The man who would be king

What about the upcoming book on Iraq, "In the Twilight of Empire: Responses to Occupation"? You're moving away from art books to more openly political books. Are you worried about that?

Not at all. It is simply one more book from Perceval Press. There is no plan on our part to begin making any one kind of book as a general rule, whether it be about current events, painting, chess, blow guns or animal hospitals. We would certainly find it dull to limit ourselves to making sociopolitical commentary or history books. I think the majority of Perceval's books will continue to be art-related, but we have nothing against publishing -- if it seems interesting -- a textbook on 19th century Russian astronomy, for example. It's OK not to have a master plan. We like not having to justify the books we publish on any but their own terms. First of all, we're pleasing ourselves, and then, hopefully, we'll be able to please others. I think there's a certain integrity in that approach.

We're under no illusion that everyone will like what we do. If we've served the artist or the writer well, and they're happy with the finished work, we simply hope that people will gravitate toward it. That has proven to be the case so far. In the end, you're not going to please everyone, and I would defend Perceval on the grounds that we definitely don't have an agenda or, as I've pointed out, even a specific artistic course that we're on. Now, it's very possible that someone might pick up the book of essays on the invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq by the predominantly Anglo-American ...

Consortium?

Yeah, consortium. That's a good word for it. If someone picks that up and it's the only thing they've read from Perceval, they might say, "Oh, I see, it's that kind of place." But hopefully they'll look at the Web site and see that we've got a whole range of books. I think the information contained in this book will be the kind that many people will, unfortunately, not have had the chance to read. But I don't see us being crusaders, other than in the role of defending the right of people to express themselves.

What do you think about the fact that many in the U.S. want part of the money we give Iraq to be considered a "loan" to be repaid with oil revenues?

[Vice President Dick] Cheney was speaking to a bunch of Republicans the other day, and he said that the U.S. taxpayer would not pay a single cent for the Iraq reconstruction. He said Iraqis would have to do that themselves. I think this is not only a lie -- one that he is quite conscious of telling -- but the statement itself, true or not, displays the horribly arrogant attitude of the current administration. We went into Iraq and made a friggin' mess for no reason at all -- well, for economic reasons that will benefit a lucky few -- and we've seriously undermined any kind of global community.

As many problems as the U.N. has had and as much hypocrisy as it has displayed, I would rather have them taking care of business over there as opposed to our government's piecemeal, self-serving efforts. To see the president of the United States and his administration admonish the U.N. and individual wealthy nations to pitch in with reconstruction now that such a mess has been made by the U.S. government -- which, as everyone knows, chose to deride and completely ignore the grave concerns expressed by the community of nations when invading Iraq in the first place -- displays a degree of arrogance that's as frightening as it is ridiculous. For the American citizen, real dialogue and balanced information about these matters has been largely choked off. In some way, I think that small companies or individuals that are willing to help draw a broader picture, offer more information and contrasting views, are especially valuable at this time. They're worth their weight in oil! [Laughs.]

You have to speak in terms the administration will understand!

Yeah. If I said, "They're worth their weight in gold," one might think it sounded a little corny.

That's so 19th century.

Worth their weight in uranium?

Has the political volatility of our time hindered your ability to travel significantly? You've been to Cuba, and I know that you were thinking of going to Iraq before the war started.

Last year, I had made plans to visit Iraq and Israel. I was interested in seeing those places a little for myself, to take pictures, get to know people. Unfortunately, due to professional and personal obligations, I was unable to go. Later I read that Sean Penn and others were going. The mainstream media in the United States were highly critical of Sean for having gone to Iraq, calling him "Baghdad Sean" and the like. Those who run this country and hand-feed carefully crafted propaganda to the media will immediately and automatically label a show of genuine curiosity about the world and the role of the U.S. government in it -- which is how I view Sean's trip -- as unpatriotic.

How is it unpatriotic for him or anyone else to want to go to Iraq or any other place to educate themselves? How is it unpatriotic to want to go visit other people, other human beings, on this planet? By all means, go find out the truth for yourself, if you are fortunate enough to be able to! Bring back your observations and share them. Just having got back from Morocco where I was working on the movie "Hidalgo" in the Sahara desert, it seemed obvious by the end of September to anyone with eyes and ears that the invasion of Iraq was on a fast track. The business decision and arrangements had been made. The show had already been budgeted and planned, just like a movie.

The money had already been allocated and it was run -- to the detriment of the soldiers and Marines -- like a movie schedule. Generals and commanders were being dictated to by people like [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, who don't seem to know their ass from a hole in the ground with regard to military tactics and the requirements of leadership in the field. They were telling soldiers to advance a certain amount of kilometers a day, that it didn't matter if they outstripped their protection or supply lines. Which is idiotic, and had tragic consequences for the military personnel trying their best to do their duty in the desert.

It's about as stupid as sending English soldiers out to march around in the American woods in bright red uniforms during the Revolutionary War, only to be picked off by sharp-shooting colonials. We certainly shouldn't have gone there in the first place; there was no real reason to go, other than for the sake of the ego and greed of the Bush family and its friends. Of course, when a person points that out they are accused of defending Saddam Hussein and terrorism, of being a vile traitor.

They'll yell at you and tell you you're unpatriotic.

There's a well-promoted notion: "Why are you speaking about things you don't know anything about? You're not in politics, you're not a senator or a congressman. You have no right to speak about these things. You are an actor, or a teacher, a cab driver, a nurse, and therefore you have no right to worry about or express concern over the moral decision-making of the government you have elected to represent you." Which is absurd, of course.

Who do they think pays their salaries?

Exactly. People clearly have a right to express their opinion. Everyone has to work at staying open-minded no matter where they're coming from, and it's not easy when you're bombarded with calculated messages all the time. The current administration is, in many ways, perhaps the most powerful and effective public relations firm in the world. When I hear "Homeland Security," I immediately think of Vaterland. Red lights start flashing -- "Vaterland, Vaterland, Vaterland! Deutschland über Alles!" (Laughs.) You know what I mean?

Next Page: Aragorn always looks "for what he has in common with other people. He is inclined to be compassionate, to show mercy"

• View blog reactions