William L. DeAndrea (1952–1996)

review of
William L. DeAndrea's The Lunatic Fringe
by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE - April 7, 2011
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2739041-the-lunatic-fringe

I've sometimes been associated w/ what some of us have affectionately called "the lunatic fringe" - esp as an anarchist in the 1980s - so it was interesting to find this bk published in 1980 called The Lunatic Fringe that's about the 1890s & that features anarchists as the diabolical 'bad' guys. I'm not familiar w/ the author but I see 2 other bks of his listed & they're both mysteries - so it's not much of a surprise that the main protagonist is a cop.

What makes this all a little more interesting is that it's a piece of historical fiction that features Teddy Roosevelt, William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, William McKinley , & William Jennings Bryan. Those are the characters I recognize. Whether any of the other characters, such as "The Pink Angel" are based on historical people I don't know.

I enjoyed reading this despite the obvious strong anti-anarchist bias. At least it wasn't as full-on ridiculous as Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". It does share w/ Crichton that the villains are diabolical & I suppose that's de rigueur for good-guy/bad-guy stories or it wdn't be very exciting when the 'good guy' triumphs.

Roosevelt is depicted as giving a speech in wch he says:

"And there are the filthy jackals of Anarchy, who belong to no country, who want to destroy the nations of the world, this one included."

I have no idea whether Roosevelt ever gave a speech like that but, if he did, it's no wonder he became president, eh? After all, it's the same-old, same-old: pick an easy scapegoat to have the morons rally round - esp a scapegoat whose opinions & ideas are easy to misrepresent b/c the avergae moron isn't likely to encounter the actual opinions. "filthy"? Surely there are clean anarchists, eh? "jackals"? If jackals are opportunistic omnivores; predators of small- to medium-sized animals they seem much more akin to capitalists than to anarchists. As for "belong to no country": well, wd people mind so much if that were changed to: "choose not to be imprisoned"? "who want to destroy nations of the world": How about "prefer to remove false divisions not in their best interest"?

At least the author depicts thugs as being hired by the "giants of industry" to be strike-breakers & to beat or kill anarchists & such-like folks - but, in the end, he basically lumps these thugs & the KKK & such-like folks AND ANARCHISTS together as criminal undergrounds w/o bothering to distinguish between the radically different purposes of such groups.

Throughout, the anarchists are presented as much more indiscriminately murderous than any history that I know of wd justify - as such, I think DeAndrea's "historical fiction", as far as anarchists are concerned, is based more on a 'history' provided by people like Hearst than it is on any significant actual knowledge of anarchists. I wonder what he wd write on such a subject today? After all, the prevalence of anarchism as a socio-political philosophy has come a long way in the 31 yrs since this novel was published.

On pages 274-275, the author writes:

""You know, Muldoon," Roosevelt said, "of all criminals, it strikes me that the anarchist is the worst, for besides his savagery, he must either be a fool, or a vicious hypocrite."

[..]

""I say it," Roosevelt replied, "because even a fool must realize that man cannot exist in a vacuum of power. If anarchy ever triumphs, the triumph will last only a moment; it will be immediately replaced by despotism.""

SO, let me get this straight: an anarchist is a "fool", a fool who believes that it's possible to not have people's lives ruled by despotism - &, yet, "even a fool must realize that man cannot exist in a vacuum of power" - so anarchists can't be fools b/c, if we were, we'd at least realize how futile our pursuit of justice is. IMO, if "anarchy ever triumphs" that'll mean that human nature will have so universally evolved that "despotism" will be undesirable to everyone - BUT, I don't think of anarchy as 'triumphing' - as if it's some sort of despotic juggernaut seeking power in a capitalist contest - I think of individuals deciding that they're anarchists simply b/c it's the socio-political position that jives most w/ their personal ethics & that jives the most w/ their natural inclinations - esp their inclinations toward being free thinkers. Somehow I don't think Roosevelt, a politician who participated in military actions designed to gain US dominance in Cuba wd be very interested in supporting free thinking.… (plus d'informations)