Books

In August 2009 a friend sent me this prompt in Facebook:

Rules: Don't take too long to think about it. Fifteen books you've read that will always stick with you. First fifteen you can recall in no more than 15 minutes.

Here's the list I came up with at the time:

All Quiet on the Western Front (Erich Maria Remarque)
At Swim, Two Boys (Jamie O'Neill)
The Corrections (Jonathan Franzen)
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time (Mark Haddon)
David Copperfield (Charles Dickens)
Devil in the White City (Erik Larson)
Dream Boy (Jim Grimsley)
East of Eden (John Steinbeck)
Ghost Writer (Phillip Roth)
The Harry Potter series (J. K. Rowling)
The House of Mirth (Edith Wharton)
Middlesex (Jeffrey Eugenides)
Night (Elie Wiesel)
Ragtime (E. L. Doctorow)
The Road (Cormac McCarthy)

And then, after thinking about it, two more came to mind:

Trinity (Leon Uris)
Shibumi (Trevanian)

So I just finished reading A Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer Egan, and it needs to be on the list, which I now think is too long. Plus, the list includes books which I no longer would want to include. Some I'd just read, and after some time has passed, their impact is diminished. That would apply to The Road and The Curious Incident. Both are good books that I think are definitely worth reading, but neither has remained with me. I suppose the same could happen with Goon Squad, but it feels different -- it feels like a book that matters.

I also think I should narrow down the list to my top ten. Some of the books naturally fall off the list when I do that (Harry Potter, Ghost Writer). But I need to make some hard choices too.

First, the books that absolutely need to be on my top ten list:

1. At Swim, Two Boys
2. The Corrections
3. East of Eden
4. The House of Mirth
5. Middlesex
6. Night
7. Ragtime
8. Trinity

That leaves me with two spots and a lot of options. I will have to think about this some more. I'm not ready to commit yet.

The Congressional Reform Act of 2009 2010 2011

I received an email today from a dear friend and fellow progressive, someone I esteem and admire deeply.

This email referred to "The Congressional Reform Act of 2011." In it, my friend stated that paralysis prevented action on seemingly insurmountable problems, but that this was an opportunity to take action. The email further went on to recommend forwarding it to 20 or more friends, writing to my state's congressional delegation, etc.

I read the terms of this "act" (which I won't reproduce but can be found here), and I didn't actually agree with most of it. At best I thought a few of the items were okay with me, but others were silly, based on half truths and misconceptions, or just antithetical to what I consider to be progressive thought.

I responded to my friend with a few comments about each of the provisions, and followed up with some research.

First, I found references to this act, also sometimes identified as the proposed 28th amendment to the Constitution, going back to December 2009. I found it on conservative blogs such as the Free Republic (or as I prefer to call it, the Free Repugnant -- and I refuse to link to it), endorsed by the Colorado Springs Gazette, a highly conservative newspaper serving one of the most conservative communities in the nation), and on a blog called (which again I won't link to) that identifies itself as a "Conservative Christian Political Blog."

Eventually, I came to the article on snopes.com that debunks this whole thing.

What's the lesson in this? As my friend said when I pointed this out, "I am glad that some of my friends, like you, love me enough to set me straight when my mind goes too poetic!" Sick as we may be about the outcome of the last election, disgusted as we are with the hypocrisy of the repugnants in Congress who are attempting to repeal the health care law while saying, out of the other sides of their mouths, that they're committed to reducing the deficit, we can't jump at straws in attempting to make things right.

I share with friends links to thoughtful articles and editorials (such as this brilliant piece by Paul Krugman from yesterday's NY Times). I blog about it. And maybe someone reads my blog.

In the past I've participated in campaigns to support candidates I believed in, and I'll continue to do that.

And I love my friends enough to tell them the truth, hopeful that they'll still love me back.

The Three B's and Seven More

In a New York Times article published January 7, Anthony Tommasini considers who are the ten greatest classical composers and how one would go about deciding who should and shouldn't make the cut.

For the sake of... well, he doesn't really say, other than he makes the decision to narrow the field, but he limits the candidates to "Western classical music," excludes living composers, and, most arbitrarily,

I am focusing on the eras since the late Baroque. You could make a good case for Josquin or Monteverdi, but I won’t. The traditions and styles were so different back then as to have been almost another art form. I’m looking roughly at the era an undergraduate survey of Western civilization might define as modern history.

Okay, it's his game, so I decided to play by his rules. I posted my reasoning and my list on the Times Arts Blog, but I'm going to expand on it here.

My goal was to be objective and ignore my personal bias. I don't think it's appropriate for this list to be the same as my ten favorite composers to listen to. That list would be different and equally valid for everyone, and it's not very interesting to think about why Debussy is on your list but not mine if the answer is simply because you like Debussy more than I do.

Of course, many of my favorite composers do make the list. One of my absolute favorite composers, Benjamin Britten, almost makes it, but I left him off because I don't trust myself. If I included him, I'd have to suspect that my affection for his music was influencing me.

My three objective criteria are

Importance

Composers on this list must be generally recognized as significant and broadly included in public performances. Popular, to be sure, but much more than that. Essential to the study and performance of music.

Influence

Composers on this list have to be seen as having had a broad influence on other composers, on Zeitgeist, and on our understanding of music history.

Genius

Composers on this list must have at least a few extraordinary, sublime works of staggering genius among their output -- the prime examples of music in their genre and of their time.

I admit freely that assigning these objective criteria to composers involves a high degree of subjectivity. For example, I just don't think Tchaikovsky and Debussy quite meet the Genius standard. But it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to disagree.

There are also composers on the cusp. Chopin just barely ekes out Haydn, but with further consideration, on another day Haydn make be there and not Chopin.

With those ideas in mind, here's my list, in chronological order:

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Chopin
Wagner
Verdi
Brahms
Bartok
Stravinsky