This is offered in the tradition of list-making cultural commentary and inspired both by some recent comments on my own bedtime reading and by my good friend Richard Kelly.
1. Defeat: Napoleon’s Russian Campaign – Philippe-Paul de Segur
The title kind of says it all.
2. Gender Trouble – Judith Butler
Difficult prose, complex arguments leading to a clear-sighted, almost playful, deconstruction of sexual identity. The conclusion: heterosexuality is basically impossible.
3. Moby Dick
It’s just intimidating – whichever way you want to look at it.
4. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State – Frederic Engels
The subtitle could be: I’ve thought a lot about this stuff and anything even vaguely romantic that happens between you and me is a) a socio-economic construct and b) is not going to lead to anything good for either of us or for the future of socialism
5. On War – General Karl Von Clausewitz
It’s like Les Liaisons Dangereuses without the sex. This book shows a commitment to military strategy and ultimately victory without any of the bodice-ripping erotic relief.
6. The Sex Lives of the Great Dictators – Nigel Cawthorne
Can power ever be fetishized enough? I think the answer might be yes. This book might just as well be a manual for alienated, narcissistic, paranoid (and possibly even murderous) relationships
7. The Rise of Modern Japan – W.G. Beasley
A modern classic since 1963. This book screams serious, boring… and impenetrable.
8. Any weighty biography (over 900 pages) of the following: The Duke of Wellington, Mao Tse Tung, Martin McGuiness
Not to be confused with biographies of Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Che Guevera or Michael Collins – who can be comfortably accommodated into Romantic revolutionary and/or military heroes.
Thursday 24 June 2010
Tuesday 9 March 2010
Why London is better than New York (part 2)
I tried to place a bet on Sunday. It occurred to me as I logged on to the internet that I couldn’t even name a single bookmakers in New York and I’m not sure that in my three and a half years in the city that I’ve ever walked past one. In contrast, every high street (or main street) in the UK has at least one bookies - Ladbrokes or William Hill are household names. Gambling is something of a national past-time back home. I remember once hearing the statistic that the average British household spent more in a week on gambling than it did on vegetables. It’s nothing necessarily to be proud of but gambling just is a very normalized part of our national life. So much so that even someone like me has a Betfair account.
And it was this account I tried to access when I wanted to put some money on the Oscars. But when I got to the website I was greeted with the following message:
You may be attempting to access Betfair.com from a restricted country.
Our software has detected that you may be accessing the Betfair Web site from the United States. You may view the Betfair site, but you won’t be able to place any bets.
I vaguely remembered from an ecommerce course I’d been involved in years ago the various legal restrictions on gambling that were enforced in the US – part Puritanism, part protectionism. Given there’s not much use in viewing a betting site without being able to bet I decided to go elsewhere and find a US gambling site. I found one that seemed to be offering some interesting odds and combinations on the Oscars and registered for an account. I thought $50 dollars for starters should cover it. But as a non-US, temporary resident on a diplomatic visa I don’t have a social security number. I could have got one but I’ve never seen the need and I don’t like the idea of anything that smacks of ID cards. But without a social security number to verify my age and identity I couldn’t give this company my 50 bucks. A very helpful customer service agent phoned me. I explained my situation to him. He pointed out that I could use my credit card if, in advance, I sent them the relevant paper work – a copy of my visa, my passport, a letter from my employer and two proofs of address. I’m not that into gambling, I explained to him. I just wanted to put a few dollars on Best Director. I could also add money using a Western Union wire transfer – but again this would take a couple of days and I wanted to gamble now. A seasoned salesman, he did his best to help me. What were my gambling needs he asked – casino? Black Jack? I explained that I was a very light gambler and my upcoming betting needs would include the Cheltenham gold cup and, more importantly, the size of a possible Labour majority in Camden and St Pancras in the UK general election. Neither could he really help me with.
So the long and the short of it: a socially responsible, financially solvent, 38 year old civil servant was unable to place a bet.
Later in the evening, on the subway going to visit a friend to watch the said award ceremony I noticed an advert above the seats opposite me. It was vividly illustrated with two pictures of different handguns. The headline to the advert read:
“Which one is real: it’s not what you think”
The point of the advert – a public service advert – was to explain to commuters that in NYC it’s illegal to paint a real gun to look like a toy and it’s illegal to sell a toy-gun that looks real.
I suppose that’s information worth knowing but there was something about the advert which seemed to be missing the more fundamental point. Carrying a handgun in New York City, unlike in most of the US, is actually illegal. The illegality of carrying a handgun I would have thought would be the key point - not how the gun is accessorized. And the more profound issue is surely that guns kill people. But the advert on the subway was obviously starting from the point of view that it was kind of understandable that people might want to carry a gun. It was almost trying to help them not get arrested by mistakenly buying the wrong toy. The unquestioned desirability of guns is a huge part of this culture. But it never fails to shock me. It’s great that guns are illegal in NYC. The city is clearly full of people close to or on the edge. And it’s stressful enough getting the “C train” without having to worry that any one of these people might be concealing a weapon. In fact, when I discussed the advert with the friend I was visiting (an Australian) we both agreed that it was this lack of gun culture in New York that made it one of the few places in the USA we would consider living. But even so the dissonance was there.
It also reminded me how two days earlier I’d had my annual general medical at my family doctors. I have reasonably good insurance – costing me and my employer around $500 a month. Even so, just to say hello to a nurse I also have to stump up a “co-pay” of an additional $15. Which I guess isn’t that much but if you are actually sick and need to go to the doctors regularly or have small children this can easily add up. On my way to the surgery I realized I had no cash so stopped off at an ATM. As I was entering my pin number it just occurred to me how fucked up it was somehow for me to have to visit a cash point before going to the doctors.
So to say, in a rather roundabout way – three more reasons why I don’t want to live in the US: a place where it’s somehow a more “normal” thing to do to pretend that your toy gun is real than it is to put a few quid on the Oscars.
And it was this account I tried to access when I wanted to put some money on the Oscars. But when I got to the website I was greeted with the following message:
You may be attempting to access Betfair.com from a restricted country.
Our software has detected that you may be accessing the Betfair Web site from the United States. You may view the Betfair site, but you won’t be able to place any bets.
I vaguely remembered from an ecommerce course I’d been involved in years ago the various legal restrictions on gambling that were enforced in the US – part Puritanism, part protectionism. Given there’s not much use in viewing a betting site without being able to bet I decided to go elsewhere and find a US gambling site. I found one that seemed to be offering some interesting odds and combinations on the Oscars and registered for an account. I thought $50 dollars for starters should cover it. But as a non-US, temporary resident on a diplomatic visa I don’t have a social security number. I could have got one but I’ve never seen the need and I don’t like the idea of anything that smacks of ID cards. But without a social security number to verify my age and identity I couldn’t give this company my 50 bucks. A very helpful customer service agent phoned me. I explained my situation to him. He pointed out that I could use my credit card if, in advance, I sent them the relevant paper work – a copy of my visa, my passport, a letter from my employer and two proofs of address. I’m not that into gambling, I explained to him. I just wanted to put a few dollars on Best Director. I could also add money using a Western Union wire transfer – but again this would take a couple of days and I wanted to gamble now. A seasoned salesman, he did his best to help me. What were my gambling needs he asked – casino? Black Jack? I explained that I was a very light gambler and my upcoming betting needs would include the Cheltenham gold cup and, more importantly, the size of a possible Labour majority in Camden and St Pancras in the UK general election. Neither could he really help me with.
So the long and the short of it: a socially responsible, financially solvent, 38 year old civil servant was unable to place a bet.
Later in the evening, on the subway going to visit a friend to watch the said award ceremony I noticed an advert above the seats opposite me. It was vividly illustrated with two pictures of different handguns. The headline to the advert read:
“Which one is real: it’s not what you think”
The point of the advert – a public service advert – was to explain to commuters that in NYC it’s illegal to paint a real gun to look like a toy and it’s illegal to sell a toy-gun that looks real.
I suppose that’s information worth knowing but there was something about the advert which seemed to be missing the more fundamental point. Carrying a handgun in New York City, unlike in most of the US, is actually illegal. The illegality of carrying a handgun I would have thought would be the key point - not how the gun is accessorized. And the more profound issue is surely that guns kill people. But the advert on the subway was obviously starting from the point of view that it was kind of understandable that people might want to carry a gun. It was almost trying to help them not get arrested by mistakenly buying the wrong toy. The unquestioned desirability of guns is a huge part of this culture. But it never fails to shock me. It’s great that guns are illegal in NYC. The city is clearly full of people close to or on the edge. And it’s stressful enough getting the “C train” without having to worry that any one of these people might be concealing a weapon. In fact, when I discussed the advert with the friend I was visiting (an Australian) we both agreed that it was this lack of gun culture in New York that made it one of the few places in the USA we would consider living. But even so the dissonance was there.
It also reminded me how two days earlier I’d had my annual general medical at my family doctors. I have reasonably good insurance – costing me and my employer around $500 a month. Even so, just to say hello to a nurse I also have to stump up a “co-pay” of an additional $15. Which I guess isn’t that much but if you are actually sick and need to go to the doctors regularly or have small children this can easily add up. On my way to the surgery I realized I had no cash so stopped off at an ATM. As I was entering my pin number it just occurred to me how fucked up it was somehow for me to have to visit a cash point before going to the doctors.
So to say, in a rather roundabout way – three more reasons why I don’t want to live in the US: a place where it’s somehow a more “normal” thing to do to pretend that your toy gun is real than it is to put a few quid on the Oscars.
Sunday 14 February 2010
Why London is better than New York (part1)
I try to divide my time between London and New York and am a subscriber to both the London Review of Books (LRB) and the New York Review of Books (NYRB). With both journals some issues are better than others but in general terms, high-quality, insightful, challenging and thoughtful writing is assured. While both the LRB and the NYRB have a similar perspective - I guess an anglo-saxon world view that is, however, outward looking, internationalist, left-leaning and analytical - they also have their national particularities grounded very much in the contemporary politics of their respective states: Ross McKibbin on New Labour in the LRB or Ronald Dworkin on the Supreme Court in the NYRB, for example.
Basically I feel familiar and at home in the pages of both of them. However when I move away from the reviews, articles and opinion pieces towards the classifieds the difference between the cultures of my two homes becomes clear. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the personal ads.
Here's one from a recent edition of the LRB:
"This is an advert full of cheap innuendo lazy come-ons and needy sexual impropriety. Just like the LRB letters page. Woman, 49"
It's self-deprecating, knowing and understated.
Now here's a woman of a similar age in the NYRB:
"Smart and beautiful, intellectually curious and athletic. Consultant/educator - tall, slim with natural radiance. Adventurous with calm, warm demeanor; genuineness of character, expressive, affectionate, divorced, 5'8". Laughs a lot, thinks deeply politically liberal and interested in social change, literature, politics, nature, beauty...."
And on it goes for another almost 50, five dollar a throw words, with not an understated and ironic syllable to be found.
In the deepest recess of my English soul I cannot think of any circumstance in which anyone can in all sanity describe themselves as possessing "natural radiance". And I think the majority of my compatriots would feel much the same - and certainly those subscribing to a high-end, literary journal like the LRB or NYRB.
The difference between the two approaches sums up for me one of the essential, ideological problems I have with living in the United States. Everything in the US is a pitch - an attempt to sell or a plea to buy. Of course the LRB personals have the same ultimate aim but it's done with a kind of awkwardness at the prospect acknowledging the slightly tawdry nature of the exchange (they also create as a byproduct some entertainment for the reader). The adverts in the NYRB possess no such coyness - everyone is beautiful, alluring, successful and functional. This incessant self-promotion makes relationships absolutely impossible - unless on some level you see yourself - and your partner - as a commodity. And what kind of purgatory that must be.
Basically I feel familiar and at home in the pages of both of them. However when I move away from the reviews, articles and opinion pieces towards the classifieds the difference between the cultures of my two homes becomes clear. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the personal ads.
Here's one from a recent edition of the LRB:
"This is an advert full of cheap innuendo lazy come-ons and needy sexual impropriety. Just like the LRB letters page. Woman, 49"
It's self-deprecating, knowing and understated.
Now here's a woman of a similar age in the NYRB:
"Smart and beautiful, intellectually curious and athletic. Consultant/educator - tall, slim with natural radiance. Adventurous with calm, warm demeanor; genuineness of character, expressive, affectionate, divorced, 5'8". Laughs a lot, thinks deeply politically liberal and interested in social change, literature, politics, nature, beauty...."
And on it goes for another almost 50, five dollar a throw words, with not an understated and ironic syllable to be found.
In the deepest recess of my English soul I cannot think of any circumstance in which anyone can in all sanity describe themselves as possessing "natural radiance". And I think the majority of my compatriots would feel much the same - and certainly those subscribing to a high-end, literary journal like the LRB or NYRB.
The difference between the two approaches sums up for me one of the essential, ideological problems I have with living in the United States. Everything in the US is a pitch - an attempt to sell or a plea to buy. Of course the LRB personals have the same ultimate aim but it's done with a kind of awkwardness at the prospect acknowledging the slightly tawdry nature of the exchange (they also create as a byproduct some entertainment for the reader). The adverts in the NYRB possess no such coyness - everyone is beautiful, alluring, successful and functional. This incessant self-promotion makes relationships absolutely impossible - unless on some level you see yourself - and your partner - as a commodity. And what kind of purgatory that must be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
