Tagged: alain de botton

Gleanings: January 10, 2013

The Cold Hard Facts of Freezing to Death | Outdoor Adventure | OutsideOnline.com

But for all scientists and statisticians now know of freezing and its physiology, no one can yet predict exactly how quickly and in whom hypothermia will strike–and whether it will kill when it does. The cold remains a mystery, more prone to fell men than women, more lethal to the thin and well muscled than to those with avoirdupois, and least forgiving to the arrogant and the unaware.

Read the full story …

Chris Ware’s Newtown-Inspired Cover for The New Yorker : The New Yorker

As parents and citizens, we entrust our children not only to the safety of schools but also to the nurturing and cultivated environment of schools and teachers. Education is the very foundation of civilization and cannot be undermined or undersold. That we now have to somehow consider an unchecked population of firearms as part of this equation seems absolutely ludicrous and terrifying.

Read the full story …

More Guns = More Killing – Elisabeth Rosenthal

I recently visited some Latin American countries that mesh with the N.R.A.’s vision of the promised land, where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, A.T.M., restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.

Read the full story …

Victoria Beale Reviews New Books By Alain De Botton And Philippa Perry | The New Republic

Then there is the relentless urge to lean on those who’ve proved themselves more “interesting.” To explain how sex declines within marriage de Botton writes, “repudiation of lovemaking [by a married couple] may thus be likened to a mountain climber’s or a runner’s not wishing to luxuriate in the lyricism and hypnotic grandeur of a great poem, perhaps by Walt Whitman or Tennyson, just before scaling a peak or starting a marathon.” Everything is wrong here, the logic, the assumptions, the contortions to mention Whitman and Tennyson. Not even a quote, just a shout-out to ensure that we are aware of every last volume on the author’s bookshelf.

Read the full story …

Then I recorded Space Oddity…

“Then I recorded ‘Space Oddity’ and made some money and spent it which everybody liked.”

Read the full story …

The wrong goodbye of Barnes and Noble » MobyLives

In short, B&N’s scorched earth policy of the 1990s has ultimately left us with, well, scorched earth.

Read the full story …

Evening Harvest: June 8, 2012

Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is – John Scalzi

You can lose playing on the lowest difficulty setting. The lowest difficulty setting is still the easiest setting to win on. The player who plays on the “Gay Minority Female” setting? Hardcore.

Read the full story …

‘Heaven is for real’ and the immature American mind – The Spirited Atheist – Susan Jacoby

The Americans buying the book are the same people fighting the teaching of evolution in public schools. They are probably the same people who think they can reduce the government deficit without either paying higher taxes or cutting the military budget, Social Security and Medicare benefits. In this universe of unreason, two plus two can equal anything you want and heaven is not only real but anything you want it to be. At age four, the inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality is charming. Among American adults, widespread identification with the mind of a preschooler is scary.

Read the full story …

Against Chairs

The general trend at most points in Western history has been that upper-class people sit in a certain type of chair – typically the crappiest, most damaging design available at the time – and everyone else tries to imitate them.

Read the full story …

So Alain de Botton thinks we need a new kind of porn. Well I’ve got a few ideas for him | Hadley Freeman | Comment is free | The Guardian

While Alain busies himself presumably making movies featuring semi-clothed nymphs being kind to Swiss philosophers, I shall discuss this conveniently publicity-grabbing topic which he so keenly proposes.

Read the full story …

German Historian Discusses New Scholarly Edition of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” – SPIEGEL ONLINE

We view ourselves as something akin to a bomb disposal team. “Mein Kampf” is the rusty old artillery shell, and we’re removing the fuse. The idea is to defuse the book with a new introduction and especially with a thorough scholarly commentary. This removes the book’s symbolic value and makes it what it essentially is: a historical record, and nothing more.

Read the full story …

A Year After the Non-Apocalypse: Where Are They Now?

It’s been noted by scholars who study apocalyptic groups that believers tend to have analytical mindsets. They’re often good at math. I met several engineers, along with a mathematics major and two financial planners. These are people adept at identifying patterns in sets of data, and the methods they used to identify patterns in the Bible were frequently impressive, even brilliant. Finding unexpected connections between verses, what believers call comparing scripture with scripture, was a way to become known in the group. The essays they wrote explaining these links could be stunningly intricate.

Read the full story …

English 103: Susan Orlean “The American Male at Age Ten”

His father once observed that living with Colin was like living with a Martian who had done some reading on American culture.

Read the full story …

The Legend of the Spat-Upon Veteran

“In the face of such data, why would the current president nonetheless repeat the apocryphal myth about spat-on Vietnam veterans? Because—facts be damned—it serves a purpose: to suppress protest and perpetuate the ideology of militarism.”

Read the full story …

TSR: This Stuff Rocks! (PDF)

And it got better—puzzle books, rub-off transfers,
even a sleeping bag! I couldn’t believe TSR made all
this stuff and, more than that, couldn’t believe they
ever stopped! This stuff was legend. I mean, I’d heard
it existed, but here it was in the plastic, highly flammable
flesh.

Read the full story …

AUDIO: Flannery O’Connor reads “A Good Man is Hard to Find” | Melville House Books

I have found that anything that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the Northern reader, unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called realistic.

Read the full story …

Holding hands with Ray Bradbury | Catherine Watson

So I leaned over the table and said, slowly and loudly, “Thank you for telling about Mr. Electrico and the friend who died in his arms.”

Read the full story …

Sci-Fi Scribes on Ray Bradbury: ‘Storyteller, Showman and Alchemist’ | Underwire | Wired.com

To this day, I cannot think about certain subjects without using Bradbury as a reference point — subjects like Halloween and circuses and sea monsters and the word “wonder” in both noun and verb form.

Read the full story …

Dark Material – Michael Rottman

You get through it, as they say, not over it. With the right joke, we can at least start lurching toward the path out of the forest.

Read the full story …

The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work

… they seem to have no desire to undertake the kind of work which makes any claim to leave a lasting legacy. They have the inner freedom to exercise their intelligence in the way that taxi drivers will practise their navigational skills: they will go wherever their client directs them to. … They have no ambition to become known to strangers or to record their insights for an unimpressed and ephemeral future. They are well-adjusted enough to have made their peace with oblivion. They have accepted with grace the paucity of opportunities for immortality in audit.

The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work by Alain de Botton

The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work is less about work than it is about the extremes of specialisation in the modern economy. In ten loosely linked essays, de Botton follows the path of a tuna from the Indian Ocean to a plate in Bristol, the invention and manufacture of a snack biscuit, the launch of a Japanese television satellite, and the intricacies of a large accounting firm. Along the way de Botton casts light on facets of our economic lives that, owing to our own participation in the ever-finer subdivision of labor, we rarely have the opportunity to reflect upon. Accompanied by Richard Baker’s stark and often strangely beautiful photographs of warehouses, electric pylons, and office buildings, The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work is an equally insightful and exasperating tour of how the world functions.

I say exasperating because the book is informed by a philosophy of work which is only briefly enunciated, and largely unexamined. De Botton draws a thread from Aristotle through Christian doctrine and the Enlightenment, and on to current self-help nostrums expounded by career counselors; it represents a distorted view of work and why we do it.

In the fourth century BC, Aristotle clarified the attitude that was to last more than two millennia when he referred to a structural incompatibility between satisfaction and a paid position. For the Greek philosopher, financial need placed one on a par with slaves and animals.
,.,
Early Christianity appended to Aristotle’s notion the still darker doctrine that the miseries of work were an appropriate and immovable means of expiating the sins of Adam.

This view of work was challenged in the Renaissance and Enlightenment, particularly by Diderot and d’Alembert in their Encylodédie, “a paean to the nobility of labour” which sought to raise the “mechanical” arts to the level of the “liberal” arts. “[T]he European bourgeoisie took the momentous step of co-opting on behalf of both marriage and work the pleasures hitherto pessimistically–or perhaps realistically–confined, by aristocrats, to the subsidiary realms of the love affai and the hobby.”

De Botton’s approach is informed by this conflict between the Aristotelian and the bourgeois, with his sympathies apparently with the aristocratic position. He expects to find his subjects subscribing to the bourgeois expectations of deriving meaning from their work, which leads him to be disdainful of the tightly proscribed spheres in which they find their purpose. How, he wonders, can ultimate meaning be found in the design of cookie advertisements, the minutia of financial audits, and the clockwork science of logistics? The workaday world of contemporary capitalism demands such narrow specialisation that surely all meaning has been drained out of work; souls that find meaning within these narrow confines must be severely stunted in comparison to the Greek philosophers, medieval craftsmen, and gentleman hobbyists of yore.

This is a well-traveled path: I think in particular of Marx on alienation (especially in the Grundrisse), Weber’s “iron cage” of capitalism and bureaucracy, and Sloan Wilson’s The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, as well as the early (pre-Lockean) conservative critique of capitalism. But it is also a very narrow and elite notion of where work fits into the full human life. In tracing that path from Aristotle to self-actualization through work–two sides of the same coin, I would argue–de Botton ignores the experience of the vast majority of men and women who have had to work to survive, and the strategies they have found to balance necessity and purpose. The amount of meaning we can, do, and should derive from our work is an unsettled question.

When I examine my own life, I find that the things from which I get the most pleasure (and sorrow)–parenting, reading, writing–are decidedly non-remunerative; indeed, the paid work that I do is an attempt to fund those other activities. The hours I spend working for pay are not devoid of meaning, though; I’ve been lucky to find work that I often find enjoyable and challenging, even if it is not incredibly fulfilling. I fully expect none of the software projects I’ve been part of to outlive me, much less become monuments for the ages. This perspective does not preclude pride in a job well done, or even passionate opinions about how a project should be implemented. A pleasure that I find in my work, and which I share with de Botton’s accountants, rocket engineers, and biscuit bakers, is to see my efforts change the world, even in a very tiny way: we are, after all, homo faber, the makers of our own environment, and even in the current stage of capitalism we can face down alienation by seizing control of our proscribed spheres.

De Botton seems unwilling, in his focus on the extremes of the division of labor, to grant his subjects the dignity they’ve fashioned for themselves. Ultimate meaning may not be derived from their work, and due to the book’s focus we get few glimpses of the sphere where meaning is actually found in their lives; but surely some value is to be found in the enthusiasm these people show for their work.

This is not to say that The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work is entirely condescending, nor that the philosophy underpinning it taints the entire book. This is an insightful book as well, after all, and there is much to learn and ponder in it. The chapter on logistics, and the photo essay following a tuna from its brutal death to consumption by a boy who “hates tuna, but not as much as he hates salmon,” illuminates the processes that alienate us from the sources of all the commodities in ourr lives. The vignettes that bookend the chapter on accountancy could be descriptions of Edward Hopper paintings, with their unbearable longing and loneliness.

De Botton also has some interesting things to say about the sublimation of desire as a necessary function of the modern workplace:

Superficially, the [sexual harassment] code seems wholly and admirably concerned with championing the rights of innocent parties. There may, however, be a more cynical and less altruistic aspect to this unsparing paragraph, for what is really being protected is perhaps not a particular individual afflicted by indecent attention so much as the corporation itself. The feelings elicited by Katie’s shorts are incendiary because they threaten to subvert the firm’s entire rationale. They risk bringing to light an awkward truth: how much more interesting we might find it to have sex than to work.

As an examination of the invisible girders, both physical and ideological, that support the modern economy, The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work is insightful and intriguing. I’ve become increasingly conscious of the trucks and wires that keep my grocery store stocked and my lights burning, and curious about the barges on the Mississippi since reading The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work. But as an exploration of how we make sense of the world we’ve made, and how we negotiate work’s meaning in our lives, de Botton brings a bit too much baggage on the journey.

partisan reviews

Girl InspectorL’affaire de Botton, in which a bad review prompted some outrage on the part of Alain de Botton and some thinking about the ethics of the book review, led me to look again at John Updike’s rules for reviewers. And while I think Updike’s rules set the standard for the kind of book review done in the New York Times and most of the remaining newspaper book pages, they really only cover a particular genre of writing about books. There are other types of book essay, where these rules aren’t entirely applicable, and would in fact be an onerous strait jacket.

Book reviews are sort of like a “Consumer Reports” article: their purpose is to give an overview of a book, point out its most obvious features, and guide the reader in whether or not to select it. This is a pretty narrow contract, and as such most book reviews are ephemeral. Their usefulness is worn out once the reader has made that decision. In these short-form reviews, it makes sense for the reviewer to avoid books they are “predisposed to dislike” and not to be “warrior[s| in any ideological battle.”

But there are other genres where it makes sense for the writer to disregard these caveats; writing about literature would be no fun at all if one couldn’t occasionally skewer a book with which we disagree, or use a book as a missile in an ideological battle. I’m thinking of the long-form critical essays that are the meat of the offerings in journals like “The New York Review of Books,” “The Times Literary Supplement,” and “Commentary” (the “old guard”) or “Rain Taxi” and “The Complete Review” (the “young Turks”).

For these sorts of essays, Updike’s rules about fairness still apply, but not so much the rules about focus. “Review the book, not the reputation” wouldn’t be useful in Julian Barnes’ Updike overview, for example, or Sue Halpern’s roundup of books about success. This sort of essay uses the book as a jumping-off point, building an argument (whether in support of the book or opposed to it) that can pull in evidence from any source. A book review is bounded by the book under consideration, with little external context offered; the critical essay is all about context.

I’ve re-read Caleb Crain’s review of The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work, and I think I’ve solved the puzzle of de Botton’s outrage. While masquerading as a book review, Crain’s piece is really just the first half of a critical essay. Crain is engaging the ideas in the book, not the book itself, and he has some strong criticisms of them, and of how the ideas are executed. But because of the strictures of the book review form, the piece is weirdly truncated. Crain sets up his partisan take on the book, makes some hints at where it goes wrong, but cannot make his own counter-argument because he’s already out of space.

That makes the piece fundamentally unfair, both as a book review and as a critical essay. In a critical essay, Crain would be required to go further and build his own case, drawing on other sources than de Botton’s book and proposing an alternative understanding of work and meaning. Had Crain’s piece done that (and since it would almost certainly be much longer than the NYT Book Review would permit, he can’t), the reader could have fairly assessed Crain’s argument. This leaves de Botton with little recourse (though I still think “I will hate you till the day I die” is a bit much): Crain’s argument against the book might be good, or it might not; we can’t know from what is given in the review.

The market for the long-form critical essay is probably pretty small: certainly smaller than for the book review, which is already pretty rarefied. But they still have a place in the world of literary journalism; it would be nice if, in the larger space that online publishing permits, outlets like the NYT Book Review would augment its reviews with criticism: Crain’s essay deserves to be expanded, and de Botton deserves to have a better case made against his book.

rules and contracts: reviewers, writers, and readers

As a way out of the morass of hurt feelings, embarrassing outbursts, and grand posturing in the recent reviewer-writer donnybrooks, take a look at what John Updike had to say in his six rules for book reviews. “[S]haped intaglio-fashion by youthful traumas at the receiving end of critical opinion,” they lay out a guide for civil, ethical, and useful criticism.

They insist first on fairness: “do not blame [the author] for not achieving what he did not attempt.” It would be unfair, for example, to criticize a pulp science fiction novel for failing to offer well-rounded characters, just as it would be unfair to criticize a literary short story for lacking tentacled aliens. Next, they insist on thoroughness and accuracy: let the book speak for itself, giving “enough direct quotation . . . of the book’s prose so the review’s reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.” And finally, they demand that the reviewer exhibit humility: “[d]o not imagine yourself a caretaker of any tradition, an enforcer of any party standards, a warrior in any ideological battle, a corrections officer of any kind.”

These guidelines imply a contract between the reviewer and the writer, and between the reviewer and the reader (of the review, and potentially of the book). Between reviewer and writer, the contract stipulates a fair and accurate review, without an agenda that poisons the well. The book, not its author, should be the focus, and it should be assessed on its own terms. Between the reviewer and reader, the contract stipulates an accurate assessment of the book’s interest, and its success in its goals; by providing evidence in the form of direct quotation, the reader has the chance to sample the book, and to judge whether the review is accurate.

Things tend to break down when the review fails on one of Updike’s points. In the Alice Hoffman case, her legitimate complaint against Roberta Silman’s review is that Silman gives away too much of the story. This is a fair complaint in a review of a plot-driven novel, and it breaks the contract not only with the book but also with the reader.

As for Caleb Crain’s review of Alain de Botton’s “The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work,” the offense is subtler. On first glance, Crain appears to comply with Updike’s rules: he takes the book on its own terms, and provides ample quotation to make his points. And yet the review is scathing, and on occasion ad hominem: de Botton is accused of being superficial, mocking, and beset by class anxieties. It would appear that Crain has broken the fuzzy sixth rule that Updike proposes, “accept[ing] for review a book [he was] predisposed to dislike.” Crain appears to want a journalistic account with populist, or at least sympathetic, leanings, and that’s not what de Botton has delivered.

Updike’s rules offer very helpful guidelines for approaching the issue from the reviewer’s perspective. They are less helpful, though, for the writer faced with a negative review. When Updike published them in 1975, authors had fewer recourse to vent: no Twitter, no blogs, just the letters column in the offending publication, or space in a rival publication, and the postal service. (Unless, of course, you were Norman Mailer and could punch out your critics, or Proust and challenge them to a duel, but those seem well outside any guidelines for civil discourse.)

It is reasonable for writers to hold their critics to these rules; when a critic strays, the writer is well within her rights to say so. But it would be wise to keep that sixth rule in mind, which implies that all three parties have a contract with something larger than this review and this book: do nothing that will harm the “presumption of certain possible joys of reading,” and keep your vitriol aimed more at the review than the reviewer.

the pleasures and sorrows of reviews

Hot on the heels of Alice Hoffman’s very public tantrum, another writer pops up to confront a reviewer. Is it time, perhaps, to mount the barricades? I hadn’t heard the call to revolution, but if I must dig up cobblestones, then so be it: Sous les pavés la plage!

This time, it’s Alain de Botton responding to Caleb Crain’s NY Times review of The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work over at Crain’s Steamboats Are Ruining Everything site.

In de Botton’s defense, Crain’s review really is negative (unlike Roberta Silman’s review of Alice Hoffman’s novel, which was much more mixed). Crain assesses de Botton’s tone as dismissive, petty, and pompous. The best praise he can muster is that ““The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work” succeeds as entertainment, if not as analysis” in a few isolated sections; for the most part, he implies that the book doesn’t live up its billing.

De Botton, however, rises to the challenge and sinks to schoolyard taunts (if somewhat pompous taunts). After accusing Crain of “killing” the book (“two years of work down the drain in one miserable 900 word review”), de Botton closes with:

I will hate you till the day I die and wish you nothing but ill will in every career move you make. I will be watching with interest and schadenfreude.

Goodness!

De Botton returns 30 minutes later (apparently not a sufficient cooling off period) with what amounts to a declaration of war:

. . . there’s a point at which a review becomes so angry, cruel and mean-spirited that perspective just disappears and one is into new and uncharted terrain. I’m responding to this review as a way of proposing that forgiveness is perhaps not always the only option when the provocation has been enormous.

Compared to the Hoffman affair, de Botton’s response to Crain is mild, almost gentlemanly. But I’m still uncomfortable with it. Perhaps it’s my Quaker heart that’s shocked by any declaration of war, even a literary one, but I don’t see how this pattern can bode well for writers, reviewers, or readers.

One of the pleasures of reading reviews is running into contrary and controversial opinions. Before I settle into a book (especially a biggish one: de Botton’s is over 300 pages, which has some heft), I like some warning: is this book something I’ll enjoy? Is it carrying baggage I should be prepared to heft? If the review is by someone whose opinion I trust, a positive or negative review can be very useful; and on the other hand, a review by someone with whom I’m not familiar, or whose opinions frequently clash with mine, gushing praise might keep me away. When a book is widely reviewed (which de Botton’s certainly has been), the range of responses starts to build a composite portrait, which will guide me deciding whether or not to add it to my stack.

But if the “enormous provocation” of a negative review is now going to be casus belli for writers (whether engaged as a gentlemanly duel like de Botton, or a sustained sniping campaign like Hoffman), there can only be a chilling effect on honest book journalism. The response will be either falsely positive reviews, bland and non-committal reviews, or no reviews at all. In any case, readers will have fewer resources on which to base their reading decisions, and that can only cause suffering among the innocent bystanders in the literary war zone.

I’m not convinced that a negative review really can “kill” a book like de Botton’s, which has significant publisher backing and has been positively reviewed elsewhere. I suppose that an especially savage review in the NY Times or Kirkus could kill a smaller book, but smaller books usually don’t make it into those venues. And even if a negative review really can do financial and even reputational damage to a book, I’m not convinced that responses from the author help matters.

So please, Ms. Hoffman, Mr. de Botton: come down off the barricades. You’re like Bakhunists hurling cobblestones at the Marxists while the Prussian army camps outside the gates. The real enemies aren’t in the review pages. Politely and cordially agree to disagree with the reviewers, and keep your rebuttals private; give your readers (who are also your critics’ readers) the respect they deserve. We can identify snark by ourselves, and balance the reviews we read.

Blog Widget by LinkWithin