“I challenge you to find an agenda,” was one of the many bold statements made by David Finkel Sept. 7 at Bender Arena. The author of this year's Writer as Witness novel, “The Good Soldiers,” not only discussed the process of writing his book about the 2007 troop surge in Iraq, but went to extreme and often repetitive measures to defend it as an “unbiased novel with no obvious agenda.” I wasn’t surprised to see many students nodding their heads in agreement, soaking up the Pulitzer Prize winner’s every word.
I, on the other hand, shook my head in disagreement. Challenge accepted.
Chapter Four opens with a Bush quote; “We’re still at the beginning of this offensive, but we’re seeing some hopeful signs. – George W. Bush, June 30, 2007.” Finkel then writes, “On June 5, at 10:55 at night, a $150,000 Humvee with five soldiers inside rolled into a sewage trench, turned upside down, and sank.” Probably the most obvious example of the bias and agenda in Finkel’s work can be seen in this pattern occurring every chapter, where an expert of a statement or speech given by Bush is presented, and then subsequently attacked and criticized.
Despite the fact that, yes, Bush was the president at the driving momentum of the war, would the book not have benefited from a quote of General Petreaus? Lt. Col. Kauzlarich? Any other general or soldier who was there? Finkel mentioned briefly how he looked through statements made by other politicians such as Condoleezza Rice, however it seems too convenient that the best examples he could come up with were all from George W. Bush.
The novel also follows the same skeleton in every chapter: Bush quote, reasons why Bush quote sucks, real life evidence from soldiers why war sucks, five pages about post traumatic stress disorder , one paragraph explaining the tragic death of a soldier. In doing this, Finkel automatically disables the reader’s peripheral vision. He makes it seem like every soldier in the novel is against the war and President Bush. Thus, the readers understanding of the war is incomplete.
Another statement made by the author that I found quite incriminating was when he answered a student who asked if he struggled having to separate himself from his emotions while writing the book. He proceeded to earnestly say that his emotions were very present in the novel, and that he never divorced himself from his sentiments while writing.
So let me get this straight: The book is unbiased and has no poignant agenda, but it was written entirely from emotions and feelings? The contradiction should be painfully obvious.
Lastly, Finkel explained how if the book were to be written by any one of us, it would be an entirely different work. If “The Good Soldiers” was unbiased reporting, then anybody anywhere could write it, and each author’s version would be the same.
Thus, what makes the book, according to Finkel’s logic, is the point of view. The experience of being in Iraq affects a person, and David Finkel was obviously affected. His voice shook, his eyes teared up and his hand trembled — and it ebbs off every page. There’s nothing wrong with being affected, disturbed or even changed by any experience. However, how does that not create bias?
While I may not agree with how Finkel views his novel, or presents it to the public, that does not take away from the fact that it is a cleverly crafted and interesting piece of work. He was able to weave beautiful yet terrifying images together to create a patchwork of heart wrenching and eye opening tales about a war I knew very little about. He also, as he said, “stuck it out,” for which I commend him.
At the end of the day, I’m not saying David Finkel is a bad guy. He’s Pulitzer Prize winner and an obvious expert in his field. His book isn’t bad either. However, he should own up to the fact that he’s human. Journalistic writing isn’t easy, especially when your topic is watching young, brave men die. There is no crime in being biased or having an agenda. The crime is pretending you have none and not brushing that Pulitzer Prize off your shoulder.
