Andrew Hagen

The National Endowment for the Arts has detected a literary crisis in America. Our reading of literature has dropped off the cliff. (*) It may be just an assertion, but I believe one of the culprits is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism infects recent prose and poems. Every sub-group needs to get its homage. Multiculturalism also infects the reader’s sensibility. It is less socially advantageous today to have read Herman Melville or F Scott Fitzgerald than it was a few years ago. Today, for maximum social utility, you need to have read something that is diverse instead of something that is good. While some readers do pick up Ellison’s Invisible Man or a Toni Morrison novel or another book of worth, too many seekers of diverse literature find unrewarding trash that can leave them feeling discouraged, feeling that reading is generally not worth their time. It’s not just America. It’s everywhere.

We watch movies and television, and fill our minds with the mindless wretchedness of those forms. Radio is no alternative, in my opinion, as commercials seemingly fill up every available on-air minute, even on public radio.

We read things on the Internet, but they are temporal and often useless. Online writing is closer kin to chicken scratching than literature. It’s good for politics, but bad as art.

In the end, we have a dumbed-down culture, because we try to appeal to the broadest, most diverse group possible. The broader the appeal must be, the lower the common denominator.

As our country’s population soars above the 300 million point, and cities become choked with humanity, social chaos and misery become the norms for most Americans. In our sprawling urban nightmare, fewer and fewer have time to read a book.

What is to be done? Bolt down the bookshelves and hold on. Teach our kids well that which is good and to disdain pop culture. In a few generations the population of America and of the world will begin to decrease, and things will start to get easier. Order and sanity will return. Until then, the stupefying mass culture will continue to arrogate to itself the office of the leading cultural signifier, the phallogocentric core to the civilized, increasingly irrelevant periphery. Irrationality wlil spasmodically break out into violence, as on 9/11. Meanwhile, humble, small, intelligent things like books and paintings will continue to suffer.

There will be morning for human culture once again, but not for some time.

Here is one example of someone who is just trying to hold on. Lynne Truss is a clear voice against the epidemic of misspelling. (†) I have to confess to my share of misspelling, but I seek to correct my errors.

Like Lynne Truss, we have to just hold on to our culture and pass it down, for otherwise it go extinct. Our task requires of us those ancient virtues like versatility, courage, and love, but living up to them is within our power.

The Plain English Campaign has a new list of overused words and phrases. (*) Currently the most irritating is “at the end of the day,” and tied for second place are “at this moment in time” and “like” when used unnecessarily. Of the words and phrases listed by the Campaign’s press release, the following are commonly heard in America.

• 24/7
• absolutely
• address the issue
• awesome
• ballpark figure
• basically
• basis (”on a weekly basis” in place of “weekly” and so on)
• bear with me
• between a rock and a hard place
• boggles the mind
• bottom line
• crack troops
• epicentre (used incorrectly) (†)
• glass half full (or half empty)
• going forward
• I hear what you’re saying
• in terms of
• it’s not rocket science
• literally
• move the goal-posts
• ongoing
• prioritise
• pushing the envelope
• the fact of the matter is
• thinking outside the box
• to be honest/to be honest with you/to be perfectly honest
• touch base

Apparently “uh” was not considered a word. It’s a good list overall, but they fail to mention “something like that.” This monstrosity, “something like that,” is the phrase that in my estimation does more damage than any other. Not only does it malignantly grow, wastefully using more and more of our time speaking to one another, but it also fosters ambivalence in everything from serious matters to trivial details.

I’m as guilty as anyone else in overusing this list, and I resolve to do a better job of avoiding it in the future, or something like that.

Edmund Burke stood against the tide and opposed the French Revolution. His prescient warning that brute tyranny would arise from anarchy is relevant today. Christopher Hitchens tackles the man and his ideas. (*)

Three terribly underused words in America today are obliquity (*), wanton (†), and palter. (‡)

Wilfred M McClay’s altogether brilliant piece in the Wilson Quarterly on ideas in America should not be missed. (*)

Oliver Sacks grapples with consciousness in the New York Review of Books. (*)

Our understanding of it is not well-developed.

I’ve always had a negative reaction to the slow, slightly sneaky reduction in size of a product coupled with an unchanging price. The 3 ounce, 49–cent bag of chips slowly, inexorably becomes a 1 ¾ ounce, 49–cent bag. Most consumers are keyed on price and not quantity, I guess.

Now I learn that this has a name. It’s called “Russian inflation” (*), possibly to reference old Soviet practices.

The Ayatollah Khomeini, former leader of Iran, was heavily influenced by gnosticism. (*) The anti-sex current in gnosticism apparently runs deep.

Peter Sean Bradley gives an informative critique of Gnosticism. (*)

More on the subject can be had from the Catholic Encyclopedia (†) and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (‡)

There are two famous TH Whites who lived in the 20th century. The more famous is Terence Hanbury White (1906–1964), usually called “TH White,” who wrote the King Arthur book The Once and Future King. (*) The other is Theodore H. White (1915–1986), usually called by that name, who wrote The Making of the President, various years. (†)

I’m sure remarks have been made before on the coincidence of two people with similar names who wrote books within a relatively short period of time about figures associated with myths called Camelot. (‡)

Updated 2004.07.10 for accuracy.

Simon Blackburn says that lust not only has positive aspects, but also that lust is a virtue. This may sound metaphorical or intentionally ironic. Plainly, however, Blackburn means what he says quite literally. He is not speaking of lust as “lust for life,” or as mere eagerness. (*) Blackburn has a forthcoming book on the subject. (†)

Oddly enough, on Google I found a bizarre ritual used by the Church of Satan involving the following chant: “Lust is a virtue which drives men forward! {gong} … Lust is the engine of destruction! {gong} Lust destroys the weak! {gong} Lust exalts the strong! {gong}” (‡) Blackburn is not promoting Satanism. It is interesting, however, to see who agrees with him, and why they do.

Traditionally, lust has been termed a vice. The dictionary definition of lust is simple to understand. Roughly, lust is “an overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.” (§)

Blackburn’s argument is hardly innovative or uncommon. Lust was argued to be a virtue in an essay by Valentine de Saint-Point published as a leaflet on 11 January 1913. (**) (††)

Essentially, Blackburn’s argument runs like this: desire has many good consequences; as an extension of desire, lust has good consequences as well; therefore, lust is a virtue. The argument is fallacious on numerous grounds. There is no need here to engage this argument on religious grounds.

The first counterargument would be that while we esteem desire, it does not follow that we should esteem lust. The two are different in their levels of intensity. What is good in moderate levels may have negative effects at extreme levels. The advice of Aristotle is “everything in moderation.” The definition of lust is overwhelming desire, or unrestrained desire. Moderate levels of desire are not lust. A moderate level of desire is indicative of restraint. Immoderate, extreme levels of desire are lust. Therefore, the inherent goodness of desire is not a trait of lust. Nevertheless, lust surely has some positive aspects to it. It is based on desire. Having positive aspects does not mean that lust is intrinsically good. That is, it does not mean that lust is a virtue.

Blackburn attempts to evade this point. He admits, “If we associate lust with excess and surfeit, then its case is already lost.” He then asserts that lust need not be associated with excess. In this way he tries to redefine lust as a synonym of desire. What word, then, would Blackburn assign to mean “excessive desire?” I suppose a word could be found or invented, but let not that convenience obscure Blackburn’s trick of language. He has attempted to win the argument by redefining a word. How simple it would be to score debating points if one needed only to announce a change in the definitions at the outset. In Blackburn’s world, lust is good. This is a concept that would fit in well with Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984. It is not accidental, either, that Blackburn’s excerpt, appearing in the left-wing New Statesman is an argument for totalitarianism. For if we may redefine whatever word we liked, we should be left with nothing but Newspeak.

Consider another definition of lust that fits: lust as unrestrained desire. The lack of restraint on desire makes that desire into lust. The lack of restraint turns desire into that which breaches society’s boundaries. This then becomes a question of which of society’s boundaries should be breached and which should not be breached. This then becomes another question, addressed below. What Blackburn argues for, however, is that lust—unrestrained desire—should be praised. This is hedonism and nihilism. It is contrary to every one of our notions of justice and fair play. To attack as harmful every restraint on our appetites is to attack society itself. For society to exist, some of our desires must be kept in check.

On the other hand, if lust is neither excessive desire nor unrestrained desire, then lust is only desire. If lust were only desire, there would be no need to call it lust. We would just call it desire. It would be wholly unremarkable to defend desire in the contemporary West. It is worthy of note that Blackburn defends lust. Yet, Blackburn is defending lust as if it had all the traits of desire, and none of lust.

The second counterargument is that taken to extreme levels, desire may have negative consequences. Megalomania is the excessive desire, or lust, for power. A frequent consequence is tyranny. Lust is often associated with unrestrained sexual desire. A frequent consequence is adultery. The trouble with too much desire is the negative consequences it brings. These negative consequences do not necessarily result from desire, but necessarily must from lust. The negative consequences inherent to it make lust a vice.

There are other counterarguments, but there is no need to list them here.

Blackburn extends his argument into a critique of the repression of sexuality in general and of the United States as a whole. In brief response, I agree that in the past our Western societies have to a degree wrongly repressed sexuality. It is ridiculous to deny married couples access to contraceptives, to state an example that commands wide agreement. On the other hand, some aspects of sexuality should be repressed. In this group I would place bestiality, incest, adultery, fornication, the sexual abuse of children, and necrophilia. I am not considering whether they should be legal. Some should be and some should not. I am considering whether they should be immoral. Those I have listed should. Secondly, as Blackburn observes, the United States is indeed less sexualized than other countries. It is no mistake that the most powerful, freest, and the richest country in the world—the beacon of liberty—is not devoted to sexual lust. In fact, this is key to America’s success.

To the extent it embodies lust, the “sexualization” of society represents a threat to liberty, for lust attacks the architecture of just society. What is proper is to tolerate and praise desire, and to scorn and contemn lust.

In summary, lust has some positive aspects. Lust is desire unrestrained in intensity. Lust has negative consequences that overwhelm the positives. Therefore, lust is a vice. Lust is not worthy of our praise or promotion. It deserves our disparagement.

Entering a store today, I was accosted by an apparently misguided youth. He ran up to me and, wild-eyed, asked, “Got a square?” I replied in the negative, presuming the subject was illicit in nature. That was not technically correct. According to the useful Urban Dictionary (*) that I later discovered, I was able to learn that he was speaking of a cigarette. I was right in denying him. As always, I have no square.

The second part of the Front Page interview of Christopher Hitchens is online. (*)

Part I of the Front Page interview with Christopher Hitchens is interesting. (*)

The word meme has drawn the justified wrath of D. Ghirlandaio. (*) Despite his overly conclusory description of meme believers, he rightly singes meme theory as repellent to any notion of free will. To believe in a meme is to believe that there is some idea that mechanistically drives people into action. Meme over matter, as it were. Fatuous inanity.

Jim Walsh doesn’t like subheads (*) and neither do I.

A group of noteworthy academics has attempted to clear Doris Kearns Goodwin of the charge of plagiarism. Timothy Noah sets them straight. (*) As Noah says, it does not have to be deliberate to be plagiarism.

Guides for avoiding plagiarism are available. (†)

Writing for Newsweek, Douglas McLennan pokes around for why no one really cares about classical music anymore. (*) The biggest culprit, he says, is that the critics just aren’t engaged and will let any new composition slide as if it were good art.

I’ll do my part and offer my criticism. Classical music has nothing to say about the egotism and antinomianism of the 60s generation and the youth today. Classical music has nothing to say about terrorism. Classical music has nothing to say about the information age. Composers are failing to tell stories in their music that have anything to do with today’s reality. In such fashion does classical music become irrelevant. It is a development that should be reversed.

Joan Houlihan has been critically analyzing the contemporary American poem. In her seventh trenchant essay, she finds that after all of the inherited virtues of English poetry are stripped, what is left can only be described as mental illness. (*) The sickness of our country’s literature is another victim of the rising tide of intolerant individualism as it wreaks havoc everywhere across the cultural landscape.

Writings of the great American naturalist of the 19th century, Henry David Thoreau, are online at the Thoreau Reader. (*) A nice, short introduction to Thoreau is particularly convenient. (†)