3 really good new novels with unusual anti-heroes

It's tough to decide who is the hardest sell of the three heroes in this week's fiction round-up. There's a suicidal man who plans to kill himself and his dead brother's dog, a morbidly obese shut-in, and Richard Nixon. Even more difficult to believe? None of the novels are tragedies.

1. 'Watergate,' by Thomas Mallon

Once Maggie Smith finishes imperiously dictating everyone's life at “Downton Abbey,” there's another acid-tongued arbiter of taste just waiting for her: Alice Longworth, Teddy Roosevelt's daughter.

In Thomas Mallon's densely intelligent new novel, Watergate, the octogenarian Longworth owns every scene she surveys, although she’s frankly not impressed by the quality of the current crop of courtiers.

In “Watergate,” Mallon throws out “All the President’s Men,” Deep Throat, and the familiar narrative of the break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters in favor of a shifting cast on the periphery of the bugging-gone-wrong. No one – not even the reader – has the complete picture.

As one character says, “What I don't know was always more than what I did.”

It’s an impressively difficult task Mallon sets himself, and, for the most part, he succeeds.

In addition to Longworth, the point of view shifts between Rose Mary Woods, Nixon's loyal secretary; Howard Hunt, former CIA agent turned thriller writer, and his wife, Dorothy; Elliot Richardson, ambitious appointee-of-all-trades; Fred LaRue, a near-sighted, soft-spoken Mississippian who seems far too gentle for the Nixon White House but who may have murdered his father in a bird-hunting accident 15 years earlier. (Perhaps Republican politicians should stick to skeet-shooting.) Mallon is especially sympathetic to Pat Nixon, for whom he dreams up an affair with a New York philanthropist (for which there is no historical evidence). In Mallon's hands, the women generally are savvier and more pragmatic than the men.

Pulitzer Prize-winners Bob Woodward and Carol Bernstein barely rate a mention as those “two Post Metro reporters.”

For those born during the Ford administration or after, “Watergate” can seem impenetrable without a refresher course on the scandal. Mallon doesn't go in for exposition or explanations. There isn't a single, “Well, as you know, Bob,” speech catching people up on the salient facts. I never did fully understand what happened to Vice President Spiro Agnew, who apparently was taken down by ordinary graft. (On the other hand, there are genuine surprises unavailable to those who remember, for example, which player dies in a plane accident.)

Presiding over the teeming mass of secrets is Nixon, whose “thin, ever-crawling skin” and desperate craving for admiration Mallon gives an almost Shakespearean quality. Except, as Longworth, who serves as the voice of acerbic reason, says: “[Watergate] is not a tragedy. It simply does not qualify as such.”

Nixon's desire to tape-record every presidential moment both is his undoing and suggests that the former president really would have enjoyed Facebook.

The dialogue is top-notch, and “Watergate” should appeal to baby boomers for whom the crisis remains a turning point in the country's move toward cynicism. Some of the fictional elements are less successful: Mallon's hypothesis for how 18-1/2 minutes of tape disappeared is plausible, but leaves a reader shrugging, while it seems highly unlikely the “savviest woman in the world” would have left a small fortune sitting in an airport locker.

Still, at the heart of the novel, remain two central questions, which Mallon lets Nixon ask for himself: “But what could [they] really know? And when could [they] have come to know it?”

1 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.