The Anatomy of Influence - Literature as a Way of Life (Harold Bloom, 2011)

This is a very recent book that has received great reviews and is appearing on a number of "best of" lists for 2011.  The author has taught at Yale for decades while also being a very well-known (though not to me) literary critic. 

I found the book very interesting - but I still don't know why, because I simply don't understand what he's talking about most of the time.  This is an entirely different level of engagement with literature.

The basic premise here - and in other of his works - is the role of "influence" - how writers were influenced by others.  But I can't follow the influence threads very well; perhaps because much of the book is focused on poetry, which is a foreign land to me.

And he keeps talking about things that are inscrutable to me (and, I suspect, unhelpful):  gnosticism, Lucretianism, etc.

Something I liked: he's 80 and recently experienced very poor health - this comes through - he suspects this is his last hurrah, probably isn't filtering opinions, etc.

Something that was clear to me:  I need to take another run at Shakespeare.  This author just loves Shakespeare - he ranks him way above all others (giving Walt Whitman somewhat similar acclaim in the American market).  And he quotes plenty of others who share his views of Shakespeare.  Emerson said, "He [Shakespeare] wrote the text of modern life."  Bloom:  "I can think of no one except Shakespeare and Montaigne who has such wisdom beyond tendentiousness." Bloom:  "The miracle of Shakespearean representation is its contaminating power:  one hundred major characters and a thousand adjacent figures throng our streets and sidle into our lives." Now that's influence.

Bloom:  "I keep returning to Shakespeare in the chapters that follow not because I am a Bardolator (I am) but because he is inescapable for all who came after, in all nations of the world except France, where Stendhal and Victor Hugo went against their country's neoclassical rejection of what was regarded as dramatic 'barbarism'."  That quote sounds cool but I need to think more about what the last part means.

Bloom thinks "Nostromo" is Conrad's best book:  good choice.  He admires Proust, Milton, quite a few others.

So I will start spending some time with Shakespeare.  Not sure I care about exploring Whitman's stuff, maybe later. 

And maybe I'll read this book again in a decade or so and see if it makes some sense to me.

Railroaded - The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America (Richard White, 2011)

Brand new book, very well reviewed.  Usually I'm very careful about book selection - far too many from which to choose, time is precious, and I feel guilty if I don't finish a book once I start it (which is odd when you think about it).

Made a selection mistake this time, so this was the unusual case where I happily dumped the book (after 150 or so pages in this instance).  The title - "Railroaded" - perhaps should have tipped me off.  The author came across like a New York Times editorial page contributor - he seemed unduly proud of having discovered the thoroughly unoriginal notion that government officials and large-scale businesses look out for each other (with demonization focused on the business side, of course).

I don't get tired of reading about the manner in which railroads transformed societies worldwide, and I was hoping the book would be interesting in that direction.

But no.

Faust, Part I (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, preliminary 1806, revised 1828)

Goethe's version (Penguin paperback here) of a well-known tale with centuries-old roots.  It's interesting that Goethe (bio here) was struggling with the story for much of his adult life - Part II wasn't even published until after his death.  Part I came out in preliminary form in 1806 and was issued in revised form in 1828.  So "different" Goethes were working on different parts of the work.

I ordinarily don't read plays, and have trouble getting through them.  Should work on that.  But this one was short.  Faust is frustrated with his inability to possess knowledge; cuts the famous bargain with the devil (signed with a drop of blood, per picture); starts hanging out with Mephistopheles and having various adventures (including the scene where wine is tapped from the barroom table); corrupts Gretchen; kills Gretchen's brother; attends the witch-gathering; seeks to spring Gretchen; etc.

The devil seems to be the most "human" character in these types of stories, which I find interesting.

Numerous stage versions, numerous adaptations.  I think the critics generally considered this a great work though flawed in construction, I read that Part II doesn't flow well.

Comedy in a Minor Key (Hans Keilson, 1947)

English translation only in 2010, so this is but recently available.  And well reviewed.

Simple, short story ("novella") about a married Dutch couple (Wim and Marie) who agreed to hide a Jew (known as Nico) in an upstairs bedroom.  They don't really run into serious problems while doing so, though the author does a great job helping us understand what all that might have felt like - the effect on the hidden; the effect on the hiders; the tension associated with little things like dealing with the cleaning lady, the milkman, visiting relatives; listening to the bombers fly overhead on their way from bases in Britain to targets inside Germany; dealing with Netherlands policemen who can be more or less helpful to the Nazi occupiers; etc.  Wim and Marie were simple, kind, people.

Then there is a problem - Nico dies (he wasn't in great health and caught pneumonia).  Disposing of the body led to a situation that involved a complete shift of perspective for Wim and Marie, one that gave them a glimpse into what had become Nico's world.

Which I think is very helpful to think about.  (This type of shift probably could happen, beneficially, more in my day-to-day life if I keep my eyes open.)

This book offers another instructive perspective on what I would tend to characterize as "peripheral" players in WWII-era Europe.  But really, what's peripheral about these characters??

Things like this must have happened in Luxembourg?

1945 - The War That Never Ended (Gregor Dallas, 2005)

This was a very helpful companion to Tony Judt's work; both focus on the end of WWII in Europe with an eye toward political repercussions in the immediate postwar era (though Judt's book then discussed developments all the way up to 2005).  These books are useful to me because I don't know much about this topic - have read lots about the war and the battles, while these end-game maneuverings had far more significant long-term consequences.

Retouched?  Woman looks odd.

One essential message is that postwar Europe - notwithstanding rhetoric - was defined by movements of the armies and, in particular, where the armies stopped.  As Judt noted - wider gaps in the Balkans, meaning freer play among local warring groups which has continued pretty much until this day.

Thoughts:

1.  More discussion than I've read anywhere else about France - the collaborators, the way the French themselves mistreated the Jews amongst them (not that this distinguished the French from other countries), the Communists jockeying for position (not that this distinguished the French from other countries), de Gaulle, etc.

2.  More discussion than I've read anywhere else about Poland - just awful.  In general, it was a very bad thing to be anywhere near the movements of the German and Russian armies.  Poor Poland - the treatment of its large Jewish population, the "uprising", the destruction of Warsaw, the irrelevance of the government-in-exile.

3.  As Judt discussed well - the weird way that time almost stopped for countries trapped behind what came to be known as the Iron Curtain.  These were in central Europe historically - now it became known as "Eastern Europe" - isolated, different.

4.  The wide swath of Western apologists for Communism.  Yes, Russia was a key ally; and socialism/Communism features awesome-sounding slogans and hadn't yet been thoroughly discredited - but still, it took some willful blindness to overlook what had been happening in Russia.  Lots of folks were believers, or at least found it convenient to believe.  Folks like Orwell saw through it (which made this all the more interesting), as did Churchill; most did not. 

5.  The Nazis were amazing killers - the ramp-up in Jew-killing was impressive - but they were amateurs compared to Stalin.  This book discusses the use of slave labor, prison camps, etc.

6.  Beveridge and the birth of the welfare state in Britain - promises that can't be kept, but they certainly sound appealing.

7.  How the back-and-forth of the armies drove "resistance" movements or "partisans" - or "traitors" for that matter.  As German army swept eastward, many defecting Russians; some partisan Russians pressured Germans from behind.  As Russian army pushed westward - process reversed itself.   

Lots to think about.  A minor criticism - I didn't find the book particularly well organized - it jumps around.  That being said, I'm not sure how one could better organize all these threads.  It's a complex set of circumstances that defies simplistic organization.

Plutarch's Lives, Vol. 1 (early second century A.D.) (The Dryden Translation, 1683)

This has to be the very definition of a "classic."  Written in the 100s A.D.; read by everyone claiming to be educated over the centuries (OK, in the west, that is); on every bookshelf where folks could afford to own books; this edition happens to be the Dryden translation (though updated) that introduced Plutarch to English speakers in the late 17th century.  750 pages, so it took awhile to work through at the gym.  Well worth it.

I think it is neat that someone like Montaigne was so fond of the book (in late 16th century).  Not to mention the fictional Cecile in one of my favorite books; her father had Cecile read to him from Plutarch in the evenings (and the Quebec nuns thought this might why be she didn't turn out to be quite as pious as they had hoped) (early 20th century book set in late 17th/early 18th century). Shakespeare used it for "Julius Caesar" and "Antony and Cleopatra".  Etc. - the only source for much information from classical times (if not always consistent and accurate).

Plutarch's three-part method for the "parallel lives" is famous - he selects a leading figure from Greece and provides a short biography, then a biography of a leading figure from Rome, then a brief comparison of the two. (Even if they don't always match up all that closely.)

A few thoughts:

1.  He is interested in the character of the "biographees" - how this helped or hurt them in the long run; hoping this would be didactic for the reader.  Then there is a famous passage in the midst where he allows that the extended consideration of character issues as he writes the biographies is at least as value to him personally as to his intended audience.

2.  The traditional Roman virtues were breaking down, but he does continue to emphasize how successful leaders were circumspect in offering the appropriate sacrifices, obtaining (and following) interpretation of dreams, omens, etc.; augury is presented as incredibly important.

3.  The virtues of thrift; the many leaders that succumbed to avarice; how even virtuous leaders often were brought low, often by schemers back home while the leader was off on some successful military campaign.

4.  Biographies go all the way back to Theseus and Romulus and other figures from legendary times.

5.  I'm always struck by the sophisticated analyses of human nature and political structures in these classical writers - our politicians, not to mention the electorate, could get some useful perspective from reading these things.  In the biography of Lycurgus, for example, a great discussion of monarchy, dangers of popular opinion, strength/weakness of a senate-like body.  As in this book in the context of Athens - much discussion of populism, masses against elites, voting oneselves handouts (with consequences), debt relief (where interest exceeded principal owed).

6.  All the famous characters from antiquity are here, too many to list.  Solon.  Themistocles (ships v. Persia, later banished), Alcibiades, Pericles, Marcus Cato (self-control, austerity).  The story (in the biography of Flaminus) of the shout of joy (by Greeks upon restoration of their city) that caused crows to fall down dead, with Plutarch's speculations on the "why."  Pyrrhus ("one other such [victory] would utterly undo him").  Cimon.  Lucullus fighting all over Asia (and his soldiers tiring as Alexander's had).

Shouldn't be missed.  More readable than expected.  Even the dated translation works well.

Animal Farm (George Orwell, 1946)

The story is familiar.

The inevitable end-point of centralized political/ideological control:  "All animals are equal.  But some are more equal than others."  Boxer's death - compelling. 

I haven't read this since high school.  I'm sure it was quite interesting in high school - but (as often when I think of books read back then) - I wonder what I then thought of it.  I pretty much read it in an information vacuum.  Now - nigh 40 years later - have had the benefit of much more reading about Russia, Communism, the Spanish Civil War, political environment when this was written in the 1940s.  Maybe I get half of Orwell's allusions now?  What percentage did I get in high school (when I wouldn't have even known about Leon Trotsky)?  What percentage if I read this again in 20 years?

Another thing I hadn't realized was the extent of Orwell's commitment to socialism - given the nature of the book, I would have assumed he opposed.  But the foreword to this edition indicates that he was then a true believer - had fought in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the Soviet-supported government against the Nazi (fascist)-supported rebels - but left after seeing the murderous nature of the Russian "support."  Animal Farm was supposed to debunk the myth of the Russian version of socialism, to help prospects in other socialist systems. 

Good .  Short.  Effective.

Les Miserables (Victor Hugo, 1862)

It's a pretty wonderful thing to be able to read a book like this.  It's fascinating to think about how many folks have read it since its 1862 release (an immediate sensation), the variety of stage and movie adaptations, etc.  The preface indicated that the very first full-length feature film in the United States - in 1905 - was Les Miserables.

I am again struck with how reading at a reasonably steady clip enriches pretty much every experience.  As just one example - each book enriches the reading of future books.  The opportunity  to read quite a bit about France certainly enhanced the experience of reading Les Miserables.  (Though the book obviously works very well no matter what the reader brings to it!)

Hugo's work helps pull together many of the 19th century threads in French history.

I of course have many impressions of this work from the stage play (and listening to the CD) - one can see phrases in the book that became lyrics.  Even if there are quite a few changes in the stage play.

Basically, a 1200-page canvas permits Hugo to do so many things - in-depth development of so many characters in multiple settings over a multi-year period; lengthy digressions on a wide variety of topics; etc.    

It's interesting that he sets the scenes in the barricades in 1832 - Hugo had experienced the far-more-significant 1848 upheavals first-hand (and even went into voluntary exile when Napoleon III took power in 1852), and certainly the 1830 situation (which brought Louis Philippe to power) was more compelling.

The 1832 insurrection, or riot, never really went anywhere.  Something that I didn't really like in the stage play was what felt like a glorification of the barricades - while so much of what went on seemed needlessly violent, mixed motives, etc.  The book is much more nuanced on this subject - very interesting reflections on the diference between riot, insurrection, revolution.

Hugo evolved from royalist to republican over the years.  Some of his digressions go into how crowds form, why the population becomes disenchanted, etc.  Sophisticated discussion (around p. 690 in this edition) regarding the same issues being pushed around today (including by the "Occupy Wall Street" posers) - how to create an equitable system - he's careful to say it shouldn't be equal, or no one would work - prescient.  

I'm always amazed at how well-read these authors were - dropping references all over the place to historical events, the classics, other books, etc.  This translation included 130 delightful pages of footnotes (on top of the 1200 pages of the novel) - fascinating!  I'm reading Plutarch's Lives at the gym right now and had been struck with the fabulous response of the Gauls to the Romans (in bio of Fabius) when questioned about taking territory; Hugo weaves it into one of the allusions in this book (p. 896).  And so many more.

Oh, and then there's the story itself - Thenardier, Fantine, Eponine, Gavoche, the group of revolutionaries (repeating all of the utopian tropes that no longer sound fresh, at all) , Marius, his grandfather, Mabeuf, the bishop (Digne), the old conventionist (the bishop requests "your blessing"), the gang of crooks, Javert, Cosette, Jean Valjean, etc.  Digressions on every angle - Paris neighborhoods, French history, the convent, reflections on the strict monastic life (Hugo = not impressed), reflections on the Paris sewers(!).  On and on.

I was very nervous during the scene where Thenardier and the other crooks were capturing "Monsieur Leblanc" and Marius was watching through the wall.

I liked Hugo's lengthy description of the Waterloo battlefield and the circumstances of the battle; reminded me of Vanity Fair.   That battle mattered to folks.

Postwar - A History of Europe Since 1945 (Tony Judt, 2005)

This book is remarkably useful.

I am captivated by European history in general - but never had much of an interest in anything following WWII.  I think this is because I lived through most of this history - it didn't seem as exotic or interesting.  What a mistaken view.

Judt gave me all sorts of information and ideas.  This book - 900 pages - is so thoroughly dog-eared that I'm going to have to go through it and fix things as best I can before returning it to the library.  (That is, after I buy a copy so I can put those dog-ears into my own copy.)

There are so many things going on - and much of this is helpful in interpreting European developments (including, among others, today's headlines about the troubles in the Euro-zone).

1.  When read about in the context of the post-war doings, I'm struck with the thought that the extent of the 20th century carnage in Europe was even greater than I've imagined.  No wonder Europeans were not interested in going back to war, focused on economic union, etc.  Especially with the US providing a security blanket and the USSR (not to mention Germany itself) providing a common threat.  The 30-year war (1914-1945) was devastating, beyond belief.

2.  As part of the carnage - minority populations within states often had been exterminated, migrated away, swapped with other states - the diversity within the European states was a fraction of what had existed in 1900.  What an odd thought - this probably assisted stability in the immediate postwar years  Exceptions:  states like Yugoslavia and elsewhere in the Balkans, where at-odds populations still clustered together.  (Of course new minorities (Islamic) have since arrived throughout Europe.)

3.  The extent of collaboration with the Nazis was much greater than the official narratives suggested.  France, the Netherlands, Norway - go through the list - if collaborators were disqualified, the countries couldn't have operated post-war.  There was conscious forgetting - necessary to move forward.  But created backlashes later, slowly leading to generally-helpful public recognition of what went on.  This story is still unfolding.

4.  Particularly true (and necessary) in Germany itself - conscious forgetting ruled the day.  Former Nazis or Nazi sympathizers continued to run the country for the most part, with a few surviving Nazi opponents also involved.

(I will say it's difficult to be terribly judgmental as to the collaborators - who can say what that situation was like?  Pushing back was generally futile, not to mention dangerous to one's health - and to the health of one's family and townspeople.  How did people cope??)

5.  Germany's economic importance to postwar Europe was recognized immediately - accompanied by continuing fear of Germany, and fear that it would backslide into aggression.  No one admitted it publicly, but both East and West ended up preferring the split Germany that emerged.

6.  The social bargain in England - Beveridge plan - seeking security and peace at home through the state taking over functions - predictable difficult results - then Thatcherism - backlash - now facing a welfare state expense load with less dynamic economy, culture of dependence and entitlement.

The people that endured wars and rebuilt Europe in miraculous manner - now seem entirely drained of initiative.

7.  A version of the England story all over Europe - interesting implications for the US as we debate how far to go with the welfare state.

8.  The various pacts that led to the European Union.  Bribing farmers to reach a deal (especially in France) - a critical problem even today.  Diminishing voter interest nowadays - too disconnected from Brussels bureaucrats.  Concerns about common currency for weak countries expressed from the very beginning (coming home to roost now).

9.  Communism hanging on in the East - just an amazing set of stories.  How could countries be frozen in time like this?  (I say this, yet there are frozen-in-time, backward dictatorships all over the world, to this day.)

10.  Communism finally unmasked even to its sympathizers - easy to see why no one believes in it (except on college campuses). The fall of Communism - almost unbelievable to recall how a terrifying power structure basically dropped overnight like the proverbial house of cards. 

11.  Owning up to what happened with the Jews seemed to be particularly difficult - many countries tried to fold the Jewish extermination into the larger national stories of mistreatment at Nazi hands (which stories were indeed quite awful in their own right).  But the Jewish extermination was truly different both qualitatively and quantitatively - and often assisted (or even led) by local populations rather than the Nazis.  Very belated recognition; I think this helps explain why the topic receives so much attention today - to the point of overload for some - it was hidden/ignored for so long.

The amazingly quick economic recovery; the end of European wars; notwithstanding plenty of problems and challenges, the post-war story is pretty impressive.

Judt is extremely readable - and covering this much territory over so many years had to be a daunting task.  I feel he is pretty balanced, though I don't know the subject matter well enough to judge.  He does take several gratuitous shots at GW Bush toward the end of the narrative which probably illuminates his politics. 

I liked this, a lot.

Crime and Punishment (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 1866)

I hadn't ever read this famous work.  I can see why it's so well-regarded.  I was positively nervous throughout the entire book (well, except perhaps during the entertaining passage when Luzhin's erstwhile friend serves as a caricature for liberal/progressive thought that rings as true today as it must have in 1866).

This book (and this book) had interesting discussions about Romanticism, including the idea of the man-above-history; how Napoleon was despised for his actions yet revered for his "above history" status.  In "Crime and Punishment," the protagonist (Raskolnikov) compares himself to Napoleon, and (in an overwrought mental state) commits a crime in an unsuccessful effort to prove to himself that he merits the comparison.  (That being said, this book isn't categorized as "Romantic" literature, at least as I think of it, both on timing and content.)

I suppose the main feature of the book - and what made it stand out at the time - is the compelling descriptions of what was going on in Raskolnikov's head.   And others, the viewpoint shifts around sometimes.

I particularly liked that Dostoyevsky developed so many characters so well.  Sonya's drunkard father's description of the path that led to Sonya's profession is just heartbreaking.  The trials of the drunkard's well-born wife, at odds with the German landlady.  Raskolnikov's sister and mother, who come to St. Petersburg.  Luzhin, who wishes to marry Raskolnikov's sister but is a smug fool.  The lecherous Svidrigaïlov, who follows Raskolnikov's sister to St. Petersburg and plays a surprisingly large role in the story.  Raskolnikov's colleague (Razumikhin); the police detective (Porfiry); etc.

This afternoon I took a 30-minute break to finish the book, I simply couldn't wait to see how it turned out.

It was written early in Dostoyevsky's career.  In installments for magazine serialization - odd to think that so many important novels were presented in that manner.

Three Comrades - A Novel of Germany Between the Wars (Erich Maria Remarque, 1936)

Remarque is renowned, for good reason, for "All Quiet on the Western Front."  This is a much different work.  The dust jacket suggests that it focuses on three young men in the difficult times in Germany in 1928, with storm troopers swaggering in the streets as the Weimar Republic totters; one of the three falls in love. 

But the book reads much differently.  I liked it very much.

Remarque used a spare writing style to great advantage in All Quiet.  Same approach here.  He says a lot (almost 500 pages) but I think leaves a lot unsaid; leads the reader to fill in his or her own thoughts and feelings.

The description of Robert's love affair with Patricia Hallman is really well done; not necessarily what I'd expect from someone I incorrectly considered to be a military writer.  He captures the uncertainty, jealousy, companionship, wondrous-ness, etc.  As good a description as any I've read.

Robert has two close buddies from WWI:  Lenz and Koster.  They work in an auto shop and race around in "Karl."  They drink together, and look out for each other above all else.  Plenty of other characters are developed (Ferdinand the painter; Alfons, the restaurant keeper; Gustav the cab driver; the owner and working girls at the bar where Robert sometimes plays piano; the various folks in Robert's boarding house; etc.)

These three comrades survived WWI when so many of their buddies didn't; now live in an economy where acquiring any level of security or wealth is hopeless; mostly as a result of the war but also because of the postwar situation, they very much lived in the moment (with Patricia having a particular reason for doing so); it made me think about this continual balancing act, perhaps we/I focus too much on the long term in comparison.

Remarque was a big deal; was married many years to Paulette Goddard.  I had no idea Hollywood did a movie based on this (starring Robert Taylor); I liked the book so much I'm afraid to look at the movie (which could easily be mawkish).

The Fate of Africa (Martin Meredith, 2005)

I blew through this pretty quickly.  It was interesting - just intensely repetitive in terms of outcome.  The awful stories across Africa since the days of independence vary greatly by country, don't seem to vary much in terms of moving backwards.

The author pretty much just recounted the stories.  I was hoping for more analysis or explanation, and maybe even a little reason to hope that things might be getting better.  But no.  I guess it's useful to absorb some of the factual background as a starting point.

The author reports that most African countries have a lower per capita  income than in 1980 and, in some cases in 1960.

Aid workers, government workers, government cronies are the only folks that generate steady income or wealth.

This made me think about a few things:

1.  My sense is that the "bourgeois virtues" - as discussed so interestingly in this book - are almost entirely absent in Africa.  I don't know much about Africa but would guess that there wasn't a reason to develop them.  Absent the bourgeois virtues - how is wealth going to be generated there?

2.  Governments ran things in Africa - private sector basically absent.  For the most part, funds and resources have been allocated for personal and political purposes much moreso than for sound business or economic purposes.

3.  The United States and plenty of other countries are currently debating how many (more) $$ to turn over to governments - do we continue the trajectory?  Resources run through governments inevitably are allocated through politics and access.  We can talk all day about how different our situation is from Africa's, and capitalism's imperfect allocations.  But still.

There are so many awful African occurrences noted in this book.  To list a few:  Ethiopia/Mengistu/Biafra/famine. Rwanda/Burundi.  Somalia.  AIDs.  Mobutu.  Mugabe.  Sudanese civil war.  Islamist parties.  South Africa. Rhodesia.  One-party states.  Big Men rule.  Corruption, diversion of aid.  Angola.  I had forgotten how Cold War politics led to Cuba, USSR and US, among others, intervening in pointless episodes.  Ugh.  

The Bourgeois Virtues - Ethics for an Age of Commerce (Deirdre McCloskey, 2006)

I don't know quite how to characterize this book, but it certainly gave me all sorts of ideas (including many I hadn't really put together before).  About 500 pages, and I found it ok to skip/skim a bit - without derogation of the whole.  It's part of a longer series of books, and I think I should pursue more.

In this book, McCloskey notes something odd:  the merchant/bourgeoisie class regularly exhibits the classic and Christian virtues while simultaneously generating the wealth that pays for kings (or "governments", as known today), priests, artists and professors - yet is universally reviled by these groups, to the point of cliche.  McCloskey points out that this trend took root following the intellectual-led revolutions that swept across Europe in 1848.  When I think about it - Balzac, Dickens and the rest did delight in portraying the bourgeoisie as venal, grasping, etc.  Not to mention Marx et al.  And this trend has continued - almost like an accepted truth that is badly in need of being un-accepted.

(In a related vein, Larry Ribstein sometimes blogs about Hollywood's portrayal of businesspersons as almost invariably evil - he can't really explain it - speculates that the "artists" believe themselves to be the new religion/priesthood (certainly a trend since the Romantic era), and resent that movies can't be made without the funding from the low-class, money-grubbing businesspersons.  Perhaps it's the same effect as discussed in this book?)

How odd - the university community of professors and students overwhelmingly comes from bourgeois or aspire-to-bourgeois roots, and overwhelmingly return to a bourgeois lifestyle after graduation - and lives largely off bourgeois profit while in the university cocoon - and all the while revile the bourgeoisie.  

McCloskey converted to Christianity at some point in her adulthood, and doesn't make any attempt to disguise this. To her credit (Christianity not essential to the narrative, but what are referred to as the "Christian" virtues do apply outside Christianity; I prefer authors that are upfront about this kind of thing).

Some ideas:

1.  How capitalism has generated the wealth that has improved the lots of the poor - in a way that no other system has come close to accomplishing.  And is reviled for it.  Perhaps due to envy - since it is absolutely true that successful capitalists end up with more wealth than the average person.  Yet no system of kings, priests, government handouts or artists has ever come close to doing more for the poor.  Should these systems - demonstrably less effective on behalf of the poor, and certainly ineffective in achieving "equal" distribution - be favored because wealth in a capitalist system doesn't end up perfectly equally distributed, either?  See #6 below.

2.  The "evil" of profit - listen to our current president's tiresome harangues, repeating the conventional, unthinking "wisdom" - yet without "profit" - how would anything ever be paid for?  I think this has been demonstrated repeatedly.  Where would the funds come from that have raised living standards to the benefit of all (well, at least "all" who live in societies that encourage bourgeois behavior - forget communist and other state-dominated systems, for example) in the last couple centuries (or whatever measurement period applies)?

3.  The notion that persons of "noble" blood would never grub for money or hold a job - no, they earned their wealth simply by force of arms, or by inheriting wealth taken by force of arms by their ancestors.  Yet this is constantly portrayed as "honorable"!  Why?  The indolent gentlemen who disdains work and profit-seeking - worthless yet revered for so long - how was this character's positive image created and maintained for so long?  The violent conqueror of new territories - this behavior also is revered!

4.  Businesspersons do not stay in business for long unless they abide by the traditional virtues.  They can't take wealth by force, as "nobles" did and modern governments do.  They can't take wealth by "appeals" to "charity" or threats of damnation - as religions do. They thrive via voluntary exchanges - not by force.

(Can I dispense with the disclaimer that businesspersons often are dishonest, especially those looking for a quick hit rather than a long-term enterprise?  Yes, it's anything but a perfect system.  That this occurs does not disprove the benefits to society of pervasive bourgeois virtues.)

5.  The notion that artists - like the nobility - are "above" grubbing for profit.  Fine - many wonderful things are created.  But:  who finances this?  What society could indulge in serious art unless some producers generated the wealth to support it?

The crazy notion that heroes like Achilles embody the highest virtues - but this is just courage without prudence, temperance, etc. - where would that leave a society?

6.  That making profit in a capitalist system is not - notwithstanding the NY Times writers and all the other purveyors of conventional wisdom (including vote-chasing politicians) - a zero sum game.  The economy is not like a room in which a parent places two kids with 10 toys, and the stronger kid prevails at the expense of the weaker.  Voluntary exchanges typically make everyone better off, i.e. they all participate in the "profit", if at different levels.  Compare the noble requiring the peasant to turn over a big chunk of his crop (or a government expropriating assets) - much closer to zero-sum.  (Even recognizing that the peasant may have gotten some protection against others who sought to steal from him.)

7.  So many economists have gone off the rails - looking at "prudence only".  The virtues need to go beyond this - justice, temperance, and courage.  The three Christian virtues round out the group:  hope, faith, love.  You can't explain human behavior with "prudence only". 

8.  That other disciplines (in addition to economics) look to reduce behavior to a single overriding principle.  Utilitarianism. Or to reduce it to an exercise in pure reason (sound familiar from undergrad philosophy?) divorced from common sense observation of the complicated impulses of actual humans.  The ancients had it right - a blend of multiple virtues is involved.

9.  Look at the countries that haven't developed or permitted an active bourgeoisie class - have the poor (or any other class, setting aside government rent-seekers) ever been better off in these societies that were "cleansed" of the evil profit motive?

10.  Today's glorification of "non-profit" organizations - many of which merit skepticism.  Any organization not facing market discipline is in dangerous territory.

The seven virtues make a lot of sense.  Demonizing the bourgeoisie doesn't - unless you're a Huey Long type pursuing power, or a rent-seeker feeding off the Huey Longs (invariably in the name of the "little guy").

Mary Colter - Architect of the Southwest (Arnold Berke, 2002)

PJ bought this for me as a gift upon our departure from the Colter-designed La Posada during our recent (and most enjoyable) visit.  I was interested in the book primarily due to Colter's connection to La Posada and to various buildings (including Phantom Ranch) in the Grand Canyon area.  I will have a better appreciation for these upon future visits, which we surely shall make.

The book gave me lots of ideas, including:

1.  Colter grew up in Minnesota.  A chance gift stirred her interest in the Southwest.

2.    She began as a designer, and moved into architecture.  Not widely recognized during her career; the author suggests, plausibly, that this was attributable in part to her being a woman, and being perceived as a designer.

3.  It's fascinating to think that the Fred Harvey Company working in tandem with the Santa Fe Railway - both of which Colter worked for over the course of so many years - pretty much invented the American Southwest as it came to be known to decades worth of tourists, with impressions persisting to this day.  Very few roads, very limited access, very limited knowledge.  These companies marketed very effectively.  They essentially invented the widespread demand for Navajo rugs, Native American jewelry, etc.  I don't know details, but this doesn't strike me as a bad thing.  Even if some of the techniques employed then would be considered politically incorrect today.

4.  Colter didn't work on El Tovar - it was already in place.  She did work on Bright Angel Lodge, Phantom Ranch, Hermit's Rest (which we've not visited), the "watchtower" at the east rim (which we've been around but not in), and plenty of other structures in the Grand Canyon area.  She had a great knack for incorporating local styles, placing buildings into a natural setting, while meeting the marketing goals that drove the entire engine.



5.  One of her first assignments at Grand Canyon was the gift shop ("Hopi House") that sits just opposite El Tovar.  I've been in there a number of times but now need to revisit with a different eye.

6.  The book includes a long description and many great photos of La Posada in Winslow.  PJ and I just loved the place, and the descriptions help explain why.  Colter lived through the decommissioning of the building (and remarked about how sometimes folks "live too long"), but didn't see its renaissance.

7.  Interesting discussion of the rise and fall of passenger railroads.  People preferred cars.  Colter was around for the glory days - various lovely train stations roughly along the Route 66 corridor - and  the quick decline.

I liked this book a lot, and definitely will consult it as we make visits to the various Colter buildings in future years.

Gallery opportunities

Two galleries recently.  I like taking cell phone photos (click to enlarge), if lousy, to help remember what we saw.

When visiting Kerry in DC, we had a chance to stop by the National Gallery (if briefly):

Monet (Houses of Parliament)

This is not from the art gallery.  But I like it.  If I had been around in WWII, I definitely would have joined a car-sharing club.

Also not from the art gallery.  This is from the WWII Italian campaign, made me think about what Irvin Bormann probably encountered in some form.

When visiting EPG in Santa Monica, we had a chance to stop by the Getty Center:

I like the Dutch landscape folks

Detail - another Dutch landscape

Rembrandt - detail from the Abduction of Europa - I like to enlarge and look at this.

Italian - composite of the story of Joseph (Old Testament) - starting with being cast into the well in upper left corner.  The characters look like Italian merchants . . . including, perhaps, contemporary patrons . . .

El Greco

In the galleries . . .

Brueghel the Elder - animals going into the ark