Palestine—The Special Edition

Palestine—The Special Edition by Joe Sacco (originally serialized 1993-1995. This edition published 2007) Fantagraphic Books. 285 pages.

I can’t read poetry or fiction without trying to see it from the author’s perspective. I like the way that Joe Sacco puts himself into his comic book story about Palestine. He puts himself into the story in a wonderfully unselfish way. As an artist, he moves from gross caricatures at the start of the book to realistic portraiture at the end of the book, but all along the depiction of himself remains the same—a caricature of a bespectacled man who’s in way over his head, who’s busy gathering notes for an unorthodox comic book documentary about one of the grimmest political situations in the world. The caricature of Joe Sacco keeps falling into dreams of making it big, of winning Pulitzer Prizes and changing the world through comic books, only to be reminded moments later of his own weaknesses.
I remember recently overhearing a discussion. Someone I knew had recently returned from Israel and was holding forth about his own experiences. His story rambled a lot, but he kept coming back to the assertion that “the Israeli Arabs are smart.” As opposed to the Palestinians, who, presumably, he believes are stupid. It reminded me of a friend of my grandmothers, an old guy who used to run textile factories, and who would have conversations about how amazed he was at the intelligence and articulateness of “African blacks,” as opposed to African Americans. “You can have a conversation with the ones from Africa. The blacks in America, you can’t talk to them.” That was years ago, at a dinner party at my parents’ house, and I flew off the handle about it, castigated the guy for being a racist creep, and then in turn was scolded by the rest of my family for being rude to a guest. Not that the rest of my family really supported the guy; I don’t think that they were listening to him. Basically, there was just an unspoken rule that everyone else regarded him as an old, crotchety fool in these situations, and that he was to be allowed to drone on and on.
It’s an important memory in my life, so I’ll go into it a little bit more:
I told the old droner to “shut up.” Not a comment that I really premeditated at length, but it came from the heart.
And the old guy took offense, said that I was infringing on his right of free speech. He resumed the conversation with a change of subject: now he was talking not about race, but about his own personal history. Like my own family, he used to live in the Russian settlements in China that existed before the advent of Chinese communism and Chairman Mao. In retrospect, he felt that the Russian settlements had been a haven for liberties that had never existed in Russia either under Czarist or under Communist rule.
“We enjoyed free speech there,” he said, and then paused. “Unlike at this table.”
What did I learn in that conversation? I don’t want to draw a conclusion yet. Maybe not ever. Conclusions can be a wrecking ball to a story. I haven’t changed my opinion of the guy: he was a racist and a jerk, at least a lot of the time. But I also am very careful to avoid people to shut up. I become sphinx-like. I let people express their own views. Which sometimes means allowing them to give themselves enough rope to hang themselves.
The guy who was talking about his trip to Israel was a physician I sometimes work with. A little while later in the conversation someone asked him his opinions about torture. “Waterboarding’s not torture,” he said. “Waterboarding’s a walk in the park.”
There are a lot of testimonials in Palestine from the point of view of Palestinians who’ve been tortured. It’s easy to read (because it’s a comic) and hard to digest. I have a natural tendency to sympathize with the Palestinians, as with anyone who winds up the underdog. I also have a deep love for Judaic culture and history and even for a lot of the early Zionist thinkers, whose essays I studied in Bruce Thompson’s Jewish Studies course at UCSC.
Ten years ago I told a dinner guest to shut up about his racist views. He didn’t shut up, and my outrage has done little to curb racism on a global scale. My outrage about the oppression of the Palestinians is not going to make a decisive change in the course of history. There will be no Onion-like headline saying “Local man has strong opinion regarding Middle East.” Even if the situation in Israel were to resolve itself into a peaceful two-state solution by the end of 2009, it won’t mean an end to oppression and repression as a part of US history.
Read Palestine, is my recommendation. Read Palestine and come away conflicted. A state of internal conflict is a great condition for a creative mind.

A Note About the Blog

One thing I’ve learned is that writing straightforward book reviews is getting boring for me, and it’s distracting from my work as a writer. This summer I went to the Last Frontier Theater Conference in Valdez, AK. I presented a couple of my plays there, did some acting, and met a lot of incredible creative people. I thought a lot about the creative process. I discovered a couple of things about my own style and method. Improvisation seems to me an integral part of writing. A lot of my favorite books (Gravity’s Rainbow, Beautiful Losers) bear clear traces of having been improvised; other favorites of mine (Shipping News, for instance, or Mating) come off as much more polished, beautifully planned and researched books where the form seems well under control.
If there’s a grand unification theory of my own creative process, it’s that I have to overpower my own intellect in order to make good use of my own imagination. I’m at my best when there’s a level of uncertainty at play in my writing, when I’m not completely sure where I’m going, or I think I know, but there’s always the threat that the creative part of my mind is going to jump the tracks and go off in some odd direction.
I don’t think I have a lot more to contribute in the sense of traditional-style book reviews of the sort that you’d read in the New Yorker or hear from Maureen Corrigan on Fresh Air. I love this sort of review, where you get a beautiful, essential synopsis of the book and then the reviewer segues seamlessly into an op-ed about the book’s faults and merits. But I am more in love with reading itself, and with the odd and paradoxical ways in which it feeds my own creativity.
I’m not exactly sure where I’m going to go with this blog, but it’s going to veer more toward stream-of-consciousness. I’m still going to use the books I’m reading or have read as the backbone, the departure point, but the meat of the essays I write will have much more to do with my mental associations as I read the books or after I read them than it will summarizing the book and giving it a tumbs-up or thumbs-down. I’ll write with the assumption that my reader is already familiar with the book in question, or is resourceful enough to track down a summary of the book down and read it.
Basically, what I’m saying here is that I’m going to start doing something that may produce utter crap from now on, but it’s more interesting to me than what I’ve been doing. Enjoy.