Regarded as among the best novels ever written by an American, I am happy to have finally read James Farrell’s STUDS LONIGAN and I concur in its greatRegarded as among the best novels ever written by an American, I am happy to have finally read James Farrell’s STUDS LONIGAN and I concur in its greatness without reservation. It is authentic in a way that may no longer exist in present day fiction.
My review will have to marinate for a few days. I have other things that come first in the week ahead....more
Jonathan Rauch’s new book, THE CONSTITUTION OF KNOWLEDGE, might be the perfect antidote for your malaise if you, like me, are feeling demoralized by tJonathan Rauch’s new book, THE CONSTITUTION OF KNOWLEDGE, might be the perfect antidote for your malaise if you, like me, are feeling demoralized by the inanity of both Trumpism on the right and cancel culture on the left in the present moment. Rauch’s persuasive defense of truth here may be just the thing you need and at just the right time.
Before I tell you about Rauch’s defense, I should spend a moment telling you about Rauch himself. He is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. He writes often for The Atlantic. He is one of America’s best known and most respected advocates for gay marriage. He is, therefore, a man with sparkling credentials as a thinker who is sympathetic to many of the ideals and goals of the center left. But it is important for conservatives to know that Mr. Rauch is also a splendid advocate for Madisonian liberal democracy of the type that most Republicans practiced not so long ago. It is true, therefore, that his centrist arguments will be congenial to many thoughtful Americans on both sides of our great political divide, if readers will give him a chance.
Since Plato, thinkers have struggled to understand what distinguishes knowledge from mere opinion. Although Plato never answered that question satisfactorily, he did leave us Socrates’ dialectic as an example of how to try to discern knowledge from opinion by asking questions of one another and talking about it.
For almost 2500 years, no one improved much upon Socrates’ example. Then in the late 19th century, C.S. Pierce added a critical piece to the puzzle. He observed that knowledge or truth is largely a social phenomenon. It is arrived at by groups, not by individuals. This insight was revolutionary, and it took root among other thinkers only gradually. After Pierce, it is no longer correct to wonder what I know. Rather, the correct question is what do we know. (After mostly overlooking Peirce and mispronouncing his name for five generations, some now consider him to have been North America’s greatest philosopher and the equal of any European philosopher of the 20th century. His surname is pronounced “purse”, by the way.)
This is Rauch’s jumping off point for his discussion of the Constitution of Knowledge. He wants to talk about truth as developed by groups in three specific realms: scientific, political and episystemic (meaning businesses, schools, media, civic and social groups). These groups arrive at truth through social interactions that will feel familiar to most Americans.
In politics, the ideal has been no censorship. No idea is off limits. However, advocates must interact with their political adversaries. Nothing can become law or policy unless it can survive controversy including rigorous debate and politicking to persuade detractors to compromise and accept the new idea, which often will be modified beneficially through the process of persuasion. The architect of the political institutions that impose this obligation of persuasion, James Madison, thought he was preventing a monopolization of truth by any one faction. But Rauch argues that Madison was also creating objectivity through diversity of ideas and encouraging compromise. This objectivity is part and parcel of what Rauch calls our Constitution of Knowledge.
Science works similarly. Rauch imagines science as a large funnel. Every scientist is invited to propose hypotheses. They enter the large end of the funnel. But only a very few emerge from the narrow end of funnel. The great majority do not survive the scientific process. They do not hold up to the scrutiny of other scientists. The advocate’s results cannot be duplicated by other scientists. Or the proposed hypothesis lacks reliable predictive value. Or another scientist has proposed an even better explanation. Or a hundred other reasons may emerge for why no scientific consensus can be achieved. When consensus eludes the advocate, his hypothesis is gently forgotten.
Those hypotheses that do emerge the narrow end of the funnel are accepted in the scientific community as scientific truths. But scientific truths are “truths” only provisionally. That is so because science is never over. Any truth today may be challenged by something that offers the hope of even greater explanatory power tomorrow. That is how science works. The process repeats itself in a never-ending search for an even better explanation.
Epistemic knowledge is similarly about the process in the Constitution of Knowledge. There are only two rules, says Rauch. One is that no group has veto power to block the discussion of a new idea. The second is that no group has a monopoly on good ideas. Those principles assure that the exchange of ideas and the efforts to persuade other members of the relevant community continue without interruption.
It takes only a moment of reflection to recognize that the combination of Madisonian politics, science and epistemic knowledge is strongly anti-authoritarian. In the second half of his book, Rauch takes on authoritarian trends that threaten the Constitution of Knowledge. I will discuss two in this review.
First, Rauch considers the disinformation propaganda of the Trumpian right. Disinformation is not a replacement for the Constitution of Knowledge. It is not rooted in fact or evidence and it has no explanatory power of its own. It exists primarily to confuse and demoralize those who formerly deferred to the Constitution of Knowledge. Trump does not persuade. Rather he performs and his performances are meant to exploit passions and not to solve problems, discover new ideas or enlighten humanity. He sews confusion so that citizens lose faith in fact-based institutions allowing facts to be replaced with authoritarian assertion.
One of the effects of this cycle is that partisans become ever more partisan. As their own party becomes more obviously mendacious, partisans ascribe ever more hateful qualities to the opposite party. This relieves the cognitive dissonance that otherwise results from recognizing unscrupulous behavior in one’s own party. It is not uncommon these days to hear an argument along the lines: “well, I know that he’s no angel, but the Democrats are socialists.” As Republicans are forced to face the reality that Trump is often untruthful, they unwittingly imagine that the Democrats must be even worse. Thus, the disinformation program thwarts the negotiation process that Madison designed into our political institutions, and Trump avoids accountability for his false words and misdeeds.
The second trend is the “cancellation culture” of the left. To the very significant degree that cancel culture is not based on facts, persuasion and process, Rauch demonstrates that it is an instrument of authoritarianism. He shows us that at its best, cancel culture is a ruthless form of censorship devoid of any meaningful moderation or accountability by its practitioners. At its worst, it is out and out hatefulness and persecution of a smaller group (or individual) by a larger group. It, therefore, is an equal enemy to the Constitution of Knowledge as is Trumpism.
I have not done justice to the beauty of Rauch’s prose in this short review. He is impressively well read and a highly talented writer. I recommend his book very warmly....more
Alan Johnson’s FREE WILL AND HUMAN LIFE is an accessible, precise and succinct evaluation of the arguments pro and con for the existence of free will.Alan Johnson’s FREE WILL AND HUMAN LIFE is an accessible, precise and succinct evaluation of the arguments pro and con for the existence of free will.
At the outset, Johnson begins by defining “free will”. It “is the independent ability to make conscious decisions that are neither predetermined nor random”. With that starting point, he considers the religious, philosophical and scientific arguments against free will in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, he considers the corresponding arguments in favor of free will. In Chapter 3, he shares his own reasoning and conclusions regarding the existence of free will.
I cannot emphasize enough the thoughtfulness Johnson brings to the discussion of these arguments and the talent he shows in simplifying the competing merits of arguments that have been advocated down the centuries. This book is enormously sophisticated, but written to be accessible and enlightening to all interested readers.
For me, a casual reader of philosophy, this book is a perfect introduction to the subject. In particular, Johnson’s evaluation of recent scientific scholarship on the subject presents new and fascinating information that has me wondering about free will in an entirely new way. (Think neural networks, including an almost infinite collection of pathways and the evolutionary benefits such provides the species.) Johnson is persuaded that new science supports the existence of free will, as he defines it. I am not nearly as sophisticated as Johnson, but I can say that while I am uncertain whether new science supports the existence of free will, I am completely convinced now that current science does not preclude the existence of free will, as I formerly thought it might.
I recommend this book very warmly and hope everyone will read it....more
NATURE’S METROPOLIS is the best non-fiction book about Chicago that I have read. As a starting point, Cronon explains Chicago’s unique place in AmericNATURE’S METROPOLIS is the best non-fiction book about Chicago that I have read. As a starting point, Cronon explains Chicago’s unique place in American history by describing its growth in relation to the natural advantages that it enjoyed economically being located at the touchpoint between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River system.
But there is much more too, of course. With the help of New York financiers, Chicago’s energetic promoters were faster and more sure-footed than their competitors to exploit the lumber, grain, meat, transportation, retail and related financial markets associated with the opening of what was then called the Great West.
Economic histories are a special genre. Cronon seems unusually talented in this genre and NATURE’S METROPOLIS is an impressive achievement. It is one of my favorites and I recommend it highly....more
DeLillo's masterpiece, they say. The one that might win him the Nobel Prize for literature, they say.
I do not dispute it, though I am not qualified tDeLillo's masterpiece, they say. The one that might win him the Nobel Prize for literature, they say.
I do not dispute it, though I am not qualified to confirm it. I will say that UNDERWORLD is a wonderful read. Provocative and ambitious, it is about escaping our inevitably messy past and what baggage must accompany us on the journey.
There other themes too. One is the author's musing about the role that garbage might play in the 21st century.
It goes without saying that Mr. DeLillo's talent for story-telling is unique. As a subplot, he imagines a life of old-fashioned religious servitude for J. Edgar Hoover's twin sister. We always wondered what happened to her. Didn't we?
Best of all, DeLillo’s gift for word play never fails him. That makes his longish novel a quick read filled with humor, but not without uncomfortable situations as he portrays, in mostly reverse order, the timeline of Nick Shay’s life. Shay barely escapes the Bronx of his childhood during the 1950s. Only to wind up as a successful executive in a waste handling company located in Phoenix in the first decade of the 21st Century.
The trajectory of Shay’s life is intertwined with the fate of the baseball that Bobby Thompson launched out of the Old Polo Grounds defeating the Brooklyn Dodgers and sending the Giants to the World Series against the Yankees in 1951.
How can you not admire the imagination required to write such a tale?...more
What a wonderful book! It eased my COVID shut in immeasurably.
Tolstoy thinks that the causes explaining human behavior are so numerous and subtle thaWhat a wonderful book! It eased my COVID shut in immeasurably.
Tolstoy thinks that the causes explaining human behavior are so numerous and subtle that we may never understand them, or even be able to say with confidence that we enjoy free will. His story focuses on romantic love, family life and warfare. He weaves a narrative that convincingly demonstrates that we do not foresee the consequences of our behaviors. Nor do we influence outcomes, at least not in conformity with our desires or intentions.
Tolstoy uses the example of Napoleon to illustrate his point. Apparently, even in his most famous victories, Napoleon’s orders were rarely followed by his army and he he had no idea in real time what was happening as a battle unfolded. His reputation as a genius in war was, therefore, based on good fortune rather than talent, argues Tolstoy.
It is a fun argument, beautifully rendered. I am almost persuaded. But all said and done, my sense is that Napoleon’s example hurts Tolstoy’s larger argument more than it helps it. Who, if not Napoleon, has imposed his will on history? And that is a refutation of the argument that Tolstoy is wrestling with.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
Hitler was the master of the “big lie”. His big l“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
Hitler was the master of the “big lie”. His big lie was that Germany won the First World War, but that the Weimar elites negotiated a bad peace for Germany at Versailles. (“They stabbed us in the back,” Hitler claimed.) This was nonsense, of course, but Hitler convinced more than a third of German voters that it was true.
One cannot help but wonder at the parallels to Trump’s “stop the steal” scam. Ivana, mother of Donald’s first three children, reportedly has said that Donald admired Hitler and kept a collection of Hitler’s speeches entitled MY NEW ORDER on his nightstand during their marriage. That’s a bad thing if it’s true. Trump’s black heart and mental health may be debated, I suppose. But one thing that is beyond debate is that Hitler was a monster, a lunatic and the ruin of Germany. RISE AND FALL documents all of it and in painstaking detail.
While not a flawless book, it is nonetheless a must read if you wonder how authoritarianism can arise among a sophisticated, western people. Wickedness lurks just beneath the surface of human society like a poisonous disease. It is always there, despite appearances to the contrary. And it takes only a charismatic liar to catalyze the brooding elements of society with the wickedly greedy who are only too happy to exploit the anger as a means of grabbing power. In Germany, the conservative oligopoly thought it could control Hitler and his brown shirts. No such luck and soon Hitler controlled the (formerly) influential and rich Herren and Damen.
Fortunately for the world, after an initial period of success when he caught the rest of Europe by surprise, Hitler’s fanaticism led him into a series of mistakes that assured Germany’s ultimate defeat by the Allies.
It is fascinating history and scrupulously researched. Shirer took full advantage of the documents gathered by the Nuremberg prosecutors to detail his long and inclusive description of the Nazi years, including the Holocaust. I recommend RISE AND FALL highly....more
It seems a long time since I enjoyed a work of fiction as much as I enjoyed RULES OF CIVILITY. Towles has written a literate, polished, sexy and DickeIt seems a long time since I enjoyed a work of fiction as much as I enjoyed RULES OF CIVILITY. Towles has written a literate, polished, sexy and Dickensian novel featuring a heroine of intelligence, beauty and courage living in New York City immediately before WWII. Funny, when we first meet Towles' protagonist, Kate Kontent, she is reading GREAT EXPECTATIONS. But I didn’t fully appreciate that Kate’s own story would rival Pip’s until I was nearly done with RULES OF CIVILITY.
You owe it to yourself to read this novel and savor its surprises....more
More than a decade ago, after sharing a few bottles of wine, a very dear friend tried to convince me that Judaism is a higher religion than ChristianiMore than a decade ago, after sharing a few bottles of wine, a very dear friend tried to convince me that Judaism is a higher religion than Christianity or Islam. This happened in the famous President’s Bar located on the second floor of the University Club in Chicago. It is a place where similar high falutin’ conversations used to take place with regularity. I miss it.
My friend is a graduate of the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School (and the most perceptive interlocutor I know). He knows how to marshal an eloquent argument when he wants to. He made many points in his favor, all of which are outside the scope of this book review. However, that conversation is relevant here because it uniquely and possibly for the first time fixed my mind on the critical questions addressed in NATURAL RIGHT AND HISTORY. Namely, what is the best regime (or religion) and what is the standard for addressing such a question? My friend intimated that the standard might be found by studying the writings of Leo Strauss, the 20th century political philosopher, whose most productive years were spent at the University of Chicago in the 1950s and 60s. I was deeply skeptical that such a standard can be articulated. Yet, I took the suggestion to read Strauss seriously. As so often happens, other things intervened and I did not have time to pursue reading Strauss until only recently.
I will not bore you with the details, but a time came when I could become part of a reading group that focuses on the writings of Strauss. The group began with the title essay in a collection of Strauss’ essays entitled, WHAT IS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY? It was a challenge for me. Strauss is an unconventional and elusive writer. I was often unsure whether I understood what he intended. Although older than other members of the group, I was the one with the most incomplete education in the discipline of political philosophy. As we read together, the other members of the group were patient and supportive while I often spun my wheels. But by the conclusion of the several months that it took us to complete WHAT IS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, I felt that I had advanced sufficiently to keep up with the others.
It required extra work. I located audio files of several of Strauss’ lectures on line. These were very helpful. I also read three Strauss biographies and watched a video of a conversation between Bill Kristol and Harvey Mansfield, the prominent Harvard professor who is a student of Strauss’s philosophy. I learned from Mansfield that, in his opinion, the best book to read to become acquainted with Strauss’s thinking is NATURAL RIGHT AND HISTORY. Taking his suggestion to heart, when the time came for our reading group to choose our next book, I suggested that we should read NRH and the group agreed.
In NRH, Strauss addresses the question (closely related to that conversation long ago in the President’s Bar), what is the standard for deciding which is the best regime? By ‘regime’, Strauss means more than simply the laws and political organization of society. In regime, he includes also the religion, mores, conventions and other patterns of behavior that bracket the conduct of citizens, both leaders and followers, within a society.
I do not propose to provide a summary of NRH here. You can find several good ones in GoodReads. Instead, I want to talk about Strauss’ project more generally and why we should take it seriously.
We live in a time that philosophers call “post-modern”. Post-modern thinkers have given up searching for something built into nature that makes life or a political regime good. Post-modern thinkers conclude that any notion of the good that may exist in these times is not an enduring or unchanging part of nature. Rather, it is the result of consensus and will last only as long as the consensus holds. Some see this as an advantage in that it enables tolerance of conflicting points of view. The American Pragmatists are an example of such thinkers.
Others see it as a challenge to find genuine meaning in our lives. Nietzsche and Heidegger are examples of thinkers who approach it that way. Generally, thinkers in that vein think that when good is based on mere consensus (also known as conventionalism), it inevitably will resolve into nihilism. In the 20th century, existentialists argued that the solution is for the individual to create his own meaningful existence, a life of authenticity, by imagining a life for oneself and then committing to it. The commitment supplies the meaning that saves the individual from nothingness.
Strauss abhors the existentialists and ignores the pragmatists. However, he agrees with the existentialists that consensus inevitably resolves into nihilism. Much of NRH is a discussion of that inevitability. Strauss makes his case well, at least well enough that it cannot be dismissed lightly. He does not deny that conventionalism leaves room for increased toleration of divergent views, a desirable thing, but he predicts that the danger of nihilism may prove to outweigh any temporary advantage gained in accommodating diverse points of view. (Indeed, the behavior of the culture war combatants in the US these days may be an example of the nihilism that Strauss thought was unavoidable.)
Given this conundrum, Strauss blazes a new trail quite unlike other post-moderns. He avoids nihilism by avoiding conventionalism at the outset. To do so, he hearkens back to the ancients. In place of conventionalism, Strauss posits natural right, the idea that what is good is fixed in human nature. (It should be noted that NRH is not Strauss' last word on natural right. He continued to refine his thinking another 20 years after publishing NRH. However, NRH does seem to be a good introduction to his thought on the subject.)
In NRH, Strauss describes two kinds of natural right, classical and modern. Classical natural right was first expounded by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Cicero and Aquinas were also proponents of classical natural right. Strauss credits Thomas Hobbes with inventing modern natural right, which with refinements has come to be known as modern liberal democracy.
Strauss prefers classical natural right. Strauss does not lay out his own positive program for the good regime. The closest he comes is that it is clear that he thinks the problems of post-modernism would not exist in a classical regime. The individual’s relationship to the regime classically was one of responsibility to act virtuously. That is, in the classical world, the citizen had the duty to act virtuously.
In contrast, in modern natural right, the citizen is foremost (if not solely) a holder of rights that the regime may not encroach upon without the citizen’s consent. Strauss details how the modern version of natural right came to be by discussing Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Burke. In modern natural right, the citizen is sovereign. Whereas in classical natural right, the sovereign political unit is the regime.
It is apparent that Strauss thinks that citizens seeking to live virtuously in the classical sense make for a better regime than citizens who are free to pursue happiness in the modern sense, i.e., the solitary pursuit of happiness. Strauss reasons that classical natural right comports with what is natural for human beings, who are by their nature political animals. Human nature calls on the citizens of the good regime to live virtuously, and when they do, rewards them with a happy life. (Aristotle would remind us that to be happy a virtuous citizen must also have a little money and good health too, of course.)
Circling back to my conversation in the President’s Bar, one could conclude that NRH implicitly argues that the highest religion is the religion that most encourages virtuous behavior as described by Plato and Aristotle.
In NRH, Strauss argues more explicitly that the metric for measuring the good regime or the good life is virtue, as Plato and Aristotle thought of it. Unfortunately, in NRH, he does not tell us how to return to that way of living and may concede that it is too late to do so. That is unfortunate. I can’t cite a more important question to ponder in these unsatisfactory times. That Strauss had that question firmly in mind writing NRH in 1949, impresses me enormously....more
Ta-Nehisi Coates’ BETWEEN THE WORLD AND ME is the best thing on racism in America that I have read in a long time, maybe ever. It is also one of the mTa-Nehisi Coates’ BETWEEN THE WORLD AND ME is the best thing on racism in America that I have read in a long time, maybe ever. It is also one of the most complex. I am both encouraged and discouraged by it.
BETWEEN THE WORLD AND ME outwardly takes the form of an essay. Coates is writing to his son to advise him and prepare him for life as a black man in a racist society. But it is not expository in the familiar way that we expect from an essay. There is no argument in the traditional sense. Coates does not care to assert a proposition and then support it with evidence and logic. He opts out of any sort of linear explication leading to a conclusion. Instead, Coates weaves back and forth between the autobiographical, the angry and the philosophical.
Coates seems to be doing three things in this fine book. First, he has written a deeply unsettling description of his early life, using words to create pictures that enable us to sense and share a bit of his despair while growing up in Baltimore before attending Howard University. This part of the book is very impressive.
Second, he counsels his son to adopt a type of stoicism that is calculated to keep him safe, while also permitting him to cope with the indignities of being a black man in America. This part of Between the World and Me most engages our intellect.
Third, Coates lets loose his anger. He vents about the unfairness of racism. He taunts white America and mocks institutions that he perceives to be perpetuating racism. This is the least impressive part of the book. Like most advocacy offered in anger, it becomes illogical and undignified. While this sort of advocacy can be well-received by those who already agree with the advocate, it alienates the uninformed or undecided and, therefore, is generally to be avoided.
Let me begin with Coates’ emotional experience of racism. By focusing on the emotional, primarily fear, he limits controversy. He need not justify his fear. It is not right or wrong. It simply is. We learn that Coates never feels physically safe. He lives in daily fear and knows that the control that he sometimes exercises over his own physical self is insecure. It can be taken from him at any time by the police or by criminals who likely will never be punished. He has no power to prevent either. He has no recourse. He cannot protect himself by relying on the laws of white society to protect him in the first instance or to redress his grievances thereafter. He is alone and in constant peril because he is black in a white society.
This is nightmarish. While not a perfect analogy, I came to feel that Coates lives like Winston Smith must live in Orwell’s 1984. He is never permitted the comfort of just being himself. Because he inhabits a black body, he must conceal his true feelings. He is never safe.
There is an exception to this. When he arrived at Howard University as a freshman, Coates experienced an epiphany. He found a place where he was accepted and safe. He experienced all of the broad diversity of his African-American heritage in a way that challenged him while allowing him to belong. For the first time in his life, he was no longer an outsider.
The contrast between Coates’ emotional life before Howard University and during shows how far a Black person must come in American society to achieve a feeling of full equality. Coates is a realist. He acknowledges that the changes needed to make such a feeling of equality possible are not within the power of the black community to effectuate. Only white America can make it happen. Therefore, it is unlikely to occur soon or, perhaps, ever.
This causes Coates to counsel his son to adopt the detachment of a stoic. This is his son’s country. He must find a way to make a life here. And the way to accomplish that is through stoicism. Coates’ stoicism is sophisticated. This is not the simplistic and cynical formula: always expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. Rather, Coates understands that the quality of our life has more to do with the quality of our thoughts than with things over which we have no control. He advises his son on a strategy for improving and managing the quality of his thoughts, while at the same time finding a way to live safely within the constant menace of white society. The first step is to see things clearly. The second step is to use the tools of rationality and education to understand what you clearly see. Then strive to know what you can change and what you cannot.
Coates mostly seems to practice the stoicism that he preaches, but not completely. Occasionally, he indulges in a bit of nihilistic ranting as if all is hopeless and nothing matters. It is easy for me to discount all of that. If nothing matters, then why is he writing? Moreover, it is clear that things do matter to Coates. In particular, his son. So I ascribe his more nihilistic passages to letting off some steam and undisciplined editing.
Coates also occasionally indulges in angry prose in a way that seemingly he would not want his son to do. For example, he accuses white society of “plundering” black Americans in a way that he does not explain and may no longer be accurate. He writes as if he believes that slavery, as an institution, was always based on race and targeted at those of African heritage. He implies that all white people are complicit in the illegal shootings of black men, women and children by urban police departments. He makes fun of white Americans by repeatedly referring to them as “people who think they are white". It may be that he is trying to make a point with this locution, but the point was lost on me and is inconsistent with other assertions that he makes which tend to regard white America as a monolith.
As I have said, angry advocacy is self-defeating and his writing in this vein does not always work. The tension between the thoughtful advice he offers his son and his own venting against white America threatens to undercut the strong case that he otherwise makes. Though we can easily sympathize with his anger, especially after reading his eloquent description of the life of fear that racism has caused him to live, anger (Coates’ or our own) does not help us to think clearly in the manner that he advises his son to adopt and which, he convinced me, we all dearly need.
Let me add that Coates clearly has thought this through more thoroughly than I have. I expect that there is nothing that I have said here that he is not well aware of. I conclude, therefore, that he does not care that he can be seen as inconsistent. I find this stimulating (is Coates' generation of writers post-logical?), but also disappointing. I like rational argument. When we adhere to it faithfully, it clarifies and defuses. It helps us to understand. It contributes to progress. Racism is the singular problem of our country and has been since the founding. Many white people get this emphatically. We do not need to be hit over the head with it. We need to figure out how to change it and pejorative rhetoric is not helpful. Plus, it underscores that just as we sometimes do not understand his point of view, Coates sometimes does not understand ours. Sadly, this trite observation still reflects the fundamental challenge to resolving the dysfunction of racial politics in the US today.
BETWEEN THE WORLD AND ME opened my eyes to new insights. It deserves to be widely read and discussed....more
Stanley Elkin’s BOSWELL: A MODERN COMEDY is hilarious. Please do yourself a favor and read it as soon as possible.
For a while now, I have considered Stanley Elkin’s BOSWELL: A MODERN COMEDY is hilarious. Please do yourself a favor and read it as soon as possible.
For a while now, I have considered Woody Allen’s GETTING EVEN, an early collection of short pieces written for magazines, the funniest single volume that I have ever read. But now, I have to wonder if BOSWELL does not surpass Allen. I wonder too, if BOSWELL did not inspire some of Allen’s material. BOSWELL was published in 1964. Allen’s GETTING EVEN pieces were written later in time, I believe. They share a common comedic sensibility.
James Boswell, Elkin’s protagonist, is unique in my reading. When we meet him, he is barely more than a child. An orphan in his late teens, he lives with his uncle in St. Louis. Boswell is an unlikeable mooch. He lacks ambition or any discernable talent except that he is big and strong. He fathered a child when he was fifteen, but has no contact with his son.
The book, which lacks a central plot, takes shape when young Boswell meets a character, of some notoriety himself, who takes credit for directing the careers of others toward fame and celebrity. He predicts that Boswell will never be a celebrity on his own, but Boswell will be the companion of celebrities. The chapter including this exchange is funny beyond description. The prognostication of Boswell’s future is delivered in the manner of Billy Crystal doing schtick on a hyper and deranged Rabbi come to America from Eastern Europe. I laughed so hard tears came to my eyes. Elkin seems to have had a unique gift for this kind of comedy.
Boswell fills his time by training at a local gym. He trains to be a strong man. Not a body builder, but a strong man as in a circus or a vaudevillian exhibition. Boswell seeks out a retired, but once famous strong man of that sort. They become friends. (Much of the book is about Boswell’s ability to attach himself to celebrities and this is a good early example of that talent.) But the business of being a strongman has changed. So Boswell allows himself to be talked into becoming a professional wrestler instead.
Surprisingly, Boswell enjoys success in professional wrestling. His alter ego, the Masked Playboy, is popular with the fans. Boswell works his way up and is regarded as an up and coming contender for the title. Then he is scheduled for a match against the Grim Reaper, who Elkin implies may be an agent for the Angel of Death. The Reaper is ancient. In fact, no one knows just how old he is. And the Reaper never loses. Boswell’s career as a professional wrestler ends abruptly when the Grim Reaper beats him badly, sending Boswell to the hospital for a long convalescence. During the convalescence, Boswell’s uncle tries to reconcile Boswell to his lost son, but being a complete shirker, Boswell refuses to accept any relationship with his boy.
Thereafter, Boswell embarks upon a rather successful career pursuing and befriending celebrities. I don’t want to spoil the fun, but he winds up marrying at the very top of the international A-list. Of course, that does not make him happy, but I won’t elaborate any further. You will have to read it for yourself. And I cannot imagine that you won’t enjoy it completely.
One final observation. The dust cover of the book frames Boswell’s very odd career as a response to a fear of death. That may be a bit of the explanation, certainly. But Boswell is not a neurotic and fear is not a big part of his psyche, except for the match with the Grim Reaper, which scares the wits out of him. In fact, Boswell is incredibly shallow. Far too shallow to be struggling with any sort of existential question concerning a search for a solution to the problem of death. Quite the contrary, Boswell is nothing more than a superficial consumer of celebrity. He is a groupie. There is no depth to him. Elkin is not moralizing. He is holding up a mirror to American popular culture in the second half of the 20th century. He does it without sarcasm or judgment. He simply records the absurdity of it all for our entertainment.
To end, I want to add a personal comment. Boswell’s occasional motto is: I have the strength of ten because my heart is pure. I did not know that, of course, until I read the book just recently. But 30 years ago, when I was a young lawyer, I appeared one day before the Honorable Milton I. Shadur in the federal court in Chicago. He had a fearsome intellect and I was in awe of him. I was alone that morning, but on the other side there were several lawyers opposing my motion. I said to Judge Shadur, “it looks like I am out-numbered, your honor.” He responded, “Not to worry, Mr. Lyerla; your strength is as the strength of ten because your heart is pure.” That, of course, unnerved the other lawyers and I won the motion. But ever since, I wondered where the line about a pure heart came from. Now I know....more
It is seven years before World War I. Hans Castorp is an unremarkable young man of the German middle class. He recently obtained his degree in engineeIt is seven years before World War I. Hans Castorp is an unremarkable young man of the German middle class. He recently obtained his degree in engineering and has a job waiting for him in a ship building company in Hamburg. But first he travels to a sanatorium located on a Swiss mountaintop to visit his cousin, who is receiving treatment for tuberculosis there. Castorp plans to stay three weeks, but winds up staying seven years. THE MAGIC MOUNTAIN is Thomas Mann’s novel of Castorp’s experiences during his long sojourn as a patient in the sanatorium.
I read MM out of a combined sense of curiosity and obligation. MM is considered by some to be the greatest novel of the 20th Century. It led to Thomas Mann receiving the Nobel Prize for literature in 1928. So, naturally, I was curious. I wanted to know what’s the big deal? But more than that, if it is one of the great novels of the century of my birth and the first half of my life, didn’t I have an obligation to myself to read it and experience what it has to offer? After all, I read partly to improve the quality of my thinking as I aspire to improve the quality of my living.
So I bought a copy. I chose the recent translation by John Woods, which seems to be well regarded.
The first thing you notice about MM is that it is long. This is not DEATH IN VENICE, Mann’s wonderful novella that you can read in a few hours. This is a tome. Length was not an attractive quality for me at the time that I decided to pick up MM. I was busy at work and there were distractions. Distractions are a problem when reading MM. It is not a page burner. At times, I felt myself fogging out. I had to re-read certain parts of the book, which happens, but happened a little more with MM than I am accustomed to.
Before I steer you in the wrong direction, MM is not boring. You have seen that I have given MM five stars. I recommend it to all serious readers. It is worthwhile. While it did not grip me, I am happy that I read it and I want all of you to read it too.
So you may be saying to yourself, if you want us to read it, then please tell us what it is about? Ah, yes. The obvious question. What is MM about? The received view is that MM is about the decaying state of Europe before the Great War. I do not know how this came to be the received view. For all I know, Mann gave this description himself. But having now read it, slowly and with care, it is not at all clear to me that MM is about anything as specific as the cultural and political condition of Europe in a particular decade. Rather, MM seems to be mostly about abstractions. There is no plot. MM is a collection of set pieces and they all seem to be about ideas. MM is about humor and irony. Many of Castorp's interactions with others in the sanatorium are very funny - even ridiculous. MM is about time and routine and lust and change. Duty versus pleasure. There is a bit about music. And a bit about science. There is a bit more about humanism contrasted with religionism (in which Mann includes Marxism). And there is a fair bit about death.
There is a recurring theme about formality versus informality in speech ("Sie" vs. "du"). This seems to have been something that was changing and uncomfortable for Germans at the time that Mann wrote. Castorp's awkwardness on this subject is very entertaining at times.
But I do not know what any of it means. Mann’s symbolism is both heavy-handed and completely elusive at the same time. Or at least it was for me.
Mann's characters are not multi-dimensional. In fact, the principal characters border on cartoonish in a way that foreshadows writing that emerged later in the 20th century. Many of his scenes flirt with the absurd. I think I could make an argument that MM is an early example of absurdism. Frankly, the entire premise of the book seemed absurd to me. Who would stay in a sanatorium for seven years, with a mild, non-life threatening case of TB?
But I have no confidence that I am taking away what Mann intended. I think it might have been less opaque to read MM in a book club or as part of a class. Perhaps, that’s how I will read it the next time. But no matter how you choose to read it, THE MAGIC MOUNTAIN is a must read if you consider yourself a serious reader....more
I finished reading THE REPUBLIC for the second time just now. It is arguably the second most influential book in the western canon. We all should studI finished reading THE REPUBLIC for the second time just now. It is arguably the second most influential book in the western canon. We all should study it.
Allan Bloom's translation is a good one -- I am told by reliable sources -- and his interpretive essay is not to be missed. (I read the essay as it appeared in the 1968 edition.) But be aware that his interpretation is not a traditional one. For example, compare Bertrand Russell's summary of Plato in his HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY. So don't be confused if Bloom's essay feels unfamiliar or seems to contradict other things that you may have learned or read about Plato.
After a second reading, more than forty years after the first, I am still uncertain when/whether Plato is writing esoterically. But I don't think it matters. We can decide the merits of the City in Speech for ourselves. And how do we feel about that philosophical, but unattainable regime? (We do not like it, of course. Does it make sense that Plato would have intended this? Should we score one for esoteric writing there?)
What about the timocracy devoted to honor that it will decay into? Followed by oligarchy where wealth is valued above all else? Then unruly democracy? And finally tyranny?
I read THE REPUBLIC this last time in a reading group. That's the best way to read it, I think. It was written to be discussed and puzzled over. And we did....more
What a comfort this little book is for a golfer! Simple and wise, Penick makes golf sensible for expert and hacker alike. It is a must read for all goWhat a comfort this little book is for a golfer! Simple and wise, Penick makes golf sensible for expert and hacker alike. It is a must read for all golfers.
A key take away for me is that Penick instructs us to "take dead aim." Of course. And yet, I bet the vast majority of shots I hit in a round are just approximations. No more. I resolve to take dead aim. That now is my mantra....more
Loading...
