Saturday, June 27, 2009

Fifteen Books ("Fifteen being a Brand Name, Like the "Fruit" in Froot Loops)

I am a cheater. I have never tried to hide it; in fact, the first thing I tell people is 1) I do not believe in god, and 2) I am a cheater. But no matter how well a body knows me, they are still always surprised. “I *told* you I was a cheater,” I will say. “Yeah,” that person invariably replies, “But I had no idea you were THAT BIG of a cheater!”

Right now, I am trying to finish three large hissy fits that I just can’t get right, which really pisses me off. So, in an effort to break this brain freeze, I did two things: sprayed the heck out of my roses, and decided to write something about books.

Several of my friends (and friends of friends) have taken a dive at the good ol’ Fifteen Books That Have Changed My Life--They May Not Be The Best Books Ever, But I Will Never Be The Same Again After Reading It. Per usual, I threw my oar (uninvited) into troubled waters, and harshly criticized their choices—especially the books I had never read. Now, I am going to shine a light upon the darkness, lamping the way to a higher and better literacy.

But keeping my choices to “fifteen” will take some doing. So, I am going have fifteen “categories,” as well as alternative suggestions (see above re “cheater”). Please understand I am ready to defend these selections, lo unto death…not my death, exactly…but somebody’s death. Probably my cats’ death.


1. Shoah Literature

The outpouring of history and literature from the Holocaust is important to me, in no small part because I am a German American. There isn’t any way to pick one book to give any kind of a picture of that event. So, cheater that I am, here is my list:

Best in Category
Primo Levi's The Drowned and the Saved

Anita Ekberg. Not only is she fabulously
good looking, she knows lots and lots
about books. Honest.
Mr. Levi is more famous for his books about his experience in Monowitz, one of the camps in the Auschwitz-Birkenau complez (Survival in Auschwitz), and his efforts to return to Italy after the war (The Reawakening), but I prefer Drowned. In all his books, Mr. Levi stresses that in the Nazi concentration camps, if an inmate did his work like they were supposed to, eating only the food allowed to you, that inmate would be dead within six months. So, if an inmate was going to survive in the camp, that survival was going to come at the expense of other inmates, period. The Drowned and the Saved was the last book Mr. Levi wrote, and is a series of essays about the morality of life in the camps, both on the part of the guards/oppressors and the victims/inmates.



Best Choice for Book to Read on Shoah, It You Are Only Going to Read One Book (tie) 
Tadeusz Borowski, This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen
A. Anatoli (Kuznetsov), Babi Yar (Uncensored Version)

Mr. Borowski was a Polish writer, imprisoned both in Auschwitz and Dachau. After the war, he returned to Poland, and wrote short stories and poetry. This Way for the Gas is a collection of his short stories about life in Auschwitz. 

The problem with most of the casual writings, films, and television programs about the Holocaust is that the inmates are all portrayed as silent, passive victims. What Borowski does is give a truer, more disturbing picture of the camps, showing how the camps were overseen and run by the German and Ukrainian guards, but the individual tasks and work groups were run by selected inmates or “Kapos.” The interrelations between inmates—kapos—guards makes Borowski’s stories especially moving.

Babi Yar is the name of a large ravine in Ukraine, where the Nazis shot hundreds of thousands of people. What few people know is that the Nazis killed significantly more people were by bullets (execution style) than by gas. Babi Yar is a memoir by Mr. Kuznetsov (who used the pen name of A. Anatoli), who was twelve at the time of the 1941 Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. This “novel” details his experiences with the Nazis and the Soviets, and what he had to do to survive.

The “uncensored” version is especially interesting, in that when this book was originally printed in the Soviet Union, roughly a quarter of it had been cut by the censors. This edition includes the purged sections in bold face type, revealing both puzzling and obvious choices by the censor. Also included are later comments by Mr. Kuznetsov, as he restored the purged sections, preparing his book for publication in the west. 

Honourable Mention (tie) 
Simon Wiesenthal, The Sunflower
Jean-Francois Steiner, Treblinka

We know so much about the Auschwitz-Birkenau camps, because those were (in part) large prison factories, so many of those inmates survived the war. Other camps, such as Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec most notably, were “death camps,” in that Jews were sent there to be murdered. Nothing besides murder happened at those camps. Steiner’s book describes the history of Treblinka, and how in 1943 there was an uprising that destroyed the camp. 

The Sunflower is an unusual book. The first third of the book is Mr. Wiesenthal recounting an experience he had, as an Auschwitz inmate. One day, he is sent on a work crew to a hospital. A nun pulls Wiesenthal aside, and pushes him into a room with a dying Nazi soldier. The soldier tells Wiesenthal about a mass murder that the soldier participated in, and then asks Wiesenthal to forgive the soldier. Wiesenthal listens, but says nothing. After the war, Wiesenthal tracks down this soldier’s mother, and listens to the mother explain to Wiesenthal what a “good man” her son was. Again, Weisenthal says nothing.

Mr. Weisenthal asks in deciding to say nothing, did he do the right thing? The rest ofThe Sunflower are short essays from fifty-three prominent people from all walks of life, who answer this question. Especially moving for me are the responses from Jean Amery, Primo Levi, and Albert Speer (Speer, in particular).

Books about Germans
Rudolph Hoss, Death Dealer (edited by Steven Paskuly, forward by Primo Levi) (“Bad” Germans Category)
Heinrich Boll, The Stories of Heinrich Boll (“Good”/”Other” Germans Category).

Rudolph Hoss was the Kommandant of Auschwitz from 1940 to 1943. After the war, he was captured by the Poles, and wrote this memoir while in prison. In his foreword, Mr. Levi says “[u]sually when you agree to write a foreword, you do so because you truly care about the book: it’s readable, the literary quality is high, you like or at least admire the author. This book, however, is the extreme opposite.” Per usual, Mr. Levi is absolutely correct. Hoss truly is (in Levi’s words) a “coarse, stupid, arrogant, long-winded scoundrel, who sometimes blatantly lies.” Levi goes on to say “[t]his book . . . is the autobiography of a man who was not a monster and who never became one.” Reading this book is shocking, in that it is a vivid picture of what Hannah Arendt called “the banality of evil.” Hoss’s self-portrait is all the more horrific, to the extent his lies and self-justifications are so ridiculous, he is so delusional as not see how he contradicts himself.

Heinrich Boll’s Stories will probably be a more personal than a popular choice—meaning that I like this book more than other people will. Mr. Boll’s stories take place in Germany after the war, focusing on the physical and psychological struggles of the German people, trying to decide who and what they are, post Third Reich.

Most Overrated
Ellie Wiesel, The Night Trilogy

I am not saying that NightDawn, and The Accident are “bad”—I am saying, though, that for all the acclaim that Mr. Wiesel has received (especially for Night), there are many better books out there. In addition to the ones I’ve mentioned, I’ll give a special shout out to Sara Nomberg-Przytyk’s Auschwitz, True Tales from a Grotesque Land.

2. The “Huh?” Award
Herman Wouk, The City Boy

Here Ms. Ekberg is taking a call from 
me, where we discuss some of my 
more controversial book choices.
Is The City Boy great literature? I don’t think so—but over the years, I must have read this book over thirty times. The “city boy” is a junior high school age boy in 1920s New York City, and the book centers on his adventures at a summer camp. Unfortunately, I worry that this book (along with Lord of the Flies and Catcher in the Rye) are books only Baby Boomers could love, and the hip hop happening groovy cats from Nowsville will find them too square.

3. Poetry Corner
(tie) 
Charles Bukowski, War All the Time
don marquis, the lives and times of archy and mehitabel

I have no sense of rhythm. None whatsoever. Additionally, I am wholly and completely unable to sing. Consequently, poetry as a rule means nothing to me. I just don’t get it. So I like “fake poetry.”

Irish McCalla. Here, she is caught by
surprise, so she didn't have time to 
put on her clothes. Fortunately, she 
DID have time to get her make up on.
I am hesitant to endorse anything by Charles Bukowski, because he was such an asshole. Moreover, I have known too many guys (they’re almost always guys) who insisted they were “poets” like Bukowski, so they were entitled to drink all the time and be assholes. Nevertheless,War All the Time is a celebration of the struggles and dignity of poor and working class peoples, much like Nelson Algren’s novels (Man with the Golden ArmThe Neon Wilderness).

don marquis’s archy is a cockroach who “typed” blank verse by jumping off the top of a typewriter, and landing head first on the appropriate key. mehitabel is a stray cat, who became a friend of archy’s. archy insists that in a prior life, he was a “vers libre bard” who died, and now his soul inhabits the body of a cockroach. The poems are archy’s comments on life and the happenings of other insects and animals that inhabit his world.

4. Freakishly Good Writing Award
(tie)
Katherine Anne Porter, Ship of Fools
O. Henry, The Complete Short Stories

Everybody in junior high has had to struggle through an O. Henry story, usually “The Gift of the Magi,” which has become an unfortunate, tired cliché. But Sidney Porter’s (O. Henry was his pen name) use of language and humour is tight and still holds up well—especially if you like that old-timey language (if you don’t, then go make up your own list of books).
Myrna Loy. If you have not seen her in the "Thin Man" series of films, you have to. She was a class act, and a credit to the human species.

Ship of Fools is one of the most amazing books I have ever read, in that I really enjoyed the book, but disliked every character. All of them. I still have no idea how Ms. Porter can write a novel—a great novel--without a single likeable person.

5. Columbians Who Won the Nobel Prize for Literature Magical Realism Award
(split decision)
Public: 100 Years of Solitude
Personal: Autumn of the Patriarch

MANY people pick 100 Years of Solitude as one of the best books ever, mainly because it is. Still, I really enjoy Autumn of the Patriarch. A difficult read, Patriarch is written in almost pure stream of consciousness, with little to no punctuation. Ordinarily, I hate that. But when you’re Gabriel Garcia Marquez, you can make it work and work well.

6. Oregon, Capital of the Universe Award
(split decision)
Public: One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
Personal: Sometimes a Great Notion

Mari Blanchard demonstrating that 
safe boating does not mean you have
to give up wearing heels.
Both books are by Oregon’s favorite son Mr. Ken Kesey. 

Cuckoo’s Nest gained considerable popularity after the excellent 1975 film. The story takes place in a mental hospital, but the film focuses on Randale McMurphy, the Jack Nicholson character. The book, on the other hand, is narrated by Chief, the large Native American who pretends to be deaf and dumb. Despite the change of focus, the film is very faithful to the book, but the book also deals with Chief’s hallucinations and real mental health problems.

Sometimes a Great Notion is about a family of loggers, living next to a meandering river. A friend told me he thought Kesey wanted to write a novel that also meandered, like the river did. I agree with him--but he didn’t like the book, while I did. In this novel, Kesey deliberately breaks all the rules of writtin’ that your English teacher tried (in vain) to pound in your head. But Kesey writes well enough so you can still follow the story, even when he changes speakers in the middle of a paragraph, without saying so.

7. Special Award for Being Extra Special
P.G. Wodehouse, The Jeeves Omnibus, Volumes 1-5.

Diana Dors. She is waiting for my next
suggestion, even before she finishes
getting her dress on. Brits are like that.
Not only am I really cheating here, but also showing a certain degree of gutlessness. P.G. Wodehouse was (and I will argue) remains one of the most popular authors on the planet. Among his characters are Bertie Wooster and Jeeves, Wooster’s “gentleman’s gentleman.” The writing is beyond praise, the characters charming, and the humour superb. If you are going to be a sissy pants, and not want to read the entire ten novels and three collections of short stories, then I will suggest Code of the Woosters as a particularly funny novel, or either of the two short story collections Carry on Jeeves or Very Good Jeeves.

8. Jury Prize Award Because Book Does Not Fit in any Category
Grateful Dead Anthology, Volume I

As mentioned above, I have no sense of rhythm but do have a tin ear. Nevertheless, I bought a tenor saxamophone (c.f. Homer Simpson) off E-Bay, and am teaching myself how to play it. Anthology is a sheet music collection of Grateful Dead songs, from their early albums through Shakedown Street, in p/v/g (piano, vocal, guitar) format. Now, I KNOW this music is written in the key of C, and a tenor sax plays in B flat, and I’m just as likely to transpose straw into gold as I am keys in music—but so what? I play the vocal line as written, and what comes out the bell of my sax just plain works.

9. Liberalism Award for Showing Liberalism is Not Just a Good Idea
Salmon Rushdie, The Satanic Verses

Mara Corday. Her swim suit is a little
on the ragged side, because she could
only afford just the one.
When Salmon Rushdie published this novel in 1988, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini declared the book blasphemous, and issued a fatwa, calling for Mr. Rushdie’s immediate murder. Because the book was “banned,” it immediately became popular: everyone wanted to read the “dirty parts.” While the porno aficionados were brutally disappointed, they were the only ones, because this is an amazing novel.

This story flips back and forth between the present day and the seventh century. The Koran has been dictated by god to Mohamed, but there are some verses that are contradictory. Those verses can’t have been from god—therefore, SATAN must have pretended to be god, and sent those particular verses to Mohamed. 

This book wins the Liberalism Award, because if you think Satanic Verses should be banned, then you are an asshole.

10. Still Underrated Despite Wild Acclaim Award
Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse 5

All too often, Kurt Vonnegut is dismissed as one of those authors you read in high school, and then leave behind—kind of like Archie comics. I am ready to fight about this one, because I think Slaughterhouse 5 is one of the best novels in the English language. A “memoir” of sorts, the story vaguely follows Mr. Vonnegut’s experience as a POW and resident of Dresden when that city was bombed during World War II. The book also involves getting unstuck in time and travel to another planet. What makes this book so powerful is the language is deceptively simple. The writing is masterful, and wicked funny.

11. The “Jesus H. Christ, Can’t You Count?” Award
Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy Trilogy

Barbara Lang. You can tell she's read
Hitchhiker's Guide, because she has her
towel (kind of) and is ready to go.
Douglas Adams is The Man. Forget the movie--no one has written a better five volume trilogy in the history of writing trilogies. I strongly encourage everyone to purchase The Ultimate Hitch Hiker’s Guide, which includes the novels and a short story, "Young Zaphod Plays It Safe." The short story is excellent. While the novels can be read independently of one another, each novel builds on the earlier ones. Consequently, my very favorite is the final novel, Mostly Harmless, because it ties the series together so well. But, if you are going to be a big sissypants, and only want to read one, I think either The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (the first) or Life, the Universe, and Everything (the third) are your best bets.

12. The Russian Award Because the Russians Deserve Awards
Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (Pre-Soviet era)
Mihael Bulgakov, The Master and Margarita (Soviet era)

Mr. Richard Pevear and Ms. Larissa Volokhonsky have translated editions of both of these books. Read those translations.

Elliot Rosewater, one of Kurt Vonnegut’s characters, says “Everything you need to know about life is in The Brothers Karamazov—but damn it! It’s just not enough.” He’s right. Arthur Miller, the playwright, was a mediocre student, and was all set to live out his life in a mediocre career, when he read Karamazov, thinking it was a murder mystery. After reading it, Mr. Miller decided to become a writer. The book is that good. If you don’t want to tackle such a fat book with a million characters (and each character has like four different names), the two chapters “Rebellion” and “The Grand Inquisitor” make an excellent, stand alone story.

Master is another magical realism novel, taking place during the bad old days of Stalinism prior to the Second World War. During a crazy, insincere time, the Devil with a small entourage appears in Moscow, leaving a wake of chaos behind them. 

13. The Atomic Bomb Award
(tie) 
Richard Rhodes’s Atomic Bomb trilogy (The Making of the Atomic BombDark Sun,Arsenals of Folly)
Thomas Power, Heisenberg’s War

Irish McCalla. Just a friendly reminder
re what she thinks of people who 
make fun of the fact that she wears 
lots of make up and few clothes.
If you read the reviews on Amazon.com, you’ll find Mr. Rhodes’s books have caught their fair share of criticism—all deserved, if that’s what you want to criticize. The Making of the Atomic Bomb is attacked for being “too technical.” Which is true, if you don’t want to know how neutrons were discovered, why uranium acts the way it does, and how fission works. I do, and the book is a masterful blend of science and story. Dark Sun is attacked, because the first third or so is about how the Soviet Union was able to penetrate the Manhattan Research Project at Los Alamos, and then goes on to explain how the hydrogen bomb was developed. The earlier history was my favorite part of the book.Arsenals of Folly draws fire for beginning strong with the Chernobyl fiasco, but then goes on to “dreary” detail on what a useless expense the arms race was. Contrary to the critics, I thought that was the most interesting part.

Heisenberg’s War is the story of Werner Heisenberg’s activity during World War II. The preeminent physicist of that day, Heisenberg refused to leave Nazi Germany prior to the war. There is a hot controversy in some circles (small circles, granted) that Heisenberg stayed in Germany to assist the Nazis by trying to build a German Atomic Bomb. Mr. Powers tells an entertaining and ultimately convincing (well, he convinced me) tale that Heisenberg had the opportunity to try to develop such a bomb, and chose not to do so. History schmistory, the book’s just a great read.

14. Philosophy Award for Philosophy
(four way-way tie) 
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power (Walter Kaufman, Ed.)
Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man, Immoral Society
James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed
Plato, "Euthyphro," "Apology," "Crito," and "Phaedo"

“Philosophy” means your explanation of your world, and how it works. While there are more complete explanations of the working of the world (Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, Einstein’s Relativity, and Penrose’s The Road to Reality), these four have special meaning for me.

The Will to Power is a collection of Nietzsche meditations, focusing on first on how nihilism is the highest value, and then goes on to discuss religion, morality, and society. He is dense (not in the bad way), but convincing. 

Joi Lansing. Back in the day, this is how
secretaries dressed for work. Honest!
The Rev. Reinhold Niebuhr was one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s favorite philosopher-theologians, and for good reason. Written in 1932, the thesis of Moral Man is that while it is possible to persuade individuals to do the proverbial right thing, moral suasion will not work on groups of people. Economic and political injustices cannot be overcome by preaching morality: social groups in power will never voluntarily relinquish power.

The Day the Universe Changed is a fun book to read. James Burke travels through history, highlighting specific points where our understanding of the universe “changed” as the result of a new discovery. His discussion of the developments that led up to Darwin publishingOn the Origin of Species and the aftermath of its publication are especially entertaining.

I have considerable reservations adding Plato to this mix. The last half dozen philosophy majors I met all identified themselves as Platonists (which is fine), but when I told them I was a Left Hegelian who loved Philosophy of Right, they made awful faces at me. Yes, I AM just another old, leftwing crank, thank you very much. But Plato gets the edge over Hegel for these four dialogues on the trial and death of Socrates. "Phaedo," in particular, erased my fear of death. 



15. Human Rights Award
Yuki Tanaka and Marilyn B. Young (eds), Bombing Civilians, A Twentieth Century History

Bombing Civilians is a collection of articles about how war has changed. Prior to the development of the airplane, “war” was limited to armies attacking each other. Attacks on non-soldiers ie civilians was considered a war crime, and banned by international treaty. After the First World War, the definition of “military targets” broadened to the point that wholesale bombing of civilians and civilian targets became acceptable. This book is especially important, in light of America’s invasions of other nations (Panama and Iraq, for example), and what White House apparatchiks will call “military targets.”

15. (Shut up) Book Only a Mother Could Love
(tie)
Thomas Wolfe, You Can’t Go Home Again
Ernest Callenbach, Ecotopia

Natalie Wood, showing she could play
more than just a Puerta Rican girl.
Liking Thomas Wolfe is like admitting brussel sprouts are your favorite vegetables. Not much happens in Wolfe’s novels, but he takes a long time to say it. I like Wolfe, because I admire his writing. He can really capture emotions. Home in particular will always have a soft spot in my heart, because when I started college, I had a HORRIBLE time writing papers. Over Thanksgiving break, though, I read this book (yeah, even then I was a big loser), and was suddenly able to put a sentence together. 

One of my favorite things is listening to post-Gen Xers complain about Ecotopia. Written in 1975, the premise is Washington, Oregon, and Northern California obtained “the” atomic bomb, seceded from the Union, and set up their own ecologically focused nation called “Ecotopia.” The book is written in the style of Thomas Moore’sUtopia and Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward, only much worse. The writing is wooden, the characters idiotic, and the book has a 1970s version of “feminism” that’s almost shockingly stupid. Still, this book (in its own way) was a tremendous inspiration for the environmental movement, along with Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring and Edward Abbey’s The Monkey Wrench Gang

15. (Oh, so what) Great Because They Are Great Award
Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
Mark Twain, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Sign of the Four
Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man
Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels
Bill Watterson, The Complete Calvin and Hobbes (3 volumes)
Lenny Bruce, How to Talk Dirty and Influence People

Oh, just forget it……

Marla Powers. This is good illustration
for stories like The Long Goodbye, even
if this scene does not happen in the 
story.
I love Raymond Chandler. I also love Rex Stout and Dashiell Hammett, but I really love Raymond Chandler. The mystery part of his mysteries is always good, and his writing is brilliant. For example: “At The Dancers [an expensive nightclub] they get the sort of people that disillusion you about what a lot of golfing money can do for the personality.” But he doesn’t overdo it. The Long Goodbye is my favorite of his novels, but The Big SleepThe High Window, and The Lady in the Lake are also excellent. Chandler’s short stories are also good, in particular “Trouble is My Business” and “Red Wind,” the latter being my personal pick for best mystery short story ever.

Anyone who bans Huckleberry Finn needs the mother of all ass kickings. Mark Twain deserves his place as one of the most revered American writers, and Huck Finn is just a great read. People who attack this book for its portrayal of African Americans do not know how to read. Huck is a pre-civil war Southerner, and sees Jim not as a fellow human being, but as property. Huck is genuinely surprised to see that Jim is crying, because Jim misses his family. Huck didn’t realize slaves could develop strong emotional attachments to family. Later, when Jim and Huck are confronted by slave catchers hunting for Jim, Huck decides to turn “abolitionist” and not turn Jim in—even though in Huck’s mind, Huck is condemning himself to eternal damnation. Now I’m getting all mad. Moving on……

There’s a reason Sherlock Holmes is arguably the most famous fictional character ever: the stories are great. The Sign of the Four just happens to be my personal favorite. It’s also a tribute to Doyle’s writing that such a notorious dope fiend was still considered a model for school children, even during America’s most puritanical times.

Ms. Ekberg was so disgusted about my
persistent cheating, she rushed out of
her office to find another nerd to assist
with a Good Books list.
Invisible Man is clearly about race—but for me, the book transcends race and is about contemporary alienation.

Gulliver’s Travels is one of the few (very few, including Don Quixote and The Canterbury Tales. If you have not read “The Miller’s Tale,” READ IT! It is the BEST dirty story EVER. It is DIRTY DIRTY DIRTY! Hilarious too) books that schools make kids read that is a worthwhile read. I still laugh out loud reading it.

If you have to ask about Calvin and Hobbes, then there is nothing I can tell you.

I can’t get any of the hip hop happening groovy cats from Nowsville to read Lenny Bruce, eitherHow To (his “autobiography”) or The Essential Lenny Bruce. The problem with controversial “comedians” like Andrew Dice Clay is that they are just not funny. Whatever else he was, and god knows he was a lot of things, Lenny Bruce was funny. Nunca te olvidamos Lenny. You died for our sins. 

* * * * * * * * *

You had no idea I was such a cheater, didn’t you? As always, comments and/or personal attacks are encouraged.
Carol Baker. I first saw Ms. Baker in the film Baby Doll. Her performance was excellent, and she was so beautiful, I watched the whole movie--despite the fact the film is REALLY creepy.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

In Memoriam Dr. George Tiller, 1941-2009

Now a large heard of swine was feeding there on the hillside; and they begged him to let them enter these. So he (sic) gave them leave. Then the demons came out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.
When the herdsmen saw what had happened, they fled, and told it in the city and in the country. Then people went out to see what had happened, and they came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had gone, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. And those who had seen it told them how he who had been possessed with demons was healed.
Luke 8:32-36 (RSV)


Quoted from Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky (Vintage Classics ed. 1995), trans by Mr. Richard Pevear and Ms. Larissa Volokhonsky.

I never met Dr. George Tiller; and before his murder, I had never heard his name. But I had heard of him. In Bill Maher’s film Religulous, one of the “out-takes” or deleted scenes involved Bill Maher talking to some militant Pro-Life jackass. The jackass was telling Mr. Maher how ironic it was (from the jackass’s perspective) that some woman he named was now in prison for “attempted murder,” when what the woman did was walk up to a doctor (who the jackass did not name) and calmly shoot the doctor in both elbows. The doctor, of course, provided abortions, and the shooter’s intention was to cripple the doctor (as opposed to “murder” him), and prevent the doctor from providing a desperately needed service to women. The unnamed doctor was George Tiller, and despite being shot twice in 1993, he continued to be only one of three medical providers in the United States who performed late term abortions, until his murder on May 31 2009.

While I know nothing about Dr. Tiller’s murderer, I would be surprised if the killer was other than some delusional idiot who was at one time active in the Pro-Life movement. No doubt the idiot also spent considerable time pretending to read various stories from the Old Testament about how yahweh (sic) and his (sic) proxies killed lots of people over trivial, if not meaningless, ideological differences. The idiot probably fancied themself as a modern day Joshua, proclaiming by word and deed how the idiot and idiot’s household would serve the LORD (Joshua 24:15). Remembering (but completely misunderstanding) Romans 13:1 (“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” KJV), the idiot probably felt good about murdering Dr. Tiller inside Reformation Lutheran Church, where that Sunday, Dr. Tiller had volunteered as an usher. As the idiot sped away from the murder scene, I can envision the idiot taking great comfort in condemning the Christians at Reformation as “whitewashed tombs” (Mathew 23:23-27), and how “not everyone that saith unto me ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven (Matthew 7:21 KJV).

We now have a new idiot to add to a growing list of idiots who have the talent of talking to themselves, convinced that “god” (whatever that is) is talking back. Now, lots of people are delusional to the point that they talk to themselves, and think “god” is talking back to them. But not all those people murder abortion providers, or blow themselves up in a mosque over a dispute as to who were the appropriate seventh century successors to Mohamed, or celebrate the infinite and transcendent love that is Vishnu with a pogrom against Muslim neighbors, following the 2002 massacre on the Godhra Train in Gujarat, India. So, what is the force, the reason, that turns your average delusional moron into a dangerous idiot?

For the dangerous idiot who murdered Dr. Tiller, no doubt the powerful inflammatory rhetoric of the morons in the Pro-Life Movement played a key role. After all, it is not hard to kill a man—if you believe that man’s death will mean life for thousands of babies. Even when that murder does nothing of the sort.

An early work about speech and the consequences thereof is Demons, the novel by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Professor Pevear, in his forward to a then new translation, explains why he and Ms. Volokhonsky translated the title as “Demons,” as opposed to “The Possessed.” According to Professor Pevear, one of Dostoevsky’s themes in Demons was how ideas pass from one person to another, and how those ideas could create problems. The “demons” are not the people (or the “possessed”)—but the ideas themselves. That is the significance of the opening quotation from Luke, about the man who was possessed by demons. Just like ideas pass from one person to another, the demons left the man and entered the pigs, driving the pigs to kill themselves—but leaving the man apparently none the worse.

Dostoevsky wrote in the middle nineteenth century, at a time when books and education became widespread. One of the conservative objections to popular education was what to do about powerful ideas and stupid people. If society cannot function with idiots running amok with dangerous weapons, then what can we expect from amok running idiots brimming over with dangerous ideas? 

Dangerous ideas and the idiots who have them have was a constant worry in the land of Dostoevsky’s birth. To keep dangerous ideas out of the heads of idiots, the Soviet “solution” was to stop the promulgation of ideas the Bolshevik Party considered dangerous. A good example happened when a marginal member of the Socialist Revolutionary Part (a party in hot competition with the Bolsheviks) shot Lenin (maybe), the then head of the Soviet nation. Following the shooting, the leaders of the Socialist Revolutionary Party were rounded up, and put on trial for promulgating the ideology that drove the poor woman insane to the point she tried to murder Lenin. The chief prosecutor, Leon Trotsky, was at his most eloquent in equating those who put the ideas in a near crazy woman’s head with those who would put the gun in her hand. 

A few years later, on December 1 1934, another crazy person named Nikolaev murdered Sergei Kirov, a popular Soviet leader. Eugenia Ginzburg in her book “Journey into the Whirlwind,” detailed the nightmare that followed Kirov’s murder. For the Soviet state, the guilt for Kirov's murder would lie not only with those who ostensively advocated a heretical version of the social and economic philosophy of a command economy, but also among those who were “insufficiently vigilant” in condemning the errors of others. In an effort to stamp out the ideas that inspired the actions of crazy people (including actions that in fact did not happen), the Soviet Union initiated the “Great Terror,” which destroyed the Communist Party, intelligentsia, and military. Ironically, one of the leading figures condemned for putting ideas in crazy peoples’ heads (which was the moral equivalent of putting guns in their hands) was Leon Trotsky.

While the Soviets were less than successful in their efforts to prevent the dissemination of ideas they deemed dangerous to people they considered idiots, the Americans have hardly been any more capable or admirable. Suppression of ideas perceived as dangerous is just one of many shared legacies of the Cold War. For example, to his continuing shame, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in his dissent in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), expressed the same worry about dumb people getting the wrong kind of ideas. The Terminiello case involved an idiot named Terminiello who was convicted of violating a Chicago city ordinance for “breach of the peace,” when Terminiello gave a pro-fascist, anti-Semitic speech that caused a near riot. Justice Jackson felt that “radicals” if left unchecked, would deliberately give speeches, just to provoke violent conditions: “The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either.” For Justice Jackson, having “liberty with order” was the greatest good—and to allow otherwise would mean when US federal constitution’s bill of rights would become a “suicide pact.” 

Unfortunately, “liberty with order” also became an issue in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), when the entire state government and court system of Alabama conspired to financially cripple and silence the civil rights movement. Alabama et al were not about to allow any liberty, and were willing to go to any lengths (including murder) to preserve the “order” of the status quo. If racial segregation was going to survive, it would survive only if the advocates for integration and voter registration could be silenced. Fortunately, the civil rights movement in the US would not be silenced.

Litigation over so-called “bad speech” is notorious for generating more heat than light. Speech that advocates violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 1969)); speech that is just asinine (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)); speech only a moron would think advocated drug use (Morse v. Frederick, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007), naked people speech (Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)), libel (Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (1991)), “religious” speech (Allegheny County v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)), “commie” speech (Dennis et al v. U.S., 341 U.S. 494 (1951))—all that speech creates problems. But as a rule, first amendment litigation tries—IN GENERAL—not to prohibit speech; the cure for “bad speech” is not to restrict the bad speaker, but to introduce more speech. Instead of preventing the Randall Terrys (founder of Operation Rescue) of the world from spouting idiocy, the “remedy” is for more people to come forward and explain how Randall Terry is an irresponsible douche.

As a liberal American male WASP, “more speech” (as opposed to censoring “bad speech”) makes perfect sense to me: banning speech rarely is effective. For example, virtually no one would have heard of Salmon Rushdie—but for Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa over “The Satanic Verses.” Far from discouraging anyone from reading “The Satanic Verses,” as a result of the fatwa, that book is now a modern classic.

But what feels so comfortable when discussing abstract concepts of governance, feels much less comfortable after someone gets shot in both elbows. Would I hold the same belief in the power of freedom of speech, if I had to worry about theInterahamwe’s Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines broadcasting “Chop down the tall trees”? During the brutal civil war that followed the break up of Yugoslavia, would I have been satisfied to respond to calls for genocide with the old saw how sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?

On May 31 2009, an idiot murders a man, arguably inspired by a delusional ideology spouted by morons. And that particular murdering idiot was hardly alone. The windows at Dr. Tiller’s Wichita clinic consist of four layers of bulletproof glass, after an unknown person fired five shots into the building. The clinic was also firebombed in 1986. Would that security be necessary, or would that idiot have murdered Dr. Tiller, but for other morons spouting their ideology of delusion? 

What should our response be to Randall Terry, who called Dr. Tiller a “mass murderer”? Or to notorious slimeball opportunist Bill O’Reilly, who “discussed” Dr. Tiller twenty-eight times on O’Reilly’s television program, referring to Dr. Tiller “Tiller the baby killer”?

The bullshit ideological rational of the end justifying the means is the demonic idea that killed Dr. Tiller—but so what? A good man is still dead, and women who face the nightmare of needing a late term abortion are now reduced to two options. And preventing the spreading of idiotic ideas and/or the spread of idiots just seems impossible. So--is there a deeper meaning in Dr. Tiller’s death?

Perhaps not. In “They Would Never Hurt a Fly,” Ms. Slavenka Drakulic’s excellent collection of essays on the war criminals from the former Yugoslavia, her epilogue describes the Scheveningen detention unit in The Hague, where the men accused of committing the worst war crimes seen in Europe since 1945 are housed. In this facility, the worst of the Serb, Bosnian, and Croat war criminals live together in peace and harmony. For example, when Goran Jelisic arrived at Scheveningen, he was pleased that the first person to greet him and show him the ropes was Esad Landjo—a Muslim. Jelisic is a Serb who specialized in executing Muslim prisoners at close range, while Esad Landjo’s particular especiality was torturing Serbian prisoners. But such differences are forgotten at The Hague. The war criminals now mock the people who took their orders seriously, and ridicule anyone who believed in the fascist nationalism and genocide they themselves once preached. Ms. Drakulic concludes “. . . [I]f all the brotherhood and unity among the sworn enemies of yesterday is indeed the epilogue of this war, one wonders what was it all for? Looking at the merry boys in the Scheveningen detention unit, the answer seems clear: for nothing.”

Much like Ms. Drakulic’s “merry boys in the Scheveningen detention unit,” Randall Terry, Bill O’Reilly, and the rest of the armchair agitating hypocrites will continue to make a good living—and see no reason whatsoever to be less irresponsible.

But the idea that Dr. Tiller’s death could also be “for nothing” is unacceptable. Still, some ringing denunciation that the ends never justify the means, that would be both pointless and trivial. Yet what else can be done? 

Instead of trying to find a larger meaning in Dr. Tiller’s death, and running the risk of belittling his life in a sea of platitudes, would it be better to just honour and celebrate Dr. Tiller’s life, and his courage? If the meaning that Dr. Tiller found in being only one of three options for desperate women was enough to make up for being shot twice, then isn’t drawing inspiration from that same meaning and purpose enough, without trying to find some broader purpose?

Regardless; Dr. George Tiller, nunca te olvidamos.