Recently, President Bush addressed the nation in a press conference. He offered many answers to questions on Iraq. In an effort to understand the Bush administration’s motivations, I’ve tried applying some of Bush’s answers to everyday situations.

BUSH: “It’s not a civil war; it’s not a popular uprising.”
ME (to Peet’s employee): “It’s not a cup of coffee; it’s not a popular uprising.”
PEET’S EMPLOYEE: “No, sir. It’s a cup of coffee. Revolution has nothing to do with it. Please leave.”

BUSH: “The nation of Iraq is moving toward self-rule, and Iraqis and Americans will see evidence in the months to come.”
ME (to IRS): “The nation of America is moving toward self-rule, and America and the IRS will see evidence in the months to come.”
IRS: “Actually, sir, if you don’t pay your taxes on April 15, you will face severe penalties and arrest.”

BUSH: “Iraqi’s neighbors also have responsibilities to make their region more stable.”
ME (to landlord): “My neighbors also have responsibilities to make their apartments more stable.”
LANDLORD: “If you have a legitimate gripe, fill out this grievance form.”

BUSH: “Over the last several decades, we’ve seen that any concession or retreat on our part will only embolden this enemy and invite more bloodshed.”
ME (to sibling): “Over the last several decades, we’ve seen that any concession or retreat on our part will only embolden our family and invite more internecine disputes.”
SIBLING: “Ed, do you need a hug?”

BUSH: “And as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don’t. I just don’t make decisions that way. I fully understand the consequences of what we’re doing. We’re changing the world. And the world will be better off and America will be more secure as a result of the actions we’re taking.
ME (to co-host of party): “And as to whether or not I organize parties based upon other people’s opinions, I don’t. I just don’t make decisions that way. I fully understand the consequences of what we’re doing. We’re changing the party. And the party will be better off and the apartment will be more secure as a result of the plans we’re making.”
CO-HOST: “All right. But don’t count on any future invitations.”

BUSH: “I hope I — I don’t want to sound like I’ve made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.”
ME (to lover trying to reconcile relationship): “I hope I — I don’t want to sound like I’ve made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.”
LOVER: “Jesus, can’t you take any kind of initiative?”

BUSH: “And my message to the loved ones who are worried about their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, is: You’re loved one is performing a noble service for the cause of freedom and peace.”
ME (downsizing employee): “And my message to your loved ones who are worried about how you will support your family is: Your loved one has performed a noble service for the cause of capitalism and profit.”
EMPLOYEE: “Oh, just give me my severance pay and shut up.”

Terry Jones responds to Tony Blair’s essay: “His essay, of course, is written with his usual passion and conviction, but, in the real world, passion and conviction do not count for many marks.”

A9, Amazon’s search engine, has gone live in primitive form. John Battelle has the scoop. The search engine corrals Google results and Amazon book results in one go. A toolbar allowing the user to annotate is also planned. (via Kottke)

Recently, Orson Scott Card wrote an inflammatory essay that’s about as vile a screed as one can write. However, he is also the author of Ender’s Game (a good book) and a solid writer. Maud writes that she won’t be reading him. Jessa notes that a novel and a political essay are separate conduits. I’m inclined to agree with Jessa. If politics was a factor in my own fictional choices, then I’d have to discount Action Francaise member Andre Gide, Nazi Knut Hamsun, right-wing isolationist Robert A. Heinlein, and fascist Ezra Pound (or, for that matter, anti-feminist Dave Sim’s strong early Cerebus work), to name just a few. And that would, in my view at least, be a tragedy.

While I can understand it when someone is bothered by the poltical motivations of an author (name a single person who really wants to read another bloated Barbara Kingsolver essay), I’m troubled by the idea that an author’s political viewpoint spreads like a vicious cancer into his work. This morning, Mark posed a question about whether politics makes for great art. The only immediate examples that came to my head were Elizabeth Gaskell, Arthur Miller, and Margaret Atwood. But even in these offerings, the politics is relatively subdued, more subject to a reader’s individual impressions. It’s a far more subtle thing for Atwood to point out the politics of gender in Cat’s Eye by showing us how girls are reluctant to touch bugs in a university building, implying that 1940s society carried an unspoken stigma that an entomologist’s line was verboeten to women. The great thing about Willie Loman is how both the lower-class can identify with Loman’s struggles for success, while the successful businessman can relate to Loman’s sense of failure. It is human behavior which guides art. Sometimes, the behavior is politically charged, but more often or not, it is the reader’s own political sensibilities that make the connections.

As amusing as David Kipen’s Tanenhaus column is, there’s the deeper question of why Tanenhaus’s politics matter so much — at least, in relation to the fiction coverage. (And full confession: I still have concerns that “liberal” nonfiction books won’t be covered as abundantly as they were under Chip McGrath’s tenure.) In all the top ten lists listed at Barnhardt’s, is there a single political one on the list? Although a case can be made for Robert Penn Warren’s All the King’s Men, there’s the question of whether it’s a politically charged novel with echoes of Huey Long or a novel about seduction and selling out. Again, personal sensibilities determine the individual reader’s distinction.

So add me to the list of curious bystanders. Can anyone take up Mark’s challenge and name a Great Political Novel and explain why it succeeded?

[UPDATE: Maud and Rasputin respond.]

Christopher Hampton is adapting Ian McEwan’s Atonement for the big screen (among other things).