Articles of the Opinionated: Judge Some Books By Their Covers

I’m always fond of venturing into bookstores, because I like to pretend that I am a literary type in front of a group of people that I do not know. However, as I browse around, I always come across a selection of books that make me shake my head and wish I walked with aspirin. One reason for this would the fact that they exist in the first place, but what’s even worse is the prominence that some of these titles are given.

As a child, my teachers would tell to never judge a book by its cover. But as an adult, I know this to be a lie. Here are some books that should be judged by their covers, titles, etc.:

- Current affairs or political books where the author’s face is pasted all over the cover. When I see the latest Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Al Franken and so on, I wince a bit. Seeing these smug faces staring at me with their self-implied polymathic diatribes inside is not appealing in the slightest. And you’ve got to love some of the titles attached, like How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), one of Coulter’s many wastes-o’-trees. You can even apply this to people like Jose Canseco, author of Juiced, written primarily so that he can still be remembered for something other than being a cheater at the game of baseball. The faces you see ultimately mirror the true point of the content inside, which is “Hey, I’m smarter than you and you should pay me for it”. When it comes to political or cultural commentary, I have two requests: Be intelligent in your criticism, or be funny. Many of these types strike me as neither. And when you have neither, what you really have left is nothing but bile. Skip ‘em.

- Books by and about current political personalities. I think the prominent thought that I have concerning books written (well, ghost-written) by political figures on the rise is that I hardly think their personal lives are nearly as important as what they should be doing at the moment. Barack Obama publishes The Audacity of Hope, and maybe it gives me some insight into his character, the reason for his political stances and some other neat little factoid that I could share with my friends. Or maybe it’s just a veil for what he and his campaign want me to go along with. After all, if we think about it for a minute, public record already has a substantial amount of information about the senator. Personally, I’d rather stick to their qualifications and stances, and I can get that without shelling out some $15 for a book I’ll never read again. Because in the grander scheme of things, I care more about how Obama will handle our education crisis than what might have been a big turning point in his outlook on life at, say, age 12. If you’re that interested in learning more about a political figure, hit up your local library for the book.

- Rebuttals of other people or other books. In 2004, Hillary Rodham Clinton came out with her autobiography Living History, ostensibly a simple account of her life and upbringing, though obviously another selling point with which to sound off her eventual Presidential run. I never picked it up myself, as my last rule warns me against such reads. But what may bother me even more would be Dick Morris’ Rewriting History, which challenges the information Clinton shares in her own book. Now, essentially, Morris was close to the Clintons during their years in prominence, but scandals have a way of creating falling-out, and Morris decided to set the facts straight with his rebuttal book. I’m not all that interested in what is inside and the truth of his or Clinton’s content (especially since I don’t expect much from either), but I also find that such books are a joke, where a person pushes a political agenda using a contentious public persona while making some extra dough on the side. Not worth my time or yours, dear reader.

- Books with incredibly ignorant titles. In 2004, American journalist Thomas Frank wrote a book about the changing trend of politics (from left-to-right), from the 60’s and 70’s up to today, in his home state. He particularly highlights the evangelical side of conservatism, which claims a major role in that political pole reversal. Now that sounds somewhat interesting. I like reading about historical trends and talking politics. The name of the book? What’s the Matter With Kansas? Aside from essentially calling a state out, the title is revealing of Frank’s strong leftist slant. I’m a strong liberal myself, but I never feel the need to have my beliefs regurgitated to me like a mother wren feeding its fledglings. Or how about Bernard Goldberg’s 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America? A title like that just begs for contempt. I might give Frank’s book a try in the future, but I do admit that I am seldom optimistic about these kind of books. Is it too much to ask for an unbiased opinion or at least a more classy imparting of one? Maybe. Read these books with caution.

- Books about other popular books. I have never read nor plan to read The Da Vinci Code. It’s just not my cup of tea; when I see things like that, or maybe movies like “National Treasure”, they seem like a lot of fluff disguised by intelligent research and fun what-ifs. So when I hit up my local bookstore for recent book recommendations, it’s a bit much to have seen seven to ten other books about The Da Vinci Code and how accurate it is (or isn’t), during its height in popularity. A book of fiction, and people are challenging or supporting the accuracy of the book? That makes no sense. As a former English major, I realize the importance of criticism, but I like for things to weather a bit. But I also contend that such books can be like scavengers after the main kill, and some of these people probably wish they could write something as engaging or digestible as what they are writing about. Again, proceed with caution.

- Novelizations, tie-ins and similar books. When I was a kid, and was very much into sci-fi and fantasy, I loved to read “Doctor Who” books because it was my favorite sci-fi series. I would also, from time to time, read novelizations of other famous works, like “Star Wars” or “Star Trek”. However, the more often I read such things, the more I thought them to be a bit trite compared to the original cinematic or televised works. Some things just don’t translate well, and it gets even worse when you see original stories taking place in the same universe. You wonder why these writers don’t strive at coming up with something of their own (though there are exceptions). I’d like to think that I am (usually) a more matured reader now, and look for more challenging ways to stimulate my literary curiosity. But sometimes I still read a “Doctor Who” book. Don’t touch unless you are truly a huge fan.

- Books with “secrets” and “success”.  I have a rather profound loathing of the traditional self-help books.  I can try to empathize with people that are depressed or stressed or what have you.  But I don’t think a book is a great resource to “buck you up”, no matter how much it is endorsed by Oprah or Dr. Phil (spare me).  That sentiment gets stronger with books that promise riches and prosperity.  American materialism is bad enough without some pretentious schmoe telling you those simple little steps to glorious wealth that really are not all that simple.  It gets worse when you add the bull that is positive thinking or, even better, Rolanda Byrne’s “The Secret” and her “Laws of Attraction” garbage.  Do you know what one secret to success is, folks?  Writing “secret-to-success” books that dupe people into paying for your beach house.  You’re better off working it out on your own.

- Books with ridiculously long sub-titles. Seeing these just annoy me. I don’t even care what it’s about. I wish publishers and editors could think of more creative ways of selling a book. When I see a title like (just to make one up) My Struggle Against the Struggles: How I Did This And That And a Lot of Other Things In Between And Came Out a Winner, I feel like I have just read the book right there. Surely this can be condensed; after all, what will you struggle against if not struggles? I’d like to think that the educated person will be interested in the content without needing the sub-titular overdose, but then again, not enough people read in America. Just go ahead and read it if you want.

 

Articles of the Opinionated: ***Steroid Paranoia, Part II***

I just viewed this last Friday’s episode of “Around the Horn” on ESPN, and once again the columnists were clamoring for Roger Clemens to come out in front of a television camera and either refute or admit to the accusations of the Mitchell Report and former trainer Brian McNamee that he has taken performance-enhancing drugs. Curt Schilling not only agrees, but he thinks that Clemens has to give up some of his trophies if he can’t “clear his name”, according to ESPN.com, which sources Schill’s blog. David Justice, also named on the Mitchell Report, has urged Clemens to speak to the public as well. It seems lately that the sweat lamp that is sports press conferences is the only way for one to acknowledge the current crisis that I have labeled “steroid paranoia”, and it’s a shame that these very people do not realize how preposterous their demands are.

No one, save Congressional subpoena power, has the right or even fair reason to demand that Clemens and other ballplayers come to speak to the press about this issue. We have a couple of guaranteed rights that these people tend to forget about; freedom of speech and protection from self-incrimination. Though the press has freedom to ask and prod for a response, they are in no position to make Clemens speak. Simple as that. And yet, since the release of the report, many have been issuing vague ultimatums of “he has to speak now, or…”.

Or what? The second problem with the demand is that people have already made up their minds on the matter, and what’s done is done. What do you expect Clemens to say, and do you expect to react differently? Since the accusation, notable journalists and others have said Clemens has to speak, only to be frustrated by the presence of attorneys. Clemens has to speak, you say? And what should he say? What can he say? If he wanted to take the Pettite route and admit, he already would have. If he had legitimate proof he could show to the masses saying, “See, I was right,” he would have. But he obviously doesn’t. The lawyers are his wall until he has his case straight, and that’s what people accused of a crime or infraction do. They protect themselves. To expect otherwise is to be self-absorbed.

And if he ultimately chooses to speak, it means nothing without a break in the news. Without that, Clemens would come out and reiterate what he already told his lawyers to impart. Media people will ask stupid questions, and Clemens will issue ambiguous responses. And nothing changes. Those who are against stay against, those who support still support. Without some new evidence for or against, there’s really no news. When people say Clemens has to speak, what they really want is for him to either admit to wrongdoing or have on record that he said, so that they may blast him later should we find that McNamee speaks the truth.

The word “credibility” keeps getting bandied about since McNamee named names (those three words are fun to say), but why? Just because some people admitted, or that he has details that anyone with a wit of imagination could come up with? McNamee’s accusations of some of these players are reasonable, long and detailed, but in many cases prove nothing. Curt Schilling says that Roger Clemens has to clear his name, but how do you clear your name from something like this? That’s like a woman accusing a man of fondling her on the subway while no one was looking. And let’s remember that we should be just as suspicious of Brian McNamee as we should of Roger Clemens, because he was one-half of a supposed tandem of people committing unethical acts.

Once again, this is nothing more than a desperate search for a scapegoat. If famous players like Clemens or Bonds are proven to have done dirty deeds, then George Mitchell can justify spending millions of taxpayer dollars with a moral victory, and journalists don’t have to feel as bad about cheering for these great players as they did. People have to realize that this is not about the injustices done to the average fan, but rather the need for accusers to cover their backs when nothing comes of it. The fact that people like Jason Grimsley were caught (yes, CAUGHT!) means so little because his career meant so little to others. Rafael Palmeiro has been all but forgotten himself. Many are willing to say that the organization and the owners are just as responsible as the players and the union, but no one’s calling them all to task. But that’s just how it is in the court of public opinion. We’ll only care about the juice if the news is juicy.

And, in the meantime, Goose Gossage says this, but Derek Jeter says this, and while Sen. John McCain is saying this, Gene Wojciechowski tells you this. But in the end, they all are pretty much telling you nothing useful at all.