Political prestige and pathetic dignity in a dying civilization

Yesterday was South Carolina’s Republican primary. Coincidentally, I also started a classic espionage novel I’ve been meaning to read for a while: A Coffin for Dimitrios, by Eric Ambler. Last night as the unwanted updates on the unwanted results of the unwanted primary slowed to a trickle I settled in to read a few more chapters before bed. And in the middle of Chapter 5 I read this:

“In a dying civilization, political prestige is the reward not of the shrewdest diagnostician, but of the man with the best bedside manner. It is the decoration conferred on mediocrity by ignorance.”

Apropos of nothing, right? After all, more than just about any other political process, a primary election is a popularity contest that is all about flattering, cajoling, and slinging enough mud to win. And winning is not the mark of distinction the candidates think it will be. Verily, they have their reward.

Ambler continues:

Yet there remains one sort of political prestige that may still be worn with a certain pathetic dignity; it is that given to the liberal-minded leader of a party of conflicting doctrinaire extremists. His dignity is that of all doomed men: for, whether the two extremes proceed to mutual destruction or whether one of them prevails, doomed he is, either to suffer the hatred of the people or to die a martyr.

Ambler was wryly describing the situation in many former Austro-Hungarian and especially Ottoman territories as part of the background plot of his novel, but the situation is instantly recognizable, not only in many other historical eras—I think immediately of Cicero—but in the present. Both major American political parties have plenty of doctrinaire extremists and doomed men to go around. But what we have too little of is that “pathetic dignity,” the attitude of the defeated who are truer to principle than to victory.

Maybe it’s my contrarianism, my commitment to a conservatism with little modern application, or my Reepicheep-like love of lost causes and last stands, but I hope to see more of that “pathetic dignity,” more people willing to lose than to flatter a terminal patient.

Seneca on internet rage

Seneca was a Stoic philosopher and teacher most famous, in the former role, for his Letters on Stoic philosophy and, in his latter role, as the personal tutor to Nero. Talk about wayward pupils. The following comes from Book III of his treatise De Ira (On Anger) in James Romm’s translation for Princeton UP, published as How to Keep Your Cool:

“[Y]our anger is a kind of madness: because you set a huge price on worthless things.”

— Seneca

Look now! Let’s examine other slights: food, and drink, and the elegance people work at for the sake of these; insulting words; gestures that don’t convey enough honor; stubborn beasts of burden and tardy slaves; suspicions and dark interpretations of someone else’s words, which make the gift of human speech into one of nature’s many injuries—believe me, these things are not serious, though we get seriously heated over them. They’re the sort of things that send young boys into fights and brawls. We pursue them so gravely, yet they hold nothing weighty or great. That’s why I tell you that your anger is a kind of madness: because you set a huge price on worthless things.

Years ago, in the early days of this blog, I shared a passage from another great ancient thinker, St Augustine of Hippo, that seemed to describe internet trolls 1600 years before the fact. Let us add this bit of Stoic insight to that file. As an acquaintance wrote to me after I rediscovered and shared this line yesterday, it’s remarkable how much of people’s behavior and reasoning on the internet can be explained by Stoic teaching on how unchecked passions over piddling things warp one’s reason.

James Romm, by the way, is also the author of Dying Every Day, an excellent book on Seneca, his relationship with his most famous student, and the way that relationship and the seeming failure of Seneca to decisively shape Nero has dogged his posthumous reputation.

Werner Herzog on psychoanalysis (and the 20th century)

Coincidental to my reading and review of Bill Watterson’s The Mysteries last weekend, today I ran across this passage on psychoanalysis from filmmaker Werner Herzog’s recent memoir Every Man for Himself and God Against All*:

“I’d rather die than go to an analyst, because it’s my view that something fundamentally wrong happens there. If you harshly light every last corner of a house, the house will be uninhabitable. It’s like that with your soul; if you light it up, shadows and darkness and all, people will become ‘uninhabitable.’ I am convinced that it’s psychoanalysis—along with quite a few other mistakes—that has made the twentieth century so terrible. As far as I’m concerned, the twentieth century, in its entirety, was a mistake.”

As in Watterson’s book, Herzog suggests here that the drive to illuminate and resolve—and, inevitably, to control—can only end in catastrophe. Food for thought.

Last year I read Herzog’s short novel The Twilight World and greatly enjoyed it. I haven’t delved deep into his filmography, which I keep meaning to correct, but his movie Invincible has proven uniquely haunting to me ever since I first watched it twenty years ago. I recommend it.

*German title: Jeder für sich und Gott gegen alle. The German-language audiobook is the only version currently available through my library. Might be a good opportunity to scrub some of the rust off my German.

The Mysteries

“‘In our world,’ said Eustace, ‘a star is a huge ball of flaming gas.’
‘Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what it is made of.’”

— CS Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

I feel like the publication of a new book by Bill Watterson, whose “Calvin and Hobbes” ended its run twenty-nine years ago and who has remained almost entirely quiet since, should be more of an event than the release of The Mysteries has proven. But then, given the book’s title and most especially its subject matter, maybe that’s appropriate. Call it a mystery, but not one of the Mysteries.

The story is simple enough. This blog post will probably end up several times longer than the entire book. The Mysteries introduces the reader to a medieval-ish world of castles and half-timber towns in which the people and their king are bounded by dark forest. The forest is the domain of the Mysteries, whom no one has ever seen but everyone knows have terrible powers. At first the people strive not to understand but to protect themselves from the Mysteries, putting huge efforts into building walls and chronicling the long history of their fears in tales and art.

Then one day the king decides to strike back against the Mysteries, dispatching knights into the forest on a quest to capture and bring back a Mystery. After a long stretch of futile searching, one knight succeeds, returning with an iron box chained to a cart.

At last, a Mystery is revealed—and the people discover that there’s not, apparently, very much to them. Their fearful powers turn out to be “mundane.” And capturing one Mystery opens the way to capturing others, to the point that the people not only lose their fear of the Mysteries but come to find them boring. One clever illustration shows a medieval newspaper stall full of headlines like “YAWN.”

Then, the Mysteries understood and no longer feared or the object of much attention at all, the people demolish their walls, cut down the forest, and overspread the land. They mock the old paintings inspired by the Mysteries. They now live in a world of jet aircraft and skyscrapers and the king no longer appears on the balcony of his castle but on TV or behind the wheel of a car on a busy freeway, drinking a Big Gulp. At last, the narrator tells us, they control everything.

Or do they? The sky turns strange colors and, ominously, “things” start “disappearing.” The king assures them that this is normal, wizards study the phenomena, and life continues apace. Then, “too late,” the people realize that they’re in trouble. An indifferent universe wheels on.

In the final pages the viewpoint of the illustrations pulls back farther and farther from the people and their conquered land, into space, beyond the solar system and the Milky Way. “The Mysteries,” the story concludes, “lived happily ever after.”

One notable aspect of The Mysteries is that although Watterson wrote the story, it is illustrated by caricaturist John Kascht. Watterson and Kascht worked on the pictures in close collaboration for several years, experimenting with and abandoning many styles before arriving at an atmospheric, unsettlingly dreamlike aesthetic combining clay figures, cardboard scenery, and painted backdrops. The effect is powerfully eerie, especially as the pace of the story accelerates and the fairytale world at the beginning of the book gives way to one that resembles, disconcertingly, our own.

If the pictures are murky, moody, and ambiguous, often more allusive than concrete, so is the story. This, according to Watterson, is by design. I’m not typically one for deliberate ambiguity, but it works brilliantly here. This “fable for grownups,” as the publisher describes it, achieves a timelessness through its strangely specific soft-focus art and a broad applicability through its theme.

And what is that? The most obvious and easy referent to the consequences the people face in the book’s closing pages is climate change, whether anthropogenic or not. But The Mysteries is not an allegory but a fable. To narrow its message, if it has one, to a policy issue is to cheapen and limit it.

The core theme of The Mysteries is disenchantment. Since the Scientific Revolution uncovered the wheels and levers of the universe and the Enlightenment insisted that the wheels and levers were all there is, was, or ever will be, the mysteries of our own world have retreated further and further from our imaginations and the place we once gave them in our daily lives. The powers that once kept people within their walled towns have been banished—or rather seized and repurposed, put to work for the people’s desires. Fear or, to put it more positively, awe of the world has given place to self-assured technical mastery. We control everything.

Or do we?

The Mysteries is probably not what anyone anticipating the return of Bill Watterson would have expected. I was certainly surprised, but pleasantly. As befits the creator of “Calvin and Hobbes,” a work that prized imagination above all else, The Mysteries treads lightly but surefootedly across deep ideas, and powerfully suggests that whatever Mysteries once lived in the forest, we have not sufficiently understood them to warrant our boredom, apathy, and self-indulgence, and we certainly are not free of them. We are, in fact, in graver danger through our indifference to the Mysteries than we ever were when we feared them.

Signs of life?

The scene of the crime

Yesterday and today I got to make my first visits to a brick-and-mortar bookstore in a while, the two Barnes & Noble stores just north of me in Greenville. After Thursday’s post I visited them with the concept of censorship—real censorship which, per Alan Jacobs, most properly “refer[s] to the removal, by some legal or commercial authority, of certain portions of a text or film or recording”—nibbling at the back of my mind.

As I’ve written before, there is a trend of deleting or altering portions of the work of both living and long-dead authors either to meet the demands of social media mobs or to forestall future such mobs. In a post about Agatha Christie and the diluting effect of the reign of Content, I mentioned looking at a copy of one of her books a few years ago and seeing a content warning and an admission that the publisher had changed the book. As I noted then, “I didn’t buy that book. It wasn’t the one Christie wrote.” Since I was back in the bookstore where that anecdote took place, I decided to look into this problem again.

The books in question are recent reprints of Agatha Christie mysteries from Vintage Books, which feature beautiful cover art and type design. The new Vintage edition of Poirot Investigates, a short story collection, was published in 2021 and includes the following special note on the first page, before the reader even reaches the table of contents:

This book was first published in 1925. Like many books of its era, it contains some offensive cultural representations and language that detract—and distract—from the value of the work. Accordingly, editorial changes have been made in a handful of places to remove racist language and depictions, but for the most part this classic work is reproduced as originally published.

This is the note to which I responded, in that blog post, that “For the most part is doing a lot of work there.”

But in the 2023 Vintage edition of Christie’s Poirot novel The Big Four this note has migrated to the smaller print of the copyright page and reads like this:

A Note on the Text: This book was published in 1927 and reflects the attitudes of its time, including outdated cultural representation and language. Minor editorial changes have been made in a few places to remove offensive terms, but for the most part this classic work is reproduced as originally published.

Note the lack of any attempt to make artistic claims regarding allegedly offensive words “detract[ing] and distract[ing]” from “the value of the work,” a crass utilitarian turn of phrase that has rightly disappeared. And the remaining verbiage hedges a bit more: “minor editorial changes” still “have been made,” passively, but there is no charge of “racist language,” just “outdated” and “offensive” terms. But these are tiny improvements. Outdated is the language of chronological snobbery de rigueur, and I think offense should be in the eye of the beholder—and of course Christie’s work has still been altered.

But a note of hope creeps in with the new year. In the brand new 2024 Vintage edition of The Mystery of the Blue Train, the copyright page includes this:

A Note on the Text: This book was published in 1928 and reflects the attitudes of its time. The publisher’s decision to present it as it was originally published is not intended as endorsement of cultural representations or language contained herein.

That’s more like it. While I’d still prefer publishers to leave the texts of dead authors alone and just expect their readers to read like grownups, I greatly appreciate Vintage deciding to publish Christie unexpurgated and owning the decision to do so. No “minor editorial changes” are being made (by whom?) here; the publisher decided. A good strong statement, and one that I hope sets a pattern going forward.

Relatedly, this afternoon I happened upon a Vintage reprint of Raymond Chandler’s Farewell, My Lovely, part of its Black Lizard crime novel series. Vintage has published Chandler for some time, but this was a newish reprint with a foreword by James Ellroy copyrighted 2022. This edition had the following Publisher’s Note facing the copyright page:

Dear Reader,
Thirty years ago Vintage Books acquired Black Lizard, adding some of the greatest crime fiction from the postwar era to a list that already boasted the best noir fiction. The new imprint, Vintage Crime/Black Lizard, published the foremost in crime and noir—books that epitomized the genre as well as those that reshaped it and pushed it in new directions. These are the novels that have been an inspiration to subsequent writers, and modern crime remains in dialogue with them.
While these books are outstanding works in the genre, they are also firmly of the time and place in which they were written. These novels may contain outdated cultural representations and language. We present the works as originally published. We hope that you enjoy discovering, or rediscovering, these classics.
Sincerely,
The Publisher

At first I thought that this was a bit much, with a cringing protest-too-much tone that I didn’t care for, but upon reflection I appreciated the subtle appeal to tradition and continuity within a genre and the firm acknowledgement that every genre has masterworks that deserve to be read and admired. And the ownership of publishing a book as written, even more directly here than in The Mystery of the Blue Train owing to the use of the first person, is most welcome.

So I’m hopeful. A bit, at any rate. All of these examples come from just one publisher, after all.

And, looking elsewhere, there is still much work to be done. William Morrow has just reissued the entire corpus of Ian Fleming Bond novels in rather bland-looking paperbacks with the following at the top of their copyright pages:

This book was written at a time when terms and attitudes which might be considered offensive by modern readers were commonplace. A number of updates have been made in this edition, while keeping as close as possible to the original text and the period in which it is set.

Good: placing the onus of offense on the modern reader. Bad: “updates,” as if Fleming’s carefully crafted stories are a glitchy app from a tech startup run by twenty-year olds. As it happens, whoever bowdlerized the books did a comically unthorough job of it.

I don’t know if this is the start of a reversal or just a lonely temporary reprieve from the madness affecting the publishing industry over the last few years, but I pray it’s the former. It’s worth keeping an eye on and, of course, hoping.

Doing the book-ban shuffle

Over the weekend I took my sons to an old-fashioned barbershop for haircuts and a glass-bottled Coke. I also introduced them to a joy I had almost forgotten—the old-fashioned comics pages (“funnies,” as my granddad called them) in an old-fashioned Sunday newspaper.

Something that was not old-fashioned was the theme of Sunday’s “Pearls Before Swine,” one of my favorite daily strips when I was in college. Here are the two opening panels:

Notice the little definitional shuffle from panel one to panel two. The news anchor mentions books being removed from libraries. Goat asks about banning books.

These are not the same thing.

Naturally, “Pearls” being “Pearls,” contemplation of the purported danger of certain books is just a clever setup for an absurdist subversion at the end. Read the whole strip for a good laugh. But precisely this imprecision—the confusion of bans and censorship with local decisions about what is and is not on the shelf of a library—is endemic now.

Alan Jacobs had a good post on this subject back in the fall, when there was an epidemic not of books being banned but of self-regarding people congratulating themselves on their superiority to the imagined reactionary troglodytes who want books banned. (Look at the comments section on that “Pearls” strip for a representative sample. Everyone seems to know that it’s precisely the people they don’t like who are the worst about this.) Responding to just such an essayist who had boasted of her habit of “intentionally purchasing and reading books that are banned” and who linked to a list of such books, Jacobs wrote:

The problem here is that none, literally not one, of the books on the list [she] links to have been banned. Neither have they been “censored,” which is what the article linked to says. That’s why [she] can buy and read them: because they’ve been neither banned nor censored. 

What has happened is this: Some parents want school libraries to remove from their shelves books that they (the parents) think are inappropriate for their children to read. You may think that such behavior is mean-spirited or otherwise misconceived—very often it is!—but has nothing to do with either banning or censorship. 

This is partly pure linguistic sloppiness—the same problem that causes people to treat the words racism, bigotry, and prejudice as interchangeable. Sloppiness is bad enough, but it also proves advantageous to people who may know better but have political axes to grind. So when one mom complains about books in a local school library and the school decides to retain them, partisans can claim the governor of that state—who is otherwise entirely unrelated to this local non-story—is personally banning books and who does that remind you of?

Notice that that Snopes article I linked to still does the little book-ban two-step at the end by invoking a supposed “rise” in “censorship” in the state in question, though. More on that below. But Jacobs’s point stands. Here’s more from him:

In a sane world, the term “ban” would be reserved for books whose sale and circulation are illegal in some given place, and “censorship” would refer to the removal, by some legal or commercial authority, of certain portions of a text or film or recording. (I say “commercial” authority because sometimes companies that own the rights to works of art decide, without legal pressure, to delete some lyrics in a song or change certain words in a book.) But thanks to people who want to smear their RCOs [Repugnant Cultural Others], it is now common to use precisely the same words to describe (a) what the nation of Iran did to Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and (b) a polite letter from a parent to a school librarian asking that books that offer anatomically detailed descriptions of sexual practices not be readily available to third graders.

As it happens, there is actual censorship of the kind Jacobs describes happening in the United States, but it’s not much-hated state governors pushing for it. And what do you know? Here’s a book that has been removed from sale by a serious commercial authority. But somehow I don’t see the people who buy “Fight Evil, Read Books” totes lining up to demand a copy.

Jacobs concludes with what should be an indisputable statement of truth: “This failure to make elementary distinctions is neither politically nor intellectually healthy.” But as long as this kind of sloppiness remains politically advantageous there will be no incentive to correct it. None.

Regarding the much-commented upon “rise” in censorship, bans, or whatever you want to deceptively call them, the ALA, which has proven adept at political axe-grinding, has helped manufacture this impression, dangling the specter of hillbilly theocrats banning Maus or whatever. (Speaking of manufactured, deceptive stories that became opportunities for virtue signaling.) Jacobs links to two detailed and helpful posts on the ALA’s “book ban paranoia” from Micah Mattix. The salient fact from Mattix’s reporting:

The 20% figure [a reported 20% increase in “challenges” to books in libraries] concerns the number of unique titles, but the actual number of requests to censor is only up by 14—from 681 in 2022 to 695 in 2023. That’s right. Across nearly 120,000 libraries, which serve millions of students and patrons, 14 more requests to censor have been filed.

Check out Mattix’s posts here and here.

The problem with all these book bans is that no one is banning books, and very, very few people even want to. We need to stop talking like it.

How fragility honors the dead

I’m currently reading and almost finished with Ron Rash’s latest novel, The Caretaker. One of the main characters, Blackburn Gant, is a disfigured polio survivor and the titular caretaker of a church graveyard in Blowing Rock, North Carolina. Blackburn, owing to his occupation, his outsider status in the town, and the events of the novel, has a mind consumed with death, regret, and his quiet duty to render proper respect to the dead in his little patch of ground.

Late in the novel, as the plot builds toward a climactic confrontation, Blackburn walks into town and has this small moment:

“As he neared Middlefork, Blackburn saw to the left where, among broken slabs of stone, small blue flowers bloomed. If you came upon periwinkle in woods or a meadow, Wilkie said a graveyard likely had been there. It had always struck Blackburn how something fragile as a flower could honor the dead longer than stone. Longer than memory too, a lot longer.”

A beautiful and evocative passage. Sarah has told me that daffodils, which might surprise you in scattered clusters or even great bright patches in the middle of the woods as you drive through the rural South, often mark the sites of old homeplaces. Ever since she pointed that out I’ve noticed them everywhere, vanished homesteads, without even the usual stone marker of a lonely chimney, and I’ve often felt something of what Blackburn feels here.

At least in the South, businesses that cut tombstones describe themselves as selling monuments. One wonders just how much of our purposeful effort to remember or be remembered—no matter how monumental—will survive while the small, accidental, fragile things with which we’ve marked a loss or even just the passing of time will outlast both them and us.

Great-Uncle Harry

The church at Linton, where Harry Palin’s father served as vicar; ANZAC Cove at Gallipoli; soldiers going over the top at the Somme

This week was another week spent sick, with a sick wife and two sick kids, which was a challenge but also meant a bit more time to read than has been the case lately. Among the most pleasurable books I finished—one of the most enjoyable and moving reads in quite a while—was Great-Uncle Harry, a recently published biography by Monty Python’s Michael Palin.

The Harry of the title is Harry Palin, whom Michael Palin never knew as anything more than a younger son of the family who was lost in the First World War, decades before he was born. An older aunt gave Palin papers and memorabilia many years ago, but it wasn’t until touring the Somme battlefields and noting Harry’s name on a memorial wall that he felt the need to learn more about Harry. This book, after years of travel, consulting the archives of English public schools, tea importers, colonial newspapers, and the British army as well as Harry’s own war diaries, is the remarkable result.

Harry was the youngest child of a bookish English country vicar and his Irish-American wife, and Michael is able, through his thorough exploration of the existing records, to piece together a picture of an amiable but directionless young man. Harry quit school and worked two abortive jobs on tea plantations in India before decamping for New Zealand, where he was working as a farmhand when war broke out in 1914. He joined up in a New Zealand unit and deployed to Egypt before fighting in the sweltering, claustrophobic campaign at Gallipoli and, finally, fatally, at the Somme in France. There he fell in September 1916, the last man killed in a small attack on a crossroads. The location of his death is quiet ploughland today. He has no grave.

That Michael Palin was able to construct even this thorough a picture of an ordinary, undistinguished, and relatively unsuccessful young man more than a century after his death is surprising. Palin draws not only on the archival records I mentioned above—including lackluster performance reviews from the tea planters he worked for—but on broader research into Harry’s context, including the memoirs, both published unpublished, of other men in Harry’s unit, like the experienced sergeant who saw and reported him killed. He was even able to track down descendants of the girl to whom Harry proposed, unsuccessfully, before his final deployment to France.

Even more strikingly, Palin consulted with Peter Jackson, whose documentary They Shall Not Grow Old is one of the finest tributes to the men of this generation. Jackson consulted his extensive and well-catalogued collection of New Zealand First World War photos to find several from Gallipoli that very likely show Harry in action. These appear in the book’s photo inserts, remarkable candids of the young man described, often at the great distance imposed by the kind of records available to Palin, in the book itself.

This level of care and research marks Great-Uncle Harry as a labor of love, and the sense of duty Palin owes to Harry is evident throughout. So too is Palin’s charity and generosity to Harry’s generation, one easily and frequently scoffed at and more and more often impugned, but presented here on its own terms and with great understanding. This is a work not only of recovered memory but of profound pietas.

But Great-Uncle Harry is not only one man’s story. Palin also provides a portrait of Harry’s entire family, paying special attention to Harry’s parents and their unusual love story, as well as Harry’s older and seemingly more respectable siblings, as well as his nieces and nephews—including Michael’s father. If there is any flaw in this well-researched, briskly and engagingly written book, it is that Harry’s parents take up too great a proportion of the story in a book about Harry. But this is a minor criticism, and by the time Harry arrives as one last, late child of this most Victorian couple, one has a clear, strong feeling for his family and the world they live in. And, as we already know Harry’s fate, a note of poignancy enters with him.

That note runs through the remainder of Palin’s book, deepening with each chapter. The result is a uniquely intimate and moving look at a man whose memory time and fate and the sheer numbers slaughtered in the war should have annihilated, but which has been rescued by a generation he never lived to know. “Harry and I,” Palin reflects in his conclusion, “are not so far apart.”

John Gardner on art and democracy

Yesterday during my commute I revisited a short radio interview with John Gardner, one of the writers and writing teachers I most admire. The entire interview is worth listening to for Gardner’s trenchant comments on, well, everything, but I found the following exchange most striking.

Considering the way “the rise of middle class literature”—a “bad thing” in Gardner’s view—was satirized by Henry Fielding and Daniel Defoe, interviewer Stephen Banker goes back to Gardner’s preference for premodern work like Beowulf or Dante or Chaucer and his belief that literature has decreased in quality since then:

Banker: There’s so much in what you said. First of all, are you seriously suggesting that the literature of the aristocracy is the right kind of literature?

Gardner: Yeah, sure, sure. And I think that, as a matter of fact, I don’t think that’s snobbism, I think that every kid in a democracy would like that literature better if he knew it. But of course the thing that happens in a democracy is that the teachers lose touch with what’s good—they don’t know, you know? How many art teachers, you know, in ordinary public schools, have been to an art museum? Just that. How many teachers of creative writing in high schools and colleges for that matter really know what the Iliad is about? I’ve talked with an awful lot of professors. I think there are a handful of people in America who understand the poem Beowulf. And I don’t think there’s even a handful in England. It’s just lost knowledge.

Banker: Well, what—

Gardner: I don’t know anybody who knows about Dante! I don’t know a single person who understands what Dante is doing. I don’t mean that as arrogance, it’s just a fact. They read little sections of it, they talk about the dolce stil nuovo, that’s all.

The reading of great literature in context-free excerpt with a primary focus on formal or—increasingly—political qualities still rings true, as does the well-expressed observation that kids even in democracies will prefer to the adventure of aristocratic literature to middle-class realism. The problem comes in the line “if he knew it.” Many kids today are deprived, often for ideological rather than artistic reasons, and I can see their thirst for this kind of storytelling anytime I describe, in detail and for its own sake, a work of ancient or medieval literature to a class of students. They respond.

I do think there is more cause for hope than Gardner suggests—consider the wave of relative popularity greeting Emily Wilson’s recent translations of Homer—but the situation is dire.

Banker next moves the discussion on to whether old literature is still relevant in a more technologically sophisticated world and Gardner comes out swinging, while also rounding out some of his statements above:

“I don’t think that’s snobbism, I think that every kid in a democracy would like that literature better if he knew it.”

— John Gardner

Banker: I think one could make a case—

Gardner: Mm-hm.

Banker: —that things that happened five, six, seven hundred years ago are not really relevant to the way we live now, that those people didn’t live with machinery, they didn’t live in the age of anxiety, they didn’t live with the kind of tensions, the kind of communications we have today.

Gardner: I think that’s probably not true. I think, in fact, that—pick your age, pick the age, for instance, of Alexandrian Greece, with Apollonius Rhodius writing in an overpopulated, effete, decadent society, he writes a book which is a bitter, ironic, very Donald Barthelme-like book in imitation of the epic form but actually making fun of the epic form and expressing, you know, his ultra-modern kind of disgust and despair and all this kind of business.

Banker: And what period are you talking about now?

Gardner: Oh, I don’t know about dates. Third century BC. One can find at the end of every great period decadent literature very much like ours. The difference is that we have for the first time—and it’s a great thing—real democracy, in which everybody can be educated. And as everybody begins to be educated and as everybody begins to say what education ought to be, then education changes, and so that the kind of values which make first-rate philosophy or art or anything else disappear—or become rare, at least. There are obviously lots of writers in America who are still concerned about great art and are trying to create it but, mostly, that’s not true.

Food for thought.

The interview ranges widely and it’s hard not to transcribe large parts of the rest, particularly, in considering the value of fiction, Gardner’s comparison of the way Nietzsche and Dostoevsky attacked the same philosophical problems, the first in abstract aphorism and the second in concretely realized fiction, and why Dostoevsky’s fictional interrogation of the Übermensch was more successful—and truthful.

Listen to the whole thing.

For more from Gardner on what’s great about Beowulf and what’s wrong with modern “realism,” check out this Paris Review interview from 1979, a year after the radio interview above. It’s paywalled but a generous, tantalizing chunk is available to read before it cuts off. I’ve written about Gardner here several times before, most importantly on his concept of fiction as the painstaking creation of a “vivid and continuous fictive dream.” This is a crucial idea to me, one I often reflect on. I also considered the role of sensory detail in Gardner’s “fictive dream” using the example of the novel Butcher’s Crossing here.

Agatha Christie on historical perspective

Coincident to my recent posts about the “right side” of history and how our understanding of what happened in the past changes and, ideally, grows more thorough and accurate as time passes, here’s Agatha Christie in the short story “The Coming of Mr Quin,” which I’m reading in the collection Midwinter Murder: Fireside Tales from the Queen of Mystery.

Briefly, a New Year’s Eve party at a comfortable home is interrupted just after midnight by the arrival of a Mr Harley Quin, whose car has broken down. Quin says that he knew the house’s former owner, one Derek Capel, who unexpectedly killed himself a decade prior. Notice how Quin invites the partygoers to revisit what they know about the incident:

‘A very inexplicable business,’ said Mr Quin, slowly and deliberately, and he paused with the air of an actor who has just spoken an important cue.

‘You may well say inexplicable,’ burst in Conway. ‘The thing's a black mystery—always will be.’

‘I wonder,’ said Mr Quin, non-committally. ‘Yes, Sir Richard, you were saying?’

‘Astounding—that's what it was. Here's a man in the prime of life, gay, light-hearted, without a care in the world. Five or six old pals staying with him. Top of his spirits at dinner, full of plans for the future. And from the dinner table he goes straight upstairs to his room, takes a revolver from a drawer and shoots himself. Why? Nobody ever knew. Nobody ever will know.’

‘Isn’t that rather a sweeping statement, Sir Richard?’ asked Mr Quin, smiling.

Conway stared at him.

‘What d’you mean? I don't understand.’

‘A problem is not necessarily unsolvable because it has remained unsolved.’

‘Oh! Come, man, if nothing came out at the time, it's not likely to come out now—ten years afterwards?’

Mr Quin shook his head gently.

“The contemporary historian never writes such a true history as the historian of a later generation. It is a question of getting the true perspective, of seeing things in proportion.”

— Mr Quin

‘I disagree with you. The evidence of history is against you. The contemporary historian never writes such a true history as the historian of a later generation. It is a question of getting the true perspective, of seeing things in proportion. If you like to call it so, it is, like everything else, a question of relativity.’

Alex Portal leant forward, his face twitching painfully.

‘You are right, Mr Quin,’ he cried, ‘you are right. Time does not dispose of a question—it only presents it anew in a different guise.’

Evesham was smiling tolerantly.

‘Then you mean to say, Mr Quin, that if we were to hold, let us say, a Court of Inquiry tonight, into the circumstances of Derek Capel’s death, we are as likely to arrive at the truth as we should have been at the time?’

‘More likely, Mr Evesham. The personal equation has largely dropped out, and you will remember facts as facts without seeking to put your own interpretation upon them.’

Evesham frowned doubtfully.

‘One must have a starting point, of course,’ said Mr Quin in his quiet level voice. ‘A starting point is usually a theory. One of you must have a theory, I am sure. How about you, Sir Richard?’

Simple and tailored to the mystery genre, but not a bad explanation of how the greater perspective afforded by historical distance can lead to a more accurate understanding of important events. There are, certainly, parts of my own life I understand much better now than when I was an eyewitness living through them.

I’ve been trying to read more of Agatha Christie the last year or so after having made it to my late thirties with Murder on the Orient Express as my sole experience of her storytelling. My wife, on the other hand, has read a lot of Christie, and has done so over many years. But even she was unfamiliar with Christie’s Mr Quin, who is the subject of several short stories collected as The Mysterious Mr Quin. I’m enjoying him in this story so far—especially with this kind of sharp historical aside—and plan to check that out.

Sturgeon Wars

Last week some of the staff writers at National Review, of all places, had an amusing exchange of views on the current state of Star Wars. It began when one wrote of being “Star Wars-ed out.” Another seconded that feeling and drew an analogy with the Marvel movies: both are series that have decreased in quality as the suits behind them have produced more and more “content.” Yet another followed up specifically critiquing the trilogy produced by Disney while rightly reserving some small praise for Rogue One.

But the best and most incisive perspective came from Jeffrey Blehar, who with aggressive indifference toward everything since Return of the Jedi forty years ago, mildly suggested that not much of Star Wars is any good. Dissect and fuss over the prequel trilogy, the sequel trilogy, the Disney+ shows, and cartoon shows and novels and comics and video games however you want, none of it is as good as the original trilogy and most of it is terrible. In fact, the best thing to come of Star Wars since 1983 is Mr Plinkett.

I mostly agree (and wholeheartedly agree about Mr Plinkett), and that’s because I’m a big believer in Sturgeon’s Law. In its simplest formulation, Sturgeon’s Law states that:

“90% of everything is crap.”

For several years now I’ve been saying that Sturgeon’s Law applies just as much to Star Wars as to anything else, it’s just that Star Wars got its 10% of quality out of the way first. What they’ve been producing ever since is, well…

I have ideas about why this is, including but by no means limited to Disney’s desperately overvalued purchase of the rights to the series and—probably more importantly—its merchandising, executive mismanagement, ideological capture of the filmmakers, oversaturation (speaking of Marvel), and of course simple artistic failure. But there are three more fundamental problems that I’ve seen with Star Wars over the last couple decades.

One is that everyone forgot that Star Wars was lightning in a bottle. The original film didn’t emerge fully formed from George Lucas’s head like a nerd Athena, it was the product of a difficult production, a demanding shoot, and a host of other limitations. The many points of friction in the production required genuine creativity to solve, not least from a brilliant editor and one or two real creative geniuses like Ben Burtt and John Williams. But the very success of Star Wars meant that the circumstances that shaped the originals have not recurred. Everything since has been greased by money, money, money, and the synthetic smoothness of the prequel and sequel trilogies allowed bad or incomplete or incoherent story ideas to slide straight through into the finished films.

Second and relatedly, with one or two exceptions the fans and producers of Star Wars drifted into a category error regarding what kind of stories these are. Star Wars since Return of the Jedi has been treated like fantasy set in space. Mr Plinkett, among many others, has noted the ridiculous and gratuitous multiplication of planets, species, vehicles, and everything else since The Phantom Menace. But Star Wars wasn’t originally fantasy—it was a Boomer pastiche of westerns, Kurosawa samurai films, World War II movies, Flash Gordon serials, and a film school dweeb’s skimming of Joseph Campbell. As Star Wars quickly became the cultural remit of younger generations and more and more Star Wars “content” was churned out, those referents were lost to all except the buffs and nerds. The galaxy far, far away came to be treated as an infinitely expandable object of “world-building” when it is and always was an assemblage of spare parts.

I don’t mean that dismissively. Being made of spare parts is not necessarily a bad thing. The originals are greater than the sum of their parts, and it’s worth pointing out that the handful of new Star Wars material that tried to tap directly into some of what inspired Lucas—war movies about ill-fated missions in Rogue One, westerns in the first season of “The Mandalorian”—were good. Eventually ruined by committee-think, but good.

The final problem, which brings us back around to Sturgeon’s Law, is that the fans allowed it, even demanded it. Having had that 10%, they gobbled up that 90% we’ve been getting since and kept wanting more. I know plenty of people have complained about the storytelling, the filmmaking, the behind-the-scenes drama, the ideological drift of the Disney films, and everything else, but for every Mr Plinkett or Critical Drinker on YouTube there are a thousand people who are satisfied with anything as long as it has the Star Wars logo on it. From archetypal storytelling to lifestyle brand—that’s the real Skywalker saga.

This is by no means unique to Star Wars fans, as some trends among purported Tolkien fans have made clear in the last couple years. But if people want to enjoy their favorite things again they need to regain their suspicion of corporations as well as remember the difference between quantity and quality.

2023 in movies

After my apathy and complaints at the end of 2022, I was surprised to find myself eagerly looking forward to a few movies in 2023. I was only able to see a handful in theaters, but the quality of what I did see was reassuring enough that I’m no longer as bitterly pessimistic about the movies as I was the last time I wrote a list like this. And the hidden grace of missing several of the films I really wanted to see is that I have those to look forward to on home media in the months ahead.

2024, it’s your game to lose.

For the first time, owing to the slow changes of life, I’m dividing the movies I wanted to highlight into two major categories. The first section below will proceed as normal, with the handful of movies I most appreciated. But the second, new section will highlight the several children’s films I saw that are worth mentioning. Below that are the usual sections on older films I saw for the first time, a few movies ranging from entertaining but flawed to entertaining and bad, and the things I missed that I hope to see soon.

So, in no particular order, my three favorites of 2023:

Oppenheimer

Cillian Murphy as J Robert Oppenheimer in Oppenheimer

The best movie, artistically and dramatically, that I saw this year. Oppenheimer is a brilliantly structured and penetrating look at a complicated and self-deceiving man’s life that neither dumbs down the complicated world he lived in nor softens his destructive character flaws. Well-acted, beautifully shot, and technically brilliant in every way.

Full review here.

Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning, Part I

Archvillain, or mere lackey of an artificial intelligence? Esai Morales in Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning, Part I

If Oppenheimer was certainly the best movie as a movie I saw this year, Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning, Part I was the one I most enjoyed. Despite some structural hiccups in the first act, this Mission: Impossible had plenty of the inventive action set pieces and great stunts I’ve enjoyed in the last several films of the series, plus some unexpectedly moving character developments and an eerie and thought-provoking antagonist that—not who—created a sense not only of danger but of paranoia throughout.

Apparently Part II has been delayed until the summer of 2025. I’m not sure that long of a gap will do the second half any favors and I wish Paramount would go ahead with it this year, whatever it takes. (An impossible mission?) Nevertheless, looking forward to Part II whenever it comes out.

Full review here.

The Lost King

Being personally interested in the story of Richard III, his posthumous reputation, and the fate of his mortal remains, I was excited to see this movie’s trailer but had to wait a while to catch it on home video here in the US. It was worth the wait, though. The Lost King is a nicely written small drama, with just enough humor and wit to lighten a story that could potentially get grim, whether because of what happened to Richard or because of its main character’s physical and emotional struggles. It’s a well-acted and nicely structured movie of modest ambitions, the kind the big studios don’t make enough of any more.

But, as it happens, it might be a little too nicely structured. As I touched on in my review, The Lost King is a good movie but it is very much a movie version of the events it retells, with the sprawling, complicated true story shortened, tenderized and stuffed into a more Hollywood-shaped mold, and with several real people vilified to provide extra drama and an easy antagonist. A questionable aspect of a good movie. This is a film worth watching, and these questions worth reflecting on.

Full review here.

For the kids

A few years ago I included Paw Patrol: The Movie in one of these year-in-review posts with this introduction: “You know what? I’m thirty-seven years old. I have three kids between the ages of two and six. So yes, I saw this. And I mostly liked it.” Two years and two more kids later I’ve decided to include a kids’ own section here, especially since I saw several genuinely good kids’ movies in 2023. In descending order of enjoyment, they are:

The Super Mario Brothers Movie—A genuinely fun and funny adventure with a refreshingly straightforward story. It’s also really well designed, evoking the video game characters and their world perfectly, and beautifully animated. Both my kids and I greatly enjoyed this and we have rewatched it several times since it came out on Blu-ray. I’ve seen a few people criticize Mario for the simplicity of its plot but I think Hollywood would be better advised to copy it by revisiting basic storytelling techniques.

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish—A fun animated action comedy with great voice work, especially by Antonio Banderas as Puss and John Mulaney as the brilliant villain Big Jack Horner, and just enough thematic depth—including reflections on aging, fear, the meaning of courage, and the inevitability of death—to make the film both fun and meaningful for adults.

Paw Patrol: The Mighty Movie—A good sequel to the first film, this time focusing on Skye and her tragic backstory (everybody gets a tragic backstory nowadays) and following the team as they develop super powers and use them to save Adventure City. I’ll also add that the filmmakers did a lot to make Liberty more tolerable. Parents familiar with the show will probably wonder, like me, if we have a mer-pup movie in our future.

So-so, ho-hum, and egad!

I try to keep these posts positive, but sometimes there are movies I feel so ambivalently about or that were so strangely entertaining despite their massive flaws that I feel like they’re worthy of comment. Last year I had a category of “near misses,” movies that I wanted to like more than I could, so here are a few that, while not quite good enough to be near misses, I still found entertaining. In descending order of how much I liked them:

Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant—A well-intentioned action movie about a Special Forces operator who owes his life to his Afghan interpreter and, when the US government shockingly fails to honor its pledge to relocate the interpreter and his family, goes rogue, traveling to Afghanistan alone to rescue the interpreter from the Taliban. Oddly paced, with some obvious budgetary limitations, dodgy digital effects, and a climactic action scene that goes way over the top, this movie only works because of the excellent performances from Jake Gyllenhaal and Dar Salim. While The Covenant wants to be a stunning action drama, the best scenes in the film are easily the moments of subtle bonding between the two stars. This is an important topic and two good performances in search of a better movie.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny—A creaky, miscalculated sendoff for Indy that does manage to be entertaining, but only just, and thanks mostly to lonely flashes of the old Indiana Jones mystery and fun. The climactic twist, the most daring and off-the-wall part of the film, was great fun but too little, too late. Full review from the summer here.

Napoleon—Speaking of miscalculation, here’s a whopper of a “historical” film. Bad history, odd writing choices, strange performances that only grow stranger upon reflection, and a clunky, half-baked structure that galumphs from event to event, it was nevertheless well made and entertaining, but not necessarily for the right reasons. Full review here.

New to me

Harry Andrews, Anthony Quayle, Sylvia Syms, and John Mills in Ice Cold in Alex

To return to the purely positive and praiseworthy, here are the best of the older movies that, for whatever reason, I only watched for the first time this year. I’ve included links to my full reviews for the three I wrote about earlier this year. In chronological order:

The Great Locomotive Chase (1956)—A classic Disney adventure set during the Civil War and partially shot in my hometown. Great scenery and stunts and a moving conclusion. I’m cheating a bit here since I saw this film once as a boy, but it had been long enough since then that the chance to watch it again felt like discovering a new movie. Full review here.

Ice Cold in Alex (1958)—A suspenseful small-scale war drama. As the British army is cut off and surrounded by the German Afrika Korps in Tobruk, a handful of units manage to escape and strike east toward Egypt. Among these is a single ambulance driven by Captain Anson (John Mills), a wreck of a man and a barely functional drunk since his escape from German captivity several months before. With him are two nurses and his sergeant major, and they pick up a stranded South African officer (Anthony Quayle) just as the German net closes around the city. This begins an arduous quest to cross the desert and reach Alexandria undetected, a quest marked by ambushes, minefields, mechanical failures, the harsh vicissitudes of the desert, and the growing suspicion that one member of the party may be a spy. Well-acted by a great cast and marked throughout by brilliant desert landscapes, by the time Anson’s crew reaches safety you feel just as parched, weary, and sand-begrimed as they do.

Pork Chop Hill (1959)—A no-nonsense, no-frills, unromantic war movie with an excellent cast and technically accomplished filmmaking. That it tells a story from the Korean War, making it among the rarest of war movie species, also makes it worth watching. Full review here.

City Slickers (1991)—I’ve heard about this movie all my life, and my wife and I finally borrowed it from the library. It’s a hoot, with good comic performances by Billy Crystal, Bruno Kirby, and Daniel Stern, all of whom play well off the intimidatingly manly and tough Jack Palance, and with a poignant vein of darkness running throughout.

The King’s Choice (2016)—The story of Norway’s King Haakon VII during the first few days of the German invasion of April 1940. A powerful study, both well acted and well made, of a character and a kingdom in crisis. Full review here.

What I missed in 2023

Here are movies that either piqued my interest or that I tried and failed to catch this year (these latter clustering in the fall and winter), listed in roughly descending order of personal interest and/or enthusiasm:

• Godzilla Minus One

• Ferrari

• Killers of the Flower Moon

• The Boys in the Boat

• The Zone of Interest

• Dream Scenario

• Butcher’s Crossing

• Asteroid City

• Sound of Freedom

Here’s to watching at least some of these in 2024!

Looking ahead

In no particular order, the handful of forthcoming films I’m most interested in seeing this year:

• ISS—American and Russian astronauts aboard the International Space Station are stranded when their respective governments go to (nuclear?) war. A really great hook for a sci-fi thriller.

• Wildcat—Ethan Hawke’s indie drama about Flannery O’Connor. This debuted last year at a film festival but I’m hoping for it to either get wider distribution or become available on home media this year.

• Dune: Part Two—I’m not a huge fan of Herbert’s novel but was impressed by Denis Villeneuve’s film adaptation a couple years ago. Been looking forward to the second half.

• Joker: Folie à Deux—Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix made a surprisingly good drama out of a Joker origin story and I’m curious to see where they go in the sequel.

• Civil War—Frankly, this looks idiotic and predictable (Menacing Southerner? Check), but you know I’ll probably watch it out of curiosity.

• Nosferatu—Robert Eggers remaking a silent-era vampire movie? I’ll be there.

Conclusion

2023 was a surprisingly good year for movies, even without the many films I missed factored in. I’d heartily recommend any of those listed above, especially the older ones under “New to me.” If, like me, you struggle with weariness of the new, shiny, loud, and digitally assisted, check out one of those classics for a refreshing taste of another world and lost forms of storytelling. And in the meantime, here’s hoping for at least a few more good films this year.

Thanks as always for reading!