Powered by Blogger

Ethel the Blog
Observations (and occasional brash opining) on science, computers, books, music and other shiny things that catch my mind's eye. There's a home page with ostensibly more permanent stuff. This is intended to be more functional than decorative. I neither intend nor want to surf on the bleeding edge, keep it real, redefine journalism or attract nyphomaniacal groupies (well, maybe a wee bit of the latter). The occasional cheap laugh, raised eyebrow or provocation of interest are all I'll plead guilty to in the matter of intent. Bene qui latuit bene vixit.

The usual copyright stuff applies, but I probably won't get enraged until I find a clone site with absolutely no attribution (which, by the way, has happened twice with some of my other stuff). Finally, if anyone's offended by anything on this site then please do notify me immediately. I like to keep track of those times when I get something right.

Google!


How to blog?

METABLOGGING

Blog Madness
Blog Portal
linkwatcher
Monitor

BLOGS (YMMV)

abuddhas memes
alamut
apathy
arms and the man
baghdad burning
bifurcated rivets
big left outside
boing boing
booknotes
bovine inversus
bradlands
bushwacker
camworld
cheek
chess log
cogent provocateur
cool tools
counterspin
crooked timber
delong
digby
drat fink
drmike
d-squared
dumbmonkey
electrolite
eschaton
estimated prophet
ezrael
fat planet
flutterby!
follow me here
geegaw
genehack
ghost
glare
gmtplus9
hack the planet
harmful
hauser report
hell for halliburton
honeyguide
hotsy totsy club
juan cole
kestrel's nest
k marx the spot
kuro5hin
lake effect
lambda
large hearted boy
leftbanker
looka
looking glass
macleod
maxspeak
medley
memepool
metagrrrl
mike's
monkeyfist
more like this
mouse farts
my dog
norbizness
off the kuff
orcinus
pandagon
pedantry
peterme
philosoraptor
pith and vinegar
plastic
portage
q
quark soup
quiggin
randomwalks
rip post
rittenhouse
see the forest
shadow o' hegemon
sideshow
simcoe
south knox bubba
slacktivist
smudge
submerging markets
sylloge
synthetic zero
talking points
tbogg
twernt
unknownnews
vacuum
vanitysite
virulent memes
whiskey bar
windowseat tv
wood s lot

TECH

Librenix
use perl
rootprompt
slashdot
freshmeat
Ars Technica
32BitsOnline
UGeek
AnandTech
Linux Today
Tom's Hardware
DevShed


"When they say, 'Gee it's an information explosion!', no, it's not an explosion, it's a disgorgement of the bowels is what it is. Every idiotic thing that anybody could possibly write or say or think can get into the body politic now, where before things would have to have some merit to go through the publishing routine, now, ANYTHING." - Harlan Ellison



JOLLY OLD PALS
Old pals Rumsy and Saddam


Other stuff of mild interest to some:
unusual literature
scientific software blog
physical oceanography glossary
computer-related tutorials and texts

Friday, June 23, 2000

YOU DON'T KNOW DICK
Man have I ever got one massive exocoriation jones going today. It must have been all that Al Pope last night, but the masters are supposed to do that for/to you. Another master of the art of verbal mayhem is the
Good Doctor, whose Tricky Dick eulogy I was fortunate enough to chance upon today and read for the first time since I cackled over it hot off the presses. A few of the master's extended riffs are proffered herein for your enlightenment and entertainment. They also might provide some perspective for those who wrongheadly think the gang of petty opportunists, spinmeisters and poll whores constituting the current administration the worst in the history of the planet. If Nixon had the wherewithal to get a hummer in the oval office rather than tape every last syllable of his malignant, misanthropic conversations with his fellow kakodemons, recent history would have been quite a bit different. But then he wouldn't have been our beloved Dick. Now to the Doctor:
If the right people had been in charge of Nixon's funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.

These are harsh words for a man only recently canonized by President Clinton and my old friend George McGovern -- but I have written worse things about Nixon, many times, and the record will show that I kicked him repeatedly long before he went down. I beat him like a mad dog with mange every time I got a chance, and I am proud of it. He was scum.

Let there be no mistake in the history books about that. Richard Nixon was an evil man -- evil in a way that only those who believe in the physical reality of the Devil can understand it. He was utterly without ethics or morals or any bedrock sense of decency. Nobody trusted him -- except maybe the Stalinist Chinese, and honest historians will remember him mainly as a rat who kept scrambling to get back on the ship.

...

For Nixon, the loss of [J. Edgar] Hoover led inevitably to the disaster of Watergate. It meant hiring a New Director -- who turned out to be an unfortunate toady named L. Patrick Gray, who squealed like a pig in hot oil the first time Nixon leaned on him. Gray panicked and fingered White House Counsel John Dean, who refused to take the rap and rolled over, instead, on Nixon, who was trapped like a rat by Dean's relentless, vengeful testimony and went all to pieces right in front of our eyes on TV.

That is Watergate, in a nut, for people with seriously diminished attention spans. The real story is a lot longer and reads like a textbook on human treachery. They were all scum, but only Nixon walked free and lived to clear his name. Or at least that's what Bill Clinton says -- and he is, after all, the President of the United States.

Nixon liked to remind people of that. He believed it, and that was why he went down. He was not only a crook but a fool. Two years after he quit, he told a TV journalist that "if the president does it, it can't be illegal."

Shit. Not even Spiro Agnew was that dumb. He was a flat-out, knee-crawling thug with the morals of a weasel on speed. But he was Nixon's vice president for five years, and he only resigned when he was caught red-handed taking cash bribes across his desk in the White House.

Agnew was the Joey Buttafuoco of the Nixon administration, and Hoover was its Caligula. They were brutal, brain-damaged degenerates worse than any hit man out of The Godfather, yet they were the men Richard Nixon trusted most. Together they defined his Presidency.

It would be easy to forget and forgive Henry Kissinger of his crimes, just as he forgave Nixon. Yes, we could do that -- but it would be wrong. Kissinger is a slippery little devil, a world-class hustler with a thick German accent and a very keen eye for weak spots at the top of the power structure. Nixon was one of those, and Super K exploited him mercilessly, all the way to the end.

Kissinger made the Gang of Four complete: Agnew, Hoover, Kissinger and Nixon. A group photo of these perverts would say all we need to know about the Age of Nixon.

Geez, now I'm getting all teary-eyed. This reminds me of a similar eulogy written by H. L. Mencken in 1925 about William Jennings Bryan, which no doubt provided no small amount of inspiration for the Doctor's later diatribe.
But the was the last touch of affability that I was destined to see in Bryan. The next day the battle joined and his face became hard. By the end of the first week he was simply a walking malignancy. Hour by hour he grew more bitter. What the Christian Scientists call malicious animal magnetism seemed to radiate from him like heat from a stove. From my place in the court-room, standing upon a table, I looked directly down upon him, sweating horribly and pumping his palm-leaf fan. His eyes fascinated me; I watched them all day long. They were blazing points of hatred. They glittered like occult and sinister gems. Now and then they wandered to me, and I got my share. It was like coming under fire.

What was behind that consuming hatred? At first I thought that it was mere evangelical passion. Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love. But even evangelical Christians ocassionally loose their belts and belch amiably; I have known some who, on off days, were very benignant.

One day it dawned on me that Bryan, after all, was an evangelical Christian only by sort of afterthought - that his career in this world, and the glories thereof, had actually come to an end before he ever began whooping for Genesis. So I came to this conclusion: that what really moved him was a lust for revenge. The men of the cities had destroyed him and made a mock of him; now he would lead the yokels against them. Various facts clicked into this theory, and I hold it still. The hatred in the old man's burning eyes was not for the enemies of God; it was for the enemies of Bryan.

hus he fought his last fight, eager only for blood. It quickly became frenzied and preposterous, and after that pathetic. He bit right and left, like a dog with rabies. He descended to demagogy so dreadful that his very associates blushed. His one yearning was to keep his yokels heated up - to lead his forlorn mob against the foe. The foe, alas, refused to be alarmed. It insisted upon seeing the battle as a comedy. Even Darrow, who knew better, occasionally yielded to the prevailing spirit. Finally, he lured Bryan into a folly almost incredible.

...

Bryan was a vulgar and common man, a cad undiluted. He was ignorant, bigoted, self-seeking, blatant and dishonest. His career brought him in contact with the first men of his time; he preferred the company of rustic ignormuses. It was hard to believe, watching him at Dayton, that he had traveled, that he had been received in civilized societies, that he had been a high officer of state. He seemed only a poor clod like those around him, deluded by a childish theology, full of an almost pathological hatred of all learning, all human dignity, all beauty, all fine and noble things. He was a peasant come home to the dung-pile. Imagine a gentleman, and you have imagined everything that he was not.

Those unfamiliar with this might want to brush up on the context.
posted by Steven Baum 6/23/2000 04:08:25 PM | link

SHRUB-A-DRUB-DRUB
So just who is responsible for the $2.50 per gallon gas prices in Chicago as well as the prices in the rest of the country that have been and are still increasing? Well, we all know it's the godless, baby-killing oil companies, but you'll be shocked and appalled to discover that Shrub has a
different theory:
"The administration should be working to get our friends in OPEC to increase their oil production," Bush said Wednesday. "That's what diplomacy is all about. It's called earning capital in the foreign arena."
The only problem with this bit of Shrubloviation is that OPEC did agree to boost output on Thursday (6/22), the second time in three months they had done so. Additionally, industry analysts - the folks who look at this sort of thing for investment purposes - have said that OPEC's output boost will have no effect on the price paid at the pump. So Shrub's reasoning is as incorrect as is his choice of a target. Which leaves us with the original question: who or what is responsible?

Let's mosey on over to those raving ultra-liberals at the Cato Institute for another theory:

The primary culprits are former President George Bush and the 102nd Congress, the proud parents of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. Those amendments require refiners, starting this month, to reformulate gasoline with oxygenates for select parts of the country. That's the root of the present trouble.

The law forces refiners to dedicate their facilities to distilling one kind of gasoline or the other. It's very costly and time consuming to retool refineries to produce different kinds of gasoline, so it's extremely difficult for refiners to react quickly to shortages. Today, gasoline supplies in the Midwest are about 25 percent below normal, and refineries are having a hard time making up the difference. Hence, the price increase.

Why the shortage? First, several reformulated gasoline-producing refineries have been temporarily shut down for maintenance. Second, several piplelines serving the region ruptured and are temporarily out of service. Hence reformulated gasoline is in short supply and it's difficult and expensive to transport it to the Midwestern market.

So the lack of refining capacity, particularly in the Midwest, set the stage for this mess. Why aren't there more refineries? Because over the long run, investing in the refining business is a dubious proposition. Sure, there's money to be made now, but will there be profits a year from now? Nobody in the industry thinks so, which is why heavy investments aren't being made. Lack of profitability explains why a new refinery hasn't been built in the United States in more than 30 years, and it's no surprise that old refineries are beginning to show their age.

While the bits about temporarily shutting down plants for maintenance (that had just gone through major overhauls for reformulation) and the implicit claim that making money refining oil is a "dubious proposition" are, well, dubious propositions, the remainder of the content of these paragraphs is a matter of public record.

Cato-boy goes on to predictably blame this on the "regulatory zealotry" shibboleth. First, he claims that oxygenated gasoline is "a mixed blessing" that reduces some kinds of pollution but increases others, although I notice he doesn't offer any further evidence other than the phrase "marginal air quality improvements." He then makes a more testable claim about how the oxygenated fuel mandates are a thinly disguised handout to corn farmers, who produce the ethanol used as the oxygenate, adding that there are cheaper oxygenate alternatives (although he doesn't specify if they're only "marginally" cheaper). I'll attempt to verify and get some solid numbers regarding these claims.

Finally, he mentions (but doesn't provide a reference to) a 1990 joint Amoco-Environmental Protection Agency study that concluded - shockingly enough - that federal environmental standards could be met for 20% of current costs if alternatives to various EPA regulations could be adopted. This is hard enough to believe given the lack of supporting evidence (e.g. the study itself), and even more worthy of ridicule given the fact that most of the refineries in Texas are still effectively grandfathered out of following even 30-year-old environmental regulations.

So basically the elder Bush's signature was part of the reason for the increase (although he undoubtedly signed only at gunpoint) along with inadequate logistics planning by the oil companies (they knew about the changeover for 10 years, after all). The efficacy of the mandated change hasn't been established one way or another, at least not by the Cato scribe, although he may be right about it involving pork for the corn lobby.

As for the latest example of Shrubabble, it's nothing more than another attempt to make him sound "presidential" via mouthing authoritative-like statements ("earning capital in the foreign arena", for chrissake!) that are either devoid of meaning, just plain wrong, or - as in the given example - some combination of both. I wasn't wholly fond of the elder Bush, but compared to Shrub and his other sons he's a synergetic combination of King Solomon and Albert Einstein.
posted by Steven Baum 6/23/2000 10:33:39 AM | link

NEW VISTAS IN HYPOCRISY
Out of one side of their mouths,
Arlen Specter and the rest of the GOP are demanding that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate Al Gore's supposed traitorous connections to China related to a Buddhist temple fundraiser he attended four years ago. Why? They're picking up on a recommendation by a career Justice Department official named Robert Conrad to name an outside prosecutor to depoliticize the investigation, although that is apparently the only reason for Conrad's recommendation, i.e.
Conrad has said an independent probe is needed, not because of a showing that Gore has broken the law but because of an inherent conflict in having the Justice Department investigate the vice president, sources said.

"What you hear from Conrad is that he doesn't think he has probable cause to believe that Gore was untruthful" about the events at the Buddhist temple, a source familiar with the probe said.

In other words, some people want to bend over backwards, as they have been for nearly 8 years, to avoid being accused by the usual shrieking heads of political bias and a conflict of interest.

Yet out of the other side of their mouths, the GOP is intoning what can't be described as anything else but the total politicization of every issue they can possibly politicize. The latest is example is a report issued by Robert Ray - Kenneth Starr's successor as head of the most politicized series of fruitless investigations in a very long time - about the incident known as Travelgate wherein Hillary Clinton is accused of lying about firing White House travel office employees in 1993. What's the substantive nature of Ray's press release? No charges are being brought. What's the rhetorical nature of it?:

With respect to Mrs. Clinton, there was substantial evidence that she had a 'role' in the decision to fire the travel office employees. Nevertheless, the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that any of Mrs. Clinton's statements and testimony regarding her involvement in the travel office firings were knowingly false.
Note the word "role," which could mean anything from "heard about it in the hallway" to "chased them out the back door with a sawed-off shotgun after firing them," thus rendering the context in which "substantial" is used utterly meaningless. And does anyone doubt that a prosecution would occur if they had any evidence remotely substantiating the latter? The only known estimony that contradicted Clinton's was that of David Watkins, who ...
... initially denied to investigators that the first lady had instigated the firings, then reversed course in what he described as a "soul cleansing" memo, stating that he had fired the workers at her insistence.
By the way, he cleansed his soul only after he was fired for improperly using a White House helicopter to ferry him to a golf game, i.e. he would inevitably be characterized as a non-credible "disgruntled former employee" were he saying something bad about anyone in the GOP.

And just what is the "substantial evidence" that Ray supposedly has yet still chooses not to prosecute? We won't know for a while (i.e. until after certain elections in November) since the details of his official report are sealed for now, supposedly to give the subject of the investigation a chance to respond to them. That is, they're being sealed so the person he says won't be prosecuted can respond to them.

Yep, there's certainly no politicization here. And there's even less in his promise to announce the final decision on the Whitewater investigation in the "near future," which will undoubtledly be a decision to not prosecute accompanied by further empty blather about "roles" and "substantial evidence." Oh, yeah, and it'll be announced in late October a few days before Nancy lowers that pillow (albeit with love).

One wonders how anyone more sentient than a bag of rocks can believe that the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the accusations against Al Gore will lead to anything other than the complete politicization of yet another non-prosecution. One also wonders just how much more incredibly stupid the Democrats can be about such things. How many more agreed upon special counsels will it take until they figure out such things will do nothing but politicize the situation, to their great disadvantage as well as for a longer time and accompanied by more political damage than would be caused by simply saying "fuck off, there's nothing there" in the first place?
posted by Steven Baum 6/23/2000 06:47:23 AM | link

Thursday, June 22, 2000

POPE vs. CIBBER
Alexander Pope (1688-1744) was the foremost poet of his age and, arguably, many other ages. Along with
John Dryden he brought the poetical form called the heroic couplet to its highest form. Bear in mind that not only was the heroic couplet the dominant verse form in his lifetime, but poetry in general was at least equivalent to prose in popularity. His Rape of the Lock is his most famous and probably best work, although the title gives unnecessary pause to many prospective readers today. One of the McDaniel Lectures on British Poetry offers an explanation:
Those who would avail themselves of the wit and revel in the satire of Alexander Pope's brilliant poem "The Rape of the Lock" must first hurdle the semantic problem posed by the title. Although an act of mild sexual harassment lies at the center of this comic masterpiece, it is not as brutal an act as the word "rape" connotes in modern parlance. Of course, it meant forcible sex in Pope's time as well and before. For example, in "Paradise Lost" (II, 794) Milton spoke of the "rape" of Sin by her son Death. But Pope wrote for a readership that was so versed in the ancient tongue of Rome that they could read words in both their English and Latin senses. Pope was using the word to mean raptus, seizure of any kind.
His second most reknowned work is probably The Dunciad, which brings us to the second name in our title. The first edition of the Dunciad in 1718 unfavorably mentioned Colley Cibber (pronounced Kolley Kibber) five times, but by the time the New Dunciad rolled off the presses in 1743 Cibber was the centerpiece of the satirical poem - replacing Lewis Theobald as the chief object of Pope's wrath.

So why the wrath? According to Myrick Land's The Fine Art of Literary Mayhem: A Lively Account of Famous Writers and Their Feuds:

Many explanations have been offered for the great Alexander Pope's extraordinary bitterness toward the world and most of its inhabitants. In the first place, he suffered from being short of stature. Secondly, he looked, as one biographer has described him, "like a crippled wren." Then, too, his health was so poor that he once complained his entire life had been one "long illness." And, as historians have noted, he was handicapped by the fact that he was a Roman Catholic in a country which at the time regarded - and treated - Catholics as potential traitors.

Whatever the reasons, however, Pope was one of the great "haters" in the history of English literature, and the range of his hatreds was awesome. When a scholar once took the time to list Pope's major enemies - that is, the people whom Pope denounced at least twice in his verses - the grand total came to sixty-three.

And why the wrath for Cibber? It started when Cibber - a hack playwright who gained much success patching together the work of others to "create" his own plays - played a character named Plotwell in a production of John Gay'sThree Hours After Marriage. It was an open secret that Pope had helped Gay write the play and had created Plotwell as a caricature of Cibber. The play bombed, even driving some patrons to publish pamphlets denouncing it (since alt.denounce.al.pope didn't exist in those days). Cibber shrugged it off and started a revival of another popular play, but made the mistake of having a character joke about the failure of Marriage with Pope in attendance. Thus it began. Cibber threw gas on the fire when he adapted Moliere's Tartuffe into an anti-Catholic diatribe called The Non-Juror a short while later (in 1718). Thus Cibber became the chief object of Pope's wrath for the remaining 26 years of the latter's life.

They traded jabs in print over the next 12 years, Pope with increasing wrath and Cibber mostly good naturedly. An additional bale of straw on the camel's back was Cibber's being named poet laureate in 1730, which not only additionally infuriated Pope but brought Henry Fielding into the Cibber-bashing club. Basically, Pope - being a Catholic - wasn't even eligible for nomination, and when the reigning laureate - a drunken parson named Laurence Eusden - died the pickings were very thin. A man named Duck who should have received the honor was away from London attending to his sick wife instead of politicking like Cibber, who got the nod.

The most famous lines Pope ever wrote against Cibber, and which have become known as "Colley Cibber's Epitaph", are

In merry Old England, it once was the Rule,
The King has his Poet, and also his Fool.
But now we're so frugal, I'd have you to know it,
That Cibber can serve both for Fool and for Poet.
Cibber eventually gave up attempting to respond to the brilliant, fierce attacks of the obviously better poet, although he did eventually make a very accurate prediction (in a piece wherein he referred to Pope's attacks on himself as well as many others):
The very lines you have so sharply pointed to destroy them will now remain but so many of their Epitaphs, to transmit their names to Posterity.
He was right. As Land relates about Cibber:
His plays lie undisturbed in the dusty stacks of a few libraries. His years as an actor-manager are mentioned in a few histories of the theater. His preposterous odes have long been forgotten. But any reader of the work of Alexander Pope is reminded again and again that a buffoon named Colley Cobber once lived.
This is one instance when the sword would probably have been a lot mightier than the pen, although the task was probably a bit beyond the 4' 6" Pope.
posted by Steven Baum 6/22/2000 10:15:12 PM | link

THANKS, Y'ALL
Effusive thanks to
BradLands, dumbmonkey, Kestrel's Nest, Medley and Virulent Memes for their recent encomiums, and right back atcha. If I've missed anyone it's the fault of a deteriorating mind and not deliberate. If I indeed have, the fleas of a thousand camels await to infest my naughty bits as punishment.

Addendum: Not ten minutes after I posted the above, I discovered that LOOKA! needs to be concatenated onto the thank-queue. Since I didn't really forget something I hadn't yet seen, I'll replace the previously mentioned punishment with, say, a big plate of super hot wings at Fitzwilly's followed by several generous tankards of Franziskaner hefe weizen. I'll get back to you as to exactly what about this constitutes punishment as soon as possible.
posted by Steven Baum 6/22/2000 03:14:39 PM | link

WARR! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
Wilson and Alroy's Record Reviews visits a fine sort of verbal carnage on popular music. Their motto is "we listen to the lousy records so you won't have to" and the site includes "lengthy, humorless reviews of 2112 records, with separate pages on 179 artists." Various fun sections include: As you might expect, you'll agree with some reviews and disagree (occasionally violently) with others. On the whole, though, they're entertaining and informative.
posted by Steven Baum 6/22/2000 10:32:41 AM | link

EXQUISITELY BAD POETRY
Seamus Cooney's
Bad Poetry page is chock full of delights. But how is merely bad poetry distinguished from that which is memorably bad? According to Seamus:
There is a huge amount of bad poetry in the world. Although new bad poems are being written by the hundreds every day (many of them in university creative writing classes), most bad poetry is simply weak and ineffectual and lacking in interest and (fortunately) is soon forgotten.

To achieve memorable badness is not so easy. It has to be done innocently, by a poet unaware of his or her defects. The right combination of lofty ambition, humorless self-confidence, and crass incompetence is rare and precious. (There is a famous anthology of bad poetry called The Stuffed Owl, which I recommend to those interested.)

He provides many examples of that which is memorably bad, with the "worst poem ever written in the English Language" award going to "A Tragedy" by Theophilus Marzials (from The Gallery of Pigeons (1874):
Death!
Plop.

The barges down in the river flop.

Flop, plop.
Above, beneath.

Above, beneath.

From the slimy branches the grey drips drop,
As they scraggle black on the thin grey sky,
Where the black cloud rack-hackles drizzle and fly
To the oozy waters, that lounge and flop
On the black scrag piles, where the loose cords plop,
As the raw wind whines in the thin tree-top.

Plop, plop,
And scudding by

The boatmen call out hoy! and hey!
All is running water and sky,

And my head shrieks -- "Stop,"
And my heart shrieks -- "Die."

My thought is running out of my head;
My love is running out of my heart,
My soul runs after, and leaves me as dead,
For my life runs after to catch them -- and fled
They all are every one! -- and I stand, and start,
At the water that oozes up, plop and plop,
On the barges that flop
And dizzy me dead.
I might reel and drop.

Plop.
Dead.

And the shrill wind whines in the thin tree-top
Flop, plop.

A curse on him.
Ugh! yet I knew -- I knew --
If a woman is false can a friend be true?
It was only a lie from beginning to end --

My Devil -- My "Friend"

I had trusted the whole of my living to!

Ugh; and I knew!
Ugh!
So what do I care,

And my head is empty as air --

I can do,
I can dare,
(Plop, plop
The barges flop
Drip drop.)
I can dare! I can dare!

And let myself all run away with my head
And stop.

Drop.
Dead.
Plop, flop.

Plop.

The original was made even more pretentious via various indentations I'm not going to bother to reproduce here.

Another painful bit of verse comes from Margaret Cavendish's Poems and Fancies (1653). The Duchess of Newcastle's poetry - described by Samuel Pepys as "the most ridiculous thing that ever was wrote" - is well exemplified by the exquisitely, gut-wrenchingly awful "What Is Liquid?":

All that doth flow we cannot liquid name
Or else would fire and water be the same;
But that is liquid which is moist and wet
Fire that property can never get.
Then 'tis not cold that doth the fire put out
But 'tis the wet that makes it die, no doubt.

posted by Steven Baum 6/22/2000 09:42:20 AM | link

Wednesday, June 21, 2000

SURVEY SAYS!!!!!
I've flogged a huge number of books and albums on these pages since EthelCo was incorporated, and am curious if anyone's actually bought anything based on a recommendation herein. I'm especially interested if anyone's gone to the trouble of tracking down any of the many obscure and annoyingly out-of-print things I tend to drool over. It's not like I'm planning to retire from the frontiers of paleoclimate research and record my acoustic stuff with the London Symphony while I live high on the hog on my book referral royalties (especially since I've never bothered to set up any such thing), but rather a simple matter of curiosity. Drop a line if you feel like it. And by the way, if you're into obscure literary stuff you're gonna be in hog heaven when you see the fruits of my latest compulsion in the near future. Drink one for me, eh?

Addendum: I just noticed that I used the word "hog" twice in the above. Scurrilous conclusions should not be drawn from this.
posted by Steven Baum 6/21/2000 11:05:10 PM |
link

PLEASURE DU JOUR
Besides the beer(s), after catching wiseass deity
Lewis Black on The Daily Show (the best line in which recently was "this was the god scene in the ancient world before Jesus was invented to keep people from having sex all day") I put on a CD copy of Al DiMeola's Elegant Gypsy I recently obtained for half a song for the first time. I've got a rather scratchy vinyl version of this I bought the day it came out back in 1977, although I haven't listened to it in quite a while. I'm just being reminded what an incredible album this was and is. I've kept up with DiMeola's career and have a smattering of his later releases, but nothing comes close to this for me. From the whupass riffs on the aptly named "Race with Devil on Spanish Highway" to the "I'VE GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS!!!!" ambiance of "Mediterranean Sundance," Al's never topped this (although the live reprise of "Sundance" with John McLaughlin and Paco De Lucia on Friday Night In San Francisco comes very close, as does the rest of that album).
posted by Steven Baum 6/21/2000 10:48:45 PM | link

NYT-7: TURN OF THE CENTURY
Paul Krugman's 6/18/2000 editorial dealt with the tremendous material progress made during the 20th century and skeptics who think the Web thing ain't gonna quite measure up to those significant advances. He was prompted to ponder the differences a century made by watching the first episode of the latest BBC transplant on PBS, a mini-series called 1900 House (sort of a Real World with a triple-digit IQ) wherein ...
... a modern British family has agreed to live in a London townhouse that has been carefully de-modernized - electric wiring stripped out and gas lighting put back into service, plumbing degraded back to Victorian standards and so on.
The series made graphic for Krugman that ...
... economic statistics greatly underestimate the real extent of material progress over the half century.
This point is also one of the five key ideas comprising J. Bradford DeLong's online text Slouching Towards Utopia?, called a classic by Krugman. DeLong's goal was to write a text for 1000 years from now when the entire 20th century will get about 2 hours worth of time in a history survey course. He boils it all down to five ideas and one image. The rest of the ideas are (very briefly):
  • the history of the twentieth century was overwhelmingly economic history;
  • the twentieth century's tyrannies were more brutal and more barbaric than in any previous century;
  • the world's material wealth became more unequally distributed in relative terms than ever before; and
  • economic policy--the management of their economies by governments--in the twentieth century was at best inept.
The image is that of Yeats's rough beast slouching towards Bethlehem in The Second Coming, a big favorite amongst millenarianists (who thankfully can now shut up for another thousand years) who've memorized the book of Revelation.

Getting back to the skeptics, one of the torch bearers is Robert J. Gordon, an economist at Northwestern whose Does the 'New Economy' Measure Up to the Great Inventions of the Past? has stimulated a huge amount of debate on the topic. Gordon ...

...argues that each of five "clusters" of innovation - electricity, the internal combustion engine, modern chemistry, mass media and plumbing - was in itself a bigger deal than the digital revolution as a whole.
Gordon's abstract is a bit more explicit on the matter:
The Internet fails the hurdle test as a Great Invention on several counts. First, the invention of the Internet has not boosted the growth in the demand for computers; all of that growth can be interpreted simply as the same unit-elastic response to the decline in computer prices as was prevalent prior to 1995. Second, the Internet provides information and entertainment more cheaply and conveniently than before, but much of its use involves substitution of existing activities from one medium to another. Third, much internet investment involves defense of market share by existing companies like Borders Books faced with the rise of Amazon; social returns are less than private returns. Fourth, much Internet activity duplicates existing activity like mail order catalogues, but the latter have not faded away; the usage of paper is rising, not falling. Finally, much Internet activity, like daytime e-trading, involves an increase in the fraction of work time involving consumption on the job.
Have fun and join the debate. What do I think? It's been a long day capped off by two hours of ultimate frisbee in the hot, muggy Texas summer, so I think I'll have another beer. You'll also be happy to hear that I've milked Sunday's NYTimes for just about all I can, and are that much closer to understanding why I no longer buy it every day.
posted by Steven Baum 6/21/2000 09:42:52 PM | link

FRIVOLITY
Tee hee. Click
here.
posted by Steven Baum 6/21/2000 04:43:02 PM | link

NYT-6: "I WAS CERTAIN, BUT I WAS WRONG"
The June 18 editorial by Jennifer Thompson on the op-ed page is one of the most poignant and pointed such things I've read in some time. Thompson describes of being raped at knifepoint as a 22 year old college student in 1984. She describes her focus during the ordeal:
I studied every single detail on the rapist's face. I looked at his hairline; I looked for scars, for tattoos, for anything that would help me identify him. When and if I survived the attack, I was going to make sure that he was put in prison and he was going to rot.
She confidently identified her attacker as one Ronald Cotton after searching through police photos for days, and picked the same man out of a line-up. How confident was she?
Again, I was sure. I knew it. I had picked the right guy, and he was going to go to jail. If there was the possibility of a death sentence, I wanted him to die. I wanted to flip the switch.
The case went to trial in 1986, she testified, and the man she'd identified with absolute confidence every time went to jail for life. In 1987, an appellate court overturned the conviction because another man named Bobby Poole had claimed to be the rapist and was bragging about it in prison - in the same prison wing in which Cotton was incarcerated. Thompson testified in court that she'd never seen Poole in her life, so Cotton went back to prison for life.

In 1995, she was asked to provide a blood sample so DNA tests could be performed on evidence from the rape. She agreed, still absolutely confident that the right man was behind bars. You've undoubtedly figured out by now that when the D.A. and police detective visited her soon after they said, "Ronald Colman didn't rape you. It was Bobby Poole." In Thompson's words:

The man I was so sure I had never seen in my life was the man who was inches from my throat, who raped me, who hurt me, who took my spirit away, who robbed me of my soul. And the man I had identified so emphatically on so many occasions was absolutely innocent.
Thompson says that she and Cotton are now friends, he having forgiven her for taking 11 years from his life. She also says that she traveled to Houston last week (with a group of 11 men and women who had been convicted on eyewitness testimony and later exonerated via DNA tests) to "beg Gov. George W. Bush and his parole board not to execute
Gary Graham based on this kind of evidence." And what of Graham, whose guilt Bush is as "supremely confident" of as he says he's been about every other death row inmate he's shuffled off this mortal coil, albeit "compassionately." A few paragraphs from the wonderful folks at the Campaign to End the Death Penalty should prompt sufficient outrage:
Bobby Lambert was tragically murdered in a Safeway grocery store parking lot on May 13, 1981. Gary was miles away from the grocery store with at least four people when the crime occurred. Those four witnesses have all taken polygraph tests and passed, stating Gary was with them the night of the murder.

Eight crime scene witnesses have been identified who saw the assailant the night of Bobby Lambert's murder. Only one of them, Bernadine Skillern, later identified Mr. Graham as the assailant. None of the others identified Mr. Graham.

Out of the eight eyewitnesses, Ms. Skillern had one of the poorest views of the assailant. She testified that she had a frontal view of the assailant's face for only two or three seconds, at night, from a distance of 30 to 40 feet.

The death penalty is a farce, especially in the south where the operative legal "principle" still in effect 135 fucking years after Lincoln supposedly freed the slaves is "you're a nigger so you're guilty" (which is, by the way, nearly a verbatim transcription of what a Texas cop told a black man he picked up as a murder suspect who was convicted and eventually exonerated by DNA evidence). And the man in the White House - who the braindead, crackpot reactionaries "think" the most horribly liberal man in history - while not the equal of Shrub in quantity, came real close in "quality" in the case of Ricky Lee Rector in 1992. Administering the death penalty is a tremendous power, about which Lord Acton's main claim to fame applies in spades.
posted by Steven Baum 6/21/2000 12:48:13 AM | link

Tuesday, June 20, 2000

NYT-5: THE SECRET MUSEUM OF THE AIR
The Arts & Leisure section yielded a
golden nugget called The Secret Museum of the Air, a radio show similar to John Schaefer's New Sounds that I mentioned recently. The Museum's curator is Pat Conte, and the show gets its name from "The Secret Museum of Mankind" ...
... which fills the basement of his mother's Long Island ranch house, includes dinosaur bones, tribal masks, a pipe collection, antique microphones and stereo gear from the 1950's and 60's. But at its heart is the music of a lost time, when adventurers and entrepreneurs fanned out across the continents with 78-r.p.m. and wax cylinder recording equipment in search of indigenous music.
The museum in turn gets its name from a book of ethnographic photographs originally published in the 1930s. So just how much recorded booty does Conte have?
Some 30,000 such records from all over the world have landed in Mr. Conte's basement since an aunt presented him, when he was 16, with a gift of Italian 78's. In addition, he has 5,000 LP's, close to 1,000 45's and more than 5000 hours of music on reels of tape and cassettes.
*SLOBBER* *DROOOOOL* ... that insufferable bastard. And how did he get all that wonderful swag?
He has hunted down treasures in curbside garbage piles and used-book shops, at garage sales, flea markets and Salvation Army stores -- where, he says, 78's could once be had for a dime apiece. But much of his library came to him: as a teenager, he would discuss his obsession in short-wave radio conversations with people in distant lands who would then mail him records. "It got to the point where every day the packages arrived was like Christmas for me," he recalls. "I would open a box and sample another world and another time. It was an amazing feeling."
Gee, and I get *exactly* the same feeling when I get those 2,000 credit card offers every week. And as if that wasn't enough, he has a co-host named Citizen Kafka (a.k.a. Richard Schulberg) who has a collection of over 30,000 bits of vinyl and a most eclectic resume ...
... which includes stints as an opal prospector, a film projectionist, a theremin player and an antiques vendor. He is the leader of the Wretched Refuse String Band, a 30-year-old ensemble that counts such bluegrass virtuosos as Kenny Kosek, Andy Statman and Tony Trischka as alumni. And he produced and performed " The Citizen Kafka Show," a comedy program that was broadcast monthly on WBAI-FM during most of the 1980's and that featured an actor, then unknown, by the name of John Goodman.

The weekly Museum shows have various themes. They can be based on the music of specific countries or on special topics such as:

  • Orchestral ... Looking Back - "We explore some VERY rare and virtually unknown connections between the written music of noted 20th Century composers and the obscure 78 records they ripped off. Well, not exactly stole, just kidding, but it is remarkable how many well-known orchestral and ensemble works are note for note taken from rare and virtually unknown ethnic recordings."
  • Manges - "There was a thriving nightclub, music, and drug scene around Athens during the 1920s and 30s. The gangsters and organized crime (manges) helped to encourage the development of a powerful type of music featuring the bouzouki, later to be called rebetik or rembetika. Patrons would get high on cocaine and hashish, then go to nightclubs to listen to songs extolling their virtues (the drugs, not the patrons...)."
  • The Clarinet - "An instrument which records very well with the technology of the early part of the century. This show features the many instruments from around the world related to the clarinet, with a startling variety of types of music."
Luckily for those of us who don't live in Jersey City, the show is streamed live over the Web as with everything else on WFMU. They also have a Listening Room with an increasing number of Real Audio samples of past programs. The Museum site is currently a bit sparse but under heavy construction and looking most promising. You can also snag a series of Secret Museum of Mankind CDs on Shanachie Records' Yazoo compilation label.
posted by Steven Baum 6/20/2000 11:09:10 PM | link

Monday, June 19, 2000

SESQUIPEDALIAN PURSUITS
It's been 6 or 7 years since I compiled my
list o' nifty words, but I've always been reticent about publicizing it. This is largely due to the fact that I've never done much with it other than the original compilation - until now. Thanks to a nicely slow and dull weekend, I had all kinds of time to piss my life away on the web, which I did in abundance concerning that list. I've started adding quotations showing usage as per the OED, although I'm trying to limit all such additions to those found on the web. I'm grabbing fairly large portions of text for most of the examples because their nature requires a slightly larger context than more common words to establish meaning. Also, given the predations of link rot, many links will undoubtedly disappear before I finish the stables. Larger text chunks available on site will hopefully diminish some of the deleterious effects of this process. All such additions will be attributed as fully as possible, since I in no way wish to pass off the good work of others as my own.

I've also added a list of other sites doing similar things concerning large, obscure and/or archaic words, which I reproduce here for your convenience (and to add that much more verbiage to this turkey):

So I you're looking for some strange word you'll probably find it somewhere in the above. If, on the other hand, you're looking for the definition of a more common word in a specific context (i.e. jargon), you might want to look in my list of Online Dictionaries, Glossaries and Encyclopedias, compiled obsessively and compulsively on another slow weekend.
posted by Steven Baum 6/19/2000 09:25:07 AM | link

Sunday, June 18, 2000

NYT-4: DOVER'S DECLINE?
The
Bookend by Tom Reiss starts out with a bit of an unpleasant revelation concerning my favorite publishing company:
The death not long ago of Hayward Cirker, the founder of Dover Publications, seemed to mark the end of one era in publishing, but it may have as much to tell us about the one we're entering. As much as any other single publisher, Cirker mastered and thrived on the industry's last great technical revolution: the paperback. The shelves of American bookstores, not to mention those of millions of book lovers, would look very different if not for Cirker's influence.
Reiss reveals the secret of Cerker's commercial success in spite of not churning out best-selling hackwork by the ton:
Cirker's flash of commercial insight was that readers who ate up pulps would gladly pay a bit more to acquire paperbacks of lasting value, meant to be placed on the shelf alongside hardcover editions. In 1945, almost a decade before Jason Epstein started up Doubleday's better-known line of trade paperbacks, Anchor Books, Cirker had his first big success with a trade reissue of a seminal German mathematics treatise, and quickly recognized the potential of the quality paperback to make American publishing richer than it had been -- not only in profits but in ideas, facts and inspiration.
Later we're told which Dover items pumped in the cash that allowed other, less successful items, to be retained:
Practically alone among large publishers, Dover has been willing to give a second life to popular nonfiction as well as fiction. ... Dover published collected editions of the writings of Houdini and Leonardo da Vinci, and was the first house to develop a deep list of classical music scores. Meanwhile, the steady income came from deluxe wrapping paper in period designs, historically based coloring books like ''Medieval Fashions'' and ''Naval Battles of the Civil War'' and how-to titles like ''Cookies From Many Lands'' and ''Boomerangs: How to Make and Throw Them.'' This allowed Dover to publish expensive (this usually meant around $30) and definitive sets, like the two-volume Yule-Cordier edition of ''The Travels of Marco Polo'' and Thoreau's complete journal.
I'll be most unhappy to see Dover go or even be transmogrified into another cog in some multimedia mega-machine. The first big blow to their way of doing business was about 15 years ago when inventory tax laws were changed such that companies that kept large inventories of many different books for a long time were punished compared to those that pinched off a few trillion copies of one best seller every month, dumping their inventory in the trash or to used book stores at the end of the month to make room for another. I hope that one man's vision wasn't all that was keeping them out of the dustbin of history.
posted by Steven Baum 6/18/2000 09:29:10 PM | link

NYT-3: A BUNCH MORE BOOKS
Daniel Zalewski reviews Plowing the Dark, the latest novel by Richard Powers (The Gold Bug Variations, Galatea 2.2). Powers juxtaposes the occupants of two rooms - one in a prison cell in Beirut and the other in a computer lab in Seattle - who journey in the virtual reality of the human mind and cyberspace, respectively. The cyberspace traveler is "a classic Powers character - a former prodigy whose ideals have curdled into premature bitterness" who attempts some form of redemption by, among other things, transforming Rousseau's painting "The Dream" into a cyberspace rain forest. As you might suspect the "real" and the "artificial" realities merge towards the end. The reviewer finishes with:
In the end, "Plowing the Dark" succeeds as spectacle, but it's not intellectually satisfying. That's something I never expected of RIchard Powers.
All the same, I've enjoyed all his other novels (as well as those of his spiritual "brother" Tim Powers), so I'll eventually get and read it.

Adam Goodheart reviews Paul Theroux's Fresh Air Fiend, a brick's worth of his collected travel writings from 1985-2000. It contains the travel essays he's written for, e.g. Outside, Gourmet, National Geographic and Vanity Fair, as well as a dozen or so about other travel writers. Goodheart focuses on one about Bruce Chatwin:

Here Theroux recounts a conversation in which Chatwin asked him, in typically pointed fashion, what he did not like about ''In Patagonia.'' ''I said straight off that it bothered me that he never explained the difficulties and in-betweens of travel -- where he slept, what he ate, what kind of shoes he wore,'' Theroux recalls. (One wishes that Theroux had then asked Chatwin what he did not like about ''The Great Railway Bazaar.'')
And then there's a nice paragraph about Theroux's misanthropic tendencies when traveling, a feature I've always liked in his books:
For all his airy exhortations to travel, nothing annoys Theroux as much as other travelers -- or, even worse, tourists. On Christmas Island, a prime sport-fishing destination in the South Pacific, he writes, ''There is hardly a wall at the Captain Cook Hotel, one of the island's two hotels, that does not exhibit a photograph of a foreigner, popeyed under the weight of a potbellied, scaly, slack-jawed trophy -- the mirror image of its captor.'' What do you call xenophobia when it's actually the opposite, revulsion toward your own countrymen? Whatever it is, Theroux has got it, and he uses it to good effect -- especially in an essay on the new China, where he portrays American joint-venture executives talking like old-time Maoist cadres: ''We're doing very well. We're on schedule. Everything's going ahead. We have a great team.''
Alan Ryan gives a thumbs up to Ronald Dworkin's (whose name is guaranteed to make conservative "intellectuals" froth at the mouth) Sovereign Virtue : The Theory and Practice of Equality, wherein he spends 500 pages making a case for equality as the sovereign political virtue. That's right: equality rather than liberty, national glory, or the inculcation of virtue (one can almost hear William Bennett's teeth gnashing). According to Ryan:
[Dworkin] does not think that equality consists in sharing out whatever we happen to have available at present; but he does not believe that inequality is justified whenever it produces more happiness in total. What he cares about is fairness, not maximizing happiness.
How can such fairness be achieved and, more importantly, how can we tell how close we are to such a thing at present? Ryan summarizes Dworkin's argument as follows:
Imagine that everyone starts with an equal amount of something -- cowrie shells, iron bars, glass beads -- that serves as a currency. We then auction off everything that will help us in leading an interesting and fulfilling life; after one round of the auction we ask if all are happy with the lots they have purchased. If anyone isn't, we run the auction again. That is equality of resources; and that is a fair distribution of whatever we find necessary, useful and agreeable.

To decide whether our society is a fair society, we ask whether we can imagine it being the way it is simply on the strength of what people might have done with the resources they got in the auction. A very inegalitarian society might well be a just one. If my deepest wish is to sit on a beach in Maine fishing for bass, I might cheerfully forgo stock options in Microsoft to do it. If I have a passion for gambling, my fortunes might ricochet up and down without anyone having reason to think it all very unfair.

But the differences in wealth, income, health, education, access to political influence and the rest of it in countries such as the United States and Britain are so extreme, and persist so powerfully from one generation to another, that it is impossible to believe that they merely reflect different tastes and talents, and different preferences about how we should spend our time. It is impossible not to believe that most -- by no means all -- of the inequality reflects the fact that the better-off can buy the political influence that enables them to ensure that they can pass on their good fortune to their children and their friends without hindrance.

Sounds like an interesting if lengthy read, with Ryan concluding that "although few of Dworkin's conclusions are self-evident, his arguments are dazzlingly clever."

A briefer mention is made of Paul West's The Secret Lives of Words, in which an author who usually writes unusual history novels sings the praises of his favorite words, defining them and giving their etymologies.
posted by Steven Baum 6/18/2000 07:57:54 PM | link

NYT-2: TAXONOMY BY TUDGE
W. Ford Doolittle - an evolutionary biologist at Dallhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia - starts his
review of Colin Tudge's The Variety of Life : A Survey and a Celebration of All the Creatures That Have Ever Lived with the marvelous recommendation:
Colin Tudge, a very energetic British science writer, has produced a great wodge of a book that attempts to explain and make interesting the whole enterprise of taxonomy (or systematics), the scientific practice that has biological classification as its object.
The book consists about about 2/3 group by group descriptions of organisms that live or have lived on the planet, and about 1/3 interspersed explanations of various unsettled controversies concerning their relationships.

The review itself is probably the best concise explanation of the history of our attempts to classify organisms I've encountered, starting with Linnaeus' invention of modern binomial nomenclature and a preliminary version of our present hierarachical classification framework. He moves on through Darwin's explanation of Linneaus' hierarchical resemblance patterns via evolution, and then to the contributions of Willi Hennig in distinguishing between derived and ancestral traits (and therefore founding the approach to classification called cladistics). The controversies between the two sides are mentioned (with Tudge's book taking an intermediate position), as is the increasing classification role of DNA sequence comparisons. Here Doolittle offers something with which I'm mostly unfamiliar concerning DNA sequencing, i.e.:

There are waves of deconstruction sweeping what I call the deep-phylogeny community (those concerned with the tree's earliest branchings, which most likely date back 2.5 billion to 4 billion years). Some think we have placed too much faith in molecules, that too many mutations have occurred in that very long time and thus that the genealogical signals on which we have rooted the universal tree are actually noise. Others think that genes are swapped between species (particularly among single-celled organisms) sufficiently frequently that if you look back far enough, the different genes making up an organism's genome will have different genealogies. In the first case, the universal tree would be unknowable; in the second, there would be no tree to know. Not surprisingly, these are fighting words in the community.
Doolittle's has some problems with the book, including that the figures are insufficiently detailed line drawings and that:
...the group descriptions are too breezy, too patchy and too personal to recommend the book as an authoritative summary of our current wisdom in biological classification. (I would choose instead the idiosyncratic but more engagingly illustrated Five Kingdoms by Lynn Margulis and Karlene Schartz).
Doolittle ends the review averring the value of all such books in promoting public interest and then with the sobering:
We, the products of almost four billion years of evolution, are poised to wipe out half the other products. The least we can do is try to name them as they go.

posted by Steven Baum 6/18/2000 05:05:24 PM | link

Interlude: Be a Schmarty!
At the end of last night's screening of
The Producers, the host offered that Mel Brooks is currently creating a version of that hilarious classic for Broadway with Nathan Lane planned to be the Zero Mostel character and Martin Short the Gene Wilder character. I'd prefer an expanded, full version of the "Springtime for Hitler" that we only saw bits and pieces of in the film, although it might not be wise to let Mel have free reign with his Nazi fixation for an entire picture. Brookslyn: the Mel Brooks Internet Town carries news about this (as well as many other Brooks-related items) including an MP3 version of a Letterman interview in which he apparently announced the project.
posted by Steven Baum 6/18/2000 04:55:26 PM | link

NYT-1: Marxism
Marxism seems to be on the ascendant as we mosey into the new millennium. The
NYTimes Book Review section features three new 2000 vintage books on the Marx Brothers in a review by Gary Giddins called There Ain't No Sanity Claus. The books are Groucho: The Life and Times of Julius Henry Marx by Stefan Kanfer, The Essential Groucho: Writings by, for, and About Groucho Marx edited by Kanfer, and Monkey Business: The Lives and Legends of the Marx Brothers: Groucho, Chico, Harpo, Zeppo with Added Gummo by Simon Louvish. Giddins is lukewarm about all three, opining:
The accretion of small errors in Kanfer's biography and anthology undermines his authority.
and that
His many virtues, however, are undermined by missteps, like a section in the present tense, vain Gallicisms, chronology problems and an almost arrogant lack of scholarship.
About the remaining book we get:
Louvish is a more committed researcher and has come up with new material. He has elected, however, to publish his research rather than write a book.
The final analysis is that Kanfer has produced a mostly well-written rehash of what Hector Arce did better and more thoroughly in Groucho, the currently definitive (and, of course, out-of-print) word on Groucho, and that Louvish's tome is probably best left to the most devout of Marxists willing to wade through 471 pages to get to the smattering of new material.

The essential Marxist bookshelf includes Arce's bio of Groucho, Harpo's autobio Harpo Speaks, and any of the several books Groucho authored himself (or with others), especially Groucho and Me, The Groucho Letters, and the profusely illustrated Marx Brothers Scrapbook. Those readers interested in historical authenticity should be warned that - like with Richard Feynman's autobiographical material - Groucho's stories about himself and his brothers should always be taken with many grains of salt. Making people laugh mattered much more to him - even in print - than the petty concerns of accuracy. And seeing how I'm in no position to deny him that desire, I'll finish with Giddins' final paragraph:

Louvish consistently and Kanfer occasionally fall into an obvious trap: when writing about a comedian, do not attempt to compete for laughs. You cannot top the man who said of the evil tenor in "A Night at the Opera": "You're willing to pay him a thousand dollars a night just for singing? Why, you can get a phonograph record for 'Minnie the Moocher' for 75 cents. For a buck and a quarter, you can get Minnie."

posted by Steven Baum 6/18/2000 04:15:23 PM | link

ALMOST PARODISE
While looking for something else, I unfortunately ran into that godawful D-word thing that has (hell)spawned both a hit song and a billion posters. I refuse to acknowledge its existence except via a perverse desire to find all the parodies thereof that I could:
As both a lagniappe and something to clear your mental palate, I also offer the following parodies:
posted by Steven Baum 6/18/2000 09:42:54 AM | link


Comments?
Archive

LISTS

Books
Software

uPORTALS

cider
crime lit
drive-in
fake lit
hurricanes
os
scripting
sherlock
texas music
top 100
weirdsounds
wodehouse

LEISURE

abebooks
alibris
amazon
bibliofind
bookfinder
hamilton
powells

all music guide
best used cds
cd bargains
second spin
raven's links

ampol
arts & letters
atlantic
art history
attrition
bibliomania
bitch
bizarre
bizarro
bloom country
bob 'n' ed
bob the angry flower
callahan
chile pepper
classical music
cnnsi
crackbaby
cult films
culture jamming
discover
disinformation
dismal scientist
electric sheep
espn
exquisite corpse
feed
fine cooking
fishbowl
fluble
fried society
fry and laurie
hotel fred
hotendotey
hypocrisy network
jerkcity
last cereal
leisure town
logos
london times
mappa mundi
miscmedia
mp3lit
mr. chuck show
mr. serpent
national geographic
new scientist
no depression
not bored
obscure store
onion
on-line books
parking lot is full
pearly gates
phrase and fable
probe
red meat
rough guides
salon
Simpleton
sluggy freelance
spacemoose
spike
straight dope
strenua inertia
suck
superosity
tawdry town
too much coffee man
toon inn
verbivore
vidal index
yes minister
you damn kid





Powered by Blogger