| [BACK]
LANGUAGE IS WAR
My Fellow Writers,
As writers, we use words to entertain, express emotion, and even understand the world around us.
Right now, in the world at large, we're seeing words used in their most destructive and, conversely, constructive, ways. For on the one hand, they have become (as they always are) the first weapons of war. And on the other hand, they strive to heal and unite, as they help us to understand what poet Rilke might have called the "unsayable."
So much has been unsayable for me over the past week. But I, like many Americans, am slowly coming to terms with what happened. As I have, I've awakened to the fact that the war started the moment the first plane hit the World Trade Center.
The first soldiers in the war were writers - a breed of writer we don't often think about out here in the Industry - the political spin-meisters. Did Bush write his own speeches? Does Tom Cruise write his own dialogue? Hell no. They have people for that. Really good people. Propaganda experts. They're incredible. This time around, they started evolving the national message almost as soon as the second plane struck the tower and we all knew that this was no mere plane crash.
I'm not condemning this practice, by the way. Words shape public opinion, and public opinion will help determine the eventual response. In the early going, the message was so strong, and emotions were running so hot, that many Americans were of the mind that we should "bomb Afghanistan into the Stone Age" - as if (a) all of Afghanistan was responsible for this attack, and, more ironically, (b) a great majority of Afghans don't already live in absolute squalor.
Now, reacting to (and simultaneously shaping) the shifting public opinion, the spin is less extreme. In a situation like this - where America was so obviously and brutally attacked by a bunch of glory-crazed fanatics - the spin-meisters realized early on that they didn't need to fan the flames of public outcry. In fact, they needed to do the opposite, and calm the country down for its own good, and for the good of ultimate justice.
But never forget that it's still spin, always. Remember the Gulf War? The spin made it seem like such a surgical, bloodless war, when in fact tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis lost their lives. Afterwards, thousands of American soldiers reported having their chemical weapons alarms sound, only to be told that it was a malfunction due to the heat. Yet the incidence of ALS and other rare cancers was found to be extremely high among Gulf War veterans. And America's reason for being there was far more complex than helping the Kuwaitis out of a bind - a situation that the film THE THREE KINGS covers brilliantly.
Don't get me wrong. I believe Bin Laden planned this attack - along with dozens of others. I think he and his followers are psychotics that have perhaps lost the right to be considered human. I also believe that America has the right to reach out and cripple terrorist organizations.
But even though I believe all of these things, I watch the war of words with vigilance and trepidation, trying to suss out the truth underneath it all. Each group sees this attack through its own lenses, and tries to control the debate with its own special spin. Just to use one example, let's talk about religion for a moment.
(Yes, religion AND politics in the same conversation -- welcome to my world.)
Given the Muslim background of the attackers, it's no surprise that religion has often taken center stage. Christian leaders like Pat Robertson fan the flames of bigotry by saying that God allowed this attack because of America's homosexuality, pornography, and abortion. In the service at the National Cathedral, Billy Graham said that America is inclusive of all faiths, but then only moments later added that the only true way to find salvation is through Jesus. Others call for days of prayer, prayer at ballgames, and more "God Bless America."
None of these leaders, religious or otherwise, seems to see any irony in the fact that this whole situation essentially began with religious extremism. And yet they don't mind adding in their particular brand of extremism. I happen to think that this particular use of words is dangerous and irresponsible, as it runs the risk of making this situation more about religion than it should be. I truly dread the thought of this becoming a holy war - as the Cold War became when McCarthy and his cronies denounced and despoiled the "godless Communists," making Christianity a requirement for a successful political life from the 1950s onward.
We should all remember the attack last week wasn't a Muslim attack on Christians. It was an attack by a small group of fanatics on America (the overwhelming brunt of which was tragically visited upon thousands of innocents) - and freedom of thought and expression is far more important to the essence of America than anything else.
I hope that, somewhere in the battle of words at home, our politicians find a balance between truths, and develop a response that is tailored for justice and security - and not just for prime time.
In the meantime, though, let us all be aware of the daily machinations of our writing brethren in the political field. Right now, they're the generals.
(Of course, half of them are probably working on screenplays on the side.)
Go write stuff. And for next week - read my lips: no politics.
Politicking,
Grady
P.S. I know, Emerson said "I hate quotations; tell me what you know." Though I admire good old Ralph Waldo, I'm not the least bit embarrassed to share a beautiful phrase or thought from a literary giant. Or simply a young girl:
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart."
Anne Frank
|
