Month: August 2010

Paul A. Cantor raves about a recent biography of Charles Dickens:

True to his basic purpose, his is one of the best studies I know of the life of a professional writer precisely in his capacity as a professional writer. The book offers a minutely detailed, step-by-step account of Dickens's whole literary career, from his early and spectacular popular success with Pickwick Papers, to his establishment as a respectable man of letters, to his unprecedented and unparalleled domination of the literary scene, throughout the English-speaking world, for the rest of his life. Slater gives sales figures for almost everything Dickens wrote, circulation numbers for the periodicals he edited, the juicy financial details of the many contracts he made—and broke—with publishers on both sides of the Atlantic, and also attendance figures for the public readings Dickens started giving in the late 1850s. This book would be invaluable if it did nothing more than assemble all this vital data conveniently in one volume. What I would give to have comparable facts and figures for Shakespeare's literary career!

Slater provides an intimate portrait of a writer who flourished in the rough-and-tumble, topsy-turvy world of the Victorian publishing business. As such, his biography can help dispel a number of Romantic myths that have grown up about the nature of literature and art in general, myths that have distorted our understanding of creativity. Dickens is one of the supreme masters of the novel in the English—or any other—language. And yet he emerged right in the middle of the world of commercial publishing, and never left it for a moment throughout his literary career. As Slater documents, from the beginning to the end, Dickens wrote for a largely middle-class audience, and, far from denigrating the bourgeoisie in Romantic fashion, he embraced it and welcomed his role as its spokesman and champion.

(Painting: Dickens' Dream, by R W Buss.)

Jonah Lehrer explains how we rationalize:

Human reason has nothing to do with finding the truth, or locating the best alternative. Instead, it’s all about argumentation…So here’s my new metaphor for human reason: our rationality isn’t a scientist – it’s a talk radio host. That voice in your head spewing out eloquent reasons to do this or do that doesn’t actually know what’s going on, and it’s not particularly adept at getting you nearer to reality. Instead, it only cares about finding reasons that sound good, even if the reasons are actually irrelevant or false.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger points out the website’s essential flaw:

There’s a whole worldview that’s shared by many programmers – although not all of them, of course – and by many young intellectuals that I characterize as “epistemic egalitarianism.” They’re greatly offended by the idea that anyone might be regarded as more reliable on a given topic than everyone else. They feel that for everything to be as fair as possible and equal as possible, the only thing that ought to matter is the content [of a claim] itself, not its source.

This is a flaw? Give me epistemic egalitarianism over a propensity for authoritah.

(Hat tip: Leiter Reports)

In milkshake form. Mmmmm.

Yes, it's a movie.

Like Gingrich, Pawlenty has come out against the Islamic community center near ground zero. Writing at his new blog, Weigel sighs:

So he's in line with Sarah Palin, who wants "peace-seeking Muslims" to understand that the mosque is a "provocation." But Palin put it better, didn't she? The way she has it, there are good Muslims who should understand that mosques close to Ground Zero might offend people. The way Pawlenty has it, the very existence of a mosque would soil the "hallowed ground" of the Burlington Coat Factory-that's-near-Ground Zero. That's got to come as news to the families of Syed Fatha, Salman Hamdani, Sarah Khan, and the dozens of other Muslims who died on 9/11 totally unaware that they were ruining it for the rest of us.

I used to have hopes for Pawlenty. But he is becoming Romneyesque in his eagerness to please the most rancid parts of his base.

 Stanley Kurtz believes that Obama is a socialist. Eugene Debs summarizes:

In other words: while Obama does not act like a socialist now, with a big Democratic majority and in the full flush of his mandate, he might act like one later, when he’s weaker. Or maybe not.  Maybe the transition is so precise and slow that Obama won’t act like a socialist at all, and leave that to subsequent Democratic presidents and congressional majorities. So when Obama rejects his party’s left and takes the most incremental available path on universal health care – that confirms his socialism. When he declines to temporarily nationalize the banks – that proves it too. And when he does temporarily nationalize the auto companies—that also proves it! Omitting real socialists to key positions in his administration – all part of the plan.

Frum's earlier plea for sanity here. Stanley's "beliefs" are not based in reality. His belief that somehow same-sex marriage in Europe increased divorce rates for straights is of the same variety as his belief in Obama's socialism. And he frames the subject so as to be unfalsifiable:

One key difference between American and European socialists is that the American variety resorts far more often to deliberate stealth. This is particularly true of Alinskyite community organizers.

"Deliberate stealth." Elsewhere, Stanley claims Obama is engaged in "deception". Dealing with his actual political record since becoming president is irrelevant.

Sometimes, I think the only people who believe he is a socialist are those who have never lived in a socialist country. I grew up in one. If Obama is a socialist, so am I. And proud to be.

Goldblog sounds the alarm.

A reader writes:

The poll says: Only 12 percent — down from 25 percent last year — say that Arabs should continue to fight even if there is a two-state peace agreement.

How is this bad news? The more Arabs that are willing to acknowledge Israel in the case of a two-state peace agreement the closer we come to having one. No other president has gotten Israel to suspend settlement increases, or gotten Bibi Netanyahu to be so willing to come to the bargaining table.

The reason Israel elected Likud is because the population is cynical about the peace process and wanted a political party that would protect them from terrorism and missile attacks. Now even that party is basically demanding face to face negotiations with Abbas. The Arabs who disapprove of Obama are sounding a whole lot like the liberals who disapprove of Obama — considering all he's done to further the peace process there's a whole lot to be happy about.

Obviously we're not there yet, but let's not get caught up in whether Arabs are happy with Obama. Israelis also aren't happy with Obama. Maybe that's for the best. They can unite in their mutual loathing for the guy who is working to save their lives in the Middle East.

But there is a window for Obama's credibility. And it is slowly closing, while Netanyahu does his best to wait it out. The prime minister has, however, apparently promised a real shift this September. Let's wait and see. And believe me, if the Palestinians turn out to be the resistant party in the wake of Israeli concessions, the Dish will not be turning a blind eye. I'm interested in winning the long war of ideas against Jihadism. I think, in the end, the Israelis are too.