E M Forster

E M ForsterOn this day in 1879, the great writer E M Forster was born. Admit it: you wouldn’t even know who he was if it weren’t for Merchant-Ivory or maybe that David Lean character. Oh, okay: you would know because you are a Frankly Curious reader — a better class of person. But it is definitely the case that Forster has been done pretty well by filmmakers in the 1980s and early 1990s. It might be because Forster wrote so much about hypocrisy and these were especially great times for hypocrisy in the the US and UK.

He is best known for writing A Room with a View and A Passage to India. But Forster was so much more than that. He wrote in lots of styles and forms — both fiction and nonfiction. He wrote plays. He even wrote an opera libretto. He was truly an amazing man.

What I find most interesting about him is his short story “The Machine Stops.” One doesn’t much think of Forster was a science fiction writer, but there you go. The whole story is online, and I highly recommend reading it. It’s about 10,000 words long — so something even I could read in bed before going to sleep. And what is perhaps more interesting about it is that it really isn’t that different from A Room With a View in terms of its theme. Fundamentally, he was always writing about people trying to connect with each other. He may have been pessimistic about that much of the time, but he always held out the hope.

I had embedded a BBC production of the story here, but Lawrence alerted me to the fact that it has been taken down. I can’t find a replacement. But if you would prefer to hear it read to you while you clean up the house, here is Jerome Lawsen reading it for a LibriVox recording:

Happy birthday E M Forster!

Charles Olson

Charles OlsonOn this day in 1910, the great poet Charles Olson was born. He is one of my very favorite poets. He has a style that if very much like the beats but without all the all the nonsense that goes along with them. Even Allen Ginsberg tends to annoy me within the span of even a short poem. So Olson expanded on the works of the earliest of the modernist poets — writers I admire like William Carlos Williams and most especially Ezra Pound.

I most know Olson because of the poem “The Kingfishers” — you can read it at Poetry Foundation. But Olson’s greatest work is probably The Maximus Poems. It is his attempt to channel Pound — a man he owed much to artistically and nothing to politically. It was explicitly following The Cantos. But if you prefer, it is also something like Williams’ Paterson.

Shockingly, there is actually some video of Olson reading. Here is “Maximus To Gloucester, Letter 27 (withheld)”:

Happy birthday Charles Olson!

Was It Really G K Chesterton Who Said…

G K ChestertonI’ve been having a bit of a problem about G K Chesterton.

He was a great English writer around the turn of the 20th century. He is probably best known for his Father Brown mysteries. But he was more of what we think of as a public intellectual. He wrote about a great many things. And he influenced generations of writers. As diverse a collection as C S Lewis, Marshall McLuhan, and Neil Gaiman were all profoundly influenced by him.

I tend to think of him as a conservative thinker. But at this point, that phrase — “conservative thinker” — seems mostly a contradiction. But there was a time when this was not necessarily the case. It is, after all, possible to respect tradition and yet be open to change. I don’t think he was incorrect when he wrote, “He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative” — although I’m aware that a lot of conservatives think this without cause. Chesterton, however, was a close friend of George Bernard Shaw. The two of them apparently had wide ranging discussions during which they rarely agreed. I’m sure they disagreed about religion (Shaw was an atheist of my variety and Chesterton was a Christian) and politics (Shaw was a socialist and Chesterton wasn’t even keen on democracy).

But my problem has nothing to do with Chesterton’s beliefs. He is a highly quotable guy. In fact, in my copy of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, Chesterton appears on three pages with 30 different quotations. But the following one attributed to him in the pilot episode of Ripping Yarns is not there:

It is hard to nail down the quote, because even the director in this skit (Terry Jones) isn’t consistent. But I assume that this is the quote, “The follies of men’s youth are in retrospect glorious compared to the follies of old age.” It’s a great quote. I want to use it. But I think that it wasn’t Chesterton. And even in the skit, Michael Palin says, “I think it was…” So maybe they just figured that Chesterton had the kind of intellectual oomph they were looking for.

But I can’t seem to find the quotation anywhere except by people who got it from Ripping Yarns. Is it possible that Palin and Jones wrote it? The sentiment sounds eternal — like it is found somewhere in the Old Testament. At the same time, the sentence structure is lovely. But I don’t like feeling ignorant on this point. So if anyone knows anything, please let me know.

John Kennedy Toole

John Kennedy TooleOn this day in 1937, the great writer John Kennedy Toole was born. Other than his juvenilia, he is only known for one thing, A Confederacy of Dunces. But what a thing! Everyone seems to know the story of how the book was published: his suicide and his depressed mother’s pursuit of its publication. I can’t speak to the cause of Toole’s finally unraveling. I’m sure if he had found a publisher — especially if the book had done as well as it would when it finally was published — it would at least have extended his life. But I suspect there was more going on than a general depression brought on by a lack of professional success.

In preparation for this post, I spent an hour going through my books, looking for my copy of A Confederacy of Dunces. I couldn’t find it. I did find two copies of Kaufmann’s translation of Faust — which is okay, given one of them is in pieces. (I don’t know why I haven’t thrown it out.) And I found at least five copies of Dr Faustus — which is not okay, because I was collecting them because I had this idea of producing it at some point. But no Confederacy. I must have loaned it out to someone to read.

This is something that I do, especially with this book. No intelligent American should be able to go through life without reading A Confederacy of Duncesat least once. It is a wonderful book. And I don’t even mean in the sense that it is brilliant with a great feel for language. I mean it in the sense that it is a very funny book. You will enjoy it! Let me go further: you will enjoy it from the first page!

You have to ask yourself an important question, “Why am I reading Frankly Curious when I could be reading A Confederacy of Dunces?” There are really only two acceptable answers. First: “Because it is only now that you have opened my eyes!” Second: “I have already read it!” I appreciate your readership. But I’m more than willing to wait. A Confederacy of Dunces is a very special book — especially for the kind of people who come around here. (You should take that as a compliment.)

Happy birthday John Kennedy Toole!

Jane Austen

Jane AustenOn this day in 1775, the great novelist Jane Austen was born. She is known for her witty romance novels, but they are probably better thought of as parodies of the romances of her own day. In this way, she is rather like Cervantes, whose Don Quixote is a loving ribbing of the chivalric books of his own time. But all of that is lost on most modern readers. It is remarkable, however, that we are able to get so much out of her novels completely outside the context in which they were written.

Another aspect of her novels that isn’t as appreciated as it ought to be is their political content. Austen was clearly very concerned about one issue: the injustice of inheritance law in England at that time — most especially the way that it affected women. In Pride and Prejudice, Mrs Bennet is looking into the abyss of a future after her husband is dead when she (and her five daughters) will likely be thrown into poverty. In the book, she comes off as very silly; but it is hard not to sympathize with her razor-like focus on getting her daughters married.

In her first novel, Sense and Sensibility, poverty is not in the future — it is manifest. But there is another aspect of that novel that especially appeals to me. In it, she savages the romantic sensibilities of the time. Marianne Dashwood and John Willoughby do not come off well in the novel. Austen clearly did not think much of the early romantics. I tend to agree.

Let me quote a little bit from the beginning of Sense and Sensibility. This is a lovely (and horrible) scene where John Dashwood’s wife Fanny talks him out of the promise he made to his father to take care of the son’s stepmother after the father’s death. These are the rationalizations of real people:

“It was my father’s last request to me,” replied her husband, “that I should assist his widow and daughters.”

“He did not know what he was talking of, I dare say; ten to one but he was light-headed at the time. Had he been in his right senses, he could not have thought of such a thing as begging you to give away half your fortune from your own child.”

“He did not stipulate for any particular sum, my dear Fanny; he only requested me, in general terms, to assist them, and make their situation more comfortable than it was in his power to do. Perhaps it would have been as well if he had left it wholly to myself. He could hardly suppose I should neglect them. But as he required the promise, I could not do less than give it; at least I thought so at the time. The promise, therefore, was given, and must be performed. Something must be done for them whenever they leave Norland and settle in a new home.”

“Well, then, let something be done for them; but that something need not be three thousand pounds. Consider,” she added, “that when the money is once parted with, it never can return. Your sisters will marry, and it will be gone for ever. If, indeed, it could be restored to our poor little boy–”

“Why, to be sure,” said her husband, very gravely, “that would make great difference. The time may come when Harry will regret that so large a sum was parted with. If he should have a numerous family, for instance, it would be a very convenient addition.”

“To be sure it would.”

“Perhaps, then, it would be better for all parties, if the sum were diminished one half.– Five hundred pounds would be a prodigious increase to their fortunes!”

“Oh! beyond anything great! What brother on earth would do half so much for his sisters, even if really his sisters! And as it is — only half blood! — But you have such a generous spirit!”

“I would not wish to do any thing mean,” he replied. “One had rather, on such occasions, do too much than too little. No one, at least, can think I have not done enough for them: even themselves, they can hardly expect more.”

“There is no knowing what they may expect,” said the lady, “but we are not to think of their expectations: the question is, what you can afford to do.”

“Certainly — and I think I may afford to give them five hundred pounds a-piece. As it is, without any addition of mine, they will each have about three thousand pounds on their mother’s death — a very comfortable fortune for any young woman.”

“To be sure it is; and, indeed, it strikes me that they can want no addition at all. They will have ten thousand pounds divided amongst them. If they marry, they will be sure of doing well, and if they do not, they may all live very comfortably together on the interest of ten thousand pounds.”

“That is very true, and, therefore, I do not know whether, upon the whole, it would not be more advisable to do something for their mother while she lives, rather than for them — something of the annuity kind I mean.– My sisters would feel the good effects of it as well as herself. A hundred a year would make them all perfectly comfortable.”

His wife hesitated a little, however, in giving her consent to this plan.

“To be sure,” said she, “it is better than parting with fifteen hundred pounds at once. But, then, if Mrs. Dashwood should live fifteen years we shall be completely taken in.”

“Fifteen years! my dear Fanny; her life cannot be worth half that purchase.”

“Certainly not; but if you observe, people always live for ever when there is an annuity to be paid them; and she is very stout and healthy, and hardly forty. An annuity is a very serious business; it comes over and over every year, and there is no getting rid of it. You are not aware of what you are doing. I have known a great deal of the trouble of annuities; for my mother was clogged with the payment of three to old superannuated servants by my father’s will, and it is amazing how disagreeable she found it. Twice every year these annuities were to be paid; and then there was the trouble of getting it to them; and then one of them was said to have died, and afterwards it turned out to be no such thing. My mother was quite sick of it. Her income was not her own, she said, with such perpetual claims on it; and it was the more unkind in my father, because, otherwise, the money would have been entirely at my mother’s disposal, without any restriction whatever. It has given me such an abhorrence of annuities, that I am sure I would not pin myself down to the payment of one for all the world.”

“It is certainly an unpleasant thing,” replied Mr. Dashwood, “to have those kind of yearly drains on one’s income. One’s fortune, as your mother justly says, is not one’s own. To be tied down to the regular payment of such a sum, on every rent day, is by no means desirable: it takes away one’s independence.”

“Undoubtedly; and after all you have no thanks for it. They think themselves secure, you do no more than what is expected, and it raises no gratitude at all. If I were you, whatever I did should be done at my own discretion entirely. I would not bind myself to allow them any thing yearly. It may be very inconvenient some years to spare a hundred, or even fifty pounds from our own expenses.”

“I believe you are right, my love; it will be better that there should be no annuity in the case; whatever I may give them occasionally will be of far greater assistance than a yearly allowance, because they would only enlarge their style of living if they felt sure of a larger income, and would not be sixpence the richer for it at the end of the year. It will certainly be much the best way. A present of fifty pounds, now and then, will prevent their ever being distressed for money, and will, I think, be amply discharging my promise to my father.”

“To be sure it will. Indeed, to say the truth, I am convinced within myself that your father had no idea of your giving them any money at all. The assistance he thought of, I dare say, was only such as might be reasonably expected of you; for instance, such as looking out for a comfortable small house for them, helping them to move their things, and sending them presents of fish and game, and so forth, whenever they are in season. I’ll lay my life that he meant nothing farther; indeed, it would be very strange and unreasonable if he did. Do but consider, my dear Mr. Dashwood, how excessively comfortable your mother-in-law and her daughters may live on the interest of seven thousand pounds, besides the thousand pounds belonging to each of the girls, which brings them in fifty pounds a year a-piece, and, of course, they will pay their mother for their board out of it. Altogether, they will have five hundred a-year amongst them, and what on earth can four women want for more than that?– They will live so cheap! Their housekeeping will be nothing at all. They will have no carriage, no horses, and hardly any servants; they will keep no company, and can have no expenses of any kind! Only conceive how comfortable they will be! Five hundred a year! I am sure I cannot imagine how they will spend half of it; and as to your giving them more, it is quite absurd to think of it. They will be much more able to give you something.”

“Upon my word,” said Mr. Dashwood, “I believe you are perfectly right. My father certainly could mean nothing more by his request to me than what you say. I clearly understand it now, and I will strictly fulfil my engagement by such acts of assistance and kindness to them as you have described. When my mother removes into another house my services shall be readily given to accommodate her as far as I can. Some little present of furniture too may be acceptable then.”

“Certainly,” returned Mrs. John Dashwood. “But, however, one thing must be considered. When your father and mother moved to Norland, though the furniture of Stanhill was sold, all the china, plate, and linen was saved, and is now left to your mother. Her house will therefore be almost completely fitted up as soon as she takes it.”

“That is a material consideration undoubtedly. A valuable legacy indeed! And yet some of the plate would have been a very pleasant addition to our own stock here.”

“Yes; and the set of breakfast china is twice as handsome as what belongs to this house. A great deal too handsome, in my opinion, for any place they can ever afford to live in. But, however, so it is. Your father thought only of them. And I must say this: that you owe no particular gratitude to him, nor attention to his wishes; for we very well know that if he could, he would have left almost everything in the world to them.”

This argument was irresistible. It gave to his intentions whatever of decision was wanting before; and he finally resolved, that it would be absolutely unnecessary, if not highly indecorous, to do more for the widow and children of his father, than such kind of neighbourly acts as his own wife pointed out.

Reading that again, it makes me angry. Austen had people nailed. Her exaggeration is only slight. I think Fanny reaching the point of turning the logic back on itself — it is sad that they will get to hold onto that fine furniture when our selfishness will require them to live in place not deserving of it — doesn’t ring true. That’s Austen’s brilliance. If the conversation had ended a couple of paragraphs before, it would leave the reader punching the wall. But it is good to that that people have not gotten notably worse in the last two centuries.

Happy birthday Jane Austen!

Aphra Behn

Detail of Aphra Behn by Peter LelyBefore getting to the birthday post proper, I just want to say that it is the painter Roger Fry‘s birthday, and I love his work. I just don’t know that much about him. And for some reason, there isn’t all that much of his work online. Nor is a book about or by him in the library. But maybe by next year, I will have something to write about. He’s very deserving. Of course, so is the subject of today’s birthday post.

On this day in 1640, the great English writer Aphra Behn was baptized. Like most people from that time, we don’t know when she was born. The standard thing is to assume that people were baptized when they were three days old. That’s what the birthdays of Shakespeare, Marlowe, and Cervantes are: their baptismal dates minus three days. So with Behn, we are just going with the baptism. And it hardly matters. Why not that day?

Well, why not any day? The truth is that we don’t even know Behn’s real name. The date of her baptism is apocryphal. We don’t really know anything about her. And that is very probably by intention. The literary theorist Germaine Greer said of her, “She is not so much a woman to be unmasked as an unending combination of masks.” Even the one place where seemingly every adult is documented finds her missing: tax records.

To give you some idea of just how vexing her life story is, check out this passage from Wikipedia:

Shortly after her supposed return to England from Surinam in 1664, Behn may have married Johan Behn (also written as Johann and John Behn). He may have been a merchant of German or Dutch extraction, possibly from Hamburg.

Shortly after returning from a place she may have never been, she may have married a man who might have been of a particular profession and maybe from a particular place. It is exasperating! But we do seem to know that she worked as a British spy in the Netherlands. She was supposed to get in good (Seduce?!) the son of the exiled son of the recently executed Thomas Scot. For this dangerous service, the King of England (Charles II at that time) repaid her the way they normally did: by abandoning her and not even paying her expenses.

Because she was in debt, she started writing for a couple of theater companies. Her early works were rather bawdy, like, The Amorous Prince. But she found more success later with comedies. She wrote a total of 19 plays and was the first notable female playwright in England (other than Queen Elizabeth who wrote all of Shakespeare’s plays). But she did far more than this. She also did a great deal of translation, and most important, she was key in the development not just of the English novel, but of the novel generally.

Sadly, she spent pretty much all of her adult life in debt. She may have been working at a furious pace (only John Dryden wrote more plays during that period), but it didn’t pay off very well. Perhaps the British were as bad about paying women then as we are today. On the other hand, there are two portraits of her by noted artists (and perhaps a third). So maybe she just lived beyond her means, as seems to have been typical of writers then — and now. She died in poverty at the age of 48.

Happy birthday Aphra Behn!

Captain Ahab’s Final Speech

Captain AhabI turn my body from the sun. What ho, Tashtego! let me hear thy hammer. Oh! ye three unsurrendered spires of mine; thou uncracked keel; and only god-bullied hull; thou firm deck, and haughty helm, and Pole-pointed prow,– death-glorious ship! must ye then perish, and without me? Am I cut off from the last fond pride of meanest shipwrecked captains? Oh, lonely death on lonely life! Oh, now I feel my topmost greatness lies in my topmost grief. Ho, ho! from all your furthest bounds, pour ye now in, ye bold billows of my whole foregone life, and top this one piled comber of my death! Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!

—Herman Melville
Moby Dick

Another Unique “Best Books” List

What You Need To Read To Know Just About Everything - Allen ScarbroughMy earlier reading led me to an idiosyncratic book by Allen Scarbrough, What You Need To Read To Know Just About Everything: The 25 Best Books for a Self Education and Why. I love this kind of thing. For one thing, although I am very formally educated, it is in physics. And that means that just about everything beyond science was pushed out of the way of my education. An old friend of mine who had intended to be an artist insisted on getting a degree in English Literature, because he didn’t want to be, “One of those ignorant artists.” But the truth is that I don’t think any field of study is enough, and if you want to be educated, you need to do a lot of work all by yourself.

I feel like I’ve spent my whole life trying to get caught up on all the things I missed early on. That mostly involves reading a lot of books. I still feel pretty ignorant about science, but given that I know far more science than pretty much anyone I know, I figure I’m covered. Anyway, I was curious about Scarbrough’s list. So let’s take a look. First, here’s the list:

  1. Siddhartha
  2. Walden
  3. The Brothers Karamazov
  4. The Republic
  5. On the Road
  6. Leaves of Grass
  7. The Bible
  8. Crime and Punishment
  9. The Catcher in the Rye
  10. The Grapes of Wrath
  11. The Sun Also Rises
  12. Moby Dick
  13. The Wisdom of Insecurity
  14. Tropic of CancerTropic of Capricorn
  15. Big Sur
  16. The True Believer
  17. The Old Man and the Sea
  18. War and Peace
  19. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
  20. The Odyssey
  21. Anna Karenina
  22. The Art of War
  23. East of Eden
  24. A Sand County Almanac
  25. A Brief History of Time

Even though the list is weighted heavily with Russians, it is a very American list! John Steinbeck has two places on the list. And rightly so! Steinbeck is still my favorite English language writer. I quite agree about The Grapes of Wrath. Every American should read it. But I would recommend Cannery Row or even Of Mice and Men before East of Eden. Regardless, you just can’t go wrong with Steinbeck.

I think Scarbrough picked the exact right Hemingway too. Both of those books were very important to me when I was a young man. I dare say (and this is embarrassing) that they taught me a lot about how to be a man. There is important wisdom in those books that our police officers would be well to learn. Just the same, how in the hell do you put two Hemingway books on the list and not one Fitzgerald or Stein? Nix The Old Man and the Sea and add Tender Is the Night. I’ll admit, Stein’s work is still difficult for me.

The most disappointing thing on the list is that he gave two Jack Kerouac books places. Really?! Okay, I’ll admit it: I don’t get Kerouac. I’ve never thought much of him. But I understand that I’m not the ultimate arbiter of taste. (Although I should be!) But two books?! Really? I feel much the same way about Henry Miller. Scarbrough was tricky with him — throwing in two novels as one. Maybe he means you can read either of them. In my opinion, that would be true of any of his work. I really don’t like Miller and I don’t feel he has anything to teach me. But I know there are a lot of people who are just mad about him. Imagine some books that could have taken these three (or four) places!

And then we get to the Russians. I have never been able to get very far in either The Brothers Karamazov or War and Peace. And I probably should! I like both these writers. Similarly, I haven’t read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. And so I’m going to. I’ve requested it, along with Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer. I’ll see about getting to the old Russians later.

I think that Siddhartha is a good choice, but there are other Hesse books that would be as good. Walden is a disappointment. I guess The Republic is a book that everyone should read. But I thought they already had! Leaves of Grass is a bit of a problem for me. I like the content of Whitman more than the form. I certainly think people should read him, however. Let me just abstain regarding The Catcher in the Rye, because I’m not exactly objective about it; it is a great book; I don’t really think it is worth reading.

I do think everyone should read the Bible. It is so ingrained into our culture. I think there are large sections that can be skipped however. I do wonder if Scarbrough thinks it ought to be read for its theology. That would be a mistake. It would be better to read someone like Thomas Aquinas for that. But in terms of understanding our cultural myths, the Bible is a must read.

The same can be said for the Odyssey. But apart from the Sirens and Cyclops, there isn’t that much. I think the Iliad is a much better choice in that it teaches most of what you need to know about the folly (and nobility) of man.

As for, The Art of War — okay. I haven’t read it. It seems awfully trendy these days. I think The Prince would probably be better. But you could always read both — they’re short. I had never even heard of A Sand County Almanac, but it does sound interesting. The same goes for The Wisdom of Insecurity. But I think A Brief History of Time is probably a mistake. Not worthless, but a waste of a spot on the list.

Overall, I think the list is rather good. Scarbrough’s idea is that one would carve out an hour or two per day and read all of these books over the course of a year. I think that’s a rather good idea. It might make for a good group project, although two years might be a more reasonable time frame. If I were to change the list, I would only give any author one slot. Also, I would make the list a little less male. There is not a single woman writer on the list, and I think it shows. Should we really read The Art of War without reading Emma? Perhaps I will put together my own list one day.

Emily Dickinson

Emily DickinsonOn this day in 1830, the great poet Emily Dickinson was born. I feel a great kinship with her because of her agoraphobia. I would rather conduct my relationships through letters. (I’m not saying this is a good thing.) But Dickinson was also interested in a lot of the same things that I am, and her thinking of metaphysics certainly parallels mine.

Regardless, I thought I would present “The Mystery of Pain.” I found a version online for teachers where it comments, “This poem is suitable to be taught for Junior High School students because it has a great moral value of life. It notices to be patient when we are in a pain, and we have to realize that everything will change, there is no everlasting pain. Since the language used is quite hard to understand, the teacher should assist students to find the correct interpretation of the poem.”

All I can say is that I hope the teachers understand the poem better than whomever wrote that! Let me give you my interpretation. We tend to not be able to imagine that we will always feel the way we now do and that’s a drag when we are feeling pain. But the enlightened mind will know that the pain will go away, only to be replaced by another pain. I would find that a depressing thought if it were not exactly what I know to be true.

Pain has an element of blank;
It cannot recollect
When it began, or if there were
A day when it was not.

It has no future but itself,
Its infinite realms contain
Its past, enlightened to perceive
New periods of pain.

Happy birthday Emily Dickinson!


This article was part of last year’s birthday post, The Best Birthday Post Ever. I don’t normally do this, but I am suffering from some kind of food poisoning or something. I hope I feel better later!

Plagiarism and Publication Standards

CJ WerlemanI was surprised when people found that CJ Werleman had plagiarized things in his work. People like Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass don’t surprise me. They are clearly creative people in over their heads who work their way into fabricating amazing stories. But it amazes me that people would write mostly original material and yet pinch a sentence here and a paragraph there. How does that happen?!

The reason this came up is that I was researching an article celebrating the upcoming third anniversary of Christopher Hitchens’ death. So I read Glenn Greenwald’s obituary of him, Christopher Hitchens and the Protocol for Public Figure Deaths. In it, he quotes an article by Dennis Perrin that sharply attacked Hitchens back in 2003, a few years after he had gone over to the dark side. I don’t normally think of Greenwald as a particularly inspiring wordsmith, but this sentence really impressed me:

Dennis Perrin, a friend and former protégée of Hitchens, described all the way back in 2003 how Hitchens’ virtues as a writer and thinker were fully swamped by his pulsating excitement over war and the Bush/Cheney imperial agenda…

I decided to go in search of a possible obituary by Perrin himself at the time of Hitchens’ death (December 2011). I didn’t find anything, but I did locate an article on Rationalists’s Blog, Remembering Christopher Hitchens… But! It was posted two days after the Greenwald article and contained the exact same, highly stylized, sentence. At first I didn’t believe it. It seemed like such an egregious bit of plagiarism. It was only later that I found out that the blog belonged to CJ Werleman in his early days before writing for respectable publications like Salon.

Discussions of plagiarism are generally overwrought, if you ask me. People treat it as some kind of unforgivable intellectual sin. What it usually indicates is laziness and sloppiness. In his three hour interview with The Young Turks, Sam Harris claimed that Werleman could be dismissed out of hand because he plagiarized. That doesn’t follow. The arguments are still the arguments, regardless of whether some words were stolen from someone else. But it was convenient that Harris had this out, because he really doesn’t have much of an argument against charges of racism. (And his racism doesn’t mean that his work should simply be dismissed.)

What bothers me about plagiarism is what it says about such people’s opinions about writing itself. Any number of people have noted my tendency to not quote large chunks of text from things I’m writing about. I prefer to provide my own overview. That’s largely because I love writing. What’s more, I assume that people read me because they like reading me. I’m not primarily a clearing house for other people’s ideas. (I do have that, though; I like my quotations posts very much.) Clearly, since I don’t like quoting people, I would never knowingly use someone else’s words as my own.

There is another aspect of this. I know my own style. If I copied text from another article into my editor for reference, I would never mistake a phrase as wonderful as “fully swamped by his pulsating excitement” as my own. Or rather, I would remember having written something so great. But why would I copy something like that into my editor? It makes me think that Werleman uses an entirely different process in his writing where he collects bits from various articles and then reworks them. This has the obvious downside that it is easy to forget that this or that paragraph wasn’t actually written by you. But from my perspective, the worse aspect of this is that it doesn’t lead to particularly good writing or thinking.

I don’t think anyone has looked into this, but Werleman plagiarizes himself more than he does other people. I think that shows that he is not intending to plagiarize. It is just how he works. But why is it that he was so successful as a writer when his process was the writing equivalent of “paint by numbers”? I think we should be far more concerned about that than we are about any particular plagiarist.

Jonathan Swift

Jonathan SwiftOn this day in 1667, the great writer Jonathan Swift was born. He is best known for his satire in the novel Gulliver’s Travels and the essay A Modest Proposal. At less than 3,500 words, the latter makes the outrageous suggestion that the poor be able to sell their children as a food source to the wealthy — simultaneously reducing the parents’ burden and providing them with extra income. What particularly strikes me is that the proposal really isn’t that much different from what I hear from conservatives today. While it is certainly true that conservatives are hysterical in their commitment to protecting fetuses, most show little or no interest in offspring outside the womb. The bad condition of children is met with claims that the poor should not have had children they could not afford to keep. Today, a satirist would have to go to greater extremes, because conservatives today offer proposals that are too close to Swift’s.

Swift was English, but born in Ireland. And he spent most of the first half of his life trying make a living in England, only to be forced back to Ireland again and again. He was very good at making enemies. It was Queen Anne’s great hatred for Swift that finally got him to embrace Ireland. A Modest Proposal is, of course, explicitly about Ireland. Another of his essays, A Proposal for the Universal Use of Irish Manufacture, got his publisher charged with sedition. The criminal idea was that the Irish should use their own natural resources to produce products rather than simply sending them to England. This is still an issue today where the United States hates countries that want to actually use their natural resources rather than just sending them to us to exploit.

In 1726 — at the age of 59 (roughly the same age as Cervantes when he wrote the first book of Don Quixote) — Swift published his masterpiece, Gulliver’s Travels. At the time, it was a biting satire of government and religion. Now, I think it comes off more as a satire of human foibles. And it is also a good adventure story — proto-science fiction, very much as Jules Verne would write a century and a half later. Like much of his work, Gulliver’s Travels was published anonymously, although it was eventually published under his name in his lifetime. And regardless, it was generally known what works were his. He had a distinct style.

Happy birthday Jonathan Swift!