Reviews of "To Show and To Tell" by Phillip Lopate, "The Made-Up Self" by Carl Klaus, and "A Room of One's Own" by Virginia Woolf

As challenging as it often is, being a writer (not a Writer) is a rewarding calling. Professionally, much of a lawyer’s work consists of writing. This sometimes creates mountains of god-awful legal prose, but it can be done better—much better. Demand letters and briefs are especially fun challenges, and I enjoyed refining my skills as a legal writer. In addition, from my days as a Young Republican essayist (we’re talking junior high-- gimme a break!) writing about the value of the two-party system (good for second place among three contenders), I've felt compelled to say things on paper. After years of journals (C: “Why do you keep these? What are you going to do with them?” A: “Don’t know, except keep them”) and letters to congressional representatives and newspaper editors, I came upon blogging. 

I wish that I could say something profound and insightful about why I blog, but the plain truth is I sincerely believe that everyone should experience the value and pleasure of knowing my opinions about this or that. It’s just another form of narcissism, I fear, but to keep my head from getting too big, I occasionally look at the number of persons who read my posts and then rest my worry that the circle of those who know of my ranting hasn’t much expanded beyond those on whom I would have inflicted it anyway. 

So why did I just read two books on the essay and Virginia Woolf’s classic essay “A Room of One’s Own”? Well, with more time on my hands than in the past, with a new position that involves teaching how to write well, and with thoughts of future ventures, refining my writing seems the thing to do as a practical matter. Then, too, there is this pretension that maybe some blog post might prove worthy of the shadow of those who made the essay an intriguing and vital part of our literature. 

Phillip Lopate and Carl Klaus are two of the best-known scholars of the essay, and both practice the art that they teach, which makes reading their works a double-treat. Lopate’s book, To Show and To Tell: The Craft of Literary Nonfiction, which I read first, had me with the title. Well, I love to tell people things: how else will they receive the benefit of my knowledge and wisdom? Further, just “showing” can hide the forest for the trees. But the book does more than puncture a hole in the current wisdom. Instead, Lopate reviews the art of the essay from the time of its founding Aeneas, Montaigne, to the best of those writing today, including himself and this very book. In writing about various issues that essayists have addressed from the time of Montaigne to the present, Lopate—in essay chapters—discusses the many variations and challenges that have been raised and addressed by the essay and “literary nonfiction” in general. 

Klaus’s book, The Made-Up Self: Impersonation in the Personal Essay addresses one of the ongoing challenges presented by the essay from Montaigne down to his own efforts. Quoting Virginia Woolf’s aphorism: “Never to be yourself, and yet always”, Klaus, starting from the fountainhead (Montaigne, of course), explores the different ways that the self is presented and sometimes hidden by the essayist. By concentrating on the personal essay, one that drags you in because it’s written in the first-person and because you have a sense of the someone who’s written this—of someone  having lived this—you have the challenges of wondering what has been left in and what left out. It’s an opportunity to look into the life and experiences and observations of another, and when well written, it proves delightful, or at least intriguing. 

In fact, while I greatly appreciated Klaus’s knowledgeable and insightful consideration of Montaigne, Lamb, Woolf, E.B. White, and Orwell, among others, it’s his own personal reflections in the final chapter that provided me with the most pleasure and insight. Klaus reports that in the mid-1990s he decided to write an entry each day for the weather, about 500 words. And a very important fact: he lives in Iowa City, where he taught at the University since the 1960s. * Now, such an idea might fall flat here in Rajasthan (typical entries: hot and dry, very hot and dry, extremely hot and dry), but in Iowa, he has subject-matter that changes, sometimes violently. He set out to describe “what it looked like and felt like each day on my hillside lot in Iowa City—a place where I'd spent twenty-five years witnessing the flow (and sometimes the clash) of arctic- and gulf-born weather systems.” This seemingly mundane task (discouraged by some colleagues)  becomes a larger meditation on change and life, as concerns for the health of his wife and his pets, among other things, impinge upon a simple weather report. He finds himself, like Iowa weather, changing at times unexpectedly and uncertainly. So with the self and its concerns. 

Finally, between these two works, I read Virginia Woolf’s “A Room of One’s Own”, and I greatly enjoyed my time with it. In addressing women and fiction as a given theme, Wolf meanders through the centuries to address the topic, weaving her way through history as if providing a leisurely pointed tour of the past, and in particular, the burdens and challenges endured by women who wanted to write . Careful phrasing, an authoritative but friendly voice, and a careful choice of topics made this a very enjoyable read. A tract of feminism, and a fine one, yes; but its pleasure proves much greater than that of a political tract or polemic. It’s a tour, and one to savor, as if in the company of a gifted docent.

* I don’t believe that I’ve ever met Mr. Klaus. I know that I didn’t take a class from him (if only I knew), but he gives a shout out to Jackie Blank, our friend and realtor at the beginning of the book, so that provided some extra fun in reading this.   

I Say, Sir, It is CORRUPTION! A Review of Lesterland: The Corruption of Congress & How to End It by Lawrence Lessig

Imagine Patrick Henry speaking in his booming voice and railing against the CORRUPTION of the age. Or, perhaps if you’re not in mood for a stem-winder, think about how Madison or Hamilton (the two greatest minds among the Founders—sorry TJ) might address this. Come to think of it, everyone should be—must be—against corruption, right? However, in fact, in a manner of speaking, CORRUPTION works. In the jargon of social science, it results in an equilibrium that has built-in antibodies against change. The concept is simple: if someone doesn’t participate in the CORRUPTION, then she or he won’t get elected. It’s that simple. 

Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig argues, and I agree, that we do have CORRUPT system in exactly the way that the Founders would have known and used the term. Not corruption in the way of paper bags and Rod Blagojevich; this happens, but it’s not a big problem (well, at least outside of Chicago). No, the CORRUPTION of wherein I speak (I can’t resist a little Revolutionary typeface and usage) is endemic to our system and perfectly legal. (Thank you, Supreme Court.) The CORRUPTION is the system that requires members of Congress to go begging for the money to run their campaigns to get re-elected or elected. (Of course, once you’re elected, you’re in pretty good shape to stay there because of your money-raising potential—unless you’re a “moderate Republican” (archaic: a species essentially extinct, having suffered a plague from the RIGHT, most recently identified as the Tea Party virus.) Whether the money comes from the Right (think Koch Brothers of Sheldon Adelson) or the Left (think George Soros), it buys INFLUENCE that we the 99% can’t match. (Gotchya’ if you think “1%” is accurate; it’s way high). 

Lessig tells us all of this in his TED Talk and this book. I’ve now read the book, and I agree that you should watch the TED Talk first: it’s the executive summary. If you can’t read the book, you’ll still have the message. For me, I wanted the gory details, and this proved worthwhile. Not only does Lessig document the problem well (he is a Harvard law prof, after all), but he makes clear that this is a problem for both the RIGHT and the LEFT, that CORRUPTION causes problems that reach across the aisle (well, at least something does these days besides Obama’s unwanted hand). CORRUPTION affects government and the political process in ways that no UNINTERESTED PERSON could endorse. 

How good is this book? It’s not a fun read. It’s not a deep read. But it’s a book with a mission; TO WIT, to get us out of our lethargy and engaged to REFORM this most vile CORRUPTION of our polity. To this end, I’ve joined Lessig’s organization, ROOT STRIKERS (from a quote of Thoreau that we should strike at the root of evil), and I’ve once again written my congressional representatives to ask them to take THE PLEDGE. Consider this, and join us, as a PATRIOT. 

BTW, the title may seem puzzling, unlike his earlier, more easily identifiable Republic Lost. Lessig refers to “Lesters” as those of the tiny minority—I mean TINY—who fund elections with BIG BUCKS. I think it’s a South Park reference, but then, that’s out of my league.

 

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid---Or Better Yet, Don't

I want to share some random thoughts on recent convergences between events and my reading. The events have to do with injury and death, and the reading primarily, concerns and NNT’s Antifragile, as well as some blog sites.

The attack on the Boston Marathon and the subsequent pursuit and capture of the bombers has taken a total of four lives, with a number of other people critically or seriously wounded some suffering horrible injuries that will alter the remainder of their lives. At Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut last December, 27 persons, including teachers and children, lost their lives. In Aurora Colorado last summer, 13 people lost their lives at the hands of the lone gunman. Finally, around the time of the events in Boston, a plant exploded in Texas taking 14 lives. One never wants to fall into the logic of Stalin’s cruel adage that “a single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”, but we do need to look carefully at what mortally threatens us.

Although it’s too early to know yet the full extent of whatever arsenal the Boston bombers held, it was surely significant given the firefight that they entered into with the authorities. Yet, immediately before those events, the U.S. Senate, despite polls showing overwhelming support, refused to take any action to limit or control access to firearms. The huge disconnect between the threat of firearms in our society and the willingness of the federal government to address this issue is truly frightening.

What we learned from the firearms debate, as well from other debates over a number of other issues, that our political system is broken. It is broken because the Senate refuses to alter the antiquated and anti-democratic practice of the filibuster; it is broken because a minority of the population and often a minority of the minority of the population) can effectively veto any legislation; and finally, our system is thoroughly corrupted by our campaign financing system. I personally decided to get involved with rootstrikers.org as a way to try to get the issue of political corruption addressed (I’ll be more writing more about this soon).

We also have to consider the stories that we will attribute to Boston. Was it an act of “terrorism”? Was it at an act of jihad, or was it a Columbine-like act? I think it is too early to say, but what I fear we are seeing is a fusion of the two lines of terror. If we limit the definition of terrorism to overtly political acts planned and perpetrated with some ultimate political goal in mind, then we still can’t be sure if the Boston bombers qualify. However, if we broaden the definition to include acts like those at Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Columbine High School, then surely we have encompassed possible motives for the Boston bombers. What do the actions of those who perpetrated Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook have in common with those of the Boston bombers? All were the actions of young males. It may be that the Boston bombers intended to give some patina of jihadism them to their attacks, but we may be missing a much more fundamental phenomena. If history has taught us anything (and I warily use that tired cliché), it is the volatility and danger of young men. In India, we see it in some bombings, but most commonly in acts of horrific violence against women and children. The way the acts of disaffected young men play out varies, but the inclination—even preference—for violence is marked. Cliodynamics expert Peter Turchin suggests that we will see an upswing of violence sometime within the next 10 years. I hope he’s wrong, but events of the last year suggest he may have some insight.

Boston may show, and it’s my theory in general, that Islam, and jihadism in particular, are often simply vehicles for disaffected young men acting out their violent resentments. Religion (and this can include Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, among others) can give form and meaning to the violent proclivities we observe, but none of these belief systems intrinsically promotes this attitude. Indeed, the vast majority practitioners and doctrines in each religion prefer peace and compassion.

The photo above (taken from Stephen Walt’s blog) is perhaps the scariest image of the week. All of us owe thanks to law enforcement officials who quickly identified and apprehended these violent criminals. (These young men committed criminal acts—whatever motives we attribute to them—and they should be prosecuted as such). More importantly, however, it’s the lock down and manhunt in Boston should give us pause. During that one day, Boston approached a police state. The radical gun proponents seem to think that their rights are going to be taken away by a liberal-dominated government seeking to take away their weapons (a fantasy if there was one), but it’s our desire as a nation  to assure absolute safety that makes it much more likely that we’d fall prey to authoritarian government. I’ve said many times before that war is the greatest enemy of democracy; a war on crime or terrorism is perhaps an even greater threat than wars undertaken abroad. I say this not as a criticism of any elected officials or law enforcement officials who acted this week in Boston, but as a general warning. We have to keep the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our historic and long-standing system of criminal procedure intact. Shame on Senators Lindsey Graham (R. South Carolina) and John McCain (R. Arizona) for seeking to undermine and denigrate our criminal justice system.

The other very troubling aspect of the Boston shut down was the message that it sent to other would-be criminals, whether whatever their motivations. We have sent the message that a major American city can be shut down by a single violent criminal at large. Granted, he was dangerous and should have been treated by both the law enforcement and civilians with the greatest of caution, but were we wise to send this message? Although there a lot of precedents that I would not look to Israel for guidance about, its attitude towards terrorist actions (or criminal actions) is to go about life as normally as possible. These are the words that Obama uttered, but they are not the actions that officials in Massachusetts took.

Largely missing from the news because of how it fit into the events in Boston, was the explosion of a plant in Texas. This is Texas that prides itself on its lack of regulation of businesses (“intrusive or burdensome regulations”) and so-called tort reform (price controls on tort recoveries). I can’t help but think of India when I think of Texas, as India has this unregulated Wild West aspect to it. In assessing risks and where to live, two things I would consider are a state (or nation’s) gun laws (the more restrictive the safer the locale) and the strength of their regulatory and legal system. If potentially dangerous entities are regulated and subject to legal sanctions when they endanger people, then a locale is safer. To paraphrase Lincoln Steffens (who really got it wrong about the Soviet Union), “I have seen the future, and it doesn’t work”.

We need to sort out the risks in our lives. We cannot be absolutely safe, and as NNT argues in Antifragile, attempts to do so can actually prove counterproductive. This dictum applies to terrorism, it applies to crime, it applies to gun regulation, and it applies to other types of regulations. Finding the optimal mix of regulation and control is the challenge. It’s going to take some hard, clearheaded thinking. It’s going to involve taking some risks and realizing that the more we attempt to make ourselves absolutely safe, the more we endanger ourselves.

Here are some discussions of the situations that I’ve found worthwhile: 

E.J. Dionne: https://www.readability.com/articles/cie4zdi5 “They Way Forward on Guns”

Stephen Walt: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/19/the_lockdown_in_boston “The Lockdown in Boston”

Robert Wright: https://www.readability.com/articles/vksvrwqd “Drone Strikes and the Boston Marathon Bombings”

NYT: https://www.readability.com/articles/zncm1fti “Legal Questions Riddle the Boston Marathon Case” 

John Cassidy: https://www.readability.com/articles/ckmkklcx “Terrorist Hunt Sends America Over the Edge”

Rick Perlstein https://www.readability.com/articles/gf0frysx “Our Politics of Fear”

Jack Goldstone, https://www.readability.com/articles/txgthswo “Tragedy in Boston”

Bill Minutaglio, NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/opinion/in-the-texas-plant-explosion-history-repeats-itself.html 
"Texas on Fire, Again and Again"

And Now, for the Rest of the Story . . . A Review of Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell

The late radio newscaster and commentator, Paul Harvey, did a bit for while called “The Rest of Story”.  He’d would start of a tale of adversity, come to an opportune moment, and break for a commercial pitch (usually, a cleaner called Bon Ami--emphasis on the first syllable). He’d then return with an announcement (and a voice he could have trademarked), “And now, for the rest of the story!”, wherein he reveals the protagonist’s triumph over the adversity earlier described. Malcolm Gladwell has done something similar in his book, Outliers: The Story of Success. However, unlike Harvey’s tales, it isn’t simply a matter of the hero’s pluck and perseverance, but also of plain ol’ good luck. 

Not that Gladwell diminishes the value of hard work; indeed, it’s the sine quo non of success (see, for example, his discussion of the 10,000-hour rule). Nor does he ignore “talent”, that God-given set of personal characteristics that we receive via our particular gene pool. It’s just that talent along doesn’t tell us much about what distinguishes the pretty good from the exceptional. What distinguishes the exceptional is luck (or in terms from Machiavelli’s melodious Italian, Fortuna). Luck can take the form of extraordinary early access to computers (Bill Gates & Bill Joy); year of birth (highly successful Jewish lawyers in NYC in the 1970s and 1980s), or the color (or even tone) of your skin. This outlook is the anti-Bush, anti-Romney tale. For instance, Jeb Bush speaks of how he overcame obstacles to achieve business success, while Romney touts himself (or did, who cares now?) as a self-made man. Not that either man didn’t work hard, I’m sure that they did, but each received benefits from family and upbringing and wealth that very few Americans could match. They are among the fortunate few, although they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it (although, except that we may suffer the plague of Jeb, who cares a whit about Mitt Romney anymore?). (Hypothesis: what separates wealthy Dems (e.g., a Ted Kennedy) from Republicans, like a Bush or Romney, is an appreciation of at least ancestors having come up through the ranks and that good fortune has made the difference in their life’s course.) 

Like Gladwell’s other books, he relies on strong academic sources mixed with well-written and structured narratives. Indeed, Gladwell tells one narrative and then alters it with a “and now for the rest of the story” addendum. This way of approaching this topic makes for fun and compelling reading. Gladwell relates how rice paddy agriculture and the Chinese language for numbers can help account for extraordinary mathematical success by students from these Asian cultures and how culture brought from the Scottish highlands by Scotch-Irish settlors in the U.S. South can account for greater violence there, and so on. 

One thing I took away especially is the importance of school: of teachers and resources. Indeed, the whole book screams at us to provide opportunities for persons to realize their potentials in whatever their fields of endeavor or interest. Something as arbitrary as birthdays greatly influence ultimate success in many athletic fields simply because, when size provides an advantage, the older kids enjoy an edge that gets translated into more opportunities for play, which translates into more hours of practice, and . . . well, you get the picture. Scarily, Gladwell suggests that if Canadians changed their hockey league qualifications from yearly breaks to six-month breaks, they’d double the number of first-rate hockey players that they produce. If we as a society should learn anything from this, it’s that opportunity—the ability learn and grow—should serve as one of the highest social values. Sadly, I don’t think that we’re doing this.

A fun and easy read; instructive and ultimately inspiring, I recommend this book. 

Malcolm Gladwell is scheduled to participate in #JLF in 2014.