Phil Christman

RIP, Andy Hummel

July 21, 2010 · Leave a Comment

Damn, we’ve lost another founding member of Big Star. Bassist Andy Hummel was only fifty-nine.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized

Everybody must read my friend Tressie’s blog

July 20, 2010 · Leave a Comment

She posts more than I do and is more interesting. When Adam Petty and I start that literary journal, we’re going to find a way to snag her.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized

The Wedding Reception Playlist: To the Bitter End

July 20, 2010 · Leave a Comment

51. William Bell, “Every Day Will Be Like a Holiday”

A Stax/Volt guy who doesn’t get nearly the deserved level of attention. Luckily, it appears he’s still with us, rockin’ one of those splashy/undercopyedited web sites you often see attached to mid-level music stars and to evangelical megachurches.* May he collect massive royalties for much longer than the biblical threescore and ten. This song is golden.

*Not that I can complain, what with my wanky-ass blog.

52. Camper Van Beethoven, “Sweethearts”

This song has that nice late-in-the-dance, tired-people-draped-woozily-around-someone-they-just-met vibe, and it totally disses Ronald Reagan. Put that in my celebration of love, please.

53. Television Personalities, “World of Pauline Lewis”

I remember being like fourteen and reading about this band in an issue of Spin or RayGun or … what was that other thing called … Spectrum? Orbit? Something vaguely scientific, and it wasn’t Magnet, because that didn’t exist yet, and neither (so far as the general public was concerned) did the Internet. Whatever magazine it was, it was no hipper than the hippest thing you’d find at the imaginatively-named Book Shoppe in Alma, Michigan, which is pretty non-hip. And, even at that level of non-hipness, I’m sure my parents didn’t want me reading it. Anyway, they sounded like a fascinating band, but I wasn’t able to follow up until last year. This song is bouncy, tuneful punk rock with a strong undertow of melancholy. Really great.

54. Tom Zé, “Ui! (Voce inventa)”

TZ is Brazillian, he pissed off the military dictatorship during the ’70s, he used to hang out with Caetano Veloso and Os Mutantes, he once made an album where the cover looked like a person’s eye but it was actually a butt with a marble in the middle of it (take that, US-backed thug government!). He writes operettas and mock advertising jingles and songs based on instruction manuals. He is, in short, at least a minor subdeity. Imagine Captain Beefheart crossed with a really great disco band and then pasted with scraps of old newspaper everywhere.

55. The Cure, “Just Like Heaven”

Well, duh.

56. Tom Waits, “I Don’t Want to Grow Up”

For my nephews, especially. Ian has loved this one from the age of six. I feel like I’ve done a good thing there.

57. Yo La Tengo, “You Can Have it All”

That’s one of my favorite album covers of all time, which is a good thing, because that’s pretty much all this person’s homemade video has got.

58. Annie, “Heartbeat”

I feel like I have to explain how I even know this song, because it seems incongruous for someone so square/stuck in the ’80s/not that into illegal downloading/too poor to buy recent CDs. My friend Andrew put it on a mix for me in 2005 and it got lodged in my heart (no pun intended). I was gonna point at Andrew in a jocky “It’s-all-you-bro” kind of gesture when this song came on, but it never got played, and Andrew lost his wedding invitation, and so much for that.

59. Michael Jackson, “Girlfriend”

This is the blazingly talented Michael Jackson I was sad to lose, and not the Howard Hughes-meets-Humbert Humbert model we all grew so dismayingly familiar with over the past fifteen years. When I first listened to Off the Wall straight through (which took me an embarrassingly long time; I wasn’t allowed to listen to rock as a child, remember, and in my teenage years it was all punk/new wave, to the point where I was totally shocked to realize that Talking Heads were essentially a disco group with guitars and glasses), I thought it was possibly the greatest album of the 1970s. I still think maybe so.

60. The Bats, “Treason”

If I believed in Jung’s concept of daimons, I might say that mine would be a Criminally-Underheard-Poppy-New-Zealand-Postpunk-Performer daimon.

61. The Smashing Pumpkins, “1979″

By the time Melon Collie came along, I had come to royally hate alterna-radio. (Too much canned rage; not enough melody.) The first single was “Bat Out of My Bullet Brain” or “Carrot With Bulletin Wings” or “Man, I Am Angsty,” or whatever the fuck it was called: “Despite all my rage, I am still just a rat in a caaaaaayyyyge.” That just made me hate Smashing Pumpkins too. But the next single was “Tonight Tonight,” which had that Victorian-storybook quality (and how many pop singles are in F-sharp-major?), and then they brought out this, and I could not even pretend to be above them anymore. To paraphrase what Pauline Kael said about the country music in Nashville, this song makes me nostalgic for experiences I never actually had. I think that feeling may not be terribly far from the sehnsucht that the German Romantics (and C.S. Lewis) talked about. Or maye it’s a commercialized bastardization of same, damned if I can tell. But it sure is intense.

62. Chico Buarque, “Caçada”

Yeah, sit there and try to sit still. I dare you.

63. The Pogues, “The Broad Majestic Shannon”

Now it can be told: I am the one who illicitly borrowed the mixtape from my sister’s tape case in 1991 that had this song on it and whose crappy tape player then broke the tape. I am also the one who clumsily spooled the evidence back into its Memorex casing and replaced the tape, surreptitiously, in the case next to my sister’s bed. I am sorry. But man, that tape was crucial to my education: it got me into this, the Clash, Yaz, INXS, English Beat, the Specials and Vince Clarke-era Depeche Mode.

Passing thought: It’s really sad nowadays that when Shane MacGowan laughs his teeth and gullet are so messed up that he goes gkhee-khee-khee-khee-khee like Ernie.

64. Gladys Knight and the Pips, “It’s Time to Go Now”

Get it? See, ’cause, the dance was going to be ending, and—well, you know, the song says “It’s time to go now.” It’s funny because it’s true.

65. Big Star, “September Gurls”

PS: There was also a gonna be a brunch playlist. It had the Go-Betweens, Antonin Dvorak, Sarah Vaughan, john r. williamson, Television, the JPS Experience, a jazz cover of Tears For Fears, and my wife performing a really funny Georgian drinking song with the Yale Russian Chorus. And Hugh Laurie as Bertie Wooster, trying to teach Gussie Fink-Nottle to sing.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Music · The Playlist

The Wedding Reception Playlist: 41-50

July 3, 2010 · 1 Comment

41. The Mekons, “If They Hang You”

A sprightly country-punk number, from the Mekons’ absolutely essential 1987 album Honky Tonkin’, about how cool it was that Dashiell Hammett refused to testify before the House Un-American Activities Commission. This album is the third in a trio of increasing countrification, which starts with the legendary (but comparatively weak) Fear and Whiskey, peaks with Edge of the World (Sally Timms’s debut and one of the greatest albums ever made), and ends with great dignity. It helped me through a bad time in the summer of 1998.

42. Elvis Costello and the Attractions, “(What’s So Funny About) Peace, Love and Understanding”

Don’t worry, I used the real version, from Armed Forces (1979). “Elvis Costello and the Imposters” is right. Yeesh.

43. The Crystals, “Uptown”

Listening to Phil Spector-produced records now requires the same mental discipline/willed denial as does listening to Michael Jackson. (Oh, and we’ll get to him presently.) But, well, Gesualdo strangled his wife, and he still owns at Renaissance polyphony. Great artists aren’t always nice people, blah blah blah, and anyway … those clacky drum things they use!

44. Over the Rhine, “Sea and Sky”

Sigh.

That’s the Over the Rhine I fell in love with: a kind of intensely sensual, mysterious, contemplative early-’90s college rock that actually still remembers how to rock. Like T.S. Eliot’s “Four Quartets” as fluently translated into melodic Lanois/Eno-style postpunk by Emmylou Harris, with an assist by REM. Also, “You and me and a couple of dusty volumes,” and “You and me a strong sense of forever” is pretty much the marriage I hope Ashley and I will have, reduced to two phrases.

45. The Verlaines, “Take Good Care of It”

The xylophone break at the end of this song is everything I love about the Verlaines in a single moment. I’m coming to think that Bird Dog (1987), from which this song is taken, is the high point of ’80s Kiwi Rock. I hope someday Communion or Flying Nun or whichever label is sitting on this gem rereleases it, at least electronically, so that I don’t have to be recommending an album only available via quasi-legal download to like everybody I know.

46. Echo and the Bunnymen, “The Killing Moon”

A bit of an ’80s block begins here, with the exception of the Hon. Mr. Wright and his Orchestra. All of these songs were ones I’d liked well enough, till a quasi-indie film brought out the dramatic/theatrical qualities that were probably always there. This song makes me think of Donnie Darko racing on his bicycle to his doom, with his face “set like flint” (Christ reference intended), in the ravishingly strange movie of the same name (and no, Richard Kelly’s subsequent work has done nothing to reduce my awe of Donnie Darko).

47. Charles Wright and the Watts 103rd Street Rhythm Band, “Express Yourself”

It’s not what you look like when you’re doing what you’re doing. It’s what you’re doing when you’re doing what you look like you’re doing.

48. INXS, “Don’t Change”

Poor Michael Hutchence. This song still has the lushness of early INXS: a bar band that can’t quite believe their luck.

I was always more of a “The One Thing”/”What You Need”/”Listen Like Thieves” guy, and I can’t say I really heard this song till Greg Mottola dusted it off for the end credits of Adventureland, a film I loved. Now, of course, thanks to Calvin the Crazy Sexton and his you-have-fifteen-minutes-to-get-your-ass-out-of-this-reception-hall meltdown, I’ll always remember it as what played over our end-credits montage: it was the last item on the playlist that I heard as we walked out.

49. Tears For Fears, “Head Over Heels”

Which means that if Calvin the Sexton could’ve just held his water for five more minutes, my sister and I could’ve had the dancing-to-Tears-For-Fears moment we’ve been waiting since like 1992 for. DAMMIT!  At least we’ll always have Roland Orzabal’s mullet to savor.

St. Phillip’s Durham is a really pretty church, and the rector and flower lady turned out to be wonderful, but you have to deal with some crazy-ass people if you want to get married there. Last-minute threatened fee changes (till the rector stepped in), a choirmaster who condescended to our soloist, a sexton who was so rude, and demanded so much extra money just to do his job, that I’m still finding words for the angry letter I intend to write … I can’t recommend it.

50. Cat Power, “Living Proof”

Chan Marshall Goes To Memphis, Gets Awesomeness Injection.

→ 1 CommentCategories: Music · The Playlist

The Wedding Reception Playlist: 31-40

July 1, 2010 · Leave a Comment

31. The Chills, “Singing in My Sleep”

If you like Kiwi Rock, I was always told, you simply must listen to the Chills’ 1990 album Submarine Bells. Well, I like Kiwi Rock well enough: The Verlaines have recently become an incredibly important group for me, The Clean make me dance in the privacy of my bedroom, and (it all started here) the JPS Experience were one of the things that got me through a hard first year of college. (If the world is as full of things as strange and charming as “I Like Rain,” I figured, life would probably end up being worth sticking around for if only for surprise value.) But I listened to Submarine Bells several times and it just never clicked. All these bands have in common (besides New Zealand-issued drivers’ licenses) is a sort of sonic texture that causes writers like me to resort to the adjectives “shimmery” and “dreamy” entirely too much. (Just dig up some of the music and hear what I mean; God knows there are downloads of dubious legality to be found everywhere on the Internet.) In the case of the Chills, I think their stuff is too quiet and subtle for the in-store CD player stations (do they still have those?) or brief online snippets that I tried to use to familiarize myself. In any case, this song is a bit of floating gorgeousness; I thought it’d provide a nice in-between-dances naptime feeling (or something for my indie-rock-loving friends to sort of shrug rhythmically along to, perhaps in pairs).

32. The Church, “Under the Milky Way”

See, not really danceable. I think the back-to-back placement of these songs (plus the next one) was a product of Ashley telling me, two days before the wedding, “IT’S DONE ENOUGH! And you’re the only one who’ll be paying this level of attention anyway!” Still, this is a classic, the kind of song that the word “atmospheric” was coined for.

33. Neko Case, “This Tornado Loves You”

I waited to read One Hundred Years of Solitude forever because, I figured, anything that snugly canonized and beloved of most of my friends could safely be saved for a moment when I wasn’t in mid-careen from one interest to another. For the same reason I didn’t get into Neko Case until my homegirl Ali started playing her on the way to the neo-evangelical church I attended with her for solidarity’s sake (me, I’m into the bells and smells and female priests). I knew I’d get around to falling in love with Neko Case; no need for urgency. Except, of courseas I learned in Garcia Marquez’s case and learned again nowwith great art, it’s always urgent.

34. Kool Blues, “I’m Gonna Keep On Loving You”

Someone else has a song by this name. KB’s is much older, and awesome. I found it on one of those wonderful Eccentric Soul compilations that Numero Group puts out.

35. The Brilliant Corners, “Teenage”

I am obsessed with this group, none of whose music was in print when I stumbled on them last summer. (The Growing Up Absurd and What’s in a Word mini-albums are now for sale on eMusic, and I’m counting the minutes till my dowloads refresh. I want this band’s ex-members to get whatever money’s coming to ‘em.) I have no idea how this wasn’t a hit in the summer of 1987. It’s like a more pub-rock/R&B-influenced version of the Smiths, and that basically sounds like listener heaven. Certainly this song’s hormone-addled, bored-to-distraction lyrics remind me of where I was emotionally when Ashley and I met in high school.

36. Gilberto Gil, “Procissao”

I wanted to see some serious dancing to this one. There were enough Tropicalia fans in attendance that I would’ve, if it weren’t for you, Calvin the Sexton.

37. De La Soul, “Eye Know”

As romantic as rap gets. Check out also this ukelele cover:

38. Love Theme from The Breakfast Club

Did you even know The Breakfast Club has a love theme? I didn’t, until Ashley started raving about it one night: “You know, it’s when Ally Sheedy gets all cleaned up for her big moment with Emilio Estevez, and Molly Ringwald throws herself at Judd Nelson, it goes kinda like, DA-da-da-da, da-da-da, DA-da-da-da, da-da …”

“Not ringing a bell,” I said, so she produced the CD from somewhere on her person. With a little digging, I found out this is actually the composition of a former Psychedelic Furs keyboardist. John Hughes made slightly racist films about teenagers too pretty and too wealthy to actually be the misfits he wanted us to think they were, but man, did he have taste in music.

39. Nelcy Sedibe, “Holotelani (Daughter-in-Law)”

The Indestructible Beat of Soweto is one of the most influential various-artists compilations ever made, both for musical and political reasons (this was late in the apartheid era), but the listener doesn’t have to be burdened by any of that knowledge to see the instant significance of these songs: that is, delight.

40. The Clean, “Thumbs Off”

Another happy punk-rock blast.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Music · The Playlist

Review, Interrupted: Unpublished review of Marilynne Robinson’s Absence of Mind

June 29, 2010 · 3 Comments

This is another piece that got pre-empted by the sudden death of Identity Theory. I’m beginning to think that Absence of Mind is the book that will trigger the inevitable Marilynne Robinson backlash. Nine years ago, when I started reading her, mentioning her got me a whole slide-show of politely befuddled looks; only people old enough to remember Housekeeping had ever heard of her, and her last two books had been works of plague-on-all-yer-houses polemical nonfiction. (I found out about her from an entry in the invaluable Eighth Day Books catalogue, from Wichita. Where most book catalogues have ad copy, these guys have little mini-essays. The Eighth Day catalogue was also where I discovered the existence of Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Pavel Florensky, T.F. Torrance, and Eastern Christianity.)

Gilead sort of made Robinson famous again, which is funny, because if I have a least favorite Marilynne Robinson book, it’s that one. But between her opposition to neoliberalism and her liberal Calvinism and her ornate prose style she’s begging for detractors. If she praised the free market and attacked, say, the Civil Rights Act while defending Christianity, she’d have a berth waiting for her over at The New Criterion; if she attacked Bush and racism and colonialism and kept her mouth shut about Jesus, she’d fit right in at Mother Jones. But she talks about all of these things, frequently in the same essay.

I thought William Deresiewicz’s take on Home in The Nation was kinda wrongheaded. He complains about The Death of Adam for not talking about the role of non-religious intellectuals in 19th-century struggles for justice. (I have a problem with the word “religion” and the way it invites us to assume, from both sides, that some are in, some are out, but that’s for another day.) Deresiewicz’s complaint would be well-taken if Death of Adam were an exhaustive account of the Abolitionist, Gilded and Progressive Eras, rather than a series of very specific essays designed precisely to remind people that so-called “religious people” also had a hand in these periods’ reforms.  But it isn’t. And then the Blographia Literaria guy really ragged on her Yale Terry Lectures, which became Absence of Mind. His criticisms, quite honestly, are mystifying to me. For most of his essay he accuses her, in effect, of saying what she said, and then acts as if he’s revealed some gaping flaw (the nature of which is rarely explained); and then he accuses her of “chuckling otiosely” at ideas she doesn’t like. Pot, meet kettle. He insinuates that she sees no flaws in Christians’ historical behavior, which is bullshit. (Home is one long acknowledgment of such flaws, for starters). He reprimands her for bothering to point out problems in Steven Pinker’s bestselling The Blank Slate, because, in effect, everybody knows that Pinker is an idiot anyway; which, if that’s true, why’s Pinker always on my TV and in my New Republic? He attacks her for sounding like Saul Bellow, which she does, if Bellow were less macho, and less sexist, and less of a snob, and if he had a completely different prose style and sensibility, which is to say she doesn’t sound like Saul Bellow at all. He mocks her for writing about science without being able to name a favorite contemporary scientist. Umm, science is collaborative and is only getting more so. Of course she can’t name one particular favorite guy. And she isn’t really writing about science in Absence of Mind; she is writing about bad philosophy and its habit of hiding out in bestselling books of pop-science. Finally he accuses her of only liking science that “smiles at God,” which doesn’t really square well with her repeated, more-or-less friendly references to Bertrand Russell, for starters. His main complaint seems to be that she doesn’t say enough nice things about science done well. To me, this is exactly like complaining that The Death of Adam doesn’t say enough nice things about secular progressives. It confuses an exhaustive historical or thematic treatise (on “Science” in one case; on “nineteenth-century history” in the other) with a targeted intervention at a very specific place in the conversation. These are essays, not textbooks. I mean, look at the title, for fuck’s sake: The Disspelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self. If you want her to talk about how awesome Brian Greene is, or how cute it is that John Bell’s socks are mismatched, wait for another book.

But anyway, that’s two very smart people, whose writings I generally don’t consider a waste of time, who really seem to have a problem with Robinson. And she seems to be becoming a generational influence. Her widely-acclaimed ex-student Chris Adrian has a John Calvin tatoo, which suggests he’s taken a long soak in The Death of Adam, and apparently a good chunk of the New Yorker’s “20 Under 40″ listed her as a favorite. She’s ubiquitous enough to be worth attacking, in other words. Now the reviews of Absence of Mind have started to filter in, and most of them are tepid—”she digresses too much” (to me, that’s a turn-on); “I can’t figure out what Freud’s doing here” (again, look at the title); “she doesn’t know science” (these complains are always suspiciously nonspecific). I made a big mistake and read the comments underneath a recent Guardian excerpt from AOM. Mostly it was a bunch of reductionists having a circle jerk. The least stupid response was this: ”I feel spooky sometimes = Science can’t explain everything. Thanks for that.” This comment has the advantage of being funny, but it is no kind of response, since “I feel spooky sometimes” is not her argument. (There was also a complaint that she doesn’t understand probability. That may or may not be true, but probability isn’t a big part or really any part of her argument—I read her use of “improbable” as nontechnical—so it doesn’t do much.) And they kept calling her “Marilynne.” WTF? I really need to emulate Jessa Crispin of Bookslut and swear off reading comment threads.

All of that is a very long-winded way of introducing my own much more laudatory review of Absence of Mind, in which I wanted to summarize Robinson’s argument while saying all of the above, in fewer than 1200 words. Ha!

Orphaned review Marilynne Robinson’s Absence of Mind

Whether from laziness or for some deeper reason, much of American intellectual and political life is framed as a contest between caricatures. We have all heard about the contrasting mores and beverage preferences of those mythical Red and Blue Americans, mismatched partners in our national screwball comedy. (How long before the inevitable movie?) And we have all had our nerves scoured by the hysterical, sometimes murderous pronouncements of pundits and politicians whose only claim on our attention is a false one, that they speak for the silent half of some specious binary. (How long before the inevitable domestic terrorist attack?)

This habit dominates our thinking in subtler ways. There is, for example, widespread belief in a “war between science and religion,” a sloppy formulation even if it were rephrased, more accurately, as a war between evolutionary biology and fundamentalist Protestantism. Perhaps this fuzzy notion survives from mere habit—chance variation persisting by inertia; or perhaps it serves the psychological needs of both groups. Harassing biology teachers is easier, after all, than some of the other imperatives that might arise from a literal perusal of the Bible (“give to those who ask”). Shock at Malthusian biology thus excuses acquiescence in Malthusian economics. And on the other side, some science pundits attempt to rescue the notion of inevitable religion-science warfare by offering definitions of religion so silly that they would raise suspicions as to the authors’ basic intelligence, if they weren’t so clearly intended to nourish that heady sense of lonely superiority that is the simplest guarantor of cult success. Daniel Dennett describes religion as a group attempt to secure the God’s or gods’ favor—as if the impossibility of doing so, the wrongness even of trying, were not, notoriously, a central preoccupation of Christian theology since at least the Protestant Reformation.

Marilynne Robinson the essayist, who shares body and sensibility if not renown with Marilynne Robinson the Orange Prize-winning novelist, is among our most trenchant critics of such habits. In Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self, she examines a number of bestselling writers who have, in the matter of Science v. Religion, testified for the former, finding that the “scientific worldview” from which writers like Dawkins or Dennett claim to speak owes more to bad philosophy than to science. It is a sort of lobotomized logical positivism, censorious toward metaphysical ideas (the soul, human exceptionalism, etc.) because of their long association with religious thought, but constantly slipping, unaware, into metaphysical claims—as when E.O. Wilson, for example, deduces from the existence of biodiversity the moral rightness of awe toward it. (Wilson’s references to Darwin’s “There is grandeur in this view of life” should raise our suspicions. Why is grandeur important? To discuss it, aren’t we leaving behind our commitment to reductionism?) She argues further that this tendency is as inimical to science as it is to any other human pursuit, because it renders felt experience indescribable, and creates a vacuum in which weak accounts of human nature flourish. “If ‘mind’ and ‘soul’ are not entities in their own right,” she writes, “they are at least terms that have been found useful for describing aspects of the expression and self-expression of our very complex nervous system.” And if these terms, in the twinned histories of religion and philosophy, are sometimes used to block rather than to enable inquiry, Robinson shows that this tendency enjoys a robust enough life without them.

Robinson examines over a century’s worth of speculation on “altruism,” that problem stirring within so many books of Darwinian fundamentalism like an undigested burrito. She is unimpressed by efforts to explain human kindness as a misfiring of the emotional responses that our genes have evolved in order to maneuver us into preserving our kin (and, thus, our masterminding genes). “What are ‘we,’” she asks, “if we must be bribed and seduced by illusory sensations we call love or courage or benevolence? Why need our genes conjure these better angels, when, presumably, the species of toads and butterflies … flourish without them?” She is likewise unimpressed by Richard Dawkins’s effort to explain this anomaly by positing the existence of memes. If certain ideas, she argues, have “sprung free from direct dependency on our genes,” then why bother constructing “a genetic or sociobiological account” of behavior at all? The two explanations render each other unnecessary, but are offered together, in the manner of rationalizations.

In the book’s third chapter, she offers a rich and unexpected account of Freud. This writer is today—rightly—consigned to the trash bin of pseudoscience, but he helped render unfashionable (“debunk”) the idea of the self, and thus belongs squarely to the intellectual lineage Robinson examines. Freud, like Spenser before him and like, say, behaviorists and evolutionary psychologists after, claimed to have discovered that what we think of as “me” is a complicated illusion produced by impersonal forces. The irony that Robinson finds in all this, however, is that Freud’s theories also functioned perfectly as a way of explaining, as universal and inescapable features of consciousness, the very pathologies—anomie, maladjustment, a sense of disconnection from a primordial self—that Freud’s crank contemporaries were wont to blame on the presence of Jews (“alien elements”) in Europe. In her telling, Freud’s career is an oddly moving, probably unintended act of self-defense against the beloved Vienna whose murderous designs on him he was notoriously slow in recognizing.

This is, in sum, a smart, funny, dazzlingly eloquent book, influenced by William James and worthy of him. It poses this challenge to all reductionisms: As long as reality, with its lacunae and its imponderables, is so mysterious as to drive us to the adoption of ethical and metaphysical and aesthetic terms simply to describe it, why not acknowledge as much, and drop any pretention to conceptual chastity? “Here is another instance of evolution,” Robinson writes. “The universe passed through its unimaginable first moment, first year, first billion years … Then, very late, there is added to the universe of being a shaped stick or stone, a jug, a cuneiform tablet. They appear on a tiny, teetering, lopsided planet, and demand wholly new vocabularies of description for reality at every scale.”

→ 3 CommentsCategories: God Help Me I'm "Litblogging" · Self-Promotion

Alternate History, Indeed

June 25, 2010 · 4 Comments

EDIT: I apologize to Steven Moore for implying that he didn’t cite M.A. “Maximum Awesomeness” Doody in his book during the thread of comments beneath this posting. –PC, 7/13/2010

This “revisionist” history of the novel caught my eye at the Durham Borders a few weeks ago, both because of its newness and because of its not-newness. Continuum’s backflap description gives the flavor:

Encyclopedic in scope and heroically audacious, The Novel: An Alternative History is the first attempt in over a century to tell the complete story of our most popular literary form. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the novel did not originate in 18th-century England, nor even with Don Quixote, but is coeval with civilization itself. After a pugnacious introduction, in which Moore defends innovative, demanding novelists against their conservative critics, the book relaxes into a world tour of the premodern novel, beginning in ancient Egypt and ending in 16th-century China, with many exotic ports-of-call: Greek romances; Roman satires; medieval Sanskrit novels narrated by parrots; Byzantine erotic thrillers; 5000-page Arabian adventure novels; Icelandic sagas; delicate Persian novels in verse; Japanese war stories; even Mayan graphic novels. Throughout, Moore celebrates the innovators in fiction, tracing a continuum between these premodern experimentalists and their postmodern progeny.

First thought: Indeed, prose fiction did not begin with Cervantes or Defoe (the usual suspects). The idea that it did comes from some very old, and very flawed, larger ideas about history and aesthetics: that capitalism (or the Reformation) created a “new human subject,” rather than unfolding possibilities that were already inherent; that England reigns supreme; that the novel has one ideal form. It’s always good to see someone dispute this, loudly.

Second thought: And it’s also good to remind readers that “innovative fiction” (the blurb-writer’s euphemism for Pynchon and Wallace and other smartypants gameplayers) is hardly the twentieth-century perversion some critics seem to imagine it to be. Saying metafiction, self-referentiality, and magic realism are creations of modernity is like giving the credit for the invention of non-missionary-position sex to the online porn industry.

Third thought: But this case got argued beautifully by the academic and mystery writer Margaret Doody less than fifteen years ago, in one of the best nonfiction books I’ve ever read, in any category, period. Why didn’t anyone pay attention?

Fourth thought: And, great, the author is a Hitchensian doctrinaire religion-basher (based on the quotes I’ve seen; check the Open Letters review linked above), who hasn’t emerged from the epistemological solecism of thinking that there’s a specific brand of thinking that can be labeled “religious” and safely quarantined from everything else—a notion that makes even very smart people (such as former Review of Contemporary Fiction editors) sound like fifteen-year-olds to me.

Fifth thought: But, yet again, I’m going to have to read it anyway. Even if the Open Letters critic is dead right about the author’s hypocritical combination of hyperbolic judgmentality and hey-I’m-just-sayin’ defensiveness (which is a problem for this summer’s other big source of pronouncements on literature, David Shields). Even if the author can’t see the difference between the text of the Bible and what his mean aunt Gladys made of it. Even if the author is careless with his categories and changes horses in midstream. And even if he’s stealing the thunder from my gal-hero Doody, whose book is absolutely essential. Because in one of the reviews he’s quoted as having said this:

Reading Joyce, Barth, Pynchon, et al. is a treat, not a task; nor is it something one does (unless you’re a poseur) just to claim bragging rights afterward: at your next social gathering, try announcing you’ve just finished Hermann Broch’s Death of Virgil and see how far that gets you. These novels are admittedly not for everyone, but they are for some of us …

And that’s an axe I’ve been grinding forever. Bravo, guy.

→ 4 CommentsCategories: God Help Me I'm "Litblogging"

Moratorium please

June 22, 2010 · 1 Comment

On faux-populist book journalism of the form “Popular writer X create many satisfied customers. Not quite as popular writer Y use language to unsettle and defamiliarize the terms of our existence. ME NO LIKE! X IS BEST WRITER IN AMERICA!!!”

I just saw a guy argue, using this kind of logic, that Dave Barry is a better writer than David Foster Wallace. Guys like this always write as if they’re doing everybody a favor, as if there were this terrifying machine-gun-armed robot army out there forcing us to read DFW and William Gass and Diane Williams and Richard Kostelanetz in underground labor camps, but hope is just around the corner, in the unshaven form of Stephen King and Elmore Leonard and (fill in the blank), who are about to blow the whole thing wide open using nothing more than gum, string, Silly Putty, some … crazy cockeyed hope … and a pocket lighter.

Note to lazy litbloggers, who presume to speak for readers but dislike, apparently, the act of reading: No one is making me read David Foster Wallace. I like reading him. Because he makes sentences that force me to see the world differently—whereas Dave Barry’s sentences, after the third or fourth column, are so formulaic they don’t even make me see him differently. Some of us enjoy the sensation DFW gives us. Everything in the culture seems to be at war on this pleasure of ours, and the snobbery of the “anti-elitist” these days is ten times more aggressive and intolerant than that of the reader of difficult books, and you want to make your name spinning lazy-ass sophisms that were old when Plato’s publicist was asking the old man whether Diogenes Six-Pack is really ready for “this whole, uh, ’dialogue’ format.” If popularity justified books, movies, or anything else, then the two greatest political philosphers of the twentieth century would be Hitler and Ronald Reagan. Grow up, world, dammit, already.

→ 1 CommentCategories: God Help Me I'm "Litblogging"

The Wedding Reception Playlist: 21-30

June 21, 2010 · 1 Comment

21. The Buzzcocks, “Fiction Romance”

Drummer John Maher sounds like he’s hacking a wooden door to pieces. I just imagined a roomful of insane pogoers when this came on. I’m utopian like that. By the way, the Buzzcocks were the second punk band to form their own label, which is the kind of initiative that Adam Smith used to fantasize about.

22. Caetano Veloso, “Alfomega”

According to a commenter at YouTube the first line, in Portugese, is “Alfomegabatism. Somatopsicopneumatics. I don’t know about the death.” The geniuses behind Tropicalia were not overraters of language’s powers of reference.

23. Captain Beefheart and the Magic Band, “Call On Me”

This, from Safe as Milk (1967), is Cap’s best “normal” song: not pandering like his mid-70s stuff and not parodic like the same album’s “So Glad,” just a raucous ballad that stays in the same key throughout but flirts with atonality during the bridge (-to-nowhere). Lester Bangs’s contention that Don VanVliet is probably one of the greatest white blues singers of the century, not that anyone can tell, is fully borne out, and the whole thing sounds like my dream of what hippie-era radio could have sounded like if everyone had been truly adventurous, rather than just high.

CB used to frustrate me. I’d read about him and then buy the album (and to rock critics it is always the album, to paraphrase Dr. Watson) and then I would feel put on as soon as I put it on. If you’ve had this experience, what got me past it was: 1) Listen to Safe as Milk, because it’s, um, safe. 2) Get really into Tom Waits. During the same period, deprive yourself of guitar music that ever really goes crrrrunch. 3) Read Langdon Winner’s essay on Trout Mask Replica from the book Stranded, which is one of the very few essential works of pop music criticism (Langdon Winner is a poli-sci professor who blogs about technology now, by the way). 4) Wait for a really fresh spring day. Put on “Frownland.” The resistance will have melted. It also helps to think in terms of this guy’s argument that Trout Mask is essentially a children’s album, with a child’s unforced surrealism.

24. The B-52s, “Roam”

A bizarre segue, but the progression from D major to F major sounds right to my ears, and both songs have a certain belt-it-out, uvulating quality. I love this video, too, with its backprojected botique multiculturalism. And doesn’t the song express a very newlywed sentiment?

25. Gal Costa, “Vou Recomecar”

That growling …

26. Sly and the Family Stone, “Everyday People”

A million things have been said, and a million more could be said, about the greatness of this band and this single. What stands out to me is its concision. This was the era of long jazz solos, early funk, and hippie butt-rock. To achieve a sound this instantly addictive and then cut it off exactly two minutes and twelve seconds later … well, that takes a degree of self-discipline that must have seemed nearly perverse in 1968. Only humble singles bands, Motown acts and the like, would normally be so tough on themselves, not album artists with a ethos to create.

27. Freddy Fender, “Before the Next Teardrop Falls”

That link will take care of any Geocities/early-Internet-era nostalgia you’re feeling. (But if it doesn’t, the next link y estare contigo cuando trieste estas.)

28. Lucinda Williams, “Metal Firecracker”

One more for the annals of Grammy-granters’ pusillanimity: When this exemplary country album, canonized more or less instantly upon its release in 1998, went to collect its inevitable reward from the National Academy of Rec. Arts Etc. Etc., they gave it Album of the Year in the … wait for it … contemporary folk category. Grow some pairs, folks. This is a country album. Just because it would sound out of place playing behind a Lamar Alexander For America ad doesn’t make it folk. Stop protecting country fans from good music already.

29. Belle & Sebastian, “My Wandering Days are Over”

My wandering days never even had so much as a running start, but those sweeping horns at the end … you’ve gotta have ‘em.

30. Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell, “Ain’t Nothing Like the Real Thing”

I love this video: the man is a true babbling record geek, and his record player is a touch too fast, bumping the song into a dead zone between its original E flat major and a bubbly-tempoed E major. This song’s place on the playlist is a remnant of my original intention: to walk down the aisle to “You’re All I Need to Get By.” Stupid Episcopal rules.

→ 1 CommentCategories: Music · The Playlist

New essays, kind of

June 10, 2010 · 1 Comment

Identity Theory is no more, apparently, which means death for the two book reviews I had pending there. (It also means no more free shots at the Powells.com Review-a-Day slot. Just when I was getting used to it!) I guess I’ll post them here, for lack of any better options: book reviews go stale fast. And does anything say “game changer” like an unpublished book review that the author posted on his personal blog?! Reel, mortals …

Orphaned Review of Michael Lewis’s The Big Short

We all were waiting for someone to explain, definitively and clearly, what happened to the world’s money in 2008, and while we waited it kept on happening. As I write this*, the newspapers (a metaphor, these days) are full of the Goldman Sachs boys’ most recent evasions of Congressional blame for having nearly wrecked the markets (another metaphor). Between their shamelessness, and Congress’s cowardice, and our inability to attend to all the explanations that events like these require, we can expect to see sequels and reboots of this horror movie before the reviews of Part One are in. 

Nevertheless, Michael Lewis’s attempt at an explanation is valiant and necessary. Lewis has a reputation as the best kind of reporter, someone who can successfully explain complex social changes with the use of rich characterization and revealing anecdotes. He has Tom Wolfe’s keen eyes and winning flippancy, but lacks, thank God, Wolfe’s snobbery, his talent for siding with Goliath against David and then asking us to admire his contrarianism. This sense of humor (and humanity) makes him an ideal writer on finance. Indeed, if The Big Short has any flaw, it is, surprisingly for a book about credit default swaps and bond trading, an overreliance on its human characters. Lewis is so good at exposition—which in this case means rendering understandable the behavior of impersonal economic forces—that I really wasn’t as interested in his analyses of the characters of actual persons, such as the socially graceless financial analyst Steve Eisman or the one-eyed, Asperger’s-afflicted bond trader Michael Burry.

These two were among the first people to realize that crisis was in the offing, and they, along with a handful of others (a prototypical greedy salesman; a group of hippy-dippy survivalists who establish a capital-management firm), made billions betting against the solvency of the American economy. They provide the book with its angle. Rather than asking, as so many have, why “no one” saw the economic collapse coming, Lewis, with Swiftian self-assurance, assumes a general incompetence on the part of Wall Street generally and examines the few who got things right. His cynicism is based in personal experience. Lewis’s first book, Liar’s Poker (1989), was a memoir of the years he spent cluelessly accruing money (while losing other peoples’) on Wall Street, engaged in tasks of “no social utility.” He wrote it as a call to arms, but a generation of college students have, he tells us, read it as a How-To-Succeed-in-Business manual.

The prevalence of that kind of stupidity is, finally, the message of this book. The Big Short demonstrates, again and again, that the primary problem with our Masters of Capital is not greed but incompetence. (In so doing, by the way, it refutes the predictable conservative charge that feckless poor people caused the crisis. It’s clear from Lewis’s telling that subprime mortgage lending was a marginal part of the economy until, in the late 1980s, bond traders figured out how to make large short-term gains from such loans, thus creating an incentive for huge sums of money to be thrown at those who couldn’t repay it. Thanks, fellows.)

We have been in the habit of justifying Wall Street in Darwinian terms: their methods, arcane and destabilizing as they are, will always lead capital (by the nuts) to those places where natural selection, in the form of consumer need, requires it. They aren’t nice people, but—like Kara Thrace or Jack Bauer—they get the job done. What becomes overwhelmingly clear from Michael Lewis’s account is that, as far as the bond market is concerned, there is no “job.” Bond traders’ behavior has no justification, Darwinian or other. Their “financial products” not only had no relationship to economic reality but created incentives for ignoring that reality. These products were like cancers, which create an environment conducive to the production of more cells nobody needs. Or they were like bad metaphors, which, as metaphors tend to do, proliferate, creating further, complementary metaphors, trapping more and more of the world within a faulty conceptual scheme. It is folly to expect repentance from these people; like the ex-Nazis that history shakes out of hiding every few years, they will never apologize, because they have grown accustomed to living in a fiction. The question for all of us is how not to live there with them.  

*Late April, 2010.

Coming next week (after I do some light re-editing): A review of Marilynne Robinson’s amazing Absence of Mind that will be summarily ignored, like the book.

→ 1 CommentCategories: Politics · Self-Promotion