Graduate Oregon State University and Northern Illinois University,
Former City Manager, Corporate Vice President, General Contractor, Non-Profit Project Manager, occasional free lance writer and photographer for the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Wharton’s “The Age of Innocence” exposes false notions of equality of the sexes in America and reflects on the human frailty and strength of men and women.
Edith Wharton lived through the turn of the 19th and 20th century in America. She lived an adult life of luxury in New York, and later in France.
Wharton writes about American society; i.e. she exposes New York’s “upstairs, downstairs” snobbery in the early 20th century.
Newland Archer is engaged to be married to May Welland when a childhood friend comes to visit relatives in New York.
In telling the tale, Wharton sharply defines the battle of the sexes, duplicity of romance, and folly of youth. Though writing of a sliver of wealthy American’ society in the early 20th century, Wharton’s story rings as true about men and women today as it did when she won the Pulitzer Prize.
The battle of the sexes is repeated today in the Gates’ divorce. Their wealth and notoriety make them news. News that is invisibly repeated in many American households.
This is Wharton’s story, maybe a fiction, but as true to life yesterday as it is today. A childhood friend is Ellen Olenska, a 30-year-old married countess that left New York in her youth. Newland begins to question his love for May Welland. His reasons for questioning are not clear to himself. Wharton infers the reasons are idealized romance and lust.
Archer idealizes Olenska. His idealization comes from unrequited lust. Olenska is a married woman. She is not available.
Archer knows his soon-to-be wife, May, is committed to him and takes her for granted. Archer’s lust for Olenska conflicts with Archer’s morals. The nature of unrequited lust is that the thought or idea of sex is perfect. In Archer’s mind, Olenska becomes an objectified sex object (a perfect fantasy), and May will never be good enough. Archer is psychologically prepared to abandon May and pursue a “perfect” relationship with Olenska.
Olenska, in one respect, is Archer’s alter-ego. She views Archer as a perfect companion because Archer is not available. Archer is committed to another woman. Olenska lusts for Archer but with better insight to the truth. Her life experience tells her to resist infatuation. She knows that once lust is satisfied, social reality returns.
Archer views May as a complacent woman that will make a boring
wife. In contrast, Wharton shows May to
be a perceptive woman that understands Archer’s and Olenska’s relationship. May correctly diagnoses Archer’s false
idealization and subtlety maneuvers Archer to quash the burgeoning affair with
Olenska.
In the end, Wharton shows Archer to be morally shallow. Archer chooses to keep his innocent memory; i.e. his deluded vision of romance, commitment, and love.
Governor of New York–Andrew Cuomo
Cuomo reflects much of what Edith Wharton illustrates in “The Age of Innocents”. Power and inequality distorts the relationship between men and women today, just as it did in the early 20th century.
May and Olenska are shown to understand the difference between lust and romance; commitment, and love. Archer never does. Archer never gets over “The Age of Innocence”.
Leo Damrosch (American author and professor of Literature at Harvard)
Leo Damrosch’s biography of “Jonathan Swift” illustrates the power of the pen.
Jonathan Swift (1667-1745, Anglo-Irish satirist, essayist, political pamphleteer, poet and cleric.)
Jonathan Swift is principally remembered for “Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World”, better known as “Gulliver’s Travels”. What is less known of Swift is that he was and is a revered Irish hero.
Damrosch has written a comprehensive biography of Jonathan
Swift’s life. Damrosch searches for what
is known, while expressing reservation about what others speculate about
Swift’s life. Jonathan Swift is recognized
as an ordained Anglican priest that reluctantly accepts a position as Deanery
of St Patrick’s church in Ireland.
Swift lives an ironic life. He was born in Ireland but preferred living in England. His life reflects humanity’s ambivalence about money, power, and prestige.
Irony lies in Swift’s desire to become rich, powerful, and respected while skewering the rich, powerful, and respected.
Swift reveres the Anglican Church while he hates the memory of King Henry VIII’s duplicitous murder of Saint Thomas of Canterbury in the 12th century. Irish Catholics are tolerated rather than accepted as religious equals by Swift. Swift’s appellation for Irish Catholics is “those Irish”.
England’s leaders grew to fear Swift’s power of the pen. He became a respected, if not rich, Irish cleric. Religious satire was Swift’s sword but it had two edges.
Just as Swift is endearing himself to English leadership, he writes a satiric book about western Christianity. The book is called “A Tale of a Tub”. It is widely read by literate England. Queen Anne considers the book blasphemous because of its parodies about religion and religion’s use and abuse in politics.
Damrosch believes “A Tale of a Tub” burns Swift’s chance for ever becoming an English Bishop, a well-paying and respected position in the Anglican Church. Without Royal endorsement, Swift has little chance of promotion in England.
An irony of Swift’s life is that he gained a reputation as a
maker and breaker of English’ politicians and noblemen by writing “A Tale of a
Tub”; i.e. Damrosch notes several examples of English’ leaders that either
solicit mention in Swift’s writing or fear pillory by Swift’s pen. The good consequence is respect for Swift’s
writing skill; the bad consequence is English Royalty’s disdain for Swift’s
writing substance and his ultimate lesser-posting in an Anglican Church in
Ireland.
In today’s news, Pope Benedict implies deterioration of the church is caused by 1960’s sexual liberation.
Swift embraces religion but denigrates its leadership.
Irony follows irony in Swift’s life. Swift is a Tories’ sympathizer that evolves into an Irish hero that decries Tory treatment of Ireland in the early 18th century. He hated Ireland but became Ireland’s hero. Swift promotes Ireland’s boycott of British goods when England forbids export of Irish wool to anywhere but England. Swift decries Irish poverty but suggests poverty is an Irish moral failing.
The climax of Damrosch’s biography is Swift’s publication of “Gulliver’s Travels”. Swift’s dissection of societies’ follies is as relevant today as it was in the 18th century. One might argue that “A Tale of a Tub” is equally important but “Gulliver’s Travels” resonates with all who read for pleasure, politics, or enlightenment; whether young or old. “A Tale of a Tub” is more relevant to the time of its writing.
There are other biographical details about women in Swift’s
life, his stories, and Swift’s idiosyncratic habits but power of the pen is the
thematic giant in Damrosch’s book.
Damrosch shows how Swift became a feared satirist by England’s leaders.
Geoffrey Chaucer is a master of ambiguity. Michael Drout, in the Modern Scholar series, offers an informative and laudatory appreciation of Chaucer as the Bard of the Middle Ages. Drout notes that Chaucer’s view of life is best revealed in The Canterbury Tales.
Drout offers high praise for Chaucer, suggesting The Canterbury Tales seeds centuries of fictional narratives; in part because of Chaucer’s prescient understanding of human nature but also because of life’s ambiguous truths. Drout considers Chaucer equal to William Shakespeare, widely believed the greatest poet and playwright of all time.
Drout gives a brief narrative about what is known of Chaucer’s life. Chaucer mingles with all classes of society. From an upper middle-class upbringing as the son of a wine merchant, Chaucer bridges lower and upper-class English life.
Chaucer went to war for England in France. He was captured but freed with the payment of ransom because of his family’s royal connections. Through marriage and familiarity, Chaucer begins a career in the English court.
Hundred Years War between England and France (1336-1453).
Though Drout touches on other Chaucer works, particularly Troilus and Cressida, Drout’s primary focus is on The Canterbury Tales.
Drout explains that Chaucer’s wide social experience, and ability to charm the upper class appeals to the general public. It affords him income as an appointed representative of the government. He works as a diplomat, and later Justice of the Peace. His positions allow him time to observe and write about English life. The culmination of Chaucer’s observations about life is in The Canterbury Tales.
In reviewing The Canterbury Tales, Drout notes how Chaucer cleverly conceals his opinions by distancing himself from the characters he creates. One can look at the tales and see an underlying criticism of the church, support for women’s rights, seeds of class conflict, and nascent relativism.
One clearly sees how Chaucer must have been an extraordinary diplomat. All of these tales suggest seditious acts; each in opposition to the culture of Chaucer’s time. If not presented in the entertaining and ambiguous guise of The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer may have been ridiculed rather than lauded.
Take heart Dave Chappelle.
Poets Corner in Westminster Abby.
Geoffrey Chaucer is buried in the south transept (or south cross) of Westminster Abbey, now known as Poets’ Corner.
Though Drout does not suggest Chaucer endorses cultural’ transgressions,
it appears Chaucer is ambiguous about his character’s opinions. Drout suggests Chaucer may have been
repentant in The Parson’s Tale (the
last of the Canterbury Tales that endorses the religion of Chaucer’s era) because
he is nearing the end of his life. In
any case, it is clear that Chaucer is ahead of his time; earned his place in
West Minster Abbey (the first poet to be buried there), and deserved his
reputation as the Father of English Literature.
“Little Failure” may seem humorous to some but it is really about the angst and hardship of immigration. Immigration is a particularly difficult subject in today’s America. After all, President Trump claims “our country is full”.
At the age of 38, a memoir of one’s life seems hubris-tic. “Little Failure” might be a case in point, but the author, Gary Shteyngart, shows more self-loathing than excessive self-pride in his story of coming from Russia to New York at the age of six.
Shteyngart has the good fortune of going to a Jewish grade school (Solomon Schechter) to help him transition from being a Russian speaking immigrant to an English speaking writer.
Solomon Schechter, more than many American schools, appreciates and works on transitioning children from one culture to another. Shteyngart seems to devalue Solomon Schechter’s help in his immigrant transition. Helping a child transition from a smaller culture to a different and larger culture is a big challenge for both school and immigrant.
Shteyngart writes a great deal about his relationship with his father and mother that resonate in some ways with all boys growing into manhood. Both parents love their son.
In Shteyngart’s memoir, his father tells imaginative stories, but also physically punishes him for perceived insubordination and bad behavior. Shteyngart remembers passive/aggressive actions by his mother; e.g. a habit of not talking to him as a way of punishing perceived transgressions.
As with some maturing male children, Shteyngart is obsessed with sex. He covets attention of older men as father figures. He desires women that never give him a serious look until he is 20 years old. He compensates for inattention by being a class clown; which is one of many coping mechanisms used by adolescents with low self-esteem.
Sthteyngart writes that he is the apple of his grandmother’s eye and his parents have high expectations for him. Sthteyngart is expected to excel in school to become a doctor or lawyer. However, he finds he does not have enough interest or ability to achieve those goals and turns to writing.
He goes to Oberlin College, partly because of a girl, but primarily because it offers escape from home and the potential for meeting his parent’s expectation. He takes two majors, the first is political science and, presumably, the second is English or literature. The political science is for his parent’s push for law school. His other major is to feed his natural interest.
Sthteyngart becomes something of a hippie; i.e. smoking dope, drinking, and generally goofing off, but he manages to keep his grades high enough to satisfy his parents and feed his ambition to be a writer. (This is not a picture of Sthteyngart but and example of hippies of his day.)
He actively supports the first Bush’s election campaign as a confirmed Republican. He covets a financial patron, a father figure, to support his vices and the pursuit of writing. He turns to psychoanalysis for better understanding of his inner-life. He believes psychoanalysis helps him cope with his insecurities.
The valuable part of the story is about being an immigrant in a strange land. From the time of George Washington, many American Presidents have discouraged immigration. The grounds for their opinions range from fear of cultural contamination to national security threat–to today–when our President says America is full.
Immigration fear is not a partisan issue; it is a human issue. In 1939, President Roosevelt turned away an estimated 900 Jews on the M.S. St. Louis. Roosevelt turned them away because they were a national security risk. (Over 200 of those 900 immigrants were executed in Nazi extermination camps during WWII.)
Of course, today’s national security risk is religious affiliation or gang membership. Trump does not care if you are escaping poverty, violence, or death because America is full.
Mr. Trump implies every Muslim is a terrorist and every Latino south of the border is a gang member.
Shteyngart’s first book is published with good reviews. The best that can be said about “Little Failure” is that it tells a story of growing to manhood in 20th century America; before Donald Trump.
“Little Failure” is as its title says, a memoir, but it seems more like displaced hubris in the light of today’s American government. Aside from the immigrant parts of Shteyngart’s life, little new coming-of-age’ ground is broken. Few teaching-moments are harvested to lead listeners out of the lacuna of President Trump’s mind.
Max Hastings’ book reports the tragedy of the Korean War (1950-1953) fought by United Nations forces against North Korea and China. The end of the Korean War is a return to its beginning with no winners and mostly losers at the 38th parallel.
Hastings begins by suggesting that South Korea ultimately benefited from the war but one wonders if the cost of human blood and treasure is worth today’s North and South Korean reality.
Karl Marx said that “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce”.
Syngman Rhee (Last Head of State of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea)
Hastings characterizes Syngman Rhee, the Republic of Korea’s leader (1948-1960), as corrupt, though less corrupt and venal than his North Korean counterpart, Kim il sung (1945-1994).
What is of concern to some Americans is President Trump’s relationship with North Korea’s new leader, the son of Kim il sung. Is the stage set for history to repeat itself?
Koje-do POW Camp
Hastings reports overcrowding, abuse, and neglect of North Korean, and Chinese P.O.W.s on Koje-do Island during the Korean war.
Hastings notes the use of the least competent military personnel as guards while the more competent soldiers were fighting the war. Hastings tells of prisoners at Koje-do being hung by their testicles and drowned by water hoses secured to their mouths. How different is that to a naked prisoner at Abu Ghraib or reported water boarding of enemy combatants?
Abu Ghraib prison treatment.
How similar is Koje-do Island’s P.O.W. camp in the Republic of Korea to Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison?
America repeats many of Korea’s mistakes in Vietnam and Iraq. The question is–are military interventions new history or the second coming of a repeat tragedy?
How similar is America’s support of Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem (1955-1963), and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein (1979-2003)?
Summary execution of a Vietcong in Saigon (Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan shoots Nguyen Van Lem)
Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem history is one of corruption as totalitarian and politically repressive as Rhee’s Republic of Korea’ government. The wars in Korea and Vietnam are over. Are Korea and Vietnam safer or better today than before outside military intervention? Vietnam re-unified after the war; Korea did not.
America supported Hussein because he opposed Iran. America’s relationship to Rhee is similar in that Vietnam historically opposed communist China.
Hussein gassed Kurds in northern Iraq and terrorized his country’s Shiite majority. Rhee declared martial law in the Republic of Korea and murdered an estimated 14 to 30,000 Koreans.
The question one may ask themselves, with Hussein dead, is Iraq safer or better today than before intervention?
Are South and North Korea safer or better as a result of the Korean war? From an economic standpoint South Korea is better and safer. That is not true in North Korea.
Francis Fukuyama, in a book titled “Political Order and Political Decay”, argues that violation of sovereign borders violates one of three pillars of a modern state. America’s invasion of Iraq destroyed the government’s ability to exercise power. The United Nations invasion of Korea results in a two state solution. That solution seems good for only some Korean citizens.
Whenever one thinks they know what is good for another there is a cognitive dissonance between what one wants and what one gets.
Hussein was a horrid ruler by American standards, but he was the head of a sovereign state. North Korea’s Kim Jong Un demonstrates the same qualities of leadership as Hussein.
Where will Trump lead America on the question of Kim’s reign? To paraphrase Samuel Clemens–history may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
When did human beings become “Gooks”, “Charlies”, and “Towel
Heads”? War brings out the worst in
human beings by demonizing and animalizing the enemy making killing more
socially acceptable.
Hastings shines a bright light on the ugliness and heroism of war. Hastings immortalizes the Irish 1st Battalion RUR (Royal Ulster Rifles’) battles in Imjin and Kapyong in 1951 with a heart rending and inspiring story of determination and bravery. However, his stories of fighting in subzero weather, being captured by the enemy, suffering from dysentery, seeing friends mutilated and killed, and fighting to the death for meaningless plots of ground are stomach turning episodes of despair.
After the 65th Chinese Army had exhausted itself attempting to smash through the defensive positions on the River Imjin held by the British 29 Brigade, the Brigade withdrew to a new line south of the River Han where, on 26 and 27 April, it rested and refitted for future operations. The Brigade had sustained over one thousand casualties at Imjin.
The glaring hubris of General MacArthur and his replacement with General Ridgeway by President Truman reinforces belief in the importance of good leadership.
A recurring theme in Hastings’ Korean history is the importance of ground forces’ confidence and spirit in the success of individual battles. (This is a theme portrayed in Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” which is equally well narrated by Frederick Davidson.)
Was the Korean War worth it? Hastings fails to give a definitive answer but he provides an interesting historical background for one to consider its value.
Audio-book Review By Chet Yarbrough (Blog:awalkingdelight) Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Stein on
Writing By Sol Stein Narrated by Christopher Lane
Sol Stein (Author, Publisher, and Editor-in-Chief for Stein and Day Publishers)
Sol Stein’s book offers a road map to readers and writers. In reviewing books, one begins to understand what makes one better than another. One also realizes how much easier it is to be critical than objective about those who write..
Stein’s book is a writer’s road map. Stein’s map reveals where a story begins, which roads to follow, and where a story ends. He explains how to write action-ably.
Writers that follow Stein’s map see the highways and streets of writing a good story. An interpretation of what Stein explains would be: Do not write “he was upset”, write, “He hurled an ash tray through a living room window, sprinkling wet shards of glass across a brown patch of grass”.
The first line, “he was upset” is vague. It tells the reader what to think. The second line, “He hurled an ashtray…”, lets a reader come to their own conclusion. It makes the reader decide about a character’s mood. It offers a scene that stimulates a reader’s imagination.
The action of the line above uses what Stein calls “particularity” to focus a reader’s attention. The scene offers clues about a character’s life (an ashtray and a brown patch of grass). The value of using “particularity” sparks interest in knowing more about the ash tray thrower.
Sol notes that a good writer is emoting readers. A good writer wants the reader to feel a character’s emotion. To Stein, a good writer does not tell the reader what to think. Stein wants the writer to make the reader feel what the character feels. On Stein’s map, this is the beginning of good story telling.
Think about Charles Dickens and “David Copperfield” and how a reader becomes invested in David’s life; i.e. how David’s sad and happy feelings invest in the reader’s emotions.
Stein acknowledges some writing details may be lost in commercially successful books but no highways and few streets are lost by a great writer. Interestingly, Stein suggests the techniques of commercially successful and literary writers are the same.
A cohesive theme ties a story together.
The use of particularity provides a trail of clues to a story’s theme.
The use of suspense draws a reader deeper into a story.
Stein notes differences between commercial and literary writing appear in accurate use of language, in universal emotive qualities of story, and in insight to human nature. However, Stein argues that a commercially successful book can miss many of these characteristics; while a classic misses few.
Stein explains the craft of writing is a store owner’s job; always there because he/she owns the business.
Write every day.
Rewrite every day.
Use the dictionary.
Use the thesaurus.
Look for the perfect word that precisely defines the meaning of the idea.
Strive for perfection by finding the right hook to begin a report, a book, or story; keep striving with each paragraph.
Stein offers more and says it better. This is a book for the reference shelf; to be
read; to be listened to; again and again.
“The Three Musketeers” is a character driven story loaded with romantic heroes and riven with specters of evil. In the context of today’s “me to” movement, it is a female bashing and debasing tale wrapped in a male chauvinist delusion.
“The Three Musketeers” reinforces histories’ misshapen view of women’s rightful place as hero and/or villain.
In “The Three Musketeers” women are the cause of war, heart ache, and most maladies of humankind. In that view, Dumas joins the pantheon of writers that demean women.
On the other hand, Dumas creates a female character that is an equal to diabolical protagonists in other famous novels. There is no villain more devious, complicated, and scarily drawn than Milady de Winter.
Alexandre Dumas is one of France’s most well-known writers. At the risk of being identified as a fellow misogynist, “The Three Musketeers” is a fiction writer’s tour de force and a joy to listen to when narrated by a master story teller.
Meeting d’Artagnan for the first time and learning about Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, his three gallant and inseparable friends, is a guilty pleasure. There are no male heroes more brilliantly defined than Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and d’Artagnan.
Dumas writes the story of d’Artagnan, a 19 year old romantic that leaves his homeland with a letter of introduction to Monsieur de Treville, the Captain of the Musketeers. The hero, d’Artagnan is unknowingly pitched into the middle of a jealous rivalry between the French King’s Musketeers and Cardinal Richelieu’s competing cadre of French protectors.
Dumas cleverly interlaces facts of history with stories of Musketeer bravery, hi-jinks, and romance that reminds humans of their best and worst qualities.
Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642).
England and France are on the verge of war in the early 1600s. The jealous rivalry of the King’s Musketeers and Cardinal Richelieu’s nationalists roil the relationship between the King of France and its Cardinal.
The Musketeers walk a fine line between their support of the King and Queen and Richelieu’s defense of the country.
Queen Anne of Austria (1615-1643, Louis XIII’s wife).
Richelieu is painted as a powerful French nationalist and a venal schemer who lusts for Queen Anne.
Duke of Buckingham (1592-1628).
The dastardly Cardinal goes to great lengths to expose the Queen’s affection for the English Duke of Buckingham; partly to save France from England’s covetousness, but also (in Dumas’s fiction) to break the relationship between King and Queen.
Dumas suggests Richelieu’s plan is to soil the Queen’s reputation with an already jealous King.
King Louis XIII (1601-1643).
A principal cause for the war between England and France is purported to be the Duke of Buckingham’s immoral advances toward France’s Queen Anne and Queen Anne’s suspected cuckolding of King Louis the XIII.
Women are unceasingly characterized as fickle, conniving, gullible, or duplicitous.
Dumas describes d’Artagnan’s infatuation with the married Constance Bonacieux. It is not unlike Richelieu’s alleged lust for Queen Anne. Dumas adds d’Artagnan’s dalliance with Milady de Winter, a wily protagonist, and her sometimes associate Richelieu. Neither men nor women seem entirely chaste in Dumas’s tale, but women are characterized less gallantly.
Listening to Vance’s narration of “The Three Musketeers” is an addictive pleasure in spite of Dumas’s fickle characterization of women.
The words from Milady de Winter vividly portray human nature at its worst. Both the Cardinal’s, d’Artagnan’s, and Milady de Winter’s virtues leave much to be desired. Generally, women in “The Three Musketeers” are characterized as objects, more than equals to men. How much has changed since the 19th century?
Nevertheless, “The Three Musketeers” ending is thrilling and satisfying to many deluded misogynists among us.
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man By James Joyce
Narrated by John Lee
James Joyce (1882-1941, Irish novelist, poet, teacher, and literary critic.)
James Joyce gives us a picture of Catholic Ireland in the early 20th century. He describes an Irish home; i.e. riven with Catholic guilt and ambivalent beliefs about God and Ireland’s place in the Gaelic world.
Joyce’s main character, Stephen Dedalus, is born into an upper middle class Irish family that falls on hard times. Dedalus graduates from a Jesuit school and moves on to college but his life steers away from God and Ireland in his journey to manhood.
Stephen chooses his own path in life but like all humankind he carries the genetics of family and circumstance that compel life’s decisions. Like his father, Stephen is drawn to agnosticism, bordering on atheism, because of worldly pleasures and pains. The pleasures of sexual adventure and the pains of Irish conflict (about religion and statehood) drive Stephen’s escape from Catholicism and his father’s fall from grace.
The fragility of the Catholic Church is evident in James Joyce’s “…Portrait…” Dedalus is portrayed as a top of his class student that is coveted by the Church hierarchy that wants Stephen to become a Jesuit priest.
The strength and allure of the Church at that time is clearly evident in Joyce’s description of the Catholic Priesthood’s power to attract the best and the brightest of its brethren. However, Dedalus, after a day contemplating the Church’s offer, chooses to pursue a broader life.
Even though the Church offers a vocation of prominence and security, Stephen rejects it. The irony of the rejection is that Stephen’s Catholic guilt propels him away from a life of Catholicism. Stephen realizes that he cannot resist worldly temptation.
To Stephen, the mechanism of Catholic forgiveness of sins seems formulaic and inadequate for the purpose of cleansing one’s soul.
The prescience of Joyce’s insight is fully realized in today’s Catholic Priesthood and its failure to protect Catholicism’s children.
Theodore McCarrick (Former cardinal and bishop of the Catholic Church–disgraced after found to be a pedophile after being appointed by Jean Paul II, ignored by Benedict, and finally revealed by today’s Pope Francis.
And so,
Stephen Dedalus is cast adrift. He is a
teacher and poet; highly regarded by most of his peers and recognized by many
as an intellectual superior. He wishes
to escape Ireland;
to see the world. This is “A Portrait of
the Artist as a Young Man”.
At best,
one sees Stephen Dedalus as a burgeoning Humanist; at worst, a hedonistic life
traveler. A great read; well told by John Lee.
Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough
(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.com
Life of Pi
By Yann Martel
Narrated by Jeff Woodman
Yann Martel (Author, Spanish-born Canadian)
News of Irrfan Khan’s passing reminds all who saw “Life of Pi” or “Slumdog Millionaire” of his gifts as an actor. He died at the age of 53 from a neuroendocrine tumor on April 29, 2020.
Symbolism is a part of “Life of Pi” but it makes little difference to a reader or listener who is looking for an enjoyable fictional adventure. Most listeners will be fascinated and absorbed by Yann Martel’s writing and Jeff Woodman’s narration.
Pi’s father sells his business. He owns a zoo in Mumbai. By ship, he is transporting his family and the zoo animals to North America when disaster strikes.
Martel successfully suspends disbelief in a story about a boy from India who survives a ship wreck in a life boat with a tiger, a zebra, a hyena and an orange orangutan.
As with all ship wreck and life boat stories, the immediate concern is food and water for survivors, of which there is only Pi and four zoo animals.
Survival of the fittest becomes a suspenseful part of the story. The orangutan’s name is Orange Juice. Names for the hyena and zebra fall into the fog of a listener’s memory. The tiger’s name is Richard Parker.
This odd menagerie winnows down to the boy and the tiger but, along the way, one learns something about truth and relationship.
Martel describes Pi’s early life as the son of a zoo keeper and owner in Mumbai, India before a fateful voyage to Canada. By telling of Pi’s early life, Martel creates a background that makes Pi’s successful management of his crowded life boat believable.
Pi is born a Hindu but becomes interested in Christianity and Islam to the extent that each allows him to love God.
Pi’s concatenation of faiths is a foretelling of how Pi handles the loss of his family, survival in a hostile environment, and tolerance for life’s ambiguities.
Fascinating tales of survival of the fittest are followed by an equally interesting story of how Pi gains respect and control of an increasingly hungry and thirsty tiger.
In the course of the story, Richard Parker and Pi find an island populated with meerkats and flesh eating plants. They eventually escape the island, and–well, you have to read the story.
Pi is obviously rescued–after all, he is telling the story.
The Japanese government interviews Pi to determine what happened to the ship that was lost and how Pi survived 227 days on the high seas. Pi tells an incredible story. Naturally, the government officials disbelieve him.
Pi creates another less interesting story. This new story becomes the official record.
A listener is left to believe the unbelievable, in the “Life of Pi” story. Like Trump’s lie about a stolen election–Pi’s report is given by one person when there is no proof and no witnesses.
“Life of Pi” is a fun ticket to entertainment. Many are entranced by Trump for the same reason; however, governing is not about entertainment.
Jerry Z. Muller (Author, professor of history at the Catholic University of America)
Professor
Muller offers an interesting and insightful defense of capitalism. Jerry Muller’s “Thinking about Capitalism” is
an historical account of economic theory.
Muller explores three economic systems: 1) market, 2) command, and 3) mixed. In his journey through the history of economic systems, market (aka capitalism) shines brightest.
Muller notes that capitalism is pummeled by many anecdotes of history. Muller does not deny the excesses of market economies, but Muller suggests capitalism’s benefits far exceed its detriments.
There is nothing new in Joe Manchin’s self-interest in coal investment or representation of a state dependent on the coal industry. The question is whether he is representing his personal interest in wealth and re-election or the common good of the nation.
Adam Smith (1723-1790, Scottish economist)
Muller argues capitalism’s storied failures distort its multifaceted values. In the “Wealth of Nations”, a seminal work on capitalism, Adam Smith clearly explains the value of a capitalist (market) economic system based on self-interest. Muller notes Smith’s term “self-interest” is often misinterpreted by the public as greed.
Smith’s definition of self-interest is founded on virtue, i.e., behavior based on high moral values. However, Self-interest comes in many forms.
One person’s self-interest may be altruistic in helping others to feel better about themselves. Another person’s self-interest may be to increase personal wealth to improve their family’s standard of living. And, self-interest may be associated with greed. The fundamental point is that everyone’s self-interest is a motivation that is ungoverned by an outside force. Self-interest is a part of human nature.
In a broader sense, there is some truth in the economic cliché of “a rising tide lifts all boats”. It reflects Adam Smith’s belief in the “invisible hand” that guides one’s life in a market driven economy. Every individual strives for their own self-interest which offers charity to some, employment to others, and individuated incentive to all.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
Thomas Hobbes notes that human nature is both good and bad. He tempers Smith’s argument for capitalism by suggesting government is necessary to mitigate self-interest that is harmful to the public.
Smith and Thomas Hobbes (author of “The Leviathan) believe self-interest is a universal human characteristic. Smith addresses self-interest as an enlightened Socratic understanding of virtue. Hobbes is less doctrinaire and implies Socratic virtue is not common in the general population.
Smith argues that capitalism takes the essence of human nature’s natural self-interest to advance civilization. This advance is not a smooth upward curve but an improving trend. Bad things do happen in a capitalist society. Hobbes might agree with Smith but only in the context of “rule of law” that mitigates non-virtuous self-interest.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797, Irish statesman)
Muller does not ignore critics of Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations”. Edmund Burke is a noted critic who argues that too many social conventions are sacrificed by disparate self-interests. He argues that the French revolution is a potential consequence of an economy driven by self-interest.
The social structure of France is decimated in the 1789 revolution. History shows “the terror” of the French revolution murdered innocents. On the other hand, it reformed an economy that left many behind. Prior to 1789, only the rich owned land, never went hungry, and inherited wealth. In the 18th century, France’s poor are mired in poverty, often hungry, with little chance for advancement.
Justus Möser (1720-1794, German social theorist)
Muller also cites criticism from Justus Möser , a contemporary of Burke, who believed the rise of capitalism (mercantilism) destroys craftsmanship in local economies. With trade from other parts of the country and world, Möser argues insular communities are harmed by prices of similar products replacing local artisan’s goods.
Möser argues mercantilism destroys the fabric of local communities; foments insecurity and social unrest. Muller, in part, agrees with Möser’s argument. However, Muller notes Möser’s argument is right and wrong.
With less money being spent for one thing, more money is available to buy or invest in other things. What Möser ignores is mercantilism’s benefit to consumers and the local economy. Consumers who buy a product for less money have more money to spend or invest in the local economy.
An amendment to criticism of Möser is that the consumers must have enough money to buy product being produced, whether in America or somewhere else.
Much of Möser’s argument is the same concern raised by those who support today’s trade war. Trump ignorantly pursues a trade war that weakens Adam Smith’s view of capitalist competition. America needs to adapt to a world economy that is increasingly intertwined.
Möser is right in suggesting free trade creates insecurity in local markets. It also demands adjustments in labor that harm local artisans, but Muller argues there is a net gain in public good and general welfare with free trade.
Max Weber (1864-1920, German sociologist, philosopher, and political economist)
Muller goes on to explain how a confluence of religion and capitalism benefits society with Max Weber’s melding of Protestant Ethic with the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber makes the idea of living aesthetically and putting aside savings as a prudent way of living life in an uncertain environment. Creating wealth became a religious calling to some.
Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950, Austrian political economist)
Muller reviews Joseph Schumpeter’s contribution to the theory of capitalism. As a 20th century Harvard Business School professor, Schumpeter lectures on the value of “the invisible hand”. Schumpeter advances the idea of “creative destruction” as a characteristic of capitalism.
Schumpeter outlines the value of entrepreneurs who pursue new ideas, new products, and innovation that replaces dying industries. He trumpets the growth of capitalism as an engine that perpetuates societal benefit. Some argue that today’s American governance discourages new ideas by dwelling on manufacturing at the expense of technological innovation and change.
Muller examines the other two economic systems, i.e., 2) command, and 3) mixed systems. Muller implies they fail to meet the historical successes of market capitalism. A command economic system is autocratic with primary economic decisions made by one ruling agency—like Mao’s communist party, Hitler’s Third Reich, and Stalin’s Great Turn.
Short term economic benefit of a command system economy hugely disrupts society. Economic improvement is evident in the short term, but momentum is lost as the gap between haves and have-nots grows.
In a command economy, the cult of personality takes over and image becomes more important than substance; i.e. who you know becomes more important than productivity.
Muller implies mixed economic systems are a work in progress. They are represented by leaders like President Xi in China, and President Putin in Russia.
Xi and Putin retain the concept of communist control of the economy but combine command economics with “Smithian” capitalist ideals. However, Putin takes a wrong turn by waging war on an independent country with its own mixed economy ambition.
China’s mixed economic policy began with Deng Xiaoping, but Xi expands its reach.
Both China and Russia have shown economic improvement in the late 20th and early 21st century. Xi’s “Road and Belt” plan is part of a command economy, but it relies on the capitalist market principle of influencing trade between nation-states. China’s long-term success remains to be seen. Whether it will be a more effective form of economic improvement than Adam Smith’s market-based formula is left to history.
Russia, like Xi, uses capitalist influence to grow its economy. Russia, in contrast to China, uses its natural resources (oil distribution), rather than a “Road and Belt” policy to expand its influence. Unfortunately, Putin chooses to waste Russia’s oil wealth on war.
Fundamentally, Muller infers no modern economic system is better than capitalism. One draws that inference by Muller’s cogent explanation of the value of capitalist self-interest. Because Adam Smith’s concept of self-interest is an inborn characteristic of human nature, it will prevail over any known economic system that requires command control.
America has been a successful capitalist country in great part because of checks and balances that mitigate command control qualities of mixed economies. Hobbes assessment of human nature demands some level of command control, even in a capitalist economy.
One might argue that America’s avoidance of near economic collapse in 2008 is evidence of the importance of a mixed economic theory. (Interestingly, a December 18, 2018 “…Economist” article, published under the Schumpeter byline, notes that China’s communist party’s mixed economic system during Trump’s trade war fared better than America’s government regulated free enterprise economy.)
American history shows lower taxes encourage higher production and job creation. What is missed by tax reduction is that it exacerbates income inequality. Tax reduction incentivizes corporate leaders to devalue worker wages to increase profitability. Human self-interest leads to higher income for corporate owners and executives. The consequence magnifies the wealth gap between have and have-nots.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 