Where Is Our Next Faulkner?

One cannot tell the story of our nation without also telling the story of our wars. And these often harrowing tales are best told by the men and women who lived them. Today’s American military is the best trained and best educated in our nation’s history. These men and women offer unique and important voices that enlarge our understanding of the American experience. Looking at the great literary legacy of soldier writers from antiquity to the present, I cannot help but expect that important new writers will emerge from the ranks of our latest veterans. Dana Gioia, chair NEA

Gioia is describing “high seriousness”; great art brings laughter, even belly laughter, but is, in the end, highly serious about the nature of man.

I�ve never liked modern poetry much, but a survey course in the second half of American lit has to spend time on Robert Frost, T. S. Eliot, and Wallace Stevens. It may look at Williams and Pound. The �has to� probably signals my age and the fact that I spent the eighties and into the nineties ignoring lit crit. So be warned, this is an amateur at work. Still, I do believe it �has to�, so I�ve been trying to come to terms with them and only intermittently succeeding. Soon, however, I noticed how central to modernism was the break with tradition of World War I: Frost returned as the war started, with his first books at the critic�s; Eliot stuck in England came to feel at home there while writing of the alienated �Prufrock� in 1917; and Stevens, too, found his unique form during those years, as �Sunday Morning� was published in 1915. We generally think of World War I poets as Brits and with good reason. They fought the war, took it as their subject; some died, others were scarred. These Americans (unlike Hemingway, e.e. cummings, Faulkner) were not affected directly. But it is interesting, possibly important, that they as well as many others found their distinctive voices at that time.

Read more

Study Supports Shannon’s Suspicions

Tim Blair discusses the latest UN report, of approximately 24,000 dead as of a year ago. This is from an article on the UN’s analysis of Iraq, “Iraqis Soldier on Without Power, Water, Jobs, Sewers.” (Via Instapundit, then Worstall). Of course, the Times hits a nicely humanist point:

Staffan di Mistura, the UN’s No 2 in Iraq, said that the only encouraging finding was that the situation could have been even worse, were it not for the Iraqi people, who still managed to survive in the face of impossible challenges.

This tenacity is demonstrated by the large number of civilian deaths we now hear about daily: these deaths are often of men stubbornly applying for work as policemen, wanting to give the simple civil order that’s necessary to fix the other problems. The murderers of such people (and those in the marketplaces) are not always Iraqis and want neither civil order nor a democratic, rebuilt Iraq. (As the title indicates, this may not be the emphasis the Times or, at least, the UN wants us to take away.)

[See Shannon’s collected Lancet critiques here. JG]

C-SPAN 1 & 2 (times e.t.)

C-Span 1. Book TV. Book TV Schedule. After Words and Q&A.

Lamb Q[uestions] & Linda Chavez-Thompson A[nswers]; she is AFL-CIO Executive Vice President. First elected as vice-president in 1995, she is the first AFL-CIO executive vice president and the first person of color among the three major positions. She is also vice chair of the Democratic National Committee and a member of the Board of Governors for the United Way of America. On C-Span 1, this interview airs 8:00 and 11:00 Sunday. A rerun of last week’s interview with Justin Kamras, of Washington, D.C. and the National Teacher of the Year will be rerun Saturday at midnight on C-Span 2.

Read more

Duranty Shares with Franks What?

This horse should be dead but the damn thing keeps getting up. You know if you want to run other people’s lives that probably means you don’t respect them.

Taranto, highly partisan if highly entertaining, in his May 12 Best of the Web Today complained of Timothy Noah’s “Conservatism as Pathology: Are Bush Supporters Literally Insane?” in Slate. Franks has a current essay, “What’s the Matter with Liberals” in NYRB. Franks and Noah, Taranto contends, ignore American perspectives — few of us think of ourselves as “working class.” He quotes Noah:

The working class’s refusal to synchronize its politics with its economic interests is one of the enduring puzzles of the present age. Between 1989 and 1997, middle-income families (defined in this instance as the middle 20 percent) saw their share of the nation’s wealth fall from 4.8 percent to 4.4 percent.

Of course, this has some problematic assumptions. Percent of the nation’s wealth isn’t the same as wealth, for instance. And that economic interests are paramount may be Marxist theology, but that isn’t a church we all attend.

Update: Brooks discusses the Pew report on class differences in voting patterns, combined with his usual and attractive delight in variety.

Read more

The Russian Perspective: WWII

Among their “new books” A&L Daily notes I Saw It (Ya Eto Videl), reviewed by Kevin O’Flynn in the Moscow Times. Two Izvestia reporters, Anatoly Danilevich and Ella Maximova, edit letters sent to the newspaper from soldiers and their families; “published earlier this year to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II.”

“In a searing new book, Soviet veterans challenge the official mythology of World War II.” Obviously, these reinforce points made in various discussions here. O’Flynn observes

Svetlana Alexievich — a Belarussian writer who has herself collected eyewitness accounts of the atrocities of the war — writes in her foreword that the book is not about extraordinary heroes, but about the “proletariat of the war.” Still, to a Western reader with little knowledge of the brutalities of the eastern front, many of the letters seem extraordinarily heroic.