In his current New York Times column, Paul Krugman likens the present American political scene to a badly written novel:

I've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be a bad novel because there won't be any nuance: the villains won't just espouse an ideology I disagree with - they'll be hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels.

In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national outrage over an affair and writes best-selling books about virtue will turn out to be hiding an expensive gambling habit. A talk radio host who advocates harsh penalties for drug violators will turn out to be hiding his own drug addiction.

In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven by strange obsessions. One senator's diatribe against gay marriage will link it to "man on dog" sex. Another will rant about the dangers of lesbians in high school bathrooms.

In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of homeland security a "good man" who turns out to have been the subject of an arrest warrant, who turned an apartment set aside for rescue workers into his personal love nest and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers.

In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular Americans against the elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used his position of power to - on second thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel.

In my bad novel, apologists for the administration will charge foreign policy critics with anti-Semitism. But they will be silent when a prominent conservative declares that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the troops" to suppress criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the troops lack armor.

The secretary of defense - another "good man," according to the president - won't even bother signing letters to the families of soldiers killed in action.

Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself as the defender of good against evil, will preside over the widespread use of torture.

How did we find ourselves living in a bad novel? It was not ever thus. Hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels have always been with us, on both sides of the aisle. But 9/11 created an environment some liberals summarize with the acronym Iokiyar: it's O.K. if you're a Republican.

I'm less interested in debating Krugman's portrait of American society than in thinking about how he uses the trope of the "bad novel" to frame his most recent indictment of it. Most obviously, Krugman appears to be using that trope to claim--without arguing--that the reality of our moment is not only unbelievable (in the way that any work of fiction, no matter how fine its realism, is by virtue of its generic status automatically unbelievable) but poorly conceived (there is an odd sort of paranoid "writer ex machina" thing going on in Krugman's column that suggests there is a godlike authority of some sort scripting our now, and doing a poor job of it). But there are other layers to Krugman's use of what is admittedly a tired and hackneyed image, and I'm curious to hear readers' thoughts on how that image strikes them as a tool of political critique. Is Krugman just reaching angrily and not that imaginatively for something to fill up his column space? Is there genuine analytical value to his extended metaphor? If so, what do you think that is? If not, how would you characterize the image's utility--or inutility, or futility?

Comments are open, thoughts are welcome.

I think it makes the most sense if we presume he means to index 'good novel' (which he never positively instantiates) with sincerity of motive, and moderation of temperament (or politically, with liberalism).

'Bad novel' is the world of predictable hypocrisy, conspiracy, and irrational actions, especially likely amongst individuals who seem to be full of "passionate intensity" (sorry W.B.Y.), railing against some version of the very thing of which they themselves are guilty. Perhaps "bad novel" could be simply the universe comprised of people who espouse immoderate views immoderately. That would give it the broadest applicability -- and it could easily be extended to any number of hypocritical liberals and leftists one could think of (I write that as a liberal/leftist).

But I don't think he's aiming so broadly.

Erin:

Great job trying to get something useful from the Krugman column. I was struck by the contrast in the clarity with which you expressed your two aletrnative interpretations.

"Is Krugman just reaching angrily and not that imaginatively for something to fill up his column space?"

A sharp and clear statement.

"Is there genuine analytical value to his extended metaphor?"

Huh? What is "analytical value"? That's the closest I have ever seen you come to using pomo lit-crit lingo. Seems to me you are really stretching here.

"Bad novel" seems to be a nice shorthand for something so utterly shallow and unbelievable as not even to be a nice story -- even fiction or escapism. I'm reminded of the "I could make this stuff up, but why bother when the reality is there?"

In my mind, his premise could make a good novel, if the author could show that the world is *not* black and white, that people don't always act according to their stated beliefs, and that there are many factors that go into every decision. Sounds like Krugman isn't willing to investigate that far; he'd rather deal with the superficiality of what he sees on the network news.

I think it's pretty obvious from the first paragraph Erin quoted that Krugman equates "bad novels" with one-sided (or simplistically two-faced) characters. His conceit is that the current political scene is not filled with complicated or ambiguous figures, but rather with shamelessly two-faced hypocrites -- the kind to be found in the worst sort of satirical portraiture (the priest who fleeces his flock, the teacher who fails to learn, the soldier who advances through cowardice, the lady of virtue who has paramours, etc.).

Does Krugman's conceit open up to complex analysis? No. But that's sort of his point: the current administration doesn't give us material to which to apply complex analysis. The duplicity is obvious and on the surface; and to write about it effectively is to end up writing a "bad novel."

This is perhaps why Comedy Central is so much more pertinent these days than CNN or Fox News (although it's not like those two are sources of complex analysis). Shows like *The Daily Show* and *South Park*, which excel at good ole fashion satire, at exposing the shamelessly hypocritical as such, will thrive under the current circumstances.

The limitation of Krugman's take is that it's "character centered." In focusing on personal hypocrisy, he has no larger social, cultural, economic, etc. analysis of what's going on. Ultimately, that's why I'm glad we have folks like Studs Terkel, Tom Frank, and Barbara Ehrenreich around.

When I first read this, I saw "lokiyar" and was mighty puzzled, my only thought being something to do with Norse tricksters. I even posted on my blog about it, but when I checked back, the mistake had been corrected (or I read it the right way).

I'm curious how "analytic value" comes across as pomo jargon, though. "Value-added" is much closer in spirit.

I guess I'm old-fashioned in that I think the purpose of rhetoric is to convince others of one's own point of view. Although metaphors and analogies have their place--indeed, I'm an enthusiastic user of them--they should be employed with the idea of making an effective and convincing argument..otherwise, what's the point? And I think Krugman's "novel" analogy fails that test. I doubt that it convinced one person to change or even rethink their opinion.

For a previous "bad novel" see Primary Colors. I think any administration could give rise to bad novels because they're all made of flawed human beings.

My daughter and I attended a book signing by Sharon McCrumb, a writer of novels, in which she stated that you can't make anything up. Anything you think you have made up, has been done by somebody, somewhere.

Bad political novels, right or left, tend to be vanity pieces for unground axes. Krugman's wannabe potboiler is no exception.

The only value I see in them is to 'Fisk' them. As Stephen Green did here...

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/007233.php

... all going to show that political hacks in glass houses (as if there are any who don't live in 'em) shouldn't throw Jackie Collins novels -- especially when they're calling shenanigans, hypocrisy or whatever. Turning what is really a screed (even a good zippy one) it "art" or "literature" is rather like getting a refereed pub out of a badly written master's thesis with iffy results after the Grad Student from Hell 'graduates' - it's not worth the trouble.

If you're going to write a bad novel, you might as well make it 100% schlocky guilty pleasure and not an extravaganza of sour grapes. That way you can use the royalties to buy a boat or something fun, rather than sessions with your therapist.

Though I think this isn't one of Krugman's finest, I think the point he's going for is roughly this: we're inured to the incompetence and hackery of the Administration in a way that prevents us from seeing just how bad things are; by imagining a fictional narrative relaying the same events, we get some imaginative distance, and this enables us to see the awfulness for what it is, etc.

One of his central claims this summer and fall was that simply stating how serious the problems are makes him sound like an extremist or crackpot (e.g., the comparisons to Argetina). This novel conceit is in the same vein-- our assumption that things couldn't be that bad prevents us from seeing them as they are. So this is more of him playing Kassandra, I think.

I so don't want to get into a political discussion here, but I should note that I found the vodkapundit piece completely unconvincing.

That's OK, Fontana, I'll get into it for you. The vodkapundit piece was extremely weak. If your search for villains forces you to drop all the way down the Democratic roster to Jim McGreevey, then you might as well just fold your hand and let Krugman collect the chips. On the other hand, while this Green character is not much of a writer, he's a first-class mind reader: he knows Hillary's secret motivation for marrying Bill. I agree with Fontana that this is not Krugman's best work, but it does seem pretty clear why Paul Krugman has a column in a major newspaper and Stephen Green doesn't.

It looks like people are confusing Bad Drama and Bad Commentary (capital letters all around). (Plus, some people need to have their tongues placed into their cheek on this one, by surgical means if necessary. You can't talk about Bad Novels while riding a High Horse.)

Green's point is very simple, and your dissing it shows pretty much that you are not looking for Certified Bad Literature, but rather someone who parrots your views. For every one of Krugman's subplots in his Bad (or Trash) Novel, there is another one closer to home that he isn't talking about while feigning overall outrage. It's not a trash novel, it's a partisan opinion piece. And that was Green's point.

And Vodkapundit is a blog -- not the NYT or WSJ. It's not supposed to be brilliant on a day to day basis. Krugman however, is paid to be a certified smart person in the Gray Lady. Green has a dayjob (as do we). Krugman is paid to be a political hack, and he's not a bad one. Thus he has the right and obligation to pull for his team in an exclusively one-sided fashion. There is nothing wrong with that -- just ask George Will and the lot of the right wing hacks. But a Bad Novelists (or even just a bad novelist)? Nah. That takes work. What's more important, a partisan political writer cannot do a good wholesomely honest Bad Trashy Novel within his own arena. He will risk biting the hand that feeds him.

That's because, it's not enough to be bad when you write a Bad Novel. You have to be downright rotten! Otherwise, people will see you as the hypocritical moralist that you are.

That is the difference between a "Good" Trash Novel (or TV Show or Movie) and a sermon masquerading as one. Thus, to be silly but still on point, using pop culture as opposed to high brow stuff, in a one-to-one comparison...

Good Trash: Dynasty's social "family" commentary. Earthquake as a jiggly civil engineering parable and geology lecture (yeah right). The Cassandra Crossing's continuing the structural design theme this time with Sophia Loren (and something about plague, a train and OJ Simpson - go fig). And who could forget the feminist commaradery of Faster Pussycat Kill Kill! Notice they don't make the good stuff anymore.

Bad Trash: Quincy (an outrage of the week without the grossout appeal of CSI). The Day After Tomorrow (inflicting more pain on the audience than on the characters). Last Week's docudrama Smallpox (which acutally had some good production value despite proving itself to be an unlikely worst-case scenario). Thelma and Louise's buddy movie and homage to FPKK (which like Smallpox, still could be enjoyable from the production and homage standpoints).

I could do more (and others may have alternative and better substitutions for my choices) butÖ

To make a long post longer. If it's shamelessly wallowing in guilty pleasure, it's good trashy fun. If it's a duty or has a "message," it's not primo Trash or a Bad Novel, it's Commentary (and may even qualify as Bad Commentary), Itís also the difference between being a dramatist and being a drama queen.

To make the bad trash of Krugman's novel "good stuff" he needs to spread out the debauchery a little. Otherwise Paul Krugman will never be remember as "fondly" as Jackie Collins or Russ Meyer, but as the former Enron advisor who thought a little too much of himself. But if he does go for broke and dives into it with gusto, he may never work for the NYT again.

I honestly don't know if there is a "good" contemporarily written Trash Political Novel that would satisfy all but the actual players on both sides of the aisle who'd be digging through the pages to find themselves in bed with the au pair, congressional page, or Russian ambassador and his horse. To survive in the current culture you'd have to do an "historical" one (wink wink). Bringing up Primary Colors may not count as it was done by that prolific author named "Anonymous."

Not one of Krugman's finest, Fontana?

IMHO, they're all horse dung. But yes; some are worse than others.... This column was merely version #238 of: Republicans are stupid, selfish and immoral, and endangering the rest of the world.

Surely it is clear that the trope of the Bad Novel is only his way of saying "truth is stranger than fiction" and "what a bad bunch these guys are" -- that the characters he describes are more unbelievable than anything out of the pen of a bad polemical writer's attempt at an edifying story.

Which makes me wonder about all the outrage over the Sanctity of the Bad Novel Metaphor that this appears to have stirred up.

It can hardly really be that the Bad Novel as a Metaphor is strained. And I find it hard to imagine that it represents an outraged sense of the editorial standards of the NYTimes. (I'm an empiricist, though, so I did a quick check of the evidence: not a single complaint about colleague David Brooks' columns that are content free or contain alleged abuses of rhetoric appear in the archives of this blog. And it is not because they don't exist.)

Could it be, instead, that it represents a disingenuous and cryptic defense of O'Reilly and Limbaugh and Bennett and Bush and Gonzales and the rest of the motley crew by attacking the messenger? It's not a tactic without precedent - not among the defenders of this particular faith and, sadly, not among their political opponents either. But it doesn't make it any more palatable.

Krugman's point couldn't be clearer. And the point of the pseudo-intellectual deconstruction of the Bad Book as illegitimate metaphor seems pretty clear, too. Hypocritical in its own special way - as it is a rhetorical obfuscation of an ad hominem argument that purports to be about slip of rhetorical dignity. Gah.

Do you think you could help me reveal who Krugman is making reference to?