Is This Thing On?

My most recent dip into Nicholson Baker’s works is ‘Checkpoint’, a short work published in 2004.  My first was ‘The Mezzanine’, followed by closely by ‘The House of Holes’.  Both are highly unusual and idiosyncratic creations, and ‘Checkpoint’ is certainly odd as well.  The book is written as a transcription of a tape recording of a conversation between two friends in a hotel room.  One has summoned the other to meet him for a talk. There are no breaks from the transcription format, no interspersed comments from the author, no stage directions, no descriptions.  It reads like a word-for-word transcription of a conversation.

But of course it’s not like any transcription in real life. If you’ve had any experience with oral history (Studs Terkel, for example) you know that literal transcriptions make for very uneven and often boring reading.  They are usual heavily edited when published and accompanied by commentaries putting the interview or conversation in context.  ‘Checkpoint’ is very carefully crafted.  The casual tone of the conversation is illusory. Baker pays attention to every line, every nuance.  There is some wordplay and humor here and there.  Baker seems to truly enjoy the language and can’t resist some fun.  But the tone is very straightforward throughout, almost deadpan.  To me it doesn’t read like a play, it reads like a transcription.

Nicholson Baker

So once again Baker’s prose is pretty much devoid of emotion on the surface.  But that stillness allows us glimpses into the characters and their feelings.  While their conversation is ostensibly about politics, we see the two men as distinct individuals each with their own approach to life.  They’ve made very different choices in their pasts, and the consequences of those choices are evident in the present.

Baker’s leftist politics are very much on display here.  If those views are likely to offend you, don’t read the book.  You’ll just be infuriated and probably miss the point(s) entirely.  You don’t have to agree with Baker’s views, but you need to be able to tolerate them.  But given that both characters are very unhappy with Bush, the Iraq war and the state of politics in general, it’s interesting to note how they react differently.  One is intent on assassinating the President (well, probably not really intent but we can’t be sure).  The other is a more traditional liberal who tries to change the system from within while personally drawing benefit from the system at the same time.

So now in yet another way Baker has written a book without emotional or descriptive display but nonetheless gives us an unsettling, intriguing and human reading experience.  The approach is strictly disciplined.  You’d think it couldn’t be done.  But he does it.  It’s a short book written in one long section.  Probably best read in a single sitting.  It would be readable in a bookstore when you have a free hour or two.  I’d recommend a latte and a comfortable chair.