Buckley and Vidal Debate Other Things – Chapter 68 Summary
⚠️ Spoiler Warning: This guide contains detailed spoilers for the entire novel. Proceed only if you've finished reading or are comfortable knowing the plot.
Summary
Chapter 68 presents a satirical transcript of imagined debates between William F. Buckley, Jr. and Gore Vidal on trivial, anachronistic topics. Instead of the real 1968 convention arguments, they clash over the best superpower, pets (cats vs. dogs), toilet paper orientation, and whether to fight a horse-sized duck or one hundred duck-sized horses. Their exchanges mirror the acerbic style of their historical rivalry: Buckley peppers his insults with high‑browed religious and political references, while Vidal fires back with digs at Buckley’s writing and magazine. The chapter uses absurd premises to parody the intellectual combat that defined their careers, ultimately offering no resolution—just the same sharp, unyielding rivalry in a lighthearted key.
Key Events
- Vidal proposes immortality with eternal youth as the best superpower; Buckley counters that such a view is blasphemous and instead suggests teleportation.
- The two debate whether cats or dogs are superior: Vidal favors cats for their discrimination; Buckley champions dogs for loyalty and uses the moment to attack Vidal’s novel Myra Breckinridge.
- On toilet paper placement, Buckley offers a scatological joke tied to Vidal’s book; Vidal accuses Buckley of confusing eschatology with scatology.
- The horse‑sized duck versus duck‑sized horses question leads to an exchange about nuclear escalation and imagination, ending with Vidal firmly stating he would fight the duck.
Character Development
- William F. Buckley, Jr. – His devotion to Christian morality and conservative intellectualism remains intact, even when applied to silly topics. He uses every answer to criticize Vidal’s literary output and secular worldview, reinforcing his persona as a polished but cutting debater.
- Gore Vidal – Equally combative, Vidal matches Buckley’s wit with his own brand of literary scorn. He refuses to yield ground, always redirecting insults back at Buckley’s magazine and religious posturing. The chapter does not advance an arc but solidifies the established friction between them.
Themes, Symbols, or Motifs
- Intellectual Rivalry as Performance – The entire chapter is a performance of disagreement for its own sake. Neither debater concedes; the joy comes from watching irreconcilable worldviews clash over trivialities.
- Absurdity as Satire – By forcing Buckley and Vidal to debate playground‑style questions, Petri lampoons the notion that these figures were always engaged in profound discourse. The pettiness of the topics underscores the theatrical nature of political debate.
- Recurrence of Myra Breckinridge – Buckley’s repeated use of Vidal’s novel as an insult symbolises how each man weaponized the other’s work to score rhetorical points.
- Eschatology vs. Scatology – The toilet‑paper exchange plays on a famous real‑life insult, turning a philosophical concept into a bathroom joke and highlighting the thin line between high‑minded argument and base humor.
Why This Chapter Matters
Chapter 68 matters because it deconstructs the mythology surrounding two titans of mid‑century political commentary. By stripping away any serious issue and leaving only style and venom, Petri reveals that the Buckley‑Vidal dynamic was as much about personality and vanity as about ideology. This humorous interlude serves as a commentary on political discourse itself: when the stakes are removed, the same combative instincts remain. The chapter also continues the book’s broader project of revisiting American history through parody, showing that even hallowed debates can be reduced to their most elementary (and amusing) components.
Study Questions
-
Why does Petri choose to have Buckley and Vidal debate trivial topics instead of the real 1968 convention issues? What point might she be making about political debate?
- Answer: Petri uses trivial topics to strip away the historical gravity and highlight the underlying rhetorical style of both men. By moving from policy to absurdity, she suggests that political debate is often more about winning and personal combat than about substance. The chapter satirises the cult of personality surrounding these figures.
-
How does each debater’s choice of “best superpower” reflect their larger worldviews? What does teleportation suggest about Buckley compared to Vidal’s immortality?
- Answer: Vidal’s choice of immortality with eternal youth reflects a secular, humanistic desire for endless experience. Buckley’s dismissal of that choice as blasphemous and his proposal of teleportation show his grounding in Christian theology and a preference for pragmatic, physical mobility. Teleportation implies a need to traverse space efficiently, perhaps mirroring his political activism, while Vidal’s immortality suggests a timeless, detached observation.
-
In the duck‑horse debate, Vidal’s final line is simply “I would fight the duck.” How does this abrupt conclusion function in the context of their rivalry?
- Answer: Vidal’s blunt answer ends the exchange without elaboration, denying Buckley any chance to retort. This mirrors their real‑life dynamic where both men sought the last word. The line also shows Vidal’s willingness to commit to a decision regardless of Buckley’s hypothetical objections, emphasising his confidence and disdain for prolonged debate over nonsense.