The World in a Coffee Mug:
Q & A with Hannes

Q: No doubt, The Writing on the Wall covers a wide host of issues, from an accounting of the Iraq debacle, if you may say so, to war with Iran, global recession, the excesses of the Patriot Act, attempts to craft a new order for the Middle East, even European integration. Of all the ambitious goals and important issues you address, if you could only manage to influence one with The Writing on the Wall, what would you consider the most vital?

A: To contribute to a nation wide campaign to dissuade, or if necessary, force the current and next administration to abandon their plans and preparations for war with Iran. George Bush and Dick Cheney have repeatedly proven their complete disregard for the human costs of their bedlam madness to recast the Middle East along their beliefs and big oil’s needs. With members of their administration and the entire Republican Party giving them the cold shoulder and deserting the sinking ship, and the President confronted with the ruins of his ambitions wherever his eyes roam, they may know no bounds to vindicate their legacy. And the current Republican frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, has hired as foreign policy advisers neocons even George Bush considered too extreme, openly advocating attacking Iran. This is madness. It is impossible to fix the nuclear quandary with aerial strikes. They will as surely provoke Iranian retaliation as night follows the day. The American public needs to be aware of the risks behind such a reckless gamble. A war ten times worse than Iraq is a given and will most likely result in a global recession of an unprecedented dimension due to the oil price shooting through the ceiling. Given these repercussions, I can’t imagine any American seriously considering such an option; but they need to know, need to see through the propaganda and demagogy.

Q: So no provocation just for the sake of it? Aren’t you afraid that this could be some readers’ verdict on The Writing on the Wall?

A: Far from it. I’m no Paris Hilton forced to reinvent myself everyday anew, nor would any paparazzo pay a dime for a nude shot of me. No one who has read The Writing on the Wall could, for example, tag it as an anti-American concoction. On the contrary, it was written out of a deep affection and serious concern for America and her people by an author who is afflicted with almost physical pain when considering what has been done to this nation over the past seven years. Sure, the sole purpose of my writing is to provoke, but to provoke reflection, contemplation, and debate.

Q: So no iconoclasm against any denominations either?

A: I’m an agnostic, and more than anything else, I’m a Humanist and unconditional supporter of the 2002 Amsterdam Declaration of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) stating the founding principles of modern Humanism. As said therein, "the world's major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognizes that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process of observation, evaluation and revision." That’s at the core of my beliefs. But I’m no Christopher Hitchens. I don’t condemn religion as something evil, violent, or intolerant per se. As a cosmopolitan, I acknowledge the otherness of those who are culturally different and their rationalities differing from mine as long as they approach me with respect. I won’t try to proselytize anybody and don’t expect them to impose on my eagerness for debate with such an agenda. I believe in live and let live based on the rules we as a society established in consensus. There are, however, denominations, above all Dominionists and Pentecostals, whose sole basis of existence is to impose their world views on all of humanity, and who don’t shy away from employing violent means, hate preaching, anti-Semitism, and inquisition-like persecution of those of a different creed to achieve their goals. I’m from a country in which Clerical Fascism rose to power giving way to the most abhorrent and inhuman regime ever. I know what I’m talking about. This fundamentalist mania is what The Writing on the Wall is about, and which I’ll fight with the pen in my hand until I draw my last breath.

Q: Too soon for an obituary. Instead, tell me, you wanted us to meet in a coffeehouse; why?

A: Where else? I’m a vagabond, an urban nomad dreaming of becoming a permanent tourist. I live out of two suitcases; everything I need to live and write fits in there. The cafes of the world are my office and living room, my only homes. Here I have my business meetings, discussions with friends for nights on end. And it’s where I study people, take notes, and starting from my observations try to imagine what their lives are about, what’s worrying them, what kind of relationships they might be in, business and private, ... whenever I’m moving to a new place or when I’m on research or vacation, I spend the first couple of weeks in the city’s cafes to get a better feeling for this new environment and society. I admit I even eavesdrop on other customers. When I sit in cafes in the Middle East, I hire a translator just to pass along the snatches of talk he catches, ... and, please, don’t call this a coffeehouse, it’s a café.

A typical Viennese fin de siècle cafe scene, here at the    Cafe Grinsteidl, though. Painting by R. Völkel, 1896

Q: All right. What makes a café a café then?

A: First and foremost, the attitude you as a customer bring to it. You don’t go to a café just for ‘having a cup of coffee’, slurp it from a paper cup or take it off into the street; that’s a barbarity. You café; an activity in itself, a state of mind, a way of living. You dedicate time to it; relax from your occupational duties and worries, chill out. And then you do pretty much all you’d do at home: have an interesting conversation, gossip, read the newspaper, study, or just let your mind wander, your thoughts float, waft up with the coils of smoke from cigarettes, pipes, or narghiles to a beautiful stucco or wood paneled ceiling. You suck up the place’s atmosphere, its vibe. A café has to breathe tradition, history, has to have a unique aura. Take this place for example. While Leon Trotsky lived in exile in Vienna under his birth name of Lev Davidovich Bronstein, he spent entire days in the Café Central. Later, during the war, when discussing developments in Russia, an Austrian politician mocked: "Who’s going to stir revolution in Russia? Perhaps that droll Bronstein from the Café Central?" But instead of me wallowing in anecdotes, you could read Alfred Polgar’s Theory of the Café Central. He says all that needs to be said about ‘cafeing’ as a life stance much better than I ever could.

Q: As you’re mentioning Polgar, what influence have Austrian fin de siècle writers had on your work, other than you drawing on the café as your main source of inspiration?

A: Well, they’re Austrian authors of a certain epoch as distinct as you can ask for. I’m not. I’m a cosmopolitan author; my style certainly does not reflect theirs. I don’t claim to have crafted art. I want to entertain and stimulate contemplation, meditation, and debate. My concern is to incite political activism not to make out like a bandit with literary awards. A cobbler should stick to his last. I’m perfectly fine with Bill O’Reilly decrying my book and leaving the Man Booker Prize to others, ... having said that, what I tried to accomplish with The Writing on the Wall is to craft a political novel as character driven as plot driven. I wanted my protagonists to advance the plot, not have them shifting like pebbles in a maelstrom of events. This focus on character, the urge not just to reveal the abysmal depths of humanity but to illuminate every single step on the way to the bottom is something, I believe, I have in common with the café-literati, ... you know, most political novels or thrillers feature a can’t-put-it-down plot, but their protagonists elicit a yawn at best. They’re stereotypical, overloaded with clichés, hollow, not even one-dimensional; one has to concede that even Hollywood has better character development in their summer blockbusters than some recent political novels.

Q: I wonder who you’re thinking of?

A: No, you won’t coax me into name-dropping. That’s not the point. I’m writing against the perception that the world is simply black and white, against a Manichean worldview divided into "who’s not with us is against us". In reality the world is complex, diverse, multifarious. And that’s what I wanted my characters to be. You see, I could have made my President as simple minded as George Bush: with the intellect and views of a pubescent youngster trapped in a grown up’s body, dreaming of riding like Bat Masterson on a divine mission into the sunset of historic transfiguration. On the contrary, I wanted Jim Whitman to struggle with his own conscience and against those out to manipulate him. I meant to highlight the snares of power that inevitably trap politicians after pandering to too many constituencies. I created a tragic hero of almost Sophoclean dimension instead of a mere man, putty in the hands of some obscure, behind the scenes puppeteers.

Q: That gets me to the question I’ve been dying to ask: let’s be honest, isn’t your Jim Whitman a barely disguised presidential-hopeful-left-with-nothing-but-hope Senator John McCain?

A: As an answer, let me tell you how Jim Whitman was created. You know, I reasoned, a secular Democrat trying in vain to contain the Christian Right’s influence, or a conscience-free, weapon fanatic, who accidentally shot his hunting pal, to unleash war against Iran, that would have been too easy, too cliché. I wanted my President to be an old-school, Goldwater Republican at odds with what his party has turned into; a fire-tested battle horse fully aware of the costs of war, rather than an armchair general with the gall to swift boat true war heroes. How better to spotlight Christian fundamentalists like the late Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, or my personal nemesis Tim LaHaye, having taken the Republican Party hostage and brainwashed much of the American public, than by having a President who plans to make good use of their sway over grassroots only to discover that he’s been manipulated by them all along? Or a maverick that dedicated his entire political life to fighting special interests, being forced to wage another oil war against his will and his better judgment. That’s the kind of complexities and facets of character I was aiming for, ... but I admit that this character sketch leaves the door open for associations with a living politician.

Q: Cross your heart, no intention to impinge on the presidential race at all?

A: No, not that bluntly. I’ve said repeatedly that this choice is for the American people to make. I’d love The Writing on the Wall to contribute to them getting a better idea of what questions to ask the candidates and of what answers to pressing problems to insist on. At best, to initiate a national discourse about how to avoid intensification of the clash of civilizations, how to reconcile with the Muslim world at large, and what role America ought to play in that process, or how to fight terrorist organizations without abandoning the accomplishments our societies stand for. But certainly not to place one candidate on a pedestal while undermining the other. That’s just not my agenda.