investigations, where you must have a spotless public and personal record in order to be a politician. If not, you will be ripped to shreds be destructively partisan investigation committees. The media aides this by further prying into politician’s lives and reporting the unimportant, negative stories of government leaders’ personal lives.
One of the things I found most interesting about the book was its perspective. Since it was published in 2002 Klein did not know many of the things we know now when he wrote it. One of the most memorable instances of this is when he writes how President Bush’s success relied so much on the help of others. It is interesting to think about this now in the context that the president has some of the lowest approval ratings of any president in history.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Fiction v. Nonfiction
I think I speak for most of my peers when I say most of my rather limited background in literature has been in fiction. Not only have I chosen to read mostly fiction books, but it seems like we read mostly fiction books in school as well. The Natural, being a nonfiction book, brings up some discussion points that we have not addressed this year.
For instance, perhaps because I am so familiar with his writing, I find myself wondering about Joe Klein’s point-of-view. He does not try to hide his familiarity and relationship with the subject of the book, Bill Clinton. I doubt this relationship effects Klein’s writing, except for enabling him to write a more interesting story, but I have to wonder if his ideologies perhaps do. It is fairly clear in his writing that Klein is slightly left leaning, and especially identifies with the New Democrat principles. In my mind, this seems to create in his writing a slight bias against Old Democrats such as George Stephanopoulos and Hilary Clinton, and especially against their projects like healthcare reform. One bias of his that I find refreshing however is against the media’s enjoyment of reporting stories with little merit, but that embarrass politicians.
Another major difference between the two genres I personally find is that in nonfiction books there is generally less to analyze. Often the writer tries to simply present information with out adding easily analyzable aspects. For instance, there is usually far less use of literary techniques in nonfiction books. The author also usually tries to make their theme fairly explicit which does not allow for as much interpretation. With all this being said however, I believe nonfiction books can be very interesting and I am looking forward to the rest of The Natural.
For instance, perhaps because I am so familiar with his writing, I find myself wondering about Joe Klein’s point-of-view. He does not try to hide his familiarity and relationship with the subject of the book, Bill Clinton. I doubt this relationship effects Klein’s writing, except for enabling him to write a more interesting story, but I have to wonder if his ideologies perhaps do. It is fairly clear in his writing that Klein is slightly left leaning, and especially identifies with the New Democrat principles. In my mind, this seems to create in his writing a slight bias against Old Democrats such as George Stephanopoulos and Hilary Clinton, and especially against their projects like healthcare reform. One bias of his that I find refreshing however is against the media’s enjoyment of reporting stories with little merit, but that embarrass politicians.
Another major difference between the two genres I personally find is that in nonfiction books there is generally less to analyze. Often the writer tries to simply present information with out adding easily analyzable aspects. For instance, there is usually far less use of literary techniques in nonfiction books. The author also usually tries to make their theme fairly explicit which does not allow for as much interpretation. With all this being said however, I believe nonfiction books can be very interesting and I am looking forward to the rest of The Natural.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Second Quarter Outside Reading
This quarter I have decided to continue my reading of Joe Klein, this time with his published works. I have already gotten two books of his, The Natural, which seems to be a fairly short easy read, so I also plan on reading one of his novels, The Running Mate. After these two books I will have pretty much read all his works so I may finally be able to move on to a different writer for Third Quarter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
