Pico Iyer, The Man Inside My Head

Pico Iyer’s book is difficult to review because it’s difficult to classify. It’s part memoir, part literary biography and criticism, and part travel book. Indeed, there seems to be two men inside Iyer’s head, the novelist Graham Greene and Iyer’s father. The book traces its course through various episodes of Iyer’s diverse life. Iyer is the son of Indians who emigrated to the U.K. and then, in the 1960s, to southern California. Iyer returned to England for schooling while his parents remained in California, thus requiring Iyer to ferry back and forth across the continents to experience both school and family. This type of background, along with the fact that his father was an academic and one well-versed and enthusiastic about the classics, made for an interesting background for young Pico (named, by the way, after the great Italian humanist, Pico della Mirandola). 

But during all of this, and well into the present, the singular figure of Graham Greene, the novelist and the man, became the “man within my head”. Perhaps their shared travels and uncertainties lead to this attraction, although as someone who’s been quite rooted his whole life, I, too, find Greene’s work quite fascinating. Greene, if you’re not acquainted with him, is the British novelist who often sets his novels in far-off locales, such as Haiti, Mexico, Sierra Leone, and the like, and then populates the novel with complex, often quite psychologically tortured characters. Greene was not afraid to delve into issues of God, belief, and guilt, as well as all manner of sin and betrayal. And Greene himself proves quite a convoluted and complex character, at once cold and kind, approachable and lonely. 

I recommend this book to anyone who’s read Greene’s work or whose seen the movies that do some justice to his work, like The Third Man (a great film starring Orson Welles and Joseph Cotton—and did you know that in the short story, Harry Lime was a Catholic?), The Fallen Idol (another Carol Reed film), and The Comedians (Liz and Dick at their best along with a fine cast). For established Greene fans, this would prove a worthwhile read. As Iyer has written a lot of other work that I’ve not read, I can’t say how this fits, but it’s interesting, instructive, and like all of the characters in the book, very elusive.

Further Thoughts on the Election

I have been digesting the election results and giving further thought to what happened. Below are some random ideas that occur to me:

The Republicans have always been the party of the wealthy. This also used to mean that they were the party of the better educated. However, that has certainly changed. While Republicans captured a majority of into the votes of individuals making more than $100,000 a year, they didn’t do well among the better educated and many of the affluent. In addition to capturing the wealthy, Republicans tended to attract those who live in primarily rural areas, such as western Iowa. What these individuals who live in these communities, as small business owners and as laborers, have in common with billionaires like Sheldon Adelson? I do not know. This is the “what’s the matter with Kansas?” problem that Thomas Frank has written about. Of course, this reflects the strange marriage of the very wealthy with the socially conservative.

Looking at post-election demographics is also interesting. Obama carried the Catholic vote by a couple of points, which I found interesting. He garnered a majority of the least educated and the most educated, but lost those in between. Does that demonstrate that a little education is a dangerous thing? It’s an interesting split. As I mentioned above, most of the wealthiest voted Republican. This is, of course, traditional. But I wonder, do the rich think that they can enjoy their wealth in a society that is, on the whole, less wealthy and more unequal? Of course, this is how civilizations have worked from their beginning until very recently; that is until economic and political modernity changed the world so drastically. I compare the belief that the wealthy can enjoy their wealth in a sea of poverty with what I experience here in India. I really wonder how the rich can think of themselves as well off when streets, sewers, utilities are poorly maintained (if at all); pollution is rampant (air & water); and all manner of private goods are not as easily available as they should be. The impoverishment of the public sector deeply attenuates the benefits of wealth. But, some think that if they have enough private wealth they can buy themselves happiness.

Politicians have always been known for lack of candor and for maintaining an escape hatch on most issues. In earlier days, candidates could say one thing in Shenandoah and another in Iowa City. But since the advent of national news coverage, this becomes more difficult. With this campaign, we saw a whole new level of mendacity from that Romney. I’ve never seen a candidate criticized so much for reversing his positions or trying to alter the facts (i.e., lie) as Romney has received. (This piece by Kevin Kruse is representative.)But not only between his time as governor of Massachusetts to his time as Republican presidential candidate, but even from the time of the primaries earlier in the year to the time of his campaign this fall. And yet, far too few seemed to mind. (Garry Wills, of course, is an insightful exception.) Now, I am willing to give candidates some slack, and I’ve always been a believer in Emerson’s admonition that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” However, Mitt Romney has taken this beyond any rational prudence. Everyone should have developed grave concerns about his character. This baffles me because while I disagreed very much with his limited worldview and his willingness to pander to the Republican right wing, I didn’t consider Romney, a candidate of deficient character. In his private life, he seems like a fairly forthright and honest fellow. This either means that he was willing to do almost anything to get elected friend (and he did almost get elected) or that he thought that he could somehow square the circle. Neither of these options is attractive, and all the more reason his defeat relieves me of having to wrestle with such vexing thoughts.

Since I left the Republican party about three decades ago, I’ve never been as enthusiastic a Democrat as some. Party ties can bind us in a way that can seriously distort our judgment. I’m thinking particularly of persons like David Frum and David Brooks, conservatives for whom I have a modicum of respect and to whom I give credit as thoughtful observers of contemporary politics. However, I believe both of them tried to justify a vote for Romney by suggesting that Romney would ignore his promises to the Republican right wing and forge a working coalition with Democrats. This assumes the Democrats would keep their goodwill, which, heaven help them, they probably are forced to do because they’re so damned reasonable. But this suggests that we should have elected a man who would turn tail again to please the crowd. First, this is a long shot that, because the political realities would’ve made Romney beholden to a Republican Congress that has much closer ties to the radical right that now controls the party. But second, as I suggested in the preceding paragraph, this defect in character could have made him a tough person to work with, let alone trust.

I highly recommend this article by Rick Perlstein about mendacity in the conservative movement. It’s a pretty shocking piece, but Pearlstein does his homework. I’m not sure what to make of it, but it is an explanation of Romney’s mendacity and the deception within the conservative movement. Krugman has also suggested that conservatives grasp for power in a way that distorts all judgment. Perhaps that’s true.

How much will we see a replay of the politics of the Great Depression! Oh, that Obama will now become an FDR! He needs to drive a hard bargain at this point, and I think a lot of us are holding our breath about this. Stay tuned for further developments!

Andrew Sullivan on the Problem with the Right

Read the entire blog, but this quote from Andrew Sullivan hits the nail on the head. Republicans: please, can Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly & their mean-spirited & paranoid delusional comrades. Come home! You'll find Lincoln, TR, Ike & others waiting for your return. Turn to Burke, to Niebuhr, to something other than the paranoid style of American politics. Anyway, here's Sullivan: 

These charlatans and money-grubbers have turned the broad tradition of Anglo-American conservatism into Southern Fried Fanaticism - and I wanted to see them crackle in their batter. They have replaced empirical doubt with unerring faith in an ideology that had its moment over thirty years ago and is barely relevant to the world we now live in. That faith has been cynically fused with fundamentalist religion to make it virtually impossible for the GOP to accept that women are the majority of voters in this country, that gay couples are equal to straight ones, that 11 million illegal immigrants simply cannot be expected to "self-deport" en masse by a regime of terrifying policing, that war is a last and not a first resort, that the debt we have is primarily a function of two things: George W. Bush's presidency and the economic collapse his term ended with.

So true, so true! 

F.L. Lucas, Style: The Art of Writing Well

The internet deserves another shout-out of praise for somehow guiding me to this wonderful book. I often treat the internet as I do the labyrinthine Seminary Coop Bookstore: I can wonder here & there & discover the most delightful titles and ideas. I think that this tip came from Farnum Street, which obtained the tip from an article written by Joseph Epstein. But no matter, along with my trusty Kindle (a useful supplement to the paper book) I have now completed this delightful & instructive book. 

Reading this book was like sitting in class with the most urbane and humane don that I could imagine. He combines a literature class (from the Greeks to the British & French masters) with a writing class. And while this is not work shop, no exercises, no bullet points, you realize that he writes the writing that he teaches. Clarity, brevity, and courtesy toward the reader are his guiding principles, and he practices  these virtues, displays them really, while guiding us along a path littered with great writers from past ages. 

This is not an easy, how-to book. Quotations in French require a trip to the endnotes for translation, and a great number of the examples quoted are new to me, even if the names of the authors are familiar. However, the effort proved worthwhile, and I completed the book feeling a great sense of satisfaction at having been entertained and delighted while I received great instruction. The perfect professor. 

James Bond: Sky Fall

This year marks the 50^th anniversary of James Bond on film. To mark this momentous occasion, we have the latest release in the franchise Sky Fall, starring Daniel Craig. This is the third production in which Daniel Craig has played the title role of James Bond. Although I’ve not followed the franchise on a regular basis over its 50 years, I think I’ve seen productions involving most all of the previous Bonds, especially Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan, and to my mind, the Daniel Craig productions are the best of them. Instead of the suave and ironic character that Brosnan provides, Craig appears to be a street tough and savvy operative. In the Craig productions, Bond’s given more character, more depth, and more flaws. He isn’t exactly Alex Lemus, but it does a better job than prior productions. On the other hand, all of the Bond formulas are included in Sky Fall, from chases, to gadgets, to martinis (shaken, not stirred).

In addition to Daniel Craig’s gritty performance as an aging, steely eyed Bond, he is joined again by Judi Dench playing the role of ‘M’. Dench is one of those British actresses whose been acting for what seems to be an eternity, and her on-screen persona always seems to work whatever the occasion. In addition to these two regular cast members, Ralph Fiennes, perhaps the current reigning heavyweight among British actors, joins the cast. Javier Bardem gets the role of the villain and provides an effectively creepy performance. Thus, you know that the acting will be strong. Oh yes, less to disappoint anyone, we also have a couple of beautiful new young Bond babes.

For all of this, however, the film didn’t work very well for me. The formula can get tired. I came out of this film feeling much the same way I felt about the third of Matt Damon’s Bourne movies: the energy and intrigue it been lost and to try to make up for it, the directors and producers had simply attempted to add more chases, more action, and more speed. I understand that the Bond and Bourne franchises aren’t intended to match Le Carre for character, depth, intrigue, and nuance; however, at a certain point even with an old classic, you miss those additional features.

In fact, when I get down to it, I found myself a little annoyed after seeing the movie. Some things occurred to me were just a little too great a leap of fantasy to accept. I kept asking myself, doesn’t James Bond have a cell phone? Aren’t the British Marines every bit as tough savvy, and capable as US Navy SEALs? And when Javier Bardem, playing a really slimy and oleaginous villain, is racing after James Bond, does he rent his attack helicopter online or over the phone? Does that come with mounted machine gun and cartridge belt standard, or those features additional? Finally, does Bardem rent his thugs locally, or does he arrange transport to remote locales on the British Isles? I suppose I am perhaps sometimes a bit too practical thinking in my assessments of these types of niggling issues, but they do begin to gnaw on me when I find that the action has become a bit too repetitive.
It was fun seeing Bond, even here in remote India, and we had the chance to see and speak with some other Americans prior to the film (and I assume some of the other folks we saw were Brits), so is a worthwhile outing, but in the end, I didn’t come away satisfied.

Iain McGilchrist's The Divided Brain & the Search forMeaning

This book that sells for $1.50 as a Kindle book is a real deal. It's a shorter considertion of the issues addressed in McGilchrist's The Master & His Emissary. 

But wait, before doing forward with any review, if you haven't done so already, you should review the RSA that I'd done a short while ago but forgot to post. (It is now the post immediately preceding this one.) The short Youtube piece provides a concise overview of what this book and The Master & His Emissary go into. 

How important is this stuff? Incredibly so, I think. It takes us beyond the old left brain-right brain dichotomy for beginners, but more importantly, it shows us how the human brain evolved to serve two different types of needs. One focused and manipulative, the other broadly focused and in search of understanding. The revolutions occurring in neuroscience provide us with new insights into our human condition and how and why we act as we do, for good & ill. McGilchrist sees a woeful imbalance in Western thinking, which, from other sources, I would trace back to Descartes at least, but perhaps we should go back as far as the Greek rationalists. In any event, this book is a quick overview of McGilchrist's important thinking on this crucial project. I highly recommend it.  

Better Than TED Talks? RSAnimate & The Divided Brain

Two topics here:

1. Is RSAnimate better than TED talks? Of course, it's not a contest, but this type of presentation I find very lively & engaging. The visual (a skill that I deeply admire, probably because of my lack of talent) really adds to the presentation without dumbing-down the presentation.

2. The brain & neuroscience research is a fascinating topic & one that continues to grow and give us insight. The idea--a flawed one I believe--that divides Reason & Passion goes back at least to Plato in the West, with a big boost from Descartes along the way. But while it has some metaphorical value, taken too literally it's false. This view, better than the old Left Brain-Right Brain exact division of function, gives us a new view of ourselves that should prove very useful and practical.

Found courtesy of a Jonathan Haidt Tweet.

The New Yorker’s Endorsement of Barack Obama : The New Yorker

The New Yorker’s Endorsement of Barack Obama : The New Yorker

This is a terrific statement of why we should re-elect Obama. I urge everyone to read it and consider it.
My only complaint? I wish I was this articulate!
Then after reading, vote. 

Movie Review: Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Iowa Guru and I watched the film version of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. It was worth seeing. Iowa Guru has had read the book, and spoke very highly of it. My sense of the film is that like most attempts to turn first rate literature into film, a great deal comes up missing. When an author like Foer deals with characters so mainstream in some ways and so marginal in others, and the complex interaction between them, I think it’s extremely difficult to make the transfer. Ask yourself, how many great books have I seen translated into great films? That’s my sense of this film, worth seeing, well- acted (and extremely well-acted by the boy who plays Oskar), and thoughtful. One comes away with a sense that I ought to read the book. But, given the line of books I have yet to read, the film will do for now, and I can recommend it to others.

Eric Ambler's Background to Danger

Before Graham Greene (and his in his so-called “entertainments"), before Len Deighton, before Robert Ludlum, before John Le Carre, and before Alan Furst, there was Eric Ambler. Ambler is often credited as the father of the contemporary thriller. Perhaps, John Buchan deserves the title, but Ambler is the recognized master. Ambler, who started writing these the 1930s, sets the tone for fast-paced, international intrigue. Many years ago, I read Ambler's ACoffin for Dimitrios, which I enjoyed, so I was happy to find a copy of Background to Danger and plunge back into Ambler's work. I was not disappointed.

Background to Danger starts with an international correspondent who's lost most of his money gambling, and finds himself sharing a compartment on a train with a stranger who claims to be a Jewish refugee escaping Nazi agents with some important documents. I won't go into further detail, as the plot moves quickly from that basic premise. Ambler’s writing is fast-paced and clear, with enough character to draw in the reader. His plot lines, as you may recognize from the brief teaser I just gave you, would suit perfectly for an Alfred Hitchcock movie. In fact, that's a good question, whether Hitchcock ever used any of Ambler’s works for any of his movies. He certainly could have.

You don't get the characterization and depth in Ambler that you do in Greene or Le Carre, but you do get the fast-paced intrigue at a level similar to what we find currently in Alan Furst. If you're looking for a fine read of intrigue set in the volatile Europe of the 1930s, you would have a hard time doing better than Ambler’s work.

The Sad State of Civil Liberties - Why Nations Fail — whynationsfail.com — Readability

The Sad State of Civil Liberties   - Why Nations Fail — whynationsfail.com — Readability

This blog deserves more than a Tweet. I have held this fear of a decline in out civil liberties for some time, and this article reinforces that fear. Should we have attempted to capture Bin Laden and tried him? I realize the immense practical difficulties that this would have presented. Could he have received anything approaching a fair trial? Was he not guilty by his own boastful admission? So OBL, I'm not quite so troubled by. But I am troubled deeply by those that we keep in Guantanamo. Most are no doubt guilty of some serious crimes, but to allow them to languish there indefinitely is consistent  with the actions of real tyrants. Also, let's face it, the American public has shown a high degree of cowardice about having the prisoners held in the U.S. mainland, not to mention holding trials here. Shame on us! 

In my Tweet about India posted just a short while ago, I see the effects of an insufficient state, one without enough money or will, and with too much corruption, to create as good a place to live as this country should enjoy. So here's a case of state weakness, but the other end of the matter is excessive state authority. Lord Acton wasn't kidding, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This might be thought a cliche by now, but we ignore this at our peril. Too bad we don't have more principled civil libertarians, as these folks should come from both the right and the left. But too many self-styled political 'conservatives' are really authoritarians. I'm okay with conserving, and I recognize legitimate and rational authority, but too many take this too far. 

Civil liberties have been ignored as an issue in this election, which probably is an indication of how poorly the Obama administration has done on this count. Karl Rove, even from the sidelines, would have been raising the fear alarms to high decibels as he did in the Bush administration if he had anything to work with there. Not good that they're not raising a ruckus! 

Namaste

 

Movie Review: The Green Mile

In addition to picking up some light reading that the local bookstore and with Iowa Guru away for a couple days, I bought some movies that I think she wouldn't enjoy. Among those that I picked up was The Green Mile. I picked up The Green Mile because it starred Tom Hanks, because it was based on a book by Stephen King, and because I read that it had been nominated for Best Picture the year it was released. I'm not a big horror fan, but I'd recently viewed the movie version of King’s The Shawshank Redemption, and it made me realize that King could work outside the horror genre as well as having become the master within it. In addition, I recalled Stand By Me, another compelling King movie without elements of horror or the supernatural.

The Green Mile is a carefully told story with a number of different elements ranging from the humorous and lighthearted to the cruel, violent, and harsh. The setting is a death row in a Louisiana penitentiary in 1935. One could probably not think of a bleaker setting, but King ameliorates the situation by creating four of the most humane prison guards imaginable. The fifth, I assure you, is a sadistic bastard. Within this setting, King places the character, John Coffey, a huge African-American man, who becomes the Billy Budd figure in the film.

It's a long film with various subplots, elements of miraculous healing, and personifications of evil. But King and his adapting screenwriter-director, Frank Darabont, did not over power the film with elements of the miraculous or supernatural. Instead, they used these effects to highlight the very human dilemmas and characters that populate the film.

This is really a fine film. It's harsh, at times violent, at times cruel, but in the end, it's about humanity. In some ways it reminds me of the work of author Roald Dahl, who's given license with the fantastic because he writes for children. But the dilemmas and repercussions of what happens in Dahl’s The Witches, for instance, can be very troubling because of cruelty and bitter outcomes, but the sadder aspects are redeemed by the humanity of the characters and their heroic sacrifices. So it is with this particular work. For all the cruelty and harshness, for all of the moral dilemmas, it is an essentially redemptive theme that dominates the film.