Checkmate

I had some time to kill yesterday afternoon and found myself at Chapters browsing books. Lo and behold, sitting in the “New Books” stack what is no doubt the most talked-about novel right now: Nicholson Baker’s CHECKPOINT. About an hour later I finished reading the work (which, at 113 pages, barely qualifies as a novel page-wise) and the first thought that came to mind is echoed in the famous song Peggy Lee sang in the late 60s: is that all there is?

The basic premise is now infamous: two friends, Jay and Ben, meet up in a Washington hotel room where they catch up, have room service, and talk about their lives. But this is no mere “My Dinner with Andre” setup, because Jay drops his bombshell early on: he wants to assassinate the sitting president, and explains that he has to do it because killing the President would make up for the “abortion” that is the War on Iraq and the many thousands who have died as a result. Ben, naturally, tries to talk Jay out of it. They go round in circles; eventually there is a climax of sorts, but at the end, things are basically where they began.

Baker appears to be maximizing the shock value effect; certainly, making the planned assassination of a real-life figure as CHECKPOINT’s focus is an attention-getting device. But the presentation of what is essentially a straw man is superficial at best. Jay wants to kill George Bush and even explains his rationale, but I could never get that excited about it; something left me curiously flat. Granted, CHECKPOINT will never convince one side to switch over to another. It’s too brief, too surface, and too narrow in scope. But the arguments as put forth by Jay could have had some depth; more importantly, illuminated Jay as a real person, or as a three dimensional character. For all of his so-called revelations about his political views or even his family life, I never felt that he developed as a character, that his conversation with Ben actually impacted him in any way.

Ben is even less successful as a character. Perhaps it’s my own fault in that I was expecting more conflict in CHECKPOINT than what actually transpired. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop: perhaps it would turn out that Ben had an underlying agenda for hearing Jay out; perhaps Ben, in a twist, reveals that he is actually going to kill the president and that his plans were far further along than Jay’s. But no, he was just there as a mere foil, simply to react in a passive manner. He didn’t change much by the end of the book, either.

Baker’s premise—if not what he actually set out to do, but what I took to be such—is an interesting one, that the desire to assassinate a president can be borne out of intellectual objections and moral outrage. But I don’t think it was explored nearly as well as it could, nay, should have been. Perhaps someone who has less incentive to shock (or better, more time to craft a work and create believable characters, a solid plot, and add much-needed nuances) would fare more successfully in the matter. As others have pointed out, CHECKPOINT is so unabashedly current that it’s going to seem out of date in December, let alone next year (when, presumably, a paperback edition appears on the market) or many years from now.

When I first heard about CHECKPOINT and the book’s structure, I wondered if it might have been better suited as a play, with appropriate stage directions and a limited run. Perhaps it may be the case in the future. But if so, the book would have to be substantially altered for all the reasons I’ve pointed out already—the inherent lack of conflict. The stakes have to be raised, and the characters must be developed so that they truly play off each other. As it stands, CHECKPOINT would be a rather lackluster day at the theater. And so, even though it’s not a play, viewing it as such brings home the book’s failings even more.

And yet, perhaps Baker has succeeded anyway, because CHECKPOINT is such a hot topic of conversation at the moment, whether it’s for the right reasons or not. Even though I predict that six months from now people will be scratching their heads over why this book created such a fuss, so be it. But it seems kind of a shame to produce something so thin when even a tiny dose of nuance or development would have made the book something of potential importance.

Comments

[Kevin Wignall]

Sarah, I haven't read this but it is potentially an interesting premise. The real question is, does he tackle any of the bigger issues that would make this book interesting in the long term? Does he discuss whether political violence is ever justifiable in a democracy? Does Ben ask Jay if he realizes that his act will be pointless in political terms? After all, it could be argued that the assassination of JFK actually set in stone some of his policy initiatives, from Vietnam to the Lunar Program. I'm also intrigued - considering this is such fertile ground, are there any other books you can think of that have tackled the same theme (only better)?

[Ron]

Ben does point out that if Jay kills Bush it would only put Dick Cheney in power, but that road doesn't get traveled very far; Jay just says, roughly, that he has to do *something* and it would worth it to kill Bush.

[Bryon]

Kevin--

This issues and questions you raise are handled much better and in more depth in the musical "Assassins." Every notable presidential assassin in the last 200 years has a fully developed back story and the reasons for what they did are explored in memorable and stimulating ways. And it's damn funny in spots.

[Kevin Wignall]

Thanks Bryon, I've never heard of it but will check it out - it sounds astonishing. And, Ron, I thought Dick Cheney was already in power! Please reassure the rest of the Western world that Bush isn't really in charge.

[ManhattanTransfer]

Great points, Sarah. Let me add that I think this is what is so off base about the reaction against the politicalized reviews in Slate and the New York Times Book Review. The purity of the topicality of the novel invites such reviews. In fact, it seems to require them because there's not much else in the book except political and moral argument.

Also, I'm totally jealous that you've come up with a clever play that would totally be way better than Baker's book or the remake of the Manchurian Candidate. Do you think we can get it on stage before the November election?

[Rebecca]

Ummm...hate to sound like an English teacher, Kevin, but doesn't Julius Caesar have a rather memorable (or at any rate much quoted) soliloquoy on this topic?

"It must be by his death./
And for my part I have no cause to spurn him but the general...."

At any rate, I sure as hell taught the play that way to my tenth graders last year. As to reassuring the rest of the Western world (and non-Western for that matter), you'll get no such reassurance from me! I've spent the last few weeks in Paris trying to read Arpaia's "The Last Frontier" with the sneaking feeling that I empathized with Walter Benjamin's buddies in exile. My message to world about the land that I love and call home is...SAVE US! SAVE US NOW!

Cheers.

[Kevin Wignall]

Rebecca, good call, and I did think of Julius Caesar just after posting, but I wonder why it hasn't been much tackled since.
And take heart. The USA is greater than the Presidency, and the Presidency is greater than any of the individuals who occupy that office.

[Aldo]

Sarah, I read this while my dad was in the hospital and I was not impressed. Like you, I was waiting for something else to happen and I was left scratching my head. Some of the exchanges were good but for the most part and I couldn't understand what all the buzz was about.