Is It Time To Retire Romeo And Juliet? Ctd

Noah Berlatsky sticks up for Shakespeare after Alyssa’s takedown, noting that the play is not just about young love, but about the divide between the young and old:

Rosenberg claims that Romeo and Juliet is dated because of the uncomfortable way its childishness, and its child protagonists, sit in our contemporary culture. I’d argue, though, that that uncomfortableness is not a contemporary addition, but is instead one of the things Shakespeare was writing about to begin with. At that first flirtatious meeting, for example, Romeo is masked with friends at a Capulet party. Old Capulet, seeing the maskers, reminisces about when he used to do the same. …

Capulet slips back through time… and when he stops slipping, it is Romeo who speaks and goes to woo Juliet. Capulet was Romeo, Romeo is Capulet—and so, by substitution, the lover of the daughter is the father. The mask is a device not so much to enable young love, as to enable the old to imagine young love.

In Romeo and Juliet play-acting with the categories of adult and child can lead to exhilarating delight, pleasurably moralistic revulsion and, sometimes, to tragedy. If, in our own day, we have pushed the onset of adulthood past the tweens, past the teens, and even to some degree up into the 20s—that makes the play’s insights and its sometimes exasperating perversities more relevant, not less.

The World Of Kuo

A cherry blossom tree is pictured in the

[Re-posted from earlier today]

So there we were this morning, on a summery day, surrounding a coffin, offering prayers. David’s evangelical Christianity was omnipresent – and a cultural novelty for me, as a Catholic. First off, the coffin was never laid into the earth. It stayed there and remained there as we left. Were his very young kids the reason? I didn’t ask. But in this letting go, dirt was not shoveled or thrown over the casket, which was closed. We left it hanging. Rather, at the very end of the day’s festivities – and they were festive, not funereal – we all let go of balloons into the sky. They drifted upward, looking like little sperms, with wiggling trails of ribbon beneath them, looking for a heavenly egg.

I saw John DiIulio and his wife, Joe and Victoria Klein, along with Ralph Reed, who visited David in his final agonies, along with many of David’s uniquely eclectic posse. The service was in David’s evangelical mega-church, and infused with the surety of physical resurrection. The idea of our getting new bodies in Heaven – perfect bodies without tumors or HIV or wrinkles – has always seemed a little strange to me. If it’s true, then it must be a very different kind of existence. I remember after my friend Pat died of AIDS that I had one searing dream about him, in which he seemed extremely real, completely recognizable, yet utterly different in appearance: transfigured, but still Patrick. Perhaps that also accounts for the bewildering variety of the accounts of the risen Jesus in the New Testament. But it may also be our refusal to see the person in his or her final form: sometimes, as with AIDS, awfully deformed, or with a brutal brain tumor like David’s, wracked with pain, his face aged not just by time but by disease. We want these things not to continue. We want our dead friends and family to be remembered in the best of their prime, as if they were photo-shopped by Vogue.

I have never been to a mega-church service – which is something to be ashamed of, since I have written so often about evangelicalism’s political wing. And it was revealing. The theater was called a sanctuary – but it felt like a conference stage. There were no pews, no altar (of course), just movie-theater seats, a big complicated stage with a set, and four huge screens. It looked like a toned-down version of American Idol. I was most impressed by the lighting, its subtlety and professionalism (I’ve often wondered why the Catholic church cannot add lighting effects to choreograph the Mass). The lyrics of the religious pop songs – “hymns” doesn’t capture their Disney channel infectiousness – were displayed on the screens as well, allowing you to sing without looking down at a hymnal. Great idea. And the choir was a Christian pop band, young, hip-looking, bearded, unpretentious and excellent. Before long, I was singing and swaying and smiling with the best of them. The only thing I couldn’t do was raise my hands up in the air.

This was not, in other words, a Catholic experience. But it was clearly, unambiguously, a Christian one.

There was little sadness – and no purgative drunken wake. We were told not to wear suits and dark clothes, so the crowd was in greens and blues and whites (Joe bought a special pink plaid number just for the occasion). And the reason for this was quite obvious: almost everyone there, including myself, were completely sure that a) David was still there and b) his death was something to be celebrated if you loved him. He was certainly looking forward to it. His extraordinary wife, Kim, was effervescent and stunning in a white dress. She has been through hell and back several times in the last decade. And yet she wore that toll lightly today. The tears were for another time. The sobs for another one too.

What I guess I’m trying to say is that so many of us have come to view evangelical Christianity as threatening, and in its political incarnation, it is at times. But freed from politics, evangelical Christianity has a passion and joy and Scriptural mastery we could all learn from. The pastors were clearly of a higher caliber than most of the priests I have known – in terms of intellect and command. The work they do for the poor, the starving, and the marginalized in their own communities and across the world remains a testimony to the enduring power of Christ’s resurrection.

In some way, this was David’s last gift to me. His own unvarnished, embarrassingly frank belief helped me get over my prejudices against evangelicalism as a lived faith. His faith strengthened mine immeasurably, especially when we were among the first two to bail on the Bush administration in its first term. It was not a shock that his last day above the ground opened up more windows and doors in my mind. He doubtless hoped it would.

I feel no grief. I remain, as someone once said, surprised by joy.

(Photo: Carl Court/AFP/Getty.)

The Daily Wrap

Matamata-New Zealand-12pm

Today on the Dish, Andrew shared his experience of attending the David Kuo’s funeral and expressed his feelings on a reasonable, Christian understanding of life and death. He took on more criticism from readers for his take Thatcher’s legacy, posted the results of our reader survey on Dish policy of featuring graphic war imagery, and paid respects to Goldblog.

In political coverage, we debated MSNBC’s TV spot calling for collective responsibility of your kids, provided an introduction for those bamboozled by the bitcoin and wondered how long it will take for the rest of us to join Jay and Bey in Cuba. Bobby Jindal’s stock crashed as News Corps put Fox News on notice. Millman reassured us that our trade deficit is a red herring, China and Brazil clocked in richer but tubbier, and we questioned whether we owe the Arab Spring to the Iraq War. Also, the navy drew up designs for a doomsday laser.

Ambider sensed incoming relief in Congress’s partisan stalemate, McWhorter unpacked the terminology of immigration, and Drum supplied some data to back up the backlash against Obama’s remark on Kamala Harris’s attractiveness. Finally, Goldblog pointed out the NRA’s unhelpful stance on silencers and readers fleshed out more contrasting views of the second amendment.

In assorted coverage, Ashley Fetters expected a cameo from Ralph Nader in Man Men, Brad Leithauser relayed stories of his grandfather’s casual catchphrases, and we learned that e-books can be bound study-ready. Balko pointed out that cops don’t have it as bad as they used to, Ben Smith vouched for the success of Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In, and we charted the ongoing plummet of newspaper ad revenue.

Waldman queried our fascination with listicles, we asked whether life is about creating life and sampled a taste of guinea pork. We played out a quick day with the band the Real Ones in the MHB, checked in with the Syrian rebels for the Face of the Day and peeked out at Matamata, New Zealand in the VFYW.

–B.J.

Left To Wonder

To The Wonder was the last film Roger Ebert reviewed:

A more conventional film would have assigned a plot to these characters and made their motivations more clear. Malick, who is surely one of the most romantic and spiritual of filmmakers, appears almost naked here before his audience, a man not able to conceal the depth of his vision.

“Well,” I asked myself, “why not?” Why must a film explain everything? Why must every motivation be spelled out? Aren’t many films fundamentally the same film, with only the specifics changed? Aren’t many of them telling the same story? Seeking perfection, we see what our dreams and hopes might look like. We realize they come as a gift through no power of our own, and if we lose them, isn’t that almost worse than never having had them in the first place?

There will be many who find “To the Wonder” elusive and too effervescent. They’ll be dissatisfied by a film that would rather evoke than supply. I understand that, and I think Terrence Malick does, too. But here he has attempted to reach more deeply than that: to reach beneath the surface, and find the soul in need.

Previous Dish on the film here and here.

Accidental Aphorisms

Brad Leithauser praises the passing down of casual but poetic sayings:

Of all the helpful lessons [my grandfather] imparted to me, I recall nothing in any detail. No, after all these years, I can retrieve verbatim only one thing he ever said, and this didn’t originate in his dutiful tutoring. It was a spontaneous remark. One December day, he and I were sitting in the family room. I was probably seven or eight. I glanced out the window and beheld a miracle: the first snowflakes of the year. I uttered an ecstatic cry: “Look! Look! It’s snowing!” And my grandfather replied, “Never be glad to see the snow.”

I loved my grandfather dearly and felt the loss sharply when he died. That I fail to recall anything else he said sometimes seems like a moral failure. But mostly I see it as an example—again—of the fateful caprices by which certain word clusters survive the decades. For this particular advice reverberates within me still: “Never be glad to see the snow.” It’s an apt follow-up to “You think you’re happy now,” or “This may look like a good thing.” And it’s a line that would fit neatly into any iambic tetrameter verse. It would make a perfect refrain in an old-fashioned poem about the disillusionments of youth: “The road is longer than you know. / Never be glad to see the snow.” Or “We hear his echo as we go: / Never be glad to see the snow.”

Similar catchphrases, in which casual comments are promoted into a sort of immortality, doubtless exist in nearly every family, every close friendship. I find this notion deeply heartening—that people are everywhere being quoted for lines they themselves have long forgotten. And of course each of us is left to wonder whether, right at this moment, we’re being quoted in some remote and unreckonable context.

What’s A Silencer For?

The NRA wants the government to ease up on gun silencer regulations. Goldblog is against the idea:

Silencers, in civilian life, have an important purpose — to help criminals commit violent crimes without drawing too much attention to themselves. A person defending his or her home from a violent criminal does not need a silencer. Quite the opposite — the sound of a racked shotgun (as Joe Biden will attest) is often enough to scare an intruder out of your house, without a shot being fired.

Goldblog RIP

Jeffrey Goldberg has decided to quit blogging soon in favor of column-writing and more long-form writing for the magazine. The Dish mourns. But the reason Jeffrey was such a good blogger is that he was not very capable of editing himself – and so perhaps felt dragged into energy-draining spats more often than he wanted. He makes a distinction between the Atlantic.com and the Atlantic as a magazine. As the former has begun to undermine the integrity of the latter – can you imagine the magazine printing a paid-for essay by the head of Scientology? – I can see his point.

There was a time when the Atlantic.com was based around a group of bloggers. That began to end while I was there. And it’s pretty clear at this point that that moment is now formally over. It’s mainly verticals, sponsored content, and aggregation mills. But we still have Fallows, Madrigal and TNC.

Dissents Of The Day, Ctd

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtFN23G_saw]

Readers push back against my push-back:

Blegh. What about Republican gay-bashing couldn’t be described as part of their “war with the left”? How can we accept your Thatcherian position in the context of your uncompromising hate-fest for Bill Clinton?

The gay movement won in America because it eventually eschewed the kind of hate-politics that dominated the British left for ages. I have also had plenty of good things to say about Bill Clinton’s presidency, from welfare reform to fiscal balance. It remains a fact that he was substantively the most anti-gay president in US history. Preventing gay left propaganda in high schools in the 1980s is not the same as signing a bill that barred non-Americans with HIV from even entering the country, doubling the rate of gay discharges from the military, and signing the Defense of Marriage Act a decade later. Another quotes me:

A “fanatical devotee of the rule of law,” indeed. In that list of quotes on the Telegraph.co.uk was the line, “love argument, I love debate. I don’t expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that’s not their job.” This from a woman whose government banned Gerry Adams‘ voice from being broadcast on radio and television and banned his travel to mainland Britain. Whatever you may think of Adams and irrespective of Sinn Féin’s abstention from Westminster, she denied the people of West Belfast their democratically elected voice. How does that chime with your support for Freedom of Speech?

Banning a terrorist from entering your country is not an attack on free speech. The other point is fair game. But it is also undeniably true that Thatcher’s breaking of the print unions was a boon for the media industry. I certainly don’t think this even begins to compare with the new era of p.c. censorship that has occurred since – in which even “insulting” remarks about religion were once banned in the UK. Another fact-checks me:

In your video where you respond to several dissents to your posthumous praise of Thatcher, you defend her decisions regarding Bobby Sands and other IRA hunger strikers at the Maze Prison in Belfast. You argue that her actions were understandable due to the IRA’s previous attempt on her life in 1980 when the IRA bombed a hotel where she and other MPs were staying during the Conservative Party’s annual conference in the UK.

Your history here, however, is exactly backwards.

Bobby Sands died in 1981 as a result of his hunger strike. The Brighton Hotel bombing occurred in 1984. Indeed, Patrick Magee, the IRA terrorist (or “Freedom Fighter,” take your pick) responsible for the attack later stated he did it, at least in part, due to Thatcher’s refusal to recognize Sands and the other Maze hunger strikers as political prisoners. So, if you want to find some justification for Thatcher’s actions toward the Maze hunger strikers in 1981, you need to look somewhere other than the 1984 Brighton Hotel Bombing, which, I agree, was an odious and cowardly act.

Also, to the extent you suggest human rights violations in Northern Ireland pre-dated Thatcher’s premiership and stopped once she assumed office, I believe you are incorrect about that, too. For that, you might look to the Stalker Inquiry, which closely examined these issues (or see Ken Loach’s film Hidden Agenda). For my $40 payment per year, I figure I am entitled to fact-check you every once in a while.

You are indeed, and I’m grateful. I got my chronology wrong in an extemporaneous video. But her closest parliamentary ally, Airey Neave, was murdered by the IRA in 1979, which no doubt affected her. Throughout the 1970s, the IRA bombed London and murdered civilians in pubs and department stores. But there was no torture under Thatcher, and the Stalker Inquiry was about shoot-to-kill policies – and its conclusion was that there was no official backing of the policy but unofficial tolerance of it. The year after the Brighton bombing, Thatcher signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement that paved the way for the Good Friday accords. Another reader:

You were plain wrong and more than a bit flippant (did we have to have that little giggle about Bobby Sands’ death?) about the IRA’s interaction with Maggie. Your comment “allow the guy to die” indicates you do not remember (I prefer that to “never knew”) that 10 young men died in that spring and summer of 1981 so that Maggie could look macho and continue to treat them as “criminals” instead of the political prisoners they clearly were.

I’m a Northern Irish “cradle” Catholic brought up in the anti-British Republican Irish tradition but I have never had any truck with political violence. The Irish, like the Scots, the Welsh and a large section of the Northern English, had a clear sense that she felt that they clearly were “not one of us”, in her own words. Maggie eventually got it right with the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement with the Republic of Ireland in 1985 which led eventually to the peace process under Tony Blair.

A few things. If you have no truck with political violence, then I do not understand how a cop-killer and embedded member of a terrorist organization, the IRA, is somehow a political prisoner, and allowed privileges other prisoners did not have. The hunger strike was an attempt to get themselves re-designated as POWs – and to bring publicity to their cause. Not giving in to their demands was not about being macho. It was about the rule of law.

Unfiltered feedback from readers on our Facebook page.

Face Of The Day

SYRIA-CONFLICT

Syrian rebels observe the movement of Syrian government forces around Al-Kendi hospital in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo on April 10, 2013. The United States is mulling ways to step up support for the Syrian opposition, a top US official said, as US Secretary of State John Kerry and G8 ministers were to meet rebel leaders. By Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP/Getty Images.

To Delete Or Not To Delete?

Whether or not companies can hold onto your data forever has become a pressing question for advocates of online privacy. One of those advocates is Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, who tells Kate Connolly that being able to forget something is an essential part of being human:

Our brains reconstruct the past based on our present values. Take the diary you wrote 15 years ago, and you see how your values have changed. There is a cognitive dissonance between now and then. The brain reconstructs the memory and deletes certain things. It is how we construct ourselves as human beings, rather than flagellating ourselves about things we’ve done.

But digital memories will only remind us of the failures of our past, so that we have no ability to forget or reconstruct our past. Knowledge is based on forgetting.

His solution?

Mayer-Schönberger, who advises companies, governments and international organisations on the societal effects of the use of data, advocates an “expiration date” (a little like a supermarket use-by date) for all data so that it can be deleted once it has been used for its primary purpose. “Otherwise companies and governments will hold on to it for ever.”

Josh Keating explores the complications:

More media is moving online, and digital records will increasingly be the only ones available.

If a politicians made racist comments in a newsletter in the 1980s, the record has hung around for future journalists to discover. Should they be allowed to disappear just because they’re written on a blog?

Responding to the objection that Google’s backups will make full deletion impossible, Mayer-Schönberger says “But if you can be deleted from Google’s database, ie if you carry out a search on yourself and it no longer shows up, it might be in Google’s back-up, but if 99% of the population don’t have access to it you have effectively been deleted,” he said.

Under this scenario, Google would have access to information that 99 percent of the population didn’t. Right to be forgotten laws may aim to empower users, but it seems to me that they would leave the search engines with the power in the relationship.