The Braindead Megaphone by George Saunders (February 2017)
This essay collection covers a wide range of topics- the media, Dubai, Mark Twain, border walls along the Rio Grande. Though nonfiction is a departure from Saunders's preferred short story format, I recognized his style immediately and I enjoyed these essays as much as any of his fiction.
The opening piece contributes its title to the collection. Saunders compares mass media to a man at a party blaring continuous nonsense into a megaphone. The man distracts the other guests with the constant noise and makes it impossible for them to form their own thoughts or listen properly to the ideas of their conversation partners.
The comparison brought to mind an idea I really liked from Jane Kenyon- 'have good sentences in your ears'. Each time I read a great phrase, I recognize how it adds to my toolbox for thinking, speaking, and writing. Saunders takes this thought and applies it in reverse- in a well-functioning democracy, keeping bad sentences out of the ears is critical. As he points out in this opening essay, bad sentences tend to come at the highest decibel levels.
The effect is gradual. A car commercial shows a confident driver zipping underwater before pulling into a parking lot to buy The Next New Gadget. Perhaps a swimsuit with built-in GPS? It's expensive, but no matter- the next commercial comes on and reminds viewers that this special credit card has no interest payments for a year if you sign up right now! There is no time, though, because the breathless newscaster is describing how an unusual but plausible conclusion to The Big Game was a 'miracle', the telecast's third use of the word in a half-hour.
Over time, all these sentences fill the ears and the dull the wit. Words that should evoke empathy and compassion- such as 'suffering'- are cheapened by their repeated usage to describe the plight of the perennial loser in the Best Supporting Actor category. When it is time to talk about something important- like the morality of bombing another small village- the ensuing discussion is filled with football metaphors, general consensus that 'our side' is smarter than 'the other side', and an endless stream of verified but disconnected facts. Plus, who cares anyway, since those Damn Oil Prices went up a nickel- the weekend is ruined!
OK- maybe I got a little carried away there. Sorry about that! My little synopsis is not meant to suggest that the collection is a ranting tirade against all things consumerist. That's just my reaction. Saunders includes a couple of other ideas in this work.
People like me write about people like George Saunders because he writes with understanding- that people smacked once will expect to get hit again, that time helps people deal with the very difficult moments, that most people do their best first and try to know better later. He beckons the reader forward to try just a little harder to do better.
In that way, his nonfiction is no different than his fiction. It seems a shame in a way because each essay he works on is time he otherwise could have spent working on potential masterpieces like the Eleventh of December (Tenth of January?) or Taft Is A Lardo. But Saunders's talent is significant and his strengths shine throughout this rewarding work.
One up: Saunders has a funny way of showing up years ahead of a situation. One essay from over a decade ago explores the difficulty of building a true border wall along the Rio Grande and another points out that media tools consumed mostly for time-killing or stimulation will tend to showcase the dramatic at the expense of thoughtful discourse.
I think his idea that today's major divisions- such as race- will eventually vanish due to intermarriage is destined to fall in this category. It might take another few centuries, of course, but that is a different matter.
One down: Readers who expect a book full of GQ-style features will need to revise their expectations. At times, the essays here are indistinguishable from his satirical short fiction. I consider this a plus, actually, but I understand if someone prefers that Saunders write only about 'things that happened' in this type of collection.
Just saying: The implicit agreement between the storyteller and the audience is that the story will be the truth. When profit becomes involved, the agreement shifts subtly- the story is still the truth but only if the truth allows the storyteller to make money. Thus, reliance on profit-driven entities to tell stories requires caution on the part of the consumer.
The idea came to mind as I read David Foster Wallace's essay from Consider the Lobster about talk radio ('Host') two weeks later. It was once against the law for anyone holding a broadcast license to present information of public interest in an 'unbalanced' way. The elimination of this Fairness Doctrine in 1987 ushered in the explosion of left and right wing political talk radio.
The exact reason for the repeal of this law is- surprise!- 'complicated' (AKA = money). Interested readers can refer to Wallace's essay or look for their own answers using this useful productivity tool I found called The Internet.
My only comment on the matter is that radio catering to a specific subset of the population is likely to do better than one which tries to appeal broadly. This comment is based on my own experiences with podcasts- many succeed with a niche audience. I imagine this economic reality came into play for talk radio and the difficulty of profiting under the watchful eye of the Fairness Doctrine led to the pressure for its repeal.
