Writing Righting the Balance

I’ve never been number 744,961 in anything before, that I knew of.  But that was my book’s rank on Amazon yesterday.  Today it’s number 51, 547.  That’s up from 2.5 million or so a few weeks ago.  In other words, bouncing around, but generally in the right direction.  This morning it was number 11 in the “war and peace” category, which gave some satisfaction.

I have to admit to a significant feeling of relief that it is anywhere.  I lived with this book–in my head, on my computer, on the desk in the office at SAIS, at home–for three years.  That’s a long gestation period.  You start to dream about it.  Sometimes nightmares.  Of course there are people who take much longer to produce even a thin volume like mine.  But I’d been used to mostly quick turnaround times.  Writing reports and op/eds produces smaller but still precious offspring in a matter of weeks, not years.

What I found really tough in writing a book is maintaining the arc of the narrative.  Each chapter has to tell a story.  Then somehow the chapters together have to tell a consistent, but not identical, story, one with a broader and deeper message.   My doctoral thesis on the history of radiation protection before World War II was easier from the narrative perspective.  Those chronological building blocks provide a natural order, even if there was still the problem of making them add up to something larger than the sum of the parts.

Righting the Balance had other difficulties.  Explaining concepts like “statebuilding” or “rule of law” or “burdensharing” is challenging.  It was important to me that the book be readable, so I tried hard not to make assumptions about prior familiarity with terms like these.  But then the explanations get tedious, so I tried to lighten them up with anecdotes.  I do hope the story about the Italian government delivering its share of a burden in cash in a suitcase makes the point.  And gets a laugh.

The human side of my narrative was difficult for me.  I should have gone out to interview a lot of people and assembled a much more scientific sampling.  Instead I asked three colleagues to write the story of how they got involved in state-building efforts abroad.  They did a wonderful job, so I edited little and put in their longer than normal accounts almost without interruption.

The whole book should have been aired more with colleagues.  Only a few friends read it before publication.  They were kinder than they should have been.  No doubt I’ll pay for my failure to subject it to more pre-publication criticism.  The post-publication kind is even harder to take.  I’m sure I’ll get quite a bit of it in the personal appearances I’ll be making over the next couple of months.  I did one at the Osher Life Long Institute yesterday–the book themes seemed to go over well.

I am particularly concerned that my Foreign Service colleagues not read the book as a criticism of them.  There is a difference, one they don’t always understand, between the job they do and the institution they serve.  The job is wonderful–representing the United States abroad is a thrill, even on bad days.  But the people who do it are not well-supported by the State Department.

I read and reread the text.  So did my interns.  I’ve worried about dates, facts, budget numbers–small things, but mistakes there are glaring. I’m sure I’ve made some.  I know too that I forgot to mention people I should have appreciated in the preface.  Oh, how excruciating!

There is one great satisfaction:  the book speaks with my voice.  It says things I have said to myself and to others many times.  I may be wrong, but I really do believe that civilian instruments of foreign policy can save money and lives.  Ours are not strong enough.  Our military would be far more effective if it were used less, and more often in combination with civilian efforts.

That’s what President Obama says he is determined to do.  What he hasn’t done is to make sure our diplomacy has the resources and capacity to enable it to step into the breach.  That won’t be possible until we, well, right the balance.