Tobacco and Hollywood — by Ralph Nader

Tobacco and Hollywood

by Ralph Nader 

According to researchers at the University of California San Francisco
Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, smoking appears even more in Hollywood movies released with G/PG/PG-13 than in R-rated films. Altogether, 75 percent of all U.S. releases have smoking scenes.
One cartoon film now on DVD, The Ant Bully, includes 41 tobacco scenes.

Researchers have found that viewing smoking in movies makes it far more likely that children will take up the habit — controlling for all other relevant factors (such as whether parents and peers smoke).

A Long Way Gone — by Ismael Beah

Ishmael Beah Was Never Very Far Away
Dave Weich


Ishmael Beah became a soldier at age thirteen, one year after rebels attacked his village, flushing him into the forest to live on the run with a pack of other boys his age.

Dave: You write at length about Bra spider and Leleh Gombah and the ways that storytelling was a central part of your childhood. Beah: There was a strong oral tradition. Storytelling was not just entertainment. It was also a way to impart certain knowledge to the young, to impart the history of communities and cultures. And moral behavior, how to behave — all the stories had a moral underpinning or a message. This was how it was done. They told you a story and you walked around remembering.

Remembering Tomorrow, a Memoir — by Michael Albert

Remembering Tomorrow
A Memoir
Michael Albert  

In this lucid political memoir, veteran anti-capitalist activist Michael Albert offers an ardent defense of the project to transform global inequality. Albert, a uniquely visionary figure, recounts a life of uncompromising commitment to creating change one step at a time. Whether chronicling the battles against the Vietnam War, those waged on Boston campuses, or the challenges of creating living, breathing alternative social models, Albert brings a keen and unwavering sense of justice to his work, pointing the way forward for the next generation.

MICHAEL ALBERT is a leading critic on political economy, U.S.foreign policy, and the media. A veteran writer and activist, he currently works with Z Magazine and the website Znet, both of which he cofounded. Schooled in the New Left and anti-Vietnam War movements and an activist ever since, Albert primarily focuses on matters of movement building and creating alternative media. He developed, along with Robin Hahnel, the economic vision called participatory economics. A Ph.D.in economics, Albert is the author of fifteen books. He lives in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, with his wife and partner, Lydia Sargent.

 

“Michael Albert is an important thinker who takes us beyond radical denunciations and pretentious ‘analysis’ to a thoughtful, profound meditation on what a good society can be like.”
Howard Zinn

“It is to Michael Albert’s everlasting credit that he has worked tirelessly to grapple with the very difficult questions of what a truly democratic economy might look like, and how it might work. Albert’s thoughtful contribution deserves wide attention.”
Robert W. McChesney

The Daily Show and Political Activism — by Megan Boler

The Daily Show and Political Activism

by Megan Boler

The popular debate about whether Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show is “bad for Americans” won’t go away. Indeed, worries got so big that now FOX has launched a conservative antidote, “The _ Hour News Show” which premiered this week. Now streaming on YouTube, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough ran a piece featuring Daily Show clips and two pundits debating whether “therapeutic irony is rendering us politically impotent.” Similar fears were fanned last year when news media had a fiesta with a questionable study by two academics which claimed that watching The Daily Show breeds cynicism and lowers young voters’ “trust in national leaders.” In September, The New York Times Magazine ran a savvy piece called “My Satirical Self” about a generation of satire in which Wyatt Mason describes how “ridicule provides a remedy for his rage.” In 2003 in an interview with Bill Moyers, Moyers asks Jon Stewart: “I do not know whether you are practicing an old form of parody and satireor a new form of journalism. Stewart replies: “Well then that either speaks to the sad state of comedy or the sad state of news. I can’t figure out which one. I think, honestly, we’re practicing a new form of desperation (July 2003, PBS).

But Courtney Martin’s January 7 Baltimore Sun column touches on the plaguing question of satire’s role in politics: “Satire, of course, has a long and proven history as the source of bona fide social change. Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, George Orwell’s Animal Farm – all of these led to new public awareness that then led to protest, even some pragmatic reforms. Rebels distributed copies of Animal Farm, a novella satirizing totalitarianism, to displaced Soviets in Ukraine right after World War II.”

However, she laments, TDS viewers are only chatting around the water cooler.

Such claims are not only too simple, but wrong: the court jesters of our dark times translate into far more than chit-chat.

The Higher Power of Lucky — Children’s Books and Their Social Role

Prize-Winning Children’s Book 

by Andrew Gumbel 

Clearly Susan Patron, a public librarian from Los Angeles, did something right when she wrote the novel The Higher Power of Lucky because it won her this year’s Newbery Medal, America’s highest honour for children’s literature.

But she has also triggered a firestorm among conservative librarians and schoolteachers because of a certain word that appears on the book’s very first page.

The word is “scrotum” – a clear enough anatomical expression, one might think, but one that has caused untold consternation among certain cultural guardians who believe children need protection from even the mention of certain body parts.

In the Theater of the Jungle Belt — by P. Sainath

“I Killed My Husband”

In the Theater of the Jungle Belt

by P. Sainath

It was well past midnight when the farmer said he was fed up with the way things were going. He could not take it any more, he told us. A farmer’s life was not worth living. It was pretty cold by this time. Yet no one budged and you could feel the tension in the air. The play is called atma hatya (suicide) and we were part of an audience of 6,000 watching transfixed at that late hour. Theatre may be struggling to survive in the metros, but here in rural Vidharbha, [In the state of Maharashtra] it thrives. This is the season of jhadi patti rang bhoomi. Which loosely translates as “theatre of the jungle belt.”

Everybody is part of it. “We have farmers, tailors, painters and vendors in our plays,” says Ghulam Sufi of the Venkatesh natya mandali that is staging Atma Hatya. “That’s one reason why it resonates so much with ordinary people.” Mr. Sufi plays tabla for the 60-member troupe. We watched him do that – and saw him dash off in between to don make up and do a swift cameo in the play. The main carpenter of the troupe whom we had seen at work earlier also made an appearance on the rotating stage he had set up that afternoon.

Dixie Chicks Among Esteemed Outlaws

by Ashley Sayeau 

On Sunday night at the 49th annual Grammy awards, the Dixie Chicks took home five awards, including best album, record and song of the year.

It was a long road, indeed, for the Chicks, whose enormous fan base and ticket sales famously plummeted in 2003 after lead singer Natalie Maines remarked on the eve of the Iraq war that the group was “ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.” Within days, radio stations were refusing to play their music, and fans were demanding refunds. Death threats were later issued.

Throughout the ordeal, the group remained admirably unapologetic, insisting that dissent is (or at least should be) a vital liberty in America. They further maintained this position in their album Taking the Long Way (which won the Grammy for best album) and especially in the song “Not Ready To Make Nice,” in which they directly addressed their critics: “It’s too late to make it right/ I probably wouldn’t if I could/ Cause I’m mad as hell/ Can’t bring myself to do what it is/ You think I should.”

Interview with Novelist Vladimir Sorokin

Interview conducted by Martin Doerry and Matthias Schepp 

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

“Russia Is Slipping Back into an Authoritarian Empire”

Russian author Vladimir Sorokin disscusses waning freedom of opinion in his country, the lack of opposition against President Vladimir Putin and dangerous Western ambivalence that is enabling the Kremlin’s growing authoritarian tendencies to take root.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Sorokin, in your new novel “Day of the Oprichnik,” you portray an authoritarian Russia ruled by a group of members of the secret police. The story is set in the future, but this future is similar to the past under Ivan the Terrible. Aren’t you really drawing parallels to today’s Russia?

Sorokin: Of course it’s a book about the present. Unfortunately, the only way one can describe it is by using the tools of satire. We still live in a country that was established by Ivan the Terrible.

SPIEGEL: His reign was in the 16th century. The czardom was followed by the Soviet Union, then democracy under (former President Boris) Yeltsin and (current President Vladimir) Putin. Has Russia not yet completed its break with the past?

Sorokin: Nothing has changed when it comes to the divide between the people and the state. The state demands a sacred willingness to make sacrifices from the people.  

SPIEGEL: Why did you suddenly feel the need to write this book?

Sorokin: The citizen lives in each of us. In the days of Brezhnev, Andropov, Gorbachev and Yeltsin, I was constantly trying to suppress the responsible citizen in me. I told myself that I was, after all, an artist. As a storyteller I was influenced by the Moscow underground, where it was common to be apolitical. This was one of our favorite anecdotes: As German troops marched into Paris, Picasso sat there and drew an apple. That was our attitude — you must sit there and draw your apple, no matter what happens around you. I held fast to that principle until I was 50. Now the citizen in me has come to life.

Orwell, Tim Robbins, 1984 as a Play Today

Tim Robbins and S.F. Mime Troupe director uncover ‘echoes of our current situation’ in Orwell’s classic

by Andrew Gilbert

For Tim Robbins, the actor, director and playwright known for his politically charged work, the relevance of a theatrical production based on Orwell’s devastating dystopian tale about the mechanics and methodology of totalitarianism was as apparent as the morning headlines.

“Beyond the obvious idea of torture and monitoring civilians, I was floored when I reread the ‘War Is Peace’ chapter,” said Robbins, speaking by phone from the Manhattan home he shares with Susan Sarandon and their three school-age boys. “It’s the book within the book, and it talks about what war represents within Oceania and why it’s necessary, and you’ll see echoes of our current situation. If you want a quick view into what inspired me to do this play, look at just that chapter.”

Richard Wright

Brief Bio of Richard Wright 

Wright was named in the late 1930s to the literature editorial board of New Masses, and was denounced by the House Special Committee on Un-American Activities investigating the Federal Writers’ Project. In 1940 Wright’s Native Son became an instant best-seller. In some bookstores stock was sold out within hours; the novel sold 215,000 copies in the first three weeks.

In 1949 Wright joined George Plimpton and others in founding the Paris Review. He acted in the film based on the novel Native Son – the American release was not successful and the film was banned in several cities. Wright’s existentialist novel THE OUTSIDER (1952), depicting a black intellectual’s search for identity, received mixed reviews. It was praised mostly in Europe. In Paris Wright was not treated like in the American South, but he gradually lost touch with his inspiration, or “the rhythms of his life”.

During his years in France, Wright spent much of his time supporting nationalist movements in Africa. In 1953 he travelled in Africa, gathering material for BLACK POWER (1954), and witnessing the rise of the Pan-African movement. Among his other works in the 1950s were SAVAGE HOLIDAY (1954), about a white man caught in a web of violence, THE COLOR CURTAIN (1956), about Asia, PAGAN SPAIN (1957), a travel book of a Catholic country full of contradictions, and WHITE MAN, LISTEN! (1958), a collection of lectures on racial injustice. Wright’s last short story, ‘Big Black Good Man’, which originally was published in Esquire and was collected in EIGHT MEN (1961), was set in Copenhangen and dealt with prejudices. THE LONG DREAM (1958), a novel set in Mississippi, had a poor reception. Its sequel, Island of Hallucination, set in Paris, was not published. “Everything in the book happened, but I’ve twisted characters so that people won’t recognise them,” said Wright to his agent. AMERICAN HUNGER, a sequel to Black Boy, appeared in 1977.

Wright distanced in the last years of his life from his associates. He suffered from poor health and financial difficulties and grew suspicious about the activities of CIA in Paris – in which he was right. Wright’s plans to move to London were rejected by the British officials. In 1959 he began composing haiku, producing almost four thousand of them. Wright died nearly penniless at the age of fifty-two in Paris, on November 28, 1960. At his request, his body was cremated and his ashes mixed with the ashes of a copy of Black Boy. Wright’s daughter Julia has claimed that his father was murdered. Upon his death, Wright left behind an unfinished book on French West Africa. His travel writings, edited by Virginia Whatley Smith, appeared in 2001.

Blood Diamond, Hollywood and Sierre Leone, by Lansana Gberie

Blood Diamond, Hollywood and Sierre Leone, by Lansana Gberie

For brief, fleeting moments almost every decade now, the rich world tends to embrace Africa – a continent badly wracked by poverty, wars and related crises – as pet project. Africa as the object of the fantasies of the West is an old pathology, and it is not limited to the entertainment industry – though
Hollywood has represented its most crude and egregious form in recent decades. Stalked by the disaster of Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair (who, to be fair, cannot by any means be accused of prior indifference to Africa) embraced the old continent with renewed vigour, in 2005 producing “Our Common Interest,” a sprawling, well-meaning document which sets out detailed plans for wiping out African poverty and related crises. Less than two years later, the document is all but forgotten.
 Africa, however, has not been, at least by
Hollywood. By the end of 2006, Africa became “suddenly hot” to the entertainment industry, to use the appropriately frivolous words of the New York Times. Before the end of the year, the continent somehow managed to attract the interest of big name stars – and therefore big media – beginning with Bono, then Clay Aiken, Jessica Simpson, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, George Clooney and a few others. Even Madonna, not usually associated with high-mindedness, was “suddenly casting an ice-blue eye toward Africa” (this is from the New York Times), that year famously adopting a child from Malawi. Ed Zwick and Leonardo di Caprio and Jennifer Connelly took the pathology a step higher (or lower), coming from nowhere and seeming to adopt a whole country, Sierra Leone. Their ‘Blood Diamond’, a film that purports to recreate the horrors that befell Sierra Leone mainly in 1990s, came out just before Christmas. The producers of this film, which makes the word narcissism inadequate, claims that the intention is to save Sierra Leone (and countries like it) from the predatory degradation of diamond hunters and their wretched native allies who pressgang children into their militia and commit unspeakable atrocities.
 

There was a time, a few years back, when films like ‘Blood Diamond’ would have been most welcome, not least by the long-suffering people of Sierra Leone….

Literary Criticism — T. S. Eliot’s view, by way of the views of Bernard Smith

BERNARD SMITH, FORCES IN AMERICAN CRITICISM (1939) —

“There was one critic who apparently possessed all the virtues—fine taste, poetic sensitiveness, intellectuality, an experimental inclination. His literary scholarship was beyond dispute, his writing deft and memorable. He was, moreover, a poet of the first rank, which gave his criticism of the art an extraordinary authority. He was universally respected: by Pound, by the later expatriates, by the impressionists of the Dial, by the Hound and Horn group. This critic was T. S. Eliot. His volume of essays, The Sacred Wood, published in 1920, is still considered to be one of the truly distinguished works of esthetic criticism produced in this century…. The reader will note that he is here described in the past tense. His works are many now, but The Sacred Wood alone is a consideration of esthetic problems. In the rest the emphasis is on the esthetic effects of moral and social beliefs. His development is one of the ‘consequences’ touched upon in the following chapter….  (358-359).

“[T.S. Eliot wrote,] ‘There are two and only two finally tenable hypotheses about life: the Catholic and the materialistic [i.e., Marxist]. It is quite possible, of course, that the future may bring neither a Christian nor a materialistic civilization. It is quite possible that the future may be nothing but chaos or torpor. In that event, I am not interested in the future; I am only interested in the two alternatives which seem to me worthier of interest….’

“Eliot chose not only the Catholic hypothesis, but also its political corollaries. His literary opinions were thus given a firm philosophical base to rest upon, and from that fact he drew the reasonable conclusions…[that] ‘Literary criticism should be completed by criticism from a definite ethical and theological standpoint. In so far as in any age there is common agreement on ethical and theological matters, so far can literary criticism be substantive. In ages like our own, in which there is no such common agreement, it is then more necessary for Christian readers to scrutinize their reading, especially of works of imagination, with explicit ethical and theological standards. The ‘greatness’ of literature cannot be determined solely by literary standards; though we must remember that whether it is literature or not can be determined only by literary standards.’

“To this has esthetic criticism at last come—to a realization that non-esthetic criteria are the ultimate tests of value. Whether they be called philosophical, moral, or social criteria, they are still the ideas that men have about the way human beings live together and the way they ought to live. The quest of beauty had become the quest of reality. It had become, in essence, literary criticism as socially conscious and as polemical as the criticism of the Marxists….

“Eliot spoke of alternatives, not of choices…. He believes that one of the alternatives has greater value, is nobler, is in a sense more real, than the other. The question is therefore not simply one of personal taste. It is a question of evidence and reason. But the alternative he favors admits of no evidence and derogates from reason. His philosophy is, in the last analysis, wholly mystical. It is not capable of being tested and verified and improved. The alternative he rejects is, on the other hand, the one that is favored by those who are determined to be as scientific as one can be in a non-physical field.

“The literary criticism of the neo-classicists is a criticism composed of obiter dicta inspired by intangible emotions. The literary criticism of the materialists stands or falls by the findings of the social scientists, psychologists, and historians. Eliot’s alternative involves a revulsion against democracy; the materialists are partisans of democracy. The literary criticism of his school tends to create a literature that will express the sensibilities and experiences of a few fortunate men. The criticism of the opposing school tends to create a literature that will express the ideals and sympathies of those who look forward to the conquest of poverty, ignorance, and inequality—to the material and intellectual elevation of the mass of mankind….” (384-387).

“To whom does the future belong? In January 1939 Eliot announced that the Criterion, the literary journal he had edited since 1922, would no longer be published. His Europe had crumbled; the culture in which he had put his faith was dying. The Criterion had served its purpose. Eliot had arrived at a mood of detachment. There was nothing he could hopefully fight for now. But those who believe in scientific methods, in realism, in social equality and democracy, are hopeful and are fighting.”

MORE, RELATED, FROM BERNARD SMITH, FORCES IN AMERICAN CRITICISM (1939) —

“Socialist criticism in America may conveniently be dated from the founding of the Comrade—‘An Illustrated Socialist Monthly’—in 1901…. The Comrade appeared at the beginning of the muckrake era. It was superior to the muckrakers in the clarity of its vision as to the basic cause of social evils and the way to cure them….

“The aims of socialist critics were propagandistic, and it was inevitable that they should be paramount in a time when American critical systems were divided between art for art’s sake, art for morality’s sake, and various compromises between those two exhausted theories of esthetic purpose.1 Consider the essays and lectures on the contemporary theatre by the anarchist Emma Goldman. Miss Goldman made no bones about her intentions. Her essay on ‘The Modern Drama’ in Anarchism and Other Essays (1911) was frankly a salute to its subject as an instrument for the dissemination of radical thought.”

(1”’propaganda’ is not used here as an invidious term. It is used to describe works consciously written to have an immediate and direct effect upon their readers’ opinions and actions, as distinguished from works that are not consciously written for that purpose or which are written to have a remote and indirect effect. It is possible that conventional critics have learned by now that to call a literary work ‘propaganda’ is to say nothing about its quality as literature. By now enough critics have pointed out that some of the world’s classics were originally ‘propaganda’ for something”) (289-292).

“The socialist’s affinity with realism was stated forcefully in the leading editorial of the Masses in February 1911—the second issue of a magazine…which was a successor, on a more mature and ‘politicalized’ level, to the Comrade. It said: ‘It is natural that Socialists should favor the novel with a purpose, more especially, the novel that points a Socialist moral. As a reaction against the great bulk of vapid, meaningless, too-clever American fiction, with its artificial plots and characters remote from actual life, such an attitude is a healthy sign …’”(289-290).

“Its militancy is the most obvious characteristic of American criticism since the war. In the whole of nineteenth century there was only one critic, Poe, who was deliberately and consistently disputatious. No one else made polemics the basis of a critical method. Whitman was a maverick, but he was exclamatory rather than argumentative. Now, however, it is customary for critics to be bellicose, and there are few who have let politeness stand in the way of controversy. The reason is not hard to find. Criticism in our time has been largely a war of traditions—a struggle between irreconcilable ideologies…” (302).

“The academy was growing up. It was beginning to share the emotions of serious adults who were trying to adjust themselves to an America become rich and imperialistic. In its own special field, literary history, it was beginning to achieve mature and realistic interpretations. In 1927 it came of age: V. L. Parrington, professor of English at the University of Washington, published the two completed volumes of his Main Currents in American Thought. With that work the academy was at last brought face to face with the ideas, sentiments, and historical methods of today….

“Parrington’s Main Currents arrived to supply the most needed things: an account of our literary history which squared with recent works on the history of our people and a realistic technique for analyzing the relationship of a writer to his time and place—in addition to a militantly progressive spirit. Professorial and literary circles had consciously been waiting for such a work, and if the one that did come forth was far more radical than some people cared for, it simply could not be rejected. The author was a professor too; his scholarship defied scrutiny; and his ideas were couched in terms that were native American, most of them having come over shortly after the Mayflower. One must emphasize Parrington’s radicalism because it is probably the most significant aspect of his work. He sharpened, gave point to the economic interpretation of literary movements because of his desire to reveal the motivating interests and real direction of specific works of literature…” (330-331).

ALSO SEE, UPTON SINCLAIR’S STUDIED VIEWS ON LITERATURE — MAMMONART (1924) — andBooks on Trial by Burial for other neglected progressive literary landmarks.

___________________

See also:

Cover for 'Fiction Gutted: The Establishment and the Novel'

by  Tony Christini

 

Arundhati Roy returns to fiction writing after 10 years

Arundhati Roy returns to fiction writing after 10 years

“I am very conscious that, from the time of The God of Small Things was published 10 years ago, we are in a different world … which needs to be written about differently, and I really very much want to do that,” she explained.

“Just as resistance movements need to reinvent themselves, to shed their tired, old slogans, we all need to find new ways of doing what we’ve been doing. And that includes me.”

More reports here and here, and some commentary here.

Fictive TV Torture Leading to Real Torture in Iraq, and Vice Versa

 [Human Rights] Group: TV torture [by Americans] influencing real life

by David Bauder

The advocacy group Human Rights First says there’s been a startling increase in the number of [American] torture scenes depicted on prime-time television in the post-2001 world.

Even more chilling, there are indications that real-life American interrogators in Iraq are taking cues from what they see on television, said Jill Savitt, the group’s director of public programs….

A former U.S. Army specialist who questioned prisoners in Baghdad’s infamous Abu Ghraib prison and several other facilities around Iraq…said he saw instances of mock executions like that in [the TV drama] “24.” Once, some fellow interrogators asked an Iraqi translator to pretend he was being tortured to strike fear in a prisoner, after they had just watched a similar scene on a DVD….

Prior to 2001, the few torture scenes on prime-time TV usually had the shows’ villains as the instigators, Savitt said. [Now torture on TV is used by the shows’ American “heroes”.]  In both 1996 and 1997, there were no prime-time TV scenes containing torture, according to the Parents Television Council, which keeps a programming database. In 2003, there were 228 such scenes, the PTC said. The count was over 100 in both 2004 and 2005.

They found examples on “Alias,” “The Wire,” “Law & Order,” “The Shield” — even “Star Trek: Voyager.”

There’s been a surge in general in the level of violence tolerated in prime time.

…Herrington said he’s concerned that much of what’s on TV is misleading.

Television interrogation frequently works to a ticking clock: someone needs to find out the location of a bomb from a prisoner within the hour or it will explode. That’s so rare in real life that it’s essentially mythology, he said….

The Deserter’s Tale — by Joshua Key

The Deserter’s Tale: The Story of an Ordinary Soldier Who Walked Away from the War in Iraq 

By Joshua Key

As told to Lawrence Hill

Review by Michael Vernon

from the Globe and Mail

When he signed on as a combat engineer in 2002, Joshua Key claims he was misled by his quota-conscious recruiter, told he would almost certainly never have to serve overseas. One thing he did understand, however, was the U.S. army’s dim view of desertion: “I saw a poster on a wall that read: ‘Desertion in the time of war means death by a firing squad.’ ”

Key’s memoir is an attempt to justify why he deserted midway through his combat tour in Iraq, in a war he says is unjust.

He’s not alone. An estimated 8,000 members of the U.S. military have deserted since the Iraq War began in 2003. According to the War Resisters Support Campaign in Toronto, as many as 250 have come to Canada. To date, no one has been deported, though several refugee claims, including Key’s, have been rejected.

Key describes himself as a member of the so-called “poverty draft”: poor, ignorant Americans, drawn to the military by its promises of money, education and security as an antidote to a life of continued desperation.

Key’s upbringing in an Oklahoma trailer park is a white-trash cliché: absent father, abusive stepfather, plenty of booze and guns. Shortly after high school, Key marries his sweetheart, they quickly produce three children, and struggle to hold their dead-end life together. The military offers them a way out.

Elements of his army training are straight out of Stanley Kubrick’s film Full Metal Jacket. Twice, on orders from a drill sergeant, Key leads his peers in midnight raids to beat another recruit who is falling behind in the training: “My buddies and I threw a blanket over his head and beat his chest and ribs with a sock stuffed with soap. I whacked him hard while he cried out in pain.”

At first, the military gives Key stability and a sense of identity: “I must say that I loved boot camp. . . . I was no longer wondering how I could possibly put enough food on the table for Brandi and the boys. I was now an American soldier, and proud to think of myself as a perfect killing machine. I felt patriotic and invincible.”

Six months in Iraq changed that.

In places such as Ramadi and Fallujah, Key places the explosives that blow in the doors of Iraqis’ homes. He and his fellow soldiers search and intimidate the civilians inside. At first, Key enthusiastically bullies and thieves, confiscating and keeping any money he finds.

Over time, however, he begins to question the utility of these operations. In 200 raids, he says his squad never found anything they could link to terrorism. They only succeeded in inciting hatred: “A sick realization lodged like a cancer in my gut. It grew and festered, and troubled me more with every passing day. We, the Americans, had become the terrorists in Iraq.”

Key recalls several incidents involving the abuse and killing of civilians. He experiences a moral epiphany when he sees American soldiers kick around the decapitated heads of four Iraqis “in a twisted game of soccer.” He’s not sure who else sees this and he never reports it. In most of the cases he relates, he says soldiers acted with impunity. Their officers failed to punish those involved. It’s impossible to confirm the veracity of Key’s accounts here. At the same time, Canadians reading this might be grateful that their own soldiers are not mired in Iraq. Judging from what Canadian soldiers have told me about their experiences overseas, Afghanistan is — for now, at least — far different.

After more than six months in Iraq, Key returns home to his family for two weeks of much-needed leave. When his return flight to Iraq is delayed, he acts on impulse and goes into hiding in Philadelphia, before eventually driving north to Canada with his wife and four children.

The writing style is stark and compelling. There are no stylistic flourishes here as there are in Anthony Swofford’s Gulf War memoir, Jarhead, or Evan Wright’s account of the invasion of Iraq, Generation Kill. Judging by what I’ve read of Lawrence Hill’s new novel, The Book of Negroes, I suspect he restrained himself when it came to assisting Key with his prose, in order to preserve the authentic voice of an ordinary soldier.

What’s most engaging about this book is its essential honesty. Key takes pains to recount incidents from his childhood and his military service that lay out his own shortcomings; as if to say, I’m telling you all this about myself so that you’ll believe what I say about Iraq. It caused me to reassess my notions of duty.

Even though Key was a soldier who voluntarily assumed the obligations of service, one can sympathize with his moral quandary. Soldiers don’t get to choose where they are sent, or how they are employed, but that doesn’t immunize them against a roiling conscience. Choosing to disobey orders takes guts. So does living underground with your family, enduring poverty and paranoia for the sake of your principles.

At the same time, as someone who’s been a professional soldier, I wonder how the men in Key’s squad felt when he failed to return from the United States, leaving them to continue the dirty work of counter-insurgency. And what do they think of the fact that for two months he carried a useless M249 machine gun because he couldn’t be bothered to have it repaired, jeopardizing their lives in a war zone?

The Deserter’s Tale ought to be required reading for soldiers heading overseas, to prepare them for the stresses and dilemmas they are likely to face.