I recently wrote a paper which I’m quite pleased with. From the perspective of a literary analyst at Lippincott, I tried to morally reason through the ethics of doing so. Some context: Johnny Got His Gun is an anti-war novel describing how war is a crime committed by the old to the young. The author, Dalton Trumbo, was a member of the communist party.
Trumbo wrote the book during WW1, but as the “glorious” Soviet Union was under threat, his anti-war ideas faltered. He tried to avoid reprinting to help out the war effort, and when right-wing isolationists asked for copies of the book, he referred them to the FBI. He expressed regret, and a profound lack of self-awareness after the FBI went after him as well. Although no Dorian Gray, Trumbo is certainly not heroic in any sense of the word.
MEMORANDUM Friday September 17, 1942
TO: The Honorable Joseph Wharton Lippincott
FROM: Robert John Rizzo, Literary Sales Analyst
RE: Should Johnny Keep His Gun? The Impact of a 1942 Reprint
Joseph,
I write to address this serious issue that as a publishing company, we must address. Some in our publishing company see it as important to reprint one of our best-selling novels, Johnny Got His Gun as a moral and practical imperative. Others emphasize Trumbo’s allegiance to the Soviet Union and believe that efforts to stop interference in an important war may undermine the will of the author. I wanted to analyze these issues in depth so that you may have a better understanding of this latest imbroglio.
The downsides towards republishing Johnny Got His Gun are straightforward. First, republishing goes against the wishes of the author. Second, republishing may weaken the U.S. war effort against Nazism. Finally, republishing may attract backlash from the government onto the author and our organization.
One prominent conception of writing rests on the notion that art is inseparable from the artist. Art cannot be divorced from the artist on the basis that individuals have moral claims to their own talents, feelings, character traits, and experiences[1]. Having published books on Hegel in the past[2], we are intimately familiar with the importance of control over the fruits of one’s intellectual labor. To undercut Trumbo’s perspective, regardless of our personal benefit, would jeopardize Trumbo’s ability to self-actualize. Dalton Trumbo believes in a war to save communism from fascism. If he feels his book’s message should not be construed to oppose the Soviet Union, we have an obligation to respect his wishes. Failing to do so would disrespect him and lead our other writers to conclude we fail to respect them. In short, as publishers, we have ethical obligations to our writers.
Second, the war against Nazism is an important fight for good. The Soviet Union is clearly the lesser of two evils. Unlike Nazism, communism respects gay rights, racial equality, and egalitarianism. World War 2 is not an offensive, imperialist war, such as in World War 1. Instead, this war aims to limit the spread of Hitler’s murderous ideology. The world knows about the widespread extermination of Jews in support of the ‘Volk’. We ought to take steps to oppose such a world where blacks and Jews are massacred. Printing this document may dissuade soldiers to stop unqualified evil.
Finally, printing such a document may expose Trumbo and other innocents to risk from the FBI. It’s well known that the intelligence community has little regard for dissent.[3] During a war, publishing a document may put stakeholders at risk who through no-fault-of-their-own are punished for our actions. We ought to be mindful of the fact that our workers have families. Putting such a controversial book out there may create risk to them. We have responsibilities to our workers, and at the very least, this is a reason to strongly doubt a republishing as a good idea. Similarly, we should think carefully about the consequences of our actions and the effect they may have on others we have obligations to.
At the same time, there are strong reasons to consider reprinting the book. First, the topic is germane to current political discussion. Second, this book will surely be profitable. Finally, Trumbo’s reasoning for hesitating publication is hypocritical and morally wrong.
First, this topic is relevant to current political considerations. Trumbo conceived of the book’s idea about reading an article about the Prince of Wales’s visit to a Canadian veterans’ hospital to visit a soldier who had lost all his senses and limbs.[4] A major theme of the book is the unacceptable toll that war places on its victims; war is a crime the old commit to the young. The underlying problem with war that Trumbo points out in his book remains unchanged, whether the enemy is Nazi Germany, or the Ottoman Empire. The novel was initially published during war time, so arguments that emphasize the preeminence of solidarity with the country do not hold up.
Hegel’s is not the only view of the American novel. Art could instead be impersonal, and open to interpretation. One does not need to know Milton to be moved by his prose. In the same way, the relevance of a novel does not change because an author changes his mind about it. Many great writers have recanted their best work. Authors having the ability to destroy it does a disservice to another core constituency, the art itself. We ought to consider the ways in which letting art die goes against the mission of art itself. Art yearns to be free rather than caged. It yearns to change minds. The life of Joe is no exception.
Second, and arguably most important to shareholders is the role of profit and loss. Another positive of a reprint is its profitability. The book has won National Book Awards, and many, still hope to ascertain copies.[5] One should recognize that in order to fulfill our other ethical obligations, we need to be able to survive. Our publishing house cannot affect change if it is indigent. In this sense, our biggest obligation is to survive. It’s clear this book has promise, and we’re doing our company a disservice by failing to print it when people want the information. Being given the chance to be influential doesn’t come often, and less so profitably.
Finally, the reason Trumbo does not want to republish is partisan. His aim is to advance communism more than advancing pacifism. After all, he had no problem publishing in 1938 during the height of World War 1. Our ideals cannot cease to be ideals simply because the political winds change direction. There’s something transcendent about pacifism that is not easily distillable to a communist, or anti-communist position. Even if communism is good, we should be impartial actors. Doing as other communist civil liberties leaders have done and calling for liberties only insofar as they benefit communists drains the honesty from our words, and reveals our moral poverty. If war is wrong, it’s wrong on behalf of communism as well as Americanism.
I have tried my best to provide strong reasons for both sides of this argument. There are strong philosophical and practical reasons for and against republishing this book. I trust your judgement. Nonetheless, here is why I think reprinting is the right decision.
People who decide to work under a publisher or choose to publish to one agree to a certain degree of risk. On a similar note, authors lose creative control when they publish. Although there may be a compelling reason for soldiers to fight fascism, this is a decision that I wouldn’t feel comfortable sending them in blind to. Our obligations to ideas themselves are why we become publishers, leaving the decision obvious.
Sincerely, Robert John Rizzo
[1] Moore Adam, Himma Ken, (2018) IntellectualProperty, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Obtained from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intellectual-property/
[2] Proof of book on Hegel shows Lippincott as publisher https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/rarebooks/66/
[3] Retrieved from https://www.biography.com/writer/dalton-trumbo
[4] Dalton Trumbo and Johnny Got His Gun Background (2021), Sparknotes.com, Retrieved from https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/johnnygun/context/
Isadore Johnson's Website 