"The Matrix": A Movie Review.

Paragraph spacing has been altered by a virus or other obstacle to posting this essay. It has been brought to my attention that several posts have also been "altered" recently, sections of essays are missing. Hackers? I cannot provide images any longer in this blog because some features of this site have been disabled by New Jersey persons who (I guess) do not like what I say. I regret that this limits readers' rights of access to information guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Do we still care about that Constitution? I know that I do.

Michael McKenna, "Neo's Freedom ... Whoa!," in Christopher Grau, ed., Philosophers Explore the Matrix (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 218-238.
Steven Faller, Beyond the Matrix: Revolutions and Revelations (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2004), pp. 67-82.
Theodore Schick, Jr., "Fate, Freedom and Foreknowledge," in William Irwin, ed., The Matrix and Philosophy (Chicago: Open Court, 2002) pp. 87-98.

Introduction.

One of the pleasant surprises in recent American cinema is the trilogy of films: The Matrix, The Matrix: Reloaded, The Matrix: Revolutions. All of the films are distributed by Warner Brothers Studios/AOL Time Warner, which is one of the dark powers running the world and my computer's connection to the net. I have to be really nice to them at all times. The Wachowski brothers have earned our gratitude for these fascinating movies. For me, that means loyalty to their future projects. I will see any new film made by those guys. I feel the same about Woody Allen and a few other film makers.

The Matrix movies are great works of art as well as successful commercial products, featuring stunning special effects, superb performances from lead actors (Keanu Reeves made all the right choices in an underappreciated performance), and a set of scripts that serve to dramatize profound and timely issues in philosophy, theology, politics, mythology and cultural theory, as well as other areas that I am not competent to discuss. The physics and biology of the "Matrix," for example, would make for a fun science course or two. No, "fun" and "science" are not contradictory concepts. (See "Minds, Brains and the Dalai Lama.")

There are many interpretations of these films. Also, a viewer may wish to concentrate on any number of different aspects of the films in thinking about the difficult issues that they raise. Best of all, they speak to people from all social strata and economic categories, in many parts of the world, so that one can develop philosophical discussions with young urban men and women, who may be unaware that they are doing philosophy by way of these "texts."

These movies are classic examples of Umberto Eco's "open works," succeeding on multiple levels of communication and meaning, altering -- like a jewel in the light -- depending on the concerns and interests of the viewer.

The puzzle of freedom is explored in a number of ways in these films: mythologically, in terms of a language of symbols and images; theologically, by way of several discussions between characters establishing an explicit relationship with religious narratives; philosophically, through situations and dialogue associated with several of the great metaphors in the history of Western thought, from Plato's "allegory of the cave," to Descartes's "Evil Demon," to Putnam's "brains in a vat" scenario; psychologically, by raising questions of sexual determinism (Schopenhauer, Freud) to self-deception and illusion, distortions of perception, petrifaction and self-division (Winnicott, Laing, Lacan); politically, by analogy to the illusion-generating mass-media in late or "advanced" capitalist society (Jameson, Baudrillard), and the possibility of revolution (Castro, Guevara, Davis), or non-violent resistance (Ghandi, King, West); scientifically, by contrasting causally determinate accounts of experience with chance and chaos theory, as represented, respectively, by maculine "logos" (Architect) and feminine "mythos" (Oracle).

There is much more in those films than you may suspect. Only a book-length treatment would do justice to these rich "texts." I will limit my focus in this essay to the various concepts of freedom in these films along with a suggested association between the idea of freedom -- which is understood differently by several characters and in several situations -- and love and evil, as dialectical partners, found at the point where the paradox of freedom may be resolved.

I. "Like a splinter in your mind."

I will assume that the reader is familiar with all three films in my analysis and discussion. One theme running through these movies, as I have indicated, is freedom's connection with the concept of a person.

At the beginning of the story, "Neo/Mr. Anderson" (Keanu Reeves) is an employee of the "Metacortex" corporation, whose building resembles a spinal cord, topped by a brain. He is imprisoned in a constricting social role, living in a "dream world" of "normality," conjured by machines and plugged in to the "Matrix" -- the computer brain as energy source -- and also plugged in within the dream world to his personal computer, on which he reads skewed news reports identifying "Morpheus" (played with Shakesperean zeal by Lawrence Fishburne) as "an international terrorist." "Mr. Anderson" ("A" or Alpha"? the beginning point?) is a slave in a system of exploitation.

There are laws governing the pirating of software, which "Neo" ("New" or "Omega," end-point of the journey?) clearly flaunts -- by selling bootleg data -- which he keeps in a hollowed-out book, bearing the title of Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulations." Just as Neo's world is an illusion, so we are seeing a movie (which is also a set of illusions, conjured with celluloid or digitally these days) for the benefit of an audience and its makers. One problem posed in the films is the challenge of subtle forms of intellectual enslavement ("a prison for your mind") against which we must now rebel.

At the outset, Neo is something less than human. His doubts about the dream world ("like a splinter in your mind") are analogous to the serpent's invitation to Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of forbidden knowledge. Morpheus is both John the Baptist and serpent in this cybergarden. "Trinity" (Carrie-Anne Moss) is, simultaneously, feminine principle and Neo's other self. Neo and Trinity are aspects of a single representative human essence: the "One." They may be associated in Christian iconography with Jesus and both Marys (Trinity is "three").

The movie audiences are also "plugged in" to an illusion-generating "matrix" in a commodified, media-saturated environment. The films gesture at everything from "Alice in Wonderland" to the "Upanishads," as well as any number of movies and texts, like Cool Hand Luke and High Noon. Morpheus hopes to free Neo, through awakening him to his predicament. These film makers -- who are "bending the rules" of the "carnival culture" in the so-called "real" media world -- are gently prodding the viewer to consider his or her plight as passive consumer of entertainment products and political circuses, of "news," or a view of reality as entertainment for cynical and/or sinister purposes. The movies ask: How "real" is your world? Also, how "real" are you? ("'The Prisoner': A Review of the AMC Television Series" and "A Review of the T.V. Series, 'Alice.'")

If there are many levels of "control," then what if entertainment is only one of them? The audience members become "batteries" for the Hollywood factory or capitalist system.

A. Information and Knowledge.

You cannot free yourself if you are unaware of the prison built "for your mind." The computers have created a dream-world for sleeping persons. Power in the viewer's real world has also created a dream world -- including the movie seen in the darkened theater -- a dream world for the passive "consumers" of entertainment, as a way of keeping them (all of us) in harness.

B. Rules and Principles.

There are rules governing the workings of the Matrix, which is a program. Are persons programs? Are we merely executing the blueprint provided for us by DNA in an environment? How much improvisational freedom is provided to us? Can the rules be bent? Broken? Agent Smith's liberation from the machines arrives when he ignores the rules. Thus, by disobeying rules, evil arrives on the scene as an effect of freedom. The essential human act, assigned to the first woman in the Bible, is disobedience producing both freedom and evil. The choice to disobey is close to the source of our humanity.

Is freedom a principle limiting the scope of the rules, as one of the "dual aspects" of persons that seems to limit the extent to which determination applies in the Lebenswelt? Are the rules themselves a prison? How many levels of imprisonment are there in this social nightmare? Or in the so-called "real world"? Are they aspects of the same world? Foucault will come in handy at this point.

C. Politics and Religion.

The revolution is concerned to awaken the sleeping slaves of the machines, which can only be accomplished by first awakening the liberators, an advance guard, to lead the oppressed to their emancipation. There are echoes of Marx and all of the theorists of revolution in these themes: Jefferson/Madison/Paine or Marx/Lenin, Castro/Guevara -- all may be quoted at this point, depending on your politics. The analogies are both to spiritual awakening and political revolution. Freedom becomes a process symbolized by the Mithraic mysteries of antiquity, in a manner similar to what Neo experiences, as represented in the Christian mass and theology.

We are saved by being "born again" -- think of Neo's journey through a kind of birth canal to a vessel awaiting him in the real world -- also by coming to know ourselves and our true motivations, psychoanalytically and politically. Self-knowledge is freedom, for both Hegel and Freud, also for Marx.

Finally, there is the metaphysical question of ultimate reality itself as a "system under construction," subject to flexible rules, spiritually and materially. So that the journey is from an externally imposed dream world to the construction or dreaming of one's own world: "Try to remember that there is no spoon," Neo is told by a Buddha-like child, "but that it is only yourself that bends." At the point of bending, the self becomes all. In the aftermath of the revolution in quantum mechanics, it is clear that the universe itself is unfinished, a process of self-invention only made possible by an observer. I wonder who that observer might be? ("'Inception': A Movie Review.")

A common misunderstanding of metaphysical idealism is to suppose that, say, someone like F.H. Bradley is a relativist because he sees the partiality of all appearances, when he is actually the opposite of a relativist, in light of the ultimate trajectory of history -- or necessary integration of all "Appearances" -- in a total system of dependencies that includes and makes meaningful every particular, or what idealists call ultimate "Reality." This ultimate and totally inclusive entity is the Absolute. Wherever you are now, you're part of this Absolute. Hence, WE are always members of this community. We are one.

The quest for freedom takes place externally and internally, the flaw (or genius?) in the design of the system of rules is choice. It is choice which introduces the element of randomness into human reality, just as chaos and uncertainty introduce unpredictability into a determinate universe, making both freedom and evil possible, yet compatible with causality. This is to suggest a dialectical dance between Agent Smith's order and predictability, law ("it is purpose that guides us") against Neo's liberty or creativity, equity, which makes us human, by allowing for the possibility of agency and evil ("the problem is choice"). Agent Smith is necessity; Neo is freedom.

Recall the embrace between the two rival leads at the end of the final film. Notice that it is only at that moment of embrace and acceptance by Neo of his "brother" Agent Smith, that Smith refers to the One -- for the first time -- no longer as "Mr. Anderson," but now as "Neo." The dialectic is then complete.

Agent Smith represents order, rules, predictability, authority, power, control, causality, science, fascism, super-ego (there is an explicit invocation of Steven Biko's murder as Morpheus is tortured); Neo represents unpredictability, democracy, creativity, agency, self-creation, spirituality, philosophy, religion, art, eros, altruism, id (romance, revolution, justice).

Freedom is seen as a political, spiritual, psychological challenge that is always both external and internal, collective and individual, positive and negative. Multiple ideas of freedom are always interacting in this film, suggesting that full humanity is only possible with the achievement of individual freedom (psychological and spiritual liberation from an external/internal illusion system), while also requiring communal liberation, which is another word for social justice, which must be shared with others, who are recognized as part of a "system of dependencies" -- like the machines which both keep humans alive and threaten them with extermination.

Multiple layers of narrative in these films resolve themselves into a set of dialectical interactions and entaglements. Philosophically we begin with Aristotle and Plato, move on to Spinoza, then arrive at Kant, Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Freud, ending with Foucault and Baudrillard.

The various notions of freedom should be more clearly specified at this point, along with some of the ontology/metaphysics of the films.

II. "You are a slave, Neo ..."

A. Positive and Negative Liberty.

Political theorist Isaiah Berlin in his 1959 essay Two Concepts of Liberty, developed a useful distinction between "positive" liberty (what one is free to do or achieve) and "negative" liberty (what one is free from in doing it). Neo's challenge is not only liberation from external constraints upon his actions and thoughts, extrication from the machine-generated illusory world, but more importantly, discovering "what he's supposed to do" or why he ought to struggle, internally, against the mechanisms of control. After all, Cypher finds these controls and illusions quite pleasant, as do many others, delighting in the abundance provided by consumer societies.

Negative liberty is concerned with the external obstacles to self-realization or freedom; positive liberty is concerned with the internal obstacles to achievement of control of the future, also control of the spiritual environment or inner space of the subject. It is for the subject to create the real "Matrix" in which he or she lives, internally, so as to redefine or interpret external reality, which is always shared.

Positive liberty is a spiritual and philosophical project; negative liberty is an ethical or political challenge necessarily involving us with others. Hence, to be the "One" is to inhabit a sacred space, internally and externally, of freedom. To be the "One" is to be fully human, it is "what we are ALL here to do." This is something which is only possible with love. This free space is necessarily communal, since it is integration or individuation, as symbolized by Neo and Trinity making love under "Masaccio's Arch."

The act of love takes place on holy ground because it is an act of unification in affirmation of humanity. The acceptance of humanity is a return to our species home in Africa, as indicated in the "rave scene." This celebration of communal identity is also the Spinozistic theme in the films:

[Spinoza argues] ... for the view that there is one and only one substance, [which includes both real world and Matrix in the films] and that this one substance is God, and therefore infinite and eternal. Everything exists in God -- that is, it is a mode of God, and as such is dependent upon God. The proof of this remarkable claim follows a pattern familiar from medieval philosophy -- the pattern of the "ontological argument" for God's existence, as Kant was later to call it.

Roger Scruton, Spinoza (London: Routledge, 1999), at p. 13. ("Is it rational to believe in God?")

Evil is another aspect of all that is within God, reflective of a system of dependencies making goodness possible, so that evil is accepted and forgiven only with love. Loving is what we are here to learn "to do" and "to be," since it is identical with the only substance that can contain all of us -- Matrix and real world, good and evil, justice and oppression. Loving is God. ("Is this atheism's moment?")

There are references to "cycles of creation" borrowed from Hindu mythology. Neo's Christ-like figure confronts Vishnu (his Asian-Indian mirror-image) in "Limbo," the subway station, which seems so familiar to New Yorkers. "Love is a word ..." Neo is told, so that the "connection" between himself and his love cannot be broken.

What does love require of the One? Exactly what it asks of you: "self-giving," both in love-making and in generosity and compassion towards others, even in the ultimate sacrifice of self for community. Hegel insists, as do the Evangelists, "Die in order to live."

For Hegel, ... all things are members of a living whole, the life that animates that whole must have a wider definition, -- it must be a life which comprehends even death itself. Pain, disharmony, even evil, must be seen to be incapable of breaking through the all-embracing unity, and even to be themselves the means of realizing it. Unreason itself must find a place, were it only a place to annihilate itself, under the universal rule of reason, which impartially rains its fertilizing showers upon the evil and the good, and stimulates each in turn to show what is in it; since just in this impartiality lies the security for the triumph of good. ... The goal is fate reconciled by love.

Edward Caird, Hegel (London: William Blackwood & Sons., 1883), p. 29, p. 39.

"I know what I have to do." Neo speaks these words when he understands that he must return to the source, the essence within ("Substance" for Spinoza, "Spirit" for Hegel, by way of getting beyond Kant's "noumenal"), which is at the center of both what is self and not-self. Human joins with machine, goodness embraces evil, masculine accepts feminine, power accepts weakness, strength becomes gentleness. The One becomes all.

Think of Joseph Campbell's discussion of the point of the hero's journey being integration, moving beyond opposites and all relative values to achieve "transcendent unity" with the universe or God. Spinoza would describe this as the "intellectual love of God." For Catholics, there is the "unity of the Holy Spirit."

The crucifixion at the conclusion of the final film is Jung's Mandala. It is what Leonardo's drawing of "The Vitruvian Man" really depicts: the unity of self with other in the supreme self-sacrifice of love, which can be seen in child-birth, military sacrifice, or in any number of other situations in human life. It is humanity at the center of creation, as the measure of all that is. (See my short story: "The Soldier and the Ballerina.")

The opposite of this unified humanity through love, is fragmentation or division in hatred, struggle, opposition against one another and within the self. The opposite of unity (goodness, freedom) is fragmentation (evil, hatred, enslavement in the mind). With the loss of freedom comes enslavement and -- as the twentieth century taught us -- the possibility of evil on a mass scale. We will be one.

III. "Welcome to the desert of the real ..."

The danger warned against in these films is the tempting surrender of humanity in the abandonment of freedom and reality. It is the loss of moral reality or truth at Auswchitz. Many of us prefer the comforts and safety of apathy or comformity, so that the pressures to adjust to an externally imposed vision of "reality" that is convenient for power in advanced capitalist or totalitarian societies is overwhelming for many people. There are therapists and others whose mission is to induce just such lethargy and passiveness. A torturer once said: "Most people want to be told what to believe." ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture." )

The cost of independence may be very high -- still higher for women than men -- so that loss of humanity and a slide into a state of sub-humanity, is understandable. Control can now be imposed on people entirely through ideological means, by way of entertainment media and creative uses of behaviorist or other psychological techniques of "manipulation."

Destroying written work, insults, threats, distracting phone calls from anonymous callers -- all are part of the behaviorist arsenal, so is secrecy.

It is not simply crude old models of propaganda that we must guard against now, but a subtle, amazingly powerful reality-creating "Matrix," that provides the comfortable cages where "consumers" happily reside in their own minds. Ironically, the films amount to an argumentum ad demonstrandum -- argument by example or demonstration -- since the world of the "Matrix" films itself becomes an all-encompassing illusion, with products marketed to exploit the success of the movies and a new vocabulary derived from this fictional universe ("whoa ...") entering the collective consciousness of audiences.

Within a week of the premiere of The Matrix: Reloaded, t-shirts appeared in Los Angeles that said: "Comprehension is not a requisite of cooperation." (See my essay on "Josiah Royce and The Spirit of Modern Philosophy.")

The anthropology of the films is hopeful, locating the human essence in a craving for liberation from all forms of enslavement or control. Thus, in a very American language of associations there is a tacit universal human nature postulated that is essentially free and rational. Thomas Jefferson expressed this optimistic view of humanity at the birth of the nation:

The doctrines of Europe were that men in numerous associations cannot be restrained within the limits of order and justice, except by forces physical and moral wielded over them by authorities independent of their will. ... We (the founders of the new American democracy) believed that man was a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights, and with an innate sense of justice, and that he could be restrained from wrong, and protected in right, by moderate powers, confided to persons of his own choice and held to their duties by dependence on his own will.

After Freud and the dismal discoveries of psychoanalysis, which many believe were confirmed by the horrors of the Holocaust, any optimistic view of human nature must bear the burden of proof before a skeptical intellectual community.

"How can one write poetry," Theodor Adorno asks, "after Auschwitz?"

Neo's answer might be ... "because it is our choice."

Morpheus (god of sleep and awakening) "believes" in the One because he believes in humanity against the machines. The machine-like concentration camp guards and the men who tortured Steven Biko to death seem to refute that belief, but then so do the psychologists of the former Soviet Union, who sent dissidents to asylums for their failures to adjust, only to torture them into madness or suicide. ("Psychological Torture in the American Legal System" and "Freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal.")

On the other hand, thousands of men and women (like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Edith Stein), sacrificed their lives for others in concentration camps, revealing a basis for the continuing plausibility of this Jeffersonian optimism about human nature, which is also found at the heart of the U.S. Constitution. The United States of America is a wager on human goodness. ("What is it like to be tortured?" and "Drawing Room Comedy: A Philosophical Essay in the Form of a Film Script.")

Jefferson never imagined that psychoanalysis and behaviorism would be invented and used to deprive persons of that precious human nature -- of their very freedom -- through subtle manipulations and alterations, designed to render persons into something sub-human, slaves, Foucault's "docile subjects," for the contemporary totalitarian society which the U.S. is becoming, especially if it abandons the optimism underlying our Constitution, out of fear or a yearning for absolute security.

To be free is to accept the possibility of evil or some degree of insecurity:

We possess detailed descriptions of the methods used by Communist police [and now by Americans at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, also in New Jersey,] for dealing with political prisoners. From the moment he is taken into custody, the victim is subjected systematically to many kinds of physical and psychological stress. He is badly fed, he is made extremely uncomfortable, he is not allowed to sleep for more than a few hours each night. And all the time he is kept in a state of suspense, uncertainty and acute apprehension. Day after day -- or rather, night after night, for these Pavlovian policemen understand the value of fatigue as an intensifier of suggestibility [hypnosis is now the preferred method of inducing suggestibility] -- he is questioned, often for many hours at a stretch, by interrogators who do their best to frighten, confuse and bewilder him. After a few weeks or months of such treatment, his brain goes on strike, and he confesses whatever it is that captors want him to confess. Then, if he is to be converted rather than shot, he is offered the comfort of hope. If he will but accept the true faith, ["cooperate"] he can yet be saved ...

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (New York: harper & Row, 1958), p. 75. As Huxley makes clear, the effects of the Matrix are already achievable:

Conditioned from earliest infancy (and perhaps also biologically predestined), the average ... individual will never require conversion or even a refresher course in the true faith. The members of the highest caste [behaviorist psychologists and psychoanalysts, or other social scientists and lawyers?] will have to be able to think new thoughts in response to new situations; consequently their training will be much less rigid than the training imposed on those whose business is not to reason why, but merely to do and die, with the minimum fuss. ... these upper caste individuals will be ... the trainers and guardians, themselves only slightly conditioned, of a breed of completely domesticated animals. [You and me.]

Ibid.

"A prison for your mind" has already been built and many of us find ourselves in it. The struggle suggested by these films is external, but even more, internal in postmodernist cultures of consumption and media manipulation, where the power to create and define reality is turned over to governments or corporations. I began this essay by genuflecting to Time Warner Corporation. Now you may understand why I did so. Resist the power -- even by appearing not to resist -- and fight for your freedom.

To borrow Lenin's question, "What is to be done?"

Conclusion.

William Barrett writes:

The dreamers of the computer insist that we shall someday be able to build a machine that can take over all the operations of the human mind, and so in effect replace the human person. After all, why not? There should be no mystic obstacle that should impede the progress of our technology. But in the course of these visions they forget the very plain fact of the human body and its presence in and through consciousness. If that eventual machine were to be realized, it would be a curiously disembodied kind of consciousness, for it would be without the sensitivity, intuitions, and pathos of our human flesh and blood, and without those qualities we are less than wise, certainly less than human.

The Death of the Soul: From Descartes to the Computer (New York: Anchor, 1986), pp. 160-161. (See "Ex Machina: A Movie Review" and "The 'Galatea Scenario' and the Mind/Body Problem.")

The answer to the threatened loss of humanity is reaffirmation of that humanity. Just as Neo found his meaning and purpose in self-sacrifice and love so each of us "may live by dying for others." In other words, by giving ourselves away to others -- children, lovers, family -- we are (paradoxically) enriched. (See again: "The 'Galatea Scenario' and the Mind/Body Problem" then "'The Reader': A Movie Review' and "'The English Patient':A Movie Review.")

Evil was only defeated by Neo's embrace and absorption, with love, into that One (the Absolute) that contains all that is -- even evil and death -- because it was Neo's "choice." Neo could not be conditioned by machines. His humanity was not negotiable.

The response to behaviorists who deny the reality of consciousness is to point out all of the ways in which the scientist's own actions reveal the workings of consciousness, together with the existence of an inner life.

Science itself is the product of creative effort and free will, of human intentionality and social cooperation, existing for the moral purpose of understanding nature.

Why is this understanding or knowledge acquisition a moral purpose?

By pursuing knowledge you have tacitly postulated the worthiness of this endeavor, of knowing and knowledge, which are forms of valuing. All valuing is moral action.

There is an old parable of the the torch that goes in search of darkness. Whenever the torch arrives on the scene the darkness is dissipated, so that darkness can never be known by the torch (light).

Well, love is like that torch bringing light and warmth while evil is the darkness. Whenever the torch burns evil is dispersed.

The "light" of public exposure and discussion is desperately needed in democracies, for example, so that freedom and legality may be preserved. In the darkness -- exceptions are made and persons may secretly profit from denials of freedom and justice to others -- while daylight has a way of frustrating the best made plans of mice, men and politicians, regardless of gender. Are these overlapping categories?

Sunlight is lethal to vampires and corrupt politicians from New Jersey. ("Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?" and "Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks.")

Neo is the light in these films, whose mission is to disperse the darkness.

The lesson to be learned is that each of us is the "One." Every one of us can reduce the darkness in our lives by bringing the light of love and concern to all that hides from us or seeks to remain obscure, whether psychoanalytically (in our subconscious motivations), or politically (in the actions taking place in smoke-filled rooms), that is, all that is denied publicly, happening secretly, at the behest of power, seeking to control or condition us "for our own good."

The most important lesson of the Matrix is that freedom -- the indestructible human capacity to create as we perceive reality, through our choices, even against all forms of totalitarian conditioning and control -- is the essence of what it means to be a person.

To close not with Thomas Jefferson this time, but with the fiery words of another American revolutionary (who would have been attacking the machines along with Morpheus and Trinity), Patrick Henry:

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Stealing From the Poor to Give to the Rich in New Jersey.

"I have reason to believe" (my favorite phrase) that the number of readers of my book and this blog are not reported accurately. What happened to Lourdes the Lawyer? The real numbers may be about three times more than what is being shown. This has been true for some time. Whatever the real number may be, I am grateful for anyone's time and attention. I urge you to struggle against the forces identified in these posts and to share your opinions with readers searching for like-minded friends. You are not alone. Do not be discouraged by attempts to deny you a forum or an audience for what you feel compelled to say. Such censorship efforts are the best proof that you are having an effect on the powers that be. Speak out.

I regret to inform one and all that I do not have a criminal record. The people who accuse me of being "unethical" are more unethical than I am, which is very disappointing. I will try harder in the future. "Restoring me" to active membership in the bar (horrors!) or offering me money will not alter what or how I express my opinions on any subject whatsoever. Got it?


Jeanette Rundquist, "Teacher Contracts Feel the Recession: Talks Stall as Pay, Benefits Squeezed," in The Star Ledger, September 8, 2009, at p. 13.
David Kocieniewski, "Trenton: Audit Says School Overbilled," in The New York Times, July 25, 2006, at p. B6.

"The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey overbilled state and federal charity care programs, according to a federal audit released yesterday. The audit, issued by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, found that the school received $171 million in excess reimbursements from a joint federal [and] state program that helps hospitals serving a disproportionate number of low income patients. The audit recommends that New Jersey repay $85.6 million."

Where did the money go? Does this situation have anything to do with new pools and kitchens, or fancy cars, acquired by so many distinguished state public servants? The whereabouts of this loot is what is known in "X-Files" episodes as a "mystery." Maybe aliens got the money.

New Jersey will have to "cough up," as it were, $85.6 million guacamoles that it does not have, even as it engages in an expensive investigation of the worrisome incident concerning Attorney General Zulima Farber's decision to appear at a friend's side when he was stopped by traffic cops. I wonder how much the torture sessions from 1988 to 2008 and daily cybercrimes against me have cost New Jersey? 2009 is more of the same.

The A.G.'s friend was not issued tickets by any police department on that occasion. Neither was Ms. Farber, who wore her seatbelt, so we can all breathe a sigh of relief. It appears that she has not been intimidated by calls for her resignation. Instead, Ms. Farber has engaged in a statewide roundup of gang leaders and made other high profile arrests. She needed several buses to haul in the hoodlum "catch of the day." Amazing that these crooks were never captured in previous (or subsequent) administrations. I wonder why? Maybe that's why Ms. Farber will be made to resign eventually.

Jersey politicians putting in a new pool in their backyards -- possibly with your tax dollars -- are deeply worried about Farber's ethics or other people's moral lapses, never their own ethical flaws. Reimbursal by New Jersey will also be made with your tax dollars, if you are unfortunate enough to reside in "cancer alley." This amounts to a double theft of public funds. Overbilling took place, now reimbursal of that overbilled amount is a second "dip" into the public treasury.

"Stating bluntly that 'if we were a business, we'd be bankrupt,' Governor Jon S. Corzine on Friday offered New Jersey legislators a blueprint of changes intended to improve the state's fiscal habits, and challenged them to come up with a permanent solution to reduce property taxes." David W. Chen, "Corzine Offers His Ideas About Fixing New Jersey," in The New York Times, July 29, 2006, at p. B5. (Lots of luck!)

It appears that Corzine is concerned to eliminate as many opportunities for graft as possible in future budgets by selling state assets. One measure of how much politicians despise each other, is how nice they are to one another in their public comments. By this standard, it appears that Corzine and Assembly Speaker Roberts -- together with any backstage "Svengali" associated with Roberts -- detest each other.

New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation, nearly twice the national average. The state "tax burden ... now averages about $5,826.00 a year for each property." Richard G. Jones, "New Jersey Law Makers Tackle Rising Property Taxes," in The New York Times, July 28, 2006, at p. B1.

Despite these revenues, theft and corruption has brought the state to the edge of bankruptcy. Shifting the tax burden from property taxes to sales and other "revenue enhacement" measures is not going to fool anybody. I think theft and waste of public funds by politicians and judges in New Jersey is "unethical." Don't you?

The people being hurt most by this stealing or waste of public funds are the poor and sick, whose desperate need for services is sacrificed to an insatiable greed of crooks in public office and their friends, sometimes wearing judicial robes. Your best hope -- if you are litigating a case in New Jersey -- is that you'll get a judge who, even if he or she is not too bright, will at least be relatively honest. You better hope that your adversary is not a local political leech, so that you will have some chance to have your case examined on the merits.

Perhaps a fact-finding mission to Las Vegas by Garden State politicians and judges, requiring numerous consultations with "Showgirls" -- both blondes and brunettes, so as to benefit from "all points of view" -- will lead to greater awareness by New Jersey's politicians of the "issues" in this sensitive area of public policy. Debbie is up for that trip to Vegas. I now move to have the following comments entered into the official record:

New Jersey continues to be the most inept and fraudulent jurisdiction in the United States. A politics of secrecy and corruption characterizes many of the operations of government, especially in state courts. Appointments to important positions and judgeships are often rewards for services rendered to political clubhouses by loyal soldiers. "Business as usual" in New Jersey is a disgrace to the United States Constitution. (See "Is New Jersey Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz unethical or only incompetent?")

Despite laws that punish pollution severely, the state is a cesspool of pollution as well as moral corruption, where cancer is exploding in a population unaware of the real causes of their sufferings. Two of the power plants ranked highest in the nation in venomous emissions are found in the vicinity of the Garden State Parkway. Anthony DePalma, "Power Plants Ranked High on Pollution List," in The New York Times, July 28, 2006, at p. B6.

"... the Valero refinery [in New Jersey] was fined $35,200.00 for an odor discharge on June 16 and a discharge of clarified slurry oil on June 17. The fine was issued last week. Officials at Gloucester County refinery said the odor discharge did not affect residents, but the 170 gallons of unrefined oil left residue on cars, fences and houses. A Valero spokeswoman [a New Jersey Lawyer?] told the Currier-Post, of Cherry Hill, that Valero had already spent $2.5 million on cleanup."

"Paulsboro: State Fines Oil Refinery," The New York Times, August 14, 2006, at p. B7.

It must remain a mystery how Garden State politicians and the state's tainted Supreme Court justices -- who recently had no problems in upholding a death penalty conviction -- find the nerve to face a skeptical citizenry. No wonder that they usually don't, opting instead to provide people with their official portraits and photos, not to mention their lovely smiles. It is not difficult to guess why they are smiling or chuckling at photographers. It is only the people of that unfortunate state who are not smiling.

"Have a Nice Day!": How to be Postmodern Without Really Trying.

I sit in a silent New York apartment. The day is clear, warm, breezy. Across the street from my place, a building was struck by lightning two days ago. In the opposite direction, two buildings away from mine, there was a fire that destroyed a business, which was a man's life-work. He has no adequate insurance, I believe, and everything that he owns went up in flames.

By comparison with his troubles, the daily harassments I experience in writing my blog entries seem less significant than usual. The image-posting feature of my profile is not working again. Maybe it'll be fine by tomorrow. I have spent about an hour battling to write these words. Beckett's antihero says: "I can't go on, I'll go on." I plan to go on fighting for what I believe.

Try comparing Beckett's Waiting for Godot with Donald E. Westlake's Dancing Aztecs, then read the first pages of John Banville's Shroud. The literary feeling of being stunned in those works is what I am after in this essay because it has become the condition of the postmodern subject.

I continue to receive messages from e-bay concerning a computer that I "sold" on line that has not been received, despite their admission that I do not have an e-bay account and have never sold anything on-line; an e-mail purportedly from the "IRS" informs me that (with a click of my mouse) I am entitled to a reimbursal of $69.95; an anonymous phone call results in an insult or silence, then the caller hangs up. I receive bills from service providers indicating that previous payments are not credited to my account. I am threatened with an interruption in services. I then receive an apology and an offer of more services. Each message is written in a suitably friendly tone by a computer, closing with a pleasant wish: "Have a nice day." An AOL instant message to my child says "I hate you." When she asks the sender: "Who are you?" The response is: "You know." All of these messages are received in one typical day.

The owner of the Delicatessen that burned to the ground stood for hours staring at the empty shell of his place, smoking a cigarette, silently, aging before my eyes. When the police and firefighters left, they said: "Have a nice day."

Several young Americans will die or be wounded in Iraq today, as politicians scramble to see whose friends will get government contracts, so that they can then show their gratitude to the politicians who got them the contracts by providing some hefty kickbacks. Most of the truly awful, dreadful, unkind, uncharitable, mean and sometimes stupid people I have known are lawyers, politicians or judges, sometimes all three. These are the people making "value judgments" for large segments of U.S. society. The most unethical people, in my experience, get to decide on the ethics of others, usually while wearing splendid black robes. Maybe it's better in places other than New Jersey. I sure hope so.

Without a doubt several of the most stupid and cruel persons that I have had the misfortune to know were and still are judges in New Jersey. It is not simply that such people are morons. It is the arrogance of these moronic power-wielders that shocks the conscience.

The American Communist party owns corporate stock, like any good capitalist, according to Harper's magazine. Everyone wants to see "Superman" at the multiplex this week. Me too. Regis and Kelly "banter" on television, like eight year-olds, and are described in T.V. Guide as "witty." Regis immitates a duck. Everyone laughs. Why can't they be mature, like me?

Both Israel and its adversaries admit to adopting policies of "retribution" that will result in civilian casualties, that is, in killing innocent children and old people to "stop" terror. The U.S. government "regrets" the deaths of "40 to 50 thousand Iraqui civilians." The number is probably higher than this. Some say 100,000. These casualties are deemed necessary, however, because of "strategic objectives." Politicians debate the appropriate terminology to use when referring to women in official publications, including those identifying the "unintended casualties" in Iraq who happen to be female. After all, it may be necessary to kill them, but there is certainly no need to insult them. Never refer to women as "chics," unless they are from Dixie.

The New Jersey Assembly is officially against "smoking in public places," as lethal levels of pollution increase the risk to residents' lives as a result of industrial pollution by political contributors, even as corruption devours the institutions of government. People are tortured in state jails and prisons. Worse than this is done secretly to persons "of interest" to government agencies in their own homes -- for reasons that are not explained and with the knowledge of at least some of the authorities -- who will then deny that knowledge publicly. In other words, they lie -- including some judges -- while requiring others to tell the truth. A sign on the Turnpike says: "Have a nice day."

Aporia is the rhetorical mode of contemporary life. What is "aporia"?

Aporia is a Greek word meaning "difficulty, being at a loss," literally a "pathless path," a track that gives out. In classical rhetoric it denotes a real or pretended doubt about an issue, uncertainty as to how to proceed in a discourse. (David Lodge)

The resources of rationality are severely challenged under these conditions. Persons receive such an overwhelming number of mixed messages and anxiety-producing communications or "information," couched in the banalities of advertising and commerce -- which has become the official language of the State -- that (at some point) the intellect refuses to absorb any more facts and simply shuts down. Information overload, combined with Vietnam levels of stress, usually resulting from threats of one kind or another, produces paralysis. The contradictions are overwhelming, especially when added to even more glaring contradictions in a person's experience of power in society. Your torturer smiles and says: "This is for your own good."

"More information has been produced in the past 30 years than in the previous 5,000. About 1,000 books are published internationally every day, and the total of all printed knowledge doubles every eight years." One daily newspaper contains more information than the average person absorbed over a lifetime prior to the seventeenth century. (See Richard Saul Wurman's Information Anxiety.) The result can only be overload and bewilderment, leading either to tragedy or farce. We live in a movie written by Woody Allen with Samuel Beckett. We find ourselves in a universe invented by an evil deity (the CIA?), combining the qualities of Kafka with Stoppard's humor.

Most people remain blissfully unaware of these contradictions. They live in a zone beyond reason. Thus, the United States is happily torturing people -- most of whom are held indefinitely, without trials or charges -- even as the U.S. government criticizes the human rights violations of other countries. Public officials speak reverently of the same Constitution that is ignored by them, usually with the blessings of the courts. The nation with the largest number of nuclear weapons in the world expresses concern about nuclear weapons in the hands of other countries. Given our astonishing success in Iraq, the U.S. is reported in Time magazine to be planning an invasion of Iran, a country with close to 500,000 men in its army and near to developing nuclear weapons. Malcolm Bradbury's "Dr. Criminale" says:

... what specter ... haunts Europe, or the rest of the world? The specter that haunts us is the specter of too much and too little. It is an age of everything and nothing. It is culture as spectacle, designer life, the age of shopping. ... So my friends if you can reconcile ... literature and power, ideas and chaos, and if (by the way) you can prevent collapse at the European fringes, stop mad nationalisms [and fundamentalisms,] avoid collision with Islam, and solve the problems of the Third World, you will have done well and your time will not be wasted.

Cervantes's "Don Quixote" wonders: "If all the world is insane then what is insanity?" The particular form of collective insanity that we live with has to do with the abandonment of reason and Enlightenment notions of rationality. "It's all relative." "It is just true that there is no truth." "We will sell no wine before its time." My favorite: "Have you had your sprinkle today?" I sure hope so. What do any of these slogans mean? Do they really mean anything? Incidentally, do you think that a good way to avoid collision with Islam is to promote atheism and feminism in their countries?

We need a poet of the absurd on the level of Kafka, at least, to capture this strange moment in world history. Something about the horror of the Holocaust and all that has come after that event has unsettled the psyche of Western humanity, so that we have not yet fully recovered. Perhaps we never will. Global technological civilization is experiencing a mid-life crisis, just like many of us. Weirdly, I have chosen this period in my life to be highly sane by abandoning the fantasy world of normality. Most people do the opposite. Curiously, I do not want a red sportscar or a twenty year-old mistress.

The U.S. government wants something like this: an Americanized global population, munching burgers at McDonald's and heading to "action" movies afterwards. It is inconceivable to many U.S. politicians that lots of people on the planet do not want our kind of life. America is attractive to many people; but it is also horrifying to others. This psychological fun house, filled with distorting prisms and mirrors -- that are mostly television screens -- is the jungle in which we must live. It is called "postmodernism." And now for a "respectable" academic definition of this important term. Get your highlighters:

Postmodernism tends to be used in three broad senses: a term to designate the cultural epoch through which we are living and largely viewed in apocalyptic terms; as an aesthetic practice which is seen variously as coextensive with the commodified surfaces of this culture or as a disruption of its assumptions from within through a "micropolitics" or a "politics of desire"; and as a [philosophical] development in thought which represents a thoroughgoing critique of the assumptions of Enlightenment or discourses of modernity and their foundations in notions of universal reason.

Jean-Francois Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition, translated into English (allegedly English) in 1984, boiled postmodernism down to a single phrase: "an incredulity towards all metanarratives." We don't "believe" anything: Not Marx, not Freud, not Jesus. We do not want to believe anything. Naturally, this means that we end by believing everything: the power of crystals, New Age designer "spirituality" -- available at Starbucks -- and the absolute good faith of the U.S. government. We must live today in the space between these contradictions.

We find ourselves in an asylum where media images provide the only shared basis for meaning and identity over religion, family, nation, where commodified forms (or "simulacra") of genuine human emotions and relationships are available "for a small fee." Someone will pretend to care about you on the phone for $149.99 an hour, plus tax. Many people purchasing items on-line or from "The Shopping Network" are really only hoping for a conversation with a person who will "be nice to them." This is not only weird, but sad. No wonder we're all "cukoo for Cocoa Pops."

This is a unique situation in human cultural history, which is bound to produce strange works of art made by demented people. Those who have experienced the special horrors of this epoch, like being tortured or insulted by people -- who then pretend that "nothing happened" the next time they see you and ask you to do the same -- have to find meaning in experiences that defy rational comprehension. These human monsters will then instruct you to be more ethical. They will ask you to be truthful at all times, even as they lie about what they have done to you and to others.

Are we really in Iraq to export democracy? Can democracy be exported to societies without the historical preconditions for democratic institutions? Will Iraq ever become one of the Massachusets Bay Colonies? I am skeptical.

In the absence of religious commitment, art seems to offer the best outlet for these frustrations, while satisfying a need for understanding and community. Hence, totalitarians fear art and those who make it, seeking to destroy human creative expressions, as I can attest, whether on the Internet or when it comes to Chomsky's Turkish publisher. Foolishly, despite my unpleasant experiences, I refuse to stop hoping that things can be better and that we can understand one another. I will always insist on justice and fight for what I believe, which includes the right to believe something, to love a few people, and to face my torturers. (That's you, Terry and Diana.)

One technique that may prove useful is ironic "substantive" communication. (Richard Rorty) It is the attempt to say something meaningful, while acknowledging the insanity of the very effort to communicate under these bizarre conditions. It is the effort to reason with one's guards at the concentration camp, by way of black humor or other devices that allow for sufficient distance from the discourse -- so as to avoid violence and rage -- through laughter at the madness and hypocrisy of power's need to be liked or thanked by its victims. A sign above the entrance to Dachau, I believe said, "work will set you free." That is an early example of cruel postmodernist irony.

Isn't it surprising that people do not want to be occupied? How come they don't want to be "altered" against their will? Not even "for their own good"? Do you really wonder why they're angry at us in Iraq and lots of other places? "Don't tread on me," applies to everyone. Iraquis want to say to Americans: "Thanks for getting rid of Saddam. Now go home and let us govern ourselves." The U.S. response is: "We'd like nothing better. Unfortunately, if we do that, a week after we're gone, there will be another Saddam in power, who will probably be worse than the first one and the entire region will be destabilized." Any suggestions? It's not enough to say: "End the war now."

If the U.S. simply withdraws immediately, the most likely results will be: 1) a collapse of the fledgling democratic government in Iraq, with total anarchy and civil war engulfing a fragmented nation leading to many more casualties, possibly in the millions; 2) an unchecked Iran will sponsor terror by numerous organizations in Lebanon and (possibly) Syria, creating further difficulties for Israel and the free world; 3) an impression will be created in the Middle East that the U.S. has no stomach for prolonged conflict and can always be beaten in a guerilla war, encouraging conflicts in many other parts of the world and more bloodshed; 4) there will be a resulting internationalization of a "hot" or military conflict between militant Islamic fundamentalist factions in the area and U.S. interests, spreading throughout the region and threatening the energy supply of the entire world.

The U.S. (and others) would have to return to the area in massive numbers, as a matter of survival. Iraq has become a no-win situation -- maybe it always was! -- a crisis which will only become much worse if a hasty decision is made now. At this point, it is irrelevant to say, "I was against the war." It just so happens that I was and still am against the war, but I am also against an even greater war that will be caused by an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. For this reason, Senator Clinton cannot call for the immediate return of all troops -- especially if she finds herself Commander in Chief some day -- since she cannot limit her options. We are already in this war. The point now is not simply for the Iraqui people to "win the war," but to win the peace.

I am now convinced that we are losing the peace, prolonging the loss of life for Americans and Iraquis, increasing the dangers of terrorism in the world by remaining in Iraq. We find ourselves in a situation without a satisfactory exit option and only prospects of more suffering in the future, which reminds me of New Jersey's legal system.

You can only speak in parables, stories, metaphors and symbols, if you wish to make sense of the enormous amount of data each of us faces, not to mention the challenge of moral education for a generation of ethical relativists and skeptics. Indirect communication is the only answer: "Once upon a time ..." Hey, that sounds like traditional religious communications! That's fine. Just don't call it wisdom literature or mythological art, certainly not religion. Call it "the madness of art." Has anyone seen the Matrix?

According to the Mexican novelist and thinker Carlos Fuentes, "the greatest crisis facing modern civilization is going to be how to transform [overwhelming volumes of] information into structured knowledge." Think of 9/11 and the massive amount of "intelligence data" that was not understood at the time. It might just as well not have been available at all, since it was not absorbed. Fuentes suggests, as I do, that we must develop narratives that impose resonant patterns of meaning on data -- data that is then made digestible -- which does not necessarily mean fictionalizing it. (See my essay on Ricoeur's "Hermeneutics of Freedom.")

Democrats and Republicans are about to enter another election cycle, the party that wins will develop the best "story links" (as they say in Hollywood) with American archetypal images and desires, especially the desire for hope (we want to believe in leaders) and purpose in public life. I am reminded of Philip Roth's summary of a story by Kafka, which captures my predicament and yours, since we are sharing a cell in this concentration camp:

"... 'The Burrow' is the story of an animal with a keen sense of peril whose life is organized around the principle of defense, and whose deepest longings are for security and serenity; with teeth and claws -- AND forehead -- the burrower constructs an elaborate and ingeniously intricate system of underground chambers and corridors that are designed to afford it some peace of mind; however, while this burrow does succeed in reducing the sense of danger from without, its maintenance and protection are equally fraught with anxiety: "these anxieties are different from ordinary ones, prouder, richer in content, often long repressed, but in their destructive effects they are perhaps much the same as the anxieties that existence in the outer world gives rise to." The story (whose ending is lost) terminates with the burrower fixated upon distant subterrenean noises that causes it "to assume the existence of a great beast," itself burrowing in the direction of the Castle Keep.

I know how that Kafka story would have ended. The haunted creature either keeps burrowing in his fight for freedom -- perhaps turning to face his tormentors -- or surrenders and dies. I would always choose to fight. My advice to all politicians is to fight for what you believe that brought you into politics in the first place.

Prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are depressed, often suicidal and defensive. Therapists wonder why. Prisoners' guards and interrogators also report pathologies and severe reactions, depression and anxieties that are often just as severe as -- or worse -- than those of their victims.

What you do to another, you do to yourself. Torturers and victims are locked in a lethal embrace. Think of Sartre's "Antisemite and Jew." This is just as true for nations as for individuals, which is especially worrisome when considering the current crisis in the Middle East and America's foreign policy. What we do to others, will be done to us. I will be seeing you soon.

The Empire Strikes Back in New Jersey!

It is difficult to continue writing when essays are tampered with and I am subjected to daily harassment merely in order to access this site. Yet I am also energized by such obstacles to continue writing because they reveal the malignancy and imbecility of political leeches, whose contamination of American politics and public life is a source of disgust and discouragement for many good people, people who otherwise would wish to participate in politics or to enter the legal profession.

I cannot avoid feelings of anger. Yet I continue to insist on not hating those who hate others, while working to see haters punished for their criminal acts. Too many good people are discouraged by all the mud slinging and corruption from getting involved in the political process. The only way that things will ever change is if WE change them. You should also be energized to get involved in politics and law when faced with evil, so that low-life criminals and hangers-on can be removed from corrupt systems -- such as New Jersey's legal and political caudillo -- and power may be restored to the people.

I will not be dissuaded by threats or harassment from insisting on respect for human rights, including my right to freedom of speech.

Courts may be indifferent or corrupt (Jersey again), but there are like-minded persons out there, everywhere. There must be. You are not alone. People see what is going on. Each person who participates contributes in the ways that he or she can to changing things for the better. Some day, we will win. I cannot change my photo in my profile today, but that's o.k. -- television's "Dr. House" is a fitting image of what New Jersey and the nation needs now: A diagnostician to point to its tumor of corruption and suggest that it must be removed, quickly. Scalpel? http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/television/house/03.jpg


Laura Masnerus, "Calls in Trenton for Ouster of Attorney General," in The New York Times, July 19, 2006, at p. B5.
David W. Chen, "Trenton: Merger Urged for University," The New York Times, July 19, 2006, p. B4.



The after-effects of the recent power struggle between factions in the Garden State's Democratic party are becoming obvious. Attorney General Zulima Farber is a target for South Jersey's Democrat machine and political terror organization. This is either payback for the Governor's insistence on actually governing the state -- as opposed to allowing unelected political "bosses" (whose names shall not pass my lips) to do it for him -- or it is an attempt to short circuit investigations by Ms. Farber's office. (See "Same Old, Same Old," at Philosopher's Quest.)

Anne Milgram is reputed to have betrayed Farber, after kissing her ass to get a promotion. Don't turn your back on Anne Milgram, whose hostility to Farber may result from Farber's retrogressive heterosexuality. "The Dykes are on the warpath!" Trenton's political hacks have been heard to whisper this wisdom.

There are those who say that the real target of the big "bosses" is any political friend of Ms. Farber -- such as Senator Menendez, who may not be capable of real friendship -- in addition to this unruly and independent-minded Governor. Who does Corzine think he is? The people's elected Governor? New Jersey Latinos and Latinas also have to be put in their place, of course, by these behind-the-scenes "operatives." As they say in Trenton, "this is our turf." La Cosa Nostra.

Ms. Farber recently came to the assistance of a friend, who was stopped by the Fairview Police Department, which eventually rescinded all traffic summonses issued against that person. These rescinded summonses are alluded to by journalists as though they were official allegations or "proven beyond a reasonable doubt." In fact, legally, they are "nothing."

Ms. Farber is "guilty by association" only because she assisted a person she cares about, who was not issued summonses, has not been proven guilty of anything, nor (for that matter) has she. No police officer is intimidated by the presence of a politician from issuing a traffic summons.

In New Jersey, cops would (probably) simply be told by bosses not to issue a ticket or the opposite (intimidation is not necessary), which makes me wonder what really happened in the aptly named "Fairview." The most logical conclusion is that whatever the scam that was planned on that occasion by the Jersey syndicate, Ms. Farber and her friend were probably its intended victims.

They're getting out the "anonymous" smoke machine and the smear tactics, folks, next they'll tell us that Ms. Farber's mother wore combat boots. I'll save them some trouble, I know mine did. Posting "anonymous" slanders of critics has no bearing on the truth of their criticisms, criticisms and opposition which are gathering momentum -- not only on the Internet, but throughout a state that has been raped (there is no other word for it!) -- by a cabal of hoodlums occupying public office for decades.

These smears of persons like Farber have nothing to do with the truth, but gullible ideological true-believers may be found to accept them. Such "useful fools" (to quote Lenin, I believe) will then be manipulated to act on the basis of this misinformation, providing evil-doers with a smoke screen to obscure their illicit activities. Quoting Lenin does not make me a Communist, nor does admiring Lenon make a Beatle.

This non-situation in Fairview, for instance, has now resulted in calls for Ms. Farber's resignation because she received traffic tickets in the past. She paid them. Warrants were issued. This happens routinely in municipal courts, sometimes controlled by political hacks, when mistaken notice dates are issued to persons. These warrants are then routinely recalled. New Jersey's DMV rarely complies with statutory notice provisions, many such warrants and license suspensions are based on error. These facts were known at the time of Farber's confirmation. All of a sudden it's a problem? I wonder why.

"Ms. Farber declined to discuss the incident this week, but in an interview with The New York Times two weeks ago, she said she never talked to the police or interfered in any way but had simply come to help [her friend] take valuables out of the car when the police said that they would impound it."

There are many who believe that this entire situation was a "set-up" to get Ms. Farber to come to the scene, making it possible for innuendos or false allegations to be raised against her. Ms. Farber stated to The New York Times:

"I guess I'm [unwilling] to say I'm not willing to come to the aid of a loved-one because some people might think that my mere presence would affect a police officer."

No one really cares about any of this among New Jersey's grizzled politicos. In a state where $4.5 BILLION "disappeared" after assessments of the "shortfalls" and "gimmicks" of previous administrations, this is a joke. So what is really going on besides the obvious indirect attacks on Menendez and Corzine?

One plausible theory focuses on New Jersey's scandal-plagued medical school -- where $70 MILLION or more "went south," as it were -- a medical school which has been used as a cash cow by politicians and alleged crime figures for years. These are often overlapping categories in New Jersey (politician and criminal). That medical school may now be "merged" with Rutgers University, pursuant to a proposal by Mr. Lesniak (D). This would deprive the boys (not Lesniak) of a highly lucrative source of public revenue. That's hitting them where it hurts, taking away the time-honored custom of stealing public funds in New Jersey. How unfair. Since When? What's the world coming to?

"Hey, Fat Tony, what's going on here? Nothing's easy no more. Geez. Forget about it ... I could've been in construction. Now what?"

Well, there's always a judgeship. Isn't there a spot open in North Bergen Municipal Court?

Equality and Excellence.

Allan Bloom, Giants and Dwarfs: Essays 1960-1990 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990), pp. 13-33.
Harold Bloom, The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages (New York: Riverhead Books, 1995), p. 489.
Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Vintage, 1994), pp. xi-xxviii, pp. 303-326.


Part of the "fun" of writing these blog entries is the forty-five minutes or so that it takes to get into this site to try to say anything, while fighting against obstacles of one sort or another, not to mention domestic interruptions.

"Does this skirt make me look fat?" The answer to that question, of course, is on tape for most men: "Nothing could make you look fat, honey." This ordeal, Morpheus, is excellent training in concentration and psychological judo. I am now in my black Armanis and shades. I am ready for all agents. "Whoa ..."

What is culture for? Why bother with books and music? Why should you care about ideas? All my life people have been telling me that everything I care about is bullshit. Artistic masterpieces -- from Shakespeare to Picasso -- are things of slight value when compared with money, for it is money alone which allows one to purchase large electrical appliances, including the classic "drug dealer t.v. set" (55 inches, plasma!), which are now favored by suburbanites as well as Wall Street types as a sure sign of success. "Hey, that's some t.v. set, man. What time is the game on?" A lawyer I know actually said to me: "money is the meaning of life." For him, sadly, it may be true.

East Village Marxists are anxious to remind me that "money is the source of evil in the world." Wall Street capitalists insist that "money is the measure of success." Both are mistaken, I believe, because they confuse an instrument for the ends, an effect for a cause. Money is an instrument which may be used for good (millions in aid to Africa contributed by Bill Gates) or ill ($7,500 edible panties for "Ms." Hilton -- are they fattening?).

Money is not inherently good or evil. The malice and injustice associated with money or its absence is an effect of the flaws in human nature, that grasping and selfish quality associated not with genes (which are not capable of selfishness or altruism, since they are not persons), but rather with that paradox that we are.

Freud pointed out that in the absence of wealth, humans will certainly covet and envy one another, continuing to do evil for any excuse or no excuse. The fault is in ourselves, not in our stars, genes, or bank accounts. On the other hand, the beauty and good are also in us, not in how much money we have.

Women respond to such statements ("what's on t.v.?") from their mates or other male persons in their lives by throwing a large piece of raw meat into the room that contains these unwashed male persons, so that -- as the men fight on the floor for the scraps of meat -- the women may go out and get their shopping done for the week.

Well, I don't need much more of a t.v. set than my trusty old 25 inch GE special from the eighties. I can't afford a 55 inch plasma set. I prefer books, music, although seeing films on my old GE is nice.

Today's topic is artistic and intellectual achievement and excellence against our cherished notions of equality. Is genius necessarily offensive to egalitarians and self-described radicals because it is "unfair" to the rest of us that we are not geniuses, like Shakespeare or Brittany Spears? Is there a necessary conflict between democracy and "elite" artistic works or the persons who create them? I don't think so. Debates on these issues can be pretty intense and often confusing, since important terms are not defined. For instance, here is the late Alan Bloom:

"... I suspect that many [critics of The Closing of the American Mind] acted from a more tortuous, more ambiguous motive: guilt. The leading principle of our regime is the equal worth of all persons, and facts or sentiments that appear to contradict that principle are experienced by a democrat as immoral. Bad conscience accompanies the democrat who finds himself [or herself] part of an elite."

No effort is made by Bloom to be clear about what is meant by "equal worth" or how extraordinary talent offends this principle; "elite" is also not defined; neither is "democrat." Hence, adversaries in this discussion are often speaking different languages, not understanding one another, arguing at cross purposes.

I am a radical egalitarian, democratic socialist, freedom-loving and iconoclastic. I am nice to children and dogs. I appreciate great art (I hope!), since I believe that art enriches my life. Great art should be made available to all people, regardless of their economic circumstances. I argue for greater access to higher education for everyone, free of charge, regardless of social disadvantages. Education is a weapon against such disadvantages.

These traditional American democratic notions of guaranteed access to the "finer things in life" (by which I do not mean material goods necessarily), are regarded today as a form of conservatism (why?), or as "anti-egalitarian" (says who?), offensive to "political correctness," somehow, or "elitist" (how do you define that term?).

All art reflects the economic class or historical bias of the artists, or so we are told. There is no non-political art. All choices or rankings between or among works of art are also (allegedly) reflective of power and nothing more. Inevitably, aesthetic judgments are found to be non-objective. Thus, Edward Said tells us:

"In time, culture comes to be associated, often aggressively, with the nation or the state; this differentiates 'us' from 'them,' almost always with some degree of xenophobia. Culture in this sense is a source of identity, and a rather combative one at that, as we see in recent returns to culture and tradition. These 'returns' accompany rigorous codes of intellectual and moral behavior that are opposed to the permissiveness associated with such relatively liberal philosophies as multiculturalism and hybridity. In the formerly colonized world, these 'returns' have produced varieties of religious and nationalist fundamentalism."

Bloom and Said are both misunderstanding something important about the issues that they are discussing. These are two of the most intelligent thinkers representing polarized and (I believe) equally untenable positions. Both men are now gone from the scene. All insults or ad hominem attacks are forbidden.

Is a concern with the "canon" a form of elitism or intellectual fascism? Are opponents of "the best that has been thought and said" only know-nothing political hacks seeking to bring about the collapse of Western civilization? Neither of these highly charged characterizations seem accurate to me, but it is not easy to say exactly what each man fails to understand.

O.K., boys and girls, get out your notebooks and lets see if we can figure out where these smart guys went wrong, also why they went wrong. Keep an eye on what motivated these genuinely held positions by brilliant and sincere scholars. If these highly intelligent and learned intellectuals "screw up" -- usually for subconscious reasons -- then you can be sure that the rest of us will make similar mistakes. I know that I will, but so will you.

On the one hand, Professor Said senses (correctly) that the "theft of the logos" by the West has been an important justification for colonialism as well as rationalizing vicious forms of imperialism, which are now popular again. Historically, the cultural dominance of the West resulted in denigration of the artistic and cultural achievements of all "others," feeding into dehumanizations and dismissals of people not fitting the somatic norms of the West in its imperialist mode.

Everyone not capable of being a "white male on a well-kept Sussex lawn," sporting an Oxbridge accent, is not worthy of concern or attention, on this view, and may only be "educated" or "trained," like a Spaniel, "for his or her own good."

You are a fucking Anglophile! I am accused of this terrible offense by thoughtful adversaries on these issues because I defend Shakespeare. I am attacked by P.C. storm troopers because I admire, say, Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit or choose (like Erica jong) to read Henry Miller over Kate Millett. Worse, if I read both and prefer Miller, then I am truly beyond the pale.

Conservatives and others defending the canon say that "enemies of civilization" (New Jersey beings) would have you believe that Shakespeare is no different from Agatha Christie. Obvious judgments of artistic merit are reduced to mere expressions of class or political bias, without objective content or merit. The concept of universal merit or achievement in the arts or philosophy is denied by these "enemies of civilization" seeking -- for "a small fee" -- to have all standards and values eliminated from the curricula of our major universities.

Universal merit is reserved for "politically correct" artists. "Politically Correct" is defined by me, here and now, as "designating those artists or others adhering (knowingly or not) to trendy political platitudes and/or values, held as fashions and irrationally, regardless of objective merit."

Artists deemed safe for admiration by the chi-chi thought police are often persons who would have been or are astonished at the mere existence of the category of "political correctness" or at being included within its boundaries. Example: any of the great women novelists of the nineteenth century, who only wished to write and compete -- as equals -- against men for the top spots on the artistic merits team, hoping to have their books judged for their merits and NOT because they were written by women or trivialized because they were not written by men.

Would Jane Austen be insulted or pleased to be regarded as a "top woman writer"? Is there such a thing? You may write your essays in class and feel free to use any texts that you like. Hint: Would you describe Shakespeare as a "top male writer"? If not, why not? ("Shakespeare's Black Prince.")

How would you feel if after graduating from law school at or near the top of your class, passing the bar exam, paying your dues as a law clerk and associate -- somebody describes you as a minority attorney? What if that guy who needed your help in class pretends that he doesn't know you at the fancy party? Why not walk up to him in a crowd and say -- "Hey, how you doing? Remember that weekend study session when I taught you corporate law? You got it now?"

The goal for the intellectual fashionistas of all genders, allegedly, is to produce a generation majoring in Star Trek episodes and illicit sex, rock-and-roll and drug-taking. Great, where do I enroll? (I am against drug-taking, needless to say, and all forms of Communism, disrespect for one's elders and masturbation ... well, masturbation is o.k., especially when it can be shared and if it does not involve "smoking in public places," of course, which it almost always does.)

Where will future Republicans be found if these populist trends are not halted? But then, these young college students majoring in pop culture do tend to become Republicans, eventually, so all is well.

A concern to preserve the cultural and intellectual achievements of "our" civilization (which is increasingly global and enriches all of humanity, as do the civilizations of others) is legitimate and important in American universities. A key issue becomes what are these cultural "achievements" and how do we "preserve" them? Again, what are both sides in the debate overlooking? ("John Searle and David Chalmers On Consciousness.")

I wish to focus on a few of the most glaring and important confusions in these discussions: 1) The notion that judgments of aesthetic value are nothing but reflections of power-relations or political-class interests, historically limited and conditioned, so that objectivity with regard to such judgments is illusory. Professor Said recognizes that great books give him "pleasure," but not much more than that in his unfair assessment of Jane Austen. 2) The scope of the ethics and aesthetics of Western Civilization, which is rejected in the interests of "permissiveness" or "openness and tolerance" -- interests which look like Western values to me -- and on behalf of people from the "Developing World." 3) What exactly does "protecting civilization" mean today, in an educational setting that is concerned with initiating young people into the mores and conventions of adult intellectual life in increasingly sophisticated modern (or postmodern?) societies.

Of course aesthetic values and achievements are reflective of class-based power-realities in wealthy or technological societies. You can't write a book unless you are literate, for instance. This alone excludes most people and nearly all women (who were denied education) before the rise of modernity. But great books are still great.

We are not "discriminating" unfairly against women by pointing out that Shakespeare is a better writer than, say, Agatha Christie. You know that much is true even if you deny it. Thus, we are discriminating fairly in making that judgment between better and worse, regardless of gender. And yes, I am aware of Virginia Woolf and "Shakespeare's sister." Shakespeare's sister -- if he'd had one -- might have been a brain surgeon with no interest at all in literature, so unique is her "sibling's" achievement. (A famous essay by Ms. Woolf focuses on the difference between the respect accorded to the Bard as against what his fictional sister would receive.)

The real issue is how we decide what is better? Are those aesthetic preferences contaminated by sexism entirely? Or are comparative judgments plausibly made when it comes to disparities between Shakespeare and Christie? I think that we can make qualified, subtle, nuanced comparative cultural judgments with accuracy and confidently. We do so, all the time. I like these shoes better than those. What do you think? Do these jeans make me look fat? ("Let's Hear it For the Boys.")

Everybody who was not an aristocrat in Shakespeare's century, regardless of gender (even if women were a little worse off), was discouraged from being anything but a serf or soldier for the "nobles." Agatha Christie had more chances to be educated and greater access to books than Shakespeare, simply because of the century in which she was born. Shakespeare's genius was unstoppable and unpredictable. He was and will always be a natural phenomenon, like a volcano. That's a big reason why he is, as the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live would say, "special."

What a joy and inspiration for us -- especially for those of us denied our worth or recognition because of social ostracism, gender or color -- to see that genius is unstoppable, that the need to create will not be halted, even if it can be blighted and injured by those seeking to alter our lives "for our own good," thus denying our humanity.

No, this doesn't mean that I claim to be a genius or better than anyone else. I claim for myself only what I insist on for you: freedom and equality, not necessarily "sameness" for men and women, regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation.

I still favor the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that I supported, as a college student, which would not require men and women to use the same public restrooms or any other such nonsense. I have a "feeling" that, if he were around, Shakespeare would agree on the absolute right to equality for men and women.

As human beings, we have rights to self-determination and expression, so as to be understood by others. Shakespeare's greatness consists (partly) in recognizing our inner lives and writing "for us," as much as for anyone else, regardless of what we look like or where we come from. Another part of that genius is an awesome sensitivity to language. The average elite university graduate today has a vocabulary of about 5 to 6 thousand words. I believe it was Harold Bloom who noted that Shakespeare's plays display a vocabulary of about 26,000 words -- some of which he invented! -- because he needed them and they did not exist.

How many words have you invented?

The art that we make is our gift to our societies and to humanity, if we are lucky enough to achieve something of universal value -- universal because, even if it is true that we are each different in details, it is no less true that we are alike in what matters most. We are alike in our human need for love and beauty, together with our concern for justice, freedom and yearning for dignity in the face of death. These insights are politically "empowering," not the opposite.

"Permissiveness" and "openness" are also Western values. They are vindications of the spirit of a self-reflective and aware civilization, struggling always against itself, to sharpen and clarify its own values. Individualism and independence, human rights, freedom and equality, are historically Western values, which served to oppose colonialism and bring independence to many formerly colonized peoples, including Americans, who are still waging an "unfinished revolution."

Fundamentalism may be rejected without also dismissing the possibility of all objective content in both aesthetic and ethical "value judgments." Such judgments may be made by persons (as subjects and hence, be "subjective") and yet still possess some "objective" content in their merits. For example, we may say that this book One Hundred Years of Solitude, is better than that one, The Da Vinci Code -- and people of good taste will agree -- since the first book is wiser and more reflective of life, in all of its complexity and diversity, than the second.

How are we doing on the buzzword count: "diversity," "openness," "inclusiveness," "tolerance," "pluralism"? Prety good so far. Feel free to throw in your favorite trendy terms. You will find that the real values underlying these words, to the extent that they mean anything, are Western. You will also find that Western means many things, including African, since we begin (as a civilization) in Africa and the Mediterrenean Sea. Yes, I am thinking of Fuentes's Terra Nostra. Western also means Asian, since trade -- especially after the Renaissance -- resulted in a lot of "cross-fertilization," which is something I am "for," especially with my young blond neighbor in the short skirt.

"You wanna come in and meet my goldfish? His name is Egbert." ("Richard and I" then "A Doll's Aria.")

What part or values of this Western civilization do you oppose? Are you sure that you will not find the same despised quality in every other human civilization? If you're anti-American, then think again: Would you prefer than the allies had not won the Second World War? Would you opt for a Stalinist State over the "open societies" that opposed Left-totalitarianism in the Cold War? If so, what is your argument? How do you think "diversity" would do in the Gulags and concentration camps of the twentieth century? What happened to those who were "different" in those totalitarian societies? (See Gore Vidal's essay "Pink Triangle and Yellow Star.")

There is no better world elsewhere. The battle for civilization, for freedom and equality, has to be fought every day, wherever you find yourself standing, if you're lucky enough to be standing. Perhaps we can best protect civilization by teaching students not so much the exclusiveness of the canon, but its inclusiveness. We protect Western Civilization best by challenging and questioning it, by testing so-called "great works" to determine whether they really are great or whether new titles deserve to make the team. I have no fear on that score for Shakespeare.

We may choose to compensate for past dismissals of women, for example, by a greater concern to examine their achievements today. We may encourage students not to be limited to ethnic or tribal loyalties, but to find the human in everyone and their likeness in others (which is Shakespeare's greatest lesson), especially others previously deemed beyond the pale or weird, not capable of genuine artistic achievements. That idea of universality is very Western.

I have taught myself to take an interest in white Protestant culture, for example, which is found thriving in places like Scarsdale, Connecticut. I am slowly mastering the rituals of inclusion and working diligently on natives' mating calls. There are many blond women among them. This is fortunate and inspirational. There are bizarre rituals associated with white bread and mayonaise. I am slowly learning them. Also there is a quasi-religious weekend activity among males involving golf clubs. I will give the final word to Harold Bloom, who is still "alive and kicking" the "yahoos" (look up Jonathan Swift) in the nuts, as it were:

"Confronting greatness as we read is an intimate and expensive process and has never been much in critical vogue. Now, more than ever, it is out of fashion, when the quest for freedom and solitude is being condemned as politically incorrect, selfish, and not appropriate to our anguished society. Greatness in the West's literature centers on Shakespeare, who has become the touchstone for all who come before and after him, whether they are dramatists, lyric poets, or storytellers. He had no true precursor in the creation of character, except for Chauserian hints, and has left no one after him untouched by his ways of representing human nature. His originality was and is so easy to assimilate we are disarmed by it and unable to see how much it has changed us and goes on changing us. Much of Western literature after Shakespeare is, in varying degree, partly a defense against Shakespeare, who can be so overwhelming an influence as to drown out all who are compelled to be his students."

Summer Books.

I experienced some of my usual difficulties in gaining entry to the blog today. I was unable to change my image in the profile, until now. Hackers continue to alter these texts. Otherwise, it is a normal 97 degree day in Manhattan, in July, after the onset of global warming. The end is near ...


For a long time I have made it a practice, whatever else I'm doing, to read at least two books at nearly the same time, alternating chapters, in addition to whatever research I'm pursuing concerning a scholarly or legal issue. I always like to read a novel along with a so-called "serious" non-fiction work. I find that many of the serious non-fiction books are unintentionally hillarious and fictional.

I allow myself some total "fun reading" in the summer, which reminds me of my childhood literary experiences, when I absorbed books between baseball games and tree climbing, while pretending to be Errol Flynn on a pirate ship. Things have changed drastically with the arrival of those distinguished gray locks that now adorn my temples. These days, I pretend to be Johnny Depp on a pirate ship.

Being a person of the male persuasion, I like guy's "action novels." I also peruse the occasional heartbreaker romance and cry into my avocado salad, since I must watch my figure. We all know that men are more spiritual, while women are entirely physical in their sexual curiosity and romantic interests. I urge caution to all unescorted men walking past a hair salon crowded with rowdy women. Never wear shorts when doing so. I have learned this lesson the "hard" way.

Sometimes I dig up forgotten men's action novels from a previous century: Karl May's stories of adventure in the desert, leading to the discovery of treasure and a "nubile" (always blond) damsel in distress, for instance, make for good fun. Percival Christopher Wren's (what a name!) classic Beau Geste is highly recommended, both the film and book. Also, Saki's stories, Conan-Doyle's Sherlock Holmes is always terrific, as is Sir Walter Scott. I love the hysterical novels of ideas of Thomas Love Peacock, adventures by Wilkie Collins, tough guy detective stories -- Donald E. Westlake is great, but Richard Stark is just as good.

I recently discovered the action-packed "Flashman" books. Robert Louis Stevenson was "awesome" when I was twelve. He still is. Until I learned that teachers thought I should read Stevenson's books, which nearly spoiled the experience. Ian Fleming, of course, must be shaken and not stirred. J.K. Rowling will fly you to Hogwarts on her Sirius 2007 broom. And yes, Shakespeare makes this list, along with every other list of literary honors. Try "A Midsummer Night's Dream."

Young people -- especially minority men -- often do not have this sense that books are fun. They should. You will find your life enriched by a safe, legal, literary habit. Get yourself a library card or go to Strand Books, or to any other second-hand bookstore, explore, get dusty, and find forgotten books, preferably with grotesque and lurid covers. Robert Howard's stories about barbarians and "nubile" brunettes are also great.

I love Edgar Best (the mystery writer) and Katherine Everard, though Gore Vidal has been harsh in his criticisms of their works. Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett are better than Agatha Christie. So are Elmore Leonard and Scott Turow. I've read all of them, including Ms. Christie. The most flattering description of me that I have heard is: "Chili Palmer with a Ph.D." No, I don't have a Ph.D. I have no idea why I would be so described. I'm more like Woody Allen with a state college degree.

Gore Vidal's essays are "laugh out loud funny," also smart as hell and instructive. Mailer's Tough Guys Don't Dance is a good summer read. Among women whose books I love to read in the summer, Jane Austen and Fran Leibowitz are high on the list, so is J.K. Rowling, whose imagination can only be compared to Vonegut's advanced dementia. Nancy Mitford (yes, she's a snob and not, horrors, "politically correct") is another good choice. Have you read Mitford's letters to Evelyn Waugh? You should. They're great.

I am now going to recommend three and only three (count 'em!) summer novels -- o.k., four novels -- for young and old. These are masterpieces of literary fun, also qualifying as genuine "serious" literature. So you can get caught by your friends reading them and it's o.k. All of these writers are underappreciated, none have received their due (yet!) from professors teaching "Comp Lit" at Princeton, who insist that you read Icelandic medieval sagas in the original language and pretend to enjoy the experience. There are some things that I will not do for a good grade, none of which are sexual, happily.

These books that I will now recommend are certain to delight and entertain you. They are intellectually nutritious, and yet zero calory literary banquets: Richard Matheson's Seven Steps to Midnight; Steven King's The Dark Half or Salem's Lot; Anne Rice's Interview With a Vampire (this Rice novel should be required reading for all phenomenologists and existentialists because of its subtle parsing of perceptions and impressions in rich descriptions of a ubiquitous "vampiresque" subjectivity); Gore Vidal's Visit to a Small Planet (and other plays, "novelistic plays") or Myra Breckingridge (a true masterpiece of a novel, also a sheer joy to read). Other candidates include Vonegut's Slaughterhouse Five, Fowles's Mantissa, Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities, even Buckley's Saving the Queen. Also, G.K. Chesterton's "Father Brown" stories, especially The Man Who Was Thursday. Blackford Oakes refuses to save the Queen of England (no, not Boy George) without me, though he was interviewed once on Firing Line by William F. Buckley, Jr.

Every one of these authors and books will still be read a generation from now by ordinary people, strictly for fun. You just have to hope that the professors will not get to them before you do. I cannot review these four works here, since each of them merits a full essay. So I will say something about each book that is intended only to "pique" (I always wanted to write that word!) your interest.

Seven Steps to Midnight is the perfect guy's action novel. It is impossible to put down that book until you finish it. The story includes one awesome, mega-babe:

"... into the eyes of the most exquisite female he had ever seen in his life -- in personal experience, in films, in magazines, in paintings, anywhere. This was a face beyond belief. He actually felt his mouth falling open and quickly embarassedly, shut it, turning to the front again. ..."

Get this:

"She wasn't a Hitchcock blonde. Her hair was a dark chestnut, her eyes green, her skin the shade of alabaster and her red lips -- Jesus God. Now my story was complete; the mysterious beauty had arrived." (pp. 136-137.)

Notice the postmodernist irony and winking at the reader in the last line. There are any number of serious philosophical issues raised in Matheson's "text," many of which, I am sure, were not consciously intended by the author as philosophical conundrums. Among them are questions about "reality" in literature, the nature of reading and truth, ambiguity and the juggling of options in life and literature, together with many more. There are even some puzzles relevant to the philosophy of mathematics in this novel. You can apply Baudrillard, Jung, Sartre, and lots of other elite thinkers (Eco, Barthes) to the analysis of this book, including the dynamic duo, Foucault and Derrida. Matheson will let you interpret the novel any way you like, after he gets your $7.50.

King's playful re-working of two nineteenth century classics, transferred to the American context, amounts to a bravura display by the (at the time) young author: The Dark Half is a tribute to Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"; whereas Salem's Lot is a tipping of the hat to Bram Stoker's "Dracula." Steven King was anouncing to the world that a new master of the horror/Gothic genre had arrived and was about to kick ass, which he did and does, and will continue to do for the foreseeable future. These books are King's version of a transition from a "Cassius Clay" to a "Muhammad Ali" phase of his career and life. King is saying in these books: "I am the greatest!" In his neighborhood and genre, he is.

Rice's Interview is a powerful example of perceptually aware narration, filled with eros and a blurring of the boundaries between perceiver and perceived, questioning realities, ironic about our media-saturated world that still craves magic, coping with loss and regret, yet exploding with imagination, despite its somber mood. Mezzotints and dark lighting characterize this novel, whose author peers at you from behind the stage curtain of her prose and smiles, wickedly. Get your crucifix and some garlic. If you have no garlic, Aqua Velva will do. (I'm saving up for a bottle of "Antonio" -- a cologne "created by" Antonio Banderas -- which is supposed to be lethal on the ladies!)

Vidal's Myra anticipates the postmodern turn, explores the plasticity of identity in a media age, explodes gender conventions (Butler, Jung), takes on the French critics, plays with Lacan -- before Lacan mattered -- and cinema-literary vocabulary, chuckles at outdated notions of sexuality, conjures epistemological and metaphysical mysteries, even as you laugh out loud. It is also an erotic (yet never pornographic) book, far better than anything by Nin, Miller, or any other so-called "frank" writer of erotic fiction. This is a happy-time book, which is certainly a literary masterpiece, comparable to Swift, Sterne, or Vidal's much admired predecessors George Meredith and Peter De Vries. Without a doubt, it is one of the great books of the twentieth century made into one of the worst movies ever.

Get these books and take them to the beach. You won't regret it. Don't forget your sun screen and shades, try not to get another tattoo this year. Don't go in the water unless the lifeguard is out. Be safe. Enjoy.