on about books. we delve into the latest news about the publishing industry with interesting insights rare interviews with publishing industry experts. we'll also give you updates on current nonfiction authors and books. the latest book reviews. and we'll talk about the current nonfiction and books featured on c-span spookhistory. here it is. author stephen fry. how does a u.s. district court judge from oklahoma end up writing a book about how russians and americans see each other and themselves on the world stage? well, john, the book really arises from my personal experiences in russia and in the united states with russians. i did not have any extensive contact, and that's putting it mildly with russia or russians before about 2006.

but beginning in 2006, at the request of the chief judge of the 10th circuit court of appeals, robert henry, i hosted a russian delegation here under the open world program, and that, if it will, evolved into an invitation for me to come to russia, which i did in 2007, that was the first of 15 trips that i have taken to russia and i must say that as my experience evolved here with with the russian delegations that i hosted here and my contact with lawyers, judges, law students and other people in russia, i realized that there is perhaps a lesson to be learned and consequently a book to be written that helps to explain why and help people understand

why russians think about american the way they do and what americans think about russians the way they do. and that really that all grew out of that. that experience. all told, i've spent about a half a year of my life in russia since 2007, and they have been some of the most satisfying and enriching experiences of my life. sadly, now, obviously with the regime and the kremlin, they relationship in many ways has been turned on its head. we don't know how long it's going to be before things even have any remote resemblance to normal. but the experiences that i had led to the book that i wrote, and as you probably noticed, the book does it does conform or address the post. february 2022 status of things. and i think there are continuing lessons to be learned about how russians think about us and how about how we think about russians and it's a book that

begins with a william faulkner quote in the preface. it's from requiem for a nun. the past is never dead. it's not even past. what was william faulkner telling us? what are you telling us with that quote? well, the faulkner's quote, i don't i won't pretend to know exactly what faulkner had in mind, but what i had in mind when i picked up that quote is that in in both countries. but i dare say particularly and especially in russia, the thousand years of history of that country. so it's late in the first millennium ways heavily, even even if subconsciously and the way russians think about themselves and about their place in the world and frankly about the threats that that they that they perceive internationally. and for that reason, i thought it was appropriate to to highlight that that theme by

using that that somewhat cryptic quote from from faulkner. i think it fit quite well because the past really does influence day to day, perhaps more so in russia than in the united states. the way that our our counterparts in russia think about themselves, their country and the threats that they perceive. so plenty of historical reference references here and literary references as you talk about historical memory. one of those is tolstoy's war and peace and what does that tell us about how russians view themselves on the world stage? there is and you can get this out of war and peace and obviously it's an epic novel and i think it's a it's a novel that a historical novel that is really a beginning point for

anyone who wants to understand russia and russian history, war and peace tells us about russians that struggle and particularly international struggle, is part of life for a country. russia is the most invaded country in the history of the world. that's not to excuse anything that they that the kremlin regime has been doing. i hasten to add. but the the sensitivity in russia to its vulnerability to invasion from every direction accepts the north. the the the inbred willingness of russians to withstand horrendous hardship for the benefit of the motherland. the inbred perseverance that the russian people have, their willingness to tolerate incredible hardship are all things that you can get out of a

book like war and peace, as well as some sense of russians, a sense of isolation within their own country. and those are things that you get out of books like tolstoy's war and peace or dostoyevsky's work or chekhov or gorky or pushkin. and those are all very much in the mix in terms of. our what it takes for us to understand not only russian history as a subject, but the russian people, the way they think today about themselves and their position in the world and the other part of your book. right. it is looking about how americans view themselves in the world. and and literary references there as well. this from one of the early chapters of your book. you write on the long flight home from one of my early trips to russia, i found myself wondering how the people of the two nations could be so much alike in so many ways, yet in other ways, so different.

searching rather randomly for clues to this mystery, i picked up my copy of the federalist papers and read that incomparable collection of essays again that helped. what did you discover there? again, that my rereading of the federalist papers reminded me that we in the in the, if you will, the anglo american west have had experiences that russia and the russian people missed. frankly, they missed what we generically call the enlightenment. they they missed. for four decades much of the industrial revolution with its beneficial consequences in what we call the anglo american west. they missed the reformation and the things that are woven into our culture. for instance, starting with the magna carta in the year 1215 and

other other principles that now add up to, if you will, the the liberal democratic order that we that we enjoy were missed in russia. now, starting in the in the 1860s with with czar alexander the first or that would be alexander the second. there were some serious attempts to modernize russian society and to, if you will, liberalize russian society, such as the institute of the right of travel by a jury, but still, the reason that i referred to the federalist papers in that context was to articulate my understanding of why, even though we seem so similar in so many ways, there are still historical differences that have consequences to this day and every day in terms of where

we're going. one other quote from your book. you take a look back to alexis de tocqueville and democracy in america 1835. there are today two great peoples on earth who, though they started from different points, seem to be advancing towards the same goal. the russians and the anglo americans. what is that goal in 2023? so from the from the cynical american standpoint, we may look at it as a russian desire to dominate their desired sphere of influence. russia makes no bones about having a privileged sphere of influence. from the cynical russian standpoint, they probably view the united states in a mirror image, fashion, viewing the united states as likewise having attempting to have not only a hemispheric but a worldwide

sphere of influence. de tocqueville remarkably for having written about a third of the way into the 19th century, remarkably, de tocqueville recognized those trends. the monroe doctrine goes back to the 1820s, but it had not really developed in a way that would suggest a desire for a worldwide sphere of influence and in the 1820s, certainly russia was not conducting its international relations in such a way that would suggest anything broader than simply defending itself. but de tocqueville recognized that one day these two civilized nations may be in tension with each other. jayapal article. and i thought that was a rather remark able thing for for an individual to write 200 years ago or nearly 200 years ago. and this book that you've written containing history, how

cold war history explains u.s. russia relations. how did you write it around your work as as the senior district district court judge for the western district of oklahoma, probably a pretty busy schedule week to week for you. well, that's what nights and weekends are for. and yes, my, my, my official duties certainly take up my time all day. and sometimes they take up my time when i'm staring at the ceiling in bed in the middle of the night as well. i'll acknowledge that. but in terms of my work on the book, it it it really was a nice break, if you will, from my judicial duties in the sense that it was essentially the unrelated to my judicial duties. i it gave me an opportunity to research, to, to read history and to write. and the direct answer to your question is that i have a nice

office at home and i have a summer home as well, that at has a very adequate office in it. and that's where i did most of the work. and it was really a refreshing break from the day to day repetition of my judicial duties. appointed by george w bush in 2001 to the bench, went to the university of oklahoma for undergrad and law school. this book, published by the university of oklahoma press. are you doing a book tour? and when you're on a book tour, do you prefer the title author or judge? i will. i'm when i'm out, when i'm talking about my book, i prefer the author hat. now, the fact that i'm a judge is is part of the story, i suppose, but we have had some book launch events in which i really present myself much more as an author than as a judge.

and and i think that plays into what the book is all about, because save for one chapter on the u.s. supreme court's treatment of communism, the book really first world stays away from legal and judicial issues and what are the rules about that, especially in that chapter where you delve into your day job, if you will, the judiciary, what rules you have to follow when you're writing about it, and what rules did you have to follow when publishing this book? well, the fundamental rule is that i that i should not expound out of court on an issue that's likely to come before me as a judge. and that chapter on entitled communism and the u.s. supreme court deals with smith act. prosecutions in the 1950s and early sixties. and those matters have now been settled for decades.

so it was really with a joyful frame of mind that i did that legal, historical research, and i was very comfortable that i was dealing with issues that were, to put it mildly, extremely unlikely to come before me in my judicial capacity. that was that's really the only ground rule where they are. and that i had i had what i call the joy of researching that facet of legal history and commenting on with legal opinions becoming sometimes historical documents, whether they're celebrated or reviled. when you're writing a legal opinion as a as a judge, how much time do you spend on on the prose of that opinion? once you've formed that opinion, how much does the author side of you come up and want to make that something that's readable for the public? in my in my opinion, that's that's really pretty important facet of our written product. it has to be understand to go to

the parties and their counsel and also i think it's especially important for it to be understandable understandable to the unsuccessful party. and then to the extent that what i do as a district judge may be referred to by other judges, it also needs to very clearly state the factual context in which the dispute arises and what which facts are the decisive facts. which facts are considered to be irrelevant and how i apply the law to those facts. so in even in routine orders, i try especially hard to make it very clear both to the parties and their counsel, and perhaps to any wider audience, that there may ultimately be the basis for the ruling and i tried to avoid what we would generically call legal age. i don't think that contributes

to understanding of our written product at all. how do you feel and some of your rulings have have gotten attention in oklahoma specifically on on vaccine mandates, in particular. how do you feel when when the media cites your ruling and quotes just a few sentences of your ruling? are you okay with them pulling out a couple of sentences, sentences of your ruling? would you prefer people to read the whole thing, the the media treatment of of your views on law. in general, the reporters that cover our work are able to, even though they know necessarily have to select what it is they want to quote in general, the reporters that cover our work are good at presenting a fair account of our rulings, and it it's it's just goes with the territory that there will be snippets quoted from from our written product, from our orders

and opinions and it's it's not realistic to expect that the general public will read what we write in its entirety with very rare exceptions, perhaps in that vaccine case. but i think i can say safely that on the whole, we are fortunate here in our court at least to have coverage both locally and nationally in some cases that are fairly extracts from our written orders and opinions. those parts that in a balanced way will help inform the public as to what we did and why we did it. and how much training does a judge get on being a good writer? do your colleagues come to you for for tips on kind of that prose part once the opinion is formed? i, i don't i certainly don't recall a much interaction between myself and my colleagues on the nuts and bolts of writing by the time you get to be a

federal district judge, let alone a circuit judge, you have done a lot of legal writing and the the quality of your legal writing will have made, we would hope, a favorable impression on those who might be in a position to consider you for judicial service. so there's not very much interaction among us in terms of tips on legal writing. but i will say when necessary and this is perhaps more often than you might think, we do read each other's work, and i have certainly learned from the writing style of my colleagues by reading their work as distinguished from discussing writing techniques with would you care to name a few who's whose work you particularly enjoy reading? well, judge robert henry is a very loose i have enjoyed is now retired from the 10th circuit

but he's a very lucid writer justice neil gorsuch of the supreme court is a former 10th circuit judge and he has a very converse occasional more or less folks style of writing, even as a justice of the u.s. supreme court that carries over from his time on the 10th circuit and i. so my perception that that tendency by justice gorsuch to use more contractions, for instance, has has had an influence on the writing of other judges, with it has tended to, i think, to make us a little bit less stilted because after all, if if if a justice of the supreme court can write in a conversational, folksy way, then why can't we? and is that what you go for, that that folksy way? and i'm specifically remembering back to the vaccine mandate case. you talk about deciding it on both the legal opinions, but the

common sense and that they both pointed to the same decision, as i recall, in that in that opinion, i probably actually shied away from anything that could be considered to be folksy because the issue was of such grave importance to both sides. i tried to be crystal clear in my ruling and i tried to give some historical backdrop to the reasons for my ruling. but the flip side of that is that i also tried to avoid this. this virus that we call legal aids in my writing. and and i tried to accomplish that in everything that i write. and then for folks who aren't familiar with that ruling, can you quickly summarize it? well, there was a ruling in which i concluded that the the federal vaccine mandate for members of our armed forces does

also apply to members of the national guard in the 50 states of the union, the national guard, in some ways does enjoy a distinct legal status as opposed to what we generic they call the regular army or the regular air force. but there are also some overriding legal propositions embedded in federal law that in that case i concluded rendered the national guard subject to the nationwide mandate and vaccination for members of our military, and then judge frye, it, i guess, finally bring it back to to the book containing history. how cold war history explains us russia relations. how hard was it to write this book versus those opinions that you write day to day or week to week in your day job? are i? it was very different of course, and i tried. i also tried to avoid legal

writing in the book. i but i would say because it was a joy to do the research and writing, it was really not hard. it was relaxing. it gave me a bit of an outlet if you will, a bit of a break from day to day judicial duties. and so i would not apply the word hard. now, tragically, after february 24th of 2020 to some parts of the of the final version of the manuscript were hard to write because of putin's tragic assault on ukraine. but that was hard writing to do in a different sense, the task of researching and writing the book was really a job. and do you think you have a second book in you? well, the university of oklahoma press editor has made some references to that. but i must say, my my darling grand kids are pretty stiff

competition judge stephen fry. it is also author stephen fry it the book containing history how cold war history explains us russia relations. thanks for the time on book tv. john. it's