For the geezers

John Updike, RIP

If you hit google news right now (01/27/2009, approx. 7:45 EST), you would see the"Death of John Updike" ensconced between a headline heralding "Obama Visits Capitol to Press Republicans on Stimulus Plan" and another far more crude declaring "Man Kills His Wife and 5 Children".

Updike would find his obit caught thus between the proverbial rock of a politics he never really liked or understood (he was much more conservative than liberal) and the hard place of the brute philistine of human nature (he was a soft spoken gentleman of letters who was both hospitable as well as charming) par for the course.

He had a knack for being caught between those extremes.

 In terms of his place in literature, he crosses a curious divide between a now faded modern movement insistent on the primacy of language and the older schools of narrative realism from which he ultimately descends. Language wise, Updike could probably fashion a description of a man's hand, a woman's belly, a mountain range or the quiet stubbornness of a library on Saturday evening ten minutes before closing better than any writer on Earth. Seriously, he was a master of the gem like sentence, so masterfully cut it takes your breath away. His aphoristic descriptors nail with visual intensity. He's not especially witty--ultimately, I've come to decide he never thought that much of wit--he's painfully, subjectively visual, turning abstract concepts--like time, for example-- into visualizations.

Watch:

"He comes into Brewer from the south, seeing it in the smoky shadow before dawn as a gradual multiplication of houses among trees beside the road and then as treeless waste of industry, shoe factories and bottling plants and company parking lots and knitting mills converted to electronic parts and elephantine gas tanks lifting above trash filled swampland yet lower than the blue edge of the mountain from whose crest Brewer was a warm carpet woven around a single shade of brick. Above the mountain, stars fade."

--Rabbit Run, p. 41

You can do that with almost any Updike novel, plop down on a page and find some extravagant description that is conceptually accurate, visually demonstrated and somewhat melancholy and sonorous. Like William Styron, his contemporary, Updike loves the long description, lives to tell you what someone or something looks like, how they fit into a particular context, or better, even, what exactly that context is. He lives on every page of his novels, is there, his opinion, whether right or wrong, is always inexorably there--and this has probably won him as many literary enemies as any literary gift is apt to do.

And it is a gift, for surely the one thing we must say of praise about Updike is that he was an enormously gifted writer, with an enormous awareness of his place and his time.  His awareness, his insistent consciousness and instruction on such to the reader ends up being something of a hindrance, however. Certainly, not to speak ill of the dead (as Updike would necessarily admonish) but there is nearly a sophomoric awkwardness to the display of his gifts which might put off even his most admiring fans.

One of Updike's first published pieces, a short essay poking fun at the use of  quotation marks in Henry James's work comes to mind. I remember reading it years ago, after I'd already tackled a few of Updike's greatest hits, Centaur and his Rabbit trilogy. It was an attempt at humor at the expense of Henry James larded use of quotes for ironic purposes. Updike, of course, found the `quotes' nettlesome and took James to task for them in no uncertain terms. The result was somewhat effective, but not terribly funny, and left you feeling ultimately a bit sorry for Henry James.  

Much of Updike's fiction does this--creates characters that are visually accurate, perhaps even emotionally accurate, yet are surprisingly unconvincing. It's not that they aren't `liked', per se, it's that ultimately they are not believed. Maybe Updike himself understands this, naming his most realistic attempt 'Rabbit Angstrom'....Angstrom being the world's smallest unit of measurement (at least at the time Updike wrote the novel, I believe it's been since replaced with the nanometre--no little irony in that, either). It's as though the characters Updike invokes are so small and diminished in his eyes that his language completely overwhelms them. He needed a Quixote or Ignatius O'Reilly to fill out that fulsome tongue, but he only allowed himself the thin shades of characters in a gray state suffering an deep economic downturn and social upheaval. So, I think, Updike's overweening presence seems to mask his more realistic characters (Chiron, the mythical protagonist in the Centaur is an exquisite exception that seems to prove the rule), or create a penumbra of words that visually talks about them even as they indict and ultimately hide them.

The hard truth is, he had very few compelling characters that walked and talked and danced on his stage.

What he had ultimately was his voice. A multileveled, incredibly talented voice that  talked about these ideas he had for people in really extraordinary ways. He just never got around to the hard work of letting his people, his characters talk for themselves.

I can already hear his singular judgment from the piney woods of Pennsylvania. Not so direct, sir, I am, after all, dead. A bit of respect is in order.

Indeed. His criticism -and I single out  Hugging the Shore as one of his best volumes of criticism, will be reread by future generations. Some of his short stories, especially those illuminated in his Pigeon Feathers collection, and his wonderfully fanciful work, The Centuar will all be honored and remembered. As will John Updike.

A great writer died today. That he did not do all that he might--even after 50 books, should surprise no one--especially not for those of us engaged in these dark arts. As Samuel Beckett once said at the end of one of his works, "try again, fail better."

Let us grieve.

What the IDF did to Gaza

I can't help myself

Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen

What you need to know is that Pete Seeger is 89 years old and according to Tommy Stevenson of the Tuscaloosa News he actually hoboed with Woody during the Depression and Dust Bowl. When he got on the stage with Springsteen, he had the crowd sing the song, "This Land", as it was actually written, as not only a celebration of this great land, but as a demand for workers' and people's rights.


That is, he restored the verses that have been censored from the song over the years to make it less political.

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
That side was made for you and me.

In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,
By the relief office I seen my people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking
Is this land made for you and me?

Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me.


The "relief office," of course, refers to the ad hoc soup bowls and such set up during the Depression before the New Deal began to get the social security net we have all depended upon since the 1930s in place.

Seeger, like Guthrie, has been a controversial figure at times during his life, questioned by the witch hunting committees of Congress in the 1950s, black listed, and even banded from television as late as the late 1960s.

But while he hasn't got much of a voice left anymore and did not attempt to play his banjo today, it was wonderful to see the gleam in his subversive eye as he did his call and response with the throngs in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

Somewhere Woody - and Leadbelly, and Sonny and Cisco and the rest of the great balladeers of that bygone era - are smiling tonight.

Below are the full lyrics:

This Land Is Your Land
Words and Music by Woody Guthrie

Chorus:
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me

As I was walking a ribbon of highway
I saw above me an endless skyway
I saw below me a golden valley
This land was made for you and me

Chorus

I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me

Chorus

The sun comes shining as I was strolling
The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The fog was lifting a voice come chanting
This land was made for you and me

Chorus

As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

Chorus

In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.

Chorus (2x)

On an especially ironic note, Josh over at
TPM writes:

As most of you likely know, the inauguration committee sold HBO the exclusive rights to broadcast yesterday's inaugural concert festivities. I don't think that was a good idea since certainly not every American subscribes or can subscribe to HBO. But they at least had it available free on their website. But now it seems that HBO is going over Youtube with a fine tooth comb and having all clips of the event pulled under copyright claims. Want to see the special moment where an 89 year old Pete Seeger sang This Land Is Your Land on the footsteps of the Lincoln Memorial? Tough luck.

Now, logically, the one follows from the other. They claim a copyright in the video of this event. And so they can prevent anyone from uploading it to Youtube -- though I'd be eager to see someone challenge them legally on it because I'm not sure how strong their claim really is against the use of short clips. But the fact that Americans can't show other Americans brief segments of these events because HBO owns the event in perpetuity just puts in much higher relief how ill-conceived a decision that was.

Lucky, this last update makes it not quite so bad....

Later Update: Alas, okay, another important qualifier. It turns out HBO does not own the copyright. They have a six month license. The inaugural committee owns it. Not as bad as I thought.

So 6 months until you get to see an HBO filmed version of the event. Or, ya know, you can just cut your own version of reality and view it here. Last I checked, reality doesn't have a copyright. Eat your heart out, HBO.

Israelis kill the 'wrong' Gazans on live TV

What's most striking is that Israeli military had to murder this man's daughters on live television before the masses in Israel and the West could begin to notice what's been obvious for days and weeks: The Israel military is slaughtering an occupied people.

It's generally not a good sign when it takes murder on live television so that people 'get it', but more and more this seems to be true.

ee cummings springs to mind

pity this busy monster, manunkind,

...

--- listen: there's a hell
of a good universe next door; let's go

No, I'm not going to 'let this go' and neither should you.

According to a report issued last Thursday by the U.N.'s Humanitarian Affairs Office, more than 1/3 of overall Palestinian deaths are children (34% of the almost 800 total deaths), and a similar percentage of the more than 3,000 wounded are also children (34.8%).

To put that in perspective, note that the Russian invasion of Georgia -- which was vehemently and universally condemned in the U.S. as an excessive and brutal response to Georgia's assault on South Ossetia -- resulted, according to the Georgian government, in total deaths on the Georgia side of 405 (220 of whom were civilians) and total number of civilians wounded between 200-250 (see page 10 of this Amnesty International Report -- .pdf). The Russians agreed to a cease-fire accord after 5 days; the Israelis explicitly reject the U.N.'s call for a cease fire and continue to "escalate" after 14 full days (and counting) of full-scale air and land attacks on Gaza.

Of course, as Greenwall notes, all of that pales in comparision to the duration, destruction and carnage created by the U.S. as a result of the Iraq War (the most unprovoked of all of these conflicts). To say that the U.S. applies a glaring double standard to wars fought by its allies and its "enemies" (to say nothing of itself) is to understate the case.

For those who love war

An oldie but a goodie...

From Haaretz

From The time of the righteous
- Gideon Levy

You can't have it both ways. The only "purity" in this war is the "purification from terrorists," which really means the sowing of horrendous tragedies. What's happening in Gaza is not a natural disaster, an earthquake or flood, for which it would be our duty and right to extend a helping hand to those affected, to send rescue squads, as we so love to do. Of all the rotten luck, all the disasters now occurring in Gaza are manmade - by us. Aid cannot be offered with bloodstained hands. Compassion cannot sprout from brutality.

Yet there are some who still want it both ways. To kill and destroy indiscriminately and also to come out looking good, with a clean conscience. To go ahead with war crimes without any sense of the heavy guilt that should accompany them. It takes some nerve. Anyone who justifies this war also justifies all its crimes. Anyone who preaches for this war and believes in the justness of the mass killing it is inflicting has no right whatsoever to speak about morality and humaneness. There is no such thing as simultaneously killing and nurturing. This attitude is a faithful representation of the basic, twofold Israeli sentiment that has been with us forever: To commit any wrong, but to feel pure in our own eyes. To kill, demolish, starve, imprison and humiliate - and be right, not to mention righteous. The righteous warmongers will not be able to allow themselves these luxuries.

Anyone who justifies this war also justifies all its crimes. Anyone who sees it as a defensive war must bear the moral responsibility for its consequences. Anyone who now encourages the politicians and the army to continue will also have to bear the mark of Cain that will be branded on his forehead after the war. All those who support the war also support the horror.

And yes, the same, exact thing could be said about our miserable adventure in Iraq.

Things to worry about

Here are two big things to worry about for the New Years. I'm sure there will be others to come.

1) Israel's ugly and ultimately criminal bombardment and invasion of Gaza. There's just no excuse for this nonsense. And no, Jewish apologists everywhere, a few Qassam rockets do not an excuse make.

There's this thing known as proportionality of response. Interesting thing about the concept of proportionality is that when it's violated, those who are signatories to the Geneva Convention by law consider it a war crime.

Objectively speaking, Israel just blew that wide open with its vicious bombing and invasion of Gaza...But of course, Israel does stuff like this about once every year or two.

I found it ironic and sad that representatives of Israel could very well find themselves sitting in the same docket Eichmann warmed over half a century ago because they refuse to recongize the very laws put in place to prevent the same kind of horror happening again.

Of course, that won't happen, but here's hoping it does, nonetheless. The attack on Gaza is merciless and inexcusable morally, politically and legally.

2) Obama--a handful of very worrying trends: Allowing Rick Warren to deliver his invocation, his refusal to denounce the slaughter in Gaza and finally his absymal ideas on an economic stimulus package. A 300 billion tax cut is probably the least efficient way to stimulate the economy. He's obviously doing this to get the Republicans on board and it's just a bad, bad idea. Because Republicans are not about getting on board for anything. They will play obstructionist games and try to wrangle a 700 billion dollar tax cut because they are ideologically rigid that way--and not just a little blind to their own hubris and stupidity. Krugman has a lot more to say about this here.

I knew Obama was more centrist than I was. I just hope he doesn't let the whole post-partisan good guy riff go to his head. The Warren decision was ugly and unncessary, his silence on Gaza is political and cowardly and playing 'tax cuts' games with the Republicans is politically and economically dumb. It cedes the economic frame to their own grossly inept ideologoical bent and will be bad for the economy to boot.

Naturally, if he gets a deal done that includes some tax cuts, I suppose half a loaf is better than none and all of that, but I'm not holding my breath.

Meet Minnesota's New Senator

Rush Limbaugh, eat your heart out.

Krugman Nails it

from the NY Times

So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process. And despite the claims of some on the right that Mr. Bush betrayed conservatism, the truth is that he faithfully carried out both his party’s divisive tactics — long before Sarah Palin, Mr. Bush declared that he visited his ranch to “stay in touch with real Americans” — and its governing philosophy.

That’s why the soon-to-be-gone administration’s failure is bigger than Mr. Bush himself: it represents the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation.

The reality of this strategy’s collapse has not, I believe, fully sunk in with some observers. Thus, some commentators warning President-elect Barack Obama against bold action have held up Bill Clinton’s political failures in his first two years as a cautionary tale.

But America in 1993 was a very different country — not just a country that had yet to see what happens when conservatives control all three branches of government, but also a country in which Democratic control of Congress depended on the votes of Southern conservatives. Today, Republicans have taken away almost all those Southern votes — and lost the rest of the country. It was a grand ride for a while, but in the end the Southern strategy led the G.O.P. into a cul-de-sac.

Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to.

Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy.

Deepak Chopra on 10 steps to Peace

Steps the incoming president can take to build a peace-based economy.

The following is a memo to Barack Obama from Deepak Chopra.

You have been elected by the first anti-war constituency since 1952, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected after promising to end the Korean War. But ending a war isn't the same as bringing peace. America has been on a war footing since the day after Pearl Harbor, 67 years ago. We spend more on our military than the next 16 countries combined. If you have a vision of change that goes to the heart of this country's deep problems, ending our dependence on war is far more important than ending our dependency on foreign oil.

The most immediate changes are economic. Unless it can make as much money as war, peace doesn't stand a chance. Since aerospace and military technologies remain the United States' most destructive export, fostering wars around the world, what steps can we take to reverse that trend and build a peace-based economy?

1. Scale out arms dealing and make it illegal by the year 2020.

2. Write into every defense contract a requirement for a peacetime project.

3. Subsidize conversion of military companies to peaceful uses with tax incentives and direct funding.

4. Convert military bases to housing for the poor.

5. Phase out all foreign military bases.

6. Require military personnel to devote part of their time to rebuilding infrastructure.

7. Call a moratorium on future weapons technologies.

8. Reduce armaments like destroyers and submarines that have no use against terrorism and were intended to defend against a superpower enemy that no longer exists.

9. Fully fund social services and take the balance out of the defense and homeland security budgets.

These are just the beginning. We don't lack creativity in coping with change. Without a conversion of our present war economy to a peace economy, the high profits of the military-industrial complex ensures that it will never end.

Do these nine steps seem unrealistic or fanciful? In various ways, other countries have adopted similar measures. The former Soviet army is occupied with farming and other peaceful work, for example. But comparisons are rather pointless, since only the United States is burdened with such a massive reliance on defense spending. Ultimately, empire follows the dollar. As a society, we want peace, and we want to be seen as a nation that promotes peace. For either ideal to come true, you as president must back up your vision of change with economic reality. So far, that hasn't happened under any of your predecessors. All hopes are pinned on you.

On Gaza