From Joseph Blotner's Faulkner: A Biography (2005)
"One of [Howard Hawks'] friends, Clark Gable, had a .410 over-and-under shotgun that Faulkner admired so much he wanted one like it. The first time they had driven into the Imperial Valley for some dove-hunting, Hawks began to talk about books. He would remember the conversation clearly. Faulkner entered into it, but Gable remained silent. Finally he ventured a question.
'Mr. Faulkner,' he said, 'what do you think somebody should read if he wants to read the best modern books? Who would you say are the best living writers?'
After a moment, Faulkner answered. 'Ernest Hemingway, Willa Cather, Thomas Mann, John Dos Passos, and myself.'
Gable took a moment to absorb that information. 'Oh,' he said. 'Do you write?'
'Yes, Mr. Gable,' Faulkner replied. 'What do you do?' "
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Thursday, September 04, 2014
"Anyone looking for confirmation will find enough of it to deceive himself—and no doubt his peers. It is ... naive empiricism to provide, in support of some argument, series of eloquent quotes by dead authorities. By searching, you can always find someone who made a well-sounding statement that confirms your point of view—and, on every topic, it is possible to find another dead thinker who said the exact opposite." —Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan (2007)
"There is not less wit nor invention in applying rightly a thought one finds in a book, than in being the first author of that thought. Cardinal du Perron has been heard to say that the happy application of a verse of Virgil has deserved a talent." —Pierre Bayle (1647 - 1706)
"Beware of thinkers whose minds function only when they are fueled by a quotation." —E.M. Cioran (1911 - 1995)
"Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it." —George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
"I've always felt that if a thing had been said in the best way, how can you say it better?" —Marianne Moore (1887 - 1972)
"We are as much informed of a writer's genius by what he selects as by what he originates. We read the quotation with his eyes, and find a new and fervent sense; as a passage from one of the poets, well recited, borrows new interest from the rendering. As the journals say, 'the italics are ours.'" —Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882)
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
1. All technological change is a Faustian bargain. For every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage.
2. The advantages and disadvantages of new technologies are never distributed evenly among the population. This means that every new technology benefits some and harms others.
3. Embedded in every technology there is a powerful idea, sometimes two or three powerful ideas. Like language itself, a technology predisposes us to favor and value certain perspectives and accomplishments and to subordinate others. Every technology has a philosophy, which is given expression in how the technology makes people use their minds, in what it makes us do with our bodies, in how it codifies the world, in which of our senses it amplifies, in which of our emotional and intellectual tendencies it disregards.
4. A new technology usually makes war against an old technology. It competes with it for time, attention, money, prestige, and a "worldview."
5. Technological change is not additive; it is ecological. A new technology does not merely add something; it changes everything.
6. Because of the symbolic forms in which information is encoded, different technologies have different intellectual and emotional biases.
7. Because of the accessibility and speed of their information, different technologies have different political biases.
8. Because of their physical form, different technologies have different sensory biases.
9. Because of the conditions in which we attend to them, different technologies have different social biases.
10. Because of their technical and economic structure, different technologies have different content biases.
From The End of Education (1995).
Some context: "To be 'against technology' makes no more sense than to be 'against food.' We can't live without either. But to observe that it is dangerous to eat too much food, or to eat food that has no nutritional value, is not to be 'antifood.' It is to suggest what may be the best uses of food. Technology education [is about learning] what technology helps us to do and what it hinders us from doing; it is about how technology uses us, for good or ill, and about how it has used people in the past, for good or ill. It is about how technology creates new worlds, for good or ill."
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
With fond memories in mind and the recent death of Robin Williams in the news, I re-watched Steven Spielberg's 1991 film Hook a few days ago. Though it didn't live up to the memories I had of it as a kid, I still enjoyed it for the most part (how much of that was due to nostalgia I can't say). The first 30 or so minutes are well done, the rest is increasingly bad—especially the last third. And Tinker Bell is a disaster on many levels. (Not a criticism but something I was wondering: Wouldn't it have made more sense for Williams' character, Peter Banning, to have been named Peter Panning? I don't understand why, given the premise of the film, such a change would have been deemed "too literal.")
More interesting to me than any of this was seeing and remembering how cell-phones used to function in films throughout the 80s and much of the 90s. Williams' character in Hook is developed as a father and husband whose priorities are askew because his ability to imagine and view things with a sense of wonder has been lost and forgotten. Everything is dollars and cents and appointments, and he justifies this by telling himself (and his wife) that he's providing for his family and therefore making their lives better. The problem, of course, is that there is no family when he's always at work, whether it be physically or mentally.
The shortcut for establishing all of this in the first portion of the film is Banning's cell-phone, which is used to signify detachment, self-absorption, materialism, and, by extension of the other traits, general assholishness (the latter trait results more from what's signified than it does his personality, though it would certainly be exemplified a bit more had the role not been played by Robin Williams, someone who naturally tended to exude sincerity and warmth). Since Spielberg was using the cell phone in this way, we can rest assured that it was a trope and that audiences needed no other cue once a character was seen with one. Someone would take out a cell phone and all was apparent.
ENTER: THE DICK.
ENTER: THE RICH GUY (also a dick).
As cell phones became less expensive and more people began using them, Hollywood backed off of this representation. Why? Did the trope work simply because the phone represented wealth and we automatically equate money with callousness—until or unless, like the now ubiquitous cell phone, we have it ourselves? One could argue, as Mitt Romney or Peter Banning might, that our reaction to those who used the phones was just envy, and I suppose there's no real way of disproving that view except to note that the people who wrote most of the films were probably wealthy themselves, and likely inhabitants of a Cell Phone World. Their commentary, then, was either a first hand criticism of the people and mentality the phones represented, or—to take a cynical view—the writers were simply projecting onscreen what they believed to be the "average person's" view of cell phones at the time. (The latter case, if true, might make a case for envy, but it doesn't explain why most people had such a view in the first place—unless you want to argue that it was the movies that gave it to them!) Or maybe cell phones, since they were a new technology, naturally looked silly before we got used to them (or before they shrunk), and therefore the people using them were laughable by default. Or was it not the phone itself but what it was attached to—work? But to disdain people for this would mean that anyone who couldn't leave their work behind was a greedy fool rather than a hard worker, which is contrary to the supposed American ethos of "Hard Work + Effort = A Noble Life, Success, etc." (Even if this ethos is a sham, we should feel compassion, rather than contempt, for someone who can't escape their job, however much the ties might be fashioned by their own hand.)
In one way or another, all of the above explanations likely play some small part in why the trope was an automatic signifier for the aforementioned traits. At the same time I think the largest contributor to our reaction was (and is) simply our intuitive understanding—obvious, really—that cell phones are bad for human relationships. When a character onscreen takes out a phone, it's apparent that the device automatically creates a schism between the person using it and those in their company. How could it not? We see a character with a cell phone and all of the sudden they become the focus of the scene, visually, aurally, or both. Everyone else in the frame is cut off and—often quite literally—out. The User is left alone talking to themselves about things of apparent import that no one else in the film, or audience, gives a damn about. (The exceptions to this are films where a character is waiting for a call, or when something of great importance and immediacy has taken place—like a kidnapping. If a character were to take out a phone to check their Facebook or watch a cat doing a pole vault on YouTube, the reaction to the character—even by those who do the exact same thing—would be quite different. At least Peter Banning's phone addiction has the veil of importance, however misguided!) The phones are conversation and drama killing devices, rendering everything around them dull and flat. (They are not, as some people seem to think, conversation databases to be mined on the spot. Because, you see, everyone reading this has their own access to the internet, which they can use at their own pace and leisure when they're alone.) And this, I suspect, is why, even though cell phones have become more commonplace, they're not featured in movies to any degree approaching the proportion in which they appear in everyday life. Unless a character is doing something crucial to the plot, something that the audience also validates as important, a character in a film cannot use a cell-phone for any real length of time and remain likable. We'll automatically think they're self absorbed, or worse. (Consider that the next time you decide to whip your phone out in the presence of a flesh and blood human being.)
Phone booths are also represented in the same Hollywood era in a way that's interesting, at least in terms of the "phone in public = asshole" trope. The phone booth was oftentimes a place where we would be introduced to a jerk—someone so obsessed with their own conversation that they wouldn't get off the phone when the protagonist arrived with their inevitable emergency. And since most of us now carry around cellphones in our pocket (let's call them what they are: computers), we can't be the jerk who becomes an obstacle in the way of someone else's emergency. Nor do we have to rely on the courtesy of someone else during a similar type of situation. But our pocket phones still allow us to seal ourselves up inside the isolation booth, so to speak, just like the jerk in so many films. (That phone booths were often the dwelling place of this type of person also works as a counter argument to the stance that cell phones signified unflattering traits because audiences were envious of those who could afford them. Fairly or not, it was the "public phone" more generally that seemed to carry this connotation.)
There's also, to relate this back to Hook more literally, a sense of Neverland—of refusing to grow up—about our need to always feel connected (I think distracted is a more accurate name for the comfort being provided). As Jaron Lanier wrote in You Are Not a Gadget (2010):
"Children want attention. Therefore, young adults, in their newly extended childhood, can now perceive themselves to be finally getting enough attention, through social networks and blogs. Lately, the design of online technology has moved from answering the desire for attention to addressing an even earlier developmental stage.
"Separation anxiety is assuaged by constant connection. Young people announce every detail of their lives on services like Twitter not to show off, but to avoid the closed door at bedtime, the empty room, the screaming vacuum of an isolated mind."
So yes, all of the above is intuitive. Like an addict trying to convince themselves that their habit has no detrimental effect on their life or on the lives of their friends, we keep asking ourselves the same questions about our drug of choice. "Are cell phones bad for us when we use them the way we do? Do they cheapen friendships? Are they distracting? Do they diminish our attention spans? Do they make us more anti-social? What are the environmental costs? Is being connected all the time a good thing? Does the technology help reinforce and accentuate what's best in us, or what's worst?" The treatment of cell phones onscreen in the past shows us that we already knew the answers to most of these questions decades ago. We just don't like the answers now that we're hooked, so we choose instead to forget.