Midnight on the Forecastle

Blogging Books at the New York Times

Top 5 at a Glance
1. GOING ROGUE, by Sarah Palin
2. STONES INTO SCHOOLS, by Greg Mortenson
3. HAVE A LITTLE FAITH, by Mitch Albom
4. ARGUING WITH IDIOTS, written and edited by Glenn Beck, Kevin Balfe and others
5. OPEN, by Andre Agassi

via www.nytimes.com

I'm testing the "Blog It" feature on TypePad.  To do so, I've clipped the above selection of bestsellers from the NYT nonfiction list.  Apparently, you're supposed to add a comment of some sort when you clip from another website... so here's mine: the most "emailed" and "blogged" book-related stories on the NYT website clearly indicate that the readership of the paper isn't very interested in NYT bestsellers.

This could be charitably interpreted to mean that readers of the NYT books section have more discriminating literary tastes than your average book-buying bumpkin (i.e., a Regnery aficionado). Most people who use sites like YouTube are, presumably, the same people responsible for rocketing garbage to the top of bestseller lists.  When they go online, they offer no original content; they merely absorb material provided by others. 

If the "Blog It" feature I'm using for this post is any indication, the modern blogger is also loathe to provide fresh, original content.  Even the most astute bloggers seem to be deeply dependent on the content of others.  These aren't new observations, and this post is yet another example of the low-culture snark that dominates online discourse... but can it really hurt to mention it again?  I don't think so.

I don't think that people are, generally speaking, bone-ignorant jackasses.  I just don't think that online discourse is anywhere near achieving its potential because the brightest minds are simply not participating.  There are so many people who read carnivorously, think about the big issues, and derive great satisfaction from being well-informed... but, for whatever reason, they choose not to voice their opinion or their expertise online.

What we're left with are the voices of the most exhibitionistic, extraverted, egotistical blowhards and wannabes. Glenn Beck has an audience and a fortune.  Anyway, these are some passing thoughts.  I'm posting them because I'm online and I'm testing a new feature on my blogging platform.  Now I need to get back to cruising the Internet for mindlessly entertaining bits of digital chum.

Jeff Sharlet's "The Family" and Christianist Belief

A little while ago I finished reading Jeff Sharlet’s book, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.  It’s a terrific book about a subject that has been fueling my interest for a number of years now; namely, how Christian fundamentalism in America expresses itself in both the culture and politics of the nation.  Sharlet has experience in this genre and has created a fierce and exhaustive account of the organization behind the seemingly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast.  More than that, however, The Family provides needed insight into the nebulous architecture of belief that has come to typify the modern evangelical movement in this country.  According to Sharlet, the “prayer cell” model utilized by the Family is fueled by a fundamentalist conviction that the person of Jesus should be followed, period.  Therefore, evangelical belief is (as we know) utterly unmoored from its pedigree in establishment religion… but it is also disdainfully anathema to theological dialectics which dissect and interpret the meaning (and importance) of Jesus’ life and teachings.  As such, American Christendom has become (and most assuredly is) a mechanism by which power entrenches and protects itself.

In stressing obedience to Jesus above all else, obedience itself has become the hallmark of devotion – nevermind that Jesus himself was a vaguely eschatological agent of social change.  Two days ago I listened to a radio preacher speak ad nauseam about the ironclad truth of Romans 13:1 (a verse Sharlet fully explicates in the context of the fundamentalist ethos).  He [the radio preacher] left no room for interpretation: “The authorities that exist have been established by God.”  No exceptions.  No legalisms.  No moderate interpretation.  No secular influence allowed.  The only caveat: “…now, this doesn’t mean that those who possess authority will act in a Godly manner.  Only that the authority they possess comes from God!”  Whew.  This means, of course, that when in doubt… well, trusting in authority is synonymous with trusting in God.  Man is the head of the household.  The President is the head of the country.  Obedience to this (and all) authority is nothing less than a form of worship.  Hence, power entrenches and protects itself.

During the last few days I’ve been reading through the New Testament Gospels (thus far I’ve only gotten through Matthew, Mark, and half of Luke).  I’ve also been watching an old Frontline series about the history of Jesus and Christianity.  Both make this important point:

…this holy man winds up in Jerusalem and winds up executed by the authorities, probably as a trouble maker, somebody who's best off dead, rather than alive because alive who knows what may happen? He's a threat to the social order. He's best off executed.  This is how Christianity begins. It very rapidly turns into something different.

Personally, I don’t see hypocrisy in the transition of rebel into overlord.  We know it’s not unusual; that it is, in fact, the normative evolution of social institutions (even Thomas Franks wrote about this in Commodify your Dissent).  Eventually, however, forces rise up to offer a counter-revolution.  This is what is so insidious about religious fundamentalism: it counters its own revolution.  Jesus = Water.  Christianity = Coke.  Christian Fundamentalism = New Coke.  Everyone hated New Coke.

Medieval America

I've been spending the last few days reading Jane Mayer's new book, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals.  (Here's a brief interview with the author).  It's yet another fantastically well written exposé of executive and bureaucratic malfeasance that will undoubtedly go unread by those who need to read it most; namely, anyone who ever gazed admiringly at the words, "take the gloves off."

 

The writing itself is terse, clear, unrelenting and supremely confident.  As a result, it stimulates an intellectual and emotional outrage which is wholly warranted, entirely justified, and (at least in this reader) unforgivably anesthetized by years of media and governmental complicity.  

 Here's a quote that got me thinking:

At this point, a remarkable internal rebellion broke out on the island.  It was led not by political opponents of the Bush Administration, nor by human rights activists, but rather by seasoned professional law-enforcement and military men who were appalled at the direction the government was taking.

I understand why she phrased this the way she did.  However, it says something about how deaf our collective ears have become to "political opponents of the Bush Administration" and "human rights activists," as if it is understood, prima facie, that these are categories which are mutually exclusive from "seasoned professional law-enforcement and military men."  The more I read about CIA "black sites", the infamous "torture memos", and other ghastly blights on our national character, the more convinced I become that the great political error of the Bush Administration is shared in equal parts with its surrogates, advocates, and sympathizers in the Republican Party: they all viewed "liberals" as anti-American enemies of their own particular brand of patriotism, rather than as the only committed defenders of certain bedrock principles of American history and law.  In other words, they misunderestimated (and misunderstood) their principle domestic political rivals.

Savvy observers of politics understand why Barack Obama is seen as a restorative candidate.  It's not all about a botched war or a sick economy; it's also about an administration which has done more harm to our country's character and ideals than any bomb-wielding terrorists ever has.

UPDATE: NYT Book Review.

Amazon Kindle - First Impressions

I've been using my Kindle for about four days now. Like any relatively new piece of technology, its presence on my person has generated some curiosity among the baristas and restaurant staffers in my neighborhood; a happy development given that my former, Kindle-less self never generated the slightest hint of curiosity or conversation. It's like a puppy for recluses and lonesome bastards who are too cowardly to initiate human contact without the aid of props. Additionally, it has the added benefit of being an expensive luxury item which holds little interest for potential thieves (thievery and literacy being unlikely bedfellows.)

As for the specifics of design and functionality, most of the other reviews are correct. Anyone who is considering buying a Kindle probably won't be too taken aback by what they end up getting – so long as they've taken the time to read about the device's pros and cons. Nevertheless, there are a few things that I expected but was nonetheless surprised by:

• There are buttons all over the damn thing and you can't treat it like other reading material; it requires delicacy and nimbleness to use.
• The default typeface is tedious. If you want a rich experience with a well-designed piece of text, buy a book from a publisher who takes pride in their craftsmanship. The Kindle delivers content, not graceful textual design.
• The library of available texts from Amazon.com is pathetically small. They currently boast "more than 120,000 books available." Don't be fooled. That's a shit selection. Check it out. There are some good titles, to be sure, but if you read a great deal you'll quickly find that what you want is often not available. While there are free (or extremely cheap) copies of digital texts available through other sites, it's a safe bet that the integrity of those texts will be compromised.
• The absence of page numbers is more problematic than I had anticipated. Although there are features to compensate for this, intra-textual references are hidebound to print. Even those that aren't are sometimes difficult to navigate. One of the books I'm currently reading is Bad Money by Kevin Phillips, which constantly references tables and charts printed in locations throughout the text; locations that would be easy as pie to flip to in the print edition but nearly impossible to find on a Kindle without accessing the "search" feature. (Tables and charts, incidentally, are readable but barely so.)

On the positive side, I enthusiastically endorse the following:

• Easy and unimpeded access to Wikipedia. This is an excellent function, especially for those of us who are addicted to supplementary reference sources.
• The dictionary. While all computers have this, it's something that no book does – and I've already accessed it repeatedly. Look up a word immediately without seriously interrupting your reading. Awesome.
• The search feature is universal – it will search your entire Kindle for all instances of a word or phrase. Again, this is a way of life for computers, but a substantive improvement over my actual physical library. Plus, you can cut and paste passages from the Kindle for later use (e-mailing, blogging, reference, etc.).
• I have been pleasantly surprised by how much more I enjoy short-form content on the Kindle. Generally speaking, I'm a huge fan of big books (I love the value implicit in paying $14.95 for over 1,000 pages of text). However, the Kindle is ideal for essays, speeches, articles and other short works. I uploaded digital versions of Moyers on Democracy by Bill Moyers, and the May issue of The Atlantic - both are perfect fits for this device.

I have no idea if this is just a blip in the history of technology, or whether I'll still be using it a year from today, but right now I'd recommend it as a fun experiment. Especially if you really like to read.

ADDENDUM: The Future of Reading (A Play in Six Acts) via Crooked Timber.