Saturday, February 29, 2020

Roll Over, Denis Diderot — Make Way For The Encyclopedia Of The Internet

If this is the (fair & balanced) account of the best encyclopedia on the Internet, so be it.


[x TNR]
The Good Internet Lives On
By Rachel Riederer


TagCrowd Cloud provides a visual summary of the blog post below

created at TagCrowd.com

Wikipedia is now such a ubiquitous part of online life that it’s hard to remember how strange the project seemed at first. I was a freshman in college in 2000, when Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched the crowdsourced research site that would later become Wikipedia. My first exposure to it was as a resource that was always mentioned with a warning: It was not acceptable to cite Wikipedia in a paper, TA after TA sternly made clear.

The concern was, of course, that an encyclopedia anyone could edit would naturally contain any number of errors or pranks, which Wikipedia calls “vandalism”: A physics page was once changed to read, “The first law of thermodynamics is: You do NOT talk about thermodynamics”; Mariah Carey was briefly listed as deceased after she botched a New Year’s Eve performance; and for a time, the page listing species of animals with no backbone included an entry on Paul Ryan. In the context of today’s internet—where the real scams are cleverly disguised, not embedded in a system that is transparent about being constantly edited and revised by anyone who wants to volunteer—these “fake news” items seem almost quaint.

Wikipedia is no longer a fringy website run by a small group of ragtag volunteers and overseen by a “Benevolent Dictator,” as the early Wikipedians fondly called Wales. Over the past 20 years, it has become the de facto first stop for anyone looking for a curated set of secondary sources. But it has also managed to remain fun and strange—a reminder of a time when the internet was quirkier, before its captains were regularly hauled before Congress, and users took to calling social media platforms “this hellsite” and meaning it.

How has it remained such a bastion of the Good Internet? It may be because Wikipedia fosters consensus, on even the most contentious of topics. Pages that are ideological lightning rods, like the entry on September 11, are often locked from anonymous edits, but for the most part, even controversial pages merely summarize disagreements, rather than wading into them.

The New York Times once described the editing process as a “virtual barn-raising,” with volunteer editors working together to polish and build on Wikipedia’s 40 million entries. Today, some of this editing happens in real life, in edit-a-thons that aim to flesh out Wikipedia’s offerings in places where the sum total of “all human knowledge”—as Wales imagined his site in its early years—could benefit from greater inclusivity. Students and faculty at Howard University have filled in entries on black history; the Museum of Modern Art has gathered editors to create pages for women in the arts. Jess Wade, a researcher in the United Kingdom, has done the same for hundreds of female scientists.

The site’s success also has something to do with Wikipedia’s status as a nonprofit. It’s a rare corner of the internet where nobody is trying to sell you something. On its plain pages, you can actually let your attention unspool and surf a bit, following your curiosity down adjoining rabbit holes—you can get from the film "Cats" to an entry on the ionosphere in two clicks—without being bombarded by ads for whatever theater tickets or winter coat you glanced at last week.

Wales told C-SPAN in 2005 that people support Wikipedia (last year, more than seven million donors contributed) because “we help the internet not suck.” After the dot-com boom, he said, the web went from feeling like a place to communicate to a place that was “all about pop-up ads and spam and porn and selling dog food…. [We] harken back to that original version.”

Wikipedians strive for professionalism, but at a moment when slick internet tools can lend the gloss of high production value to every element of our overdocumented lives, it’s nice to encounter the work of a passionate hobbyist, even if ephemerally—knowing it could be sanded down by one of a thousand volunteer editors at any second. ###

[Rachel Riederer, a science and culture writer, also is an editor at Guernica magazine. She also has written for Tin House, The Rumpus, The New Republic, The Nation, Mother Jones, Dissent, The Pinch, and Best American Essays, Riederer received a BS (environmental science and public policy) from Harvard University (MA) and an MFA (nonfiction writing) from Columbia University (NYC).]

Copyright © 2020 The New Republic



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2020 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Friday, February 28, 2020

Roll Over, Jimmy Breslin — We Have A Gang That Couldn't Govern Straight In The White House

The Krait (Gail Collins) sinks her fangs into confederacy of dunces in the current White House facing a US coronavirus pandemic. The response to this public health threat is headed by a former governor of Indiana (Mike Ha'Pence) who enabled a 2016 HIV epidemic in the Hoosier State. This public health nincompoop is aided and abetted by a cadre of incompetents who are Forever tRumpers. Their collective responses to questions in hearings in both the US House of Representatives and Senate amounted to an underwhelming collection of shrugs, monosyllabic blather, and a classic demonstration of incompetence. If this is a (fair & balanced) description of monumental incompetence, so be it.

PS: The source of this blog's noms de stylo serpent reference to the three women on the NY Fishwrap's Op-Ed staff began with this 2001 essay by The Cobra (Maureen Dowd) who's been joined by her distaff colleagues: The Krait (Gail Collins), and — most recently — The Viper (Michelle Goldberg).


[x NY Fishwrap]
Let’s Call It Trumpvirus — If You’re Feeling Awful, You Know Who To Blame
By The Krait (Gail Collins)


TagCrowd Cloud provides a visual summary of the blog post below

created at TagCrowd.com

So, our Coronavirus Czar is going to be … Mike Pence. Feeling more secure?

“I know full well the importance of presidential leadership,” the vice president said as soon as he was introduced in his new role.

Totally qualified. First criteria for every job in this administration is capacity for praising the gloriousness of our commander in chief.

Yeah, when you think of Mike Pence you maybe don’t think about Pandemic Fighter Supreme. But as President Trump pointed out repeatedly, he has already run Indiana.

Well, it probably could have been worse. Having a czar does make you feel there’s somebody in charge. At least Trump didn’t come before the cameras and announce solemnly, “Today I’m asking every American to cross your fingers."

Our president had to be going crazy over a problem that involves both declining stock prices and germs. This is the guy, after all, who thinks shaking hands is “barbaric,” who is followed around by aides bearing sanitizer. During his press conference he told the story of a fever-ridden supporter who gave him a hug. Do you think it was an apocryphal fantasy? Either way, the idea has been haunting him forever.

Meanwhile, he’s come up with a totally new explanation for the stock market skid. It turns out investors were not frightened so much by the pandemic as the Democratic debate.

“I think the financial markets are very upset when they look at the Democrat candidates standing on that stage making fools out of themselves,” Trump told reporters.

Plus that virus thing is … not necessarily a big deal. What really “shocked” him, Trump said, was his discovery that “the flu in our country kills 25,000 people to 69,000 people a year.”

So the problems are the Democrats and the flu. The answers are Mike Pence and … reminding the public once again that Nancy Pelosi’s district has a big homeless problem.

Earlier in the day Trump argued, via tweet, that despite the expressions of concern by the evil media and “incompetent Do Nothing Democrat comrades,” the government is perfectly prepared to handle the coronavirus. Which he misspelled “caronavirus.” But nobody’s perfect.

The president had been saying everything is totally under control for some time. (“It’s one person coming in from China.”) The whole administration picked up the cry. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, 82, overcame his habit of dozing off at meetings long enough to tell Fox Business Network that the disease would “accelerate the return of jobs” from overseas.

Trump totally agrees. “What it’s gonna do is keep people home, and they’re going to travel to places we have,” he said.

See? The virus thing is a bonus.

The run-up to the Pence unveiling had not been exactly calming for citizens who wanted to have faith in competent White House oversight. Barack Obama used to have special epidemic-watching groups just in case this kind of crisis developed. One was headed by the highly regarded Rear Admiral Timothy Ziemer, who got sent packing by John Bolton. Another infectious disease expert, Tom Bossert, suddenly vanished from the Department of Homeland Security in 2018, presumably also at the hand of John You-know-who.

If Bolton’s memoir ever makes it into print, do you think it’ll have a chapter called “My War on Pandemic Fighters?” OK, probably not.

Virus Week hasn’t really provided a whole lot of comfort to citizens who wanted to believe the president’s replacements were super high quality.

The nation got its first real look at Chad Wolf, the acting homeland security secretary, who appeared before a Senate subcommittee and admitted he had no idea how the virus was transmitted among humans, exactly how dangerous it was, or… pretty much anything.

When Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican not known for anti-administration bias, asked whether the country had enough respirators to deal with a coronavirus epidemic, Wolf answered in the affirmative.

“We just heard testimony that we don’t,” Kennedy responded.

“OK,” said Wolf.

To be fair, he’s only been on the job since November. He’s the fifth head of Homeland Security Trump’s had in the last three years. Good thing he has a deputy — or at least an acting deputy — to help. That would be Ken Cuccinelli, who made news this week when he went on Twitter to ask for tips on how to find an online map of coronavirus sites posted by Johns Hopkins University. (“Here’s hoping it goes back up soon.”)

Losing faith in presidential appointees for health protection? Stop being so negative. They’re all vetted by the Presidential Personnel Office, which is now headed by John McEntee, 29, who was previously fired from another White House job because of concerns about a history of gambling problems and tax issues.

McEntee will be getting plenty of help from other stellar appointees, the newest being a 23-year-old college undergraduate [named James Bacon]. Together they’re going to be cleaning house, getting rid of folks who are insufficiently loyal to the president. Or maybe aren’t qualified or something. Never can tell.

Also part of the new coronavirus response team is Alex Azar, the secretary of health and human services — a veteran cabinet member and experienced former pharmaceutical lobbyist.

At a congressional hearing on Wednesday, Azar was asked if he’d consider using some of the billions of dollars in funds for Trump’s border wall to help combat the current health crisis.

Azar just chuckled. Actually, people, this is probably not a theme we ought to be pursuing. Chances are, if the president is encouraged to mix the subjects of coronavirus and Mexico walls, he’ll suddenly announce that we need a barrier much bigger and thicker and more expensive, so it can stop the flow of immigrant germs. ###

[Gail Collins joined the New York Times in 1995 as a member of the editorial board and later as an op-ed columnist. In 2001 she became the first woman ever appointed editor of the Times editorial page. Her most recent book is No Stopping Us Now: The Adventures of Older Women in American History (2019), See other books by Gail Collins here. She received a BA (journalism) from Marquette University (WI) and an MA (government) from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.]

Copyright © 2019 The New York Times Company



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2020 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Thursday, February 27, 2020

J. D. Salinger's Latest Work... Or Not

Literature professor Kristopher Jansma grapples with the mystery of J. D. Salinger's life and work. The article could have been entitled "The Catcher In The Why... Did The Author Restrict Publication Of Any New Salinger Novels Until 2090?" Perhaps the 80-year hold on publication of new materials is a droll joke about the demise of this planet because of climate change. If this is a (fair & balanced) literary detective work, so be it.

[x Electric Lit]
How Amazon Ruined The Publication Of A Secret J.D. Salinger Novel
By Kristopher Jansma


TagCrowd Cloud provides a visual summary of the blog post below

created at TagCrowd.com

In November of 1996, Orchises Press, a tiny independent publisher in Alexandria, Virginia known mostly for putting out small books of poetry, quietly began to tell booksellers that early the following year it would be publishing the first new book by J.D. Salinger since 1963. The book had an odd title, Hapworth 16, 1924, and would mark the first break in the reclusive author’s decades-long silence. Curious Salinger fans soon were even able to preorder the book on a new bookselling website, Amazon.com.

There was no official release date set, but it was said to be expected in April. But as April arrived, a notice went up on Amazon.com saying that the publication was delayed indefinitely. In the end the book was never published, and neither was anything else by J.D. Salinger, even after his death thirteen years later, in 2010.

What was Hapworth 16, 1924, and why had it almost–and then not–been published? Only recently have readers finally begun to get some answers. The saga of Salinger’s missing book spans decades, involves a 20,000 word New Yorker story about summer camp, former New York Times book critic Michiko Kakutani, billionaire Jeff Bezos, and a man named Roger Lathbury who dreamed of bringing his favorite author out of hiding.

Today, most readers know J.D. Salinger for his 1951 novel The Catcher in the Rye and its protagonist Holden Caulfield. The novel remains widely-read around the world and is assigned often in high school English classes, despite perennial debates about its continued relevance. J.D. Salinger spent the better part of the 1940s writing stories about Holden and the Caulfield family, sending pieces like “The Last and Best of the Peter Pans” and “A Slight Rebellion Off Madison” to editors at Story magazine and the New Yorker, even while he was a soldier in Europe during World War II.

But after the success of Catcher, Salinger turned his devotion to another character, and another family. In January 1948, the New Yorker published his story “A Perfect Day for Bananafish,” later collected in Nine Stories (1953), in which a young man named Seymour Glass, freshly home from the war, has a lengthy chat with a little girl on the beach, and then goes back to his hotel and shoots himself. The story cemented his reputation in the literary world, three years before Catcher, and earned him a spot as one of the New Yorker’s frequent contributors. It also cemented the character of Seymour Glass in his literary work, and ever since writing the story, Salinger returned, over and over again to Seymour and his brothers and sisters in the Glass family.

In 1961, he published Franny and Zooey, a book containing two previous stories from the New Yorker involving Seymour’s two youngest siblings. Then in 1963, he repeated this move, taking two more New Yorker pieces and gathering them into Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour: An Introduction, with both sections surrounding Seymour yet again.

Most consider this fourth book to be the last Salinger publication before he entered a reclusion that would stretch on for nearly 60 years to his death.

But there is another.

Two years later, in June of 1965, the New Yorker published a 20,000-word short story by Salinger titled “Hapworth 16, 1924.” It is, in fact, the author’s true final publication, and it takes up almost the entire magazine. Today, those with a digital subscription to the New Yorker can still read the entire thing, online, but at the time one would have to find a rare, physical copy. “Hapworth” is “like the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Salinger cult,” critic Ron Rosenbaum explained in a 1996 New York Observer piece. (Surviving print copies of the New Yorker issue currently sell for $250 and up.)

“Hapworth” is written in the form of a (very long) letter sent home by Seymour at the age of seven, while he is away at summer camp. Only instead of recounting his time fishing on the lake, or making charm bracelets with the other children, Salinger has Seymour writing like no seven-year-old who has ever lived.

“Bessie! Les!” (he addresses his parents). “Fellow children! God Almighty, how I miss you on this pleasant, idle morning! Pale sunshine is streaming through a very pleasing, filthy window as lie forcibly abed here. Your humorous, excitable, beautiful faces, I can assure you, are suspended before me as perfectly as if they were on delightful strings from the ceiling!”

Discussing a fellow camper named Griffith Hammersmith, he says, “Oh, what a heartrending boy he is! His very name brings the usual fluid to my eyes when I am not exercising decent control over my emotions; I am working daily on this emotional tendency while I am here, but am doing quite poorly.”

He goes on and on, mixing little reminiscences with spiritual advice, eventually asking if someone can send him “The complete works again of Count Leo Tolstoy. … Charles Dickens, either in blessed entirety or in any touching shape or form.” And if that wouldn’t be enough to last anyone a few years, let alone a few weeks, Seymour also requests all of Proust, in the original French.

Critics almost universally hated the story, unable to work out what is meant to be going on in “Hapworth.” Is it total self-indulgence? Some kind of satire? It marks a sharp departure from his early realist style, and even from the already unpopular didactic spiritualizing that marked “Seymour: An Introduction” a few years earlier.

But many devoted Salinger fans dearly loved “Hapworth” and found much to enjoy in Seymour’s oddly pretentious, insecure, and homesick letter. One such fan was Roger Lathbury, then 18 years old. And as he grew up and eventually became an editor at Orchises Press in Virginia, he never forgot the strange lost story of Seymour at summer camp.

In a New York magazine article called “Betraying Salinger,” Lathbury finally shared in 2010 how he almost turned the piece into Salinger’s first new book in over 30 years.

In 1988, Lathbury sent a letter addressed only to “J. D. Salinger, Cornish, NH,” hoping the post office would deliver it properly. In it, he confessed to his love of “Hapworth” and suggested that Orchises, as a small publisher dealing mostly in reprints of classics and books of poetry, would be a good match for the private author.

Eight years passed with no response.

Then in 1996, Harold Ober Associates reached out to get more information. In a subsequent phone call with the agency’s president, Phyllis Westburg, it was confirmed that the author was seriously considering the arrangement.

Two weeks later, Lathbury received a letter from Salinger, written on a manual typewriter. Then, over the phone, they discussed “Hapworth” and Lathbury recalls Salinger saying, “he thought […] was a high point of his writing.” They arranged to meet at the National Gallery in Washington, DC.

Lathbury retyped the entire 20,000-word story from the original New Yorker issue, and formatted it as he imagined it might look in Salinger’s exacting specifications for book form.

“We went over small details of bookmaking. (Running heads at the top of the page? No. The fabric headband at the ends of the spine? Plain navy blue. ‘Can’t go wrong with that!’ Salinger said, with an explosive laugh.) The cover would carry just the title and, below it, his name. There would be no dust jacket. I showed him a mock-up of the spine, and when he saw the horizontal type, he said, warmly, ‘Oh good.’”

Lathbury discovered that part of the appeal for Salinger was the limited distribution abilities of Orchises Press.

“He told me, ‘Nothing would make me happier than not to see my book in the Dartmouth Bookstore.’”

Salinger’s ideal publication run would be limited, under-the-radar, and relatively inexpensive. Later, it would come out that Salinger wanted the books to be sold only at retail price, with no mark-up for the store at all—and that he wanted his name removed from the cover entirely. It should just read Hapworth 16, 1924, with no author listed.

Lathbury agreed and proceeded to order two boxes of empty book covers done to these specifications, sending one to New Hampshire for Salinger’s approval.

He also applied with the Library of Congress for “Cataloging in Publication” data, or CIP: the dry legal text included in the copyright page of any book. “The filings are public information,” Lathbury writes, “but I didn’t imagine that anyone would notice one among thousands. It would be like reading a list of register codes at the grocery: apples 30, bananas 45, oranges 61.”

Lathbury expected nobody would sit there, scanning through thousands of boring title listings, and happen upon a new work by Salinger. But he neglected to factor in Amazon.com, the new bookselling website founded by Jeff Bezos in July of 1994, one year earlier.

“What I know now, but did not then,” Lathbury writes, “was that CIP listings are not only public but also appear on Amazon.com, even for books not yet published. Someone spotted Hapworth there, and his sister was a reporter for a local paper in Arlington, the Washington Business Journal.” Because the listing was on Amazon.com, anyone doing a simple keyword search for “Salinger” could come up with this odd new listing.

The reporter called Lathbury and he decided to speak to her, thinking that it was only a small local paper. But their interview was spotted by David Streitfeld at The Washington Post, who wrote his own article about Hapworth in January of 1997. “Salinger Book to Break Long Silence,” the headline read. “Barring last-minute troubles, the book will be on sale by early March.”

After that, the cat was out of the proverbial bag, and “last-minute troubles” were soon everywhere.

“My phone nearly exploded,” recounts Lathbury. “Newspapers, magazines, television stations, book distributors, strangers, foreign publishers, movie people. South Africa, Catalonia, Australia. The fax machine ran through reams of paper. People wanting review copies. (There were to be none.) People wanting interviews. I held as closely as I could to “no comment,” but when asked for a publication date, I gave one—at first March 1997, then later. […] The only one who didn’t call me was Salinger. I asked his agent, and repeatedly got the same answer: No news. I couldn’t proceed without him, because we still had too many details unsettled.”

Then, in February, critic Michiko Kakutani dug up the old New Yorker story and wrote an article expressing serious disappointment in the source material. “The infinitely engaging author […] who captured the hearts of several generations with his sympathetic understanding, his ear for vernacular speech, his pitch-perfect knowledge of adolescence and, yes, his charm, has produced, with ‘Hapworth,’ a sour, implausible and, sad to say, completely charmless story.”

For many years, Salinger fans blamed Kakutani’s “review” for Salinger’s fresh retreat, but Lathbury’s 2010 description of events suggests that the author had likely already decided to cancel it even before that.

Bookstores everywhere had begun to list the book as a pre-order for $22.95, including the mark-up that Salinger intended them to forego. Lathbury knew that if reporters were calling him, they were surely calling Salinger’s agents, and even trying to reach Salinger up in Cornish for comment.

He never gave any to the reporters, or to Lathbury. The contracts eventually expired, and the Hapworth saga ended. As far as we know, Salinger never again even considered publishing his work during his lifetime.

Ten years have passed since the death of J.D. Salinger, and still no one knows for sure if we will ever see a book publication of Hapworth, or of anything that he may have written since, though some recent signs are promising.

Salinger’s last public interview was in 1974, over the phone, with Lacey Fosburgh of The New York Times. In it, Salinger claimed to still be hard at work. “There is a marvelous peace in not publishing. It’s peaceful. Still. Publishing is a terrible invasion of my privacy. I like to write. I love to write. But I write just for myself and my own pleasure.”

In a 1998 memoir, Dream Catcher, Salinger’s daughter Margaret described her father going to his desk to write nearly every single day, often for ten or more hours, as well as a “vault” filled with manuscripts. She claimed he had a color-coded system for indicating what could be published, and how long, after his death.

And author Joyce Maynard made similar observations of a still-writing Salinger in her memoir At Home in the World, in 2000, in which she also described her consensual, but emotionally abusive relationship at age 18 with “Jerry,” then 53.

Kenneth Slawenski’s 2010 biography, J.D. Salinger: A Life, speculates that the author might have left behind as many as fifteen novels, but that he may have requested they be held for as many as 80 years after his death, meaning that—unless his executors overruled his wishes—no one would see this work until 2090.

At a talk in 2011, I asked Salwenski if he believed that Salinger’s estate would maintain the 80-year hold. He said that he imagined this would depend entirely on the quality of the author’s late work—if it was strong, he said, they’d be likely to want to release it sooner, to maintain Salinger’s legacy. But if the work was not up to par, we’d likely never see any of it, because they would not want to damage his reputation. It might take several years, he cautioned, as the author’s reported pace, over the span of nearly 50 years of isolation, could mean there were thousands or even tens of thousands of pages to sort through.

In 2013, writer David Shields released another biography of Salinger in which he and his filmmaking partner Shane Salerno claimed to have knowledge of “at least five additional books—some of them entirely new, some extending past work — in a sequence that he [Salinger] intended to begin as early as 2015.” His sourcing for this was anonymous, and the claims were refuted by the author’s son, Matthew Salinger, who co-manages the Salinger Literary Trust with Colleen O’Neill, the author’s widow.

By 2015, nothing had been released, and there was no news of anything on the way either. In 2017, Matthew Salinger was asked by New York Times reporter Matthew Haag about the books that Shield had promised. “Yeah, what came of those?” he responded. “You are not going to get an answer from me […] I would consider the source.” But Shields stood by his claim, saying that he still expects there will be new work released before January 2021.

The Shields biography specifically asserts that the coming works will include a novel set during WWII, based on his first marriage to a German woman while he was an American soldier. (In 1948 Salinger published a story along these lines, “A Girl I Knew,” in Good Housekeeping.)

There would also be a novella based on his own time in World War II (something Salinger generally avoided writing about) and a collection of stories about the Caulfield family based around an unpublished piece, “The Last and Best of the Peter Pans” which involves Holden’s brother D.B. (named Vincent in the original) preparing to leave for the war despite his mother hiding his draft card in a kitchen drawer. (I described this story and another about the Caulfields in more detail in the earlier piece about Princeton’s collection.)

Finally, Shields suggested there would be a novel about the Glass family, but it isn’t clear if Shields is referring to a wholly unknown novel, or novels, or if this could be Hapworth 16, 1924 once again.

About a year ago, in February of 2019, Matthew Salinger broke his customary silence to throw cold water on some of the rumors started by Shields and others about these new works.“They’re total trash […] The specific bullet-point dramatic quote-unquote reveals that have been made are utter bullshit. They have little to no bearing on reality.”

He specifically dismissed the idea that his father would write a novel about his brief first marriage to a German woman after the war, calling it “hysterically funny” and “beyond the realm of plausibility.”

But he did confirm to Guardian reporter Lidija Haas that his father had left behind unpublished work: some 50 years worth of material, and that eventually much of it would “be shared with the people that love reading his stuff.”

Whether this will involve any new, finished novels remains to be seen. Haas shares Matthew’s descriptions of working arduously through, “pages typed on Underwood and Royal typewriters, as well as what Salinger called ‘his squibs, or his fragments’ on ordinary paper cut into eighths: ‘a lot of handwritten, very small notes.’” He goes on to add that there is “‘no linear evolution’ in the later work: ‘It becomes clear that he was after different game.’”

It has taken him much longer than he expected, he explains, to get through everything and to organize it. But he promised Haas, “when it’s ready, we’re going to share it.”

As Matthew has been working on this project, he’s also recently sponsored, through the Salinger Literary Trust, a small New York Public Library exhibit about his father, which reveals many previous letters and images about the author and his reclusion that had been unseen.

The first thing one sees upon entering the small exhibit is Salinger’s 1948 Royal manual typewriter, loaded with a piece of paper, upon which a line has been typed and abandoned: “now is [gibberish] for all good [gibberish]” This turns out not to be a garbled line from a mysterious final work-in-progress, but a standard typing drill: the full quote “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country” perfectly fills a 70-space line.

Next to Salinger’s typewriter is a small jar filled with yellow crayons, worn down to the nub, which he apparently used as highlighters. Beside this is a small collection of handwritten extracts from various religious texts: Vedanta, Jewish, Islamic, and Catholic mysticisms which he called his “Vade Mecums” (Latin for “Go With Me”). And then, a fragment of something, tantalizingly cut-off along the right edge, involving one of Salinger’s most famous characters, Seymour Glass:

Seymour: A biographer/ admitted to his / just deceased-subject / reclusive bedroom will / later record in print / with what the reader / will assume to be / rather immensely

Nearby are photographs of the elderly author sitting at his writing desk, white-haired, back to the camera, seemingly hard at work on—something. But what?

There is also a rotating bookshelf, which was kept near his bed in the last year of his life when he was not as mobile: The Portable Anton Chekov, works by Kierkegaard, Russell Baker’s Book of American Humor, The Complete Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Lao-Tzu’s Te-Tao Ching, and many more. Its shelves contain many of the very books requested by young Seymour while he was at summer camp—enough to fill a lifetime, or at least a few weeks.

And perhaps conspicuously, beside the rotating bookshelf is a copy of the original typescript of “Hapworth 16, 1924” just waiting—one manuscript that is all ready to go (back) into print. Perhaps someday soon, it will. ###

[Kristopher Jansma is the author of the novels Why We Came to the City (2016) and The Unchangeable Spots of Leopards (2013). He is an Assistant Professor of English and the Director of Creative Writing at SUNY-New Paltz. Jansma received a BA (writing) from Johns Hopkins University (MD) and an MFA (fiction) from Columbia University (NYC).]

Copyright © 2020 Electric Literature



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2020 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Welcome To The Age Of Pseudo-Events

Today, Professor (retired) Andrew J. Bacevich gives us "That Was The First Week Of February That Was" in today's version of "That Was The Week That Was" (1964-1965, NBC) to illustrate the transformation of public life since 2016 in the Age of the Pseudo-Event. We have alternate facts, why not alternate events? If this is a (fair & balanced) assessment of US life today, so be it.

[x The Nation]
Trump Has Lifted The Mask From Our Empty Political Traditions
By Andrew J. Bacevich


TagCrowd Cloud provides a visual summary of the blog post below

created at TagCrowd.com

The impeachment of the president of the United States! Surely such a mega-historic event would reverberate for weeks or months, leaving in its wake no end of consequences, large and small. Wouldn’t it? Shouldn’t it?

Truth to tell, the word historic does get tossed around rather loosely these days. Just about anything that happens at the White House, for example, is deemed historic. Watch the cable news networks and you’ll hear the term employed regularly to describe everything from Oval Office addresses to Rose Garden pronouncements to press conferences in which foreign dignitaries listen passively while their presidential host pontificates about subjects that have nothing to do with them and everything to do with him.

Of course, almost all of these are carefully scripted performances that are devoid of authenticity. In short, they’re fraudulent. The politicians who participate in such performances know that it’s all a sham. So, too, do the reporters and commentators paid to “interpret” the news. So, too, does any semi-attentive, semi-informed citizen.

Yet on it goes, day in, day out, as politicians, journalists, and ordinary folk collaborate in manufacturing, propagating, and consuming a vast panoply of staged incidents, which together comprise what Americans choose to treat as the very stuff of contemporary history. “Pseudo-events” was the term that historian Daniel Boorstin coined to describe them in his classic 1961 book The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. The accumulation of such incidents creates a make-believe world. As Boorstin put it, they give rise to a “thicket of unreality that stands between us and the facts of life.”

As substitutes for reality, pseudo-events, he claimed, breed “extravagant expectations” that can never be met, with disappointment, confusion, and anger among the inevitable results. Writing decades before the advent of CNN, Fox News, Google, Facebook, and Twitter, Boorstin observed that “we are deceived and obstructed by the very machines we make to enlarge our vision.” So it was back then during the presidency of John F. Kennedy, a master of pseudo-events in the still relatively early days of television. And so our world remains today during the presidency of Donald Trump who achieved high office by unmasking the extravagant post-Cold War/sole superpower/indispensable nation/end of history expectations of the political class, only to weave his own in their place.

As Trump so skillfully demonstrates, even as they deceive, pseudo-events also seduce, inducing what Boorstin referred to as a form of “national self-hypnosis.” With enough wishful thinking, reality becomes entirely optional. So the thousands of Trump loyalists attending MAGA rallies implicitly attest as they count on their hero to make their dreams come true and their nightmares go away.

Yet when it comes to extravagant expectations, few pseudo-events can match the recently completed presidential impeachment and trial. Even before his inauguration, the multitudes who despise Donald Trump longed to see him thrown out of office. To ensure the survival of the Republic, Trump’s removal needed to happen. And when the impeachment process did finally begin to unfold, feverish reporters and commentators could find little else to talk about. With the integrity of the Constitution itself said to be at stake, the enduringly historic significance of each day’s developments appeared self-evident. Or so we were told anyway.

Yet while all parties involved dutifully recited their prescribed lines—no one with greater relish than Donald Trump himself—the final outcome was never in doubt. The Republican Senate was no more likely to convict the president than he was to play golf without cheating. So no sooner did the Senate let Trump off the hook than the fever broke. In an instant, the farcical nature of the entire process became blindingly apparent. Rarely has the gap between hype and actual historical substance been so vast.

The effort to oust the president from office had unleashed a tidal wave of angst, anxiety, anger, and hope. Yet a mere handful of weeks after its conclusion, the impeachment of Donald Trump retains about as much salience as the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, which concluded in 1868.

What does the instantaneous deflation of this ostensibly historic event signify? Among other things, it shows that we still live in the world of pseudo-events that Boorstin described nearly 60 years ago. The American susceptibility to contrived and scripted versions of reality persists, revealing an emptiness at the core of our national politics. Arguably, in our age of social media, that emptiness is greater still. To look past the pseudo-events staged to capture our attention is to confront a void.

PSEUDO-EVENTS GONE WRONG

Yet in this dismal situation, flickering bits of truth occasionally do appear in moments when pseudo-events inadvertently expose realities they are meant to conceal. Boorstin posited that “pseudo-events produce more pseudo-events.” While that might be broadly correct, let me offer a caveat: given the right conditions, pseudo-events can also be self-subverting, their cumulative absurdity undermining their cumulative authority. Every now and then, in other words, we get the sneaking suspicion that much of what in Washington gets advertised as historic just might be a load of bullshit.

As it happens, the season of Trump’s impeachment offered three encouraging instances of a prominent pseudo-event being exposed as delightfully bogus: the Iowa Caucus, the State of the Union Address, and the National Prayer Breakfast.

According to custom, every four years the Iowa Caucus initiates what is said to be a fair, methodical, and democratic process of selecting the presidential nominees of the two principal political parties. According to custom and in accordance with a constitutional requirement, the State of the Union Address offers presidents an annual opportunity to appear before Congress and the American people to assess the nation’s condition and describe administration plans for the year ahead. Pursuant to a tradition dating from the early years of the Cold War, the National Prayer Breakfast, held annually in Washington, invites members of the political establishment to bear witness to the assertion that we remain a people “under God,” united in all our wondrous diversity by a shared faith in the Almighty.

This year all three went haywire, each in a different way, but together hinting at the vulnerability of other pseudo-events assumed to be fixed and permanent. By offering a peek at previously hidden truths, the trio of usually forgettable events just might merit celebration.

First, on February 3rd, came the long-awaited Iowa Caucus. Commentators grasping for something to write about in advance of caucus night entertained themselves by lamenting the fact that the Hawkeye State is too darn white, implying, in effect, that Iowans aren’t sufficiently American. As it happened, the problem turned out to be not a lack of diversity, but a staggering lack of competence, as the state’s Democratic Party thoroughly botched the one and only event that allows Iowa to claim a modicum of national political significance. To tally caucus results, it employed an ill-tested and deficient smartphone app created by party insiders who were clearly out of their depth.

The result was an epic cockup, a pseudo-event exposed as political burlesque. The people of Iowa had spoken—the people defined in this instance as registered Democrats who bothered to show up—but no one quite knew what they had said. By the time the counting and recounting were over, the results no longer mattered. Iowa was supposed to set in motion an orderly sorting-out process for the party and its candidates. Instead, it sowed confusion and then more confusion. Yet in doing so, the foul-up in Iowa suggested that maybe, just maybe, the entire process of selecting presidential candidates is in need of a complete overhaul, with the present quadrennial circus replaced by an approach that might yield an outcome more expeditiously, while wasting less money and, yes, also taking diversity into account.

Next, on February 4th, came the State of the Union Address. Resplendent with ritual and ceremony, this event certainly deserves an honored place in the pseudo-event Hall of Fame. This year’s performance was no exception. President Trump bragged shamelessly about his administration’s many accomplishments, planted compliant live mannequins in the gallery of the House of Representatives to curry favor with various constituencies—hate mongering radio host Rush Limbaugh received the Medal of Freedom from the first lady!—even as he otherwise kept pretty much to the model employed by every president since Ronald Reagan. It was, in other words, a pseudo-event par excellence.

The sole revelatory moment came just after Trump finished speaking. In an endearing and entirely salutary gesture, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, standing behind the president, promptly rendered her verdict on the entire occasion. Like a thoroughly miffed schoolteacher rejecting unsatisfactory homework from a delinquent pupil, she tore the text of Trump’s remarks in two. In effect, Pelosi thereby announced that the entire evening had consisted of pure, unadulterated nonsense, as indeed it had and as has every other State of the Union Address in recent memory.

Blessings upon Speaker Pelosi. Next year, we must hope that she will skip the occasion entirely as not worthy of her time. Other members of Congress, preferably from both parties, may then follow her example, finding better things to do. Within a few years, presidents could find themselves speaking in an empty chamber. The networks will then lose interest. At that juncture, the practice that prevailed from the early days of the Republic until the administration of Woodrow Wilson might be restored: every year or so, presidents can simply send a letter to Congress ruminating about the state of the nation, with members choosing to attend to or ignore it as it pleases them. And the nation’s calendar will therefore be purged altogether of one prominent pseudo-event.

The National Prayer Breakfast, which occurred on February 6th, completes our trifecta of recent pseudo-events gone unexpectedly awry. Here the credit belongs entirely to President Trump who used his time at the dais during this nominally religious event as an opportunity to whine about the “terrible ordeal” he had just endured at the hands of “some very dishonest and corrupt people.” Alluding specifically to Pelosi (and perhaps with Mitt Romney also in mind), Trump denounced his critics as hypocrites. “I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong,” he said. “Nor do I like people who say, ‘I pray for you,’ when they know that that’s not so.”

Jesus might have forgiven his tormentors, but Donald Trump, a self-described Christian, is not given to following the Lord’s example. So instead of an occasion for faux displays of brotherly ecumenism, this year’s National Prayer Breakfast became one more exhibition of petty partisanship—relieving the rest of us (and the media) of any further need to pretend that it ever possessed anything approximating a serious religious motivation.

So if only in an ironic sense, the first week of February 2020 did end up qualifying as a genuinely historic occasion. Granted, those who claim the authority to instruct the rest of us on what deserves that encomium missed its true significance. They had wasted no time in moving on to the next pseudo-event, this one in New Hampshire. Yet over the course of a handful of days, Americans had been granted a glimpse of the reality that pseudo-events are designed to camouflage.

A few more such glimpses and something like “the facts of life” to which Boorstin alluded so long ago might become impossible to hide any longer. Imagine: No more bullshit. In these dark and discouraging times, aren’t we at least entitled to such a hope? ###

[Andrew J. Bacevich, professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University, is now president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Bacevitch received a BS (history) from the United States Military Academy (NY) as well as a PhD (history) from Princeton University (NJ). He retired from Army active duty as a colonel in a career that spanned Vietnam to the Persian Gulf. Bacevich is the author of The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory (2020). See all books by Andrew Bacevich here.]

Copyright © 2020 The Nation Company



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2020 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Roll Over, Hedda Hopper — The NY Fishwrap's Cobra Goes Hollywood Gossip Columnist

Who better to write about The *ILK (*Impeached but not removed) Lyin; King than a writer in Hollywood-gossip-coulmnist mode? Currently, The Man Who Would Be President is in the sub-continent of India and sounds like the village idiot as he attempts to read Indian surnames on the teleprompter. If this is (fair & balanced) criticism of the folly in sending an idiot abroad to represent the United States of America, so be it.

PS; The source of this blog's noms de stylo serpent reference to the three women on the NY Fishwrap's Op-Ed staff began with this 2001 essay by The Cobra (Maureen Dowd) who's been joined by her distaff colleagues: The Krait (Gail Collins), and — most recently — The Viper (Michelle Goldberg).


[x NY Fishwrap]
America’s Parasite
By The Cobra (Maureen Dowd)


TagCrowd Cloud provides a visual summary of the blog post below

created at TagCrowd.com

It’s funny that Donald Trump doesn’t like a movie about con artists who invade an elegant house and wreak chaos.

He should empathize with parasites.

No doubt the president is a movie buff. He has been known to call advisers in the wee hours to plan movie nights at the White House for films he wants to see, like “Joker.” And, in an early sign of his affinity for tyrants, he told Playboy in 1990 that his role model was Louis B. Mayer running MGM in the ’30s.

Trump interrupted his usual rally rant Thursday night to bash the Oscars, saying: “And the winner is a movie from South Korea. What the hell was that all about? We got enough problems with South Korea with trade. On top of it, they give them the best movie of the year?”

He added: “Can we get ‘Gone With the Wind’ back, please? ‘Sunset Boulevard.’ So many great movies. The winner is from South Korea. I thought it was best foreign film, right? Best foreign movie. No. Did this ever happen before? And then you have Brad Pitt. I was never a big fan of his. He got upset. A little wise guy statement. A little wise guy. He’s a little wise guy.” (When he accepted his Oscar, Pitt complained that the Senate did not let John Bolton testify.)

Our president is nostalgic for a movie romanticizing slavery and a movie about an aging diva swanning maniacally around a mansion, living in a vanished past. (I am big. It’s the party that got small.)

Trump’s xenophobic movie criticism, combined with his mocking pronunciation of the name “Buttigieg,” harked back to the days when George H.W. Bush ran in 1988 wrapped in the flag, saying he was on “the American side,” while his celebrity endorser Loretta Lynn complained that she couldn’t even pronounce the name Dukakis. Too foreign-sounding.

It also echoed a segment on Laura Ingraham’s show, in which it was suggested that Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, an American war hero who immigrated from Ukraine, might be guilty of espionage.

And in his Vegas rally on Friday, Trump was again calling his predecessor “Barack Hussein Obama.”

This was another bad, crazy week trapped in Trump’s psychopathology. No sooner was the president acquitted than he put scare quotes around the words justice and Justice Department and sought to rewrite the narrative of the Mueller report, whose author warned that Russia was going to try to meddle in the US election again.

Philip Rucker [also co-author of A Very Stable Genius] wrote in The Washington Post: “As his re-election campaign intensifies, Trump is using the powers of his office to manipulate the facts and settle the score. Advisers say the president is determined to protect his associates ensnared in the expansive Russia investigation, punish the prosecutors and investigators he believes betrayed him, and convince the public that the probe was exactly as he sees it: an illegal witch hunt.”

Trump, who moved from a Fifth Avenue penthouse to the White House, is sinking deeper into his poor-little-me complex, convinced that he is being persecuted.

His darker sense of grievance converges with a neon grandiosity. Trump is totally uncontrolled now. Most presidents worry about the seaminess of pardons and wait until the end. Trump is going full throttle on pardoning his pals and pals of his pals in an election year.

The Republicans have shown they are too scared to stop him and won’t. The Democrats want to stop him but can’t. (Although if they win the Senate back, Democrats will probably end up impeaching him again and this time have plenty of witnesses.)

Now, in a frightening new twist, the president is angry at his own intelligence team for trying to protect the national interest. He would rather hide actual intelligence from Congress than have Adam Schiff know something that Trump thinks would make him look bad politically.

As The Times reported, the president’s intelligence officials warned House lawmakers in a briefing that Russia was once more intent on trespassing on our election to help Trump, intent on interfering in both the Democratic primaries and the general. (They also told Bernie Sanders that the Russians were trying to help his campaign.)

News of the House briefing caused another Vesuvian eruption from the mercurial president, who is hypersensitive to any suggestion that he isn’t winning all on his own.

The Times story said that “the president berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place,” especially because his nemesis Schiff was present.

A few days ago, the president replaced Maguire as acting director with Richard Grenell, the sycophantic ambassador to Germany whose qualifications for overseeing the nation’s 17 spy agencies include being a former Fox News commentator and Trump superfan who boasts a gold-level card with the Trump Organization.

As the Democrats sputter and spat and fight over federal giveaways and NDAs, the unfettered president is overturning the rule of law and stuffing the agencies with toadies.

Nothing is in the national interest or public good. Everything is in the greater service of the Trump cult of personality.

In “Gone With the Wind,” Atlanta burned to the ground. In Trump’s version, Washington is aflame.###

[Maureen Dowd received the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1999, with the Pulitzer committee particularly citing her columns on the impeachment of Bill Clinton after his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Dowd joined The New York Times as a reporter in 1983, after writing for Time magazine and the now-defunct Washington Star. At The Times, Dowd was nominated for a 1992 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting, then became a columnist for the paper's editorial page in 1995. Dowd's first book was a collection of columns entitled Bushworld: Enter at Your Own Risk (2004). Most recently Dowd has written The Year of Voting Dangerously: The Derangement of American Politics (2017). See all of Dowd's books here. She received a BA (English) from Catholic University (DC).]

Copyright © 2020 The New York Times Company



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2020 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves