Between Literary Influence and Policy Reform,
I Know Which I'd Take

Ben Yagoda tells Slate readers The 9/11 Commission Report is a model of good writing, placing it in a lineage that extends from Hiroshima to Black Hawk Down. He quotes comission vice chairman Lee Hamilton on why the prose came out so lean: "Democrats pushed for adjectives to support President Clinton while Republicans pushed for adjectives to support President Bush. It was such a minefield that we finally cut out all adjectives and ended up with a sparse, narrative style." But while he considers it a model, Yagoda's not sure it's a model anyone will follow:

There's little chance that The 9/11 Commission Report will lead to an immediate spate of copycat broad-canvas narratives: Writing them is just too hard. To write a competent book in this form requires large amounts of research and ability. To write a first-rate one requires a massive, mortgage-your-house-and-live-on-ramen-noodles commitment, and, usually, the better part of a decade. The object lesson here is Jonathan Harr, who from press reports seems to have mortgaged his whole life to write A Civil Action. He has not produced a follow-up, possibly because he was so traumatized by the experience.

Actually, the object lesson might be an author Yagoda overlooks completely in his remarks: J. Anthony Lukas, who struggled with depression throughout his career and ultimately committed suicide before the publication of his last great book, Big Trouble. I mean, how many authors have done so much for narrative nonfiction that they get a prize named after them? (UPDATE: The article's conclusion seems to take on heavier significance after the news reports concerning the suicide of Iris Chang, the author of the critically acclaimed The Rape of Nanking whose current project examined the lives of American prisoners of war in the Pacific during the Second World War.)