Archive for February 2005
Pas au-dela’s got a nice post, complete with one of my favorite passages from Orwell (the one where he’s basically work at the paper-bound early-century version of Blockbuster), about books, the "pleasant problem" of having "too many books to read. And yet also the pressure always, bordering on compulsion, for just one more book…"
I have always been a book horder. It used to be more fun in the days before Amazon, when my wife and I would raid used book stores – our particular favorites were those that had tables and tables of remaindered academic books. (Lots of stores like this in Amherst-Northampton, where we went to college…) All this is ruined by the internet – there’s no need to stock up, to buy the one you don’t need now, but might down the road, and might never see again…
Getting to the point: somehow I’ve gotten to the point where I love throwing books out, and especially selling them on Amazon. Last month: more than $300 in sales. The pressure to buy just one more at some point turn into the pressure of "you have not read yet! when are you going to read?!?" and since then is been all disinvestment rather than acquisition. (Although, since the advent of Amazon Prime, I’ve been suffering from a bit of a resurgence in book buying. The perfect scam to hook someone like me – no shipping costs means it literally is like grabbing a book from a shelf, any hour of the day…)
Anyway, I’ve always been interesting in the psychology of hoarding vs. the psychology of disencumberment… I grew up in a household that didn’t read, in a town with no readers. The books that I bought back then were a great comfort to me, a sign of who I was – who I was becoming. (My wife and I in a sense came together out of this shared trait/affliction). Acquired an enormous library by age 18, spent every dollar I had on books. But as my confidence in myself grew I turned into an empty-bookcase man. Ideal would be to have the 100 books I actually need to use and no more.
(Remember one time when I was still very young, and I went out to visit my now-wife where she lived at the time. My dad gave me $200 to take with me on the trip – which was more money than I had ever had in my wallet to that date. Arrived in her city, and we promptly headed to a Borders where we spent the entire sum, and then some, on a big old stack. Good memory… One of the best $200 I ever spent…)
It’s sort of like when I was a kid, and you could determine the nouveau riches (or not quite riches) from the old money people by the home decor. The former stocked their places with junk, knickknacks, brickabrack. While the latter had barren living rooms, refrigerators with no magnets on them…
I was born into the former, but I’ve become very much the latter. For better or worse. Breathe the open-plan, the empty, the thing-less like its air. What a sellout, a class traitor….
It’s just fantastic. Pretty jaded, have been reading too much, in fact the eyes seem to be starting to go in the way that they will at this point in an academic career. But Berger hits hard, right in the head and heart (whichever order…)
Take this paragraph, near the end:
Here the future’s unique gift is desire. The future
induces the spurt of desire towards itself. The young are more flagrantly young
than on the other side of the wall. The gift appears as a gift of nature in all
its urgency and supreme assurance. Religious and community laws still apply.
Indeed amongst the chaos which is more apparent than real, these laws become
real. Yet the silent desire for procreation is incontestable and overwhelming.
It is the same desire that will forage for food for the children and then seek,
sooner or later, (best sooner) the consolation of fucking again. This is the
I’m not sure Berger’s not the left writer most worthy of emulation today. That’s what I can’t help but think each time I dip in…. God, the brilliant dictional drop in the second to last sentence. Makes you feel as though you’re reading the word "fuck" again for the first time – or that’s been transfigured somehow into something it hasn’t been nearly forever…
OK, please don’t take this as a horrifying burst of naivete, because it’s not. Let it be clearly stated: I am fully aware of the
near collapse of U.S. television news, and print journalism, in the last half-decade. I’ll say it again: I am fully aware of the near collapse of U.S. television news, and print journalism, in the last half-decade.
I don’t really watch Aaron Brown’s show on CNN anymore, not since the election anyway. He’s always been a bit of a mixed bag – actually does hard news / often lashes out jingoistically or repeats the idee recue of the day. Not a great program, by any means, but a little better than the usual stuff.
But I flip over to Brown’s show tonight, and what do I find. Here are the big stories of the night:
1) Rise of poker on television and the internet
2) "After three days of intensive hearings, the FDA says three pain
medications are safe enough to use despite their links to heart risk."
3) "The Marines are investigating the death of a West Virginia boy who drowned at boot camp at Paris Island. His parents want answers, understandably, after they saw the tape of
what preceded their son’s death, pictures shot by CNN affiliate WIS in
Charleston, South Carolina and reported by our Jason Bellini." (OK – this one was pretty good…) Leads into allegations of sex abuse in the military (US on US, of course, not Gitmo / Abu G. style)
4) Endless two segment-long interview with NBA commisioner David Stern (???)
What’s going on here? Feels as though (though I have no real evidence) Brown’s taken a ratings nosedive and the powers that be have asked him to straighten up and Zahn-ify his show… Wonder if that’s what’s happening?
I know others mentioned / linked to this back when it appeared at the beginning of the month, but I just got to it today. Terrific piece – and very much worthy of clipping into a Word document for your archive.
Better yet, print it out, fold it up, pry up a floorboard in the place you live, and hide it there…
The way things are going, when we’re all scribbling in our journals just outside of the gaze of the Screen (or so we thought), it’ll provide some nice material for the first chapter…
From what’s called, in the 4th volume of the Harvard UP edition Benjamin’s
works, “Paralipomena to ‘On the Concept of History” (basically some of the stuff that
didn’t make it in to the theses):
In the idea of classless society, Marx secularized the idea
of messianic time. And that was a good thing. It was only when the Social
Democrats elevated this idea to an ‘ideal’ that the trouble began. The ideal
was defined in Neo-Kantian doctrine as an ‘infinite [unendlich] task […] Once the classless society is defined as an
infinite task, the empty and homogenous time was transformed into an anteroom,
so to speak, in which one could wait for the emergence of the revolutionary
situation with more or less equanimity.
Interesting stuff… But isn’t the problem (and the interest)
located in the fact that both versions of history turn the present into a sort
of antechamber, a waiting room, where one attends the ever-receding event?
However secularized Benjamin’s messianism is, it wasn’t ever going to be free
and clear of the meaning-evaporating boredom of waiting for the advertised
product to arrive…
It’s kind of funny for a humanities-type like me to wake up to the likes of this (in an article on the Larry Summers controversy at Harvard) in the Times:
Howard Georgi, a physics professor [at Harvard] who has been part of a successful
effort in his department to recruit women for tenured positions, said,
"It’s crazy to think that it’s an innate difference." He added: "It’s
socialization. We’ve trained young women to be average. We’ve trained
young men to be adventurous."
So you mean that these ostensibly natural, innate differences are actually socially constructed? Hmm…
All that I’m trying to say, without knowing all that much about the actors involved, that it’s interesting that when it comes to an actual political issue, a question about the current state of affairs and their arrangement or re-arrangement, the issue breaks down to a conservative articulation of the "natural" against a quasi-progressive reminder of the social, the constructed. Even in the sciences…
From today’s Times, "G.I.s Under Inquiry for Killing of 2 Afghans":
The first reports in the local press said that American forces had
killed two members of Al Qaeda, and that three more had escaped. But
Colonel Hayes said it was clear to him that the victims were just
villagers, and he confirmed that the military had given each of the
families $2,000 to help them through their immediate difficulties.
have no reason to say there were Taliban or Al Qaeda," Colonel Hayes
said, adding that in the few weeks he had been based in Shindand he had
seen no evidence of Taliban or Al Qaeda activity in the area.
"I can only say it was a mistake," the district chief, Mr. Kamin, said. "They had no weapons, they are from a poor family."
Of course there’s an article something like this one everyday, every other day, in the Times. There’s something to reading slowly through them, watching the absurd and horrible develop like a scene from a terrible movie, a movie that goes nowhere…
Two men are gathering firewood
and then an SUV pulls up with US soldiers in it
and then the men run
and are shot by the soldiers.
And then, because one isn’t quite dead, the soldiers
shoot him again to make sure.