Felling sorry for the plutocrats

We know how Mike Jones of Oklahoma City feels about the rich. Back in February, the Oklahoman ran a letter of Mr Jones' where he ineloquently went on about the virtues of capitalism and of "Sam Seller" while decrying how liberals are ruining everything. Well, a few months have gone by, and it seems that Mr Jones must have felt that it was time to dust off the old quill and shoot off another letter.

He writes:

In “The Wizard of Oz,” Miss Gulch is the richest person in town, and she's also the meanest. She even reappears as the Wicked Witch of the West. In “It's a Wonderful Life,” Mr. Potter is the richest man in town and is also the most mean-spirited and unethical. In “Shane,” Rufus Ryker is the richest man in the territory and uses terrorism and murder to drive the farmers off their land.
In “To Kill a Mockingbird,” every member of an all-white jury ignores the evidence and assumes the defendant is guilty because he's black. In “Blazing Saddles,” the railroad owners, through their foremen, treat blacks as subhumans whose lives are worth less than a hand cart. In John Grisham's “The Client,” J. Roy Foltrigg is an arrogant, unethical, power-hungry attorney who's called “Reverend Roy” because of his holier-than-thou posturing in front of juries. Early in the novel, Grisham makes sure you know that Foltrigg is a Republican.

This letter is titled "Americans subjected to misleading propaganda" so we know where this is going. Still, it's pretty pathetic. I mean, Shane? I guess Mr Jones is appealing to the AARP crowd, since no one under sixty-five has seen some 50's western starring Alan Ladd.

More to the point, though, Mr Jones seems to miss the point of these books and movies. In most good popular fiction, you need a strong antagonist. This role is generally best filled by a character that has power, and a lack of good morals. That way, the antagonist can create tension by causing great harm to the protagonists. Usually, at the end of the novel, the protagonist has found a way to defeat the antagonist (often by exploiting the antagonists own moral failings) and wins the day.

Given the above, an obvious choice for a villain is exactly the sort of characters that Mr Jones describes. Having wealth makes a villain powerful. Being greedy is a great plot device-- why is Rufus Ryker trying to drive farmers off their land? Because he wants their land! It's hard to imagine how someone could make an antagonist out of a philanthropist billionaire. 

Moreover, it is often difficult to create a protagonist out of a philanthropist billionaire. After all, there's little tension of the good guy has a great amount of power and wealth. (Though, they exist-- from comic books, iconic characters like Bruce Wayne's Batman, Tony Stark's Iron Man, and Oliver Queen's Green Arrow all fit that mold.) In a similar way, it is often difficult to have an antagonist that's lacking in any sort of power and who has high morals; if you're a poor working class stiff who still helps Mrs. Williams up in 3A with her groceries every week, you probably aren't going to be a compelling bad guy.

In the end, what Mr Jones really thinks is that more novels should read like Atlas Shrugged-- generally regarded as one of the worst novels, ever. Granted, much of the scorn held for Shrugged is how poorly written it is, and how heavy-handed the message (greed is good; wealth is good; poor people suck) is. And that's a point Mr Jones misses as well. Most of the books and films he lists aren't propaganda in any sense of the word. They are works of fiction written to tell a compelling story-- not to shill for some political agenda. 

Obviously To Kill a Mockingbird does address more serious issues about society at the time-- but that's what art often does. I mean, is Mr Jones really suggesting that a novel written in 1960 (with a "plot and characters ... loosely based on the author's observations of her family and neighbors ... , [and] an event that occurred near her hometown in 1936, when she was 10 years old") about race and the legal system a bad thing?!?!? That it's really propaganda?!?

Anyhow, back to Jones' letter. Particularly lame are his closing comments:

I watched a History Channel one-hour "documentary" which chronicled the history of labor unions in America. Not once was anything good said about business owners or managers. Not once was anything bad said about union bosses or union members. At the end, a few seconds were devoted to the story of a business owner who paid his workers severance pay even though he didn't have to. Thus the producer could claim "balance."

From childhood, Americans are subjected to this misleading propaganda. This is how incompetent Democrats get elected.

 First off, it's the History Channel. They have shows about ancient aliens. Obviously, there is a profit motive involved, and they are going to be as sensationalistic as possible. (If only there were some sort of non-profit television network...) But more to the point, uh, it's a documentary about labor unions. Labor unions formed because labor practices used to be pretty shitty. Indeed, Mr Jones' whining about how "not once was anything good said about business owners" kind of misses the point.

And then, what the fuck is that "this is now incompetent Democrats get elected" bit about?? It is almost unbelievable that any real newspaper would run a letter arguing that poor political leadership has come from the messages of John Grisham novels and 50's westerns. But the Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper, and people like Mike Jones-- grizzled, bigoted, old men-- are exactly the kind of people the paper caters to, and hence utterly stupid opinions like his are printed.