Shopping Cart -

Your cart is currently empty.
Continue Shopping
This website use cookies and similar technologies to improve the site and to provide customised content and advertising. By using this site, you agree to this use. To learn more, including how to change your cookie settings, please view our Cookie Policy
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the United Kingdom version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Digital Subscriptions > Prospect Magazine > May 2017 > When fiction trumps El Supremo

When fiction trumps El Supremo

Novelists searching for clues on tackling Donald Trump would do well to revisit the preening strongmen of Latin American literature, argues Miranda France

It is still a point of pride among some clever people never to read novels, as if they were an indulgence for soft minds. But if we ever needed proof that fiction has a place in public discourse, it’s in the current rush to read novels about authoritarianism. In the week after Kellyanne Conway, a counsellor to President Donald Trump, coined the phrase “alternative facts,” George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World were back in the bestseller lists. Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America (2004) and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale (1985), both of which imagine a fascist America, are also selling briskly. The window of Waterstone’s flagship store in Piccadilly has been given over to a display of Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here (1935), which follows a right-wing populist taking charge of the US in the 1930s. In a world where images threaten to eclipse print as the dominant medium, the thirst for novels is heartening. News alone is not enough: it can’t jump into the future or go behind the scenes. In fiction every perspective can be considered, and every consequence explored.

So what will fiction be like in the Trump era? The new regime demands interpretation. Never in living memory has a US president lied so brazenly or declared war on the media so openly. Never has one boasted of assaulting women or bragged about the size of his penis. Not for a long time has one felt no need to disguise his racism. Satirists complain that Trump is not an easy target: you can’t lampoon a guy who already seems to be making a joke of himself. So how will novelists tackle him? Huxley and Lewis were writing in the 1930s and Orwell in 1948. Roth has promised us he won’t write any more novels. We need something current— but novels take a long time to write and events are moving so fast that keeping up means either writing very quickly or taking a longer view.

Purchase options below
Find the complete article and many more in this issue of Prospect Magazine - May 2017
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Issue - May 2017
Or 499 points
Annual Digital Subscription
Only £ 4.00 per issue
Or 3999 points

View Issues

About Prospect Magazine

In Prospect’s May issue: Neal Ascherson, Simon Jenkins, John Curtice and Frances Cairncross examine the growing divide between England and Scotland. Ascherson argues that England has become Scotland’s “neurotic neighbour,” while Jenkins says we should learn from history and prepare for Scotland to leave the Union. Cairncross and Curtice debate whether Scotland could afford to break with England and whether a fresh referendum on independence is actually winnable. Also in this issue: Jason Burke questions whether the world will be a safer place after the downfall of Islamic State, Paul Hilder examines how politics got tangled in the web and Michael White reviews a new book charting the history of the Daily Mail