The American Scene

An ongoing review of politics and culture


Books I Haven't Read

A Guest Contribution by Friend of the Scene Freddie deBoer

As a hedge against those who would accuse those of us participating in the recent literary discussions here at TAS as a bunch of smarty-pantses desperately trying to one up each other, I’m going to start a thread discussing the books we’ve never gotten through.

I’ve never read the Proust. (If you want to be cool you have to call it the Proust.) I’ve tried before. I’ll try again. I’ve read the classics illustrated graphic novel. Never read the real thing. It’s particularly shameful because my academic focus for awhile was 20th century European novel. I’ve never read War and Peace. I read Anna Karenina, although it was kind of a half-assed reading effort. But I read it! But no War and Peace. Just too iconic, too daunting, too big. I’ve never felt prepared enough. Ready for the trek. (You know an author has a serious reputation when you get tired just thinking about reading him.)

I never finished The Tale of Genji, although I dug what I had been reading. Just lost the thread, if you know what I mean. And sometimes when you lose it, getting it back can be the hardest thing in the world. The Tin Drum might be my favorite novel, but I got very little out of Cat and Mouse and didn’t attempt Dog Years. I loved An Explanation of the Birds but have never even attempted another novel by Antonio Lobo Antunes. I’m missing a ton of Shakespeare’s histories, all of the Henrys except for the V, for example. I couldn’t even tell you the title of a single volume of Balzac’s.

I’m shockingly incomplete when it comes to the great Greek dramatists. I’ve read Oedipus and Antigone and a play or two I’m forgetting. I never read the Purgatorio or the Paradiso. I never read Don Quixote! Shameful. I never read a solitary goddamn word of Goethe or Flaubert. (I think.) I never finished a book by George Eliot. I love Thomas Hardy’s poetry but couldn’t finish (barely started, in fact) Jude the Obscure. I didn’t read Love in the Time of Cholera, although once I spent an hour discussing how great I thought it was with a very lovely young lady who called it her favorite. Never read Chabon, Franzen, Moody or John Irving. No Portrait of a Lady, or the Ambassadors, or The Golden Bowl. I like Steppenwolf and Demian but never read Siddhartha.

Never finished a Stephen King. No Man Without Qualities. No Eugene O’Neill. (Had to look up how to spell his last name, in fact.) No Tom Sawyer or Innocents Abroad. Never finished Lady Chatterly’s Lover. The Trial depressed me so thoroughly I never attempted another piece of long-form Kafka. Couldn’t finish White Teeth, or Money. Not a page of Nick Hornby or Jeffrey Eugenides. No In Cold Blood. Never read Bonfire of the Vanities. No Satiricon. No Vanity Fair, no Go Tell It On the Mountain.

Then there are the mountains of books I “read”. By this I mean my eyes passed over the text and my brain turned the visual images into coherent language, but I didn’t actually do anything close to the mental work necessary to actually have gotten much out of them. I “read” Tristam Shandy. I “read” The Aeneid. I “read” Karamazov and I “read” The Magic Mountain (which would have broken my father’s heart!). I “read” Kidnapped. I “read” Walden. I “read” Oblomov, but I don’t really feel bad about that because that was on assignment for Noah and the project never went anywhere. I vaguely remember something resembling Uncle Tom’s Cabin passing before my eyes in my teen years.

And, friends, have I still gotten into spirited discussions, at times, about the quality of some of these books, not read or “read”? Have I broadly hinted that I have read some novels when in fact I never have? Have I ventured a critical opinion that if sincere would have required an actual thorough reading? Have I out and out lied about having read a great book?

Yes, I’m sorry to say I have. I’m working on it.

Matt Zeitlin on the Politics of Caregiving

Here’s an insightful notewith a graph!from special guest Matt Zeitlin, a brilliant center-left blogger and, just as importantly, a young man who knows how to bowl.

Dana Goldstein wrote about some fascinating research showing that despite all the gains women have made in the work place since the 1970s, and a change in cultural expectations about child care, women still do fives times as much childcare than men. This research is the subject of Lisa Belkin’s New York Times Magazine article, and includes this one surprising finding:

Where the housework ratio is two to one, the wife-to-husband ratio for child care in the United States is close to five to one. As with housework, that ratio does not change as much as you would expect when you account for who brings home a paycheck. In a family where Mom stays home and Dad goes to work, she spends 15 hours a week caring for children and he spends 2. In families in which both parents are wage earners, Mom’s average drops to 11 and Dad’s goes up to 3. Lest you think this is at least a significant improvement over our parents and grandparents, not so fast. …

Back when women had to tend fires to cook and put clothes through the wringer and then onto the clothesline, they spent 50 hours a week on housework and men spent 20. (A ratio of 2.5 to 1.) And back in the 1950s, when no one was even bothering to measure how many hours men spent on child care because it was thought to be negligible, the average mother spent 12 to 15 hours caring for her children — the same as they spend today.

From a certain liberal, feminist perspective that I have a ton of sympathy with, and may well share, this is quite distressing news. There’s an argument to be made from straightforward gender egalitarianism that, ceteris paribus, child care ought to be split evenly. After all, men and women should be equal partners in a marriage, and surely basic egalitarianism ought to be modeled in the home, right? Also, from the perspective of enabling the flourishing of all people (which to me, is the central goal of liberalism) more egalitarianism in child care is incredibly important. Child care time directly trades off with other activities (work, self directed leisure time etc) that enable ones flourishing. You don’t have to be an arch Hirshmanite to see that child-care, especially the chores associated with it (which women do the overwhelming majority of) can sometimes inhibit flourishing, and more importantly, that a cultural norm which dictates that women do five times more child care likely inhibits the flourishing of all women, even if many of them “choose” to do it or think they are comfortable with it (I’m not implying false consciousness, so much as arguing that social norms can be injust on the whole even if they aren’t in their individual application). So, if we adopt methodological individualism and some basic liberal assumptions of egalitarianism (ones that could be found, behind, say a veil of ignorance) it becomes pretty clear that the child-care societal norm is wrong and we should try to make a new, more equitable norm.

But what about the children? John Podhoretz makes the good point that in discussions of gender egalitarianism in relationships, marriages and families, the benefit to the children of any arrangement isn’t always discussed (it is sometimes, and I don’t want to say that feminists/gender egalitarians are selfish children haters, but the Belkin piece itself is mostly concerned with the adults). So how should the children’s interests be evaluated. How much autonomy or potential flourishing should women give up for the sake of their kids?

Read the full article

It Takes Four Kinds

I stumbled upon Tim Ross when he wrote a brilliant comment on Harold and Kumar, and he has very kindly shared his insightful thoughts on a schema that explains all of humanity in its endless diversity. This is, strikingly, considerably less ambitious than Kris Sargent’s project. It seems that TASers are intellectual megalomaniacs, which I like. RS.

Reihan’s attempt to classify the unclassifiable — his own large, multitude-containing self — reminded me of the single best thing I’ve learned this year.

You see, I’m addicted to biography. I love to learn about people: where they came from, what they learned, and how they learned it. But while I’ve always enjoyed gathering the data, it didn’t particularly help me to understand — or predict — any given individual’s behaviour. Like an 18th-century geologist, I had amassed a great jumble of unique, individual types, but couldn’t make sense of the unity underlying all the bizarre diversity.

What I lacked was a way to classify anybody. Sure, I knew lots about what people had done with their lives and what they had learned from their experiences. But I had no idea, really, what motivated them to do those things in the first place. Apart from close friends and loved ones, people remained fundamentally inscrutable. That all changed about four weeks ago. Out of the blue, a field guide of sorts fell into my hands, and revealed a great truth: there are precisely four kinds of people in the world.

Just four.

Read the full article

Architectonica (a Rule 12(b)(3) violation)

Kris Sargent returns with a theory of a theory of all knowledge …

Ready for some philosophizing, freshman-dorm style? (Mr. Poulos can moderate).

First, let’s all admit what everyone’s thinking: the fact of external testes is definitive proof of Unintelligent Design, or, alternatively, no design at all (my opinion). As Alan Walker, Professor of Biological Anthropology, Penn State University, said in his Princeton University Public Lecture, “To have the gonads, the gonads, the stuff that carries the genetic message from one generation to the next, in a little bag between your legs…[this is] intelligent design?” (fast-forward to 18:10 for a full explanation of this point). Whales and seals managed to reverse this mistake and put the boys back in. Why not us? You might say we’ve been left holding…

Ahem! Well then.

And then there’s all that other evidence. A plethora, you might say (I do). More than enough, an excess: what more do you need to be convinced that we are just animals after all. Special animals, to be sure: clever, proud, and delicate. But animals just the same.

I realize this is a sticking point for many — for many reasons. I won’t condescend and say “I understand you”, because I largely don’t. To me our existence as nothing more (and nothing less) than extraordinarily intelligent organisms — bipedal apes with big brains — is patently obvious and daily compelling. We certainly comport ourselves like biologicals; groping blindly in the dark, we’re a species of few destinations and many arrivals.

And that kind of brings me to the point of this post. I think it’s time to face up to the disturbing (‘disturbing’ in a functional sense) fact that we seem to be undesigned outcomes of a complex-but-natural process. In other words, we seem (stressed yet again) to be a unique species lacking prior purpose.

If we can just do this — just admit to ourselves that it sure looks like we’re out here all alone, surrounded by the roiling silence of infinite spaces — I think I have an idea you might be interested in. An opportunity, you might say.

Read the full article

Follow You Down

While we’re sharing guest posts, I have two more for you, both from TAS reader Kristoffer Sargent. This first one is on Fareed Zakaria, who, for the record, is getting a little bit of a bum rap in my view. Zakaria did make a major factual flub, but there’s something to his deeper point, but more on that to come. RS.

Reading the cover of Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World, I found myself wondering, “When do power shifts lead to war?” Remembering that this is, in fact, the 21st Century, I thought, hey, why not see if I can find the answer online.

Two minutes later (I know, but I had to go to the bathroom), I found what I was looking for: When Do Power Shifts Lead to War?, by Woosang Kim and James D. Morrow.

Read the full article

Give Kids the Vote!

The great Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry returns to TAS with a stirring, persuasive call for lowering the voting age. You’d be a fool not to read it.

For as long as I remember (yes, even before that West Wing episode), I’ve supported abolishing – not lowering – the voting age barrier. Kids should have the vote. I believed so vehemently as a child, of course, but since I’ve had the vote I’ve only grown more adamant in my conviction.

I know it may seem kooky, but it’s not. Hear me out.

Read the full article

Sarkozy Kiss the Corpse

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, intrepid TAS enthusiast from across the Atlantic and perhaps the only person on Earth insane enough to enjoy Reihan’s zombie fiction, wrote the following analysis of Sarkozy’s decidedly disappointing foreign policy. Because all sane people are Francophiles, you ought to read it.

It’s unfortunately not a shocking revelation that politicians, once elected, don’t actually amount to everything they promised they would. Yet I have to say that even for someone so jaded as I can be, the difference between the promises and the reality of Nicolas Sarkozy’s foreign policy are disheartening.

Just for the sake of disclosure, I’ll say that I am a French guy who believes his country has a special role to play in the world, that it is the depositary of a great tradition of human rights and statesmanship, and that therefore it must be an exemplary beacon of freedom around the world, a nation that understands the reality of international relations and is willing to play the game of power politics, while keeping its eyes on the long-term prize of a more just international order. A nation, in short, that is afraid neither of being moral nor of being hawkish. All grandiloquent stuff I know, but I think foreign policy should be ambitious—and if French people aren’t grandiloquent, the government actually takes our passports. It sucks.

So, how well does Nicolas Sarkozy’s admittedly brief record as the new master of French foreign policy hold up against my expectations? Quick answer? Poorly, but not quite as poorly as his predecessor’s.

A little more detailed look after the fold.

Read the full article

WFB's Awesome Archives

Maureen Miller, another TAS favorite, wrote the following on William F. Buckley Jr. I think you’ll like it.

In spring 2006 the Elevator Repair Service, a New York performance art group, staged No Great Society: Dances With Jack, a performance piece about Jack Kerouac’s appearance on a surreal September 3, 1969 taping of Firing Line. According to director John Collins, William F. Buckley attended the February 22 performance with a friend and remarked, “What did I say?” while struggling to follow one of his own labyrinthine trains of thought. But he complimented the “terrific” work of the actor playing him, Ben Williams, because he always had a kind word for anyone who could get in a good dig.

Read the full article

The Wire and Fan Ownership

The following post is from TAS favorite Freddie deBoer. You may have noticed some of his very sharp criticism in the comments section.

In my quest to consume as much content about The Wire as possible, I read Slate.com’s TV Club about the show avidly. I enjoy it a great deal, even though I don’t agree with much of what Jeffrey Goldberg and David Plotz have to say—in particular, I find the (widely-held) belief that the show has taken a serious decline in quality this season to be overblown. Something David Plotz wrote about episode 8 has given me particular pause, though. Plotz writes,

Read the full article

Dana Stevens and the Movie Club

Editor’s note: This is our first cameo appearance, from commenter Freddie deBoer, best known for his lacerating attacks on The American Scene and many friends of The American Scene. For the record, I think Dana Stevens ain’t that bad, but it’s long since been established that I can’t be trusted.

Like Peter, I’m a fan of both David Edelstein and Slate’s year-end movie club. I am not, sadly, a fan of Dana Stevens. Though I don’t always agree with Ross Douthat’s criticisms of her, I find her heavy-handed invocation of contemporary politics no less leaden, clumsy and aggravating than he does. Like many snarks, her reviews yaw wildly from scornful condemnation to embarrassingly overcooked praise (Children of Men is the movie of the millennium! Ratatouille moved me to tears!), ignoring the simple fact that the large majority of any art is neither pathetic nor great, but some combination of successful and flawed. This hyperbolic aesthetic would be okay, I suppose, if it didn’t emerge from the desire that any scorched-earth critic has to be noticed. That kind of thinking leads to the worst in criticism: self-regard, imprecise language, a failure to understand nuance, the inconsistent application of an aesthetic.

Read the full article