Bad Stories by Steve Almond (February 2019)
I almost always travel with a book or two just in case I end up having a few free moments. Like with any great rule I eagerly make exceptions. A common case stems from when I have so much confidence in my schedule that I cannot foresee any possibility of needing to kill time. When do things ever turn out differently than we expect, right?
I suppose Bad Stories is a good example of how the unexpected is often the first hint of an opportunity. I had left home one day with no expectation of needing a book but plans broke down and I was suddenly facing an hour on the train. With only a few spare minutes, I made an emergency stop in the library to find a book for the train. I settled quickly on Bad Stories because of its obvious positive qualities – new, short, and written by a familiar name. (The last point was the least important as I knew nothing about Steve Almond’s writing – I was familiar with him for his role as co-host of the Dear Sugar Radio podcast. It all worked out well – or maybe new and short are the only important qualities. Anyway, moving on.)
It didn’t take more than a couple of stops before I understood that this would become one of my favorite reads of the year. This collection fits into a genre that has only briefly existed (and might not survive for much longer) – books that might have been called What Happened? had Hillary Clinton not beaten everyone to the punch. Almond’s mystified contribution to this growing field of research argues that bad storytelling was a primary culprit for creating the conditions required for the Trump Presidency and he goes on to consider the role of storytelling in our ongoing quest to build a different future. There is a lot I’d like to cover about this book and we’ll work through the details over a handful of upcoming posts.
The main idea of this book, however, is firmly focused on the role stories play in distorting, diminishing, and deleting the truth of our experiences. Almond points out, for example, that America’s origin story ignores how many of our founders were aristocrats who owned people. In today’s country, the race story encourages poor white Americans to blame those of different races for their circumstances. I especially liked the point that a bad story’s biggest problem is the way it prevents better stories from being told. There are so many important stories being forced into darkness by lesser tales that it’s worth considering how the world might change if the untapped power of these stories could be brought into the light of day.
One place Almond looks for these untold stories is in the news media. The reality he describes is that the media rarely seems to consider their role in creating and encouraging its many circuses, preferring instead to claim ‘objectivity’ by only covering the story. I agree in that it’s objective to cover a story using particular principles or methods as guidelines but doing so with a self-generated story is a lot like a scientist eagerly scribbling out the results after an hour spent meddling with the test tubes. Almond also brings up a general point about journalism, noting a tendency to settle by presenting two sides of a story rather than digging deep to determine the truth of the various underlying facts. Again, there is a clear case of objectivity in giving all parties a fair share of the stage. But if the media is merely presenting stories rather than working out their validity, it seems like they are giving in to the constant pressure of reporting more interesting stories at the expense of more important work.
One up: I thought Almond had some sharp insights into human nature. One common refrain was that we tend to take our grievances seriously while dismissing our vulnerabilities. Another suggested that people who work well with differing views have a humble curiosity about the outside world. Perhaps those seeking to make progress in this area should consider whether the internet’s tendency toward shallowness and meanness is playing any role in making the adoption of this humble curiosity a challenging endeavor.
One down: The most memorable section of this book presented the following hypothetical. Suppose two candidates apply for the same job. The male candidate has no industry experience but has led several businesses into bankruptcy. He is known to make bigoted statements – including one astonishing video where he bragged about sexually assaulting women. The female candidate has significant and recent experience. She’s been repeatedly accused of corruption despite the lack of evidence. In 2016, America confirmed that they were equally qualified for our most important job.
Just saying: I’m almost certain that I liked this book because I agreed with many of Almond’s subtler points. One example was the importance of television in increasing Trump’s plausibility as a candidate. Almond suggested that Trump’s role in The Apprentice (a show I didn’t watch) portrayed him as a reasonable and compassionate boss yet one capable of maintaining authority and command over his businesses. Another point criticized the role of comedy for how it inappropriately insulated people from their most distressing reactions and reduced the sense of urgency about the election. The most significant criticisms were about general media coverage – I’ll cover those in an upcoming post.
