Saturday, December 30, 2023

The structure of time in stories

"Whereas a film has 24 frames per second in which to tell its story, a traditional comic book only has a small number of frames, or panels, per page, usually between five and nine, across a total of 22 pages. Comparatively, a comic book is equivalent to about six seconds of film. But obviously, any comic contains more narrative than the time it takes to read this sentence. So where, then, does the content 'hide'?"
— Roy Schwartz, Is Superman Circumcised?: The Complete Jewish History of the World's Greatest Hero, McFarland & Company, 2021.

“I need a meta-time, a thing fueled by the kind of heartbeat I desire — one that is rule-breaking, empathetic, aware of its power enough to offer some kind of mercy.
In DC Comics, there is a concept called hypertime, an in-universe framework formulated as a diagram, making the timelines of stories accurate, even without continuity across existing collections of storylines. The idea postulates a kind of multiversal transit map where each line, representing its own story, runs parallel, crosses over others, and carries on, with characters hopping from one train to another across universes. A reader in the third-dimensional space can look down and make meaning of the stories between the pages, leaving room for the possibility of a fourth-dimensional, hyper-cubic reader who examines that space, a geometric vision incorporating our universe along with the comic story world."
— Kristin Keane. An Encyclopedia of Bending Time. Baltimore: Barrelhouse, 2022. p. 60.

dead sea scroll, original

"...pretty much all of my favorite books screw around with the order of events, or come shaped like puzzle boxes, or have seven separate 'third acts.' Like David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest or Rebecca Roanhorse's Black Sun, which jump around in time, or Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow, which intersperses two timelines that slowly converge.
Time is the one drug that absolutely everyone is hooked on. And fiction is the only place to get a really potent hit."
— Charlie Jane Anders. Never Say You Can’t Survive: How to Get Through Hard Times By Making Up Stories. Tordotcom, 2021. Chapter 24.

"Time isn’t an orderly stream. Time isn’t a placid lake recording each of our ripples. Time is viscous. Time is a massive flow. It is a self-healing substance, which is to say, almost everything will be lost."
Charles Yu. How to Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe. Pantheon, 2010. p. 14.

"This experiencing of time, it seems to me, is what sets writing apart and makes it more than simply words, more valuable than a commodity, more pleasurable than the audio-visual product which digital culture has converted into a space of hollowed time, like the time you spend flying between two airports. Writing is time packed full. It derives its morality from its immorality; it achieves compassion, not by flattery or glib misrepresentation, but with a gaze that is concerned only with seeing what is there, uncompromisingly, avoiding all fakery. This, then, is what it means to search for the truth: the objective that attends me whenever I ask myself, in an ironic spirit, Why do you write? or, What does writing mean to you?"
I write like a lover, I write like one dead. The opening essay of my second Mutanabbi book, translated by Robin Moger. Youssef Rakha. Language of Loss (Substack). Dec. 31, 2022.

"Linear history, Oedipal history, is our fantasy, and to perpetuate it we invented the myth of an authoritarianism arising from the preterit, even though authority can only be exercised from the present. Borges, whose work was concerned with the manipulation of time, claimed that each author invents his precursors. Or, to put it in Phillip K. Dick’s terms, the Oedipal structure is a Counter-ClockWorld, a world where, as in this Dick novel, the libraries destroy books and the dead emerge from their graves.The best-kept secret of linear oxidental time is that it is written from the future to the past."
Heriberto Yépez. The Empire of Neomemory. Translated by Jen Hofer, Christian Nagler, & Brian Whitener. ChainLinks, 2013. Originally: El Imperio de la neomemoria (Oaxaca: Almadía, 2007). Part I: America, Pseudo-Patriarchy, Pantopia.

“Any sequence of events is interesting because of its positive and negative shapes. Take a pair of scissors and cut something out. Anything. Why not a devil with horns and a tail and cloven hooves. So. There is your paper with a devil-shaped hole in it. Two devil-shapes, one positive, one negative, and both of them made at the very same moment. Was the Battle of Manzikert the shape of the paper or the shape of the hole? It’s as I’ve said before: there is always a twoness in the oneness, and for this reason it’s almost impossible to know what is happening in the space-time configuration. Not only that: as soon as an effort is made to look at any particular thing the aspect of that thing becomes other than what it was—that event that happened in full view when unlooked-at covers itself when observed, spins around itself one of those wonderful encrusted eggs with a peephole in one end of it; I the observer, receding reactively from the gaze that proceeds from my eyes, find myself shot into the distance thousands of miles away from the peephole. Inch by inch I think my way back; closer, closer, closer I come and here it is all tiny—the tiny, tiny Battle of Manzikert.”
— Russell Hoban. Pilgermann. London: Bloomsbury, 1983.

"If you have come to your planned ending and it doesn’t seem to be working, run your eye up the page and the page before that. You may see that your best ending is somewhere in there, that you were finished before you thought you were."
— John McPhee, in an essay on structure in the New Yorker (January 6, 2013), quoted by Aimee Liu in "Picture Your Structure," Legacy & Lore (Substack), February 16, 2024.

Friday, December 22, 2023

A Jewish sense of story

spiral stained glass

In a footnote to Most Famous Short Film of All Time, I wrote:

"Literary critic Frank Kermode in The Sense of an Ending (1965) said stories need satisfying endings, just as the Christian story offers an ending that provides a meaning to everything that came before. Dara Horn dissents, saying that Jewish storytelling recognizes that we 'cannot be true to the human experience while pretending to make sense of the world,' and so a story may instead serve as 'the beginning of the search for meaning.'"

I recently came across this reflection by Rachel Klein:

"Where apocalypse narratives are primarily concerned with the restructuring and healing of society writ large after tragedy, time loops focus on the personal growth of an individual by having the person relive their experiences until they learn the lessons required to move on."
— "A Case for Why Time Loops Are Inherently Jewish": These cyclical stories, from 'Russian Doll' to 'Palm Springs,' are the Jewish answer to the Christian apocalypse narrative. Rachel Klein, HeyAlma, June 13, 2022

It's likely that all cultures and religions have some sense of the life cycle, that is, of each generation as a cycle, and of each year as cyclical too. But Judaism, unlike Christianity, doesn't layer on any focus on the supposed end of history. There's just the cycle itself.

There are endings, though.

"The ever-present threat of nuclear annihilation ... likely reinforced the idea that the end times would inevitably be sudden, and total. All these years and millennia later most of us still haven’t learned the painful truth that most ends, even most apocalypses, are gradual, painful, drawn out and sometimes ongoing. If we don’t learn the truth about the end of the world, and worlds ending, the apocalypse may rest eternally on the horizon, ever-present, always informing our lives in numerous ways, but never quite occurring. And the truth is that worlds are ending as we speak. Our own world, your own world, could also end; it might already be falling apart."
— "The Apocalypse is not the End," Joshua P. Hill, New Means (Substack), December 30, 2023

Sunday, December 17, 2023

Is everything fair game for science? Even niceness itself?

Here's a new paper:

Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda
Authors: Cory J. Clark, Lee Jussim, Komi Frey, Sean T. Stevens, Musa al-Gharbi, Karl Aquino, J. Michael Bailey, Nicole Barbaro, Roy F. Baumeister, April Bleske-Rechek, David Buss, Stephen Ceci, Marco Del Giudice, Peter H. Ditto, Joseph P. Forgas, David C. Geary, Glenn Geher, Sarah Haider, Nathan Honeycutt, Hrishikesh Joshi, Anna I. Krylov, Elizabeth Loftus, Glenn Loury, Louise Lu, Michael Macy, Chris C. Martin, John McWhorter, Geoffrey Miller, Pamela Paresky, Steven Pinker, Wilfred Reilly, Catherine Salmon, Steve Stewart-Williams, Philip E. Tetlock, Wendy M. Williams, Anne E. Wilson, Bo M. Winegard, George Yancey, and William von Hippel.
November 20, 2023
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
120 (48) e2301642120

I became aware of it because Megan McArdle wrote an opinion column for the Washington Post, "The world could use more jerks." December 12, 2023.

cartoon of bearded white man god with the caption 'the explainer'

Yes, the paper seems to be saying that there are facts, and there is niceness, and niceness is often just covering up the facts, and if we were more tolerant of jerks then the jerks would show us the truth.

The paper's abstract defines "scientific censorship" as "actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality." Any actions? Yes. Having a personal filter is self-censorship. Being deliberately nice is self-censorship. That's the definition.

A key problem here, for me, is that "low scientific quality" isn't defined. One scientist might say that an entire research idea is untenable for ethical reasons, which also means it's untenable for scientific reasons, and the research would be of low scientific quality if it were to proceed. The other scientist might say, no, ethics has nothing to do with scientific quality, and thus they deem the first scientist to have self-censored.

The paper's conclusion isn't really a conclusion. It says that the many co-authors disagree on "whether and where scholars should “draw the line” on inquiry." Nonetheless, they claim they "all agree" that science "would be better situated to resolve these debates, if—instead of arguing in circles based on conflicting intuitions—we spent our time collecting relevant data." I don't believe they mean relevant data on the myriad unique topics of scientific interest, but rather on the meta-topic; that is, they want "better science on scientific censorship" so they can better answer their own question. Anyway, see previous paragraph for the meta-problem here.

McArdle, for her part, in the Washington Post column, wants to expand the message to all writers. She says:

"These professions [journalism and academia] used to be sheltered workshops for those kinds of 'jerks': naturally distrustful folks who like asking uncomfortable questions and experiencing an uncontrollable urge to say whatever they’ve been told not to. These character traits don’t make people popular at parties, but they might well help them ferret out untruths, deconstruct popular pieties and dismantle conventional wisdom."

As she puts it: "Unfortunately, the universe isn’t here to please us, which means niceness and truth will sometimes be at odds."

Crucially, she adds: "Jerks were never the majority, which would be chaos. But they were a teaspoon of leavening..." In other words, some people have permission to be jerks. Not all people. Who will be in the elect few who receive social permission to be rudely contrarian and are perceived as experts simply because of their attitude, and who will be in the majority of sad amateurs who are tone-policed and shut down for expressing a difference of opinion? Ay, there's the rub. Plainly, she reserves the right to be a contrarian. It's her newspaper column, after all. She's the leavening that will transform the critics on whom her voice is overlaid. The transformation will be non-chaotic, we are to feel assured of that.

She quotes Musa al-Gharbi who, readers may discover, has a forthcoming book: We Have Never Been Woke: Social Justice Discourse, Inequality and the Rise of a New Elite.

She also plugs the new book The Canceling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott.

On which note, take a look at this Amazon review for The Canceling of the American Mind. This is what McArdle is asking for, right? Truth-telling while kind of being a jerk? The world is vastly improved now?

Dec 15, 2023 book review left on Amazon: Well I'm listening to this audiobook, and while I agree with the book's premise and heard about this on Bill Maher's show, I absolutely cannot stand the Gen-Alpha trailing fry-voiced narration. I realize Ricki is a co-author, but she and Greg should have had the good sense to hire a PROFESSIONAL. When I hear this kind of voice in commercials with that creaking trailing fry-tone so popular with young women, I dive for the mute button. Seriously, if you step through the audio you'll hear creak 7 out of 8 times. This is why people hire professionals, Greg and Ricki. I'll have to read the Kindle version so my ears can stop bleeding. If I had listened to a sample I wouldn't have used a credit for the audio book. Lesson learned, so next time I will listen to a narration sample first. Great subject though. I read 'The Coddling of the American Mind' and it was fantastic, but I cannot abide over 7 hours of Gen-Alpha fry tones, with every sentence trailing into pure dolphin-level creak. Ricki, I recommend a voice coach. I'm not even kidding. It'll give you far more gravitas for your good ideas when speaking.

Related, on this blog: 2020 "Open Letter on Justice and Open Debate" in Harper's

Sunday, December 10, 2023

On political disappointment and anger

sculpture of two people touching or fighting

Disappointment

Arielle Angel, editor-in-chief of Jewish Currents, wrote in the magazine's newsletter on December 9, 2023:

"The Marxist philosopher Michael Löwy explores doom’s constructive potential in a reflection on the German Jewish theorist Walter Benjamin’s urgent plea for the 'organization of pessimism,' in which that affect is understood not as passive defeatism, but rather as 'an active, practical and ‘organized’' stance 'that is totally dedicated to preventing, by all means possible, the advent of the worst.'"

Angel goes on, pointing out Sara Marcus's recent interview describing, in Angel's words, "the last 2,000 years of Jewish history is a lesson in the creative possibilities of loss." Marcus said in that interview:

"The whole history of Judaism after 70 CE is about having lost the structure of the Temple and ritualistically voicing a desire to get it back, while at the same time building a completely other structure that’s rhizomatic — iterative, decentered — and incredibly durable and flexible. To continue elaborating that structure while never taking our eyes off the fact of loss, and in fact keeping active a longing for the lost object, grounds Jews in a profoundly generative historical experience of disappointment."

What can we generate from this?

People are not things, and it's OK to be angry

A.R. Moxon wrote on October 29, 2023: "All people have an intrinsic and indestructible worth that cannot be measured." We assign value to things, yes, but people "are not things." And so he goes on to say of the U.S. healthcare system:

"It’s very profitable. Some people think this means it is the very best. I’m not kidding! They really think that, and will tell you so without blushing, even though we can all see that it costs us more than any other developed country, and returns worse outcomes, and wipes people out financially every single day. And if you suggest that maybe our healthcare system should not be designed to wipe people out, they ask you how you intend to pay for a system that is designed to heal people instead, which is how you know that deep down, perhaps without telling themselves, they have decided that it is sick people who should have to pay for being sick, have on some level decided that sick people deserve to be wiped out as they are.

This is a very popular belief, I’ve found. It’s one diametrically opposed to the great truth about indestructible and inherent human worth.

And so, I think the appropriate response to this belief is anger."

Resuming the theme: Every life is worthy, and it's OK to be angry

Moxon continued on November 19, 2023:

"The idea here is that all human beings’ lives carry an immeasurable and indestructible worth, but human societies seem increasingly captured by a lie that insists that human beings must be regularly measured to determine if their life is still deserved. One common yardstick used to measure the value of human life is the profit motive, which cares nothing for the good of society; it cares only for growth. Just as unregulated water seeks the most efficient path to its own level, so unregulated profit seeks the most efficient path to the most profit possible, and will run through society the same way a burst water main on the top floor will run through the walls of a house. The most efficient path to profit happens to involve monetizing basic human need — healthcare and water and shelter — which of course ties profit to the immeasurable value of life, upon which an unregulated profit motive can set whatever price it likes, and does, and thus annihilates human beings by the thousands and millions every year, every month, every week.

And so the great lie — that life must be earned — makes products of our lives. It consumes humans for the benefit of wealth, enforces a false insecurity upon us all, divides us into those who deserve life and those who don’t. In this way, the great lie forms the basis of supremacy — the idea that some people matter and the rest do not — which makes our human systems vulnerable to takeover by the most malicious types of supremacist; for example, the white conservative evangelical Christian Nationalists who now are now broadcasting their clear intent to establish a fascist authoritarian rule in my country, the United States."

Anger, he goes on, is an appropriate response — if it's observant, restorative, and expectant. In other words: pay attention to what's really being said, replace these falsehoods with truths, and be hopeful that we can and must make a better world.

Sources

Arielle Angel, Jewish Currents, email newsletter, December 9, 2023

A.R. Moxon in The Reframe (Substack):
"An Appropriate Anger," October 29, 2023
"Channels of Rage," November 19, 2023

Saturday, December 2, 2023

Unexpected, unrepeatable, embraceable: 'Fluke' by Brian Klaas

Who we are and what happens: these are inextricably linked. If we care about an event, it's because it happened to someone, and that someone — we tend to believe — must have played a role in it. This is how we form narratives, including the narrative of our own agency.

Fluke: Chance, Chaos, and Why Everything We Do Matters is about this.

detail from the book cover of Fluke, with an arrow deviating from a U-shaped path

The author is Brian Klaas, a professor of global politics at University College London.

(I received an advance review copy from NetGalley. Fluke will be published by Scribner in January.)


Anything can change the course of our lives. A cloud moves, and a plane doesn’t take off or changes its flight path. It matters who is or isn’t on the plane, whether the plane crashes, or where the airmen drop the bomb.

We know that chance occurrences make a difference in the outcome, yet we resist this notion, partly because it seems unfair. Some people live, others die, due to luck? We might as well say they were saved or destroyed for no reason at all.

And "no reason" isn't what we mean when we say we want "the real story" of "what happened." With no meaningful connections between who we are and what happens, we can't track a narrative. “We want a rational explanation to make sense of the chaos of life,” Klaas says.

forest in fog, seen from above
Image: Pixabay

But these little reasons indeed seem to be the real reasons.

“Nobody tiptoes around with extreme care to make sure not to squish the wrong bug. Few panic about an irrevocably changed future after missing the bus,” Klaas observes. Yet how else, he asks, does the future get made?

If your parents hadn’t met, you wouldn’t be here. The same is true for your ancestors.

"We are the offshoots of a sometimes wonderful, sometimes deeply flawed past," and "our existence is bewilderingly fragile, built upon the shakiest of foundations." An asteroid killed the dinosaurs, which allowed all of us to be born millions of years later, and today you’ve subtly altered the future of humanity based on "whether you stopped to have coffee before you rushed out the door."

Yes, our actions are part of a chain of events. Turtles all the way down.

Could we have acted differently, though? Did we have free will then? Do we have free will, right now, to change anything at all?

When we look for a cause, we often see a fluke. The fluke isn’t nothing. It’s just not the meaning we originally hoped for. It’s something unexpected and unrepeatable, and we can embrace it.

Fluke is elegantly readable nonfiction, revolving thorny philosophical questions with ease. It poses the question: What theory makes the most sense to you?

You get to choose what you believe.

Or do you?

For more, see "Why Are We Here? Chaos Brought Us Together" (9 min read), which Books Are Our Superpower published today.


A couple years ago, I wrote about another book by Prof. Klaas: Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us. The article is "Why are powerful people so terrible?" (4 min read).


Enfield: 'I love how much I hate the word burnout'

Here are the three passages from Holy American Burnout!, a new release by Split/Lip Press, that most spoke to me.

Because I have thought about religious devotion in the context of moving my body:

"It's not that I don't believe in God; it's that I prefer bodies in motion, and I want my belief in God translated into reverential movement. God has always seemed inert, though I've been told He moves in us all." (p. 65)

Because anger is a valid response and it opens the door to change:

"Yes, to be a teacher and relatively conscious in america is to be in a rage almost all the time. Do you suffer in the mind or take up arms against the sea of troubles? You may recognize that the system is built on a one-size-fits-all curriculum that is given minor adjustments to suit the needs of your classroom. You may see how american education prepares certain individuals for the traps awaiting them outside school walls, and you may want them to understand both those traps as well as Shakespeare. You may be angry at those in power who continue to perpetuate these trappings, but you aren't faced with them on a regular basis. You're instead faced with the students who don't warrant or gain from your anger and can, in fact, be hurt by it. So you require something more like grace to navigate this system, or else the bitterness in your heart might melt and resolve you into a lifeless puddle trampled upon by the dancing feet of children." (p. 93)

Because commute leads to comm[b]u[s]t[ion]e:

"What's in a commute? When does it begin or end? Sure, the word implies an ending at either your workplace or home, but since we volley back and forth, maybe the entirety of our working lives is spent in one, prolonged commute. Such an individual exercise. We reach out occasionally and catch the attention or sympathies of a stranger or a co-worker kind enough to lend a ride, but in the end, we all have our own destinations. We can't stop moving.

I love how much I hate the word burnout. It's perfectly visceral. I can feel the burning of my muscles and the heated tension in my spine. Still, the machine grinds on, setting the transmission ablaze — burnt out. Burnout is frequently attributed to teachers, first year teachers especially, but it seems to me the greater american condition, bestowed upon anyone with a commute. * * * I see it there along the horizon too, a great american burnout. If you work the gears too hard, eventually the transmission will erupt. The car will have no choice but to idle.

* * *

Holy american Burnout, grant us the stillness of your fire this time." (p. 115)

Sean Enfield, Holy American Burnout!, Split/Lip Press, 2023

Holy American Burnout! book cover

See also

Enfield mentions Baldwin.