“…an interesting book and a quick read.”

I do try to keep politics out of my musing (as I do religion, FSM notwithstanding). There are plenty of sites/blogs where others ponder such issues ad nauseum. We have recently had, however, a wonderfully strange bibliophilic event the nuances of which I cannot keep myself from poking with a sharp stick: Does anyone really think that Bush actually *read* Camus’, The Stranger? Admittedly, I am generally cynical about such things, but I would be willing to wager a great deal that The Stranger’s inclusion was the “Vacation Reading List” equivalent of the vast majority of Joyce’s, Ulysses on countless shelves…it looks (intellectually) good, it *should* have been read and one is unlikely to be challenged on its nuances as few others have actually read it either (and/or remember it from high school).

So we are asked to believe that Bush, an avowed and proud anti-intellectual, took The Stranger on vacation with him…I’d almost accept it were it The Plague, but The Stranger?!? Then I got thinking about the plot a bit more, in summary:

1: The main character fights with Arabs
2: The main character engages in a pre-emptive/retaliatory strike with significantly excessive use of force [and goes to jail (N/A)]
3: A media circus trial with the world watching
4: The main character’s character is the focus of the trial and he is betrayed by an intimate friend
5: The main character is exposed during the trial as an Apathetic Monster
6: The main character is convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to death (N/A)
7: The main character is left in prison to ponder his life and actions (N/A)
8: Determines there is no god (N/A)
9: Comes to Consciousness (N/A)
10. Goes to his execution hoping his death is cheered (N/A)
[N.B. this summary loosely based on an emailed post]

Suddenly it sort of makes sense…except, of course, for the reflection and exploration of self, actions and the world. Maureen Dowd wrote a wonderful op-ed bit about it and John Stewart did what he does better than any other (click the image above, as it were).

My firmly held belief that he did not read the book, notwithstanding, there is a legitimate question as to the value of feigning reading lists and/or hiding the books really read. Should the president pretend to read titles of significance to show a questing intellect and the like? I am the first to admit that when I am on vacation (or…well…anytime I like), I tend to read escapish pabulum. Certainly I read the occasional bit of non-fiction and/or classic lit…but mostly I read the likes of Christopher Moore, Jasper Fforde, Carl Hiaasen and even (with an embarrassed glance aside), Clive Cussler. When one has “the hardest job in the world”, the occasional intellectual respite is, I think, richly deserved. Then again, when one’s entire persona is built about anti-intellectualism, perhaps the occasional feigned intellectual delving is the proper course. All I know is that I’d have paid a great deal to have listened into the discussion between Bush and Snow on existentialism…there is no “whole”, there is but a “hole”. A new mantra for the administration.