John Lahr and August Wilson
The American Way of Death
By John Lahr
Posted Monday, Sept. 10, 2001, at 8:28 PM ETDear August:
You better believe you've seen the future! When I was in L.A. this summer, I noticed a bottle of wine with Marilyn's body on it labeled "Marilyn Merlot". It made me laugh. I'm not laughing today at the photo in the Guardian of two European wines being poured in Rome--one called "Mussolini" with Il Duce's strong chin on the label and the other--I'm not kidding--with Hitler's face on the bottle. This one's called "Fuhrerwein". The Guardian is floating the notion of Italian nostalgia for headier, stronger times. Maybe in these winded times it's a longing to imbibe the memory of barbarity--or the myth of it--which is a lot of what Western culture now has to sell. Even the English royals have gotten into the game. The Queen, the richest women in the world, I think--has hustled the ice cream and sausage manufacturer to sponsor the Golden Jubilee; McDonalds is sponsoring the Labor Party Conference; and Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles have sold their privacy--for charity of course--to Vanity Fair.
I'm suspicious about the statistics of malpractice you mention. I wonder if, like violence in previous centuries, we experience things as worse because the media coverage is so omnipresent now, which tends to intensify our sense of outrage and impotence. I'm sure the instances of egregious malpractice were far worse in the past. The increasing literacy of the public and the special American notion of individualism has something to do with the rise of law suits. In England, the news is always filled with stories of gross malpractice; but it seems harder to win settlements. Also, it's my guess that the English as a society aren't as litigious, both because of the costs and because they don't value life in quite the same way as Americans. The French, they say, think death is inevitable; the English think it's imminent; and the Americans think it's optional.
I wonder if you saw news of the collapse of the Human Genome Diversity Project, which was reported in the Independent today. This comes after a decade of trying to set up a sort of genetic museum to store the DNA codes of the nearly seven thousand indigenous groups and so preserve, the story says, "the wealth of information on the diversity of the human race." The project foundered on claims of racism. ("To study differences is not racist," said Kenneth Kidd, a Yale geneticist and one of the founders of the diversity project. "Racists don't need to study differences, they are doing just fine as they are.") The project is being halted because the indigenous people do not want to be part of the academic dream, which hoped to shed light on the evolutionary past and open new avenues to treat many of the most intractable diseases. "You want to preserve our genes" was the typical refrain, "but you don't want to preserve us." I find myself siding with the indigenous people. Am I wrong?
I know you don't go to the movies much; but I want to tell you about a great one--Iris--I saw at a screening yesterday. My wife is yelling for me to get to bed. It's one a.m. in London. So it'll have to wait until our next exchange.
Till tomorrow then--
John
The American Way of Death
By John Lahr
Posted Monday, Sept. 10, 2001, at 8:28 PM ETJohn Lahr is senior drama critic for The New Yorker and author of 18 books. He recently co-authored, with Elaine Stritch, the play Elaine Stritch at Liberty
, which will premier at the Public Theater in New York City in October. August Wilson is the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright who's best known for his 20th-century, decade-by-decade cycle of plays. Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Thursday Fray Notes: There were harsh words in the "Breakfast Table" Fray; many Fraysters were not happy with the writers' views. The hot topics were moral relativism and moral equivalence: Tom R said "At best August's metaphysics is chaff; at worst his moral relativism is straw fit only for stable bedding." WillV was using the word "obnoxious." Over at the defense table, Zeitguy said "The frenzy of jingoistic violence that is starting to choke off any possibility of intelligent discussion is more toxic than all the burning plastic insulation and jet fuel that is choking lower Manhatten," and ended up "When it comes to freedom of speech, I don't split hairs."
Meanwhile, news from two New York-based star posters: Claude Scales recounted his story here; and Thrasymachus, here.]
OK we've all had our chance to marvel at this notion that, because the hatred which terrorist organizations feel towards the US presumably has some sort of explanation, their actions are at least partially justified. We've all had the chance to notice, among other things, the equivocation between "explanation" and "justification" on which it rests.
But there's another marvel here-- that an argument of this sort should be raised at all by the sort of people who've been raising it. Wasn't it conventional wisdom in lefty circles, prior to Tuesday, that being motivated by hatred aggravates a crime rather than excusing it? Someone was pushing for all those hate-crime laws, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. If the trauma of Tuesday were to change anyone's mind on that issue, wouldn't a change in the opposite direction have been a lot likelier? I can understand how watching that day's deluge of horrors would make someone start believing in "hate crime" even though I don't believe in it myself. But how could it make someone stop?
It's getting harder and harder to escape the conclusion that nothing has changed; that the real criterion is, as it has always been, not the presence or absence of hate but rather the palatibility of whatever ideological message comes attached to the crime. If the message is "I hate gays", that's good for an extra sentence. But if it's "I hate America", you've got their respectful attention.
--Fully Brusque Man
(To reply, click here.)
[Tuesday Fray Notes: There was, of course, only one topic for discussion. Compared with some of the other threads, (and typical of the "Breakfast Table" Fray) there were fewer calls for revenge, and more serious thoughtful posts. Mike J quoted from W.H.Auden's great poem September 1 1939 here.]
Walking down Pennsylvania Ave toward the Archives Metro station I saw something that I've only seen in movies--people scrambling to "get the hell outta Dodge." Five lanes of a six lane two-way avenue were commandeered by traffic going in the same direction, and cars were creeping over into the last remaining lane. People are scared, and they should be. But, what I saw was only a half step down from the type of public hysteria where it's no holds barred, every man for himself.
The attacks on the WTC, State Department, and Pentagon, are no less than acts of war. The loss of life in New York is tragic. But, what bothers me most is that the terrorist acts have produced exactly the desired reaction. I'm typing from my home in a Maryland suburb because I left work early out of fear. And now I'm angry. I'm angry because the fear and confusion is exactly what the terrorist hopes to promote. I'm angry because the object of my anger isn't here in front of me where I can see justice done.
I'm most angered by the fact that the terrorist has been successful--whether or not his ultimate goal is achieved (I'm very confident that it won't be) he has already won a major victory...
--Tony Adragna
(To reply, click here.)
Fear is only your daily bread if you choose to eat it... No doubt America is filled with yammerheads who will bay and cry for other innocents to be killed in exchange for our dead innocents. Americans don't, or shouldn't, commit foul deeds to trade for foul deeds. Bury and mourn the dead, take a close look at who rejoices and who joins us in mourning, rebuild and repair. Only then after a steady and thoughtful hunt for the guilty and weighing of evidence should anyone begin to decide what to do. Tomorrow the sun rises for most of us, and the Post Office will be open, coffee will need to be brewed, etc.
--Neill Hamilton
(To reply, click here.)
What we are faced with is our society's--our civilization's--enemies, on whom we ought now to wage war without stint and war without pity. Globalization has limits; all of humanity does not go forward together after all. Some must be excluded, and that is cause for great sadness. There is every reason to think that this coming war will change our way of life in some regrettable ways, will make us less tolerant and optimistic. It will be the price of our future
--Joseph Britt
(To reply, click here.)
We cannot allow the reptilian part of our brains control our response to this atrocity. If we throw bombs at people who have nothing to do with this act we will confirm the opinion of our enemies that we are no better than the terrorists. The terrorists will then win recruits and support. We should ask ourselves two questions: (1) How can we obtain adequate proof of who is really responsible for this crime and take appropriate measures that do not harm innocent people? (2) Why are there people in the world as intelligent as these terrorists who hate us so much that they would commit this evil act and sacrifice their own lives in the process. "Nuke 'um" is not a response worthy of our country.
--Thomas D. Hennessy
(To reply, click here.)
(9/11)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
After Fort Hood, There's No Excuse for the Ban on Women in Combat
What Does "Stable Condition" Mean? Absolutely Nothing.
Jim Carrey's Admirably Restrained Scrooge
The Great New Single That's a Little Bit Whitney Houston and a Little Bit Rusted Root
Joe Biden Explains His Gaffe-Evasion Strategy
The Box: A Creepy, Confusing Thriller From the Guy Who Brought You Donnie Darko
Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Thursday Fray Notes: There were harsh words in the "Breakfast Table" Fray; many Fraysters were not happy with the writers' views. The hot topics were moral relativism and moral equivalence: Tom R said "At best August's metaphysics is chaff; at worst his moral relativism is straw fit only for stable bedding." WillV was using the word "obnoxious." Over at the defense table, Zeitguy said "The frenzy of jingoistic violence that is starting to choke off any possibility of intelligent discussion is more toxic than all the burning plastic insulation and jet fuel that is choking lower Manhatten," and ended up "When it comes to freedom of speech, I don't split hairs."
Meanwhile, news from two New York-based star posters: Claude Scales recounted his story here; and Thrasymachus, here.]
OK we've all had our chance to marvel at this notion that, because the hatred which terrorist organizations feel towards the US presumably has some sort of explanation, their actions are at least partially justified. We've all had the chance to notice, among other things, the equivocation between "explanation" and "justification" on which it rests.
But there's another marvel here-- that an argument of this sort should be raised at all by the sort of people who've been raising it. Wasn't it conventional wisdom in lefty circles, prior to Tuesday, that being motivated by hatred aggravates a crime rather than excusing it? Someone was pushing for all those hate-crime laws, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. If the trauma of Tuesday were to change anyone's mind on that issue, wouldn't a change in the opposite direction have been a lot likelier? I can understand how watching that day's deluge of horrors would make someone start believing in "hate crime" even though I don't believe in it myself. But how could it make someone stop?
It's getting harder and harder to escape the conclusion that nothing has changed; that the real criterion is, as it has always been, not the presence or absence of hate but rather the palatibility of whatever ideological message comes attached to the crime. If the message is "I hate gays", that's good for an extra sentence. But if it's "I hate America", you've got their respectful attention.
--Fully Brusque Man
(To reply, click here.)
[Tuesday Fray Notes: There was, of course, only one topic for discussion. Compared with some of the other threads, (and typical of the "Breakfast Table" Fray) there were fewer calls for revenge, and more serious thoughtful posts. Mike J quoted from W.H.Auden's great poem September 1 1939 here.]
Walking down Pennsylvania Ave toward the Archives Metro station I saw something that I've only seen in movies--people scrambling to "get the hell outta Dodge." Five lanes of a six lane two-way avenue were commandeered by traffic going in the same direction, and cars were creeping over into the last remaining lane. People are scared, and they should be. But, what I saw was only a half step down from the type of public hysteria where it's no holds barred, every man for himself.
The attacks on the WTC, State Department, and Pentagon, are no less than acts of war. The loss of life in New York is tragic. But, what bothers me most is that the terrorist acts have produced exactly the desired reaction. I'm typing from my home in a Maryland suburb because I left work early out of fear. And now I'm angry. I'm angry because the fear and confusion is exactly what the terrorist hopes to promote. I'm angry because the object of my anger isn't here in front of me where I can see justice done.
I'm most angered by the fact that the terrorist has been successful--whether or not his ultimate goal is achieved (I'm very confident that it won't be) he has already won a major victory...
--Tony Adragna
(To reply, click here.)
Fear is only your daily bread if you choose to eat it... No doubt America is filled with yammerheads who will bay and cry for other innocents to be killed in exchange for our dead innocents. Americans don't, or shouldn't, commit foul deeds to trade for foul deeds. Bury and mourn the dead, take a close look at who rejoices and who joins us in mourning, rebuild and repair. Only then after a steady and thoughtful hunt for the guilty and weighing of evidence should anyone begin to decide what to do. Tomorrow the sun rises for most of us, and the Post Office will be open, coffee will need to be brewed, etc.
--Neill Hamilton
(To reply, click here.)
What we are faced with is our society's--our civilization's--enemies, on whom we ought now to wage war without stint and war without pity. Globalization has limits; all of humanity does not go forward together after all. Some must be excluded, and that is cause for great sadness. There is every reason to think that this coming war will change our way of life in some regrettable ways, will make us less tolerant and optimistic. It will be the price of our future
--Joseph Britt
(To reply, click here.)
We cannot allow the reptilian part of our brains control our response to this atrocity. If we throw bombs at people who have nothing to do with this act we will confirm the opinion of our enemies that we are no better than the terrorists. The terrorists will then win recruits and support. We should ask ourselves two questions: (1) How can we obtain adequate proof of who is really responsible for this crime and take appropriate measures that do not harm innocent people? (2) Why are there people in the world as intelligent as these terrorists who hate us so much that they would commit this evil act and sacrifice their own lives in the process. "Nuke 'um" is not a response worthy of our country.
--Thomas D. Hennessy
(To reply, click here.)
(9/11)