Why book clubs are an abomination; not really, well, kinda.

I was out to lunch when someone mentioned how the pace of her book club was making her forget what she had read.

She said, “I vividly remember books I read in high school and college just fine but I don’t remember book club books from just a few months ago!”

I said, always trying to be helpful, “That’s because book clubs are an abomination.”

“Hey,” she said. “I really love my book club. You suck.”

Who invented book clubs anyway?

I did wonder about that but in the end the answer doesn’t matter. Book clubs are here to stay and people (think) they like ‘em. And, isn’t liking something what life generally and reading specifically is all about? Could be, but there’s something else going on here. All of us have easy access to way more books than we can ever read. That’s not always been true, of course. Back to lunch. Before being canceled on charges of anti-book club heresy I tried to stimulate a moment of deeper thought when I asked, “How many books would you guess Shakespeare read over the course of his 52 years?”

Dozens, possibly hundreds but unlikely thousands as so many of today’s avid readers consume. Yes, I said consume as humans consume food as part of an endless cycle of food in / waste out. Imagine a food that continues to nourish over weeks, days and years. In reading, those are books remembered, returned to, quoted and treasured. Book club books are destined to be forgotten, like an unsubstantial meal that provides little if any sustaining nourishment.

The same effect, also driven by increasing ubiquity, also happens with music. Casual listening drove omnipresent music first into elevators and now Spotify. Now, think about the last series you binge-watched, unable to be sated, uninterested in waiting, until next week before devouring the next episode. Have you ever started what looks like an interesting series only to realize somewhere during the first episode that you’ve already watched the series from beginning to end? For all of this to work, an endless stream of media has to exist and it does. So, we consume more but with less and less genuine respect for what is being created.

Reading and listening; are they the same?

Of late, a book reviewer at the New York Times wrote a piece telling the world she’d come to fully embrace audio books over actual reading. I could not fight my way through the entire article. When she went so far as to contend that listening to a book was the same as reading I had to close the virtual pages of the newspaper I was reading. Can you imagine being a teacher of first or second grade students, trying to teach your students to read. Then, imagine an indignant parent scolding you for requiring students to learn to read when even reviewers at the New York Times prefer listening to reading. Why should my child bother to learn to read?

By the next morning it struck me that the reviewer was actually minimizing both reading and listening by unwisely equating each. Do I actually have to say that reading and listening are two different processes? The reviewer went on to sing the praises of audio books because she could listen while she knitted, crocheted, wove baskets or whatever. Full disclosure, I’ve done the same except I’m doing something truly constructive. Namely, practicing my tennis serve. Still, I am not reading while hitting my out-wide slice. I am listening and listening is an active and rewarding process.

We can dig a bit deeper by thinking about music. We nearly always listen to music but some cognoscenti read the musical score while listening which might give insight as to the performer’s fidelity to what’s been notated onto the score. That kind of listening is quite intense and so is also uncommon. Listeners to audiobooks may like or dislike the narrator’s voice. But hearing the narrator’s interpretation doesn’t bring anyone closer to a genuine — and certainly not a dispositive — understanding of what the author meant.

As an aside, I just finished an audio book called Meet Me at the Museum by Anne Youngson. It’s an unusual novel. The entire book consists of letters sent back and forth between a woman and a man. What’s interesting? Well, I think whatever quality exists in this book is primarily conveyed by the female and male readers, one an English woman and the other a Danish man writing in English (or someone doing a fair impression of a Dane speaking English). The point here is only that interpretation is an art, whether it is the interpretation of words on a page or musical notes on a score.

My hope is that we will all read and listen and watch with greater care and deliberation. Sensitize your own preferences when it comes to the media you consume. Look within rather than relentlessly asking others to recommend books or music. I think part of what makes art memorable is, sometimes, the effort we put into finding it. And, importantly, once you find something, read it again as you would play a song you have come to love, again and again. Read some of the dialog and narrative descriptions out loud. For just a few minutes, you be the narrator. Seek to treasure what you consume and it will nourish you now and tomorrow. Put another way, read less and you may find that you enjoy reading more in addition to remembering more of what you read. No, you don’t have to quit your book club but you might be a better reader if you do.

Why book clubs are an abomination; not really, well, kinda.

American Exceptionalism, Cognitive Dissonance & the Divisions in America

I’ve been thinking a great deal about the divisions of our country. Specifically, I’ve been wondering how divided our country has become? Is it really more divided than ever? I think the internet would tell us that it is. And I think if you look at the right (wrong?) measures you might rightly conclude that it is, but I’m still not sure. My interest in essence of those divisions was piqued when I happened on a podcast about American Exceptionalism. The guest, Mugambi Jouet of Stanford University, pointed out that many people (most notably large numbers of the republican party) are confused by the phrase’s use of the word exceptional. He has written a book about it: Exceptional America: What Divides Americans from the World and from Each Other (University of California Press).

By the way, it’s not only the clueless-right that miss the true meaning of the phrase. This afternoon on The Daily I heard New York Times White House reporter Maggie Haberman use the phrase incorrectly while talking about Donald Trump’s stated willingness talk to strongmen like Kim Jong Un and Rodrigo Duterte. Haberman said, “The United States has long been an idealistic nation; it’s essentially this concept of American Exceptionalism. While it’s been pretty maligned, it’s basically about something being aspirational and the idea of values of freedom of constitutional democracy, and that those are the types of values that this country hopes other countries will aspire to.”

Uh, no, that is not what American Exceptionalism is about.

As I said it’s clear that the phrase can and will continue to cause confusion for people of all political walks of life. The word exceptional is typically used as a synonym for outstanding. But, when Alexis de Tocqueville coined the phrase he used it to identify this country as an exception to other western countries.

de Tocqueville found it exceptional that the very same country that had established so many colleges and universities in such a short time should have such an anti-intellectual propensity. All of the exceptions are interesting, but there’s one that I’m not sure de Tocqueville thought of:

The US is the first country to strive for a government of, for and by the people. Still, most people don’t trust the government. Moreover, I would hazard that the percentage of Americans who don’t trust the government is at an all-time high. If this is true, it could mean that people are more likely to trust a government like Vladimir Putin’s than a government like ours. Is this worrisome? Maybe.

Then again, perhaps there’s a special psychological justification for mistrusting a government of peers. Perhaps knowing with assurance that the people in government think and are motivated just the way we are is enough to give us pause. Also, could the fact that our government occasionally comes clean about its misdeeds lead some to a greater mistrust rather than confidence? We all witness the militarization of urban police forces but for some that makes it easy to harken back to the FBI sending helicopters and snipers after Randy Weaver and his family, killing his son and wife (by being shot in the back of the head) and so a correlation is solidified. Some see good (if fallible) government at work and others see an increasingly emboldened and heavy-handed state.

There’s another even simpler reason for why people find it easy to distrust the government of the United States. We’ve simply done more totally wild shit than any other country. Like what, you say? How about having a functional democracy predicated on a three hundred year old document? How about sending a man to the moon? How about driving countries like Japan and Germany to their knees only to help them become economic powers just a few decades after the end of WWII. Did I mention that we’ve dropped two nuclear bombs on populated cities?

That kind of tension, that cognitive dissonance, is largely OK. I tend to look at all evidence of the work of government as falling in one direction or the other. If a bit of work is apt to make a high percentage of people lose faith in the work of government (like the Fullerton Police’s killing of Kelly Thomas), I see it as bad. If a bit of work (like convicting ex-Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca of corruption) makes a high percentage of people gain faith in government, I’m all for it.

I realize that some folks grabbed the popcorn and were rooting for the Fullerton cops sitting on Kelly Thomas’ back while crushing the life out of him. I’m also aware that some folks thought kindly old Lee Baca must have been entrapped by the evildoers from the FBI. Again, that’s just cognitive dissonance playing out on a mass scale. Still, I stand by the work of government that increases faith in government and condemn the acts that undermine that faith.

What about proponents of  gun rights? The guest on the podcast stated that for many American gun owners the primary purpose of their guns was to protect against the government rather than against threats from other citizens. I actually had to play that part of the podcast a second time to make sure I heard him correctly; I had. Now I have to admit that the idea that you better have a 15-shot 9mm on hand because the government is going to come get you is a fairly astounding fear. But, I think fear is the key word. I think the average Trump voter was and is a pretty fearful person, one who felt as though he had been disadvantaged by pretty much everyone and had been rendered helpless by forces both seen and unseen. Not only did they feel disadvantaged by people but those who lived in rural parts of the country even felt disadvantaged by mere geography. It is easy to imagine a group of people who felt a kind of generalized fear of everything and everyone finding solace in guns, and lots of them.

Let’s think about the anti-intellectual leanings that got de Tocqueville’s attention. I think most anti-intellectual sentiment is pointed at groups of intellectuals who seemingly do no work. I think a classic moniker of the past is apt here; eggheads. These are the guys studying whatever it is you’ve never heard of or anything you don’t understand. Even the most anti-intellectual slack-jawed-yokel is inclined to see a doctor if he gets sick. He may attest to a distrust of the medical profession as a whole, maybe he thinks they’ve even secretly cured cancer, but old Cletus is still very likely to tell you that his own doctor is top-notch. That’s more of a selective anti-intellectual sentiment, one that readily finds an exception in specific people, rather than a blanket distrust of learning itself.

The internet, as always, stands ready to undermine confidence and create doubt, in those who believe differently than you do. And, this applies to both sides of a debate. The internet makes it all too easy to stay in our echo chambers and therefore encourage our divisions. But are we really all that divided? I don’t think so. The divisions we read and hear so much about divisions are largely overstated and driven by the media and the shortsightedness of both of our major political parties. Get actual people, rather than groups answering polls or being fed sound bytes or video clips, into a room and watch the divisions fade. Everyone wants to work, everyone wants to being able to afford health care and everyone wants to attain the educations they believe their chosen lifestyle demands. It’s OK to disagree about the processes and mechanism we use to achieve our goals. It’s not OK to use a politically motivated belief that the divisions are so profound that even dialogue is undesirable.

America is both an exception and exceptional and those very qualities give me the greatest hope for its future. Rather than fret over those exceptions we should celebrate them as badges of honor reflecting our diversity of thought and perspective.

American Exceptionalism, Cognitive Dissonance & the Divisions in America