Share This Review
John, a typical American man, is having his morning coffee and reading the newspaper. The headline is about the beheading of journalist James Foley. The story follows the thoughts of John (who is only named in the first sentence) as his mind flits back and forth between the topic of James Foley, and the topic of the new couch that he (John) has just bought.
It’s difficult to review this story without spoilers, because so little happens in it. It is simply a record of John’s thoughts. I half-expected a twist at the end (some improbable, but shocking, connection between John and the journalist, perhaps?), but there was none. The point of the story is John’s shallowness. Though reading of a shocking thing happening against the background of a sweeping, region-wide string of tragedies, John is still just as bothered by his burgeoning buyer’s remorse over the couch on which he is sitting. Thoughts of the couch get equal time, and equal passion, with thoughts of James Foley, “the government,” and Syria. Also, John is a lot better informed about the couch.
I have two reactions to this story.
One, it’s a satire meant to portray Americans in general as wealthy, shallow, self-centered, and clueless about international affairs. For example, we are told that “[John] couldn’t afford changing couches every week” – perhaps implying that he could replace his couch once a year (hence, wealthy and spoiled). John doesn’t understand how Foley could be a freelance journalist and yet be working for GlobalPost and Agence France-Presse. He doesn’t know much about Syria’s civil war, refugee problem, or the “terrorists there and in Iraq.” “What was the connection? What was the chronology? What were the catalysts?” Furthermore, he does not want to know. “He couldn’t fathom why [journalists] went to such places in the first place. Weren’t there [sic] enough news around here? He, for one, didn’t want to know what was happening in Syria, or Iraq, or Iran, or Russia for that matter.” But, he has confidence that his government is “the most powerful government in the world. They had Navy SEALS that had killed Osama Bin Laden …”
My second reaction is that this is a very well-done, realistic portrayal of the way people’s minds work. Our thoughts really do ramble back and forth between the earthshaking and the mundane, in much the same way that is shown in the story. The writing is good enough to give you a feel for that. In that way, it reminds me of the novels of Kate Atkinson and Alexander McCall Smith, the way the flow of the story moves freely back and forth in time and through topics, with the character’s mind as the medium in which it moves. Also, the way the character's thoughts (whether or not he is aware of it) are just as entertaining as the actual action in the story. I really enjoyed this aspect of the story. It’s a difficult feat to pull off, and for this alone Broken News is worth reading.
The effect is somewhat marred by the author’s mistakes with American English. For example, Americans call it the air conditioning, not “the cooling.” And there are occasional word-order choices, such as, “Again the same it felt,” which a native speaker would never make. Little mistakes like this disrupt the verisimilitude that the author is going for in following an American character’s thoughts.
Nevertheless, the portrayal is realistic enough to be disturbing. If this is indeed a satire of Americans, it gets its bite from that realism.
On the other hand, it could be a satire of human beings in general.
Since this story is so short, there is no excuse not to read it. It will take only a few minutes of your time, but it may make you think. Read it, discuss it with your friends, argue about it in coffeehouses. It is that kind of story. However, because of the mismatch between the language and the character, I can only give it three out of four stars.
***
Buy "Broken News : A Short Story" on Amazon
Buy "Broken News : A Short Story" on Barnes and Noble
