Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault
The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature
Would it be weird to say that I enjoyed this book? It seems like one ought to find a Chomsky-Foucault debate provocative, perhaps interesting, but enjoyable? Nonetheless, there it is -- I enjoyed reading this. After my claim that I was going to read something lighter than a French novel about a WWII internment camp, I picked this. And liked it. Something is wrong with me.
I'm not sure that I find the title so apt. For one thing, the debate is fundamentally not really a debate at all. Set against the backdrop of the Vietnam War, both thinkers wholeheartedly agree that colonial policy is a losing game. Where they disagree is really only in how to talk about it. Secondly, the book is only about human nature to a limited extent. There is some disagreement as to whether linguistic structures are innate to the human brain vs. contingent on human culture, but the conversation doesn't dwell there long. It quickly moves into more interesting territory -- the power and nature of the state. Chomsky's perspective is more easily pigeonholed: he's an anarcho-syndicalist, and believes in working toward a real liberation in which those worst off no longer serve as cannon fodder for the powerful. Chomsky is also straightforward in disconnecting his philosophy of language from his politics; for him, the two are separable, and while the former pays the bills, the latter is ultimately more important.
Foucault, as we might expect, is much more embedded. He's interested in how power structures constrain human relations and human communication, in which the state is not merely a bureaucracy but a cultural network that steers the very way that we can think about the world.
Here again, Chomsky doesn't really disagree; he just chooses to focus his work at a different layer. And while I'm sympathetic to Chomsky's politics and find it the more direct approach, I also find Foucault's approach gets more to the fundamentals of living. The problem with pitting The People vs. The State is that it places the individual or the citizenry outside the state, which is a bit dangerous. Here in the U.S., we really don't have anything like a democracy anymore. We ostensibly have a government for the people, but I don't think we can convincingly argue that we have a government by the people. Geography aside, there is no way to cut up Congress demographically to represent anything like America. It's still rich white guys, with a handful of rich white girls.
So if government by the people doesn't exist (and maybe it can't in modern America), the best we can do is to assure government for the people. But then we get the separation of governors vs. governed, state vs. populace, and Chomsky can't be happy with that. Foucault seems uncommitted to any particular government structure, and would mostly reject that State vs. Populace is the useful divide to recognize. He's more interested in revealing the dynamics of institutions -- families, churches, government, schools -- to lay bare who is controlling whom, and through what means, and toward what ends. For Foucault, we can't ever be free from power relationships, but we can unveil them and scrutinize them, as to rearrange or dismantle those we find harmful.
And so the debate is really a non-debate, but mostly an exploration of common issues from different perspectives. With a new presidency, we have the opportunity to undo the closed style of paranoid government ushered in by the Nixon era that has become the status quo. One thing the Obama campaign showed us is how to dissolve the divide between the governor and the governed -- the "we" in his "yes we can" was what won the election. Whether he can leverage that "we" to participate in the actual governance or whether it will become more cannon fodder for the powerful is up to us to decide.
Nathacha Appanah
Le Dernier Frère
Le Dernier Frère est l'histoire du petit Raj, fils d'une mère compatissante et d'un père violent. Les événements du roman passent pendant le deuxième guerre mondiale, à l'Île Maurice. Au début d'histoire, beaucoup est caché parce qu'il est raconté de la point de vue d'enfant qui ne sait rien de la guerre, rien des juifs, et rien du monde loin de son île. Son père travail à une prison, et il dit au petit Raj que c'est une place pour les criminels dangereux. Mais quand Raj visite la prison à cause de son curiosité, il découvre le jeune juif David, le même âge que lui, à l'autre côte des barbelés. L'historie raconte les relations entre les deux, et le procès par ce que Raj part de son enfance à devenir un homme.
J'ai acheté ce roman à Cassis, après j'ai fini De La Terre À La Lune, avec aucune idée d'histoire ni l'auteur. J'étais à la plage, j'avais besoin d'un livre, et celui a gagné quelques prix en France. Donc, je l'ai acheté. Malgré la qualité du roman, l'histoire de l'holocauste n'est pas si bon pour la plage, ni pour voyager. Un peu lourde pour ma situation. Néanmoins, c'est un bon livre, et la méthode de raconter m'intéressait. Mais pour mon livre prochain, peut être quelque chose plus leger...
Jules Verne
De la terre à la lune
Les temps ont changé, sans doute. De la terre à la lune, par Jules Verne, est une oeuvre du savoir-faire des américains -- leur intelligence, leur ténacité, leur puissance de faire ce qui semble impossible. Le protagoniste du roman est Barbicane, président du "Gun Club", organisation américain qui devise les canons et les fusils pour la guerre. Après la guerre entre le nord et le sud est terminée, Barbicane s'imagine une nouvelle projet -- lancer une projectile de la terre à la lune. Le roman donne une respecte profonde aux ingénieurs américains et leur machine de guerre -- rien peut arrêter l'esprit américain.
Aujourd'hui, il n'y a plus de respecte pour les machines de guerre américains, non plus pour les américains eux-mêmes. Les nouvelles en France sont pleine de la crise économique aux États-Unis, parce qu'elle touche tous le monde. Cette crise n'est pas entièrement la faute des guerres américains, mais elles on joué leur rôle -- certainement dans le prix d'huile, ce qui fait des effets sûr pour l'économie.
Peut-être avec le nouveau président Obama, les États-Unis peuvent retrouver un peu de leur respecte encore: la respecte du monde, mais aussi la respecte des eux-mêmes. J'espère que nous pouvons devenir le pays décrit par Jules Verne. Un pays intelligent, aventureux, et avec la respecte pour le monde et avec la respecte du monde.
Umberto Eco
The Name of the Rose
I spent yesterday at Mont-Saint-Michel, that architectural marvel of Normandy. It's an uncomfortable mixture of the sublime and the garish. There's no disputing that the environmental setting is dramatic, and the abbey itself is architecturally and historically astounding. But there's only one route from the terre of the wet sands to the ciel of the abbey, and that's through the gauntlet of crepe stands and tourist shops that line Mont-Saint-Michel's one narrow street. It serves to make me more interested in Mont-Saint-Michel's modern history than in its more distant past. Who sold that real estate to the crepe vendors, and when? How much does that land cost, anyway? How long could I busk there without being stopped?
More generally, looking through my photos of the trip, I see that I've visited more than my share of abbeys and cathedrals. Even an atheist can't help but be moved by these architectural marvels – which is of course exactly what they were designed to do: to lift the eyes and the mind toward heaven. Most of these cathedrals have stood for hundreds of years still fulfilling that mission long after their architects have passed on.
Of course like most man-made wonders, they were built from the blood of the peasantry. The popes and cardinals hoarded gold while nations starved, they marched their own holy armies against the principalities of man (and sometimes against each other), they swapped indulgences to the wealthy in exchange for money and labor to construct their cathedrals, they claimed to administer to the needs of the soul while torturing the bodies of their spiritual competitors under the premise of heresy. The abbeys and cathedrals stand as testament to all of that, too, so perhaps the real wonder is that the peasantry didn't tear more of them down long ago.
The Name of the Rose is about all of that and more – part historical fiction, part murder mystery, part concordance of heresies. It made for good accompaniment through the cathedrals of Brittany; I read it perhaps too quickly as to get the English language out of my hands as soon as possible.
Next stop: De la terre a la lune.
Carl Sagan
Cosmos
The decision to read Cosmos during my trip was fairly random -- it was on my shelf, I hadn't read it, and it fits in the pocket. So Sagan's oeuvre on the cosmos made its way around the terrestrial sphere with me: I read it in buses, I read it in my tent by lamp light beneath the night sky. On a remote beach on the Dingle peninsula, illuminated by the red glow of my emergency head lamp, I read Sagan's optimistic conjectures of extra-terrestrial life. He wants so badly for Them to be out there; wants so badly for Them to contact us. More importantly, he wants us not to blow ourselves up before They find us. The threat of nuclear winter looms large over his 1979 text.
For him, science isn't ever the problem; science is the answer. Sagan clings to the scientist's ideal of untainted knowledge -- the probing of the atom was faultless; nuclear weapons are the corruption. He believes that space exploration will serve a unifying role in human history, based on the only-partly-metaphoric premise that from space, you can't see national borders. He conveniently neglects the fact that the core motivation of nearly all U.S. space exploration has been jingoistic paranoia. From the first beeps of Sputnik to (at least) Reagan's orbital laser wet dream, space exploration (certainly up to 1979) was all about outshining, out competing, and out maneuvering the Russians. I don't know much about the ISS -- in theory, I think it's the sort of thing that Sagan had in mind. In practice, I'm not sure how much of a unifying force it's been -- the U.S. is certainly as nationalistic as ever; so is China, France, India, etc. Sending rockets to Alpha Centauri isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think it's the thing that will make us all hold hands and sing together.
Susan Orlean (ed.)
Best American Essays 2005
I had a night off while in Washington, DC a couple of weeks ago. Like a salmon returning to its spawning ground, I found myself disembarking the metro at the Pentagon, with the intention of walking past my old apartment, now ten years past. Upon exiting the station, I saw nothing familiar. The events of September 11, 2001, have transformed the facade -- what was once a sidewalk in front of an oddly-shaped office building is now a closed corridor encased in bulletproof glass. I found myself not quite able to orient myself. The building itself is of course identical on all sides. Only by spotting the the Sheraton hotel at the top of the hill was I able to tell which way to walk.
But as I did walk, things became quickly more familiar. I remembered riding my skateboard along the sidewalk home from work every day. Here was where I used to hop the curb head into traffic. Here was where I wiped out at the bottom of the hill on the way to my second week at my new job, arriving at work torn and bloody, silently passing into my office without a word from my colleagues after dabbing the congealing blood from the stinging wounds with a paper towel in the bathroom. (I flex my wrist as I pass the spot; it still cracks, echoes of the impact ten years later.) The weight of those ten years is stifling as I walk, makes it hard to breathe. Ten years gone. How many of those years was I really happy? How many was I just running away?
I arrive at what used to be my front steps, and I picture Jane, smoking a cigarette and waiting for me to come home. And I picture myself, not wanting to be home, passing her by without a word, getting a beer from the fridge, and taking it upstairs to the shower, staying under the hot water much longer than needed, until the bottle was empty, resigning myself to those few minutes alone that life had seen fit to leave me before it was time to shut off the water and return to an existence that I didn't want. Twenty-one years old, no longer able to be a kid, not yet able to be an adult. Those days set me on a wrong course for years to follow, always running away from life because I had never learned to sculpt it, fleeing my reality instead of recreating it. Washington, Chicago, Pennsylvania, Stockholm, Pennsylvania again, and finally the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, where I learned that contentment was something I needed to make, not find. All those years, I was running away, but never towards. Jane pulled it neatly from the lyrics of "Spider in the Snow" -- you're afraid to not let go. I guess I knew even then that she was right, but I didn't know how to not let go. The curse of the military brat: letting go was the only thing I had ever known.
The impression that I get from Best American Essays 2005 is that essayists are gay New Yorkers obsessed with food. I think that can't possibly be right. While I'm willing to believe that a gay New Yorker is more likely to write essays than a straight farmer from Kentucky, I'm less willing to believe that it makes for a very compelling book of essays. Or maybe it's just compelling to other gay New Yorkers interested in cooking. And truth be told, they probably buy more books than the farmers in Kentucky, anyway. I guess it's a closed system.
On Saturday, I leave for six weeks in Ye Olde Countrie. I expect I'll have a few essays of my own at the end of that rainbow. Watch this space for updates...
Mariama Bâ
Une si longue lettre
Quand j'étais au lycée, j'ai suivi trois courses en français. Tous mes camarades de classe étudiaient l'espagnol. Je ne suis pas certain pourquoi le français m'intéressait le plus. Peut être c'était parce que les classes étaient plus petites; peut-être j'ai pensé que les plus jolies filles serait en ces classes. J'ai fini le lycée avec une compréhension rudimentaire, et je n'ai appris aucune autre mot depuis dix ans. Quand j'ai devenue étudiant de troisième cycle, j'ai commencé étudier le français encore. Pourquoi? Je ne me souviens pas exactement, mais je pense que c'était parce que j'ai pu; aucune d'autre raison.
J'ai lu Une Si Longue Lettre dans ma troisième classe à Virginia Tech. Ce n'était pas facile pour moi. (Évidemment, mon français est encore rudimentaire, mais je l'améliore lentement.) L'histoire lui-même est l'historie d'une femme sénégalaise qui habite avec son mari et leurs enfants. Le mari se décide à prendre une deuxième marie, malgré les sentiments de la narratrice. C'est une histoire des droits des femmes africaines et une histoire des politiques coloniales.
Pour moi, l'histoire ne m'intéresse pas beaucoup. Les événements de la roman ses passent lentement, avec beaucoup des pensées de la narratrice. Le pensées sont peut-être important pour le commentaire sur la politique d'Afrique, et je suspecte que la langue est belle. Mais malheureusement, je ne suis pas compétent pour juger la langue, parce que mon compréhension des subtilités ne suffise pas. Donc, le roman est perdu à moi. Ce n'est pas la faute du roman; c'est la faute de moi, je suis sûr.
Donc, je vais retourner à France pour pratiquer mon compréhension. Je pourrais suivre un autre cours, mais je suis limitée par les accents de mes camarades de classe; lesquels ne sont pas meilleure que le mien. Je fais des projets de passer un mois en France cet automne. Je vais voyager et pratiquer. Si je suis de la chance, je peut apprendre plus en un mois en France que trois mois en classe.
Bon courage à moi...
Douglas Coupland
Life After God
Somewhere along the line, somebody decided that suffering is beautiful, and a million sad poets were born. I don't buy it. Suffering is horrible. Certainly one can find beauty in any situation, and certainly beauty stands out in contrast to squalor and misery, and that sometimes makes it resonate all the more. But too many writers get confused, and think that by writing squalor and misery, they've written beauty. It just ain't so. Coupland makes the mistake in "Life After God". His characters are dejected and depressed, but there's no art in them. There doesn't seem to be any message other than the fact that everyday life is kind of pointless, which is certainly true if you live a pointless kind of life. But that doesn't make a character beautiful. On the contrary, it makes a character whiny and horrible. And that ain't art.
Perhaps ironically, probably the best story in the book is "The Wrong Sun", an essay about nuclear holocaust. It works precisely because it doesn't wallow in self-perceived personal suffering. Instead, it just presents a series of first-person narratives about people's lives when The Bomb detonates. The TV goes to static. The shopping mall collapses. Office chairs are overturned. But there's no panic or sadness in the narratives -- it's a dramatic event described blandly, instead of a bland event described melodramatically. In that sense, "The Wrong Sun" reverses the formula of the rest of the book, and for that reason it stands out.
I guess when I was a teenager, I had a taste for melodrama. I guess I figured that if I made myself suffer enough, I would just *have* to make good art out of it. And from that angle, "Life After God" might have appealed to me. Now it just seems self-indulgent. God is dead. Fine. Your neighbors aren't. Go give 'em a hand with something, and get over yourself.
Umberto Eco
The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana
The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana is the story of Yambo, a Milanese bookseller who loses his memory by way of a stroke. Or rather, he loses his personal memory, but retains perfectly the text of every book he's ever read. What follows is a story of personal reconstruction through texts -- a process of correlation among personal history, national history, and literary history. It's a fun approach to storytelling, and (as with most of his stories) a chance for Eco to flex his personal concordance of books and language and to imagine a character solely through an intersection of bibliographies. (It's something like David Hume's definition of personal identity, except here the sense impressions are all textual.)
But it's also a reconstruction of modern Italian history, particularly that of the second world war and the rise and fall of Italian fascism. My primary and secondary education were sorely lacking on the subject. I was taught WWII as the war against the Germans in Europe and against the Japanese in the Pacific. Italy was part of the Axis, but always as a footnote. We learned the name of Benito Mussolini, but not what he stood for. We learned the term 'fascism', but not why it appealed to the Italians. We only knew that the trains ran on time.
Eco's story is particularly poignant as it portrays Yambo's primary school education in fascist Italy -- the rampant patriotism, the grave directives to serve one's country, the drive to convert boys into proud soldiers. Like so many American children mindlessly mouthing the pledge of allegiance every morning, Yambo writes patriotic essays to please his schoolteachers, but which nonetheless constitute a portion of his sense of self. His story about his childhood service to the socialist resistance sounds almost like a justification; not just of Yambo, but of the Italian people. Not all of the Italians were fascists; the fascists were the villains, the anarchists and the socialists the heroes. In reconstructing one's personal history in light of the fascists' defeat, how could the narrative be otherwise?
Where The Mysterious Flame comes unglued is when Yambo suffers his second stroke and his personal history comes back to him in an ever-accelerating collage of images. Sadly, this is also where Eco's storytelling comes unglued. While masterful with bibliographic storytelling, Eco falls a bit short while working with image association. So the grand finale falls a bit flat; a disappointing cap to an otherwise delicious novel.
Gabriel García Márquez
Love in the Time of Cholera
It should be obvious to say that Love in the Time of Cholera is a love story. I'm not sure that it is. The young Florentino is obsessed with the beautiful Fermina -- mad with desire, having laid eyes on her only once, he writes her letters, thinks of nothing but her, and waits, waits, waits, while she marries another man, moves away, gets old, becomes a widow, and is finally won over. It should be a love story. It has all the right themes, the right narrative structure, the right iconography. But as a love story, it falls flat for me.
Because there's nothing to love. We're told that Florentino is love with Fermina; we're shown the lengths and depths to which he will go to win her. But we never see why. For her part, Fermina is cold, hard, unwinnable. But also entirely unlovable, even unlikable. It makes it difficult to root for the protagonist, because I really don't want him to win. His perpetual string of casual lovers seems vastly preferable to his object of desire, even on those rare occasions when she finally does acknowledge his existence. I just can't read it as a love story. It's more like a story of pathological obsession and eventual concession, but with no real emotional investment in the plight of any of the characters. So the novel becomes to me only a linguistic exercise -- a string of well-turned phrases instead of a story, or maybe a story that serves as a frame on which to hang the well-turned phrases.
It's not that I'm a cynic about love. I may be, but I don't think so. I am a cynic about the tendency to hammer love into a particular shape. Spending time with my family over Christmas, there was much speculation about when my now-married sister would breed, much speculation about who would marry next. Why? Nobody seems to know. Because that's the next thing that you do. The protagonist gets the girl, so we call it love. Because that's the way that the story goes, even if she's entirely unlikable. It's lazy storytelling, and that much worse when we live the story. Once you've got the kids, you wait for the grandkids. Because that's the next thing that you do.
Love in the Time of Cholera has some nicely-turned phrases, and in that sense it lives more richly than most of us. But the frame is rickety, and the happy ending not actually that happy. Like far too many other stories, that makes it difficult to admire.
Plutarch
The Rise and Fall of Athens: Nine Greek Lives
Over the last few months, I've been reading a bit of Plutarch. I'm not sure why -- it was on my shelf, and I haven't touched it in about thirteen years, so I gave it a go. It was a lot more fun than I had expected, and not quite the way that I had remembered it. For example, while I had the story of Themistocles pretty well cemented in my head, my reading of it is so different now. When I was eighteen, I had read the story of Themistocles as the story of a tragic hero -- a wildly successful general who leads the Athenian navy against the Persians and saves Athens, but becomes so popular with the people that the assembly is forced to ostracize him in order to prevent him from being appointed king. And while the facts of the story do go something like that, now I read it as a story about an arrogant, showboating dickwad who uses his many talents to ingratiate himself to people in power while making the steadfast civil servants look bad. It would seem my opinion of human social nature has changed over the years, and not in favor of Themistocles.
It's been particularly fun to read the Greek Lives on the heels of Machiavelli. Athens is synonymous with Democracy, while Machiavelli is synonymous with Tyranny. The modern United States is supposed to be synonymous with "democracy building". But guess what? Modern American federalism has far more resonance with Machiavelli than with Plutarch. We've got a plutocracy (at best) in which we elect our favorite millionaire based on American-Idol-style popularity contests, and the most popular millionaires get to create legislation. We've got Kennedy family dynasties, Bush family dynasties, Clinton family dynasties, ad nauseam. Poor ol' W has to take weekend-long photo ops trimming brush on his Texas ranch -- it's hard work becoming a Man Of The People when you're the multi-millionaire son of a U.S. President! Contrast this with the story told again and again in the Greek Lives, in which too much popularity is the political kiss of death. Ostracism was a pretty good incentive to stay humble. It wasn't criminals or traitors who were ostracized (there were other penalties for those things); it was the public servant who had amassed too much power and had become a threat to egalitarianism. It was when people started murmuring things like, "Hey, this guy's pretty good! Maybe we should hand over wartime powers to him -- you know, just temporarily -- until this situation with those terrorists in Sparta gets sorted out..." that the assembly would lay the chips on the table and suggest that maybe you needed to take a little vacation in Persia for oh, ten years or so. Or you could be put to death. Your call, really.
Of course, I don't really mean to romanticize Athenian democracy. While it did strive for egalitarianism among citizens, citizens were defined as free men -- free, as in "not slaves", and men, as in "not women". I do however, mean to point out that modern American "liberal democracy" is much closer to fascism than ever before, and nothing much like Democracy as Plutarch would have understood it. And that a little ostracism goes a long way.
Hunter S. Thompson
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
I've long described my method of living as an exercise in aesthetics. Other people find a moral or religious purpose; I've worked on creating a lived-in piece of art. What bothers me most about so many people isn't differences in opinion; it's their failure to contribute anything beautiful or interesting to the world. And maybe that really is a moral failure -- Wittgenstein thought that morality was a question of aesthetics, and I find myself inclined to agree.
If morality and aesthetics are really the same question, then Hunter S. Thompson can be nothing less than a saint, and it's the petty, predictable social conservatives who deserve our moral condemnation. The passive consumer of mass produced goods, television, shrink-wrapped religious dogma with no guts whatsoever. That is what evil really is. Fear and Loathing revels in drugs, sexual depravity, interstate crime, and a disregard for common sense so flagrant and intentional as to become a kind of sense of its own. It's not that any of those things are good -- most people who use recreational drugs aren't any more creative or interesting than most soccer moms. (They just think they are.) What makes Thompson's genius isn't the fact of the drug abuse and depravity; it's the style with which he does them, and the ability to tell a good story about it later. For Thompson, the lived-in art form itself wasn't enough (although he certainly surpassed just about everyone else -- ashes shot out of a cannon is about as gonzo as it gets). He had both the guts and the clarity to document it for the rest of us. His was a two-fold genius -- a genius of living and a genius of writing. Most of us don't manage either.
Was he immoral? I guess it depends on whom you ask. But if morality is an aesthetic -- I think a strong argument can be made that it is -- then for my money, he did all right. Certainly better than a grey-cinderblock moral realism would have us believe.
Niccolò Machiavelli
The Prince
Also from my pile of books-you-should-have-read-but-never-did, my most recent read was Machiavelli's The Prince. We use the word "Machiavellian" in the English language with such regularity that I thought it might be a good idea to give the man a chance to speak for himself. As is so often the case, the result surprised me. First off, it seems impossible to really understand Machiavelli without a pretty thorough knowledge of his contemporary Italian history, which I decisively do not have. Not the big stuff like the date of the fall of Rome, but the little stuff like which Pope courted favors from which prince in which city, and to what effect. While some of Machiavelli's examples are drawn from the classical Greek and Roman figures, the majority use his lesser-known contemporaries, which leaves quite a bit of his nuance lost on me reading today. I can infer a lot of history from his political examples, but it's supposed to work the other way around.
However, I can still grasp his principles, which are intended to transcend history. When we invoke the name of Machiavelli, we mean for it to be synonymous with treachery, deceit, and mercilessness. Machiavelli does indeed advocate those things when appropriate, but only as means to an end. That end is the maintenance of the power of the monarch and the order of the state. His point is not that a leader should be cruel, but that a leader should be capable of cruelty when the situation calls for it. A leader need not be subversive all the time (indeed, should not be subversive all the time), but must be skilled at and capable of subversion when necessary to maintain power. It makes an interesting complement to Plutarch's Lives of the Greeks, which I've been reading at the same time. Machiavelli is pretty clear that the preferable method for a monarch is to win the loyalty of the people; failing that, he must subjugate them utterly as to keep them powerless and incapable of revolt. When conquering a foreign state, the ruling family must be wiped out; without that, there are credible forces for organizing a popular uprising.
I'll admit that it is impossible for me to read The Prince without drawing some parallels to the modern American state. The Bush administration seems to have treated Iraq as a monarchy in the sense that Machiavelli would have understood it -- hang the monarch, hunt down the ruling family, and there is nobody left to lead the populace against you. The miscalculation, of course, is to treat "the populace" as a unified body, which it isn't. In hanging the monarch, you may instead create a power vacuum into which heroes from previously-subjugated castes can arise. As such potential heroes arise in Iraq, they are assassinated in short order. At some point, a more successful hero will probably arise (or be installed by more powerful military forces), and the fear of assassination will mean that he will be a well-armed and highly militant leader, which doesn't bode well for the region. (Bin Laden, anyone?) As for American domestic politics, it looks like nepotism is alive and well. We've endured 12 years of Bushes, and it looks likely that we'll endure at least 12 years of Clintons. 24 (and maybe 28) consecutive years of the presidency in the same two families? I'll confess that it worries me, no matter what their political platforms may be. It's not quite the Medici court, but we're moving in that direction with major consolidation of executive branch power, and that can't be good.
Alan Weiss
Getting Started in Consulting
Elaine Biech
The Consultant's Quick-Start Guide
For the last few months, I've been kicking around the idea of starting a consulting practice. Not necessarily with the intent of making more, but with the intent of working less (or at least working more flexibly). So I've started doing some homework. I've done consulting under a corporate umbrella for a number of years, but have never taken a stab at running my own business. What I needed was some good information on how to turn my expertise into a viable and self-sustaining independent practice.
Toward that end, I picked up two books -- The Consultant's Quick-Start Guide, and Getting Started in Consulting. Both books purport to do the same thing -- to provide the new independent consultant with the necessary tools to put a consulting business into the market and keep it there. One book was terrible, the other quite good.
At a glance, the main difference is obvious. Flipping through the Quick-Start Guide, one is met with page after page of whitespace. For instance, a page might say "List your top twelve goals in starting your practice", and then the rest of the page is whitespace for making that list. The usefulness of the list notwithstanding, the book is perilously low on actual content. I read the entire thing on a single flight from New Orleans, and didn't feel much better off when I finished than when I started. The list-making exercises are useful, but the actual content of the book could have been reduced to about fifty pages if the whitespace were cut out.
In contrast, Getting Started is extremely content-rich, well-organized, and well worth the price of admission. It reads like a how-to volume written by a consultant near the end of his career, full of practical know-how and real-life scenarios. Rather than coming across as an academic exercise in how to start consulting in theory, it reads as an earthy volume on how it works in practice, often contrary to theoretical expectation. The book spends as much time on common mistakes and what not to do as it does on how to plan and what paperwork to file. Some of the advice is a bit too earthy (e.g., how much to pay for a fax machine: if you can't figure that out on your own rather than relying on dated printed material, you're probably in trouble already). But there is plenty of excellent advice on creating proposals, pricing jobs, following up on deadbeat clients (or not), etc.
After finishing Getting Started, I have little doubt that I could start a successful consulting practice. The question now is whether I should: i.e., would the consulting offer me a better or worse quality of life than the already high level that I currently enjoy. The other question is one of timing and cash reserves. I wouldn't expect to make any money the first month, and probably shouldn't expect to make any money the first year. Which means that I'll need to figure out how much of my personal cash reserve I'm willing to tie up in a business. I'm still young enough and dependent-free enough that financial ruin wouldn't be personal ruin. At worst, it would be a non-volitional career change. And that ain't necessarily all bad.
Ian Svenonius
The Psychic Soviet
Not since TAZ has anyone seen the world as clearly as Ian Svenonius. He perfectly understands and accurately depicts the post-Soviet depression in which the Western world finds itself -- a depression in which the global corporate-state monopoly has no enemies left to fight, and so has to create them in order to keep the fetishized post-colonial economy alive. The good old boys have done too well for themselves, and now that they've killed off Mother Russia in a condensed Oedipal reversal, they're getting cagey. Cultural colonialism just hasn't been as much fun, and it's harder to rally the troops to defend a Starbucks in Baghdad. Double skinny mocha, lock and load!
So we manufacture new fetishes. Control consumer demand and you control the economy; control the economy and you control the country. Conquer Afghanistan and cinch control of the recreational narcotics industry. Stormtroopers bring Happy Meals to legless Iraqi children. The danger isn't failure; the danger is succeeding too quickly. Alexander weeps because there are no worlds left to conquer. At least when Mother was alive, we had someone to impress by blowing all this money.
While Uncle Sam tries to control the economy, the economy becomes self-aware and turns the tables on Uncle. "Feed me, Seymour!" it cries, as Uncle frantically "liberates" nation after nation and tosses them down his darling child's maw. But the larger The Economy grows, the more He needs to eat, until it gets to where no amount of spent ammunition will satisfy Him. Uncle Sam becomes His willing slave, sacrificing the quality of life of the American populace so that the beast won't wither.
The Psychic Soviet sees all of this and more. What Svenonious has given us is the mirror in which to groom our modern world. Let us smooth our lapels, straighten our neckties, and find the bravery to do what we must.
Haruki Murakami
Kafka on the Shore
My first exposure to Haruki Murakami was Pinball, 1973. It was a tattered copy of the book in Japanese, with English on the facing pages, intended for Japanese students of English. (I think it has still never been printed in an English edition.) I took a liking to it almost immediately. Besides being a story about pinball obsession (a condition I share), it reminded me of Richard Brautigan (another obsession I had for a while). So I read some more. And then a bit more. Now, a few books later, I can say that I still like him, although the stories begin to blend together a bit. Part of the problem is that Murakami is such a consistent writer. Even though all of his narrators are ostensibly different characters, they all sound like the same character. I guess it's hard for any of us to sound different than ourselves, but I think that is the challenge in writing fiction. I was certainly never any good at it -- all of my narrators only ever sounded like me. A failure of imagination, I suppose. So Murakami makes up for it by being outlandishly imaginative with his plot and settings -- so imaginative, in fact, that's it's almost cheating. He gets his characters from point A to point B by non-sequiters and magic. While it's fun to read, I think I have more respect for an Umberto Eco who manages to create the appearance of magic from the cloth of mundane existence. You think you're dealing with the occult, but it turns out just to be sinister but misguided guys in robes.
Anyway, I still hold a fondness for Pinball, 1973 -- I've got a printed copy that I cribbed from somewhere on the Internet tucked in between all of the other books on my shelf. And I still like the occassional surreal twist in the road But I've probably read about as much Murakami as I need to understand his particular twist.
William Faulkner
As I Lay Dying
Historically, I've not had the easiest time with Faulkner. He's got a way of making the mundane sound... well, mundane. I figured that As I Lay Dying at least has a hook -- each chapter is narrated by a different character, in their own voices with their own idiosyncrasies. That seems like it ought to work well -- you get a sequence of events, told with some degree of overlap, and the different perspectives on what really happend and how it really happened sketch in the details in a more nuanced way than the standard third-person or single first-person narration would. It's a gimmick that has since served many a film writer well.
But I don't find it overly compelling in As I Lay Dying for a number of reasons. To me, the characters themselves just aren't adequately differentiated. Faulkner is telling a story of small-town pathos, but his characters come from such a small world that they have too much in common. For one, there's the imposed rural dialect. Even the most literate characters come across as using dialogue written by Hollywood for "Hee-Haw". While I'm well aware that various rural Southern dialects do exist, and while I'd agree that putting academic English into the mouths of early 20th century farmers would be inappropriate, it still makes for a wearying read, and one in which the narrative voices begin to slur together into a stew of "Cain't I?" and "'Cuz", and it deters from the very effect Faulkner sets off to create.
The other issue is that there isn't much to the story other than the narrative voice and structure. The setup is a Steinbeck-style journey of a family to bury their deceased mother at the homeplace, but there's very little of the Steinbeck-style character evolution. The characters come out of the tale pretty much the same as they went into it, and the telling is pretty much just the process of character exposition. If the characters were more engaging or more likeable, that might be enough. But they aren't, and it isn't.
I don't mean to sound like it's a terrible book -- it isn't. It's a literary accomplishment, it gives voice to the American South, etc., etc. But for me, it was more work than the story was worth. Talking to rural Southerners is one thing; having to struggle through a transliterated printed version of the dialect is another. If I want rural pathos, I'll just have a drink with my neighbors.
Immanuel Kant
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
Kant is one of those philosophers whose thought has always been presented to me second-hand, but whom I had never read until recently. I guess the idea is that his prose and argument structure are too opaque to read in an undergraduate philosophy class.
That may not be completely off-base. His prose is opaque, and his reasoning complex. But reading the Groundwork has been a joy for me. Discussion about Kant usually focuses around moral realism and categorical imperatives -- both important ideas to him, to be sure. But what I found most interesting and relevant to my own thinking is the meta-ethical problem of how we do moral philosophy at all.
The standard method for most moral philosophy seems to go like this: consider the sum total of those human behaviors that we consider to be either moral or immoral. From that set of behaviors, try to infer some set of moral principles that best fits. Then test that set of principles against other situations, and see if they lead to conclusions that we intuitively know to be incorrect. If so, go back and amend the principles until the conclusion is more intuitive. Conversely, when a philosopher wants to attack some moral system, the standard approach is to show some case in which the system leads to an obvious moral absurdity -- i.e., a conclusion contrary to common moral intuition.
The problem with this method is that it necessarily assumes that our common moral intuition has validity, and we are able to recognize a moral absurdity when we see one. (This is something quite different from recognizing a logical contradiction of the sort P & ~P.) There is probably no sound reason to make that assumption, and if there were a sound reason to make that assumption, then it's not clear that the moral system does any work. If we can trust our moral intuition to differentiate between a conclusion that is morally absurd and one that isn't, then why wouldn't we similarly trust our moral intuition to arbitrate individual situations, and do away with moral theory entirely?
One common response is that we engage in a process of "reflexive equilibrium", in which our moral theories refine our moral intuitions, and our intuitions in turn refine our moral theories. As compelling as this sounds, I don't think it gets us out of the problem. While I agree that we might eventually reach an equilibrium, I don't see any reason to believe that we would converge upon the "right" one. A corrupt moral theory would corrupt our intuition, which would reflexively corrupt the moral theory. We might get an equilibrium, but a thoroughly corrupt one.
Kant, however, rejects our moral intuitions entirely. He refuses to allow empirical observation to play a role in constructing moral theory. Kant wants a moral system derived entirely from rationality, not informed by checking it against our moral intuitions as they apply to empirical situations. In that, he avoids the problem of reflexivity -- if we have a rational moral system and our moral intuitions lead us to some contrary conclusion, then our intuition is just wrong. (We can't meaningfully ask the question of whether our rationality itself is valid, because answering it presupposes a rational evaluation.)
So Kant at least achieves consistency. Of course, that leaves him entirely in the rationalist camp and therefore vulnerable to all of the critiques of Hume, et al. But at least he manages to start with an internally valid system.
Lost Christianites: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
Bart D. Ehrman
The take-away lesson of Lost Christianities is that the Western Christianity as we know it today is just one of may possible Christianities that were in circulation in the second and third centuries. The dogmatic tendency is to tell the story as one of truth and heresy, but prior to one version of the religion gaining a dogmatic standing (in large part because of state endorsement by the Roman emperor), there was no dogma, and hence there was no heresy. There were only competing versions of a proto-religion all claiming to have the most authoritative set of scriptures and the best interpretation of those scriptures. Only once one version became the "winner" could its competitors be labeled heretics.
And these are no small matters of theology that differentiate the competitors. For example, how many gods are there? The Western dogma is of course that there is only one God, there has always been only one God, He is eternal, all-powerful, etc., and Christianity has always believed it to be so. But to say that is a-historical at best and dishonest at worst. The number of gods was a pressing question for early Christians. It wasn't until the Middle Ages that the idea of a tidy three-in-one trinity would be articulated. Were Jesus and God the same thing or not? Were the Hebrew god and the Christian god the same, or were they competitors? When god says in Eden that Adam has "become as one of us", to whom is he speaking? When god says to Moses that "you shall have no other gods before me," doesn't that admit that there are other gods? When Jesus asks on the cross, "God, why have you forsaken/deserted me?" to whom was he speaking? With 1700 years of dogma behind us, these may seem like silly and/or heretical questions now, but they were far from it in the first 300 years following the death of the historical Jesus, and the scriptures that remain are the ones that supported the emergent dogma. Once the dogma formed, the now-heretical scriptures and theological tracts were removed from circulation and usually destroyed.
But one of the things that Ehrman does well is not to chastise the surviving dogma for its selectivity. He does a nice job of demonstrating why it became the surviving dogma. To take an obvious example, a Christianity that required circumcision of all adult males who wished to join the church just wasn't going to have a strong appeal to the Gentile world. Paul's success was largely because he was willing to extend the offer of salvation to non-Jews, without requiring that they adhere to Judaic law. However, a total abandonment of Judaic history wasn't really a contender, either, because of the reverence that the Roman world held for antiquity. A brand-new religion didn't have any roots, and therefore didn't have any credibility. So proto-Christianity kept the Judaic scriptures and grafted new scriptures on to it that said that converts didn't need to keep to the Judaic law. Constantine was won over by a religion that could claim roots in the ancient world while not requiring him to go under the knife or eat kosher. With Constantine's conversion and the establishment of the state-sponsored church in Rome, the Western dogma was born.
One of the things any dogma has to do in order to survive is to obliterate its own past. We see it in religion, we see it in science, and we see it in politics. We're at war with Oceania -- we've always been at war with Oceania. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- it's just a feature of dogma, and adherence to dogma is useful (and perhaps necessary) if we're to function in the world. We can't question every belief we hold every hour of the day. But questioning some of those fundamental beliefs some of the time and examining their historical formation is a tremendously beneficial exercise, even if we don't end up changing them. Lost Christianities does a wonderful job of just that.
Fierce Invalids Home From Hot Climates
Tom Robbins
Earlier this summer, I had the worst case of poison ivy that I have ever had. The worst case that I've ever seen, actually. It started innocently enough. Her Ladyship had pointed out that there were a few poison ivy plants hanging about the front garden, and that they were probably directly related to the small itchy bumps that had been appearing on our persons since the cats took to their summer homes huddled beneath the hemlock trees. Being the strapping young courtier that I am, I bravely and selflessly volunteered to extricate them. And being the prudent fountain of practical wisdom that I am, I donned a pair of rubber gloves and headed out the door to duel the herbivorous serpent.
The thing that I neglected to calculate was that poison ivy isn't a regular plant like a daisy or a dandelion. It's a vine. So as I grabbed at the first couple of green shoots, I found out that they were connected to longer shoots, which were in turn connected to longer shoots. I knew that if I were going to beat the thing, I needed to find the root. So I followed vine after vine, pulling them along with me as I went, and stuffing the tendrils into a trash bag. Before I knew it, I had filled one garbage bag and was getting started on a second. After an hour or so, I had dug up the tap root and had a trash can full of urushiol-soaked evil. I did the usual cleaning up and tossing of clothes into the laundry, and hoped for the best.
A few hours after that, the itching started. I left for a conference the next day, and by the time the plane landed in San Jose, I had one arm wrapped in a bandana. By the following morning, I had both arms wrapped in surgical sponges and bandages to contain the eruption. I was drinking extra water to avoid dehydration. This made for a really terrific conference. "Hi, can I interest you in information on software to... say, what's that leaking out of your elbow?" I'm fairly sure the hotel wasn't going to be reusing the bed clothes after I checked out.
On the flight home, I read Fierce Invalids Home From Hot Climates. I sought not so much a book as a panacea, something to take the edge off my slow but steady conversion into the Toxic Avenger. For that, it worked pretty well. It's not a book that changed my life, but it's a book that prominently features fornication with nuns, which can't be all bad.
Oh, about the poison ivy -- I like to think that I won in the end. Since The Great Purging (and subsequent Great Weeping), there hasn't been any the rest of the summer. Nor have Her Ladyship and I had to suffer any more of those tiny itchy bumps. Of course, there are the scars on my arms with which to contend...
The Selfish Gene has been much (and often unfairly) maligned on the ground that it advocates a type of genetic determinism. The fault is surely attributable in part to Dawkins' choice of words. He often describes the organism as a "robot" programmed by its genetics. So it's at least understandable when Dawkins' critics level charges against him of providing gene-level vindication of a host of crimes like racism, fraud, sexual assault, etc. Without actually reading the book, it would be very easy to make such criticisms based on excerpts from the text. But reading the whole book makes it quite clear that Dawkins is not in fact a determinist. He would be better characterized as a "predispositionist". Dawkins surely would argue that humans are indeed organisms developed by geneplexes that exist solely as self-replicators, and that the drive for the genes to replicate potentially predisposes the organism toward a host of unsavory behaviors. But he's also quite explicit that the human animal is in a (probably) unique position of self-awareness, and thus often able to override our genetic programming, at least as far as behavioral traits are concerned. A gene "for" a violent disposition (if something so simple as that were to exist) doesn't necessitate violent action on the part of a self-aware organism. It may however make the organism less naturally inclined to to choose non-violent resolutions.
Dawkins' choice of language was no doubt intentionally sensationalistic. He was a relatively young scholar when The Selfish Gene first saw print, and the idea it proposed was relatively new. Dawkins himself says in the footnotes that some of his youthful linguistic indiscretions were due largely to his excitement over the material. I expect Wilson's Sociobiology has taken most of its beatings on similar grounds (although I'm less familiar with it).
For me , much of the joy of reading The Selfish Gene comes less from the genetics than from the examples drawn from Dawkins' experience as an animal behaviorist. One could approach the book almost solely as a behavioral freak show of the bird and insect worlds. From infant cuckoo birds pushing the rival eggs out of their surrogate nest to Thisbe irenea caterpillars drugging ants into serving as bodyguards, the biological examples are fascinating, and serve well to bolster Dawkins' argument. The book is well worth reading for these anecdotes alone.
As for me, there seems to be strong evidence to suggest that I'm genetically predisposed toward pinball, ice cream, and lousy handwriting. I'm disinclined to overcome any of these predispositions.
Something about the modern American mind seems naturally inclined toward theories of conspiracy. I'm not sure what causes that, but I would guess that it has something to do with most people finding their existence desperately mundane. Get up, go to work, watch television, go to bed. Repeat that for twenty or thirty years, and you're bound to start thinking that there must be something more, some secret information or secret way of living to which you've not been granted access. So the conspiracy theories start rolling out. I must be dull and lazy because the chemtrails are making me dull and lazy in the name of the New World Order. They killed Kennedy, they cause global warming, they keep us poor, keep us quiet, keep us helpless. Because the alternative -- that the world is generally run by slow-moving committees of bueracrats nearly as lazy and incompetent as we are -- is just too boring to accept.
The danger suggested by Foucault's Pendulum is that nature abhors a vacuum. Create a conspiracy theory, create a mythical place of power that is by nature of unknown occupancy, and before too long someone will come along and occupy it, and your conspiracy becomes real. There's a chilling amount of sense to the proposition. Call me a crook, treat me like a crook, and then tell me that you're a helpless victim to my crookery, and it's not going to be too long before I take advantage of it. It's also not going to be long before somebody else smells the money and offers to sell you a way out of the conspiracy. Protects against chemtrails, aliens, abductions, and demons, all for only $21.99! Hooray!
Naturally, I'm all for reintroducing a little magic into our otherwise mundane world. But I'm not so sure that wearing orgone power pendants to fend off the New World Order is really the way to go. There's a whole lot that most people could do to make their lives a lot more interesting, and not just in the tin-foil-helmet sort of way. But I suppose that's just the mind control talking.
Candide
Voltaire
The best of all possible worlds. It's a phrase that gets repeated over and over again in Candide. All that happens is ultimately for the best. Voltaire writes Candide in response to Leibniz, but the idea is much older. It goes back at least to Aquinas (and therefore, by extension, probably to Aristotle). The argument, in coarse terms, is as follows:
The world in which we live is the best of all possible worlds, and everything that happens in it could be no other way. We know this to be true because the world was created by a perfect God, who admits no error. (The argument for the perfection of God is of course a separate discussion; there are multiple courses by which we may arrive at the premise. See Descartes, et al.) A perfect god could not have created an imperfect world -- everything He does is perfect by definition. But what of those things which seem to us such obvious flaws? What of wars, disease, insanity, infant death, etc.? Again, there are multiple avenues by which to solve the problem. Human-created disasters (war, murder, greed-induced famine, etc.) are the result of human free will. Human free will is a necessary part of God's divine plan. In order for salvation to be perfect, humans must choose it, not have it assigned to them. The failures of war, murder, famine, etc. are human failures resulting from their perfect free will, not divine failures.
Fair enough, says the skeptic. But what of natural disasters? What of disease, insanity, and infant death? Surely these can't be failings of man, and must therefore be failings of God, who either doesn't exist or created an imperfect world. Not so fast, says Leibniz. How do you know that disease doesn't contribute toward a more perfect world? How many people have been brought closer to God as a result of disease and suffering? What better opportunity for the righteous to demonstrate Christian charity than to assist those in need, which presupposes that need must exist? Each apparent tragedy must necessarily be a blessing in disguise. After all, God is (by definition) perfect and can admit no error. Our perception of God's failure to create a perfect world is in fact a failure of perception, not a perception of failure. For the intellect of Man, while also necessarily perfect in type, is nonetheless limited in scope. Our failure to understand the holistic perfection of the Divine Plan is not the fault of the Divine Plan, it is the fault of our willingness to understand it. The finite intellect of individual humans may fail to penetrate the perfect mysteries of the divine will. End of discussion.
Candide makes no attempt to engage with the question philosophically. Voltaire instead resorts to a simpler tactic -- base mockery. The story of Candide is a story of human suffering taken to absurdity, and of Candide's steadfast effort to maintain in the face of that absurdity that he does indeed live in the best of all possible worlds. (Somewhat ironically, it calls to mind another familiar tale. Job, his family slaughtered, his land destroyed, covered in lice, dressed in sackcloth and sitting on a dungheap, finally has the nerve to ask God, "Um, what's the deal?" God's reply: "Where were you when I created the world?" Who are you to question the perfect mysteries of the divine will?) On first blush, we may be tempted to chide Voltaire for simply poking fun instead of engaging in discourse. My own reflex, captive to my meager philosophical training, is such. As I've told so many students, conviction is no substitute for lucid argumentation.
Or so says the philosophical training. But Voltaire was certainly no stranger to the philosophical argumentation. On the contrary, he was so familiar with philosophy and wrote so much about it that his writings were complied into a Philosophical Dictionary. The philosophical arguments against Leibniz's perfect world were well known. But I think Voltaire also knew something that liberals today often forget: fundamentalism isn't comprised of philosophical arguments. That's precisely what makes it fundamentalism. It is instead comprised of fundamental principles (God is perfect and the world is part of God's perfect plan), and any rational argumentation is subordinate to and consequent from those principles -- not the other way around. If the rules of logic determine the fundamental principle to be absurd, it is the logician that must be in error, not the principle. At which point the shrewd fundamentalist will argue that philosophy and rationality themselves are a form of fundamentalism, but with rules of logic instead of principles of theology as its fundamental tenets, and aren't our rules of logic just Articles of Faith? At that point we can hand our fundamentalist a copy of Russell's Principia, but by then the core of the argument has already passed us by. Once Faith has entered into the discussion, we're lost. Faith, by definition, stands in the face of reason. If it were reasonable, we wouldn't need faith.
All of which means to say that you can't argue with fundamentalism. The wit of Candide is that it takes the theological argument of one the most stringent of logicians -- one of only two Western contenders for the invention of calculus, at that -- and simply sticks out its tongue at it. It's both juvenile and amusing. It does for theology what Jonathan Swift does for politics. I find it curious that such a simple story would be so well-remembered, but it makes for an entertaining read nonetheless.
One Hundred Years of Solitude
Gabriel García Márquez
Nothing should be easier than telling our dreams from our waking life, but in practice it's not always so simple. We live at least some of our lives not able or not willing to tell the difference between the two. This is most obvious when we're children -- our daydreams are at least as real as our trips to the dentist, and our nightmares are by no means dissipated by something so concrete as a peek under the bed. Even once we become "rational adults", the boundaries are flexible. We're told that if you die in your dreams, you'll die in real life, too. (Apparently false: I've been killed in at least one dream -- shot in the throat by a firing squad sporting candy-colored pistols. The sensation of the impact of the bullet just between the collarbones, and then of blacking out in the dream to awake in my bed, was certainly a peculiar and very tangible sensory train. For quite some time I was convinced that I actually knew what a bullet wound felt like.) Most of our dream experiences are more mundane. I'm at the grocery store. Did she ask me to buy orange juice, or did I dream that she asked me to buy orange juice? She was at the kitchen table at the time, I remember that. I search for something out of place in the scene to give me a clue -- something the wrong color, an object on the table that shouldn't be there, a familiar name assigned to an unfamiliar face or thing. I can't find anything wrong. I buy the juice.
We already have juice.
One Hundred Years of Solitude achieves a similar effect. The story starts at the turn of the last century with a man in the tropics of South America taken to see an extraordinary object kept in a box in a traveling carnival. It's square and clear like a diamond, but cold and wet to the touch. Touching it, even for a moment, draws the heat from the hand itself. Completely strange, completely unreal, and yet completely there, the humble block of ice is something at once mundane and extraordinary. In obverse contrast, a woman taken up into the heavens before the eyes of the town and a man beset by constant swarms of yellow butterflies are treated as commonplace events. It's not that the dreams and the reality are treated seamlessly; it's that the seams have been shuffled about nearly at random. The effect is a story of non-sequiters that nonetheless follow necessarily from their predecessors, and a patchwork of images and events that holds a logic and beauty entirely its own.
All of which is really just a fancy excuse to come home with yet another carton of orange juice.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Philip K. Dick
Whenever a film is based upon some book, comparisons are inevitable. If you're the sort of person who wants others to think of you as an intellectual, whenever the subject of the film is raised in conversation, you're supposed to say that the book is better. (This is particularly effective when you've actually read the book, or know someone who has.)
The intended effect is two-fold: first and foremost, it is intended to be impressed upon your audience that you are the sort of person who reads books, unlike the unwashed masses who have only a long enough attention span to sit passively through a two hour film. Secondly, and by extension, it is intended to belittle film as an inferior medium to the written word, particularly if the film has enjoyed any commercial success, and particularly if the speaker fancies himself a bookish type. If you have not in fact read the book, under no circumstances should this be admitted. You should instead direct discussion to the relative merits and detriments of the film qua film (use the word "qua" to do so), paying particular regard to the camera work, lighting, blocking and other aspects of the film in which you're hoping that the other bookish types won't be quite so conversant. And if you get cornered, nod sagely and say nothing until the conversation veers elsewhere. Better to say nothing than to be mistaken for one of the unwashed masses.
The film Bladerunner, as the bookish types will tell you, is based loosely on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? "Loosely" in part because Ridley Scott had a vision, and in part because he reportedly never actually finished the book himself before making the film. I'd be lying if I said that I like the book better. It is, without question, a brilliant book. However, in no small part because it's a bit dated by now, it relies on technological gadgetry a good bit more than the film, and that makes it read more like stock science fiction than Bladerunner. While Do Androids Dream... is full of robotic sheep and flying cars, Bladerunner focuses more on sweat and dirt. Yes, the book plot is more complex. But the film environment is, to my eye, much richer and actually more immersive. It leaves less to the imagination, but the details included share the director's imagination in fascinating ways. I'm very glad that I read Do Androids Dream... It's a great book on its own merits. But it's also a great book as backstory to a great film. Bookish types and the unwashed masses alike would do well to pay attention to both.
How The Irish Saved Civilization
Thomas Cahill
History has never been my strong suit. I'm not sure what my strong suit is, but it isn't history. I have in my head a smattering of names and dates and events, but generally haven't done a very good job of treating them as anything other than an isolated smattering of names, dates, and events. Which of course isn't where the interesting bits of history exist at all. It's the connections and disconnections among all of the smatterings that bring coherence to the world as a whole.
How the Irish Saved Civilization does a nice job of helping a poor slob like me put some otherwise disconnected pieces of information into perspective. For example, I've read Saint Augustine's Confessions, and I've read a bit of Irish history about Saint Patrick and his mission in Ireland. But I haven't read anything else that explicitly discusses the two as Christian contemporaries (which they were) and puts them in the context of the dissolving Roman empire. I've read about the Irish warrior kings and I've read about (and visited) the monasteries in which the early European Christian texts were preserved. But up until Cahill, I haven't read anything that discusses how illiterate barbarians became skilled Latinists and book preservationists within the span of a generation or two. This isn't to say that there aren't other books out there to have done so; I just haven't read them.
Therein, I suppose, lies the value of secondary historical sources. The story isn't in the events; it's in the seams between events. And those living in the seams usually don't know that they're in them. Reading Augustine, it never once dawned on me that I was reading what is possibly the first spiritual autobiography in the history of humankind, authored by someone whose civilization was collapsing around him. I suppose it's possible that it never dawned on Augustine until the barbarians were at the gates of Hippo.
How the Irish Saved Civilization is not an academic history. It's isn't heavily footnoted, sources are not always obvious, and the most of the details are far from detailed. But as a means of connecting the data from other sources in interesting ways, it serves wonderfully.
American Gods
Neil Stephenson
I read most of American Gods on a recent trip to Washington, D.C. My patience for driving up and down route 81 between here and there has been utterly exhausted over the years, so I took a different route this time, via Amtrak. I picked up the train in Hinton, WV, and traveled by train through the Greenbriar River valley. The fall foliage was in full display at the time, the trip was pleasant, and I got an enormous amount of reading done. Over the course of the trip, I also completed my second foray into the world of beats-and-fiddle. While I can't claim it to be a tear-jerking work of genius, I can say in all honesty that it amuses me enormously. Which -- let's face it -- I usually prefer to genius, anyway.
When I started American Gods, I had sort of a hard time with it. As I tried to adjust myself to the story and style, it dawned on me that I'm just not that used to popular fiction anymore. I suppose I used to read a fair amount of it in high school, but over the course of my education, it seems I've wandered away from the contemporary novel. A quick perusal of my recent reading list seems to confirm the fact. So reading something with a linear beginning, middle, and end; something with a small handful of characters with transparent motivations; something with a tidy wrapped-up conclusion -- it struck me as a weird sort of story. I found myself looking for something more to it. There's this guy, and some stuff happens to him, and then some other stuff happens after that. What gives?
At some point over the course of the train ride, my brain remembered about fiction. That it's supposed to be fun. That it doesn't need to be a work of genius to be good.
I was OK after that. American Gods is fun. It isn't genius. I didn't learn anything by reading it. I'm neither smarter, nor more enlightened, nor more capable after reading it. But it kept me happily diverted on a train for several hours in between sequencing bass and fiddle loops, and in that capacity it does its job well.
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Robert Louis Stevenson
After fighting my way through the Selected Non-Fictions of Borges, I was ready for something to rest my mind a bit. Something that I could read in a night or two and that wouldn't require endless cross-referencing with other sources in order to properly appreciate. So I started cruising my shelves, which still contain a few volumes that I own and haven't yet read. Eventually my eye came to rest on The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The book came to me (I think) by way of my brother when he liquidated his undergraduate book collection, and had languished on my shelf unread for quite a while. Here, no doubt, was the perfect opportunity to take care of it. It's a slim story, and one that pretty much everybody thinks they already know, despite the fact that hardly anyone to whom I've spoken has actually read the book. So I went for it.
As expected, I finished it in a couple of sittings. And as expected, the story as written wasn't quite the same as the story that exists in the popular imagination. I think that both The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein are generally assumed (particularly by those who haven't read them) to be allegories about the dangers of Man tasting the forbidden fruit of scientific knowledge. But neither of them is really that. In the case of Jekyll and Hyde, the vicious persona of Mr. Hyde is not the result of a scientific experiment gone horribly wrong; on the contrary, it's the result of a scientific experiment that succeeds perfectly. Kindly Dr. Jekyll does not fall victim to the evil of Hyde -- he concocts a potion in order to free himself of the inhibitions of Jekyll so that he can become Hyde. And he takes enormous pleasure in that persona. When he wants to be evil without the pesky interference of his conscience, he calls in Hyde, so that he can indulge his base pleasures while Jekyll continues to live with an untarnished reputation. Interestingly, once he's Hyde, he never wants to change back to Jekyll, except to avoid apprehension and prosecution. It seems Stevenson has a fairly dim view of human nature...
In any case, this wasn't my favorite book ever, but it was at least a bit of brain candy before I start ramping back up to something more challenging again. But a bit more candy first. Next stop: American Gods.
Selected Nonfictions
Jorge Luis Borges
Writing about the Selected Nonfictions of Jorge Luis Borges is something like writing about the Encyclopedia Brittanica or the Oxford English Dictionary. It's a bit shorter than either, but covers an array of topics only slightly less broad. Where else can we find King Kong and the Kabbalah measured side by side? Borges comes across as an expert on all things literary, which I suppose he might have been. As I read him, a certain sense of despair always sets in. It's the despair of having once aspired to be a so-called "man of letters", and realizing that it's something I'll never really be.
It's not that it's something I couldn't ever be. If I were to devote myself single-mindedly to literature, I could likely produce a volume nearly as diverse (although not nearly as artful) by the time I were an old man. I couldn't read all of the world's great literature, but I could read quite a lot of it, and probably in a small handful of different languages. But would my time have been well spent? My personal answer would certainly be "no". Not that I think it was the wrong choice for Borges -- I can't speak for him -- but it would be the wrong choice for me. I don't particularly want to be expert in just one thing (even "one thing" as broad as the entirety of human literature); I want to know a lot about almost everything. And not just know a lot about everything, but be able to do a lot of everything. Borges writes brilliantly about the tango. But could he dance the tango brilliantly? I don't know the answer, but would be willing to guess not.
So I've chosen the life of jack-of-all-trades, a "renaissance man", or a charlatan, depending on your point of view. Which is itself not entirely satisfying, because there still isn't enough time in the measly seventy-odd years I've been alloted to do half of what I'd like to do or learn half of what I'd like to learn. So I'm stuck making the most of the time that I have, and basking when possible in the glow of other people's genius in their chosen idiom. So be it.
The Bhagavad Gita
Stephen Mitchell (trans.)
A long-standing trouble of mine with regard to Eastern religions has always been the issue of contentment. The Tao Te Ching is rife with passages about the value of being passive, the value of being content, the value of non-resistance. To be sure, these are things in which I do see great value, and most of the people who know me well would probably say that I exemplify them most days. But there is still something about the idea that doesn't sit right with me. Specifically: what comprises the very fine barrier between contentment and complacency? The dictionary is no help here: it defines "content" as "desiring no more than what one has; satisfied" and "complacent" as
"contented to a fault; self-satisfied and unconcerned". I understand the difference in the linguistic sense of the two words; what I have always struggled to understand is the particular set of empirical circumstances that make one more applicable than the other in one's life.
The relative value of contentment is something that I've recently discussed much with a friend who is a yoga instructor. She argues that a life of contentment is a harmonious life; a life without conflict. Very well, I say, but isn't it conflict and a certain amount of discomfort that inspires us to improve ourselves and our world? Doesn't the very notion of doing anything presuppose some desired end state which one does not currently possess? Wouldn't a life of perfect satisfaction also be a life of perfect inactivity? And if so, I reject satisfaction -- something that I've seen myself do for many years now. Embracing discomfort as impetus for positive change and new situations, while it may make Lao Tzu cringe, has always seemed to me to have an enormous potential for benefit.
And so I finally picked up the Bhagavad Gita, and found the beginnings of some insight into the issue. I was surprised to find Krishna at once advocating a life of perfect satisfaction, but also characterizing himself as the standard for a life of perpetual activity. The answer supplied by the Gita is activity free of intentionality, or at least activity free of expectation of a particular result. This makes at least some sense to me. One doesn't need to be dissatisfied in order to act; one could just act for the sake of action, independent of desire for results. This begs another question: then why act well? Again, perhaps for the goodness of the action itself, not necessarily the goodness of the outcome. It's sort of an anti-utilitarian approach to morality in which we don't motivate actions by their outcome nor by their intent, but by the merits of the actions themselves.
While the notion is still fuzzy in my mind and will require more reading and thinking to bring it into sharper focus, the Bhagavad Gita has at least gotten me thinking about the problem in a new light. It is entirely possible that I've been intuitively utilizing the principle for quite a while without quite being able to articulate what it was I was doing. I often find myself unable to account for my own actions in terms of intention or desire; there are a great many things that I do because it seems intuitive and/or beautiful to do them in the particular moment and space in which they occur. I've recently been described by someone as "guileless", which may or may not be quite right. There are definitely some things that I approach with an engineer's eye toward problem-solving, and definitely other things that I do entirely without craft. Learning which to apply to human relationships certainly constitutes one of the most important lessons that I have learned in my dealings with the world thus far.
Home Buying For Dummies
Eric Tyson and Ray Brown
The very fact that I have purchased and read a book called Home Buying For Dummies disturbs me. It seems that my life has a tendency to change quickly and thoroughly. Four months ago I was living out of a backpack in the hills of Ireland, and now I'm working a full-time computer software job and trying to figure out how mortgages function. I'm currently trying to grapple with the realization that I was far more comfortable with the former. There are multiple ways to interpret the fact. The most obvious and most likely is that I'm not cut out for nine-to-five life with a house and a yard and all of the trappings of an ordinary middle-class existence. But there are others. Basic, irrational fear of commitment is a strong contender. Unreasonable unwillingness to compromise is a good bet, too. Immaturity (if the label can be considered meaningful in the first place) is another likely possibility.
The fact is, I can't really point to anything quite wrong with my life as it is. As jobs go, I can hardly imagine one more suitable to my interests and lifestyle than the one that I have. Perhaps a shortage of creativity on my part, or perhaps I have a good job. And yet I'm uncomfortable with the very fact of having it. Maybe not because of what it is, but maybe because of what it represents: a conventional sort of income that could be easily applied toward a conventional sort of life.
This becomes pretty central to the whole house issue. Every time I raise the topic in the company of other people, they usually tell me I should buy a house. Why? "Because it would be a good investment." And right there is where I have to stop listening. The language of investment and return is foreign to me. It seems to presuppose that the purpose of money is to reproduce, and buying a house is a way of providing a cozy petri dish in which hundreds of thousands of little dollar bills can get busy procreating. But it's an angle with which I just can't sympathize. If I buy a house, I want it to be because it's good for me, not just because it's good for my money. This is where we cut to the heart of the matter. What is good for me, anyway? In what ways is it good, and on what time scale? That's the part that I can't quite grasp yet, because I haven't really decided what kind of life I want for myself yet. Buying a house -- whatever financial sense it may or may not make -- constitutes a full-on commitment not just to a particular dwelling place (that part I could handle), but to a particular kind of life. The kind of life in which I need to continue a forty-hour-a-week existence at least long enough not to be plunged deeply into debt for the rest of my very-grown-up life. And that part is a commitment that I'm not yet sure I'm willing to make. Commitment to a home, to a person, to a project -- those are things that make sense to me. Commitment to sitting at a keyboard for eight hours a day just doesn't.
And so I am trying very hard to take the long view right now. Not the chronological long view that Investors are supposed to take, but the standing-back-and-squinting long view to try to figure out the most beautiful possible arrangements of events, people, and forces in my life. The Impressionist long view, I guess you could call it. If all of the parts orchestrate into a beautiful whole, then they're the right parts. If not, then they need rearranging. My life as it is looks pretty amazing through the squint. Considering ways in which to make it even better is the crux of the current quandary.
Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man
James Joyce
As often happens, while reading "Portrait of the Artist..." a friend asked me what the book was about. And, as often happens, I didn't really know how to answer. I said something along the lines of "it's a coming of age story about art, apostasy, beauty, and finding one's voice in the world." Which of course can't be a satisfactory answer to the question, where a satisfactory answer would be something like "a super-virus is unleashed upon Las Vegas, and it's up to one man to stop it." A good book is about different things to different people -- that's part of what makes it a good book. For me, "Portrait of the Artist" is a coming of age story about art, apostasy, beauty, and finding one's voice in the world. For someone else, it might be a story about the revolution in Ireland. To someone else, it may be about Joyce embarking upon a literary experiment. There's a lot between its thin covers.
But the story of a budding apostate is probably the most resonant to me. I had a good talk with my grandfather last night. He's 85 years old, I'm 29 years old, and while he's a devoted Christian and I'm a contented backslider, we agree on nearly everything -- particularly where religion and politics are concerned. It's incredibly interesting to me. Almost nobody would dare question my grandfather's faith. He's been a church-going man all his life, prays out loud before every meal, and gives liberally to Christian causes. I of course do none of these things. And yet I can't sit down with my grandfather for five minutes before he launches into some diatribe against "the evangelicals". This means something very specific to him. To me, *he's* an evangelical. But the evangelicals that he's referring to are the neo-conservative Republican evangelicals. And that's where things get interesting. My grandfather is an old-school Roosevelt democrat, and has been his entire adult life. He and I completely share a deep distain and confusion for what passes as Christian living in the 20th-century United States. How is it that the political party of military spending, reduced social programs, and "free market" corporate economics is the party of Christ, while the party of providing aid, employment, and education to the needy are the godless liberals? When and where did Christianity get hijacked? What happened to "give away all that you have to the poor and follow me," or "that which you do unto the least of these, you do unto me", or "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven"? When did Jesus pick up a gun and give up his mission to assist the poor in favor of protecting corporate profits? And why aren't Christians other than my grandfather completely outraged at what's being done in His name?
And so we sit on the porch at night and talk about these things. I have a tremendous respect for my grandfather's faith. He's a Christian -- a *real* Christian. Not the kind of Christian that would rather cherry-pick verses from the book of Leviticus in order to promote their own culture of fear than pay attention to those pesky red-lettered words of Jesus. I know a handful -- a very small handful -- of other Christians whom I similarly respect for being willing to deal with the whole of the Bible, instead of just those parts that endorse what they already believe. And while I respect them, I don't believe that I'll ever again count myself among them. Like Stephen Daedelus in Joyce's novel, I feel like the time of questioning has passed me by, and left me with a faith far more secure than any that I found in the confines of a church. To my family, I shall forever be an Apostate, but I'm willing to live with that. In place of a sequence of stand-up-sit-down rituals, I have a genuine love for other people that I almost never saw in twelve years of "Christian" education. And that -- if I'm reading the same New Testament as the millionaires currently carpet-bombing the Middle East -- is the most Christian thing of all.
Dune
Frank Herbert
More and more often these days, I seem to be hearing about water issues. In the news, in people's research, in casual conversation about town zoning issues -- everywhere people seem to be more and more concerned about clean water. I don't know how many times I've heard commentators say that over the next ten years, wars will shift from being about land control to being about water control. I don't know enough about the economics or ecology to have a good sense of whether environmental and human conditions have changed significantly of late, or whether people are just paying more attention to that particular issue.
I finished Dune just before departing for Ireland, which was a pretty stark juxtaposition. Dune is a great story about political intrigue, but more than anything else, it did a great job of making me hyper-conscious of my own water usage. The setting of the novel is one in which water is so precious that people even reclaim their own sweat in order to stay alive. I didn't go that far, but I did find myself wincing more than usual at dripping faucets and lawn sprinklers.
And then I went to Ireland, where water conservation seems to be about the furthest thing from anyone's mind. And who could blame them? I didn't see a single day in Ireland that didn't have rain, and barely set foot on a dry piece of earth the entire time I was there. In the cities, there is somewhat greater reason to pay attention to water usage, as the transformation of waste water into drinking water does use energy resources. But in the countryside, where everything is wells and septic tanks, it hardly seemed a concern. There wasn't much worry about anyone's well running dry, as the rains topped the groundwater off every few hours. I still couldn't bring myself to let the faucet run while I was brushing my teeth, but it wouldn't have mattered too terribly much if I had. That moisture would have left the septic tank and been back in the water table in a matter of hours.
The much more interesting issue there was one of energy. From what I could gather, a large part of the energy produced in Ireland is from good ol' King Coal. But not Irish coal -- there isn't any. It's coal from Poland or the Czech Republic. As in America, the effects of coal mining aren't felt much by those who consume it, and it's those who are poorest who work in and live with the industry. The other major power source is a uniquely Irish one -- turf. I don't have a sense of what proportion of power is peat vs. coal (more research required once I have an Internet connection), but I do know that turf burning constitutes a large part of Irish power generation. Like coal, it's a non-renewable (or at least very slowly renewable) resource that does environmental damage to harvest and burn. "Turf farming" is kind of like high-speed strip mining. Certainly peat can be produced much, much faster than new coal, but still not fast enough to keep up with demand. So the Irish are looking at other alternative energies. Solar ain't gonna cut it in a place that cloudy and that far north. Instead, I read a lot in the news about wind farms. It seems like a no-brainer -- you're an island in the middle of a big, cold sea, and there's certainly no shortage of wind. And yet, there's opposition. The reason: windmills ruin the scenery. Not like those pretty carcinogenic coal-smoke sunsets. The other reason, and the one that confuses me even more, is that windmills will kill birds. Unlike, say, acid rain or mountaintop removal mining. I mean, come on, people. Is it that hard to put some goddam chicken wire around the front of a windmill? My bedroom fan already has it, right?
The Elephant Vanishes
Haruki Murakami
For the last week or so, I've been hiding out in Hillsborough, North Carolina. I've completed the move out of my old home in Blacksburg, put everything left that I own into a 10x10 storage unit, packed up the cat and hit the road. My feline partner will remain here while I move on, probably tomorrow. He's adjusting a bit more slowly than I had hoped, but adjusting nonetheless. His new roommate, whom we'll call "Bitey Cat" in order to protect his anonymity, is not particularly pleased to share his abode. Or perhaps he is pleased, and expresses his pleasure by way of pouncing and biting. My own hand has considerably more perforations than it did when I left home. In any case, they seem to be working things out through some sort of incomprehensible cat-diplomacy, and I think I'll feel OK about hitting the road again tomorrow and leaving my best mammalian friend behind. Then it will be a week north of the Mason-Dixon line, followed by a flight across the sea.
One of the prominent images in The Elephant Vanishes is repetition of non-sequiters. I guess you'd call it modern surrealist fiction, if you were the type of person to call things names. It creates a detached sort of chain of events that pretty well depicts the way I was feeling before my move. A losing of the self in a series of events. Hume wrote that the thing that we perceive as the "self" is really nothing more than a bundle of the various sensory perceptions that we've had. So it stands to reason that the more disjointed the perceptions and the greater the size of the gaps in which we forget things, the more disjointed the Self. And I think that's been my problem. I can feel things happening around me, but I don't feel like they're happening to me. They're just happening. While it does have a sort of Taoist aesthetic to it, I don't feel like there's much to tie the bundle of perceptions together. They're like so many loose sticks of memory scattered across a table.
One of my first activities when I get to the Emerald Isle will be a ten day solo backpacking trip through the Wicklow Mountains. It feels like the right start to the trip -- a way to ground myself to the land and to start finding a thread of Self with which to assemble (and add to) the bundle. Or, at the very least, a way to make greater peace with the discontinuity. Here's hoping I have the fortitude to leave the cat behind and start the trip tomorrow. Or will I just be tossing out a few more sticks, to keep the bundle leaner and easier to manage?
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, An American Slave
Frederick Douglas
Never in my life have I been really and truly harmed. I've never gotten into a fight, was never abused, never even broke any bones other than a few toes here and there due to my own clumsiness. I've never had family members killed, never been imprisoned, and never done forced labor (unless mowing the lawn counts). In short, I've enjoyed a pretty trouble-free life of a sort denied to probably 90% of the world's inhabitants. I try not to take it for granted, but when you get down to it, it's impossible. The fact is that I do take it for granted. It's beneficial to read something like Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas and to realize that not long ago, people were being treated as property in the United States, and still are in much of the world. But on a gut level, I find that I still read it as I would read a work of fiction. There's little in in that resonates with me on a more personal level, because it's so far outside of my own experience.
Today's New York Times headline was "Blast Kills 122 at Iraqi Clinic in Attack on Security Recruits". And I find that I read it much the same way. There's just some text with a number in it. 122. The number could be a street address, the number of milligrams of vitamin C in a glass of orange juice, an ex-girlfriend's weight, anything. But it isn't. It's dead people. And yet I can't quite connect the number with my own body and the bodies of 121 people that I love.
There's a Charles Bukowski poem (I don't remember which one) in which he says of Americans, "The trouble with these people is that their cities have never been bombed and their mothers have never been told to shut up." I don't think I wish to be bombed, but there is a degree of truth in the observation.
Behind the Blip: Essays on the Culture of Software
Matthew Fuller
I don't doubt that somewhere out there, cowering in the basement of some academic building in some far-flung corner of some unfashionable university, there exists a "critical theorist" who both has really good ideas and can write with precision and clarity. And I also don't doubt that if the other critical theorists ever find out about that person, they will be immediately beaten to death with laptop computers. It's not that critical theory has nothing to say -- it sometimes does -- it's just that the means by which authors attempt to say it makes it look as if they're getting paid on the basis of maximizing some sort of word-to-idea ratio. With bonus pay for neologisms, especially if redundant. I mean, I guess there's a certain skill involved in learning to talk like Jacques Derrida, but there's also a certain skill involved in, say, removing someone's spleen with a pair of safety scissors. That doesn't mean that I want anybody to actually do such a thing, either to my spleen or the English language.
Anyway, Behind the Blip was such an experience for me. Every few pages, there was a small glimmer of insight. But I'm not even sure that the author himself could find them. It's like doing a Search-A-Word without knowing in advance what the words are, or even if the words actually exist in the English language yet. "Decanivictualization? Yeah, I made that one up. I guess it means 'dog vomit'." I'm not sure whom to hold responsible for this. I could blame the author for turning five pages worth of interesting ideas into a hundred-odd page monologue on paper. I could blame the entire history of cultural studies for making that an OK thing to do. Or I could blame myself for not having any stomach for writing that would rather sound complex than actually be complex.
So yeah, I was an English major. And yeah, I have a master's degree with a large critical theory component. And yeah, I was a teaching assistant for philosophy classes for a couple of years. And yeah, I'm glad that's behind me for now.
Making things out of wood seems more interesting by the day.
The Loved One
Evelyn Waugh
After slogging through a book of mostly hard-to-read poetry, I decided to give my brain a break and read a nice, skinny novel. Something that wouldn't make me think too hard. Something that I could read in just a few sittings. Something that would make fun of the English, Hollywood, and pet cemeteries. I've had The Loved One on my shelf for a while, and it seemed like just the right thing.
Now, I have been accused from time to time of doting overly on my cat. (As an interesting side note, in the linked photo, he has his paw draped over the very book about which I currently write.) And I suppose that, if he were to expire, I would proba
