Zeitoun- vital writing

It seems a bit portentous to say that this is probably the most important book Dave Eggers will ever write, but it is no less true.
An examination of the event 5 years ago that is the paradigm of the current period of 'disaster capitalism' that as Naomi Klein has pointed out we are now in: the flooding and destruction of New Orleans.
The genius of the work is that it is firmly a piece of non-fiction and that it tells the story through the eyes of a Muslim-American family. Indeed the narrative structure which is clever builds a picture of a family happy and global in nature around the disintegration of American civil society.
There are endless debates on the line between fiction and non-fiction but in this work its jaw - punching power lies in its truth. Eggers' last major work was also non-fiction but relied much on recollections of a young African child. This work has the sense of research, testimony and interviews - a bit like Capote's In Cold Blood.
Zeitoun is a Syrian immigrant who is a successful builder who stays behind in his city New Orleans as his family leaves. He seeks to help those stranded. Things take a dramatic (and for me shocking) turn though. The themes of 21st century America become intertwined - deregulated capitalism and government and fear of Islamic terror.
Egger's elegant prose style takes a back seat here and he lets the terrible story unfold. He understands that the most moving images in life are fairly simple and mundane - a sore foot, hamburger meat, a child's question. And it is moving - almost unbearably sad in places but uplifting and anger inducing too. To read the book really explains why Obama won the Presidency in the states so convincingly 3 years after this.
Zeitoun states of one of his colleagues attitude to the disaster unfolding in front of him and how he rises to the occasion of helping out people he was "a good man made better". The same is true of Eggers, a vital piece of work.

Thoughts on Sen's Idea of Justice.

One of my achievements of this summer (also got flooring done in hall cupboard!) was reading Amartyn Sen’s “Idea of Justice”. This big chunk of thoughts covers almost all elements of human thought through the prism of struggling with what the concept of Justice means in our contemporary society.
Although ostensibly an economist, Sen has won the Nobel Prize, his style is very broad both in the disciplines which he covers but also in his breadth of sources notably drawing on Eastern writings which are more than often overlooked in Western writings particularly on economics, philosophy and law.
His work, which I have never read any of, mainly deals in social choice theory which looks at the economics underpinning human behavior and the choices people make. Sen seeks to counter the presumption, which is fairly prevalent in capitalist thinking, that faced with a choice people always look after their own interests in a selfish way. Indeed, as he points out, choice theory has become synonymous with this.
This work is partially an attempt to integrate his work in this field into the area of legal theory. Indeed it also works as a comprehensive summary of all of his work to this date with a substantial and impressive referencing system and bibliography as part of the work.
The sweep of the work is one of its most impressive features from discussing the nature of freedom, to exploring the economic and political roots of famines to dissecting the writing of proto-feminist Mary Wollstonecraft. You get a real sense of the breadth and depth of Sen’s knowledge but also of his enthusiasm for all aspects of learning and knowledge. I would add though that some of the roots of the weaker elements of the work lie here as well.
The essential argument of the book is that theories of justice are dominated historically and in the present time by “transcendental institutionalism”. That is the discussion focuses on the ideal institutions and how they could deliver a ‘just’ society – not only the institutional machinery but the theories which underpin this are also discussed in relation to the higher transcendental concepts.
Sen also labels these thinkers “contractarians” as they often use the concept of a social contract - in that he puts Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau , Kant and importantly in modern times John Rawls. The first part of the work is essentially a dissection and critique of Rawls’ work ‘A Theory of Justice’. For Sen this is the paradigm of this mode of thinking.
He contrasts this school of thought with those who challenge injustice in the here and now and only view justice as how it relates to the immediate. They adopt a comparative approach to realize justice in a real social setting not an ideal world. In this school he puts Wollstonecraft, Condorcet (an early French revolutionary thinker on social choice who I had never heard of) Adam Smith, Bentham, Mill and possibly controversially but I think correctly Marx.
This I would argue is a strength of the work as it illustrates that Marx’s work contrary to sloppy capitalist critique was not about creating a far off utopian society but exploring the concrete reality of capitalism and the injustice it delivers. By putting Marx in this category Sen is certainly distinguishing himself from most other current academic writers.
Sen places himself in this latter camp and in particular cites Smith heavily, in particular his writings on Moral Philosophy which is another neglected aspect of intellectual work. He utilizes in particular his concept of the ‘impartial spectator’ as a judge (in the broadest sense) of what is just.
One of the examples and scenarios (of which there are many good ones) which was lept on by book reviewers and shows like Start the Week is in the Introduction, may have been as far as they read!, seeks to explore this. It concerns three children and a flute. All of the kids have a claim on the flue – only one of them made it, only one of them knows how to play it and one of them is so poor they have no other toy to play with. Who should get it?
Now Sen is not making the case for any one of the children, contrary to the impression some of the reviews of the work have given. Rather his point is that all of them have a valid claim to the flute. In a modern society justice needs to have a system of deciding which is the most “just”. Democracy is necessary for this as Sen equates democracy with public discussion and discourse not simply voting.
The flute example is also used to contrast Rawls’ work and indeed is part of the critique. Now Sen is effusive in his praise of Rawls, the book is dedicated to him (he died in 2002), he cites all the joint teaching work he did with him and makes high claims for Rawls relevance to modern political thought. This I think is a bit of overstatement and perhaps overcompensation for his work more or less takes the basis of Rawls’ work apart.
Rawls ideal institutions are drawn up by participants in a society from behind a “veil of ignorance” that is no one knows what their role in a society would be so they can’t act in their own subjective interests. Sen’s justifiable gripe with this is that it assumes that there is one true model of justice that will emerge from this which all will accept. In contrast to the flute problem where it is seen that three kids can’t agree on what is just.
Thus this basic flaw makes the whole Rawlsian project untenable although Sen feels it has validity in some other areas for example the pre-eminence of liberty. It is of little use in delivering actual justice because it aims for a higher ground which is actually irrelevant. A parallel I enjoyed was an artistic one! That is it is of little use to say the best painting ever made was the Mona Lisa when you are comparing a Picasso and a Matisse and asked which is the best compared to the best painting ever made.
In producing an alternative to this Sen travels across the whole world of human thought – the nature of subjectivity, how humans make choices, the role of language, what sustainability actually means in the modern world . In truth it probably goes too far on tangential issues – I was a bit lost at the discussion of incompleteness in evaluative theory for example!
This feeds into the conclusion which is a study of democracy and Human Rights, although the easiest to read it seems the weakest in argument as it idealises to a large degree issues around the media. Sen argues this is central to democracy and hence justice but does not really explore the pressures and the capitalist domination of all traditional media outlets now which threaten democracy. It also is weak in its examination of current tensions with a slightly idealized version of the Indian state and the UN, both of which Sen has links with. In a sense Sen is dabbling in some transcendental wish fulfillment of his own – ignoring for example the general Maoist uprisings across the subcontinent for example which has its own vision of injustice.

Also because of its scope I found the conclusion a little unsatisfying. Essentially the idea of justice deals with the here and now and must be determined through public discourse with input from outside observers so our idea of justice is not parochial and does not cover up injustice which we in our society may accept. I guess this is enough without being prescriptive and indeed he want s to get away from idealized institutional prescription.
But a brilliant book in many ways – an excellent source of further reading, very well written and comprehensive. I think I will always have a well thumbed copy on shelf.

And the Ass Saw the Angel Review

Having kindly received this for my birthday last year from my mate I thought a holiday by the English seaside would be the ideal environment in which to savour it.
I am more of a distant admirer of Nick Cave than a fan and don't own very much of his music. My passing knowledge of his work and the fact it was set in the deep dead South of America led me to think his first novel published in the late 80s would be about a drunken blind dwarf having sex with his half cousin before being garrotted by a rusty blade of a harvester and to be honest that wasn't very far off the mark.

When you have lines like "all the welkin bile had been pumped from the sewers of Hell then vomited in a black and furious torrent down upon the shack" Mr Cave is probably only one of the people you would have been in the company of.

The plot such as it is concerns an outsider in a community of outsiders stuck in the middle of desolation. The dominant themes are Religion, corruption, violence, the Old Testament view of God and death. It is very similar to his musical work - in particular I think he did a specific album of Murder Ballads which is echoed here.
As a writer he is pretty good with a forboding sense of environment and outlines the hypocrisy of religion. He writes from a number of perspectives but mainly centres around the outcast Euchrid Eucrow (the crow is a constant in the work). Looking at his spying on the internal machinations of the obscure sect-arian community and their chosen child saviour.

As a whole though the novel loses itself in a miasma of brutal imagery, weather and confusing character development. This is particularly true in the last book within the work which breaks down into a song like structure with repetition and rhythms in parts.
I think one of the problems is that there are not enough concepts Cave cares enough about to fill a novel or if they are he doesn't develop them. In a way writing 4 minute songs you don't have to do this.
The violence (sexual and otherwise) is fairly graphic but in parts so over the top it reminded me a bit of the climactic scene in Kill Bill Vol 1 which was a bloodbath but more like a comic book.
Cave has a bad habit of falling back on long lists to express the same thing - like he'd fallen onto an old thesaurus. Also I am not sure how Euchrid the mute outsider mountain man would have such an articulate form of written expression. I guess it is to contrast with his "dumb" nature but it is never explained: the Bible, God's intervention.
Because of Cave's skill though it just does enough to get you through it. I am even tempted to look at his new book out this year. But generally writing a song or an album of them aint the same as writing a novel.

Between the Assassinations: fury and birth

A rattling collection of ice cold water in the face tales that maintains Adiga's momentum after White Tiger. Literally because the speedy pace is similarly maintained here as it was in his Booker Prize winning novel.
This time the work is a number of short stories set in the fictional town KIttur in the South-West of India paced nominally over a week. Each story is allocated a specific spot in the town and time of day. But as the title suggests this is largely a flag of convenience as every tale takes place between 1984-91, the historical period between the Gandhis being killed by different groups.
I particularly liked this time period as unlike White T which provides a contemporary overview of the impact neo-liberalism is having on Indian society this showed the genesis of these themes and the nascence of some specific problems in India today - the growth of the Naxalite movements for example could be seen by the attitudes of several of the characters. Indeed the last short story outlines a disillusioned Maoist (membership of his Party: 2!) rejecting his vision of socialism for some immediate pleasure/return. A parallel for the collapse of Stalinism perhaps and the beginnings of the unbridled growth of capitalism across the planet.
The over-riding emotion expressed throughout is anger, anger at the caste system, at religion, at poverty, at abuse that seem to be in every corner of the town. But it is not pessimistic per se - each story seems to have a character that wants to challenge their place in the stratified system although ultimately they are frustrated.
This emotion coupled with the brilliant detail of the everyday made me think of quite an unlikely parallel - Irvine Welsh. In particular his Acid House Collection (set at a similar time in history). Welsh's thorough knowledge, humour and depiction of the dispossessed in the East of Scotland are all similar.
Pick of the bunch for me was the delivery boy Chenayya and his rebellion coupled with his admiration of nature. Though every one is good involving everyone from teachers, servants, journalists, schoolkids and a bus conductor and will have a moment that you will find difficult to forget.
To finish on Chenayya's thought which Adiga, a brilliant writer, documents so well: "You have to attain a certain level of richness before you can complain about being oor. When you are this poor you are not given the right to complain".

Emergency....paging Doctor Beat!

As May draws to a close the new Con-Dem coalition has really been only engaging so far in shadow boxing with regards to the massacre of public services that they will carry out to pay for the bail-out of the banks. Indeed to salve their consciences the Liberals and Clegg have stressed the progressive nature of the reforms of civil liberties .Indeed Clegg has said this "will be a government unlike any other".

6 billion pounds of cuts were announced last Monday by the now resigned but "dignified" copyright British Media Right wing Liberal Democrat Laws. But the ominous date is the upcoming June 22nd "Emergency Budget".

The formation of an unlikely coalition behind closed doors and an emergency economic programme reminded me of a passage in the Shock Doctrine on Bolivia. In 1985 Bolivia became a laboratory for neo-liberal economics. Not unique but unlike Chile where a bloody dictatorship brought in the Chicago Boys to carry this out on the crushed bones of the Allende regime. This time however it was done after an election.

The Presidential election of 1985 had been inconclusive but both candidates were locked away to discuss the economy. The "left" candidate Paz a sort of Peronist figure emerged as Presidente. He was then in his 80s and had been a long standing figure in Bolivian politics But the important point was that along with his emergence there was announced a cross party economic programme called Decree 21060 (passed in a one-r) - drawn up by Jeffrey Sachs an unelected American academic advisor - later a critical figure in the reintroduction of capitalism in Russia .

This programme (which noone had voted for) included mass privatisation, huge price hikes of basics and an opening up of the economy to global capitalist forces. 20,000 miners lost their jobs, Oil and bread prices went sky high. It was the ultimate shock therapy. Although there was much resistance it took another generation for the political impact to hit of President Evo Morales and his Movement for Socialism administration (elected first in 2005).

Back to GB and all the rhetoric post election is that things are much worse than anyone imagined. Managers across the public sector are using it as an excuse to justify excessive cuts amongst staff.
So a cobbled together coalition in the national interest may use its majority to get through an economic programme that was not endorsed in any election. Austerity and Emergency Budgets have been passed in the last couple of years.
Ireland: Public Sector pay cuts and big taxes on the lowest in 2009 - provoking public protests and a swing to the left in some elections. Spain passed its austerity budget by 1 vote on May 26th icluding a 5% pay cut and a freeze in pensions. The trade unions have called a public sector strike for June 8th.
So the real fight against the coalition will become clearer after June 22nd - though the way they will sell it may be rhetorically different because of the Liberals. For example if there is a sizeable rise in Capital Gains Tax this will be promoted as a tax on the rich - it is already provoking opposition from the Tories bristling at the coalition - the Daily Telegraph have launched their own campaign. But I would guess in Bonapartist style this will be coupled with some outrageous attack on the public sector.
How the opposition will manifest itself is hard to see as the left are so weak at the moment but the battle lines will be clearer post Emergency or rather shock.

Inheritance of Loss: Disintegrating Dreams.

A dream-like description of disintegration. I read this as I saw it was going to be on the BBC World Service Book Club. I also really enjoyed other Indian Booker winners - God of Small Things and White Tiger.
This work is quite different to those with a few significant exceptions as outlined below. It is thoughtful, well written and eventually quite engaging. Overall though there is an aloofness here which means you can't fully absorb the situation unlike Arundhati's Roy work or the frenetic pace of Adiga.
Part of that could be due to its setting which is the literal misty foothills of the HImalayas where Everest is a dominant omniscient presence and country borders mean little. The setting of the study of the three main protagonists is Darjeeling in West Bengal and an uprising of the Nepalese population there in the 80s. Bhutan, Tibet and Sikkim are also nearby.
This insurrection actually happened - something I was not aware of and the demands for Gorkhaland are still ongoing apparently .
Funnily enough both Roy and Adinga also deal with Indian rebellions - the birth of the Maoist movements in the 60s and the contemporary Naxalites respectively. However I never felt an understanding of why these Nepalese were fighting unlike the other works. This is not helped by the dreamlike landscape and the lack of certainty in the time setting of the work.
It is strongest when it speaks of the weakness of the individual's autonomy in the context of broader struggles and happenings. This is seen in the insurrection but also in the forelorn adventures of one of the character's sons travails in the underworld of American illegal immigration.
There is also a nice turn of phrase throughout - each chapter is broken up in a series of vignettes really. I think this is a nod to poetry but this is not done as successfully as Roy.
The other link with Indian literature is the continual use of nature metaphors and similies - in fact a dog is almost a full character. This is done well.
So a distant work in many ways that ultimately has a fairly hopeless take on humanity. Unclear why it won the Booker but worth a read.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - unconvincing.

Unconvincing. I recently watched Paul Merton's documentary about Hitchcock and the big man stated that he only ever made who-dunnit and he immediately regretted it. This was for the reason that the audience either say "I knew it was them" or say "that was a bit of a shock". No other emotional responses are possible, That's one of the problems of this book because for all the hype surrounding it is a basic piece of traditional crime writing. Much like the novels the protagonist reads throughout - although they are on the left-field side of that genre- mainly female writers. There is no experimentation with narrative structure.
The only other book which is mentioned is Laserman - a non fiction account of a Far-right Swede who acted as a sniper killing immigrants in the early 90s. This fits into the novel and Larsson as he was an active anti-fascist and member of the Fourth International. The setting and explanations of Swedish capitalism, politics and history were the bit I enjoyed most. Like all crime writing the novel involves a lot of exposition but this socio-political stuff was good. Doesnt really take any prisoners though for those unfamiliar with it - expect a lot of mentions of the Left Party, Olaf Palme etc. This is the best written part of the book In some ways similar to Iain Banks, not as good though. The family saga element of the book is also very closely related to Banks last novel.
But what undoes the book for me is the characters and the attitude to gender. Ostensibly it is an attempt to expose male violence towards women in all its forms. The Swedish title of the book was Men who hate women. Interesting to see if it would have been a worldwide phenomenon if they kept that title and didnt use the sexy imagery of the book cover. There are many examples of it - rape, domestic violence, flashing. However the scenes involving the most graphic attacks to me are observational rather than empathetic.
I do think male writers can expose violence against women - Jonathan Coe did it brilliantly in his last novel - but in a more subtle way. In this context they are gratuitous. I think this is because there is a revenge fantasy element to the book. Salander, the eponymous heroine, is a victim of all sorts of abuse but gets her own back in a sense. I think she comes across as a bit of a symbol or cipher for these broader themes. The male hero Michael an investigative journalist (jailed for libel which I didnt know they could do - so you do learn a bit about the Swedish legal system) also manages to sleep with 3 of the female characters with apparent ease which to me seemed unfeasible and tagged on. Given the book is meant to explore the relationships between the genders it falls down on that. T
The book falls away badly in the last two parts - with some virtually unreadable dialogue about techy stuff. There is a sad element with Larsson's death predating their publication but it does mean that there is no possibility or re-writing or editing. The exposing of the villain is disturbing to no real end. The last chapter is pure corn.
A massive hit - perhaps among techies in particular because it is really set in their world - but I think a very flawed piece of work. So absolutely no desire to see the film nor read the other parts of the trilogy.