When fandoms and politics collide, and other musings

You definitely know you're in fannish love when artwork featuring two middle-aged aliens and a song collection printed on same makes you squee in delight. kakodaimon, and other Babylon 5 fans, have a look at Londo and G'Kar goodness . Of course, the other thing that evoked unbecoming gurgles of delight from me was the news sabine101, though still very busy fighting the forces of darkness getting Bush out of the White House and Kerry in, is back online. And speaking of that worthy endeavour, karabair has a report on Joss Whedon's efforts for the cause.

Which brings me to: depending on the partisanship of the blogger and the celebrity in question, I've seen various reactions to show biz people engaging in poliltics over the years, mostly, not surprisingly, finding it good if there is agreement in politics and being ticked off if the political views are at odds. There is, however, a third group who take the "they should just shut up and get back to acting/writing/directing/whatever" line no matter what their own pov on politics is. Which I can't understand. To take some present day examples, I happen to agree with Joss on the current US government and the need to remove it, but if he were convinced that Bush is the best thing since sliced bread and would campaign to get him reelected, that would be his right, too.

One reason for general distaste for political views by writers, actors, singers, whatever, might be the idea that one can't enjoy the product of their creativity untainted anymore if one disagrees about their partisanship. So far, that hasn't been the case with me, which I'm grateful for, since it would have stopped me enjoying a couple of films (say, Maverick, or anything Charlton Heston is in) or novels, or, for that matter, fanfic I like, or even love. Which would have made it a poorer world for me.

Mind you, conversely I don't think just because someone is vocal in his or her political views it improves his or her acting/writing/singing/whatever. For example, John Le Carré's novel Absolute Friends might be the product of a very understandable and very deep anger over the Iraq War and the neocons gaining power before that, but that doesn't make it a good book. (And it doesn't help that one of the main characters is just the sort of selfrighteous tiresome Altachtundsechziger I recognize from life and various "I'll get my Nazi father" autobiographical diatribes.) He can do, and did, far better in the past. I'm curious about David Hare's take on Dubya, Rumsfeld & co., Stuff Happens, but going by rozk's review, it's a mixed affair. So far, the most artistically successful result the Bush years have inspired seems to be the Laura-Bush-talks-about-Dostojewski scene from an unfinished play by Tony Kushner. I do wonder whether anyone will manage to capture Bush and assorted allies in the way Joe Klein did Clinton in Primary Colours. But then, Klein never hated Clinton when he wrote that funny and immensly readable novel which manages to be a satire with three-dimensional characters. And he wavered between being fascinated (in the admiring sense) and appalled ever since, which makes his non-fictional take on Clinton and the Clinton presidency, The Natural, imo the best thing on the subject, as opposed to Hitchens on the contra and Blumenthal on the pro side. Will Bush and the Bush presidency ever find their Klein? So far the pro Bush journalists and writers don't seem to have the necessary element of being appalled, and the anti Bushs hate too much for seeing anything good in the guy.

Meanwhile, the guy stuck with the description of being "the best ex president the US has ever had", Jimmy Carter, wrote a novel himself. (Set in the 18th century, just so there are no misunderstandings.) The journalist interviewing him wasn't impressed by the novel but very much by Mr. Carter, which resulted in this portrait. You know, somehow Carter and Reagan always struck me as embodying the Aesopian fable of the flashy hare and the unpretentious and somewhat dull hedgehog. No cookies for guessing which is which.

Lastly, and because both in Europe and the US when talking about the immediate past and present, the people getting space in the media are usually not Iraquis: Salam Pax, the Baghdad Blogger (who did support the US invasion because of the removing Saddam factor), went to Washington for two weeks, resulting in some very readable reports. Choice quotes:

And that is another thing that seemed to be incomprehensible to one of my new Washington friends: when we were talking about the popularity of the clerical militia chief Moqtada al-Sadr I was asked how anyone could be fooled by someone who so obviously used religion to boost his own popularity and went for the lowest common denominator for popular appeal? I was saved by another guest who asked if we were talking about Bush or Sadr here.

And, something I empathized with because it's something that struck me when visiting the US for the first time at age 14 and on every visit in the 20 years since, completely independent from who was in government at the time:

The news channels here are not like the news channels I am used to. You should try watching al-Jazeera - Bad news! Serious news! More bad news! - and see what it does to your day. These people here are doing a live entertainment show, not news. The breakfast shows are the ones that annoy me most. I can't stand all this happiness this early in the morning. News about explosions in Baghdad and American troops refusing to follow orders is sprinkled with the cheerful banter of Mr Weatherman and jokey Miss Anchorwoman, and it all gets watered down.

Though by now, we do have these relentlessly cheerful breakfeast shows as well in Germany. "I can't stand all this happiness this early in the morning" is my favourite phrase of the day.