The Hero and the Goddess

Giuseppe Bottani, Athena Revealing Ithaca to Ulysses (1784)

Spiritual Sunday

As my Sewanee students have been intrigued by the meaning of the gods in The Odyssey, here are some of my own observations. An illuminating conversation occurs at the beginning of Book 5 when Athena and Zeus essentially have a conversation about why bad things happen to good people.

As in The Book of Job, two divinities discuss the significance of human suffering. Athena observes that, if there’s no divine accountability–if good kings suffer while bad kings prosper–then rulers can do whatever they want:

“Father, and all immortal gods,” she said,
“No longer let a sceptered king be kin,
or gentle, or pay heed to right and wrong.
Let every king be cruel, his acts unjust!
Odysseus ruled gently, like a father,
but no one even thinks about him now.
The wretched man is stranded on an island;
Calypso forced him to stay with her.
He cannot make hi way back to his country.
(trans. Emily Wilson)

Zeus, agreeing, assures his daughter that everything happens for a reason. Odysseus may not understand why he’s been shipwrecked for seven years, but the gods of divine justice have an explanation:

Smiling at her, Lord Zeus who heaps the clouds
replied, “Ah, daughter! What a thing to say!
Did you not plan all this yourself, so that
Odysseus could come and take revenge
Upon those suitors?"

Zeus then sends out two orders to make sure that justice prevails. The first ensures that Telemachus will not be killed by the suitors, who are preparing to ambush his boat, and the second sets in motion Odysseus’s release from Calypso’s island:

“Now use all your skill:
ensure Telemachus comes safely home,
and that the suitors fail and sail away.”

Then turning to his son he said, “Dear Hermes,
you are my messenger. Go tell the goddess
our fixed intention: that Odysseus
must go back home—he has endured enough.”

Later we see Odysseus, not fully convinced by a turn of good luck, chastising Athena for abandoning him:

I did not see you there on board my ship,
daughter of Zeus. You gave me no protection.
Lost and confused, I waited for the gods
to free me from my pain.

Rather than taking offense (as God does with Job), Athena tells our hero that, because of his “keen intelligence,” she will never leave him. Put another way, when a human has certain god-like abilities, the gods will stick with him. Great people make their own luck, we sometimes say, and in Homer’s cosmology such luck is given the face of an Olympian god:

With glowing eyes she said, “You always have
such keen intelligence, and that is why
I cannot leave you when you need my help.
You have such intuition and such focus."

In his classic work The Theory of the Novel (1920), literary theorist George Lukacs writes that Homer’s epic heroes can never be lost, no matter how far they wander. That’s because the gods that provide life with meaning are always present. In the following passage, think of “light” as the light of meaning and “fire” as the passion that burns within individuals:

Happy are those ages when the starry sky is the map of all possible paths—ages whose paths are illuminated by the light of the stars. Everything in such ages is new and yet familiar, full of adventure and yet their own. The world is wide and yet it is like a home, for the fire that burns in the soul is of the same essential nature as the stars; the world and the self, the light and the fire, are sharply distinct, yet they never become permanent strangers to one another, for fire is the soul of all light, and all fire clothes itself in light. Thus each action of the soul becomes meaningful and rounded in this duality: complete in meaning—in sense—and complete for the senses; rounded because the soul rests within itself even while it acts; rounded because its action separates itself from it and, having become itself, finds a center of its own and draws a close circumference found itself.

This is complex stuff, much of it drawn from Hegel, and I don’t pretend to entirely understand it. But what I gather is that one can’t separate Odysseus from the gods that watch over him—they are both metaphorical expressions of his inner psychology (fire) and the belief system in which he swims (light).

To draw a contrast, Lukacs believes that the novel succeeded the epic when the gods disappeared from the world. To cite an illuminating example, coincidences that occur in novels (see Dickens especially) would make no sense in a Homeric epic, where the gods arrange everything. In novels, individual characters search for higher meaning that is not readily apparent whereas, in The Odyssey, that meaning is always there at hand. Why must Odysseus go home? Because we see Zeus decreeing it.

Not only do the gods direct traffic from above, but humans make constant reference to them. Has a voyage gone well? The gods favored them. Has it gone poorly? They forgot to sacrifice to the relevant god (often Poseidon). When they sacrificed but were still unsuccessful, they fatalistically assume that, for some unknown reason, the gods chose not to accept the sacrifice.

And then there are those moments when the gods show up in human form. It is not Mentor who gives Telemachus the wise advice he needs but Athena disguised as Mentor. It is not a slave girl who directs Odysseus’s step in a strange land but Athena disguised as the girl. There’s a cosmological explanation for anything that goes right for you, and also for anything that goes wrong. The world may be wide, to cite Lukacs again, “yet it is like a home.”

In a more secular age, we may read the gods as metaphorical expressions of things we can’t otherwise explain. When Odysseus converses with Athena to devise ways for dealing with the suitors, he is really drawing on his own deep intelligence, which seems god-like to the rest of us. But before we dismiss this as mere superstition, what better explanation do we have for, say, Kobe Bryant’s ability to sink last-second game-winning shots? We say “talent” or “genius,” but that’s just another way of noting that he has done something superhuman. Homer at least provides us with an explanatory narrative.

In class the other day, I pulled up Thomas Hardy’s poem “Hap,” where the poet says he would rather have a malevolent god who wished him ill than no god at all. The latter leaves us with an empty void of cause and effect (“Crass Casualty,” “dicing Time”). It’s more comforting to think that Poseidon has a quarrel with us than that storms at sea have no extrinsic meaning. If we angered the sea god by omitting a sacrifice, we can console ourselves that there’s something we could have done, that adversity isn’t entirely out of our control.

Lukacs, writing within the Enlightenment tradition, assumes that we no longer think this way, but many fundamentalist Christians, not to mention Orthodox Jews, devout Muslims and Hindus, and others, operate in precisely this framework. Whereas scientists want their explanations to be empirically verified and are not satisfied with “it’s God’s will,” there are plenty of people in the world who choose faith over reason. I myself choose both, but it’s useful for me to submerge myself in characters who see the world otherwise.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

Eyes Wide Shut to the Obvious

Trump, Pence and Senate Republicans

Friday

Among the many strange things that mark the current impeachment hearings, one thing stands out to me: while Republicans know full well that Donald Trump is guilty of extorting the Ukrainian government for dirt on Joe Biden, they are twisting themselves into knots to avoid acknowledging this to themselves. The situation reminds me of Stanley Elkin’s short story “Criers and Kibitzers, Kibitzers and Criers.”

The story is about a day in the life of Jewish grocer Jake Greenspahn, who has lost his 23-year-old son Harold. In the course of the day, Greenspahn lashes out angrily, attacking his employees and various customers for trying to cheat him. His reaction is excessive given that the cheating is fairly minor.

In this, he is like those Republicans who are furious with Democrats for a host of procedural violations and lapses in civility. Some of their accusations are not even true, and the lapses pale in comparison with those of the president. I think particularly of the anger directed at House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff for citing a CBS story in which an anonymous Republican says that Trump supporters will have the legislators’ heads on pikes if they buck the president.

The fury, I suspect, is over the fact that the anonymous source is right: GOP legislators are deathly afraid of being primaried or abandoned by Trump’s base if they step out of line. It’s easier to blame Schiff than face up to their own cowardice.

The reason for Greenspahn’s fury is similar: he focuses on the infractions of others because he doesn’t want to acknowledge what really bothers him. When he was alive, his son was a disappointment who stole money out of the till. Earlier, Greenspahn almost fires his most valuable employee (Frank) for informing him of this, but in the dream that concludes the story, the truth breaks in upon him with the force of revelation:

He saw it now. They [the dream witnesses] all saw it. The helpless face, the sly wink, the embarrassed, slow smug smile of guilt that must, volitionless as the palpitation of a nerve, have crossed Harold’s face when he had turned, his hand in the register, to see Frank watching him.

The difference is that Trump isn’t embarrassed when he’s caught. He just brazens it out whereas Harold at least feels a sense of shame. But as far as Greenspahn and the GOP go, they are invested in not seeing what they know all too well is going on. They blame everyone but the guilty party.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

Odysseus’s Emasculation Anxieties

John William Waterhouse, Circe Offering the Cup to Odysseus

Thursday

This past Tuesday I provided a guide for understanding the significance of literary monsters, which I followed up with a somewhat scattered analysis of Homer’s monsters in The Odyssey. Monsters, I noted, are associated with deep anxieties, and emasculation anxieties are at the heart of Homer’s epic.

We see this right away when, before any mention of Odysseus, Zeus talks of Agamemnon being killed by his wife’s lover upon returning home. The incident is referred to time and again in the poem, and, upon reflection, we can see why. For a warrior or mariner absent from home for long periods, the fidelity of a wife could become an obsession.

The story of Agamemnon functions as a foil to the story of Odysseus. One man comes home to an unfaithful wife, the other to a faithful one. Agamemnon describes what can happen when Odysseus talks to him in Hades:

As I lay dying, struck through by the sword,
I tried to lift my arms up from the ground.
That she dog [Clytemnestra] turned away. I went to Hades.
She did not even shut my eyes or close
my mouth. There is no more disgusting act
than when a wife betrays a man like that.
That woman formed a plot to murder me?
Her husband? When I got back home I thought
I would be welcomed, at least by my slaves
and children. She has such an evil mind
that she has poured down shame on her own head
and on all other women, even good ones.

Agamemnon issues a warning, although he then acknowledges that Odysseus’s wife is an exception:

So you must never treat your wife too well.
Do not let her know everything you know.
Tell her some things, hide others. But your wife
will not kill you, Odysseus. The wise
Penelope is much too sensible 
to do such things.

Of course, an unfaithful wife is at the root of the Trojan War itself. Male insecurity goes so deep that the Greeks are willing to fight a ten-year war over it!

My students never fail to point out that, in this patriarchal culture, the double standard is alive and well. Agamemnon actually strides into his court accompanied by his slave mistress Cassandra (Clytemnestra kills her too), while Odysseus titillates his audience with his accounts of bedding down with island goddesses. In conquering Circe, the threat of male violence proves more effective than female wiles:

But I drew my sharp sword from my thigh
and leapt at her as if I meant to kill her.
She screamed and ducked beneath the sword, and grasped
my knees…

Circe acknowledges she’s dealing with a real man:

…Now sheathe your sword
and come to bed with me. Through making love
we may begin to trust each other more.

I can imagine his Phaeacian audience salivating over what happens after Circe swears a vow and surrenders:

She vowed and formed the oath, and then at last
I went up to the dazzling bed of Circe.

There’s a similar passage in the Calypso account:

The sun went down and brought the darkness on.
They went inside the hollow cave and took
the pleasure of their love, held close together.

Odysseus gets more specific in his account of Circe pampering him:

[S]he took me to the bathtub, and began
to wash my head and shoulders, using water
mixed to the perfect temperature, to take
my deep soul-crushing weariness away.
After the bath, she oiled my skin and dressed me
in fine wool cloak and tunic, and she led me
to a silver-studded well-carved chair, and set 
a footstool underneath. 

Since men know about their own adulterous urges, they figure their wives must have them as well. This projection makes them vulnerable, however. While denied power or equal rights, women in patriarchal cultures can throw men into crisis simply by causing them to doubt their ability to maintain control.

Therefore, the imagine female monsters. The Odyssey provides us with a substantial list:

–the queen of the cannibalistic Laistrygonians, described as “a woman, mountain-high”:
–the witch Circe, who turns men into swine;
–the Sirens, whose song no man can resist (unless he has had himself tied to his ship’s mast);
–Scylla, the six-headed monster who lives in a cave. I’ve seen her described as a “vagina dentata” or toothed vagina, one who snatches passing mariners and proves impervious to Odysseus’s sword;
–perhaps the whirlpool Charybdis, which has also been described as a vagina that swallows men up; and
–the goddess Calypso, who (as she points out) is far more beautiful than Penelope and who imprisons Odysseus for seven years while tempting him to forget home and duty. (He sleeps with her every night but reluctantly as “she no longer pleased him.”)

 As for Penelope, while she proves faithful, there’s debate about her handling of the suitors. True, she’s outwardly faithful, but her ploy of putting them off by weaving an interminable funeral shroud for her father-in-law (she unweaves it every night) has the practical effect of keeping her house filled with young studs who ceaselessly sing her praises.

But because the epic wants a different ending than Agamemnon’s, in the end Penelope reassures us that not all women are unfaithful. The female monsters are thwarted, the islands goddesses are left behind, and macho Odysseus is able to make love to his wife in a marriage bed that has been constructed out of a living and deeply rooted tree. Order is restored and all is well.

Homer’s male auditors breathe a sigh of relief. The epic has given us a glimpse into their nightmares, however.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

The GOP, through the Looking Glass

 Wednesday

I regard the Washington Post’s Tom Toles as our nation’s premier political cartoonist, and he impressed me again recently with a cartoon alluding to Alice through the Looking Glass. As you can see, Trump is cast in the role of Humpty Dumpty (“Trumpty Dumpty”), who declares that words mean what he chooses them to mean.

Meanwhile, two of his primary enablers, Rudy Giovanni (Tweedle Ru-Dee) and Mitch McConnell (Twiddle-Thumb), stand close by to do his bidding. And the red ink of a trillion dollar deficit—brought to you by a party that once railed against deficits–runs as fast as the Red Queen.

What has occurred? According to the GOP elephant, Republicans don’t like looking at themselves in the looking glass. Rather than face up to what it reveals, they have entered a land of make believe. Everything you thought you knew, they inform you, is just the opposite.

In Carroll’s looking glass world, you must walk in the opposite direction to get where you want to go. You appear to run very fast but don’t actually go anywhere, and (if you are the White Queen), life goes backward.

In the GOP’s own looking glass world, extortion phone calls are perfect, Trump fights corruption while Biden abets it, and the president is trying to protect insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions rather than destroy it. Looking into the mirror and seeing only what they want to see, GOP legislators resemble the politicians that King Lear speaks of to the blinded Gloucester:

Get thee glass eyes;
And like a scurvy politician, seem
To see the things thou dost not.

Seeing is a running theme in King Lear. At the beginning of the play, the loyal Kent is banished for telling his king to “see better.” None of Trump’s followers have been as direct as Kent, and he has surrounded himself with sycophants like Oswald. Goneril’s steward will see whatever his superiors want him to see, even if it means killing an old blind man.

For a while, Alice is thrown off balance by the looking glass world. If Trumpty Dumpty ever falls, however, none of the GOP’s horses and none of its men will be able to put him together again.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

What Do Odysseus’s Monsters Mean?

Fuseli, Odysseus in Front of Scylla

Tuesday

My Representative Masterpiece students are entering the Odyssey’s monster section today so I will be giving them my special matrix for how to analyze a literary monster. As I see it, monsters have a personal/psychological explanation, a historical/political explanation, and a spiritual/existential explanation. Toggling between the three, here are some of my readings of Homer’s monsters:

–The Lotos Eaters, Circe, and Calypso – I group these three together because the danger they represent is men abandoning their quest and remaining on the island. Since Ithaca’s king is duty-bound to return to his kingdom and restore order, Zeus orders Calypso to release him. Without such a higher calling, men are no more than swine, which is the fate they suffer at Circe’s hands. Thanks to messenger-of-the-gods Hermes, who keeps Odysseus in touch with his higher self, the epic’s hero can stay connected with his ideals, even as he tastes the sorceress’ delights. (But he still remains on the island for a full year—and on Calypso’s island for seven.)

Psychologically, Circe and Calypso threaten the hero’s masculinity, as does Scylla—a toothed vagina—and maybe the Sirens. More on these latter monsters in a moment. Politically and historically, the island enchantresses function like the earth religions through with the Biblical Hebrews pass, with their worship of fecundity figures like the golden calf. To yield to them and merge with the population is essentially to surrender the historical self.

–Polyphemus, the Cyclops—The cyclops, like the goddesses, once again represents fecund nature. Unlike the Greeks he does not cultivate the land—therefore he’s a barbarian—but food grows in wild abundance nevertheless. He’s a cannibal who eats men raw, once again representing annihilation of self. To reassert his manhood, Odysseus has his men drive a fire-tipped, pointed log into Polyphemus’s eye, which psychologically can be read as either rape or castration.

–The Laestrygonians—The most distinctive figure in this cannibalistic tribe is another castrating woman, “a giantess as huge as a mountain.” The Laestrygonians destroy the Ithacan ships with boulders and then spear the men like fish.

–The Sirens—Interestingly, the Sirens offer Odysseus knowledge, not sensual delights. I’m still trying to figure these monsters out.

Scylla and Charybdis – Odysseus must thread his way between these two monsters, one a six-headed beast who grabs six sailors, the other a whirlpool that swallows up the entire ship. (Forced to choose, Odysseus goes for Scylla.) Odysseus’s sword is helpless against the castrating Scylla, but his sense of self is strong enough that he manages to survive the annihilating whirlpool.

I’ll report on any further explanations I get from my students.

Addendum – I distributed the following “Monster Analysis Kit” to my students today:

Overarching theory
Monsters are a symbolic version of what most shames or frightens us.

Psychological explanation for the theory
When what shames or frightens us is particularly painful, we may repress it, pushing it into our unconscious. The energy we spend not dealing with our anxieties renders them toxic. When our anxieties reemerge in our dreams or take the form of psychosis, as they invariably will, we have what Freud termed “the return of the repressed.”

Theory’s Usefulness
(1) By analyzing the monster that frightens you the most, you can identify your deepest anxieties.
(2) You can also identify the fears of an author, culture, or historical period by looking at the monsters they create. A great author will channel his culture’s anxieties and give them back in the form of monster stories.

What to look for in analyzing a monster
(1) Personal/psychological anxieties – These are anxieties experienced at a personal level. Analyzing an individual’s personal history may help us understand why he or she fears a particular literary monster.
(2) Political/historical anxieties – Because we are not only individuals but members of larger communities, one can examine the dynamics of those communities to understand why certain literary monsters rose to prominence.
(3) Spiritual/existential anxieties – At the broadest level, monsters speak to the anxieties that all humans share about the basic facts of life. Those monsters that are “not of an age but of all time” reflect these anxieties.

Note: The three types of anxieties are not always separable since, after all, we are all of us historical individuals grappling with existential and spiritual questions. Focusing on just one level, however, helps determine the intellectual tools one uses, whether they be psychological, sociological, anthropological, historical, political, philosophic, religious, or other.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments closed

Kobe’s Farewell Poem

In his final game, Kobe scored an astonishing 60 points

Monday

In his farewell to basketball, Kobe Bryant wrote a poem expressing his appreciation of the game he had played with unmatched intensity and excellence. The poem takes on a new complexion when we read it in light of his death yesterday in a helicopter crash, becoming a reminder that we must live life with Kobe’s intensity if we are to do it full justice. We don’t know when our end will be, but we know what we can do now.

I am struck that Kobe turned to poetry rather than prose to help him let go of basketball. Poetry, as I tell my students, is language going as far as language can to capture our feelings. Given how difficult it was for Kobe to walk away from the game, prose wouldn’t have served his purpose. Twice I too turned to literature to capture his struggle, once comparing him to the aging head wolf in the Jungle Books and once admiring Sherman Alexi’s reflections about him.

There are other basketball poems that are far superior. (Check out Quincy Troupe’s wonderful homage to Magic Johnson.) But given our sorrow, this is the poem we need right now.

From the moment
I started rolling my dad’s tube socks
And shooting imaginary
Game-winning shots
In the Great Western Forum
I knew one thing was real:

I fell in love with you.

A love so deep I gave you my all —
From my mind & body
To my spirit & soul.

As a six-year-old boy
Deeply in love with you
I never saw the end of the tunnel.
I only saw myself
Running out of one.

And so I ran.
I ran up and down every court
After every loose ball for you.
You asked for my hustle
I gave you my heart
Because it came with so much more.

I played through the sweat and hurt
Not because challenge called me
But because YOU called me.
I did everything for YOU
Because that’s what you do
When someone makes you feel as
Alive as you’ve made me feel.

You gave a six-year-old boy his Laker dream
And I’ll always love you for it.
But I can’t love you obsessively for much longer.
This season is all I have left to give.
My heart can take the pounding
My mind can handle the grind
But my body knows it’s time to say goodbye.

And that’s OK.
I’m ready to let you go.
I want you to know now
So we both can savor every moment we have left together.
The good and the bad.
We have given each other
All that we have. 

And we both know, no matter what I do next
I’ll always be that kid
With the rolled up socks
Garbage can in the corner
:05 seconds on the clock
Ball in my hands.
5 … 4 … 3 … 2 … 1

Love you always,
Kobe
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments closed

Nourished by the Mystery

Ancient mosaic found in a Galilee church

Spiritual Sunday

I went looking for fish poems to accompany today’s Gospel reading and as a result found myself rethinking a Mary Oliver poem I thought I knew well. I have long argued that Oliver’s nature poems are often simultaneously religious poems, and “The Fish” bears me out.

The Gospel reading involves Jesus’s initial encounter with Peter and Andrew (Matthew 4:18-22):

As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea—for they were fishermen. And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fish for people.” Immediately they left their nets and followed him. As he went from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John, in the boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets, and he called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed him.

Oliver’s poem involves suffering, death, communion, resurrection, and grace—which is to say, Christianity’s central drama:

The first fish
I ever caught
would not lie down
quiet in the pail
but flailed and sucked
at the burning
amazement of the air
and died
in the slow pouring off
of rainbows. Later
I opened his body and separated
the flesh from the bones
and ate him. Now the sea
is in me: I am the fish, the fish
glitters in me; we are
risen, tangled together, certain to fall
back to the sea. Out of pain,
and pain, and more pain
we feed this feverish plot, we are nourished
by the mystery.

I’ve mentioned in the past that Oliver, like George Herbert and Flannery O’Connor, doesn’t believe in cheap grace. The poem wrestles with the agony of mortality as the fish dies a painful death. I think that the fish dying “at the burning amazement of the air” is like God, become human, being amazed at what humans suffer. In what is an allusion to Elizabeth Bishop’s famous poem “The Fish,” the rainbow imagery points to how the dying is simultaneously beautiful (“the slow pouring off of rainbows”) and ghastly (“flailed and sucked”).

As with the Eucharist, Oliver consumes the fish in a ceremonial way. In doing so, she feels filled, not only by the physical fish, but by the mysterious cycle of death and resurrection. “[W]e are/ risen, tangled together, certain to fall/ back to the sea.” The fish, like the Holy Spirit, “glitters in me.”

Oliver is reminding us of Christ’s promise in this veil of tears. No matter the “pain, and pain, and more pain” that we suffer, we feed and are nourished by “this feverish plot,” this “mystery.”  In the end, when we fall back to the sea, it is as though we are folded once again in God’s loving embrace.

Evidence that Oliver regards returning to the sea as spiritual communion is clear from another fish poem, this one entitled “The Sea.” In it, she merges her religious beliefs and her understanding of evolution to celebrate the final coming together. It’s another version of Wordsworth’s assertion that “trailing clouds of glory do we come/ From God who is our home”:

Stroke by
     stroke by stroke
          my body remembers that life and cries for
               the lost parts of itself—-

fins, gills
     opening like flowers into
          the flesh—-my legs
               want to lock and become

one muscle, I swear I know
     just what the blue-gray scales
          shingling
               the rest of me would

feel like!
     paradise! Sprawled
          in that motherlap,
               in that dreamhouse

of salt and exercise,
     what a spillage
          of nostalgia pleads
               from the very bones! How

they long to give up the long trek
     inland, the brittle
          beauty of understanding,
               and dive,
              
and simply
     become again a flaming body
          of blind feeling
               sleeking along
              
in the luminous roughage of the sea’s body,
     vanished
          like victory inside that
               insucking genesis, that
              
roaring flamboyance, that
     perfect
          beginning and
               conclusion of our own.

Further thought: Speaking of Wordsworth’s Intimations of Immortality, Oliver borrows an image directly from that poem, although in her case she’s drawing on our knowledge of evolution as well as Wordsworth’s spiritual beliefs. She talks about “the long trek/ inland” whereas Wordsworth writes,

          Though inland far we be,
Our souls have sight of that immortal sea
               Which brought us hither…

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

Starbucks Chose Wrong Moby Dick Name

From the Moby Dick card game

Friday

I learned yesterday from my office neighbor John Gatta that Starbucks Coffee is named after the first mate aboard the Pequod in Moby Dick. Predictably, that got my mind spinning and I have concluded that the company is misnamed. We should be hankering after Flask coffee.

That’s because Flask is the mate who doesn’t sit down and linger over. Rather, like many Starbucks consumers, he is a man on the go. He only gets to eat after Captain Ahab, Starbucks, and second mate Stubbs have been served, and he must have finished his meal before Stubbs decides he’s done:

Flask was the last person down at the dinner, and Flask is the first man up. Consider! For hereby Flask’s dinner was badly jammed in point of time. Starbuck and Stubb both had the start of him; and yet they also have the privilege of lounging in the rear. If Stubb even, who is but a peg higher than Flask, happens to have but a small appetite, and soon shows symptoms of concluding his repast, then Flask must bestir himself, he will not get more than three mouthfuls that day; for it is against holy usage for Stubb to precede Flask to the deck. Therefore it was that Flask once admitted in private, that ever since he had arisen to the dignity of an officer, from that moment he had never known what it was to be otherwise than hungry, more or less. 

If not a Starbucks customer, Flask sounds like he would make a great Starbucks barista. The stable and cautious Starbuck, by contrast, doesn’t have the energy that the coffee company strives for.

“Call me Flask,” I imagine the company initially announcing. And then realizing this would send the wrong message.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments closed

The Real Face of Patriotism

Wednesday

As the story behind Retired Navy Admiral William H. McRaven’s 2018 Washington Post opinion piece has recently come to light, I am reprinting a blog post I wrote at the time. The Navy Seal who headed the Osama Bin Laden raid was apparently vacationing in a remote location when he heard that Donald Trump had revoked former CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance. The voice mail he left for Washington Post columnist Karen Tumulty was printed as an opinion column. You will see why his response reminded me of a Bertolt Brecht poem.

Reprinted from August 20, 218

A Bertolt Brecht poem came to mind when Retired Navy Admiral William H. McRaven came to the defense of former CIA Director John Brennan, who was recently stripped of his security clearance by a Donald Trump angry at his criticisms.

Vox has the story of what happened:

The man who led the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011 has a message for President Donald Trump: Revoke my security clearance, too.

Retired Navy Admiral William H. McRaven, who led US Joint Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014, wrote a short, but blistering op-ed for the Washington Post on Thursday afternoon, challenging the president on his decision to revoke the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.

In the statement, he praised Brennan’s service to America, and his “unparalleled integrity.”

McRaven continued, writing, “I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.”

The poem I have in mind is Brecht’s “Burning of the Books”:

When the Regime commanded that books with harmful knowledge
Should be publicly burned and on all sides
Oxen were forced to drag cartloads of books
To the bonfires, a banished
Writer, one of the best, scanning the list of the
Burned, was shocked to find that his
Books had been passed over. He rushed to his desk
On wings of wrath and wrote a letter to those in power
Burn me! he wrote with flying pen, burn me! Haven’t my books
Always reported the truth? And here you are
Treating me like a liar! I command you:
Burn me

The security clearance incident occurred during the same weekend that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani declared, “Truth isn’t truth,” a statement consistent with Trump’s instruction to to his followers last month, “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” As George Orwell memorably informs us, autocrats’ first target is always the truth:

[Winston Smith] picked up the children’s history book and looked at the portrait of Big Brother which formed its frontispiece. The hypnotic eyes gazed into his own. It was as though some huge force were pressing down upon you — something that penetrated inside your skull, battering against your brain, frightening you out of your beliefs, persuading you, almost, to deny the evidence of your senses. In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable, what then? 

All patriots, like Brennan and Admiral McRaven, need to hold to the old arithmetic. And step up to the bonfire.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments closed