The Madness of Donald Trump

William Sharp engraving of Sir Joshua Reynolds painting of Lear

Tuesday

What do you do when your leader goes insane? While many of us have suspected for a while that Donald Trump is descending into dementia, his unhinged Easter tweet threatening Iran has even former ally Marjorie Taylor Green leveling the charge. Here’s what she had to say:

Everyone in his administration that claims to be a Christian needs to fall on their knees and beg forgiveness from God and stop worshipping the President and intervene in Trump’s madness. I know all of you and him and he has gone insane, and all of you are complicit.

She was responding to the following Truth Social message from the president:

Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.

The literary figure that comes to mind is the raging King Lear, although in saying this I am mindful of a critique from my eldest son. A former theater major who knows his Shakespeare well, Darien complains that I elevate the president by making such comparisons. Trump might even embrace the comparison if he knew who King Lear is (which I doubt) since, even in his madness, Lear can still draw himself up and describe himself as “every inch a king.” If I’m going to compare the two, I must include the kind of disclaimer that T.S. Eliot’s J. Alfred Prufrock makes in his extended soliloquy:

No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.

Prufrock would like to think of himself as a tormented Hamlet but, upon reflection, admits he is more like the foolish Polonius. Trump too appears to be an easy tool, easily manipulated by any number of bad actors (Putin, Netanyahu, the king of Saudi Arabia, Kushner, the fossil fuel industry, I could go on). He’s not even a Prufrock, who at least is capable of self criticism.

In my defense, in the past I’ve used Lear for contrastive as well as comparative purposes. All those figures to which I’ve compared our president—Lear, Macbeth, Richard III—are capable of looking inward, and they achieve a certain level of dignity in doing so, no matter how black their crimes. Lear even discovers love for the first time in his life.

Trump, on the other hand, is more like Dante’s souls in Inferno, locked forever in the hell of self. Or to choose another character destined for hell, one drop of repentance—even half a drop (I’m quoting here from Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus) would save his soul, but he can’t manage even that much. I predict that Trump’s death, when it comes, will be as agonizing as Faustus’s. 

The reason that I can’t let go of such comparisons is because Shakespeare, with his deep understanding of human beings, gets why someone like Trump would go mad. Both Lear and Trump are consummate narcissists, so accustomed to thinking the world revolves around them that they can’t handle it when reality claps back. Trump’s increasingly panicked and often contradictory pronouncements about the war in Iran remind me of Lear when he is humiliated by Goneril and Regan. He sounds like a toddler making threats:

No, you unnatural hags,
I will have such revenges on you both,
That all the world shall–I will do such things,–
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth. 

By the end of the tantrum, he is predicting, “I shall go mad!” and we next see him yelling at the storm:

Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!
You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout
Till you have drench’d our steeples, drown’d the cocks!
You sulphurous and thought-executing fires,
Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts,
Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder,
Smite flat the thick rotundity o’ the world!

A number of political commentators are observing that the Constitution’s 25th Amendment–which calls for a president to be removed when he or she “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”—was drawn up for moments like this. However, neither Trump’s cabinet officials nor the GOP will intervene. As a result, they are all (to use Green’s word) complicit.

It’s noteworthy that Shakespeare, when he wrote the play, probably had the recent Annesley affair in mind. In this family drama (I quote from the Norton Anthology here), “the two elder daughters of a doddering gentleman named Sir Brain Annesley had attempted to get their father legally certified as insane, thereby enabling themselves to take over his estate, while his youngest daughter vehemently protested on her father’s behalf.”

Trump’s enablers, unfortunately, just continue to do his bidding. They are like Oswald, Goneril’s sycophantic steward who does her dirty work. Oswald is even prepared to kill the blind Gloucester in his boss’s service.

So for all those who are choosing Trump over God, the Constitution, the country, and all that is decent, I conclude with Kent’s characterization of Oswald:

Kent: Fellow, I know thee.
Oswald: What dost thou know me for?
Kent: A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue;one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition.

That sums it up pretty well.

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

Dickens and Our Rapacious Billionaires

Marcus Stone, illus. from Our Mutual Friend (Mr. Boffin in search of books about misers)

Monday

I’ve just completed Charles Dickens’s Our Mutual Friend and find myself fantasizing that those American billionaires benefitting from GOP tax cuts would read it and undergo a magical transformation. Would they become ashamed at how they are pressuring Trump and Republicans to strip the rest of the country of much needed funds for education, healthcare, and basic living expenses? Would they recognize themselves in Mr. Boffin, whom we see being corrupted by undreamt of wealth?

The billionaires I have in mind are those who have been doing Trump’s bidding, including Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Elon Musk, and David Ellison. While some of these (although not all) once had a more generous view of social welfare, they now appear willing to sacrifice the rest of us to their own narrow interests.

It so happens that, as I was finishing the novel, Trump was voicing their selfish views in a private Easter luncheon. In remarks utterly at odds with the spirit of Christ, Trump said that he had told Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought,

Don’t send any money for daycare, because the United States can’t take care of day care. That has to be up to a state. We can’t take care of day care. We’re a big country. We have 50 states. We have all these other people. We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of day care. You got to let a state take care of day care, and they should pay for it too.”

A little later (I quote from an NBC News report here), the president added

that states would have to raise their taxes to pay for child care costs and that the federal government “could lower our taxes a little bit to them to make up” for it.

“It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things,” Trump said. “They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.”

In Mutual Friend we see Mr. Boffin, one of Dickens’s most engaging characters, turn unexpectedly ugly after inheriting a rich man’s money. Suddenly we see him immersing himself in the stories of famous misers:  

A kind of illegibility, though a different kind, stole over Mr Boffin’s face. Its old simplicity of expression got masked by a certain craftiness that assimilated even his good humor to itself. His very smile was cunning, as if he had been studying smiles among the portraits of his misers. Saving an occasional burst of impatience, or coarse assertion of his mastery, his good humor remained to him, but it had now a sordid alloy of distrust; and though his eyes should twinkle and all his face should laugh, he would sit holding himself in his own arms, as if he had an inclination to hoard himself up, and must always grudgingly stand on the defensive.

Boffin becomes suspicious of everyone, surly with his personal assistant (who has been masterfully managing his finances), and transactional with Bella, a beautiful woman whom he initially supports out of his generous nature but whom he now expects to make a mercenary marriage. In fact, he becomes so ugly that Bella, who once thought that she must find a wealthy husband, is repelled and instead follows her heart, marrying the personal assistant.

As it turns out, Dickens is essentially writing a fairy tale in which wonderful reversals occur (as they do in many of his novels, most notably Christmas Carol). At the end we learn that Boffin has just been putting on an act in order to show Bella the ugliness of choosing wealth over love, integrity, generosity, and general humanity. In fact, Boffin has no problem surrendering his wealth when the rightful heir unexpectedly appears. Bella, grateful to him for awakening her to the danger of choosing money over love, thanks him for the success of his plan:

‘What?’ cried Bella, holding him prisoner by the coat with both hands. ‘When you saw what a greedy little wretch you were the patron of, you determined to show her how much misused and misprized riches could do, and often had done, to spoil people; did you? Not caring what she thought of you (and Goodness knows that was of no consequence!) you showed her, in yourself, the most detestable sides of wealth, saying in your own mind, “This shallow creature would never work the truth out of her own weak soul, if she had a hundred years to do it in; but a glaring instance kept before her may open even her eyes and set her thinking.” That was what you said to yourself, was it, sir?’

So as I turned the pages, I had this dream: that our billionaires—those greedy little wretches–would realize how spoiled they have become and how they have been misusing their wealth and influence. I imagined Dickens’s heartfelt novel opening their eyes and setting them to thinking. The happiness that is Bella’s could become theirs if they set about using their genius and wealth for the benefit of the nation.

Now that would be an awakening in the true spirit of Easter. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

A White Cross Streaming across the Sky

Sunday – Easter

For many Easter posts in the past, I have shared poems by Mary Oliver, thinking that I was finding a resurrection message from a poet who didn’t seem to me to be particularly religious. Only later did I learn that Oliver was an Episcopalian and that I wasn’t reading too much into her when I would read the road to Calvary in a poem like “Egrets” (“Finally I could not save my arms from the thorns”) or “Swamp” (“My bones knock together at the pale joints, trying for foothold, fingerhold, mindhold over such slick crossings”). Resurrection imagery, meanwhile, appears in poems like “The Fish,” where she describe life following a death:

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.

Like Emily Dickinson, Oliver sometimes keeps the Sabbath by walking in nature rather than going to church, but the Easter message runs through much of her poetry. Think of that as you read “Swan,” with the white cross of the bird “streaming across the sky.”

Incidentally, it’s possible that Oliver here is alluding to Christopher Marlowe’s “See, see, where Christ’s blood streams in the firmament” in Doctor Faustus, which Edith Sitwell also does in her own crucifixion poem “Still Falls the Rain.” The line “did you feel it, in your heart?” also brings to mind Wordsworth’s “felt in the blood, and felt along the heart;/ And passing even into my purer mind,” which is how recalling a visit to the Wye River affects him.

In her encounter with the swan, Oliver says the wings are like “the stretching light of the river.” At such moments, we are called upon to reflect on the meaning of beauty in the world. Are we ready to change our lives?

Or as she puts it at the end of “Morning at Great Pond,”

[Y]ou’re healed then
from the night, your heart
wants more, you’re ready
to rise and look!
to hurry anywhere!
to believe in everything. 

As I say, Easter messages pervade Oliver’s poetry.

The Swan
By Mary Oliver  

Did you too see it, drifting, all night, on the black river?
Did you see it in the morning, rising into the silvery air –
an armful of white blossoms,
a perfect commotion of silk and linen as it leaned
into the bondage of its wings; a snowbank, a bank of lilies,
biting the air with its black beak?
Did you hear it, fluting and whistling
a shrill dark music, like the rain pelting the trees,
   like a waterfall
knifing down the black ledges?
And did you see it, finally, just under the clouds—
a white cross streaming across the sky, its feet
like black leaves, its wings like the stretching light
  of the river?
And did you feel it, in your heart, how it pertained to everything?
And have you too finally figured out what beauty is for?
And have you changed your life?

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

My Eldest Son, Named after a Keats Sonnet

Darien Strehlow Bates

Friday

Having written about my son who died, it’s time to write about the two who are still alive. Darien and Toby both have literature-inspired names: Darien’s name I owe to the Keats sonnet “Upon First Reading Chapman’s Homer” and Toby’s comes from a combination of my dissertation subject—the 18th century Scottish novelist Tobias Smollett—and, even more, from the kindly Uncle Toby in Laurence Sterne’s 18th century novel Tristram Shandy. 

In that novel, Tristram’s father is convinced that one’s name determines one’s destiny, so I’m putting that theory to the test in today’s post. As the narrator summarizes Walter Shandy’s belief, “His opinion, in this matter, was, That there was a strange kind of magic bias, which good or bad names, as he called them, irresistibly impressed upon our characters and conduct.” As proof, the elder Shandy holds up a couple of Roman generals:

How many Cæsars and Pompeys, he would say, by mere inspiration of the names, have been rendered worthy of them? And how many, he would add, are there, who might have done exceeding well in the world, had not their characters and spirits been totally depressed and Nicomedus’d into nothing?

In other words, if Julius Caesar became great, it was because he was named Julius Caesar. Duh!

Incidentally, Walter Shandy plans to name his son Trismegistus, the purported author of the ancient Greek work Hermetica. As Walter describes the figure, Trismegistus is “the greatest of all earthly beings—he was the greatest king——the greatest law-giver——the greatest philosopher——and the greatest priest.” Unfortunately, through a series of mishaps, Tristram ends up with the name his father considers to be the very worst:

But, of all the names in the universe, he had the most unconquerable aversion for Tristram;—he had the lowest and most contemptible opinion of it of anything in the world—thinking it could possibly produce nothing in rerum naturâ, but what was extremely mean and pitiful: So that in the midst of a dispute on the subject, in which, by the bye, he was frequently involved,——he would sometimes break off in a sudden and spirited Epiphonema, or rather Erotesis, raised a third, and sometimes a full fifth above the key of the discourse,——and demand it categorically of his antagonist, Whether he would take upon him to say, he had ever remembered,——whether he had ever read,—or even whether he had ever heard tell of a man, called Tristram, performing anything great or worth recording?—No,—he would say,—Tristram!—The thing is impossible.

I think Toby, who is a huge fan of Tristram Shandy, might be rather tickled if I had named him Tobias Trismegistus Bates, which scans well as an iambic tetrameter. Anyway, I’ll explore whether his first name has shaped his destiny in next Friday’s installment.

For this one, I’ll focus on Darien. I’ve long loved Keats’s poem about his first experience reading The Iliad, which had been translated into English by the 17th century poet and playwright George Chapman. This Keats compares to an astronomer discovering a new planet and to Balboa being the first European to gaze at the Pacific Ocean:

Much have I travell’d in the realms of gold,
    And many goodly states and kingdoms seen;
    Round many western islands have I been
Which bards in fealty to Apollo hold.
Oft of one wide expanse had I been told
    That deep-brow’d Homer ruled as his demesne;
    Yet did I never breathe its pure serene
Till I heard Chapman speak out loud and bold:
Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
    When a new planet swims into his ken;
Or like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes
    He stared at the Pacific—and all his men
Look’d at each other with a wild surmise—
    Silent, upon a peak in Darien.

Setting aside Keats mixing up Cortez with Balboa, this sense that the world constantly offers us new possibilities characterizes Darien’s approach to life. He is constantly seeking to expand himself, something he’s has been doing ever since, as a second son, he tried to do everything his big brother did. He has never let conventional expectations hem him in. 

I remember the time when, as a third grader, he had a manicurist who was living with us paint his fingernails. The other boys at first made fun of him but, by the end of the day, they all wanted their nails painted as well. (“Perhaps they “look’d at each other with a wild surmise.”) Darien is forever finding exciting new opportunities and persuading others to follow him. For himself, he will stay in a job only if it is teaching him new things and will look elsewhere once the learning stops. In the process, he has started three companies, the last of which he sold to the company he works for at the moment. (He’s the Chief Product Officer for a company specializing in restaturant apps.)

Darien was a theater major at St. Mary’s. My favorite of his roles was as Pseudolus in Something Funny Happened on the Way to the Forum—he had us all in the palm of his hand—and he also wrote, directed, and starred in an autobiographical play for his senior project. At one point after graduation—this when he was married to Betsy, who had been a music major at St. Mary’s and who now is Director of Administration at the History of Washington, D.C. Museum—he did a self-internship in New York City to determine whether he could make it as an actor. While he learned he had the drive and the skills to succeed, he didn’t like how dependent actors were on the decisions of others. Noticing how, despite their high quality, Off Off Broadway productions were often playing to half-emtpy theaters, Darien figured that he could help them market themselves better. He found a job in advertising in Baltimore (where Betsy was getting an advanced degree in Peabody’s music program), learned he was really good at it, and then moved with Betsy to Manhattan in 2008 to set up their marketing company.

The name of that first company makes my point: Discovering Oz. (I had read the boys several of the Oz books when they were growing up.)

Living on beans and rice as the economy around them tanked, they nevertheless stayed afloat, using the money they made servicing Darien’s former business clients to support three small theater companies, which could pay them very little. Their efforts led to packed audiences, and they might have continued only they had our grandson Alban and figured that, to raise a child in Manhattan, they would have to double the size of their company. Instead, Darien accepted a full time job with one of his high-paying clients and moved to the D.C. area, where he and Betsy drew on grandparents to help raise Alban.

Incidentally, Darien is as excited about being a father as he is in everything else. At one point they built a computer and they have assembled together many complex Lego creations. And now Alban, who is an excellent violinist, will be venturing out himself to Duke Ellington, Washington’s arts-oriented high school. His name might be partially Blake-inspired: the poem imagined a future England as “Albion,” a “green and pleasant land” that represented his utopian dream.

I can’t speak in much detail about how literature impacted Darien’s life. He remembers with fondness how I would read to him and his brothers, his most vivid memory involving listening to me read Lord of the Rings by lantern light as we huddled around a wood stove during an ice storm that had knocked out power. Somewhere along the line he read Tom Jones on his own—he loved it as much as I did—and he Moby Dick on New York subways and E.M. Forster’s Passage to India while working in Baltimore. He once mentioned to me that Shakespeare’s Henry V helped him in one of his corporate jobs, and recently he and Toby have been reading novels together–first George Eliot’s Middlemarch and now Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov—so that they can have substantive conversations.

While Darien and Toby were both devastated by Justin’s death, one good thing that came out of it was a deep and abiding friendship. They talk weekly and, for a while, were producing the podcast Stories We Tell Our Robots: How we make our technology and how our technology makes us (29 episodes in all). This allowed them to combine their twin interests in literature and technology, and  I’ve posted on how they applied Oedipus to predictive analytics.

Darien is convinced, from his extensive experience, that a liberal arts education is particularly effective in preparing one for a business career. Liberal arts majors, he once informed me, don’t just come in and wait for others to tell them what to do. Instead, they survey the field and figure out where they can make the best use of their learning and what more they must learn in order to be effective. They’re also very good at rapidly learning new things.

Darien and Toby both have high ethical standards and treat other people with utmost respect. Although Julia and I have contributed to this, literature has also played a role. Not only do poems and novels get one to step into another’s vantage point, thereby fostering empathy, but they reveal to life to be infinitely fascinating. When one travels in “realms of gold,” one sees the richness of humanity.

So returning to Darien’s name, some part of me must have envisioned an adventurer who would enter life with openness, excitement, and wonder. Maybe Walter Shandy is on to something after all.

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

Passover: The Hard Stories Are Never Told the Same Way Twice

Marc Chagall, Passover Seder

Wednesday Evening – Beginning of Passover

One of many wonderful aspects of Passover is the ritual retelling of the Jewish freedom story.  Ellen Blum Barish explains why the story never gets old.

The Retelling
By Ellen Blum Barish

At my seder table,
I learned that some stories need to be told more than once
to make us stop, gather together and tell it aloud
though we have heard it many times before
so we remember. 

Every spring, we read the same story of our exodus from Egypt
but it is never the same twice.
Every spring, someone is missing for work, move, illness or death.
Every spring, there’s a new mood or geo-political incident. 

The annual retelling is like the sharing of all hard stories,
never told the same way twice.
never heard the same way twice. 

It is a crossing over a desert of shifting sand
that allows us to see something that we hadn’t before
as if for the first time.

Previous Passover Posts
Ellen Blum Barish: The Hard Stories Are Never Told the Same Way Twice (April 1, 2026)
MAGA Reenacts the Enslavement of Joseph (April 14, 2025)
Marge Piercy: Open the Door for Elijah (April 12, 2025)
Chaya Lester: Ask Not for Whom the Bush Burns (April 20, 2024)
Adam Zagajewski: Passover, a Time to Remember Refugees (April 5, 2023)
Harvey Shapiro: Passover Originated in Poetic Vision  (April 14, 2022)
Marge Piercy: Choosing the Dessert over Bondage (March 27, 2021)
Henry Weinfield: Passover, A Ritual for Wanderers  (April 7, 2020)
Harvey Shapiro: Drawn Forth to Eat the History Feast (April 19, 2019)
Norman Finkelstein: This Bloody Flesh, Our Only Food (March 30, 2018)
George Moses Horton: Must I Dwell in Slavery’s Night? (April 8, 2017)
Norman Finkelstein: Blood on the Door Posts (April 16, 2016)
Norman Finkelstein: Death and Miracles and Stars without Number (April 23, 2016)
Nicole Krauss: Replacing the Temple with the Torah (March 29, 2015)
Muriel Rukeyser: The Journeys of the Night Survive (April 13, 2014)
Yehuda Amichai: Finding Peace, Along with a Lost Goat (April 21, 2013)
Primo Levi: A Night Different from All Other Nights (April 17, 2011)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments closed

A Morris Bishop April Fools’ Day Poem

Wednesday – April Fools’ Day

Before turning to today’s April Fools’ Day poem, I take a news break to mention that the Tennessee librarian I lauded as a free speech hero last week has been fired by her library board, dominated as it is by homophobic Christians. The fascist assault on public and school libraries continues. I learned about the news too late to retool today’s post so I apologize for the discordant note as I move on to something lighter. If you want an April Fools’ Day essay that calls out oppressive authorities, however, check out the one on Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal” in the appended links.

Today’s poem has a personal story behind it. Humorist Morris Bishop’s poem “How to Treat Elves” captured the sardonic sense of humor that appealed to my college self. To amuse Julia—this was during the summer after we met—I sent it to her. Her romantic sister melted upon reading it until… But I’ll let you read it first before saying more:

How To Treat Elves
By Morris Bishop

I met an elf man in the woods,
The wee-est little elf!
Sitting under a mushroom tall–
‘Twas taller than himself!

“How do you do, little elf,” I said,
“And what do you do all day?”
“I dance ‘n fwolic about,” said he,
“‘N scuttle about and play;”

“I s’prise the butterflies, ‘n when
A katydid I see,
‘Katy didn’t’ I say, and he
Says ‘Katy did!’ to me!

“I hide behind my mushroom stalk
When Mister Mole comes froo,
‘N only jus’ to fwighten him
I jump out’n say ‘Boo!’

“‘N then I swing on a cobweb swing
Up in the air so high,
‘N the cwickets chirp to hear me sing
‘Upsy-daisy-die!’

“‘N then I play with the baby chicks,
I call them, chick chick chick!
‘N what do you think of that?” said he.
I said, “It makes me sick.

“It gives me sharp and shooting pains
To listen to such drool.”
I lifted up my foot, and squashed
The God damn little fool.

Have you recovered yet? Once you have, you can follow me into my story.

First, Wikipedia’s entry on Bishop informs me that novelist Allison Lurie has described the poem as “a brilliant counterattack” against “a particularly cloying sort of supernatural whimsy” that was fashionable in the early 20th century. I know, from having been steeped in Edwardian children’s literature, that readers of the period were fascinated by childhood innocence. In A.S. Byatt’s The Children’s Book, a novel about the period, we see families taking delight in performing the fairy scenes in Midsummer Night’s Dream. 

That being said, I’m not sure what Bishop’s satiric target would have been when he wrote the poem in the 1940s or 1950s.

Humor such as this, Freud points out, can be a way of throwing up defenses, which may explain why I found the poem hilarious. Perhaps my love for Julia was making me feel dangerously vulnerable. After all, as one who was proud of his reasoning powers, I saw the realm of the emotions as treacherous ground. Maybe I regained my balance by laughing at Morris crushing this caricature of unalloyed sweetness.

Italian semiotician and novelist Umberto Eco captures a similar dynamic in his discussion of postmodernism’s suspicion of sentimentality. There too one shies away from naked acknowledgements of deep emotion:

I think of the postmodern attitude as that of a man who loves a very cultivated woman and knows he cannot say to her “I love you madly,” because he knows that she knows (and that she knows he knows) that these words have already been written by Barbara Cartland. Still there is a solution. He can say, “As Barbara Cartland would put it, I love you madly,” At this point, having avoided false innocence, having said clearly it is no longer possible to speak innocently, he will nevertheless say what he wanted to say to the woman: that he loves her in an age of lost innocence.

I’ve written how the movie Princess Bride operates out of this postmodernist stance.

Anyway, although Julia’s sister was appalled, Julia herself made allowances and married me anyway. Perhaps she sensed that repressed intellectuals respond weirdly when they meet the love of their life.

Previous April Fools’ Day Posts
Oliver Goldsmith, “On the Death of a Mad Dog” 
William Combe, The First of April or the Triumph of Folly
Jonathan Swift, The Isaac Bickerstaff Papers
Jonathan Swift, Meditation upon a Broomstick
Jonathan Swift, “The Last Speech and Dying Words of Ebenezer Elliston”
Jonathan Swift, “A Modest Proposal”
Joan Drew Ritchings, “April Fool” 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

Iran War Planners Should Read Tolstoy

Ernest Meissonier, The Retreat from Moscow

 Tuesday

An Israeli foreign-policy analyst writing for the New York Times has offered a literary explanation about why the American and Israeli administrations are blundering so badly in the Middle East: because they don’t read literature or history, they don’t understand their enemy.

Their mistaken belief is that, because they have access to extraordinary weapons and technology, they think they can impose their will. For instance, while their spy tools can penetrate Tehran’s traffic cameras and communications networks, the planners misread what comes through. Touval notes that both America and Israel’s leaders “remain strikingly obtuse about human beings — about their pride, shame, convictions and historical memory.” Or put another way, “never has so much been seen, so precisely, by so many people who understand so little of what they are seeing”:

A system can tell you where a man is. It cannot tell you what his death will mean for a nation. Such systems are trained on behavior, not on meaning — they can track what an adversary does but not what he fears, honors, remembers or would die for.

Then Touval wades into my territory:

What this war exposes, then, is a failure not only of strategy but of literacy. Literature and history, at their most serious, train precisely the faculties these leaders lack: the capacity to grant that other minds are not transparent to us and are governed by purposes not our own. A mind tutored by history and literature knows that actors in the grip of a sacred cause tend to mean what they say — and that bombing a founding myth is more likely to consecrate it than to dissolve it.

Observing that our culture “has increasingly ceded authority to systems that mistake information for understanding and speed for judgment,” Touval turns to Shakespeare, who “understood this blindness better than our strategists.” The Scottish play makes his point:

Macbeth is not merely a play about ambition. It is about a man who catches sight of a possible future and mistakes that glimpse for a license to force events to conform to his interpretation — and then watches that interpretation devour him. Soon he ceases even to pretend that action should wait on understanding. There are things in his head, he tells his wife, that “must be acted ere they may be scanned” — done before they can be thought through.

Just as Macbeth acts not after deliberation but in place of it, so modern targeting systems “promise the same fantasy in technological form: to collapse the interval between seeing and striking, to eliminate the pause in which judgment might still enter.” It is precisely this pattern, Touval declares, that the literary and historical imagination “exists to counter.”

Tolstoy, meanwhile, shows us how, even when military planners use their judgment, things can still go horribly wrong:

In War and Peace, he depicted Napoleon — nourished on Plutarch’s Lives and its portraits of greatness — who marched through Borodino to Moscow and still could not fathom a people who would let their city burn rather than submit. His error was not tactical. It was imaginative: He could not credit the Russians with a logic that was not his own. That is the mistake the architects of this campaign are repeating.

Touval concludes,

The more technologically sophisticated war becomes, the more dangerous it is to place it in the hands of people untrained in irony, contingency and the darker constants of human nature. Such leaders will speak fluently of capabilities, timelines and kill chains. They will have no language for resentment, dishonor, loyalty or grief — and they will discover, too late, that wars are made of these as much as of steel and fire. That is the illiteracy of this war. The algebra of the war makers will have been flawless. But what they cannot read, they will not have reckoned with.

On Nicole Wallace’s MS NOW show yesterday, a military analyst laid out the horror show that will follow if the United States sends “boots on the ground” to seize Kharg Island or, for that matter, Iran’s enriched uranium. Using his imagination, he was very clear about the extreme lengths to which Iran will go to defend itself and the casualties that will result.

Napoleon in Russia sounds about right, only without the snow. 

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

Optimism in the Face of Trumpism

Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci

Monday

While many of us are rending our garments and tearing our hair at the current state of the world, feminist author Rebecca Solnit’s new book has a positive message. In Guardian article about The Beginning Comes After the End: Notes on a World of Change, columnist Zoe Williams quotes Solnit as saying that we’re so focused on the grim present that we fail to realize we are witnessing the death throes of an old order. In making her case, Solnit quotes the theorist who influenced me the most when I was a history major at Carleton College.

That theorist was the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, and I’ve devoted a chapter to him in my book. Solnit quotes his observation, “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.” 

I didn’t know this Gramsci quotation but I dwell on it here because a version shows up in a Matthew Arnold poem while there’s a related image in a Virginia Woolf novel. First, however, let’s look at Solnit’s optimism.

There certainly doesn’t seem to be much cause for it given that, at the moment, we are struggling with the monster in the White House and his billionaire and grifter friends. But Gramsci was himself struggling with Mussolini and, in fact, would die in one of his prisons. The monsters, in other words, are often lethal. Nevertheless, Solnit is channeling Gramsci’s faith that the new world will in fact be born, even if we don’t always live to see it. If we lack his faith, it’s because we are myopic:

People do not remember the past … [they] often seem to live in a perpetual present. And some find that reassuring, that nothing is ever going to change. Some find it despair-inducing, because nothing is ever going to change. I wanted, in this horrible moment, to remind people that what the far right is doing globally, I think, is largely backlash. A new world is being born, and they’re basically trying to abort it. Which is a little ironic, given their views on abortion.”

Solnit points to the remarkable advances made by various liberation movements, noting that they can’t be entirely overcome. If authoritarians are panicking in the face of them, it’s because they recognize their power:

“Something big I propose in the book,” she says, “is that the whole idea of the ascent of man, his separation from nature, his inevitable progress towards the supremacy of industrialised capitalism, towards this supreme version of himself, is a weird detour from how most people, throughout most of time, have thought about nature and our place in it.” The mistakenness of that detour might show itself in environmental destruction, or it might show itself in an epidemic of loneliness, or in the scourge of corporate rapacity, but, once the imagination has woken up to it, says Solnit, “the change is deep and profound.”

Solnit believes that class consciousness and environmental awareness can’t just be extinguished once they’ve been enlivened:

 “Fossil fuel lobbyists cannot undo it. Putin and Trump and that idiot in Argentina [Javier Milei] cannot undo it. They’re trying to push rewind on the VCR, which feels like the right technological moment in history for them. They’re essentially saying, if you listen closely: ‘You all are very powerful. You’ve changed the world profoundly, with the environmental and climate work, feminism, queer rights, the general anti-authoritarian push for accountability and equality. All those things are connected.’ Your enemies appraise you accurately, even when you don’t believe it yourself.”

The Matthew Arnold poem doesn’t share Gramsci’s Marxist optimism about the future but it may capture a version of our present moment. Visiting an old monastery in the Swiss Alps (“La Grande Chartreuse”), the Victorian poet finds himself longing for a world that is past. Unlike Trumpism, however, he knows he can’t return to it, which leaves him trapped in melancholy: 

Wandering between two worlds, one dead, 
The other powerless to be born, 
With nowhere yet to rest my head, 
Like these, on earth I wait forlorn. 
Their faith, my tears, the world deride— 
I come to shed them at their side.

It is a sentiment that he also expresses in “Dover Beach,” his best-known poem:

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Perhaps we can see white Christian supremacists as panicking at the ebbing of this Sea of Faith, which includes young people leaving the church, some of them repulsed by the narrowness of their elders. This would help explain the fearful and angry embrace of Trumpism. Like Solnit, however, Arnold believes that no return is possible, although he does express a smidgen of hope in the future. Perhaps the tide will flow again, bringing in a new age. As he writes later in “La Grande Chartreuse,”

There may, perhaps, yet dawn an age
More fortunate, alas than we.

This admission aside, however, he appears for the most part to be one of Solnit’s mayflies.

Woolf resorts to a more brutal account of someone tormented by the in-between-state. In her novel Between the Acts, stockbroker Giles is so appalled at the violence involved in the new world being born that he is one of those who aborts the process:

There, couched in the grass, curled in an olive green ring, was a snake. Dead? No, choked with a toad in its mouth. The snake was unable to swallow; the toad was unable to die. A spasm made the ribs contract; blood oozed. It was a birth the wrong way round—a monstrous inversion. So, raising his foot, he stamped on them. The mass crushed and slithered. The white canvas on his tennis shoes was bloodstained and sticky. But it was action. Action relieved him. He strode to the Barn, with blood on his shoes.

Given time, the snake would have digested the toad and the cycle of life would have continued, which appears to be Solnit’s point. Giles’s revulsion at the messy process of change—and the old world dying and the new world struggling to be born—causes him to lash out in violence.

But with over over eight million people having participated in No Kings marches on Saturday—Julia and I joined up with 150 others in bright red Winchester, Tennessee—it’s easier to begin believing in a brighter future. If Trumpism is a backlash against freedom, then its days may indeed be numbered.

In the meantime, however, it’s doing a lot of smashing.

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

Palm Sunday and Two Donkey Poems

James Tissot, Jesus Enters Jerusalem

Palm Sunday

I know of two fine poems that feature Jesus’s Palm Sunday donkey, with the later one appearing to be a response to the first. G.K. Chesterton’s “The Donkey” and Mary Oliver’s “The Poet Thinks about a Donkey tell us as much about the poets as about the Biblical passage.

The donkey in question is mentioned in the account of Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem in anticipation of the Passover celebrations. Here is Matthew’s account (21:1-11):

When Jesus and his disciples had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this, `The Lord needs them.’ And he will send them immediately.” This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,

“Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”

The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. The crowds that went ahead of him and that followed were shouting,

“Hosanna to the Son of David!
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!
Hosanna in the highest heaven!

I sense in Chesterton’s “The Donkey” a certain amount of disgust at his own body and voice. He was bullied as a child and then grew to be over six feet tall and close to 400 pounds. His voice, meanwhile, was described as “cracked and creaking, which gave the impression of adenoids.”  In certain ways, then, he relates to the donkey he describes:

The Donkey
By G.K. Chesterton

When fishes flew and forests walked
   And figs grew upon thorn,
Some moment when the moon was blood
   Then surely I was born.

With monstrous head and sickening cry
   And ears like errant wings,
The devil’s walking parody
   On all four-footed things.

The tattered outlaw of the earth,
   Of ancient crooked will;
Starve, scourge, deride me: I am dumb,
   I keep my secret still.

Fools! For I also had my hour;
   One far fierce hour and sweet:
There was a shout about my ears,
   And palms before my feet.

In the final stanza, I see the power of Jesus’s love to lift Chesterton out of his self-loathing. In this ecstatic moment, he experiences divine joy.

Whereas Chesterton’s donkey expresses the repressed resentment of one who has been abused, Oliver’s articulates the quiet humility of one who doesn’t particularly mind that it has been been overlooked–but who, nevertheless, is grateful to have this chance to serve. The poem is unusual for Oliver since she doesn’t normally allude to the Bible in such a specific way, her spiritual imagery usually being more generalized. Note how, unlike the extroverted Chesterton, the introverted Oliver identifies more with the donkey than with the celebrating crowds:

The Poet Thinks about the Donkey
By Mary Oliver

On the outskirts of Jerusalem
the donkey waited.
Not especially brave, or filled with understanding,
he stood and waited.

How horses, turned out into the meadows,
    leap with delight!
How doves, released from their cages,
    clatter away, splashed with sunlight!

But the donkey, tied to a tree as usual, waited.
Then he let himself be led away.
Then he let the stranger mount.

Never had he seen such crowds!
And I wonder if he at all imagined what was to happen.
Still, he was what he had always been: small, dark, obedient.

I hope, finally, he felt brave.
I hope, finally, he loved the man who rode so lightly upon him,
as he lifted one dusty hoof and stepped, as he had to, forward.

The stanza in italics, the second one about horses and doves, captures Oliver’s inner feelings. Her poetry is filled with moments of such spiritual ecstasy, which invariably accompany nature sightings, whether of breaching whales, egrets at dawn, or small wild plums. But as far as her outer action goes, she feels she has far more in common with the “small, dark, obedient” donkey.

Notice that the donkey finds Jesus’s touch to be light and loving. To celebrate the entry of love into one’s soul, dancing isn’t essential. One has but to open one’s heart.

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

  • Sign up for my weekly newsletter