A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
|
|
One of the Best Books I’ve Ever Read |
By David Corn September 6, 2023 |
Author George Saunders at a book signing in Coral Gables, Florida, in 2017. Photo by JL/AP |
|
|
Do you ever wish you could return to college—read good books, attend lectures delivered by an engaged professor, and become smarter? I feel that I almost did that recently when I sat down with one of the best books I’ve ever read. By best, I mean not the most impressive feat of writing but perhaps the most insightful and enjoyable.
Usually, I write about books (and movies, television shows, music, and art exhibits) in the “The Watch, Read, and Listen List” section of this newsletter, a feature only available to premium subscribers (which you could be by signing up here). But since (I assume) most of the people who receive this newsletter are readers and lovers of books, I feel compelled to share an unparalleled reading experience I recently had.
The cause was George Saunders’ 2021 book A Swim in a Pond in the Rain: In Which Four Russians Give a Master Class on Writing, Reading, and Life. The title is a bit misleading. It’s not four Russians who are providing this master class, it’s Saunders, the much-acclaimed writer of short stories and novels that often have a reality-bending or absurdist feel and that are most easily compared to Kurt Vonnegut and Thomas Pynchon. For two decades, Saunders, a professor at Syracuse University, has taught a class on the Russian short story to MFA students. Fixating on the works of Chekhov, Tolstoy, Turgenev, and Gogol, he has plumbed the fundamental elements of fiction, most notably this basic inquiry: What makes a story a story?
A Swim in a Pond in the Rain is his class between covers.
I will admit that I’ve never been a fan of Russian short stories, an art form that flourished in the second half of the 19th century. They have a certain formality to them and were often focused on the not very exciting bourgeoisie. Yet in Saunders’ hands they become compelling material for thrilling explorations of the central questions of literature: What makes good writing? Why do we read?
In A Swim in a Pond in the Rain, Saunders presents seven stories from these Russian masters and then he breaks them down, in one instance page by page. He analyzes how each was constructed. He ponders the choices the authors made. Why did Chekhov explain this action of this character but not that one? Why did Tolstoy describe one scene in detail but skip past another one? Each section of the book is a dissection that explores the guts of these exquisitely composed pieces.
Certainly, such an exercise would appeal to the most bookish among us. But Saunders goes beyond those horizons. If you’ve ever wondered why you (or others) read—what’s the point?—he provides us the reasons. If you’ve thought about how to write (anything!) or tell a story, Saunders, using these classic texts, illuminates critical principles. But this is not so much a how-to-write or how-to-read guide. It is a how-to-think-about-writing-and-reading disquisition.
Saunders presents all this in a conversational manner, with much good humor and fair helpings of humility. As I read A Swim in a Pond in the Rain, I could envision sitting in a seminar room with him, surrounded by eager minds, and absorbing his keen and well-earned observations about fiction. (Does he wear a corduroy jacket with elbow patches?)
Pointing out that we live “in a degraded era, bombarded by facile, shallow, agenda-laced, too rapidly disseminated information bursts,” Saunders recognizes there is something anachronistic about turning to these old Russian tales from a bygone era that were “fastidiously” crafted “for a specific purpose that our time maybe doesn’t fully endorse.” Yet he insists that these stories “ask the big questions: How are we supposed to be living down here? What were we put here to accomplish. What should we value? What is truth, anyway, and how might we recognize it? How can we feel any peace when some people have everything and others have nothing?”
Not surprisingly, Saunders believes the act of reading can help…with just about everything. He writes that he is convinced “that there’s a vast underground network for goodness at work in the world—a web of people who’ve put reading at the center of their lives because they know from experience that reading makes them more expansive, generous people and makes their lives more interesting.”
Reading and writing—you can’t have one without the other. And Saunders shows us what resides at the heart of each process. What moves a story forward. Why a reader connects with a narrative or character. In doing so, he can't help but offer advice to writers. (His would-be-writer students are taking this course for a reason.) He shares a “linked pair of writing dictums: ‘Don’t make things happen for no reason’ and ‘Having made something happen, make it matter.’” Another of his “universal laws of fiction” is this: “Always be escalating. That’s all a story is really, a continual system of escalation.”
His descriptions of the essence of storytelling might change how you read or write. “A story,” he notes, “is a series of incremental pulses, each of which does something to us. Each puts us in a new place, relative to where we just were.”
Along the way, Saunders recounts how he became a writer. It began when he was working at an environmental engineering firm and “out of boredom,” while on a conference call, began “writing these dark little Seussian poems” to which he later added cartoons. His wife laughed at them. That was all it took: “A switch got thrown in my head, and the next day I started writing a story in that new mode—allowing myself to be entertaining.” That story was about a futuristic theme park.
In Sauders hands, these old Russian stories about singers in a tavern, masters and peasants squabbling, an old woman in a cart on the way to town, and other scenarios that may not be of much interest to us today are glorious gateways to contemplations about reading, writing, and the human condition. Saunders deploys them to answer this query: “What is it, exactly, that fiction does?” And he supplies an answer:
“Well, that’s the question we’ve been asking all along, as we’ve been watching our minds read these Russian stories. We’ve been comparing the pre-reading state of our minds to the post-reading state. And that’s what fiction does: it causes an incremental change in the state of a mind. That’s it. But, you know—it really does it. That change is finite but real.
And that’s not nothing. It’s not everything, but it’s not nothing.
Saunders observes, “It may be possible that, when all is said and done, that’s what we’re really looking for—in a sentence, in a story, in a book: joy.” In this marvelous book that functions as a one-on-one tutorial on literature and life, Saunders guides the reader on an ecstatic and eye-opening journey. I’ve rarely been as engaged and as satisfied by a book. I never would have imagined becoming so entranced by these stories. But Saunders transforms each one into gripping lessons of writing and living. A Swim in a Pond in the Rain challenged and altered my own thinking about reading, writing, and storytelling. It was a complete joy.
Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com |
A Good Deal: American Psychosis in Paperback and Discounted |
Have you recently noticed that political pundits are ever-more frequently suggesting that the Republican Party might return to normal if Donald Trump is somehow removed from the equation—perhaps through one or more guilty verdicts or electoral defeat? This ticks me off. The big problem with the GOP is not Trump but the demand within its base for a politics of hate, grievance, resentment, paranoia, authoritarianism, and demagoguery. Trump sells because tens of millions are buying. And with Trump becoming a GOP success through lies, bigotry, cruelty, indecency, and conspiracy-mongering, he has highlighted the fact that this dark matter has always been a crucial component of the Republican cosmos. He didn’t conjure up Trumpism. It’s been part of the GOP brew for decades, with its critical role largely unacknowledged by the party’s establishment and the media.
That was the point of my book: American Psychosis: A Historical Investigation of How the Republican Party Went Crazy. It’s a narrative history of the long-running GOP effort to exploit and encourage far-right extremism. A key takeaway: This didn’t start with Trump. McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, the Southern Strategy, the New Right, the Religious Right, Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition, Rush Limbaugh, New Gingrich, Fox News, Sarah Palin, birtherism, the tea party—it’s always been there. I wish these pundits would realize that your father’s GOP was not really your father’s GOP and see that ridding the party of Trump, if that were even possible, would not automatically usher in a kinder and gentler Republican Party. (Paging Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy!)
Perhaps if they read American Psychosis, they would know this. And now they can do so by obtaining the new and expanded paperback version, which will be released on September 12. If they subscribe to this newsletter, as you do, they can purchase discounted copies. Now through September 30, my publisher Twelve (a Hachette imprint) is offering 10 percent off to Our Land readers when you buy the paperback directly from its website. Just go to this link and use this undecipherable code: DAVIDCORNPBK.
As always, thanks for supporting this book. When the hardback was released last year, Our Land readers helped land it on the New York Times bestsellers list. If you were not part of that effort, now’s a good time to join the American Psychosis crowd. And next time you see a pundit wishing wistfully for the return of the ol’ GOP, you, too, can yell at the screen: “Read this book!” |
|
|
The mail is a good indication of what pushes readers’ buttons. The issue about David Brooks’ recent piece decrying American meanness that largely ignored the impact of Donald Trump’s GOP on the national discourse provoked a flood of correspondence.
Deb Maxwell wrote:
Thank you for this. I wish the Atlantic would publish your piece. I am so sick of Brooks and his moralizing. The fact that he didn't say more about how Trump and the GOP have brought the cruelty to an even more dangerous level than the GOP of the past is malpractice.
John Ranta emailed:
I’m glad you critiqued Brooks, but I’d like to add two things that you missed. One is that politics has always been rude and uncivil. You mentioned McCarthy, but he had nothing on the protectors of slave-owners and their attacks on Lincoln (assassination is very rude, now that I think of it), or the ward politics of Daley, or the neo-fascist attacks on FDR. Or really, American politics of any decade you care to choose. Plus ca change, plus c’est the meme chose, when it comes to American political discourse.
And I’ve often noticed how privileged white conservatives like Brooks categorize the 1960s as the “me generation.” What Brooks is trying to do is trivialize the push for civil rights as “selfish.” To paraphrase, “after World War II, we as a nation became more focused on such pesky internalities as civil rights for Black Americans, equal rights for women, and (in the 70s) gay rights.” “Pesky” is how Brooks labels the most important and meaningful political movements of the past 60 years. He probably thinks those marchers were rude, too. So uncivil.
Neely Lyles added this: Born-again, no-cred Brooks was also a big cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq. Why is he even being published?
Brooks is one of many neocons (and others) who advocated the invasion of Iraq without knowing much about Iraq and the region—and who paid no price for their hubris and ignorance. They met no penalty for pushing a policy and a disastrous war that resulted in the deaths of several thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. His subsequent rise to the exalted perch of New York Times columnist, PBS commentator, and Atlantic contributor shows that the punditry field is hardly a meritocracy.
Marianne Morris sent this note:
I agree with you on how the Republicans are pushing our society to be a cruel and anguish place. And I do believe it really began to fracture was when Trump started running for president with his lies, calling for fighting (physically) against Democrat. Lies, lies, lies all his lies. Lies that fed into the Republicans anger and this causes all the bullying and violence. All started by Trump’s words to his supporters. As noted above, I don’t believe Trump is the cause of this crassification. That’s the point of American Psychosis. He’s a manifestation—one that has profoundly exacerbated the problem.
Debby Howell had this observation:
I’m so glad you are speaking out on Brooks’ ridiculous spouting. We have been very disturbed by it for a long time. And I’m so glad for your book. Yes, for decades we have seen the mean attitude on the right toward all the minorities and disadvantaged and disabled. It is as if they felt these people were just messing up their view like poorly kept landscaping and property. Jonni Gray was also down on Brooks:
I stopped listening to him on the PBS’s NewsHour after reading most of his The Second Mountain: The Quest for a Moral Life for my book club. In it he blames the hyper-individualism of sixties counterculture for today’s divisiveness. I guess he missed all those communes. I suspect that his deflections, although intended for his audience, function to prevent self-awareness of his own role as apologist for a racist, misogynistic, violent, authoritarian GOP. A man with a moral education and self-awareness would be honest about Republicans, like Stuart Stevens in It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump, but that might require giving up his both-sides gig with the NewsHour.
Lynn Caporale passed along a suggestion:
Please do send David Brooks a copy of American Psychosis if you haven’t already! If he promises to read it, I gladly will. Responding to Brooks’ call for expanded moral education, Dana Richardson noted:
On top of all of this (your excellent piece on David Brooks' blind spot), right-wing group Moms for Liberty actively fights the inclusion of SEL (social-emotional learning) curriculums in schools. They claim it's indoctrination, grooming. But they also openly express disdain and resentment that public schools would deign to teach their kids to be kind. It's gross and makes me (and thousands of others) want to leave education. Elizabeth Richardson had an unusual perspective:
I have absolutely no disagreement with your take on David Brooks' rather simplistic piece on American moral values. I personally think that we, as a culture, began taking a very wrong turn with the advent of so-called "reality" TV programs. I think of them as S&M programs—full of people who will masochistically submit to all manner of humiliation and disgrace for a few moments of "fame," and the sadists who gleefully poke their cruel "fun" at them. I've watched probably two or three hours of S&M TV since it became a thing. I found it creepy and thoroughly disgusting. I turned away and never looked back. The fact that that genre spawned such insane popularity says a lot about the viewers who have now been given a full blessing and permission to be as vile as they want to be to other human beings. Having elected the Sadist-in-Chief who won fame through his own S&M show says it all. I really think it's hard to underestimate the impact this trend has had in American culture (if we can still call it that).
Corrine Anderson-Ketchmark showed his wisdom:
Thank you for your analysis of Brooks' article; this is the thoughtful discussion that is so much needed to understand what has happened to decency in America. Your point that political leaders have an impact on how we treat each other and the decisions we make is critical to our future. I am interested in how to bring down the temperature so civil discussions and reasonable decisions take place. I bought your first book and just pe-ordered three more for gifts. Max Velte was in the minority: Brooks was spot on. Your wordy article goes down a slippery slope to “whataboutism.” David, it is ok not to write on a slow day. But you mirror the theme of Brooks’ article.
I wish Max had explained how my article slid into whataboutism. He left me hanging. |
The Watch, Read, and Listen List |
Full Circle. How much do you know about Guyanese crime syndicates that operate in Queens, New York? My hunch is not much. Neither do I. That was just one of the reasons I was obsessed by this neo-noir series directed by the legendary Steven Soderbergh (Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Traffic, Ocean’s Eleven, and many others). The recently released six-part thriller that streams on Max takes us into a criminal world that has rarely, if ever, been depicted in mainstream entertainment fare. That makes Full Circle culturally fascinating, while full of the plot twists and deep-dark secrets necessary for a top-notch, nail-biting crime show.
A Guyanese mob, at the instruction of its commanding matriarch Savitri Mahabir (CCH Pounder), schemes to kidnap the grandson of celebrity Chef Jeff (admirably played by Dennis Quaid with a highly unfortunate ponytail). This is a departure from the crew’s usual venture: signing up indigent people for life insurance—and then killing them to collect the payoff. For the caper at hand, the ransom demand is $314,159 to be delivered at exactly 1:11 a.m. in Washington Square Park. (Note the use of pi.) Obviously, this is about more than the money. Two young Guyanese immigrants who were unwittingly drawn into Mahabir’s crime family—Louis (Gerald Jones) and Xavier (Sheyi Cole)—are assigned to help pull off the kidnapping. The job goes south.
Mahabir is oddly obsessed with this operation, believing it could help remove a curse on her family. Moreover, the kidnapping is somehow linked to secrets held by the parents of the intended victim, a wealthy uptown couple: Samantha and Derek Browne, played well (as you would expect) by Claire Danes and Timothy Olyphant. Sam is a hyper-Type A exec who runs the business empire of her often-hapless father, Chef Jeff. She’s covering up something. And Derek has his own hidden past. Meanwhile, an erratic and abrasive US postal inspector ironically named Melody Harmony (Zazie Beetz), who (to my untrained eye) suffers from borderline personality disorder or some other psychological ailment, is pulling at threads and trying to knit together an explanation for what appears to be a bizarre series of unconnected events.
There have been a bunch of high-profile crime series recently predicated on the misdeeds of the very-well-to-do, such as Big Little Lies and The Undoing (both starring Nicole Kidman). But Full Circle adds a richness to this familiar terrain by tethering the 1-percenter Manhattanites to the Guyanese crooks in Queens and the immigrants trying to escape Mahabir’s clutches. The intrigue is multi-level, and you must pay close attention. But it’s well worth it. Soderbergh's direction is sharp, but most of the credit for the series’ successful weaving goes to screenwriter Ed Solomon, who penned each episode and who handily guides the show from the Browne’s upscale apartment—is that a Picasso?—to the less stylish streets of Queens, injecting a freshness into the genre. As George Saunders advises (see above), he is constantly escalating. The story does spin in circles—but it’s plotted in a skillful manner that leads to a solid end.
|
Read Recent Issues of Our Land |
September 1, 2023: Can Donald Trump rally be barred from the 2024 ballot?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Tucker Carlson); the Mailbag; Jade Bird and LP belt it out (separately); and more. August 26, 2023: The bottomless cynicism of Tucker Carlson; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. August 23, 2023: David Brooks’ blind spot; American Psychosis, the paperback; whatever happened to our service economy?; the Mailbag; Citizen Cope takes a “Victory March”; and more.
August 17, 2023: Donald Trump, mob boss (then and now); Dumbass Comment of the Week (Matt Gaetz); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
August 12, 2023: From the Our Land archives: In Ohio, sex sells freedom; and more.
August 8, 2023: Ron DeSantis—not dead yet; Our Land on Cape Cod; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Mike Pence campaign); and more.
August 5, 2023: From the Our Land archives: The tale of Jeffrey Clark (Trump’s “co-conspirator 4”); Hightown, a crime drama that explores the underside of Cape Cod; and more. August 1, 2023: What the Trump indictment won’t fix; the Covid wars; Freedy Johnston’s songwriting craftsmanship; and more. |
|
|
Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
|
|
|