American literary critic, scholar, and writer
POPULARITY
7 episodes with Harold Bloom
7 episodes with Harold Bloom
4 episodes with Harold Bloom
3 episodes with Harold Bloom
5 episodes with Harold Bloom
2 episodes with Harold Bloom
3 episodes with Harold Bloom
2 episodes with Harold Bloom
2 episodes with Harold Bloom
We catch up on the gallery space that didn't come together — not because of conflict, but because the arrangement shifted enough that the original vision no longer fit. What stings isn't the logistics, it's the built-in community that came with that particular spot, and the version of things we'd already started imagining.From there the conversation turns inward. We're both feeling the gap between talking about making work and actually making it — the pull to get back out with a camera, the fatigue of looking at old sequences, and what it means when commerce brain starts crowding out everything else. We end up somewhere around the question of what art even is — Tolstoy's definition, the transcendentalist framing, Rick Rubin and George Saunders on process — and whether finding your own answer to that matters more than finding the right one. -Ai If you enjoyed this episode, please consider giving us a rating and/or a review. We read and appreciate all of them. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you in the next episode. Links To Everything: Video Version of The Podcast: https://geni.us/StudioSessionsYT Matt's YouTube Channel: https://geni.us/MatthewOBrienYT Matt's 2nd Channel: https://geni.us/PhotoVideosYT Alex's YouTube Channel: https://geni.us/AlexCarterYT Matt's Instagram: https://geni.us/MatthewIG Alex's Instagram: https://geni.us/AlexIG
This month, we read Gnostic Fiction. • The Weird (ed. Ann & Jeff VanderMeer)• Dangerous Visions (ed. Harlan Ellison) • The Complete John Silence (by Algernon Blackwood) • Patreon (Free Bonus Episodes) • Email us at genrepodcast@gmail.com
This episode of The Common Reader podcast is a little different. I spoke to both Jeffrey Lawrence and Julianne Werlin about literature, politics, and the future of the academic humanities. Questions included: what do we mean when we talk about literature and markets? Can we leave politics out of literary discussion? Should we leave it out? If we can't leave it out, can we have nice friendly conversations about it? What is academic Marxism? We also talked about whether Stephen Greenblatt is too ideological and why universities are necessary to literary culture, academics on Substack. Julianne writes Life and Letters. Jeffrey writes Avenues of the Americas. Here is Julianne's interview in The Republic of Letters. Transcript (AI generated, will contain some errors)Henry Oliver (00:00)Today I am talking to Jeffrey Lawrence and Julianne Werlin.Jeffrey is a professor of English literature and comparative literature at Rutgers University. He specializes in the 20th and 21st century and he writes the sub stack, Avenues of America. Julianne probably needs no introduction to a sub stack audience. She writes Life and Letters, one of my favorite sub stacks. She's a professor of English at Duke University, where as well as specializing in early modern poetry, she is interested in sociological and demographic studies of literature.and we are going to have a big conversation about literature and markets, politics, what do we mean when we talk about literature and markets, can we leave politics out of literary discussion, should we leave it out, if we can't leave it out, can we have nice friendly conversations about it, and also maybe what is academic Marxism and what should it be and why is it so confusing? Jeffrey and Julianne, hello.Julianne (00:59)Hi.Jeffrey Lawrence (01:01)Hi, thanks for having us.Julianne (01:02)Yeah, thank you.Henry Oliver (01:04)I am going to start by referencing an interview that you did, Julianne, for Republic of Letters, which everyone has been reading. And you said, I've printed it out wrong, so I can't read the whole quote. But you said something like, you joined Substack because you wanted people to talk with and because you felt a lack of debate in your academic field. There are lots of good things about scholarship being slow and careful, but it also needs to be animated by debate and conversation.and a sense of the stakes of what we're doing, and that is eroding in the academy. So I want you both to talk about that. Why is that happening? How much of a problem is it? How much is Substack or the internet more generally the solution? What should we be doing? Why don't we go to Julianne first, because it's your quote.Julianne (01:54)Sure, I mean, won't go on too long ⁓ since I have already spoken about this, but my sense within English departments is, you know, they're becoming smaller, fewer people are taking our classes, we have much less of a role in public conversation and public debate, except as kind of a stalking horse for certain types of arguments. And certainly, if you are an early modernist, it's very hard to locate a kind of a...Henry Oliver (02:14)YouJulianne (02:25)discrete set of debates within early modern literature because there is so little public salience to literary fields. And I think this is happening in all literature. It's especially pronounced if you're working in the earlier periods. So my sense in joining SUBSTAC was that perhaps there will be debates by people who are not already so deep within the particular professional and disciplinary structures of a field that they canfind new points of connection between literature and public life along different ⁓ axes that we have maybe not explored adequately within English departments and are maybe becoming harder to explore as English departments contract and recede from public life.Henry Oliver (03:04)Mm-hmm.So we're bringing Milton back to the people and also finding out why they care about him at all. ⁓ What do you think about it, Geoff?Julianne (03:16)Well, hopefully. I mean, that's the goal.Jeffrey Lawrence (03:21)Great, ⁓ so I actually restacked that specific quote from Julianne because it resonated so much with me. Yeah, I mean, my sense is that as someone who works on 20th and 21st century literature, there is more crossover there, I would say, between sort of academic scholarship and public debate. But I really wanna just echo what Julianne said there, that ⁓ I have gotten the feeling that withinlet's call it like the legacy media. There are particular arguments that come from academia that are pushed forward and that become representative of the field of 20th and 21st century literature as a whole. And those kind of come to stand in for academic debate more generally. And I think it becomes very difficult. One of the things that I was noticing so much isthat the people who had access to those legacy journals, are places like the Atlantic, the New York Times, that those began to dominate the debates and people just aren't recognizing that in scholarships. So one of the things I particularly like about Substack is that I feel like although it has some of the same problems as social media more generally about kind of like who gets to participate and algorithmic culture and all of that sort of stuff.I did feel like the ideological diversity both left and right compared to the sort of a kind of monoculture, mono, you know, sort of academic argument that I found over and over in these legacy magazines, that Substack was the place where a lot of these debates are happening. And I only joined maybe four or five months ago, but for me,⁓ sort of just in terms of my relationship to the Academy, it's really changed my sense of what can be said and what's being said by academics.Henry Oliver (05:17)feels to me like in some way humanities academia needs deregulating because there's all sorts of things people can't feel like they can't say and can't do. But it's such a tangled mess that the easiest thing is for you all to just go to Substack and do it there and just try and avoid the bureaucracy because it's gone too far. But when you're on Substack...I feel like you're often faced with people saying, these English literature academics, it's all woke BS. They don't know anything. They've killed this, right? You're simultaneously in a kind of semi hostile environment. How do you, how does that seem to you?Julianne (05:56)Yeah, mean, that's certainly true. I think that we are avatars on Substack for a kind of authority that we feel in our own lives we do not possess in any way. So we're in this position where, you know, at least I feel this, I'm responding to comments that are, you know, very much, by people who very much feel that they're attacking authority figures. And I'm, you know, I'm just a person on the internet, you know, talking with them when I'm on Substack. What I like about it is precisely that it levels any kind of authority structures insofar as they exist, which is debatable at this phase. But that's not always the reality on Substack. I also feel there's an additional thing, again, as an early modernist, where you feel like, you you don't have...Henry Oliver (06:27)Yeah.Julianne (06:52)there's not a lot of interest by people who are kind of on the left in contemporary politics in the Renaissance. It's seen as kind of a conservative, canonical thing to study. And there's a lot of pushback. even within English departments, there's a lot of pushback ⁓ surrounding the idea that people should study Shakespeare or study Milton. It's seen as kind of old and fussy and conservative. And then at the same time, you go on the internet and you're the kind of ⁓ exemplar.Henry Oliver (06:59)Mmm. Yeah.Mmm.Julianne (07:22)of woke cultural discourse. So you feel like as a Renaissance scholar, you can't win. You're nobody's idea of what people should be doing intellectually or culturally.Henry Oliver (07:25)HahahaDo you think, someone asked me this the other day about why academics write in this funny way and why no one reads their books and all this. That was the way they phrased it. And I said, I think what you're saying is like, why is there no AC Bradley today? Because Shakespeare in tragedy, so I don't remember the number, of like quarter of a million copies or something that to us just feels like an insane number.Is there some legitimate criticism there that A.C. Bradley wrote in a way that, you know, your grandmother could understand? And a lot of what comes out of the Academy today is much more cut off from the ordinary reading experience.Julianne (08:18)Yeah, I mean, think that's not debatable. think there have been quantitative studies, ⁓ DH studies that have shown that academic prose has become more difficult. I think it's much more a consequence of how literary culture has become this sort of narrow and marginalized field that is preserved within academic debate and academic structures of argument and disciplinarity. Stephen Greenblatt certainly tries to benew A.C. Bradley and he does reach readers outside of academia but his audience is you know especially as a share of the population is not A.C. Bradley's audience and I don't think that's a fault of his prose. Well that's true.Henry Oliver (08:59)might be the fault of some of his ideas.Well, Jeff, I want to come to you on that. A.C. Bradley was not politically ideological. Maybe he's a crazy Hegelian and he's insane on that level. But is the problem that Stephen Greenblatt's just obviously kind of a bit cranky in some ideological way, is this a general problem of the modern humanities academia?Jeffrey Lawrence (09:24)Yeah, I mean, I tend to see the problem as it's kind of being a dual problem. One, I think, is the fact that we are facing in a lot of the academy a kind of scarcity politics. there are very, if you look at just academic hiring since the financial crisis in 2008, there's just much less of it that's happening. And so I think, I mean, part of what I see is this sense that there are certainI mean, we could say certain ideological lines that over the past 10 years, but even let's say over the past 15 years ⁓ have been the ones that have become dominant in the academy. And I think my problem is not that people connect politics to literature. I think that that's something that we all do to a certain degree. think the part of the problem is that we are now entering a situation in whichif you deviate from a particular political line, which I have sort of identified with the Democratic Party, because I think you can follow a foul of it to the right, you can also follow a foul of it to the left, then you are seen as someone who is saying something that is not in line with the contemporary academy. And I think it used to be that when there were many jobs and many different departments that you could go to,Henry Oliver (10:28)Mm, mm.Jeffrey Lawrence (10:48)there were fewer consequences for making those types of statements that were out of sync with the dominant. And now I think it's it's become very, very punitive. And this is also reinforced again by the fact that what public scholarship we do have tends to be in line with this because the institutions that are kind of the elite, I would say Ivy league.institutions are also the ones that are feeding people into ⁓ sort of that public legacy discourse.Henry Oliver (11:23)Let's talk about politics and literature because I don't like making literature political as such. But whenever I read, Julianne's probably read the Lisa Liebes substack. I don't know if you've got to that yet, Jeff. She's like, there should be no politics at all and it's all aesthetics, which I kind of sympathize with. But then it just makes me think like, well, what about Edmund Spenser?Like there's a certain extent to which a lot of poetry is political and we have to be political when we talk about it, otherwise we're just ignoring a big part of it. ⁓ So how do we solve that problem? Like are we like badly trained in thinking about politics in the humanities academy or is it like what's going on?have we got to a point where you can say there should be no politics about explicitly political writers?Julianne (12:19)Do you want to begin, Jeff?Jeffrey Lawrence (12:20)Yeah, I mean, I can just say briefly because I mean, I teach courses, a number of courses that are about politics and literature. I actually think, I mean, I started doing this in 2016, right after Trump's election. I taught Steve Bannon's film about the financial crisis alongside ⁓ the Big Short and a couple of kind of like trying to show kind of like the left and right responses. I mean, that's not literature, that's film, but many of thethe literary works that we look at in those courses. There are conservatives, there are more classic liberals, there are Marxists. I mean, my personal feeling is that we need to talk about politics and literature, that it is a fair, it is a reasonable object of study. The problem, I think, is partially when you act as if certain...certain political writers or certain topics are simply out of bounds for study. And so there was actually a post by Dan Silver today about why I teach conservative thinkers and a response from the points John Baskin saying, who would think that you wouldn't teach conservative thinkers in a sociology course? But I do think that it's become par for the course thatHenry Oliver (13:20)Mmm.Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.Jeffrey Lawrence (13:37)teaching someone, whether you're on the right and you're teaching someone who's a Marxist or you're a Marxist and you're teaching conservatives, that somehow this is kind an ethical failure. And I think that's a real problem of not assuming that what you're teaching is kind of necessarily what you believe in or talking about politics means necessarily taking an ideological stance.Julianne (14:04)Yeah, I think that's completely right. I think there's this very pervasive confusion between ⁓ talking about the politics of literature andarticulating an authoritative political perspective on that literature. Almost everybody who studies literature, especially in a historical context or in a contemporary context, honestly, is going to be talking about politics. Spencer, course, right? Milton. ⁓ How do you talk about somebody who was a literal revolutionary who wrote in favor of regicide and not talk about politics? You have to talk about politics.Henry Oliver (14:31)YouJulianne (14:37)⁓ But then there's become this confusion where people assume that if you are talking about the politics of literature, you have not just a political, but actually an ethical ⁓ teaching that you are imparting by way of that literature. And that if you're not doing that, you're somehow not talking about literature, you're not teaching the literature. That's the confusion that has been so devastating to us and I think so devastating to literary study.Henry Oliver (15:03)So what's the alternative? What should we be doing instead?Julianne (15:07)I I think that we should be talking about the politics of literature while acknowledging that literature raises political debates, not endless debates. know, there's not any given author is going to raise, you know, a certain salient set of questions that we can talk about, that we can debate and acknowledging that people historically have had different responses to these, that it has been used in different ways in different moments and that it is still used in different ways today. That doesn't mean that as intellectuals and scholars, we won't have our own positions that may inform our scholarshipin our writing and even our teaching, it just means that our positions do not shut down conversation and do not exhaust the range of possible positions.Henry Oliver (15:48)Yeah, and we should say, we're saying about, you you should teach conservative thought and stuff. I don't think either of you would identify as being on the right or conservative. So you're saying that from a, from that position. ⁓ How do we, how do we get out of this then? How do we leave politics at the door? Because when I read modern ⁓ literary scholarship, to me, it's either like very useful because it's not political.Julianne (16:01)Yeah.Henry Oliver (16:17)Or I just, as I did with that book that we all, or that Jeff and I, sort of disagreed about. I just find it almost unreadable because it's not scholarship anymore. It's just partisanship. How do we move past this? Like, what's the solution?Jeffrey Lawrence (16:33)I mean, if I can jump in just there, I mean, I would say one of the issues is having an ideological litmus test for scholars. And I think I see this in 20th and 21st century literature in a very strong way. And so what I would say is that, you know, allowing people to occupy different political positions, and I really meanJulianne (16:33)I mean, if I could jump in just there, I mean, I would say one of the issues is having an ideological litmus test for scholars. And I think I see this in 20th and 21st century literature in a very strong way. And so what I would say is that allowing people to occupy different political positions, and I really mean,Henry Oliver (16:36)Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (17:03)like people who I know on the left because they're not toeing a particular line are also not welcome or are also kind of meat pushback in contemporary humanities departments that I think we need to get rid of that. And my thought about the Adam Kelly book, ⁓ the New Sincerity book is that to me, I think that what he's trying to do in that bookHenry Oliver (17:10)Yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (17:31)is to understand neoliberalism as an economic and political philosophy that has effects on culture and to try to understand how authors themselves are dealing with that in their prose.To me, that is somewhat different from the way that neoliberalism is occasionally bandied about in the academy, where it doesn't just, it isn't just another word for saying, okay, this is the Chicago school or the Austrian school, and we're gonna kind of take it seriously as a mode of thought. if just saying like, neoliberalism is like our ontological condition in the 21st century, and therefore everything is.necessarily an expression of neoliberalism and we don't need to necessarily define it. So I mean, I think that may be where the disagreement extends is that I think that ⁓ Adam Kelly is trying to sort of be precise about that politics in order to understand how contemporary writers generally on the left are using it. Whereas I think that the kind of more wishy washy version of that isHenry Oliver (18:37)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (18:44)You know, just to say that neoliberalism is the air that we breathe. And there, I think I agree with you that it's just not super helpful.Henry Oliver (18:49)Mmm.Yeah, my problem with the book was that he would not tell you what did Hayek think or say. He would say Hayek was a cheerleader for the free market. Or he would not tell you what is the Gary Becker view of human capital. He would say human capital is an ideology that infuses itself into every aspect of your life so that you can no longer be separate from the market. And it's all this stuff, and it's like, well, that's nothing to do with Hayek and Gary Becker. ⁓Jeffrey Lawrence (19:19)Can I just,just one thing on that, is that, I mean, I did go back and I mean, he has these moments where he's talking specifically about Hayek and the road to serfdom and saying, I think that this is a worldview in which, he'll quote Hayek talking about the problem with representative democracy and say, the real moral choices are choices that are made in the market.To me, I think that that is to engage to a certain degree with the thought. It is true, I think, as often happens in scholarship that you have the people who are defining a phenomenon from the perspective that you may be interested in. So there are a number of people from the left who are criticizing neoliberalism. I see him as engaging a little bit more than you do.Henry Oliver (20:11)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (20:11)in that in that direct thought and particularly compared to other humanities scholars who do I think what you're saying which is to just do that. So that's where I think I see him as doing.Henry Oliver (20:18)sure, yeah.I guess you could summy critique up as being like, if this is the good version, things are worse than I thought. Yeah. Yeah. So from here, let's go to the question of what is academic Marxism?Jeffrey Lawrence (20:27)Okay, well.Henry Oliver (20:35)Because I think a lot of people think that there's a lot of Marxism in the academy and that if they're not woke, they're Marxists or maybe they're both, right? And ⁓ personally, I spend a lot of time trying to work out what these Marxists think and it's quite confusing. And there seem to be lots of, and Julianne, you and I have talked about this, all the different, some Marxists aren't Marxists, as it were. tell us, give us a quick overview of how Marxist things really are.Julianne (21:04)Yeah, I mean it's a very complicated question to answer.because Marxism is too, well, debatably a living tradition. ⁓ And there's a huge amount of disagreement about what constitutes Marxism, ⁓ what is a legitimate form of Marxism, what is not, where do the boundaries lie, what is reconcilable with other schools of thought, what is not. But I think the big picture is that beginning, even in the 60s, Marxism moved into academia. This is a story that is told very inflectionallyHenry Oliver (21:11)youJulianne (21:37)and Perry Anderson's considerations on Western Marxism, where he argues that in the West, Marxism becomes alienated from actual political, economic, and social movements. It moves into academia. And as a result, it becomes much more philosophical, much more abstruse, much less concerned with the traditional concerns of Marxism, labor and the politics of labor and the politics and economics of labor. And that this continues and is accelerated, in fact, in the Cold War. So what you get atthe same time, you have something called the cultural turn in history and in sociology, ⁓ the rise of what is, debatably called identity politics. so Marxism remains a current within that, but it's far less of an influential current as time goes by. ⁓ And I think that many, many people...use the word Marxism and would say that there are Marxist influences in their work, but they're not viewing it as a kind of systematic approach to economics or to economic history. And so at that point, I do think you have to ask, well, what does Marxism actually mean? There are certainly people that work with, you know, ideas that they refer to as Marxist, but that have implications that to my mind are entirely antithetical to Marxism. And so I kind of feelas somebody who does work within what I would call the historical materialist tradition.⁓ in a very sort of straightforwardly economic sense, know, are markets becoming more efficient in Renaissance England? Those kinds of questions. How much does bread cost? How much do books cost? Those kinds of questions. ⁓ If you're interested in that tradition within Marxist thought, you feel that it's actually really incredibly peripheral within academia in comparison to, say, the politics of gender ⁓ or other considerations of that kind. And there's just not always sensitivityHenry Oliver (23:16)Mm-hmm.Julianne (23:35)to whether these different schools of thought actually cohere in any meaningful or deep way. What would you say, Jeff?Jeffrey Lawrence (23:44)Yeah, that's, I mean, just to pick up on that, think that that's really helpful in that trajectory, which I also, know, the Perry Anderson, a lot of people who have talked about how Marxism.moves into the academy after the 1960s, I think it is just really important to say it becomes a different thing. And I think part of the confusion, Henry, may also be that it's like, so the Christopher Ruffo version of this is it's like, it's all Marxism, it's all everywhere. But then I think that becomes, it's so broad a definition of Marxism that what we're really talking about is aof progressive politics or sort of an amalgam of different ideas that may have some roots in Marxism of previous periods, but really don't, as Julianne is saying, really don't align with like Marxist thought or Marxian thought as such. And also as someone who does take that tradition very seriously, I think a lot about Silvia Federici, who's a feminist, know, a Marxist feminist. Like these are people who are absolutely steeped.in a Marxist political tradition. And in some ways, these are figures that may be very important to the contemporary tradition. But if you actually read what they're writing, it's like, it's an extremely watered down version that we get in the academy in part, and I'll just end with this, in part because to Julianne's point, I think it like when Marxism also becomesHenry Oliver (24:59)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (25:10)a kind of one discourse among many that you are using in what are often very bourgeois institutions, then it becomes a kind of intellectual tool and sometimes even an intellectual weapon, as many of these things are, where the question of how it relates to practical politics, working class politics,politics outside of the academy becomes sort of secondary. And so then really we're not talking about someone who's a Marxist as in they're like fighting for the working class. You're talking about someone who's just using Marx as a tool, which is fine, but that certainly shouldn't give them any sort of like, you know, moral high ground when speaking from the position of the left is my view.Henry Oliver (25:53)Is there some inherent aspect of literature that means it has been more amenable to Marxist study of any description than it has been to, you know, ⁓systems of thought that come more from a kind of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek tradition. Because it's very striking to me how few liberals and libertarians they're currently, publicly currently, I know a lot of them keep it to themselves, some of them have said as much to me. ⁓ But is there some good literary reason for this? Or is it just an institutional ⁓ problem?Julianne (26:33)That's an interesting question. ⁓ I mean, there are sort of traditional reasons for this in thatMarxism from, you know, in Marxist writing from very early on was interested in the relationship between culture and historical change. So there's a very, even by the time you get to the beginning of the 20th century, there's already a very well developed materialist tradition for thinking about cultural change and cultural transformation over the long run in a way that I don't think is true ⁓ of rival ideologies. Not that there isn't great literary work, but that there's not the sameHenry Oliver (27:09)Sure, sure, sure.Julianne (27:11)kind of sense of a methodological tradition. So there's a lot of momentum there.⁓ But in terms of more intrinsic reasons, I don't know. I mean, it doesn't seem obvious. Certainly at other times and places, we haven't had the situation that we have now. I often find myself thinking of, know, Piketty's arguments, which this does not pertain to Marxism, but this does pertain to the ⁓ difference between the political parties in the US, which is just that ⁓ education has become the means of differentiating between two rival elites, you know, not...Henry Oliver (27:27)Mm.Julianne (27:47)a difference between a working class and an elite, but two rival elites that are actually distinguished by the university itself. So as long as the university plays that structural role, it seems unlikely that its politics are going to drift to the other side, because that is actually precisely what the university has become. ⁓ I don't know, what do you think, Jeff?Jeffrey Lawrence (28:06)Yeah, I mean, it's a really good question. I mean, I share the sense that, I mean, I think that there is an extraordinary ⁓ Marxist literary tradition that goes back to, you know, sort of Lukacs and these debates, Adorno, Horkheimer. These are critics that are important to me, cultural studies with people like Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams. I mean, they very much, I think, were, though,Henry Oliver (28:20)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (28:30)That was a kind of insurgent force, we could say, within the academy that has now become, I would say, almost entirely dominant. I personally, mean, one of the things when I was writing my first book was on US and Latin American literature. I was very interested in a certain liberal tradition that comes from, you know, John Dewey. We would now say that, I mean, it's not the liberalism of, you know, Milton Friedman and von Hayek, but it is,Dewey, think, was for many people the most important philosopher, aesthetic philosopher of the early part of the 20th century. And he was a sort of radical liberal who thought a lot about the liberal tradition. I people like Lionel Trilling with the liberal imagination, these were, I think, writers who were very important.Henry Oliver (29:16)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (29:19)in a particular moment. And I guess, you this is, you may see this as a dodge, I, Henry, but I definitely feel like these are books that are really important to my formation and whether or not I associate with a certain particular strain of contemporary ⁓ liberalism, I don't tend to think of myself necessarily in those terms. And so,Henry Oliver (29:26)HahahaJeffrey Lawrence (29:43)I think we really should be reading those because those types of people, people like John Dewey, people like Lionel Trilling, know, Philip Rav, these kind of mid-century intellectuals, they were really engaging in major debates and they were foundational for the field, even if now I think there may be some desire to take distance from them.Henry Oliver (30:07)It's the bigger problem that we should just get back to more for literature as literature.And once we allow a kind of methodological approach from one tradition or another, we're just no longer really studying literature. We're using literature to, like I had a professor once and they said an essay about Anglo-Saxon poetry with some Harold Bloom quote saying, none of this is any good. It's like the great age before the flood, that kind of thing. And I basically wrote an essay saying, yes, that's correct. And she did not like that. And I said, look, I bet you don't actually love anyof this poetry. I bet you don't care about any of this. You know, I just sort of... And she said, that's not the point. The point is that we can use it to impose the... You we can use it as a way of dealing with the ideas we want to deal with and having methodological... And I was just like, I'm never coming back. You know, goodbye. And that to me is kind of... Is that the more foundational problem, right? Some people want to take a kind of...Northrop Frye, Christopher Ricks, literature as literature approach, and some people want to have an extra literary methodology. Be it Freudian, be it feminist, be it identity politics, be it whatever. And that is the bigger sort of division here, and is the solution to just say Shakespeare is Shakespeare and you can keep the other stuff for your other classes.Julianne (31:33)Well, I don't know because, I mean, in terms of what actually goes into the classroom, I think that's a different question. I don't teach very much theory in the classroom. ⁓ But I don't think that we can just say that because the ability to say, you know, these are great works, this is part of a canon, it came with its own set of ideological commitments that are now...Henry Oliver (31:40)Show. Show, show, show.Julianne (31:57)sort of vanishing, right? So we need some kind of framework for making sense of why we read literary history at all, what its coherence is, what its shape is, what its structure is. A lot of those frameworks were implicit. didn't, you know, they were articulated, they didn't need to be articulated every single time because they were so woven into the whole system of education. As that becomes increasingly untrue, I think we do find ourselves in a position where we need to explain why we care about this object literature at all.in the first place. And I don't think just saying, you know, literature for literature's sake without situating it within some kind of wider account of culture really works. I don't know that situating it within some wider account of culture really works either in terms of persuading anyone, but I don't think you can say to people, look, Shakespeare is Shakespeare, we have to read him because he's great. I think you need to...Jeffrey Lawrence (32:45)Mm-hmm.Henry Oliver (32:45)HahahaJulianne (32:53)have an argument about the place that Shakespeare has in culture ought to have ⁓ because that is increasingly not true.Henry Oliver (33:02)So I mostly agree, but it is very striking to me. I mean, I sort of half agree. It is very striking to me that the just read it because it's great argument is winning a lot of ⁓ admirers on the internet, while some version of what you've just said is sort of dying in the academy. And I'm not saying that therefore that's a decisive factor and we should just do this. But in terms of getting people interested,that does see something on the internet among the new humanities culture on Substack and other places, does just seem to be resistant to these methodologies and ideology, right? Do you see what I'm saying? ⁓Jeffrey Lawrence (33:43)Can I, I mean, yeah, Imean, I would say, and we may just disagree on this, but I agree with Julianne that, I mean, the ideological context of a work, the historical context of work seems incredibly important. I saw Henry, yeah, yeah. And so I think that there, yeah, yeah, but I think that's not, I mean, I think we can't totally gloss over that because all three of us have had long educational sort of,Henry Oliver (33:58)sure, yeah. We're all historicists, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (34:11)a long educational formation that has allowed us to even have this conversation, let alone read these works. I, you you, you, I think you had a post about this on, on Austin about like, you know, sort of there, there are certain things that are helpful for you to know in order, once you're going into work. I think that that's different from the thing that you're pointing to and where I think I would agree with you, which is that when, when methodology becomes the TrumpHenry Oliver (34:15)Yes.Yeah, yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (34:41)card over literature. think that that is that is an important cultural shift. And I think we are now at the point in which this is my formulation for it. It's like if you're just going to read literature for, you know, for a particular political thing, for Marxism, let's say, in order to understand, you know, sort of like a Marxist conception of society, why not just read Marxism?Henry Oliver (34:42)Hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (35:11)like Marxist theory. mean, so I do think that that is a real problem and the failure, and to be fair to humanities scholars, this is, has been a big debate over the past five or 10 years. I think it's just more contested in the academic space than it is on Substack, where I think Substack is kind of demonstrating to my mind also that some of the more frank, I, I sweat, some of the more BS, yeah.Henry Oliver (35:11)Yes.Say what you want.Jeffrey Lawrence (35:39)Some of the more b******t arguments that I see about like, ⁓ well, there aren't X people, like there aren't white men who are writing and reading, and then you just see the tremendous number of people who are reading, they may just feel alienated from certain ways of doing things. And that, I think, that's a wide range of people. And I think it's a wide range of people who are turned off by certain things in the academy.Henry Oliver (35:49)yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (36:07)I think a lot of that though has to do with a general problem that we need people in literary studies who deeply care about literature, regardless of what ideological thing, you know, where they're coming from. And if you are always just interested in the methodology that you're bringing to it, as opposed to literature, then this is going to be a long-term problem because people are going to start asking, why is it that we are reading literature?Henry Oliver (36:34)To what extent is that the basic problem that the universities have right now? To me that just seems to be it's that, right?Julianne (36:39)I think that's a huge problem. Yeah, I think it's a huge problem.Yeah, it's a huge problem. guess, you know, while sort of agreeing with you and definitely agreeing with Jeff, I guess what I would say to sort of refine what I was saying earlier is, no, I don't think you should study the methodologies instead of studying literature. Of course not.⁓ But the questions that the methodologies ask are really basic to the questions that we need to ask about the study of literature. So it's not that you should be studying Marxism or feminism or this or that instead of studying literature, but I don't think you can...totally do away with the questions of, what is this thing? What is its role in culture? What does it mean? Why do we study it over long, long periods of time? ⁓ It is, it has become very hard to make that, that case. And it's not that I think making that case explicitly is going to win converts as opposed to talking about the literature itself. In the end, it's going to be the literature itself, if it's going to be anything at all. But to have an account of the meaning of what we're doing, even for our own sakes, we do need to be thinking about questions like what is this thing?and why, right, which are supposed to be questions that methods help us ask.Jeffrey Lawrence (37:53)And can I just add to that kind of the, I mean, a word that we haven't used so far is specialization. And I think to a certain degree, like what may unite us in this conversation is a sense too, that like, that literature is not just like this particular corner that you're studying and that you're interested in because it's your field. And so,Henry Oliver (38:13)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (38:16)Those type of turf battles, I think, are also really important to this. The sense that your topic is the thing that you specifically focus on and the difficulty of communicating that is an issue. And also just the sense that, like, I mean, my sense is you can be interested in history and sociology. Julianne and I are both interested in that. And also literature, so that it doesn't, I mean, part of it is, I think, restoring the notion that a kind of broadHenry Oliver (38:19)Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (38:46)like intellectual training is not a liability, but is actually something that you need in order to understand literature and that heightens your appreciation.Henry Oliver (38:57)Somewhere in one of Iris Murdoch's interviews, she talks about the state of literary undergraduates today, because obviously she was married to John Bailey and had a lot of, and this is like in the 80s or something, ⁓ and she said, well, they're not interested in just reading the literature and understanding the history of it anymore. They want to have all these crazy theories.It's very striking when you see stuff like that from 50 years ago. Did the cannon wars ever end? Did we ever change the arguments? In some ways, is this not just the Harold Bloom thing? It's still going, right? And one route out that I think you've identified is just ⁓ be broader. Just read more outside your own area.The people who everyone loves on Twitter, like CS Lewis and Harold Bloom, are the ones who weren't in their public facing work. They weren't narrow specialists. CS Lewis would do everything from some random Latin medieval writer to Jane Austen. And in a way, is that what we need? We just need to have more of that appreciation of the long history of literature.Jeffrey Lawrence (40:10)I mean, just one thing, then Julianna, I'd be curious to like from like a ⁓ 20th and 21st century perspective. Like I agree with that, but I also think that like that was Toni Morrison as well. I mean, talking about the classics, mean, part of the problem I think is that we have these readings of figures that become then sort of symbolic or totemic of.Henry Oliver (40:23)Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (40:33)like a contemporary, you know, whatever that may be, an identity category or whatever it may be. Whereas if you actually read Toni Morrison, absolutely voracious, absolutely thinking about like, you know, the classics, you know, thinking through Greek drama, ⁓ know, Faulkner, you know, ⁓ master's thesis on the outsider in Faulkner and Virginia Woolf. I mean, I think some of this also has to dowith something that has happened very specifically in the past 10 years of also subjecting figures of the past who were interested in that more Catholic notion of culture to these kind of like very selective readings. I mean, it's true of James Baldwin. I thought about this a lot. Like a lot of these figures who just didn't want to be boxed in in a particular identity way get then taken up asHenry Oliver (41:11)Hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (41:26)kind of figures for that when actually, mean, in some ways they were, you know, I'm sure Toni Morrison and Harold Bloom wouldn't have agreed on everything, but there was actually, I mean, but really there is actually more alignment there than like the 2025 reading of them would give credit for.Henry Oliver (41:40)Yeah, yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (41:47)Yeah, don't know, Julianne, if yeah.Julianne (41:49)Yeah, no, mean, I obviously I agree so, so entirely with.everything you're saying, but especially with your comments about longer literary histories, more capacious reading, know, longer, wider. Obviously you read cross linguistically and do work cross linguistically. So both broader and longer literary histories, much more than kind of a focus on methodology. Part of the reason I'm defending methodology here is because methodology, if used well, forces you outside of disciplinary specialization or can, has that capacity. In my field, the problem is not thatpeople are adhering to big sweeping methodologies anymore. In my field, the problem is that the big questions have almost disappeared, replaced by, in many cases, extremely excellent, detailed, narrow, pointillist empiricist work. I think that work is...valuable and it's foundational, but you can't have a field that just has that. You have to have something that makes the field cohere. You have to have questions that the field coheres around. know, and increasingly, I'm a historicist. I got into this because I love this kind of like, ⁓ you know,tell me everything about this particular edition of the Fairy Queen. ⁓ I love that kind of thing. ⁓ And yet at the same time, there is part of me that is starting to wonder.Henry Oliver (43:09)YouJeffrey Lawrence (43:10)YouJulianne (43:17)is it actually more relevant even for being a Renaissance literary scholar to have read every single person writing in England in 1592 and then maybe instead of Dante or going the other way, right? Instead of...Richardson or Voltaire. Like maybe we should be reading more Voltaire instead of every non-entity. And I'm guilty of this because my whole project is every non-entity who published a book in 1592. So this is very much self-critique. But that more capacious sense, and that more capacious sense exactly as Jeff says, is very much aligned with how writers themselves, especially great writers, approach literature. I teach Toni Morrison in my Shakespeare class sometimes because she has a short play on Desdemona.Jeffrey Lawrence (43:47)If you ⁓Henry Oliver (44:06)So we're obviously all going to await your blog about the different editions of the Fairy Queen and your favorite things about each of them. Just give us some examples of what the big questions would be and what these empirical questions that people are. Just make it sort of concrete for us what you're talking about there.Julianne (44:11)Hawell i mean there are a lot of people who have big ideas ⁓that maybe make their way into their own work, that show up in the introduction of their own work, but that are not defining the field in a meaningful way. There are a few debates that think are actually happening within my field that are interesting, like the extent to which ⁓ Renaissance literature should be understood on national versus international lines. I think that's quite an active one that's very interesting. ⁓ But I think a lot of books written in the Renaissance, and I don't wantHenry Oliver (44:39)Mm-hmm.Julianne (45:03)topoint to any one book because these are all you know good books and books that I like but a lot of books will be have a very narrow date range a set there you know the typical organization of a book in literary studies is to have a sort of thematic topic not always thematics sometimes it'sbook historical or cultural, but ⁓ often it will be a thematic topic. Say a topic like ⁓ shame in Renaissance literature, right? So you'll take shame in Renaissance literature. This is fictional. This isn't anybody's book. If it is accidentally somebody's book, I apologize. Shame in Renaissance literature, okay? And then you'll have this ⁓ contextualizing introduction where you might bring in a bit of Foucault and you might bring in various other theorists.Henry Oliver (45:23)Mm-hmm.Sure, sure,Jeffrey Lawrence (45:39)YouJulianne (45:52)But you will also go very, very deeply into, say, sermons, right, the sermon literature. And then you'll have five chapters. you know, one will be like Shakespeare play, and then maybe one will be Spencer. And then maybe one will be somebody, you know, more marginal or be Ben Johnson or there'll be Webster, you know. ⁓ And then you will put them, you know, this is the method of New Hizorizis. You'll put them beside legal documents and you'll put them beside sermons and you'll put them beside other very, very contextualized and often very well contextualized.works from the period. But you won't write a book that is like, you know, literature and shame, you know, across three centuries ⁓ that would then maybe potentially think about, you know, is there a fundamentally different way that drama versus the novel represent shame? Does this help us understand long range debates about interiority? And again, it's not that nobody ever does this. It's that the feelI feel English literature used to be more aligned over around these kind of shared long-term questions and debates and they're much less aligned around them now because of specialization and because of the sort of dynamic of know decline and and narrowing of prospects that Jeff has mentioned.Henry Oliver (47:11)A lot of people complain about the administrators, the way funding is done, the way you can only get funding for certain types of work, career structures, all these structural factors that make life either difficult as an academic or just force you into certain decisions and activities. ⁓ To what extent is writing on Substack actually going to be a beneficial solution?to get around those problems and to what extent is it just going to be a sort of useful addition and is going to be very stimulating for you all but might not, you know, might not actually change things. What's your sense of that?Jeffrey Lawrence (47:54)This was something I've thought about this a lot because I wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education. think Julianne and I have both write or have written for the Chronicle and something that was on the public humanities and I very specifically this is 2022 or 2023 said like, sub stack is not going to be the solution. Partially and my point there was something that I still believe to a certain extent which is thatas someone who has worked in different public humanities ⁓ programs, as someone who knows to a certain degree the publishing industry in the US and Latin America and has done work on that, I think that it's hard to ⁓ exaggerate the degree to which funding for this type of research, it's just really expensive and the existing funding models that exist for something like Substack or I mean any other sort of ⁓platform economy, even public humanities projects, it's just really hard to do. So I'm much more in favor. So I think Substack is really important as a venue. I think that as a potential model for, you know, a sustainable model for doing academic scholarship, I see a lot more limitations. And that's why I've said, I mean, I think in some ways, if the types of conversations that happen on Substack,could be then imported back into our fields. Like, I don't think we should just destroy the institutions and get rid of these departments. I think that there needs to be a sort of infusion of these types of debates that are happening on Substack in the university, because the universities have funding, you know, have funding. And I think it's partially about fighting for that, this kind of holistic thing that we've been talking about up to this point.Julianne (49:49)Yeah, I completely agree. That's my view as well. I don't think that Substack's funding model would actually be good for scholarship. I'm not saying that you couldn't get a few people making it viable, but for a scholarship as a whole, I think it would be terrible for scholarship as a whole. At the same time, for the reasons we've been discussing here, we need to be talking with other people and not just with people in our subfield of a subfield of a subfield. And Substack is great for that.Henry Oliver (50:18)I sometimes think that if you can draw a distinction between scholarship and criticism, the academy can keep the scholarship and the criticism needs to come outside. You can all still write it, right? But it needs to be done in a way that is free of all the institutional incentives and constraints and just all that problem and you can all just be free to say other things online.Jeffrey Lawrence (50:43)I mean, just very quickly on that, I mean, I do think that in my personal case, because I came to Substack partially because I had a very bad experience with a kind of ⁓ a piece that I had pitched to like a venue that was, you know, sort of like progressive venue where I felt like I was saying things about contemporary author that everyone else was saying, right? It was a kind of public secret, a kind of critique of this writer.And I felt like it was not going to be published in any of those venues and in the Academy itself, that would be a problem. And not because this was something that even, you know, sort of ⁓ departed so much from things that people would say, but just because of kind of like the power structures. And since I've been on Substack, I've had multiple people, particularly with the first Substack piece that I wrote, but with other ones as well.Henry Oliver (51:11)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (51:35)people in academia telling me, thank you for saying this. And also I'm reading your sub stack as an academic right now. But I also, do think that there remains, I mean, it's changing, but I do think that there's speaking of shame, like there are people who they're just not sure as graduate students.what they can say and what they can't say. And I think that's a real issue. So I agree, criticism is important, but even for scholarships too, I think that there need to be taboos that are broken in order for scholarship, as Julianne said, to kind of like return to that more sort of vibrant feel that it once had.Julianne (52:20)Yeah, I think that's right. Obviously those taboos are less present in my field than in yours because the contemporary stakes are much less clear. ⁓ And sometimes I'm jealous of people who work in the contemporary field because there are stakes. And then I hear things like what you just said and I'm no longer so jealous. But yeah, no, do think that...Henry Oliver (52:35)YouJeffrey Lawrence (52:35)YouJulianne (52:46)People, even beyond what you would think that they would plausibly need to be, people are very cautious and graduate students especially are very cautious and even having the example of people saying things publicly is incredibly important and helpful.Henry Oliver (53:02)It's interesting how many PhD students there are on Substack. There are several English literature PhD students and I find it amazing actually that they're writing a Substack ⁓ rather than writing something academic. This to me is a very clear signal of something is changing, right? Something important is changing.Jeffrey Lawrence (53:28)I would say it's pragmatic too. I mean, I don't think that there's any reason people shouldn't graduate students. I don't think that they necessarily need to have a substack, but I also, I just think that there's a kind of recognition that, you know, especially at this moment, mean, frankly, with a lot of this does have to do with the Trump administration and kind of the way that it's been directed very specifically at, you know, sort of the humanities andHenry Oliver (53:47)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (53:53)So I do think that there's a kind of sense that the hiring isn't happening. And so it's like, well, why am I going to invest in this very small possibility of getting an, an academic job or even better yet, I'm going to build my own audience. I'm going to talk about these things because that's going to empower me at the moment in which I'm actually looking for jobs. So I, I, I'm like, I agree with you that I think it's just like, ⁓ it's a pretty astonishing thing.in the sense of the sort of initiative, but it also kind of makes sense given the world that exists.Julianne (54:30)Yeah, mean, you know, our graduate students are not.coming in, I'm sure yours are the same way, they're not coming in thinking they're going to get jobs ⁓ anymore. So they're coming in thinking, I have six years to build the kind of intellectual life to become the kind of writer and the kind of thinker that I want to be. And that's the priority, much more than anything sort of pragmatic about what they might do in terms of future career prospects, because most of them have absolutely no idea. It's much more about how can I find an intellectual community? How can I become the kindintellectual I want to be. And if academia is not going to be their home long term for that, it cannot be in academia. It has to be elsewhere. In addition, now that there are fewer conferences, journals, you know, are delayed by years. That was another thing that got me on Substack is I wrote a review.And I wrote the review as soon as I got the book. I wrote the review that I was asked to review. Then like, you know, six weeks, sent it back. ⁓ It took four years for the review to appear in that journal. And I was like, why, how can we possibly have a conversation when this journal has just been sitting on this copy edited review until they could find a slot for it in their, you know, in this day and age? How can that be the case? You know, so I think, you know, that's also part of what's going on.Henry Oliver (55:49)Yes.So are you running introduction to sub-stack classes for your graduate students? This is not yet, yes.Julianne (55:59)No, not yet, not yet.Jeffrey Lawrence (56:00)Yeah, yeah. I mean,interestingly, we had an event with Lincoln Michelle, who's a very popular at Rutgers, who's a very popular Substack writer. I mean, that was one of our, was a hugely well attended event. I mean, I do think, and it doesn't necessarily need to be just Substack, but I think public intellectual work, think graduate students and also undergraduates, they want to understand this because they know ⁓Henry Oliver (56:08)Mm-mm.Jeffrey Lawrence (56:29)precisely what Julianne said, that it's not gonna work for them to just stay in their lane and keep the blinders on and keep going. Even if they want a career in academia, they know that they need to be involved in these other things. so, I mean, to the extent that I think we can do that in our institutions and give them a sense of what's going on, I mean, definitely we're thinking about that at Rutgers.Henry Oliver (56:55)If the humanities goes into some sort of terminal decline and there are fewer departments and the student numbers never recover and all these blah blah blah, all these bad things, ⁓ does it matter?Julianne (57:08)Well, for what? mean...Jeffrey Lawrence (57:10)Ha ha.Henry Oliver (57:10)Well, because everyone talksabout it like, the humanities are dying, this is terrible. And I'm like, what's the problem? We had like English literature was the number one subject for undergraduates, and now it's not, right? What is the actual problem if the humanities are in this terminal decline? No, I get that it's all bad for you. Yeah, no, for all of you, of course, right? But like, what's the what's the actual problem here? Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (57:27)You mean besides the jobs of, mean, because part of that, right, right, Yeah, for us. But for society.Henry Oliver (57:38)Obviously when someone doesn't have a job or can't get a job, like of course, of course. But can you give us a succinct explanation of why people who are not involved in it should care about the decline of the humanities or should recognize that it's something that we don't want to happen in some way?Julianne (57:56)I mean, I think the sort of simplest thing is that we still do have, it's fading, but we still do have some shared cultural literary heritage ⁓ or basis. Yeah, I don't use the word heritage since it's a kind of nationally charged word, but some kind of shared basis that allows us to talk with each other about literature. ⁓ And most of this, think, is predicated not on the university, but on the high school canon.Henry Oliver (58:11)Sure.Julianne (58:25)is an extension of that. So I think our number one thing should be the high school curriculum. ⁓ But then our number two thing should be ⁓ ensuring that people have some kind of foundation in, you know, a...as wide a range as we can give them of literary texts that they get in university because that is the basis of a shared literary culture. I don't think you get, you know, I don't think you get a wider literary culture where people can talk about things, ⁓ you know, like 18th century books or, you know, 19th or 20th century books across the world ⁓ without having some kind of institutional basis, having some kind of shared institutional structure that people have passed through. Otherwise, what you will get is people, you know, picking up thingsyou know, a bit here, a bit there. Some of them will be so unfamiliar that they will be put off by it. Some of them maybe won't. ⁓ But you won't get anything like a common culture. And for me, that's sort of intrinsically good. But there is also this kind of idealistic ⁓ democratic aspect to this that you got in the mid-20th century in the post-war expansion of higher education and also the expansion of public education. This idea that you would have a citizenship thatbe participating in intellectual, philosophical, and political culture at a very high level. I don't see how you get that without having some kind of shared institutional basis for it.Jeffrey Lawrence (59:50)Yeah, mean, would just, yeah, I think everything and then maybe the only like word that I would use that you didn't use there is just kind of like literacy. mean, cultural literacy, but actual literacy, because I do think that beyond the culture wars, like the one thing that I think I'd like across the political spectrum is that there is this sense that a certain ability to read and to engage in civic life is declining.⁓ And so, yeah, I mean, I think that reading all sorts of texts is important and having cultural literacy is important to having an informed citizenry. So that to me seems like the reason for doing it. But as Julianne says, and maybe this doesn't totally answer the question, because I do think some of these are perhaps like for us at the college level, it's a little bit downstream of these sort of.broader issues, which is one more reason I think that making the case about why we should care about literature is also on us. It shouldn't just be assumed, as you're saying, Henry, that because we want jobs that this is good for everyone. I think we need to make that case.Henry Oliver (1:01:05)Will you be making that case on Substack?Jeffrey Lawrence (1:01:09)Yeah, mean, don't know, I mean, I think, you know, sort of more and more, I do think that, you know, that we need to be doing this. I mean, for me, everything that's happened over the past couple of years, I think the way my sense of kind of like the failure of a certain liberal project after the Trump election, you know, last year was really important to me in saying there is a way that we're going about the assumptions that we have aboutHenry Oliver (1:01:10)HahahaJulianne (1:01:11)ThankJeffrey Lawrence (1:01:38)literacy and what we should be doing and the role of academic scholarship. I mean, that I feel like was a turning point, at least personally for me. And I think engaging in places like Substack, but just generally in like public culture, to me, seems like it's just like it is the one avenue that we have. So yes, I guess.Henry Oliver (1:02:00)If your colleagues are listening and you both want to say something to them to encourage them onto Substack, what would you say?Julianne (1:02:10)Jeff, your colleagues, ⁓ do they subscribe to your Substack? Because one of the things that has happened is at first nobody, you know, I told a couple friends, but nobody else knew about this. But now more and more members of my department have subscribed to my Substack, which feels like, which does make it feel sort of high stakes in a different way. Has that happened to you?Henry Oliver (1:02:28)YouJeffrey Lawrence (1:02:32)I'm still pretty under the radar. ⁓ I have some colleagues, I know that there's some graduate students who also read it, ⁓ I mean, and colleague is a small thing. I'm more like, you my colleagues, have a great relationship with my department. I talk to them and sort of, but I think it's more like colleagues in general in terms of the academy that is important.Right? mean, and it again, I don't think it necessarily has to be sub-stacked, but it just shouldn't be Twitter. mean, I think that the long form writing that one finds in the debates for me, at least this is where it's happening right now. And so that would be my pitch is that I just think that the debates that are happening are better than they are anywhere else on the internet.Henry Oliver (1:03:18)Thank you both. I thought this was very interesting and I hope it encourages more of your peers to come and join us on Substack This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk
Hoy vamos a hablar de poesía. De poesía mística. De poesía sagrada. De poesía escrita para alcanzar todos los márgenes del alma. Vamos a hablar de uno de los mayores poetas del siglo XX cuya vida parece haber sido vivida para que la contásemos algún día en Nadie al Volante, sabiendo nuestra propensión por estas vidas vividas al límite, o sin límite; entre la locura y la genialidad, entre lo absolutamente terrenal y lo angélico; vidas que parecen estar creadas para ser vivido solamente en la imaginación y que fueron absolutamente reales. Poeta, dramaturgo, político, místico… una vida de esas que no se dejan nada para la vuelta. Nuestro Gordo Buda, Harold Bloom, decía de él, que era un autor que profesaba la religión de la poesía y que escribía en perpetuo estado de fuego. Fue senador del Estado libre de Irlanda en 1922. También fue miembro de la Orden Hermética de la Aurora Dorada, que se trataba de una sociedad secreta dedicada al estudio y la práctica del ocultismo y del hermetismo. Fundó dos teatros para que su amada irlanda pudiera salir de la tiranía cultural inglesa y desarrollar su propia vida cultural y artística. Conoció íntimamente a personajes de la talla de Oscar Wilde o Madame Blavatski; fue alumno del poeta William Henley, tuvo de secretario al poeta Ezra Pound… definitivamente se trata de una vida tan apasionante que hemos tenido que llamar a filas a nuestro poeta de cabecera, Gabriel Moreno desde Londres, para instalar nuestra barricada simbólica de la sección Poetical Resistance, para tratar de descubrir las claves de la vida y la obra de este autor mayúsculo. Así que vamos a desempolvar los cuentos de hadas y de duendes, para descubrir los espíritus de la naturaleza; vamos a enamorarnos de irlandesas revolucionarias cuyo espíritu va a infundirnos el valor de la lucha por la tierra, vamos a navegar hasta un Bizancio mental para huir de la vejez y de las palabras agotadas para descubrir que nuestra inspiración nos está esperando en una vieja torre donde resuenan las campanas de las iglesias de los espíritus de los poetas muertos. Hablamos del poeta William Butler Yeats.
Federico Ferrari"Ritratti"Luca Sossella Editorewww.lucasossellaeditore.itPer eseguire un buon ritratto occorre che il modello stia fermo, possibilmente immobile. Se il soggetto si muove, se è irrequieto o si rifiuta di stare in posa, di assumere una posa, allora il ritratto si rivela impossibile.Chi legge troverà nelle pagine che seguono, dunque, dei ritratti sui generis, perché le autrici e gli autori che ne dovrebbero essere al centro sono tra i più irrequieti che il secolo scorso abbia prodotto. Sfuggenti come pochi altri, permettono a malapena di tracciare uno schizzo, una figura mossa, talvolta, al limite dell'irriconoscibile. Questi ritratti sono, in fondo, un modo per liberare questi grandi autori dalla propria identità o, forse in un eccesso di fiducia, per liberarli da ogni identità, dall'ingombro che ogni identità porta con sé. E poiché, come noto, ogni dipintore dipinge se stesso, è anche un modo di liberare chi scrive dalla propria identità.Ritratti di Ingeborg Bachmann, Thomas Bernhard, Harold Bloom, Adone Brandalise, Cristina Campo, Guido Ceronetti, Ioan Petru Culianu, David Graeber, Ivan Illich, Pierre Klossowski, Anna Maria Ortese, Tom Seidmann-Freud, Ferdinando Tartaglia.Federico Ferrari, docente di Filosofia dell'arte all'Accademia di Belle Arti di Brera, è stato visiting professor in diverse università europee e ha scritto una decina di libri, tradotti nelle principali lingue del mondo.Per LSe ha pubblicato Lo spazio critico (2004), Il re è nudo (2011), Il silenzio dell'arte (2021), L'anarca (2023) e, con Jean-Luc Nancy, Iconografia dell'autore (2006) e Estasi (2022).Diventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/il-posto-delle-parole--1487855/support.IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarehttps://ilpostodelleparole.it/
“No endeavor to write a travel book is ever lost, since it gives you a useful perspective on (and intensified attention to) the reality of the travel experience itself. When embraced mindfully, the real-time experience of a journey is invariably its truest reward.” –Rolf Potts In this episode of Deviate, Rolf touches on nine lessons from attempting to write a (never finished) van-life vagabonding memoir at age 23, including: On Pilgrims in a Sliding World (1:00) Lesson #1: No work is lost (and “failure” has lessons to teach) On the author as a character (6:30) Lesson #2: “Show, don't tell” is still good narrative advice On depicting other people (14:30) Lesson #3: Travel books require reporting (not just recollecting) On recounting dialogues (22:30) Lesson #4: Be true to what was said (but make sure it serves a broader purpose) On veering from the truth (32:30) Lesson #5: The truth tends to work better than whatever you might make up On depicting places (39:30) Lesson #6: “Telling details” are better than broad generalizations about a place On neurotic young-manhood (48:30) Lesson #7: Balance narrative analysis with narrative vulnerability The seeds of Vagabonding (1:01:30) Lesson #8: Over time, we write our way into what we have to say The journey was the point (1:06:30) Lesson #9: In the end, taking the journey counts for more than writing it Books mentioned: The Geto Boys, by Rolf Potts (2016 book) Vagabonding, by Rolf Potts (2003 book) The Anxiety of Influence, by Harold Bloom (1973 book) On the Road, by Jack Kerouac (1957 book) The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger (1951 book) Epic of Gilgamesh (12th century BCE Mesopotamian epic) Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes (17th century novel) The Travels of Sir John Mandeville (14th century travelogue) True History, by Lucian of Samosata (2nd century novella) Three Cups of Tea, by Greg Mortenson (21st century memoir) Marco Polo Didn't Go There, by Rolf Potts (2008 book) Labels: A Mediterranean Journal, by Evelyn Waugh (1930 book) Essays, poems, and short stories mentioned "The Mystical High Church of Luck," by Rolf Potts (1998 essay) "Greenland is Not Bigger Than South America", by Rolf Potts (1998 essay) “The Faces,” by Robert Creeley (1983 poem) "Reflection and Retrospection," by Phillip Lopate (2005 essay) "Why so much travel writing is so boring," by Thomas Swick (2001 essay) "10 Rules of Writing," by Elmore Leonard (2001 essay) "In the Penal Colony," by Franz Kafka (1919 short story) Places and events mentioned People's Park (activist park in Berkeley) 924 Gilman Street (punk-rock club in Berkeley) Alphabet City (neighborhood New York City's East Village) Brentwood (Los Angeles neighborhood) 1994 Northridge earthquake Panama City Beach (Florida spring-break city) Gainesville (Florida college town) Athens (Georgia college town) Big Sur (coastal region of California) Humboldt Redwoods State Park (park in California) Other links: "Van Life before #VanLife" (Deviate episode) Paris Writing Workshops (Rolf's annual creative writing classes) Picaresque (prose genre) Roman à clef (fictionalized novel about real-life events) "Jumping freight trains in the Pacific NW" (Deviate episode) "Telling travel stories, with Andrew McCarthy" (Deviate episode) "Rolf Potts: The Vagabond's Way" (Ari Shaffir's Skeptic Tank podcast) "A personal history of my grunge-bandwagon band" (Deviate episode) Gettysburg Address (Abraham Lincoln speech) José Ortega y Gasset (Spanish philosopher) Jack Handey (American humorist known for "Deep Thoughts" jokes) Laurel Lee (American memoirist) The Deviate theme music comes from the title track of Cedar Van Tassel's 2017 album Lumber. Note: We don't host a “comments” section, but we're happy to hear your questions and insights via email, at deviate@rolfpotts.com.
“No endeavor to write a travel book is ever lost, since it gives you a useful perspective on (and intensified attention to) the reality of the travel experience itself. When embraced mindfully, the real-time experience of a journey is invariably its truest reward.” –Rolf Potts In this episode of Deviate, Rolf touches on nine lessons from attempting to write a (never finished) van-life vagabonding memoir at age 23, including: On Pilgrims in a Sliding World (1:00) Lesson #1: No work is lost (and “failure” has lessons to teach) On the author as a character (6:30) Lesson #2: “Show, don't tell” is still good narrative advice On depicting other people (14:30) Lesson #3: Travel books require reporting (not just recollecting) On recounting dialogues (22:30) Lesson #4: Be true to what was said (but make sure it serves a broader purpose) On veering from the truth (32:30) Lesson #5: The truth tends to work better than whatever you might make up On depicting places (39:30) Lesson #6: “Telling details” are better than broad generalizations about a place On neurotic young-manhood (48:30) Lesson #7: Balance narrative analysis with narrative vulnerability The seeds of Vagabonding (1:01:30) Lesson #8: Over time, we write our way into what we have to say The journey was the point (1:06:30) Lesson #9: In the end, taking the journey counts for more than writing it Books mentioned: The Geto Boys, by Rolf Potts (2016 book) Vagabonding, by Rolf Potts (2003 book) The Anxiety of Influence, by Harold Bloom (1973 book) On the Road, by Jack Kerouac (1957 book) The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger (1951 book) Epic of Gilgamesh (12th century BCE Mesopotamian epic) Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes (17th century novel) The Travels of Sir John Mandeville (14th century travelogue) True History, by Lucian of Samosata (2nd century novella) Three Cups of Tea, by Greg Mortenson (21st century memoir) Marco Polo Didn't Go There, by Rolf Potts (2008 book) Labels: A Mediterranean Journal, by Evelyn Waugh (1930 book) Essays, poems, and short stories mentioned "The Mystical High Church of Luck," by Rolf Potts (1998 essay) "Greenland is Not Bigger Than South America", by Rolf Potts (1998 essay) “The Faces,” by Robert Creeley (1983 poem) "Reflection and Retrospection," by Phillip Lopate (2005 essay) "Why so much travel writing is so boring," by Thomas Swick (2001 essay) "10 Rules of Writing," by Elmore Leonard (2001 essay) "In the Penal Colony," by Franz Kafka (1919 short story) Places and events mentioned People's Park (activist park in Berkeley) 924 Gilman Street (punk-rock club in Berkeley) Alphabet City (neighborhood New York City's East Village) Brentwood (Los Angeles neighborhood) 1994 Northridge earthquake Panama City Beach (Florida spring-break city) Gainesville (Florida college town) Athens (Georgia college town) Big Sur (coastal region of California) Humboldt Redwoods State Park (park in California) Other links: "Van Life before #VanLife" (Deviate episode) Paris Writing Workshops (Rolf's annual creative writing classes) Picaresque (prose genre) Roman à clef (fictionalized novel about real-life events) "Jumping freight trains in the Pacific NW" (Deviate episode) "Telling travel stories, with Andrew McCarthy" (Deviate episode) "Rolf Potts: The Vagabond's Way" (Ari Shaffir's Skeptic Tank podcast) "A personal history of my grunge-bandwagon band" (Deviate episode) Gettysburg Address (Abraham Lincoln speech) José Ortega y Gasset (Spanish philosopher) Jack Handey (American humorist known for "Deep Thoughts" jokes) Laurel Lee (American memoirist) The Deviate theme music comes from the title track of Cedar Van Tassel's 2017 album Lumber. Note: We don't host a “comments” section, but we're happy to hear your questions and insights via email, at deviate@rolfpotts.com.
What makes a bookstore more than four walls and shelves of paper? In this episode, I read a short essay about how bookstores can help us rediscover ourselves. I'll also share a powerful book recommendation—The Best Poems of the English Language, edited by Harold Bloom—and tell you about my Kickstarter campaign to launch Edgewater Bookstore. If you've ever wandered the aisles of a local bookstore and felt like you were finding a lost part of yourself, this episode is for you.
In this interview, Lamorna Ash, author of Don't Forget We're Here Forever: A New Generation's Search for Religion, and one of my favourite modern writers, talked about working at the Times Literary Supplement, netball, M. John Harrison, AI and the future of religion, why we should be suspicious of therapy, the Anatomy of Melancholy, the future of writing, what surprised her in the Bible, the Simpsons, the joy of Reddit, the new Pope, Harold Bloom, New Atheism's mistakes, reading J.S. Mill. I have already recommended her new book Don't Forget We're Here Forever, which Lamorna reads aloud from at the end. Full transcript below.Uploading videos onto Substack is too complicated for me (it affects podcast downloads somehow, and the instructions to avoid this problem are complicated, so I have stopped doing it), and to upload to YouTube I have to verify my account but they told me that after I tried to upload it and my phone is dead, so… here is the video embedded on this page. I could quote the whole thing. Here's one good section.Lamorna: Which one would you say I should do first after The Sea, The Sea?Henry: Maybe The Black Prince.Lamorna: The Black Prince. Great.Henry: Which is the one she wrote before The Sea, The Sea and is just a massive masterpiece.Lamorna: I'll read it. Where do you stand on therapy? Do you have a position?Henry: I think on net, it might be a bad thing, even if it is individually useful for people.Lamorna: Why is that?Henry: [laughs] I didn't expect to have to answer the question. Basically two reasons. I think it doesn't take enough account of the moral aspect of the decisions being made very often. This is all very anecdotal and you can find yourself feeling better in the short term, but not necessarily in the long-- If you make a decision that's not outrageously immoral, but which has not had enough weight placed on the moral considerations.There was an article about how lots of people cut out relatives now and the role that therapy plays in that. What I was struck by in the article that was-- Obviously, a lot of those people are justified and their relatives have been abusive or nasty, of course, but there are a lot of cases where you were like, "Well, this is a long-term decision that's been made on a short-term basis." I think in 10 years people may feel very differently. There wasn't enough consideration in the article, at least I felt, given to how any children involved would be affected later on. I think it's a good thing and a bad thing.Lamorna: I'm so with you. I think that's why, because also the fact of it being so private and it being about the individual, and I think, again, there are certain things if you're really struggling with that, it's helpful for, but I think I'm always more into the idea of communal things, like AAA and NA, which obviously a very particular. Something about doing that together, that it's collaborative and therefore there is someone else in the room if you say, "I want to cut out my parent."There's someone else who said that happened to me and it was really hard. It means that you are making those decisions together a little bit more. Therapy, I can feel that in friends and stuff that it does make us, even more, think that we are these bounded individuals when we're not.Henry: I should say, I have known people who've gone to therapy and it's worked really well.Lamorna: I'm doing therapy right now and it is good. TranscriptHenry: Today I am talking to Lamorna Ash. Lamorna is one of the rising stars of her generation. She has written a book about a fishing village in Cornwall. She's written columns for the New Statesman, of which I'm a great admirer. She works for a publisher and now she's written a book called, Don't Forget, We're Here Forever: A New Generation's Search for Religion. I found this book really compelling and I hope you will go and read it right now. Lamorna, welcome.Lamorna Ash: Thank you for having me.Henry: What was it like when you worked at the Times Literary Supplement?Lamorna: It was an amazing introduction to mostly contemporary fiction, but also so many other forms of writing I didn't know about. I went there, I actually wrote a letter, handwritten letter after my finals, saying that I'd really enjoyed this particular piece that somehow linked the anatomy of melancholy to infinite jest, and being deeply, deeply, deeply pretentious, those were my two favorite books. I thought, well, I'll apply for this magazine. I turned up there as an intern. They happened to have a space going.My job was Christmas in that I just spent my entire time unwrapping books and putting them out for editors to swoop by and take away. I'd take on people's corrections. I'd start to see how the editorial process worked. I started reading. I somehow had missed contemporary fiction. I hadn't read people like Rachel Kask or Nausgaard. I was reading them through going to the fiction pages. It made me very excited. Also, my other job whilst I was there, was I had the queries email. You'd get loads of incredibly random emails, including things like, you are cordially invited to go on the Joseph Conrad cycle tour of London. I'd ask the office, "Does anyone want to do this?" Obviously, no one ever said yes.I had this amazing year of doing really weird stuff, like going on Joseph Conrad cycling tour or going to a big talk at the comic book museum or the new advertising museum of London. I loved it. I really loved it.Henry: What was the Joseph Conrad cycling tour of London like? That sounds-Lamorna: Oh, it was so good. I remember at one point we stopped on maybe it was Blackfriars Bridge or perhaps it was Tower Bridge and just read a passage from the secret agent about the boats passing underneath. Then we'd go to parts of the docks where they believe that Conrad stayed for a while, but instead it would be some fancy youth hostel instead.It was run by the Polish Society of London, I believe-- the Polish Society of England, I believe. Again, each time it was like an excuse then to get into that writer and then write a little piece about it for the TLS. I guess, it was also, I was slightly cutting my teeth on how to do that kind of journalism as well.Henry: What do you like about The Anatomy of Melancholy?Lamorna: Almost everything. I think the prologue, Democritus Junior to the Reader is just so much fun and naughty. He says, "I'm writing about melancholy in order to try and avoid melancholy myself." There's six editions of it. He spent basically his entire life writing this book. When he made new additions to the book, rather than adding another chapter, he would often be making insertions within sentences themselves, so it becomes more and more bloated. There's something about the, what's the word for it, the ambition that I find so remarkable of every single possible version of melancholy they could talk about.Then, maybe my favorite bit, and I think about this as a writer a lot, is there's a bit called the digression of air, or perhaps it's digression on the air, where he just suddenly takes the reader soaring upwards to think about air and you sort of travel up like a hawk. It's this sort of breathing moment for a reader where you go in a slightly different direction. I think in my own writing, I always think about digression as this really valuable bit of nonfiction, this sense of, I'm not just taking you straight the way along. I think it'd be useful to go sideways a bit too.Henry: That was Samuel Johnson's favorite book as well. It's a good choice.Lamorna: Was it?Henry: Yes. He said that it was the only book that would get him out of bed in the morning.Lamorna: Really?Henry: Because he was obviously quite depressive. I think he found it useful as well as entertaining, as it were. Should netball be an Olympic sport?Lamorna: [laughs] Oh, it's already going to be my favorite interview. I think the reason it isn't an Olympic-- yes, I have a vested interest in netball and I play netball once a week. I'm not very good, but I am very enthusiastic because it's only played mostly in the Commonwealth. It was invented a year after basketball as a woman-friendly version because women should not run with the ball in case they get overexerted and we shouldn't get too close to contacting each other in case we touch, and that's awful.It really is only played in the Commonwealth. I think the reason it won't become an Olympic sport is because it's not worldwide enough, which I think is a reasonable reason. I'm not, of all the my big things that I want to protest about and care about right now, making that an Olympic sport is a-- it's reasonably low on my list.Henry: Okay, fair enough. You are an admirer of M. John Harrison's fiction, is that right?Lamorna: Yes.Henry: Tell us what should we read and why should we read him?Lamorna: You Should Come With Me Now, is that what it's called? I know I reviewed one of his books years ago and thought it was-- because he's part of that weird sci-fi group that I find really interesting and they've all got a bit of Samuel Delany to them as well. I just remember there was this one particular story in that collection, I think in general, he's a master at sci-fi that doesn't feel in that Dune way of just like, lists of names of places. It somehow has this, it's very literary, it's very odd, it's deeply imaginative. It is like what I wanted adult fiction to be when I was 12 or something, that there's the way the fantasy and imagination works.I remember there was one about all these men, married men who were disappearing into their attics and their wives thought they were just tinkering. What they were doing was building these sort of translucent tubes that were taking them off out of the world. I remember just thinking it was great. His conceits are brilliant and make so much sense, whilst also always being at an interesting slant from reality. Then, I haven't read his memoir, but I hear again and again this anti-memoir he's written. Have you read that?Henry: No.Lamorna: Apparently that's really brilliant too. Then he also, writes those about climbing. He's actually got this one foot in the slightly travel nature writing sports camp. I just always thought he was magic. I remember on Twitter, he was really magic as well. I spent a lot of time following him.Henry: Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of writing and literature and books and this whole debate that's going on?Lamorna: It's hard to. I don't want to say anything fast and snappy because it's such a complicated thing. I could just start by saying personally, I'm worried about me and writing because I'm worried about my concentration span. I am so aware that in the same way that a piano player has to be practising the pieces they're going to play all the time. I think partly that's writing and writing, I seem to be able to do even with this broken, distracted form of attention I've got. My reading, I don't feel like I'm getting enough in. I think that means that what I produce will necessarily be less good if I can't solve that.I've just bought a dumb phone on the internet and I hope that's going to help me by no longer having Instagram and things like that. I think, yes, I suppose we do read a bit less. The generation below us is reading less. That's a shame. There's so much more possibility to go out and meet people from different places. On an anthropological level, I think anthropology has had this brilliant turn of becoming more subjective. The places you go, you have to think about your own relationship to them. I think that can make really interesting writing. It's so different from early colonial anthropology.The fact that, I guess, through, although even as I'm saying this, I don't know enough to say it, but I was going to say something about the fact that people, because we can do things like substacks and people can do short form content, maybe that means that more people's voices are getting heard and then they can, if they want to, transfer over and write books as well.I still get excited by books all the time. There's still so much good contemporary stuff that's thrilling me from all over the place. I don't feel that concerned yet. If we all do stop writing books entirely for a year and just read all the extraordinary books that have been happening for the last couple of thousand, we'd be okay.Henry: I simultaneously see the same people complaining that everything's dying and literature is over and that we have an oversupply of books and that capitalism is giving us too many books and that's the problem. I'm like, "Guys, I think you should pick one."Lamorna: [laughs] You're not allowed both those arguments. My one is that I do think it's gross, the bit of publishing that the way that some of these books get so oddly inflated in terms of the sales around them. Then, someone is getting a million pounds for a debut, which is enormous pressure on them. Then, someone else is getting 2K. I feel like there should be, obviously, there should be a massive cap on how large an advance anyone should get, and then more people will actually be able to stay in the world of writing because they won't have to survive on pitiful advances. I think that would actually have a huge impact and we should not be giving, love David Beckham as much as I do, we shouldn't be giving him five million pounds for someone else to go to write his books. It's just crazy.Henry: Don't the sales of books like that subsidize those of us who are not getting such a big advance?Lamorna: I don't think they always do. I think that's the problem is that they do have this wealth of funds to give to celebrities and often those books don't sell either. I still think even if those books sell a huge amount of money, those people still shouldn't be getting ridiculous advances like that. They still should be thinking about young people who are important to the literary, who are going to produce books that are different and surprising and whose voices we need to hear. That feels much more important.Henry: What do you think about the idea that maybe Anglo fiction isn't at a peak? I don't necessarily agree with that, but maybe we can agree that these are not the days of George Eliot and Charles Dickens, but the essay nonfiction periodicals and writing online, this is huge now. Right? Actually, our pessimism is sort of because we're looking in the wrong area and there are other forms of writing that flourish, actually doing great on the internet.Lamorna: Yes, I think so too. Again, I don't think I'm internet worldly enough to know this, but I still find these extraordinary, super weird substats that feel exciting. I also get an enormous amount of pleasure in reading Reddit now, which I only just got into many, many years late, but so many fun, odd things. Like little essays that people write and the way that people respond to each other, which is quick and sharp, and I suppose it fills the gap of what Twitter was.I think nonfiction, I was talking about this morning, because I'm staying with some writers, because we're sort of Cornish, book talk thing together and how much exciting nonfiction has come out this year that we want to read from the UK that is hybrid-y nature travel. Then internationally, I still think there's-- I just read, Perfection by Vincenzo, but there's enough translated fiction that's on the international book list this year that gets me delighted as well. To me, I just don't feel worried about that kind of thing at all when there's so much exciting stuff happening.I love Reddit. I think they really understand things that other people don't on there. I think it's the relief now that when you type in something to Google, you get the AI response. It's something like, it's so nice to feel on Reddit that someone sat down and answered you. Maybe that's such a shame that that's what makes me happy now, that we're in that space. It does feel like someone will tell you not just the answer, but then give you a bit about their life. Then, the particular tool that was passed down by their grandparents. That's so nice.Henry: What do you think of the new Pope?Lamorna: I thought it was because I'd heard all the thing around fat Pope, thin Pope, and obviously, our new Pope is maybe a sort of middle Pope, or at least is closer to Francis, but maybe a bit more palatable to some people. I guess, I'm excited that he's going to do, or it seems like he's also taking time to think, but he's good on migration on supporting the rights of immigrants. I think there's value in the fact of him being American as this being this counterpoint to what's happening in America right now. If feels always feels pointless to say because they're almost the idea of a Pope.I guess, Francis said that, who am I to judge about people being gay, but I think this Pope has so far has been more outly against gay people, but he stood up against JD Vance and his stupid thoughts on theology. I'm quietly optimistic. I guess I'm also waiting for Robert Harris's prophecy to come true and we get an intersex Pope next. Because I think that was prophecy, right? What he wrote.Henry: That would be interesting.Lamorna: Yes.Henry: The religious revival that people say is happening, particularly among young people, how is AI going to make it different than previous religious revivals?Lamorna: Oh, that's so interesting. Maybe first of all, question, sorry, I choked on my coffee. I was slightly questioned the idea if there is a religious revival, it's not actually an argument that I made in the book. When I started writing the book, there wasn't this quiet revival or this Bible studies and survey that suggests that more young people are going to church hadn't come out yet. I was just more, I guess, aware that there were a few people around me who were converting and I thought it'd be interesting if there's a few, there'll be more, which I think probably happens in every single generation, right? Is that that's one way to deal with the longing for meaning we all experience and the struggles in our lives.I was speaking to a New York Times journalist who was questioning the stats that have been coming out because first it's incredibly small pool. It's quite self-selecting that possibly there are people who might have gone to church already. It's still such a small uptick because it makes it hard to say anything definitive. I guess in general, what will the relationship be between AI and religion?I guess, there are so many ways you could go with that. One is that those spaces, religious spaces, are nicely insulated from technology. Not everywhere. Obviously, in some places they aren't, but often it's a space in which you put your phone away. In my head, the desire to go to church is as against having to deal with AI or having to deal with technology being integrated to every other aspect of my life.I guess maybe people will start worshiping the idea of the singularity. Maybe we'll get the singularity and Terminator, or the Matrix is going to happen, and we'll call them our gods because they will feel like gods. That's maybe one option. I don't know how AI-- I guess I don't know enough about AI that maybe you'll have AI, or does this happen? Maybe this has happened already that you could have an AI confession and you'd have an AI priest and they tell you--Henry: Sure. It's huge for therapy, right?Lamorna: Yes.Henry: Which is that adjacent thing.Lamorna: That's a good point. It does feel something about-- I'm sure, theologically, it's not supposed to work if you haven't been ordained, but can an AI be ordained, become a priest?Henry: IndeedLamorna: Could they do communion? I don't know. It's fascinating.Henry: I can see a situation where a young person lives in a secular environment or culture and is interested in things and the AI is the, in some ways, easiest place for them to turn to say, "I need to talk about-- I have these weird semi-religious feelings, or I'm interested." The AI's not going to be like, "Oh, really? That's weird." There's the question of will we worship AI or whatever, but also will we get people's conversions being shaped by their therapy/confessors/whatever chat with their LLM?Lamorna: Oh, it's so interesting. I read a piece recently in the LRB by James Vincent. It was about AI relationships, our relationship with AI, and he looked at AI girlfriends. There was this incredible case, maybe you read about it, about a guy who tried to kill the Queen some years back. His defense was that his AI girlfriend had really encouraged him to do that. Then, you can see the transcripts of the text, and he says, "I'm thinking about killing the Queen." His AI girlfriend is like, "Go for it, baby."It's that thing there of like, at the moment, AI is still reflecting back our own desires or refracting almost like shifting how they're expressed. I'm trying to imagine that in the same case of me saying, "I feel really lonely, and I'm thinking about Christianity." My friend would speak with all of their context and background, and whatever they've got going on for them. Whereas an AI would feel my desire there and go, "That's a good idea. It says online this." It's very straight. It would definitely lead us in directions that feel less than human or other than human.Henry: I also have this thought, you used to, I think you still do, but you see it less. You used to get a Samaritan's Bible in every hotel. The Samaritans, will they start trying to install a religious chatbot in places where people--? There are lots of ways in which you could use it as a distribution mechanism.Lamorna: Which does feel so far from the point. Not to think about the gospels, but that feeling of something I talk about in the book is that, so much of it is human contact. Is that this factor of being changed in the moment, person to person. If I have any philosophy for life at the moment is this sense of desperately needing contact that we are saved by each other all the time, not by our telephones and things that aren't real. It's the surprise.I quote it in the book, but Iris Murdoch describes love is the very difficult realization that someone other than yourself is real. I think that's the thing that makes us all survive, is that reminder that if you're feeling deeply depressed, being like, there is someone else that is real, and they have a struggle that matters as much as mine. I think that's something that you are never going to get through a conversation with a chatbot, because it's like a therapeutic thing. You are not having to ask it the same questions, or you are not having to extend yourself to think about someone else in those conversations.Henry: Which Iris Murdoch novels do you like?Lamorna: I've only read The Sea, The Sea, but I really enjoyed it. Which ones do you like?Henry: I love The Sea, The Sea, and The Black Prince. I like the late books, like The Good Apprentice and The Philosopher's Pupil, as well. Some people tell you, "Don't read those. They're late works and they're no good," but I was obsessed. I was absolutely compelled, and they're still all in my head. They're insane.Lamorna: Oh, I must, because I've got a big collection of her essays. I'm thinking is so beautiful, her philosophical thought. It's that feeling, I know I'm going the wrong-- starting in the wrong place, but I do feel that she's someone I'd really love to explore next, kind of books.Henry: I think you'd like her because she's very interested in the question of, can therapy help, can philosophy help, can religion help? She's very dubious about therapy and philosophy, and she is mystic. There are queer characters and neurodivergent characters. For a novelist in the '70s, you read her now and you're like, "Well, this is all just happening now."Lamorna: Cool.Henry: Maybe we should be passing these books out. People need this right now.Lamorna: Which one would you say I should do first after The Sea, The Sea?Henry: Maybe The Black Prince.Lamorna: The Black Prince. Great.Henry: Which is the one she wrote before The Sea, The Sea and is just a massive masterpiece.Lamorna: I'll read it. Where do you stand on therapy? Do you have a position?Henry: I think on net, it might be a bad thing, even if it is individually useful for people.Lamorna: Why is that?Henry: [laughs] I didn't expect to have to answer the question. Basically two reasons. I think it doesn't take enough account of the moral aspect of the decisions being made very often. This is all very anecdotal and you can find yourself feeling better in the short term, but not necessarily in the long-- If you make a decision that's not outrageously immoral, but which has not had enough weight placed on the moral considerations.There was an article about how lots of people cut out relatives now and the role that therapy plays in that. What I was struck by in the article that was-- Obviously, a lot of those people are justified and their relatives have been abusive or nasty, of course, but there are a lot of cases where you were like, "Well, this is a long-term decision that's been made on a short-term basis." I think in 10 years people may feel very differently. There wasn't enough consideration in the article, at least I felt, given to how any children involved would be affected later on. I think it's a good thing and a bad thing.Lamorna: I'm so with you. I think that's why, because also the fact of it being so private and it being about the individual, and I think, again, there are certain things if you're really struggling with that, it's helpful for, but I think I'm always more into the idea of communal things, like AAA and NA, which obviously a very particular. Something about doing that together, that it's collaborative and therefore there is someone else in the room if you say, "I want to cut out my parent."There's someone else who said that happened to me and it was really hard. It means that you are making those decisions together a little bit more. Therapy, I can feel that in friends and stuff that it does make us, even more, think that we are these bounded individuals when we're not.Henry: I should say, I have known people who've gone to therapy and it's worked really well.Lamorna: I'm doing therapy right now and it is good. I think, in my head, it's like it should be one among many and I still question it whilst doing it.Henry: To the extent that there is a religious revival among "Gen Z," how much is it because they have phones? Because you wrote something like, in fact, I have the quote, "There's a sense of terrible tragedy. How can you hold this constant grief that we feel, whether it's the genocide in Gaza or climate collapse? Where do I put all the misery that I receive every single second through my phone? Church can then be a space where I can quietly go and light a candle." Is it that these young people are going to religion because the phone has really pushed a version of the world into their faces that was not present when I was young or people are older than me?Lamorna: I think it's one of, or that the phone is the symptom because the phone, whatever you call it, technology, the internet, is the thing that draws the world closer to us in so many different ways. One being that this sense of being aware of what's happening around in other places in the world, which maybe means that you become more tolerant of other religions because you're hearing about it more. That, on TikTok, there's loads of kids all across the world talking about their particular faiths and their background and which aspera they're in, and all that kind of thing.Then, this sense of horror being very unavoidable that you wake up and it is there and you wake up and you think, "What am I doing? What am I doing here? I feel completely useless." Perhaps then you end up in a church, but I'm not sure.I think a bigger player in my head is the fact that we are more pluralistic as societies. That you are more likely to encounter other religions in schools. I think then the question is, well then maybe that'll be valuable for me as well. I think also, not having parents pushing religion on you makes kids, the fact of the generation above the British people, your parents' generations, not saying religion is important, you go to church, then it becomes something people can become more curious about in their own right as adults. I think that plays into it.I think isolation plays into it and that's just not about technology and the phone, but that's the sense of-- and again, I'm thinking about early 20s, mid 20s, so adults who are moving from place to place, who maybe feel very isolated and alone, who are doing jobs that make them feel isolated and alone, and there are this dearth of community spaces and then thinking, well, didn't people used to go to churches, it would be so nice to know someone older than me.I don't know how this fits in, but I was thinking about, I saw this documentary, The Encampments, like two days ago, which is about the Columbia University encampments and within that, Mahmood Khalil, who's the one who's imprisoned at the moment, who was this amazing leader within the movement and is from Palestine. The phone in that, the sense about how it was used to gather and collect people and keep people aware of what's happening and mean that everyone is more conscious and there's a point when they need more people in the encampments because the police are going to come. It's like, "Everyone, use your phone, call people now." I think I can often be like, "Oh no, phones are terrible," but this sense within protest, within communal activity, how valuable they can be as well.I haven't quite gotten into that thought. I don't know, basically. I think it's so hard. I've grown up with a phone. I have no sense of how much it plays a part in everything about me, but obviously, it is a huge amount. I do think it's something that we all think about and are horrified by whilst also seeing it as like this weird extension of ourselves. That definitely plays into then culturally, the decisions we make to either try and avoid them, find spaces where you can be without them.Henry: How old do you think a child should be when they're first given a phone? A smartphone, like an iPhone type thing?Lamorna: I think, 21.Henry: Yes?Lamorna: No, I don't know. I obviously wouldn't know that about a child.Henry: I might.Lamorna: I'd love to. I would really love to because, I don't know, I have a few friends who weren't allowed to watch TV until they were 18 and they are eminently smarter than me and lots of my other friends. There's something about, I don't know, I hate the idea that as I'm getting older, I'm becoming more scaremongering like, "Oh no, when I was young--" because I think my generation was backed in loads of ways. This thing of kids spending so much less time outside and so much less time being able to imagine things, I think I am quite happy to say that feels like a terrible loss.I read a piece recently about kids in New York and I think they were quite sort of middle-class Brooklyn-y kids, but they choose to go days without their phones and they all go off into the forest together. There is this sense of saying giving kids autonomy, but at the same time, their relationship with a phone is not one of agency. It's them versus tech bros who have designed things that are so deeply addictive, that no adult can let go of it. Let alone a child who's still forming how to work out self-control, discipline and stuff. I think a good parenting thing would be to limit massively these completely non-neutral objects that they're given, that are made like crack and impossible to let go of.Henry: Do you think religious education in schools should be different or should there be more of it?Lamorna: Yes, I think it should be much better. I don't know about you, but I just remember doing loads of diagrams of different religious spaces like, "This is what a mosque looks like," and then I'd draw the diagram. I knew nothing. I barely knew the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In fact, I probably didn't as a teenager.I remember actually in sixth form, having this great philosophy teacher who was talking about the idea of proto antisemitism within the gospels. I was like, "Wait, what?" Because I just didn't really understand. I didn't know that it was in Greek, that the Old Testament was in Hebrew. I just didn't know. I think all these holy texts that we've been carrying with us for thousands of years across the world have so much in them that's worth reading and knowing.If I was in charge of our R.E., I would get kids to write on all holy texts, but really think about them and try and answer moral problems. You'd put philosophy back with religion and really connect them and think, what is Nietzsche reacting against? What does Freud about how is this form of Christianity different like this? I think that my sense is that since Gove, but also I'm sure way before that as well, the sense of just not taking young people seriously, when actually they're thoughtful, intelligent and able to wrestle with these things, it's good for them to have know what they're choosing against, if they're not interested in religion.Also, at base, those texts are beautiful, all of them are, and are foundational and if you want to be able to study English or history to know things about religious texts and the practices of religion and how those rituals came about and how it's changed over thousands of years, feels important.Henry: Which religious poets do you like other than Hopkins? Because you write very nicely about Hopkins in the book.Lamorna: He's my favorite. I like John Donne a lot. I remember reading lots of his sermons and Lancelot Andrews' sermons at university and thinking they were just astonishingly beautiful. There are certain John Donne sermons and it's this feeling of when he takes just maybe a line from one of Paul's letters and then is able to extend it and extend it, and it's like he's making it grow in material or it's like it's a root where suddenly all these branches are coming off it.Who else do I like? I like George Herbert. Gosh, my brain is going in terms of who else was useful when I was thinking about. Oh it's gone.Henry: Do you like W.H. Auden?Lamorna: Oh yes. I love Auden, yes. I was rereading his poems about, oh what's it called? The one about Spain?Henry: Oh yes.Lamorna: About the idea of tomorrow.Henry: I don't have a memory either, but I know the poem you mean, yes.Lamorna: Okay. Then I'm trying to think of earlier religious poets. I suppose things like The Dream of the Rood and fun ways of getting into it and if you're looking at medieval poetry.Henry: I also think Betjeman is underrated for this.Lamorna: I've barely read any Betjeman.Henry: There's a poem called Christmas. You might like it.Lamorna: Okay.Henry: It's this famous line and is it true and is it true? He really gets into this thing of, "We're all unwrapping tinsely presents and I'm sitting here trying to work out if God became man." It's really good. It's really good. The other one is called Norfolk and again, another famous line, "When did the devil first attack?" It talks about puberty as the arrival of the awareness of sin and so forth.Lamorna: Oh, yes.Henry: It's great. Really, really good stuff. Do you personally believe in the resurrection?Lamorna: [chuckles] I keep being asked this.Henry: I know. I'm sorry.Lamorna: My best answer is sometimes. Because I do sometimes in that way that-- someone I interviewed who's absolutely brilliant in the book, Robert, and he's a Cambridge professor. He's a pragmatist and he talks about the idea of saying I'm a disciplined person means nothing unless you're enacting that discipline daily or it falls away. For him, that belief in a Kierkegaardian leap way is something that needs to be reenacted in every moment to say, I believe and mean it.I think there are moments when my church attendance is better and I'm listening to a reading that's from Acts or whatever and understanding the sense of those moments, Paul traveling around Europe and Asia Minor, only because he fully believed that this is what's happened. Those letters and as you're reading those letters, the way I read literature or biblical writing is to believe in that moment because for that person, they believe too. I think there are points at which the resurrection can feel true to me, but it does feel like I'm accessing that idea of truth in a different way than I am accessing truth about-- it's close to how I think about love as something that's very, very real, but very different from experiential feelings.I had something else I wanted to say about that and it's just gone. Oh yes. I was at Hay Festival a couple of weeks ago. Do you know the Philosopher Agnes Callard?Henry: Oh, sure.Lamorna: She gave a really great talk about Socrates and her love of Socrates, but she also came to my talk and she and her husband, who I think met through arguing about Aristotle, told me they argued for about half a day about a line I'd said, which was that during writing the book, I'd learned to believe in the belief of other people, her husband was like, "You can't believe in the belief of other people if you don't believe it too. That doesn't work. That doesn't make sense." I was like, "That's so interesting." I can so feel that if we're taking that analytically, that if I say I don't believe in the resurrection, not just that I believe you believe it, but I believe in your belief in the resurrection. At what point is that any different from saying, I believe in the resurrection. I feel like I need to spend more time with it. What the slight gap is there that I don't have that someone else does, or as I say it, do I then believe in the resurrection that moment? I'm not sure.I think also what I'm doing right now is trying to sound all clever with it, whereas for other people it's this deep ingrained truth that governs every moment of their life and that they can feel everywhere, or perhaps they can't. Perhaps there's more doubt than they suggest, which I think is the case with lots of us. Say on the deathbed, someone saying that they fully believe in the resurrection because that means there's eternal salvation, and their family believe in that too. I don't think I have that kind of certainty, but I admire it.Henry: Tell me how you got the title for this book from an episode of The Simpsons.Lamorna: It's really good app. It's from When Maggie Makes Three, which is my favorite episode. I think titles are horribly hard. I really struck my first book. I would have these sleepless nights just thinking about words related to the sea, and be like, blue something. I don't know. There was a point where my editor wanted to call it Trawler Girl. I said, "We mustn't. That's awful. That's so bad. It makes me sound like a terrible superhero. I'm not a girl, I'm a woman."With this one, I think it was my fun title for ages. Yes, it's this plaque that Homer has put-- Mr. Burns puts up this plaque to remind him that he will never get to leave the power plant, "Don't forget you're here forever."I just think it's a strong and bonkers line. I think it had this element of play or silliness that I wanted, that I didn't think about too hard. I guess that's an evangelical Christian underneath what they're actually saying is saying-- not all evangelicals, but often is this sense of no, no, no, we are here forever. You are going to live forever. That is what heaven means.That sense of then saying it in this jokey way. I think church is often very funny spaces, and funny things happen. They make good comedy series when you talk about faith.Someone's saying she don't forget we're here forever. The don't forget makes it so colloquial and silly. I just thought it was a funny line for that reason.Then also that question people always ask, "Is religion going to die out?" I thought that played into it. This feeling that, yes, I write about it. There was a point when I was going to an Extinction Rebellion protest, and everyone was marching along with that symbol of the hourglass inside a circle next to a man who had a huge sign saying, "Stop, look, hell is real, the end of the world is coming." This sense of different forms of apocalyptic thinking that are everywhere at the moment. I felt like the title worked for that as well.Henry: I like that episode of The Simpsons because it's an expression of an old idea where he's doing something boring and his life is going to slip away bit by bit. The don't forget you're here forever is supposed to make that worse, but he turns it round into the live like you're going to die tomorrow philosophy and makes his own kind of meaning out of it.Lamorna: By papering it over here with pictures of Maggie. They love wordplay, the writers of The Simpsons, and so that it reads, "Do it for her," instead. That feeling of-- I think that with faith as well of, don't forget we're here forever, think about heaven when actually so much of our life is about papering it over with humanity and being like, "Does it matter? I'm with you right now, and that's what matters." That immediacy of human contact that church is also really about, that joy in the moment. Where it doesn't really matter in that second if you're going to heaven or hell, or if that exists. You're there together, and it's euphoric, or at least it's a relief or comforting.Henry: You did a lot of Bible study and bible reading to write this book. What were the big surprises for you?Lamorna: [chuckles] This is really the ending, but revelation, I don't really think it's very well written at all. It shouldn't be in there, possibly. It's just not [unintelligible 00:39:20] It got added right in the last minute. I guess it should be in there. I just don't know. What can I say?So much of it was a surprise. I think slowly reading the Psalms was a lovely surprise for me because they contain so much uncertainty and anguish, and doubt. Imagining those being read aloud to me always felt like a very exciting thing.Henry: Did you read them aloud?Lamorna: When I go to more Anglo Catholic services, they tend to do them-- I never know how to pronounce this. Antiphonally.Henry: Oh yes.Lamorna: Back and forth between you. It's very reverential, lovely experience to do that. I really think I was surprised by almost everything I was reading. At the start of Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, he does this amazing thing where he does four different versions of what could be happening in the Isaac and Abraham story underneath.There's this sense of in the Bible, and I'm going to get this wrong, but in Mimesis, Auerbach talks about the way that you're not given the psychological understanding within the Bible. There's so much space for readers to think with, because you're just being told things that happened, and the story moves on quickly, moment by moment. With Isaac and Abraham, what it would mean if Isaac actually had seen the fact that his father was planning to kill him. Would he then lose his faith? All these different scenarios.I suddenly realised that the Bible was not just a fixed text, but there was space to play with it as well. In the book, I use the story of Jacob and the angel and play around with the meaning of that and what would happen after this encounter between Jacob and an angel for both of them.Bits in the Gospels, I love the story of the Gerasene Demoniac. He was a knight. He was very unwell, and no one knew what to do with him. He was ostracised from his community. He would sit in this cave and scream and lacerate himself against the cave walls. Then Jesus comes to him and speaks to him and speaks to the demons inside him. There's this thing in Mark's Gospel that Harold Bloom talks about, where only demons are actually able to perceive. Most people have to ask Christ who he really is, but demons can perceive him immediately and know he's the son of God.The demons say that they are legion. Then Jesus puts them into 1,000 pigs. Is it more? I can't remember. Then they're sent off over the cliff edge. Then the man is made whole and is able to go back to his community. I just think there's just so much in that. It's so rich and strange. I think, yes, there's something about knowing you could sit down and just read a tiny bit of the Bible and find something strange and unusual that also might speak to something you've read that's from thousands of years later.I also didn't know that in Mark's Gospel, the last part of it is addended, added on to it. Before that, it ended with the women being afraid, seeing the empty tomb, but there's no resolution. There's no sense of Christ coming back as spirit. It ended in this deep uncertainty and fear. I thought that was so fascinating because then again, it reminds you that those texts have been played around with and thought with, and meddled with, and changed over time. It takes away from the idea that it's fixed and certain, the Bible.Henry: What did you think of Harold Bloom's book The Shadow of a Great Rock?Lamorna: I really loved it. He says that he treats Shakespeare more religiously and the Bible more like literature, which I found a funny, irreverent thing to say. There's lovely stuff in there where, I think it was Ruth, he was like, maybe it was written by a woman. He takes you through the different Hebrew writers for Genesis. Which again, becoming at this as such a novice in so many ways, realising that, okay, so when it's Yahweh, it's one particular writer, there's the priestly source for particular kinds of writing. The Yahwist is more ironic, or the God you get is more playful.That was this key into thinking about how each person trying to write about God, it's still them and their sense of the world, which is particular and idiosyncratic is forming the messages that they believe they're receiving from God. I found that exciting.Yes, he's got this line. He's talking about the blessings that God gives to men in Genesis. He's trying to understand, Bloom, what the meaning of a blessing is. He describes it as more life into a time without boundaries. That's a line that I just found so beautiful, and always think about what the meaning of that is. I write it in the book.My best friend, Sammy, who's just the most game person in the world, that you tell them anything, they're like, "Cool." I told them that line. They were like, "I'm getting it tattooed on my arm next week." Then got me to write in my handwriting. I can only write in my handwriting, but write down, "More time into life without boundaries." Now they've just got it on their arm.Henry: Nice.Lamorna: I really like. They're Jewish, non-practicing. They're not that really interested in it. They were like, "That's a good line to keep somewhere."Henry: I think it's actually one of Bloom's best books. There's a lot of discussion about, is he good? Is he not good? I love that book because it really just introduces people to the Bible and to different versions of the Bible. He does all that Harold Bloom stuff where he's like, "These are the only good lines in this particular translation of this section. The rest is so much dross.He's really attentive to the differences between the translations, both theologically but also aesthetically. I think a lot of people don't know the Bible. It's a really good way to get started on a-- sitting down and reading the Bible in order. It's going to fail for a lot of people. Harold Bloom is a good introduction that actually gives you a lot of the Bible itself.Lamorna: For sure, because it's got that midrash feeling of being like someone else working around it, which then helps you get inside it. I was reading that book whilst going to these Bible studies at a conservative evangelical church called All Souls. I wasn't understanding what on earth was going on in Mark through the way that we're being told to read it, which is kids' comprehension.Maybe it was useful to think about why would the people have been afraid when Christ quelled the storms? It was doing something, but there was no sense of getting inside the text. Then, to read alongside that, Bloom saying that the Christ in Mark is the most unknowable of all the versions of Christ. Then again, just thinking, "Oh, hang on." There's an author. The author of Mark's gospel is perceiving Christ in a particular way. This is the first of the gospels writing about Christ. What does it mean? He's unknowable. Suddenly thinking of him as a character, and therefore thinking about how people are relating to him. It totally cracks the text open for you.Henry: Do you think denominational differences are still important? Do most people have actual differences in dogma, or are they just more cultural distinctions?Lamorna: They're ritual distinctions. There really is little that you could compare between a Quaker meeting and a Catholic service. That silence is the fundamental aspect of all of it. There's a sense of enlighten.My Quaker mate, Lawrence, he's an atheist, but he wouldn't go to another church service because he's so against the idea of hierarchy and someone speaking from a pulpit. He's like, honestly, the reincarnated spirit of George Fox in many ways, in lots of ways he's not.I guess it becomes more blurry because, yes, there's this big thing in the early 20th century in Britain anyway, where the line that becomes more significant is conservative liberal. It's very strange that that's how our world gets divided. There's real simplification that perhaps then, a liberal Anglican church and a liberal Catholic church have more in relationship than a conservative Catholic church and a conservative evangelical church. The line that is often thinking about sexuality and marriage.I was interested, people have suddenly was called up in my book that I talk about sex a lot. I think it's because sex comes up so much, it feels hard not to. That does seem to be more important than denominational differences in some ways. I do think there's something really interesting in this idea of-- Oh, [unintelligible 00:48:17] got stung. God, this is a bit dramatic. Sorry, I choked on coffee earlier. Now I'm going to get stung by a bee.Henry: This is good. This is what makes a podcast fun. What next?Lamorna: You don't get this in the BBC studios. Maybe you do. Oh, what was I about to say? Oh, yes. I like the idea of church shopping. People saying that often it speaks to the person they are, what they're looking for in a church. I think it's delightful to me that there's such a broad church, and there's so many different spaces that you can go into to discover the church that's right for you. Sorry. I'm really distracted by this wasp or bee. Anyway.Henry: How easy was it to get people to be honest with you?Lamorna: I don't know. I think that there's certain questions that do tunnel right through to the heart of things. Faith seems to be one of them. When you talk about faith with people, you're getting rid of quite a lot of the chaff around with the politeness or whatever niceties that you'd usually speak about.I was talking about this with another friend who's been doing this. He's doing a play about Grindr. He was talking about how strange it is that when you ask to interview someone and you have a dictaphone there, you do get a deeper instant conversation. Again, it's a bit like a therapeutic conversation where someone has said to you, "I'm just going to sit and listen." You've already agreed, and you know it's going to be in a book. "Do you mind talking about this thing?"That just allows this opportunity for people to be more honest because they're aware that the person there is actually wanting to listen. It's so hard to create spaces. I create a cordon and say, "We're going to have a serious conversation now." Often, that feels very artificial. I think yes, the beauty of getting to sit there with a dictaphone on your notebook is you are like, "I really am interested in this. It really matters to me." I guess it feels easy in that way to get honesty.Obviously, we're all constructing a version of ourselves for each other all the time. It's hard for me to know to what extent they're responding to what they're getting from me, and what they think I want to hear. If someone else interviewed them, they would probably get something quite different. I don't know. I think if you come to be with openness, and you talk a bit about your journey, then often people want to speak about it as well.I'm trying to think. I've rarely interviewed someone where I haven't felt this slightly glowy, shimmery sense of it, or what I'm learning feels new and feels very true. I felt the same with Cornish Fisherman, that there was this real honesty in these conversations. Many years ago, I remember I got really obsessed with interviewing my mom. I think I was just always wanting to practice interviewing. The same thing that if there's this object between you, it shifts the dimensions of the conversation and tends towards seriousness.Henry: How sudden are most people's conversions?Lamorna: Really depends. I was in this conversation with someone the other day. When she was 14, 15, she got caught shoplifting. She literally went, "Oh, if there's a God up there, can you help get me out of the situation?" The guy let her go, and she's been a Christian ever since. She had an instantaneous conversion. Someone I interviewed in the book, and he was a really thoughtful card-carrying atheist. He had his [unintelligible 00:51:58] in his back pocket.He hated the Christians and would always have a go at them at school because he thought it was silly, their belief. Then he had this instant conversion that feels very charismatic in form, where he was just walking down an avenue of trees at school, and he felt the entire universe smiling at him and went, "Oh s**t, I better become a Christian."Again, I wonder if it depends. I could say it depends on the person you are, whether you are capable of having an instant conversion. Perhaps if I were in a religious frame of mind, I'd say it depends on what God would want from you. Do you need an instant conversion, or do you need to very slowly have the well filling up?I really liked when a priest said to me that people often go to church and expect to be changed in a moment. He's like, "No, you have to go for 20 years before anything happens." Something about that slow incremental conversion to me is more satisfying. It's funny, I was having a conversation with someone about if they believe in ghosts, and they were like, "Well, if I saw one, then I believe in ghosts." For some people, transcendental things happen instantaneously, and it does change them ultimately instantly.I don't know, I would love to see some stats about which kinds of conversions are more popular, probably more instant ones. I love, and I use it in the book, but William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. He talks about there's some people who are sick-souled or who are also more porous bordered people for whom strange things can more easily cross the borders of their person. They're more likely to convert and more likely to see things.I really like him describing it that way because often someone who's like that, it might just be described as well, you have a mental illness. That some people are-- I don't know, they've got sharper antennae than the rest of us. I think that is an interesting thought for why some people can convert instantly.Henry: I think all conversions take a long time. At the moment, there's often a pivotal moment, but there's something a long time before or after that, that may or may not look a conversion, but which is an inevitable part of the process. I'm slightly obsessed with the idea of quests, but I think all conversions are a quest or a pilgrimage. Your book is basically a quest narrative. As you go around in your Toyota, visiting these places. I'm suspicious, I think the immediate moment is bundled up with a longer-term thing very often, but it's not easy to see it.Lamorna: I love that. I've thought about the long tail afterwards, but I hadn't thought about the lead-up, the idea of that. Of what little things are changing. That's such a lovely thought. Their conversions began from birth, maybe.Henry: The shoplifter, it doesn't look like that's where they're heading. In retrospect, you can see that there weren't that many ways out of this path that they're on. Malcolm X is like this. One way of reading his autobiography is as a coming-of-age story. Another way of reading it is, when is this guy going to convert? This is going to happen.Lamorna: I really like that. Then there's also that sense of how fixed the conversion is, as well, from moment to moment. That Adam Phillips' book on wanting to change, he talks about our desire for change often outstrips our capacity for change. That sense of how changed am I afterwards? How much does my conversion last in every moment? It goes back to the do you believe in the resurrection thing.I find that that really weird thing about writing a book is, it is partly a construction. You've got the eye in there. You're creating something that is different from your reality and fixed, and you're in charge of it. It's stable, it remains, and you come to an ending. Then your life continues to divert and deviate in loads of different ways. It's such a strange thing in that way. Every conversion narrative we have fixed in writing, be it Augustine or Paul, whatever, is so far from the reality of that person's experience.Henry: What did the new atheists get wrong?Lamorna: Arrogance. They were arrogant. Although I wonder, I guess it was such a cultural moment, and perhaps in the same way that everyone is in the media, very excitedly talking about revival now. There was something that was created around them as well, which was delight in this sense of the end of something. I wonder how much of that was them and how much of it was, they were being carried along by this cultural media movement.I suppose the thing that always gets said, and I haven't read enough Dawkins to say this with any authority, but is that the form of religion that he was attempting to denigrate was a very basic form of Christianity, a real, simplified sense. That he did that with all forms of religion. Scientific progress shows us we've progressed beyond this point, and we don't need this, and it's silly and foolish.I guess he underestimated the depth and richness of religion, and also the fact of this idea of historical progress, when the people in the past were foolish, when they were as bright and stupid as we are now.Henry: I think they believed in the secularization idea. People like Rodney Stark and others were pointing out that it's not really true that we secularized a lot more consistency. John Gray, the whole world is actually very religious. This led them away from John Stuart Mill-type thinking about theism. I think everyone should read more John Stuart Mill, but they particularly should have read the theism essays. That would have been--Lamorna: I've only just got into him because I love the LRB Close Reading podcast. It's Jonathan Rée and James Wood. They did one on John Stuart Mill's autobiography, which I've since been reading. It's an-Henry: It's a great book.Lamorna: -amazing book. His crisis is one of-- He says, "The question of religion is not something that has been a part of my life, but the sense of being so deeply learned." His dad was like, "No poetry." In his crisis moment, suddenly realizing that that's what he needed. He was missing feeling, or he was missing a way of looking at the world that had questioning and doubt within it through poetry.There was a bit in the autobiography, and he talks about when he was in this deep depression, whenever he was at 19 or something. That he was so depressed that he thought if there's a certain number of musical notes, one day there will be no more new music because every single combination will have been done. The sense of, it's so sweetly awful thinking, but without the sense-- I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here.I found his crisis so fascinating to read about and how he comes out of that through this care and attention of beautiful literature and thinking, and through his love of-- What was his wife called again?Henry: Harriet.Lamorna: Harriet. He credits her for almost all his thinking. He wouldn't have moved towards socialism without her. Suddenly, humans are deeply important to him. He feels sorry for the fact that his dad could not express love or take love from him, and that that was such a terrible deficiency in his life.Henry: Mill's interesting on religion because he looks very secular. In fact, if you read his letters, he's often going into churches.Lamorna: Oh, really?Henry: Yes, when he's in Italy, because he had tuberculosis. He had to be abroad a lot. He's always going to services at Easter and going into the churches. For a secular person, he really appreciates all these aspects of religion. His stepdaughter was-- there's a diary of hers in their archives. She was very religious, very intense. As a young woman, when she's 16, 17, intensely Catholic or Anglo-Catholic. Really, it's quite startling.I was reading this thing, and I was like, "Wait, who in the Mill household is writing this? This is insane." There are actually references in his letters where he says, "Oh, we'll have to arrive in time for Good Friday so that she can go to church." He's very attentive to it. Then he writes these theism essays, right at the end of his life. He's very open-minded and very interrogatory of the idea. He really wants to understand. He's not a new atheist at all.Lamorna: Oh, okay. I need to read the deism essays.Henry: You're going to love it. It's very aligned. What hymns do you like?Lamorna: Oh, no.Henry: You can be not a hymn person.Lamorna: No. I'm not a massive hymn person. When I'm in church, the Anglican church that I go to in London now, I always think, "Remember that. That was a really nice one." I like to be a pilgrim. I really don't have the brain that can do this off the cuff. I'm not very musically. I'm deeply unmusical.There was one that I was thinking of. I think it's an Irish one. I feel like I wrote this down at one point, because I thought I might be asked in another interview. I had to write down what I thought in case a hymn that I liked. Which sounds a bit like a politician, when they're asked a question, they're like, "I love football." I actually can't think of any. I'm sorry.Henry: No, that's fine.Lamorna: What are your best? Maybe that will spark something in me.Henry: I like Tell Out My Soul. Do you know that one?Lamorna: Oh, [sings] Tell Out My Soul. That's a good one.Henry: If you have a full church and people are really going for it, that can be amazing. I like all the classics. I don't have any unusual choices. Tell Out My Soul, it's a great one. Lamorna Ash, this has been great. Thank you very much.Lamorna: Thank you.Henry: To close, I think you're going to read us a passage from your book.Lamorna: I am.Henry: This is near the end. It's about the Bible.Lamorna: Yes. Thank you so much. This has definitely been my favourite interview.Henry: Oh, good.Lamorna: I really enjoyed it. It's really fun.Henry: Thank you.Lamorna: Yes, this is right near the end. This is when I ended up at a church, St Luke's, West Holloway. It was a very small 9:00 AM service. Whilst the priest who'd stepped in to read because the actual priest had left, was reading, I just kept thinking about all the stories that I'd heard and wondering about the Bible and how the choices behind where it ends, where it ends.I don't think I understand why the Bible ends where it does. The final lines of the book of Revelation are, "He who testifies to these things says, Yes, I am coming soon. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus, the grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen." Which does sound like a to-be-continued. I don't mean the Bible feels incomplete because it ends with Revelation. What I mean is, if we have continued to hear God and wrestle with him and his emissaries ever since the first overtures of the Christian faith sounded.Why do we not treat these encounters with the same reverence as the works assembled in the New Testament? Why have we let our holy text grow so antique and untouchable instead of allowing them to expand like a divine Wikipedia updated in perpetuity? That way, each angelic struggle and Damascene conversion that has ever occurred or one day will, would become part of its fabric.In this Borgesian Bible, we would have the Gospel of Mary, not a fictitious biography constructed by a man a century after her death, but her true words. We would have the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch on the road between Jerusalem and Gaza from Acts, but this time given in the first person. We would have descriptions from the Picts on Iona of the Irish Saint Columba appearing in a rowboat over the horizon.We would have the Gospels of those from the early Eastern Orthodox churches, Assyrian Gospels, Syriac Orthodox Gospels. We would have records of the crusades from the Christian soldiers sent out through Europe to Jerusalem in order to massacre those of other faiths, both Muslim and Jewish. In reading these accounts, we would be forced to confront the ways in which scripture can be interpreted
Shakespeare crea al ser humano, con esta expresión Harold Bloom introduce a Shakespeare. En todo caso, nos da laposibilidad de amar y por tanto de ser algomás que personas que cumplen con su deber. Ahora el amor deja de ser predecible, y se vuelve una creación, la creación que Julieta con sus palabras nos ha dejado.#shakespeare #romeo #julieta #romeojuliet #amor #mimesis #literatura
In this deeply reflective episode of Warriors Unmasked, Chuck Thuss sits down with poet, playwright, and soon-to-be author D.C. Copeland. Known for her literary achievements and her fierce voice for mental health and self-expression, D.C. shares a candid and powerful conversation about what it means to truly find yourself—especially in a world that expects conformity at every turn. From her early days writing poems as a child to becoming a Yale-educated writer mentored by Harold Bloom, D.C. takes us on a journey through creativity, personal awakening, and deep healing. Her upcoming book Societal Dropout is more than a manifesto—it's a call for reconnection, a return to stillness, and a nudge for all of us to examine what we truly believe, beyond what we've been told. D.C. and Chuck explore the concept of living in the “third dimension”—a linear, goal-oriented society—and how dropping out of it, even for a few moments each day, can unlock healing, peace, and perspective. Whether you're familiar with meditation or just starting to question the noise around you, this conversation offers tools, insights, and encouragement to pause and listen to your inner voice. This episode is a must-listen for anyone curious about healing through writing, the connection between mental health and societal structure, and the incredible power of stillness. What's Inside… Why “dropping out” isn't giving up—it's coming home to yourself. D.C. explains how stepping away from society's expectations can lead to deeper healing and clarity. The hidden cost of living in a linear, performance-driven world. Discover how constant striving impacts our mental health and how to break free from the cycle. How stillness and meditation transformed D.C.'s understanding of herself. Learn practical ways to slow down, listen inward, and reconnect with your truth. What we're really running from—and why society doesn't want us to stop. A powerful exploration of discomfort, distraction, and the fear of facing our own thoughts. The difference between identity and performance. D.C. shares how letting go of labels helped her heal, and why so many of us feel lost in who we think we're supposed to be. You're not broken—you're waking up. Hear D.C.'s perspective on anxiety, trauma, and why your struggles might actually be signals of something beautiful unfolding. GUEST LINKS: https://dccopeland.com LINKS: www.thecompassionateconnection.com www.warriorsunmasked.com Join Chuck's Text Community: 251-418-7966 Episode Minute By Minute: 00:00 – Welcome to Episode 184: Introducing D.C. Copeland 02:18 – D.C.'s childhood love for writing and early poetic success 04:33 – Yale, Harold Bloom, and the journey to becoming a writer 06:00 – The power of theater and the story behind Societal Dropout 08:41 – The linear world vs. nonlinear healing: Understanding dimensions 11:00 – Misdiagnosed illness and mental health in modern society 13:30 – Why so many are struggling: trauma, anxiety, and societal disconnect 16:00 – Are people afraid to find themselves? 18:30 – What meditation and stillness revealed to D.C. 20:15 – Practical ways to “drop out” and find healing 23:30 – Challenging beliefs and choosing your own experience 26:00 – Identity, performance, and finding peace in the unknown 30:00 – Shakespeare, suicide, and the courage to question 32:00 – Meditation, quiet, and the non-linear healing process 35:00 – Rest, illness, and listening to the body's wisdom 39:00 – Meditation's role in D.C.'s recovery and resilience 42:00 – The brain on fire: Observing thought, not becoming it 45:00 – Teaching stillness to the next generation 47:00 – Chuck's closing reflections and a call to share the episode 49:00 – What to say to someone who feels misunderstood 52:00 – Say yes to your own experience—whatever it may be
As the long, exhausting march toward summer begins for many students, the wise and compassionate David Wagoner takes us to the intersection of love and weakness. Happy reading.David Wagoner was recognized as the leading poet of the Pacific Northwest, often compared to his early mentor Theodore Roethke, and highly praised for his skillful, insightful and serious body of work. He won numerous prestigious literary awards including the Ruth Lilly Poetry Prize, two Pushcart Prizes, and the Academy of Arts and Letters Award, and was nominated twice for the National Book Award. The author of ten acclaimed novels, Wagoner's fiction has been awarded the Sherwood Anderson Foundation Award. Professor emeritus at the University of Washington, Wagoner enjoyed an excellent reputation as both a writer and a teacher of writing. He was selected to serve as chancellor of the Academy of American Poets in 1978, replacing Robert Lowell, and was the editor of Poetry Northwest until 2002.Born in Ohio and raised in Indiana, Midwesterner Wagoner was initially influenced by family ties, ethnic neighborhoods, industrial production and pollution, and the urban environment. His move to the Pacific Northwest in 1954, at Roethke's urging, changed both his outlook and his poetry. Writing in the Contemporary Authors Autobiography Series, Wagoner recalls: “when I drove down out of the Cascades and saw the region that was to become my home territory for the next thirty years, my extreme uneasiness turned into awe. I had never seen or imagined such greenness, such a promise of healing growth. Everything I saw appeared to be living ancestral forms of the dead earth where I'd tried to grow up.” Wagoner's poetry often mourns the loss of a natural, fertile wilderness, though David K. Robinson, writing in Contemporary Poetry, described the themes of “survival, anger at those who violate the natural world” and “a Chaucerian delight in human oddity” at work in the poems as well. Critics have also praised Wagoner's poetry for its crisp descriptive detail and metaphorical bent. However, Paul Breslin in the New York Times Book Review pronounced David Wagoner to be “predominantly a nature poet…as Frost and Roethke were nature poets.”Wagoner's first books, including Dry Sun, Dry Wind (1953), A Place to Stand (1958), and Poems (1959), demonstrate an early mastery of his chosen subject matter and form. Often comprised of observations of nature, Wagoner links his speakers' predicaments and estrangement to the larger imperfection of the world. In Wagoner's second book, A Place to Stand,Roethke's influence is clear, and the book uses journey poems to represent the poet's own quest back to his beginnings. Wagoner's fourth book, The Nesting Ground (1963), reflects his relocation physically, aesthetically and emotionally; the Midwest is abandoned for the lush abundance of the Pacific Northwest, and Wagoner's style is less concerned with lamentation or complaint and more with cataloguing the bounty around him. James K. Robinson called the title poem from Staying Alive (1966) “one of the best American poems since World War II.” In poems like “The Words,” Wagoner discovers harmony with nature by learning to be open to all it has to offer: “I take what is: / The light beats on the stones, / the wind over water shines / Like long grass through the trees, / As I set loose, like birds / in a landscape, the old words.” Robert Cording, who called Staying Alive “the volume where Wagoner comes into his own as a poet,” believed that for Wagoner, taking what is involves “an acceptance of our fragmented selves, which through love we are always trying to patch together; an acceptance of our own darkness; and an acceptance of the world around us with which we must reacquaint ourselves.”Collected Poems 1956-1976 (1976) was nominated for the National Book Award and praised by X. J. Kennedy in Parnassus for offering poems which are “beautifully clear; not merely comprehensible, but clear in the sense that their contents are quickly visible.” Yet it was Who Shall Be the Sun? (1978),based upon Native American myth and legend, which gained critical attention. Hayden Carruth, writing in Harper's Magazine, called the book “a remarkable achievement,” not only for its presentation of “the literalness of shamanistic mysticism” but also for “its true feeling.” Hudson Review's James Finn Cotter also noted how Wagoner “has not written translations but condensed versions that avoid stereotyped language….The voice is Wagoner's own, personal, familiar, concerned. He has achieved a remarkable fusion of nature, legend and psyche in these poems.”In Broken Country (1979), also nominated for the National Book Award, shows Wagoner honing the instructional backpacking poems he had first used in Staying Alive. Leonard Neufeldt, writing in New England Review,called “the love lyrics” of the first section “among the finest since Williams' ‘Asphodel.'” Wagoner has been accused of using staid pastoral conventions in book after book, as well as writing less well about human subjects. However, his books have continued to receive critical attention, often recognized for the ways in which they use encounters with nature as metaphors for encounters with the self. First Light (1983), Wagoner's “most intense” collection, according to James K. Robinson, reflects Wagoner's third marriage to poet Robin Seyfried. And Publishers Weekly celebrated Walt Whitman Bathing (1996) for its use of “plainspoken formal virtuosity” which allows for “a pragmatic clarity of perception.” A volume of new and collected poems, Traveling Light, was released in 1999. Sampling Wagoner's work through the years, many reviewers found the strongest poems to also be the newest. Rochelle Ratner in Library Journal noted “since many of the best are in the ‘New Poems' section, it might make sense to wait for his next volume.” That next volume, The House of Song (2002) won high praise for its variety of subject matter and pitch-perfect craft. Christina Pugh in Poetry declared “The House of Song boasts a superb architecture, and each one of its rooms (or in Italian, stanzas) affords a pleasure that enhances the last.” In 2008 Wagoner published his twenty-third collection of verse, A Map of the Night. Reviewing the book for the Seattle Times, Sheila Farr found many poems shot through with nostalgia, adding “the book feels like a summing-up.” Conceding that “not all the work reaches the high plane of Wagoner's reputation,” Farr described its “finest moments” as those which “resonate with the title, venturing into darkness and helping us recognize its familiar places.”In addition to his numerous books of poetry, David Wagoner was also a successful novelist, writing both mainstream fiction and regional Western fiction. Offering a steady mix of drama seasoned with occasional comedy, Wagoner's tales often involve a naive central character's encounter with and acceptance of human failing and social corruption. In the Contemporary Authors Autobiography Series, Wagoner described his first novel, The Man in the Middle (1954), as “a thriller with some Graham Greene overtones about a railroad crossing watchmen in violent political trouble in Chicago,” his second novel, Money, Money, Money (1955), as a story about “a young tree surgeon who can't touch, look at, or even think about money, though he has a lot of it,” his third novel, Rock (1958) as a tale of “teenage Chicago delinquents,” and his fifth novel, Baby, Come On Inside (1968) as a story “about an aging popular singer who'd lost his voice.” As a popular novelist, however, Wagoner is best known for The Escape Artist (1965), the story of an amateur magician and the unscrupulous adults who attempt to exploit him, which was adapted as a film in 1981. Wagoner produced four successful novels as a Western “regional” writer. Structurally and thematically, they bear similarities to his other novels. David W. Madden noted in Twentieth-Century Western Writers: “Central to each of these [Western] works is a young protagonist's movement from innocence to experience as he journeys across the American frontier encountering an often debased and corrupted world. However, unlike those he meets, the hero retains his fundamental optimism and incorruptibility.”Although Wagoner wrote numerous novels, his reputation rests on his numerous, exquisitely crafted poetry collections, and his dedication as a teacher. Harold Bloom said of Wagoner: “His study of American nostalgias is as eloquent as that of James Wright, and like Wright's poetry carries on some of the deepest currents in American verse.” And Leonard Neufeldt called Wagoner “simply, one of the most accomplished poets currently at work in and with America…His range and mastery of subjects, voices, and modes, his ability to work with ease in any of the modes (narrative, descriptive, dramatic, lyric, anecdotal) and with any number of species (elegy, satirical portraiture, verse editorial, apostrophe, jeremiad, and childlike song, to name a few) and his frequent combinations of a number of these into astonishingly compelling orchestrations provide us with an intelligent and convincing definition of genius.”Wagoner died in late 2021 at age 95.-bio via Poetry Foundation This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dailypoempod.substack.com/subscribe
Jacke's been trying to come to grips with Portuguese modernist poet Fernando Pessoa ever since Harold Bloom named him one of the 26 most influential writers in the entire Western canon. But it's not easy! As a young man, Pessoa wanted to be, in his words, "plural like the universe," and he carried this out in his poetry: writing verse in the style of more than one hundred fictional alter-egos that he called heteronyms. In this episode, Pessoa expert Bartholomew Ryan, author of Fernando Pessoa: A Critical Life, joins Jacke for a discussion of Pessoa's profound, endlessly innovative ideas. PLUS renowned scholar Robin Waterfield (Aesop's Fables: A New Translation) joins Jacke for a discussion of the last book he will ever read. Additional listening: 643 Aesop and His Fables (with Robin Waterfield) 398 Fernando Pessoa 138 Why Poetry (with Matthew Zapruder) The music in this episode is by Gabriel Ruiz-Bernal. Learn more at gabrielruizbernal.com. Help support the show at patreon.com/literature or historyofliterature.com/donate. The History of Literature Podcast is a member of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate Network. Learn more at thepodglomerate.com/historyofliterature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sean and Harold are joined by Will Mountain Cox, author of Roundabout (Relegation, 2023). They do a deep dive on Walt Whitman, the 1855 edition of Leaves of Grass, Harold Bloom on Hamlet, Will's history with Giancarlo DiTrapano, and why America and podcasting is gnostic. Bonus hour and more on the Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/1storypod Intro song by Thomas Thatcher.
Harold Bloom defined 'strangeness' as a mark of originality that is endemic and absolutely required for any work of literary art to be considered a masterpiece or a classic. Dan Simmons goes further to define it as a quality in the writing or storytelling that indicates to us, the reader (or viewer for Film/TV), are in the presence of an intelligence that is unique or different enough to be able to teach us something about ourselves. So...how does one achieve 'strangeness?' Is it something that can be taught? Practiced? Or is it something you either have or you don't? We discuss! Also, Josh recommends Men which is on HBO Max, and Ira recommends It Follows which is on Prime.
Today's poem demonstrates that, unlike Arnold's sideburns, loving the Bard never goes out of style. Although remembered now for his elegantly argued critical essays, Matthew Arnold, born in Laleham, Middlesex, on December 24, 1822, began his career as a poet, winning early recognition as a student at the Rugby School where his father, Thomas Arnold, had earned national acclaim as a strict and innovative headmaster. Arnold also studied at Balliol College, Oxford University. In 1844, after completing his undergraduate degree at Oxford, he returned to Rugby as a teacher of classics.After marrying in 1851, Arnold began work as a government school inspector, a grueling position which nonetheless afforded him the opportunity to travel throughout England and the Continent. Throughout his thirty-five years in this position Arnold developed an interest in education, an interest which fed into both his critical works and his poetry. Empedocles on Etna (1852) and Poems (1853) established Arnold's reputation as a poet and, in 1857, he was offered a position, which he accepted and held until 1867, as Professor of Poetry at Oxford. Arnold became the first professor to lecture in English rather than Latin. During this time Arnold wrote the bulk of his most famous critical works, Essays in Criticism (1865) and Culture and Anarchy (1869), in which he sets forth ideas that greatly reflect the predominant values of the Victorian era.Meditative and rhetorical, Arnold's poetry often wrestles with problems of psychological isolation. In “To Marguerite—Continued,” for example, Arnold revises John Donne's assertion that “No man is an island,” suggesting that we “mortals” are indeed “in the sea of life enisled.” Other well-known poems, such as “Dover Beach,” link the problem of isolation with what Arnold saw as the dwindling faith of his time. Despite his own religious doubts, a source of great anxiety for him, in several essays Arnold sought to establish the essential truth of Christianity. His most influential essays, however, were those on literary topics. In “The Function of Criticism” (1865) and “The Study of Poetry” (1880) Arnold called for a new epic poetry: a poetry that would address the moral needs of his readers, “to animate and ennoble them.” Arnold's arguments, for a renewed religious faith and an adoption of classical aesthetics and morals, are particularly representative of mainstream Victorian intellectual concerns. His approach—his gentlemanly and subtle style—to these issues, however, established criticism as an art form, and has influenced almost every major English critic since, including T. S. Eliot, Lionel Trilling, and Harold Bloom. Though perhaps less obvious, the tremendous influence of his poetry, which addresses the poet's most innermost feelings with complete transparency, can easily be seen in writers as different from each other as W. B. Yeats, James Wright, Sylvia Plath, and Sharon Olds. Late in life, in 1883 and 1886, Arnold made two lecturing tours of the United States.Matthew Arnold died in Liverpool on April 15, 1888.-bio via Academy of American Poets Get full access to The Daily Poem Podcast at dailypoempod.substack.com/subscribe
AAco. La primera A por Alejandro. “Aco” es el apócope de su apellido, Acobino. Y apodo con el que lo identificaron sus amigos del colegio y colegas de teatro. Así firmaba sus cartas Alejandro Acobino, un actor, director y un dramaturgo extraordinario que dio el teatro de Buenos Aires. Cuando se fue, de forma temprana, dejó cinco obras: Enobarbo, Continente Viril, Rodando, Hernanito y Absentha. Y otras tantas inconclusas. Dejó también una poética potente, de una escritura magistral y llena de personajes que se pierden en una obsesión. Creo -lo digo humildemente después de haber visto sus obras varias veces- que aún no logramos ver del todo la dimensión de su legado. Una dimensión increíblemente lúcida de un teatro atroz, trágico y grotesco. Acobino fue, además, un gran escritor de cartas. Le encantaba escribirlas y hablar por téléfono. Esta carta fue extraída del libro “AAco. Alejandro Acobino: cartas, ensayos y homenajes”, editado por el Centro Cultural de la Cooperación Floreal Gorini. Es una cuidada y amorosa edición de su hermana Gabriela, que encontró muchísimos escritos en su computadora. Acá le escribe a una tal Sandy. No sabemos quién fue (Gabriela, su hermana, tampoco), pero importa poco. Alejandro le responde a esta mujer, quizá una periodista, que le había preguntado qué es para él el arte y por qué hace arte. Acá va entonces un pequeño homenaje de Epistolar a Alejandro Acobino por tantas horas disfrutando de su maravillosa obra. Lee el actor y amigo de Acobino, Germán Rodríguez. *** Estimada Sandy: Lamento la tardanza pero me olvidé completamente. Encontré tu mail de casualidad y te respondo. Espero que no sea tarde. No me resulta fácil contestarte lo que me pedís. La razón principal por la que hago arte es porque amo el arte. Tengo mis valores éticos y procuro ser consecuente con ellos como cualquiera que busca ser consecuente con sus valores. Tengo también mis valores ideológicos y por qué no confesarlo filosóficos… Pero a la hora de escribir y dirigir lo estético lo supedita todo... Creo en la autonomía de la estética respecto a los demás valores humanos... Acá me acerco más a Harold Bloom que a John Berger, aunque ideológicamente estoy más cerca de Berger (un progresista), filosóficamente me parezco más a Bloom (acusado de conservador). Del público: Yo vengo del público. Yo crecí en la época de la “primavera democrática” cuando salimos de la dictadura. La ciudad era un hervidero de teatritos, varietés, conciertos gratis, óperas… Yo me fui formando en ese mundo. Tras un intento frustrado de ser químico volví al teatro… Mi motor es la fascinación por el arte primero. ¿Por qué el teatro no es algo tan simple de explicar? Es decir mi mayor relación con el público es que del público vengo. Y hago teatro para que exista el teatro que querría ver... Y si no tengo mayor reflexión es porque gasto la mayor parte de mi tiempo reflexionando sobre los problemas estéticos que me planteo. AAco
Today's poem is a shape poem dedicated to chefs, but (surprise?) it might be about more than cooking.John Hollander, one of contemporary poetry's foremost poets, editors, and anthologists, grew up in New York City. He studied at Columbia University and Indiana University, and he was a Junior Fellow of the Society of Fellows of Harvard University. Hollander received numerous awards and fellowships, including the Levinson Prize, a MacArthur Foundation grant, and the poet laureateship of Connecticut. He served as a Chancellor of the Academy of American Poets, and he taught at Hunter College, Connecticut College, and Yale University, where he was the Sterling Professor emeritus of English.Over the course of an astonishing career, Hollander influenced generations of poets and thinkers with his critical work, his anthologies and his poetry. In the words of J.D. McClatchy, Hollander was “a formidable presence in American literary life.” Hollander's eminence as a scholar and critic was in some ways greater than his reputation as a poet. His groundbreaking introduction to form and prosody Rhyme's Reason (1981), as well as his work as an anthologist, has ensured him a place as one of the 20th-century's great, original literary critics. Hollander's critical writing is known for its extreme erudition and graceful touch. Hollander's poetry possesses many of the same qualities, though the wide range of allusion and technical virtuosity can make it seem “difficult” to a general readership.Hollander's first poetry collection, A Crackling of Thorns (1958) won the prestigious Yale Series of Younger Poets Awards, judged by W.H. Auden. And in fact James K. Robinson in the Southern Review found that Hollander's “early poetry resembles Auden's in its wit, its learned allusiveness, its prosodic mastery.” Hollander's technique continued to develop through later books like Visions from the Ramble (1965) and The Night Mirror (1971). Broader in range and scope than his previous work, Hollander's Tales Told of the Fathers (1975) and Spectral Emanations (1978) heralded his arrival as a major force in contemporary poetry. Reviewing Spectral Emanations for the New Republic, Harold Bloom reflected on his changing impressions of the poet's work over the first 20 years of his career: “I read [A Crackling of Thorns] … soon after I first met the poet, and was rather more impressed by the man than by the book. It has taken 20 years for the emotional complexity, spiritual anguish, and intellectual and moral power of the man to become the book. The enormous mastery of verse was there from the start, and is there still … But there seemed almost always to be more knowledge and insight within Hollander than the verse could accommodate.” Bloom found in Spectral Emanations “another poet as vital and accomplished as [A.R.] Ammons, [James] Merrill, [W.S.] Merwin, [John] Ashbery, James Wright, an immense augmentation to what is clearly a group of major poets.”Shortly after Spectral Emanations, Hollander published Blue Wine and Other Poems (1979), a volume which a number of critics have identified as an important milestone in Hollander's life and career. Reviewing the work for the New Leader, Phoebe Pettingell remarked, “I would guess from the evidence of Blue Wine that John Hollander is now at the crossroads of his own midlife journey, picking out a new direction to follow.” Hollander's new direction proved to be incredibly fruitful: his next books were unqualified successes. Powers of Thirteen (1983) won the Bollingen Prize from Yale University and In Time and Place (1986) was highly praised for its blend of verse and prose. In the Times Literary Supplement, Jay Parini believed “an elegiac tone dominates this book, which begins with a sequence of 34 poems in the In Memoriam stanza. These interconnecting lyrics are exquisite and moving, superior to almost anything else Hollander has ever written.” Parini described the book as “a landmark in contemporary poetry.” McClatchy held up In Time and Place as evidence that Hollander is “part conjurer and part philosopher, one of our language's true mythographers and one of its very best poets.”Hollander continued to publish challenging, technically stunning verse throughout the 1980s and '90s. His Selected Poetry (1993) was released simultaneously with Tesserae (1993); Figurehead and Other Poems (1999) came a few years later. “The work collected in [Tesserae and Other Poems and Selected Poetry] makes clear that John Hollander is a considerable poet,” New Republic reviewer Vernon Shetley remarked, “but it may leave readers wondering still, thirty-five years after his first book … exactly what kind of poet Hollander is.” Shetley recognized the sheer variety of Hollander's work, but also noted the peculiar absence of anything like a personality, “as if the poet had taken to heart, much more fully than its author, Eliot's dictum that poetry should embody ‘emotion which has its life in the poem and not in the history of the poet.'” Another frequent charge leveled against Hollander's work is that it is “philosophical verse.” Reviewing A Draft of Light (2008) for Jacket Magazine, Alex Lewis argued that instead of writing “philosophizing verse,” Hollander actually “borrows from philosophy a language and a way of thought. Hollander's poems are frequently meta-poems that create further meaning out of their own self-interrogations, out of their own reflexivity.” As always, the poems are underpinned by an enormous amount of learning and incredible technical expertise and require “a good deal of time and thought to unravel,” Lewis admitted. But the rewards are great: “the book deepens every time that I read it,” Lewis wrote, adding that Hollander's later years have given his work grandeur akin to Thomas Hardy and Wallace Stevens.Hollander's work as a critic and anthologist has been widely praised from the start. As editor, he has worked on volumes of poets as diverse as Ben Jonson and Dante Gabriel Rossetti; his anthologist's credentials are impeccable. He was widely praised for the expansive American Poetry: The Nineteenth Century (1994), two volumes of verse including ballads, sonnets, epic poetry, and even folk songs. Herbert Mitgang of the New York Times praised the range of poets and authors included in the anthology: “Mr. Hollander has a large vision at work in these highly original volumes of verse. Without passing critical judgment, he allows the reader to savor not only the geniuses but also the second-rank writers of the era.” Hollander also worked on the companion volume, American Poetry: The Twentieth Century (2000) with fellow poets and scholars Robert Hass, Carolyn Kizer, Nathaniel Mackey, and Marjorie Perloff.Hollander's prose and criticism has been read and absorbed by generations of readers and writers. Perhaps his most lasting work is Rhyme's Reason. In an interview with Paul Devlin of St. John's University, Hollander described the impetus behind the volume: “Thinking of my own students, and of how there was no such guide to the varieties of verse in English to which I could send them and that would help teach them to notice things about the examples presented—to see how the particular stanza or rhythmic scheme or whatever was being used by the particular words of the particular poem, for example—I got to work and with a speed which now alarms me produced a manuscript for the first edition of the book. I've never had more immediate fun writing a book.” Hollander's other works of criticism include The Work of Poetry (1993), The Poetry of Everyday Life (1997), and Poetry and Music (2003).Hollander died on August 17, 2013 in Branford, Connecticut.-bio via Poetry Foundation Get full access to The Daily Poem Podcast at dailypoempod.substack.com/subscribe
On a special episode of The Culture Matters Podcast, our very own Jay Doran discusses the book How to Read and Why by Harold Bloom. A voracious reader in his own right, Jay uses Bloom's book as a catalyst to discuss the importance of reading and how it is perhaps the only medium that can promote solitude and peace while learning or enriching one's knowledge. Jay's passion for reading really comes through in this episode and we hope that some of it will rub off on you.
What do the French Horn, Led Zepplin, and C.S. Lewis have in common? They are all part of the Great Conversation. Dr. Junius Johnson joins the Forgotten America podcast to discuss classical education and the literary life. Dr. Johnson grew up in Louisville, KY, and shares his story of discovering the Western Canon, classical music, and Latin. This episode is a great introduction to the classical education movement taking the country by storm. If you'd like to see a little more truth, goodness, and beauty reflected in the world around you, you'll want to listen to this episode and hear the wisdom Dr. Johnson has to share with us. And if you're looking for a new book to add to your booklist, make sure you take notes while listening. Follow Dr. Junius Johnson's work: https://www.juniusjohnson.com/ OR https://academics.juniusjohnson.com/ Further Reference: The Western Cannon by Harold Bloom https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Western-Canon-Book-School-Ages-BLOOM/31214804233/bd C.S. Lewis https://www.christianbook.com/page/christian-authors/cs-lewis Mimesis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimesis Resource for scanning Latin poetry https://www.thoughtco.com/scan-a-line-of-latin-poetry-118819 John Dewey: https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Dewey William James: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/ Children of Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Time_(novel) Dune https://www.thriftbooks.com/series/dune-chronicles/37695/ Garth Nix https://garthnix.com/books/the-seventh-tower/ https://garthnix.com/books/the-keys-to-the-kingdom/ https://garthnix.com/books/the-old-kingdom/ Timothy Zahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrail_series Writing history textbooks for highschoolers with Classical Academic Press: Humanitas https://classicalacademicpress.com/ https://classicalacademicpress.com/collections/humanitas Garrett Ballengee, Host President & CEO - @gballeng Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy Amanda Kieffer, Executive Producer Vice President of Communications & Strategy - @akieffer13 Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy Nate Phipps, Editor & Producer - @Aviv5753 Follow: YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram Support: Patreon, Donate, Newsletter
There's nothing we can do...except hit you with another episode of Know Your Writes! For their 1-year pod-iversary, Robb and Colton go back to where it all started (sort of) with Ozma. Our hosts will dive into this Pasadena band's entire discography to see what makes them more than a Weezer clone. Other topics include: - the one opinion our hosts would change from the last year - just how can a band sound like Weezer without it being weird - Colton talking about Harold Bloom for some reason Bands mentioned in this episode: - Weezer - The Hives
Covering Part 4: Chapters 1-6. We enter the fourth--and final!--part of the novel. We discuss the formation of the "Counterforce," Slothrop's dispersal, and a fan-favorite episode about a sentient lightbulb that goes nuts. In this episode, we embrace the threat of sentient technology by speaking with an A.I. generated spectre of the late literary critic Harold Bloom. We chat with "Harold" about the novel, Byron the Bulb, gnosticism, and the prospects of us all being killed by computers. Other topics include: Keying waves, Mandrakes, some characteristics of Imipolex-G, dualistic ontologies, the CIA, gnosis (in a gnostic way), Robin Wood, psychosis, believing two (or 45) things at once, whips, chains, and leather, bundle of cognition. Read Proverbs For Paranoids, John's guide to Gravity's Rainbow. E-mail us your questions, queries, and crackpot theories: slowlearnerspod@gmail.com
I speak with James "Jimmy" Hatch, Navy SEAL, father, husband and author about his combat deployments, life threatening injury, and struggles with severe depression. He recounts a harrowing journey as the cummulative weight of combat deployments, the death of SEAL team members and K9 combat partners, his injury, multiple surgeries, and loss of identity overwhelmed him and he became suicidal. During his hospitalization, Jimmy slowly learned to love and forgive himself and begin a new healing arc. Recognizing his debt to the K9 dogs that saved his life on multiple combat missions, Jimmy started a national foundation for the care and preservation of service dogs called the Spike K9 Fund. He also wrote a book called Touching the Dragon about his journey and enrolled as an undergraduate student at Yale in the Eli Whitney Students program. We discuss how the concept of deconstruction in literature can mirror life- when we can redefine meaning, we discover a new language and a pathway for change. You can find Jiimmy's incredible book Touching the Dragon here and on Amazon: https://spikesk9fund.org/products/touching-the-dragon-and-other-techniques-for-surviving-lifes-wars https://www.amazon.com/Touching-Dragon-Other-Techniques-Surviving-ebook/dp/B0755ZYGRK Please support Spike's K9 Fund helping the training, care and preservation of working dogs: https://spikesk9fund.org/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAo7KqBhDhARIsAKhZ4uji-HOepJMLAJF8H96Ncth_rySZeZXBt7bc1TtS2czEo_vOwpba9acaAv81EALw_wcB Amazon link to the book Genius, by Harold Bloom https://www.amazon.com/Genius-Mosaic-Hundred-Exemplary-Creative/dp/0446691291
The words for today are: Repast, Desultory, Languid, Exponent Featuring a quote from Harold Bloom from "How to Read and Why" VictorPrep's vocab podcast is for improving for English vocabulary skills while helping you prepare for your standardized tests! This podcast isn't only intended for those studying for the GRE or SAT, but also for people who enjoy learning, and especially those who want to improve their English skills. I run the podcast for fun and because I want to help people out there studying for tests or simply learning English. The podcast covers a variety of words and sometimes additionally covers word roots. Using a podcast to prep for the verbal test lets you study while on the go, or even while working out! If you have comments or questions and suggestions, please send me an email at sam.fold@gmail.com
In this episode J.J. and Peter Cole discuss Jewish poetry, aesthetics, and why Samuel ibn Naghrillah would probably make an excellent rapper.For more information visit our website, and to support more thoughtful Jewish content like this, donate here. Born in Paterson, New Jersey, in 1957, Peter Cole is the author of six books of poems—most recently Draw Me After (FSG, November 2022) and Hymns & Qualms: New and Selected Poems and Translations (FSG, 2017)—as well as many volumes of translation from Hebrew and Arabic, medieval and modern. Praised for his “prosodic mastery” and “keen moral intelligence” (The American Poet), and for the “rigor, vigor, joy, and wit” of his poetry (The Paris Review), Cole has created a body of work that defies traditional distinctions between old and new, foreign and familiar, translation and original. He is, Harold Bloom writes, “a matchless translator and one of the handful of authentic poets in his own American generation.” Among his many honors are an American Academy of Arts and Letters Award in Literature, a Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, a Jewish National Book Award, the PEN Prize in Translation, and, in 2007, a MacArthur Fellowship. He divides his time between Jerusalem and New Haven.
Seriah is joined by writer, researcher, musician, and experiencer Ronnie Pontiac, author of "American Metaphysical Religion: Esoteric and Mystical Traditions of the New World", Topics include Manly P. Hall, "The Platonist" magazine, the influence of Platonism and Neo-Platonism in the American West, Abner Doubleday, esotericism, U.S. religious history, transcendentalism, alchemy, astrology, Rosicrucianism, John Winthrop the elder and younger, John Dee, Puritanism and fear of the wilderness, herbal medicine, The Intelligencers, the College of Light, the Royal Society, Cotton Mather, Hermetic philosophy, Oliver Cromwell, the Cavaliers, Tom Morton, a fascinating trading post, wenching, abuses by the Pilgrims, origins of the slave trade, America's occult history vs Fundamentalist Christian propaganda, hybrid belief systems, Harold Bloom, American Orphism, changes in academia regarding the study of esotericism, Kabbalah, alchemy at Ivy League schools, Catherine L. Albanese, "A Republic of Mind and Spirit", alternative spirituality and the cross-over of beliefs and practices, early Christianity vs the prosperity gospel, the Rosicrucian manifestos of the 1600's, the Holy Roman Empire, Giordano Bruno, universal reformation, the Invisible College, Frances Yates and esoteric history, astronomical events and multiple interpretations thereof, the 30 years war, religious freedom in Bohemia, political and religious intrigues between Catholics and Protestants, phases and changes in American Spiritualism, Edgar Cayce, "The Unobstructed Universe", Stuart and Betty White, Carl Jung, the podcast “Tanis”, the belief system of the obstructed vs unobstructed universe, consciousness and reincarnation, the meaning of life, immortal individualism, entities called the Invisibles, incredible experiences between Betty and Stuart White, the Seer of the Sunbelt Reverend Edward A. Monroe, a talkative Scottish spirit, and much more! This is an exceptional conversation jam-packed with ideas and references!This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/4656375/advertisement
n this episode (originally aired by our partner Novel Dialogue) John and his Brandeis colleague Eugene Sheppard speak with Joshua Cohen about The Netanyahus. Is the 2021 novel a Pulitzer-winning bravura story of the world's worst job interview? Or is it a searing indictment of ethno-nationalist Zionism–and the strange act of pretense whereby American Jewish writers and thinkers in postwar America pretended that Israel and its more extreme ethno-nationalist strains didn't concern them? Cohen dramatizes the return of that repressed by imagining the family of the Benzion Netanyahu (actual medieval Spanish historian and father of Israel's past and present Prime Minister Bibi) landing itself on a would-be assimilated American Jewish family ripped straight from the pages of a Philip Roth or Bernard Malamud novel. With John and Eugene, Joshua dissects the legacy of earlier American Jewish writers like Cynthia Ozick, and offers finer details of how Ze'ev Jabotinksy‘s bellicose views would ultimately take hold in Israel, wisecracking his way to a literally jaw-dropping conclusion… Mentioned in this episode: Zionist and ethnonationalist Ze'ev Jabotinksy (1880-1940): "We must eliminate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will eliminate us." Novalis (the German Romantic writer Georg Von Hardenberg) says somewhere "Every book must contain its counter-book." Slavoj Zizek makes the case that everything is political including the choice not to have a politics. Joshua wants readers to think about why celebrated postwar American fiction by Jewish authors like Cynthia Ozick, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth (starting from his 1959 Goodbye Columbus) largely ignores both the Holocaust and Israel until the 1970s or 1980s. Joshua invokes Harold Bloom's 1973 Anxiety of Influence to explain his relationship to them. He is less interested in Hannah Arendt. "Shoah Religion" is the way in which the Holocaust came to not only function as a key element in post-war American Jewish identification but also to legitimate the state of Israel (cf Abba Eban's famous quip "There's no business like Shoah business") Yekke: a German-Jew in Israel or American characterized by an ethos of industrial self-restraint and German culture, satirized in Israeli culture as a man who wears a three piece suit in the middle of summer heat. Leon Feuchtwanger "There's hope but not for us" Joshua (subtly) quotes a line of Kafka's that Walter Benjamin (in "Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of His Death‟ from Illuminations) apparently lifted from Max Brod ("Oh Hoffnung genug, unendlich viel Hoffnung, — nur nicht für uns.") Yitzhak La'or "you ever want a poem to become real" Netanyahu tells the story of the snowy drive to Ithaca (again) in an interview with Barry Weiss. Philip Roth, The Ghost Writer Read transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
n this episode (originally aired by our partner Novel Dialogue) John and his Brandeis colleague Eugene Sheppard speak with Joshua Cohen about The Netanyahus. Is the 2021 novel a Pulitzer-winning bravura story of the world's worst job interview? Or is it a searing indictment of ethno-nationalist Zionism–and the strange act of pretense whereby American Jewish writers and thinkers in postwar America pretended that Israel and its more extreme ethno-nationalist strains didn't concern them? Cohen dramatizes the return of that repressed by imagining the family of the Benzion Netanyahu (actual medieval Spanish historian and father of Israel's past and present Prime Minister Bibi) landing itself on a would-be assimilated American Jewish family ripped straight from the pages of a Philip Roth or Bernard Malamud novel. With John and Eugene, Joshua dissects the legacy of earlier American Jewish writers like Cynthia Ozick, and offers finer details of how Ze'ev Jabotinksy‘s bellicose views would ultimately take hold in Israel, wisecracking his way to a literally jaw-dropping conclusion… Mentioned in this episode: Zionist and ethnonationalist Ze'ev Jabotinksy (1880-1940): "We must eliminate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will eliminate us." Novalis (the German Romantic writer Georg Von Hardenberg) says somewhere "Every book must contain its counter-book." Slavoj Zizek makes the case that everything is political including the choice not to have a politics. Joshua wants readers to think about why celebrated postwar American fiction by Jewish authors like Cynthia Ozick, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth (starting from his 1959 Goodbye Columbus) largely ignores both the Holocaust and Israel until the 1970s or 1980s. Joshua invokes Harold Bloom's 1973 Anxiety of Influence to explain his relationship to them. He is less interested in Hannah Arendt. "Shoah Religion" is the way in which the Holocaust came to not only function as a key element in post-war American Jewish identification but also to legitimate the state of Israel (cf Abba Eban's famous quip "There's no business like Shoah business") Yekke: a German-Jew in Israel or American characterized by an ethos of industrial self-restraint and German culture, satirized in Israeli culture as a man who wears a three piece suit in the middle of summer heat. Leon Feuchtwanger "There's hope but not for us" Joshua (subtly) quotes a line of Kafka's that Walter Benjamin (in "Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of His Death‟ from Illuminations) apparently lifted from Max Brod ("Oh Hoffnung genug, unendlich viel Hoffnung, — nur nicht für uns.") Yitzhak La'or "you ever want a poem to become real" Netanyahu tells the story of the snowy drive to Ithaca (again) in an interview with Barry Weiss. Philip Roth, The Ghost Writer Read transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
n this episode (originally aired by our partner Novel Dialogue) John and his Brandeis colleague Eugene Sheppard speak with Joshua Cohen about The Netanyahus. Is the 2021 novel a Pulitzer-winning bravura story of the world's worst job interview? Or is it a searing indictment of ethno-nationalist Zionism–and the strange act of pretense whereby American Jewish writers and thinkers in postwar America pretended that Israel and its more extreme ethno-nationalist strains didn't concern them? Cohen dramatizes the return of that repressed by imagining the family of the Benzion Netanyahu (actual medieval Spanish historian and father of Israel's past and present Prime Minister Bibi) landing itself on a would-be assimilated American Jewish family ripped straight from the pages of a Philip Roth or Bernard Malamud novel. With John and Eugene, Joshua dissects the legacy of earlier American Jewish writers like Cynthia Ozick, and offers finer details of how Ze'ev Jabotinksy‘s bellicose views would ultimately take hold in Israel, wisecracking his way to a literally jaw-dropping conclusion… Mentioned in this episode: Zionist and ethnonationalist Ze'ev Jabotinksy (1880-1940): "We must eliminate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will eliminate us." Novalis (the German Romantic writer Georg Von Hardenberg) says somewhere "Every book must contain its counter-book." Slavoj Zizek makes the case that everything is political including the choice not to have a politics. Joshua wants readers to think about why celebrated postwar American fiction by Jewish authors like Cynthia Ozick, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth (starting from his 1959 Goodbye Columbus) largely ignores both the Holocaust and Israel until the 1970s or 1980s. Joshua invokes Harold Bloom's 1973 Anxiety of Influence to explain his relationship to them. He is less interested in Hannah Arendt. "Shoah Religion" is the way in which the Holocaust came to not only function as a key element in post-war American Jewish identification but also to legitimate the state of Israel (cf Abba Eban's famous quip "There's no business like Shoah business") Yekke: a German-Jew in Israel or American characterized by an ethos of industrial self-restraint and German culture, satirized in Israeli culture as a man who wears a three piece suit in the middle of summer heat. Leon Feuchtwanger "There's hope but not for us" Joshua (subtly) quotes a line of Kafka's that Walter Benjamin (in "Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of His Death‟ from Illuminations) apparently lifted from Max Brod ("Oh Hoffnung genug, unendlich viel Hoffnung, — nur nicht für uns.") Yitzhak La'or "you ever want a poem to become real" Netanyahu tells the story of the snowy drive to Ithaca (again) in an interview with Barry Weiss. Philip Roth, The Ghost Writer Read transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies
n this episode (originally aired by our partner Novel Dialogue) John and his Brandeis colleague Eugene Sheppard speak with Joshua Cohen about The Netanyahus. Is the 2021 novel a Pulitzer-winning bravura story of the world's worst job interview? Or is it a searing indictment of ethno-nationalist Zionism–and the strange act of pretense whereby American Jewish writers and thinkers in postwar America pretended that Israel and its more extreme ethno-nationalist strains didn't concern them? Cohen dramatizes the return of that repressed by imagining the family of the Benzion Netanyahu (actual medieval Spanish historian and father of Israel's past and present Prime Minister Bibi) landing itself on a would-be assimilated American Jewish family ripped straight from the pages of a Philip Roth or Bernard Malamud novel. With John and Eugene, Joshua dissects the legacy of earlier American Jewish writers like Cynthia Ozick, and offers finer details of how Ze'ev Jabotinksy‘s bellicose views would ultimately take hold in Israel, wisecracking his way to a literally jaw-dropping conclusion… Mentioned in this episode: Zionist and ethnonationalist Ze'ev Jabotinksy (1880-1940): "We must eliminate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will eliminate us." Novalis (the German Romantic writer Georg Von Hardenberg) says somewhere "Every book must contain its counter-book." Slavoj Zizek makes the case that everything is political including the choice not to have a politics. Joshua wants readers to think about why celebrated postwar American fiction by Jewish authors like Cynthia Ozick, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth (starting from his 1959 Goodbye Columbus) largely ignores both the Holocaust and Israel until the 1970s or 1980s. Joshua invokes Harold Bloom's 1973 Anxiety of Influence to explain his relationship to them. He is less interested in Hannah Arendt. "Shoah Religion" is the way in which the Holocaust came to not only function as a key element in post-war American Jewish identification but also to legitimate the state of Israel (cf Abba Eban's famous quip "There's no business like Shoah business") Yekke: a German-Jew in Israel or American characterized by an ethos of industrial self-restraint and German culture, satirized in Israeli culture as a man who wears a three piece suit in the middle of summer heat. Leon Feuchtwanger "There's hope but not for us" Joshua (subtly) quotes a line of Kafka's that Walter Benjamin (in "Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of His Death‟ from Illuminations) apparently lifted from Max Brod ("Oh Hoffnung genug, unendlich viel Hoffnung, — nur nicht für uns.") Yitzhak La'or "you ever want a poem to become real" Netanyahu tells the story of the snowy drive to Ithaca (again) in an interview with Barry Weiss. Philip Roth, The Ghost Writer Read transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies
n this episode (originally aired by our partner Novel Dialogue) John and his Brandeis colleague Eugene Sheppard speak with Joshua Cohen about The Netanyahus. Is the 2021 novel a Pulitzer-winning bravura story of the world's worst job interview? Or is it a searing indictment of ethno-nationalist Zionism–and the strange act of pretense whereby American Jewish writers and thinkers in postwar America pretended that Israel and its more extreme ethno-nationalist strains didn't concern them? Cohen dramatizes the return of that repressed by imagining the family of the Benzion Netanyahu (actual medieval Spanish historian and father of Israel's past and present Prime Minister Bibi) landing itself on a would-be assimilated American Jewish family ripped straight from the pages of a Philip Roth or Bernard Malamud novel. With John and Eugene, Joshua dissects the legacy of earlier American Jewish writers like Cynthia Ozick, and offers finer details of how Ze'ev Jabotinksy‘s bellicose views would ultimately take hold in Israel, wisecracking his way to a literally jaw-dropping conclusion… Mentioned in this episode: Zionist and ethnonationalist Ze'ev Jabotinksy (1880-1940): "We must eliminate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will eliminate us." Novalis (the German Romantic writer Georg Von Hardenberg) says somewhere "Every book must contain its counter-book." Slavoj Zizek makes the case that everything is political including the choice not to have a politics. Joshua wants readers to think about why celebrated postwar American fiction by Jewish authors like Cynthia Ozick, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth (starting from his 1959 Goodbye Columbus) largely ignores both the Holocaust and Israel until the 1970s or 1980s. Joshua invokes Harold Bloom's 1973 Anxiety of Influence to explain his relationship to them. He is less interested in Hannah Arendt. "Shoah Religion" is the way in which the Holocaust came to not only function as a key element in post-war American Jewish identification but also to legitimate the state of Israel (cf Abba Eban's famous quip "There's no business like Shoah business") Yekke: a German-Jew in Israel or American characterized by an ethos of industrial self-restraint and German culture, satirized in Israeli culture as a man who wears a three piece suit in the middle of summer heat. Leon Feuchtwanger "There's hope but not for us" Joshua (subtly) quotes a line of Kafka's that Walter Benjamin (in "Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of His Death‟ from Illuminations) apparently lifted from Max Brod ("Oh Hoffnung genug, unendlich viel Hoffnung, — nur nicht für uns.") Yitzhak La'or "you ever want a poem to become real" Netanyahu tells the story of the snowy drive to Ithaca (again) in an interview with Barry Weiss. Philip Roth, The Ghost Writer Read transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature
n this episode (originally aired by our partner Novel Dialogue) John and his Brandeis colleague Eugene Sheppard speak with Joshua Cohen about The Netanyahus. Is the 2021 novel a Pulitzer-winning bravura story of the world's worst job interview? Or is it a searing indictment of ethno-nationalist Zionism–and the strange act of pretense whereby American Jewish writers and thinkers in postwar America pretended that Israel and its more extreme ethno-nationalist strains didn't concern them? Cohen dramatizes the return of that repressed by imagining the family of the Benzion Netanyahu (actual medieval Spanish historian and father of Israel's past and present Prime Minister Bibi) landing itself on a would-be assimilated American Jewish family ripped straight from the pages of a Philip Roth or Bernard Malamud novel. With John and Eugene, Joshua dissects the legacy of earlier American Jewish writers like Cynthia Ozick, and offers finer details of how Ze'ev Jabotinksy‘s bellicose views would ultimately take hold in Israel, wisecracking his way to a literally jaw-dropping conclusion… Mentioned in this episode: Zionist and ethnonationalist Ze'ev Jabotinksy (1880-1940): "We must eliminate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will eliminate us." Novalis (the German Romantic writer Georg Von Hardenberg) says somewhere "Every book must contain its counter-book." Slavoj Zizek makes the case that everything is political including the choice not to have a politics. Joshua wants readers to think about why celebrated postwar American fiction by Jewish authors like Cynthia Ozick, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth (starting from his 1959 Goodbye Columbus) largely ignores both the Holocaust and Israel until the 1970s or 1980s. Joshua invokes Harold Bloom's 1973 Anxiety of Influence to explain his relationship to them. He is less interested in Hannah Arendt. "Shoah Religion" is the way in which the Holocaust came to not only function as a key element in post-war American Jewish identification but also to legitimate the state of Israel (cf Abba Eban's famous quip "There's no business like Shoah business") Yekke: a German-Jew in Israel or American characterized by an ethos of industrial self-restraint and German culture, satirized in Israeli culture as a man who wears a three piece suit in the middle of summer heat. Leon Feuchtwanger "There's hope but not for us" Joshua (subtly) quotes a line of Kafka's that Walter Benjamin (in "Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of His Death‟ from Illuminations) apparently lifted from Max Brod ("Oh Hoffnung genug, unendlich viel Hoffnung, — nur nicht für uns.") Yitzhak La'or "you ever want a poem to become real" Netanyahu tells the story of the snowy drive to Ithaca (again) in an interview with Barry Weiss. Philip Roth, The Ghost Writer Read transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/genocide-studies
n this episode (originally aired by our partner Novel Dialogue) John and his Brandeis colleague Eugene Sheppard speak with Joshua Cohen about The Netanyahus. Is the 2021 novel a Pulitzer-winning bravura story of the world's worst job interview? Or is it a searing indictment of ethno-nationalist Zionism–and the strange act of pretense whereby American Jewish writers and thinkers in postwar America pretended that Israel and its more extreme ethno-nationalist strains didn't concern them? Cohen dramatizes the return of that repressed by imagining the family of the Benzion Netanyahu (actual medieval Spanish historian and father of Israel's past and present Prime Minister Bibi) landing itself on a would-be assimilated American Jewish family ripped straight from the pages of a Philip Roth or Bernard Malamud novel. With John and Eugene, Joshua dissects the legacy of earlier American Jewish writers like Cynthia Ozick, and offers finer details of how Ze'ev Jabotinksy‘s bellicose views would ultimately take hold in Israel, wisecracking his way to a literally jaw-dropping conclusion… Mentioned in this episode: Zionist and ethnonationalist Ze'ev Jabotinksy (1880-1940): "We must eliminate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will eliminate us." Novalis (the German Romantic writer Georg Von Hardenberg) says somewhere "Every book must contain its counter-book." Slavoj Zizek makes the case that everything is political including the choice not to have a politics. Joshua wants readers to think about why celebrated postwar American fiction by Jewish authors like Cynthia Ozick, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth (starting from his 1959 Goodbye Columbus) largely ignores both the Holocaust and Israel until the 1970s or 1980s. Joshua invokes Harold Bloom's 1973 Anxiety of Influence to explain his relationship to them. He is less interested in Hannah Arendt. "Shoah Religion" is the way in which the Holocaust came to not only function as a key element in post-war American Jewish identification but also to legitimate the state of Israel (cf Abba Eban's famous quip "There's no business like Shoah business") Yekke: a German-Jew in Israel or American characterized by an ethos of industrial self-restraint and German culture, satirized in Israeli culture as a man who wears a three piece suit in the middle of summer heat. Leon Feuchtwanger "There's hope but not for us" Joshua (subtly) quotes a line of Kafka's that Walter Benjamin (in "Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of His Death‟ from Illuminations) apparently lifted from Max Brod ("Oh Hoffnung genug, unendlich viel Hoffnung, — nur nicht für uns.") Yitzhak La'or "you ever want a poem to become real" Netanyahu tells the story of the snowy drive to Ithaca (again) in an interview with Barry Weiss. Philip Roth, The Ghost Writer Read transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/israel-studies
n this episode (originally aired by our partner Novel Dialogue) John and his Brandeis colleague Eugene Sheppard speak with Joshua Cohen about The Netanyahus. Is the 2021 novel a Pulitzer-winning bravura story of the world's worst job interview? Or is it a searing indictment of ethno-nationalist Zionism–and the strange act of pretense whereby American Jewish writers and thinkers in postwar America pretended that Israel and its more extreme ethno-nationalist strains didn't concern them? Cohen dramatizes the return of that repressed by imagining the family of the Benzion Netanyahu (actual medieval Spanish historian and father of Israel's past and present Prime Minister Bibi) landing itself on a would-be assimilated American Jewish family ripped straight from the pages of a Philip Roth or Bernard Malamud novel. With John and Eugene, Joshua dissects the legacy of earlier American Jewish writers like Cynthia Ozick, and offers finer details of how Ze'ev Jabotinksy‘s bellicose views would ultimately take hold in Israel, wisecracking his way to a literally jaw-dropping conclusion… Mentioned in this episode: Zionist and ethnonationalist Ze'ev Jabotinksy (1880-1940): "We must eliminate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will eliminate us." Novalis (the German Romantic writer Georg Von Hardenberg) says somewhere "Every book must contain its counter-book." Slavoj Zizek makes the case that everything is political including the choice not to have a politics. Joshua wants readers to think about why celebrated postwar American fiction by Jewish authors like Cynthia Ozick, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth (starting from his 1959 Goodbye Columbus) largely ignores both the Holocaust and Israel until the 1970s or 1980s. Joshua invokes Harold Bloom's 1973 Anxiety of Influence to explain his relationship to them. He is less interested in Hannah Arendt. "Shoah Religion" is the way in which the Holocaust came to not only function as a key element in post-war American Jewish identification but also to legitimate the state of Israel (cf Abba Eban's famous quip "There's no business like Shoah business") Yekke: a German-Jew in Israel or American characterized by an ethos of industrial self-restraint and German culture, satirized in Israeli culture as a man who wears a three piece suit in the middle of summer heat. Leon Feuchtwanger "There's hope but not for us" Joshua (subtly) quotes a line of Kafka's that Walter Benjamin (in "Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of His Death‟ from Illuminations) apparently lifted from Max Brod ("Oh Hoffnung genug, unendlich viel Hoffnung, — nur nicht für uns.") Yitzhak La'or "you ever want a poem to become real" Netanyahu tells the story of the snowy drive to Ithaca (again) in an interview with Barry Weiss. Philip Roth, The Ghost Writer Read transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
Seriah is joined by writer, researcher, musician, and experiencer Ronnie Pontiac, author of "American Metaphysical Religion: Esoteric and Mystical Traditions of the New World", Topics include Manly P. Hall, "The Platonist" magazine, the influence of Platonism and Neo-Platonism in the American West, Abner Doubleday, esotericism, U.S. religious history, transcendentalism, alchemy, astrology, Rosicrucianism, John Winthrop the elder and younger, John Dee, Puritanism and fear of the wilderness, herbal medicine, The Intelligencers, the College of Light, the Royal Society, Cotton Mather, Hermetic philosophy, Oliver Cromwell, the Cavaliers, Tom Morton, a fascinating trading post, wenching, abuses by the Pilgrims, origins of the slave trade, America's occult history vs Fundamentalist Christian propaganda, hybrid belief systems, Harold Bloom, American Orphism, changes in academia regarding the study of esotericism, Kabbalah, alchemy at Ivy League schools, Catherine L. Albanese, "A Republic of Mind and Spirit", alternative spirituality and the cross-over of beliefs and practices, early Christianity vs the prosperity gospel, the Rosicrucian manifestos of the 1600's, the Holy Roman Empire, Giordano Bruno, universal reformation, the Invisible College, Frances Yates and esoteric history, astronomical events and multiple interpretations thereof, the 30 years war, religious freedom in Bohemia, political and religious intrigues between Catholics and Protestants, phases and changes in American Spiritualism, Edgar Cayce, "The Unobstructed Universe", Stuart and Betty White, Carl Jung, the podcast “Tanis”, the belief system of the obstructed vs unobstructed universe, consciousness and reincarnation, the meaning of life, immortal individualism, entities called the Invisibles, incredible experiences between Betty and Stuart White, the Seer of the Sunbelt Reverend Edward A. Monroe, a talkative Scottish spirit, and much more! This is an exceptional conversation jam-packed with ideas and references! - Recap by Vincent Treewell of The Weird Part Podcast Outro Music is Lucid Nation with Food Chain Download
It's not our hundredth episode (been there, done that), but it is the mega-sized hundredth episode of the comic book we decided to dedicate 126+ weeks of our lives to discussing, which warrants a mega-sized ep! That can only mean we're talking Excalibur #100, “London's Burning,” with returning guest Dr. Andrew Kunka, who comes bearing tales of Warren Ellis slamming Harold Bloom while hopped up on too many Red Bulls. Plus! An update on the saga of Mav's garage and maybe a special secret sleepy guest star.
In today's episode of Welcome to Cloundlandia, we explore the concept of existing in multiple zones simultaneously, moving beyond the binary and discovering a third space - the Free Zone. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS Discover the power of existing in multiple zones simultaneously, such as the Free Zone, where you can mine your thoughts and experiences for the most fulfilling outcomes. Embrace your inner world and learn how dedicating time to your internal realms, like "Deanlandia," can shape and enhance your external experiences. Pursue the perfect life by focusing on your unique abilities and playing life like a game, constantly adapting and exploring new opportunities. Consider the changing ideas of success over the last 28 years and how the most successful individuals have achieved their goals. Explore the fascinating connections between technology and dog ownership, as well as the potential for collaboration between humans and animals. Apply the principles of playing life like a game to create even more collaborations between humans and animals. Claim your internal realms to open up new territories of collaboration, using tools like the 'who finder' and vision capability to reach assets. Reclaim your internal world and use it as a new territory to be explored and mined for the best resources and outcomes, without others having to know. Take inspiration from Shakespeare in creating your own projects and claiming your 'andia' to open up new opportunities and experiences. Remember the importance of taking action to achieve success, rather than just believing in it, and use that mindset to pursue your perfect life. Links: WelcomeToCloudlandia.com StrategicCoach.com DeanJackson.com ListingAgentLifestyle.com TRANSCRIPT Dean Jackson Mr Sullivan. Dan Sullivan Ah, mr Jackson, Welcome to the Cloudlandia. Yes yes, But actually we're movable folks, you and I. Dean Jackson We really are. Dan Sullivan And sometimes we operate focused on the mainland, that's true, and then other times we are involved in and focused on called landia, that's true. But I've discovered a third zone, me too. Yes, it's not binary, it's try bin, try, try bear. Dean Jackson Try banger. Dan Sullivan It's try, try, nery. You know, try, nery, and what's? yeah, because my feeling, feeling is that the that most folks are operating simultaneously, trying to integrate their mainland activities And, at the same time, taking advantage of Cloudlandia capabilities, that's true, and they don't have any space in between, which I call the, which, using coach language, i call the free zone. Dean Jackson Okay, i like this. I like where this is going, because it's very familiar with the stock life and having. Dan Sullivan Isn't that strange. Isn't that strange that we should be thinking along the same lines. Dean Jackson Yeah. Dan Sullivan But not really. No, my, you know. Dean Jackson I've been and I mentioned to the couple of times ago this idea of discovering Deanlandia Thinking about my thinking and that I realized I spend a disproportionate amount of time in Cloudlandia. If you think about the, if you include, like consuming content and watching, you know, netflix, or watching all those things as Cloudlandia activity, right, like taking in digital form, consuming something else, seeking dopamine from external sources, that that I'm lumping under the whole you know Cloudlandia thing, screen sucking, as our friend Ned Hololow would call it, and what I've realized. I've made a conscious effort and shifted the balance over the last couple of weeks here on my. my mantra has been less screen time, more Dean time. And I've been taking time to really think about my thinking And you know I've mentioned it to you Last time we spoke that you, you know, i was all stuck in my mind that when you mentioned, when you turned off, you know, tv and Netflix and all that stuff you, you made, you came to the realization that what's going on in your mind is better than what's coming out of the screen, right, basically? That there's a more fulfilling, enriching game going on inside your head than coming out of the screen right, and that was something that's always stuck with me. But I really get it now kind of on a different level, having really dedicated the last couple of weeks to shifting that balance. Dean Jackson Yeah. Dan Sullivan Well, dean, i'll use your term, dean Landia has some advantages. One is that it's a complete prezone, because no one else knows what's going on? Nobody else knows what's going on, And Dean said until he tells you. Dean Jackson Likewise for Dan Landia. I mean, that's really the great thing, right, Everybody has their own. You've got Dan Landia And that's the inner world that we. I mean it's the dominant thing. When you really think about how much time and how much of our external experience is dependent on what we're you know, what we're doing in in Deanlandia or Danlandia, that's shaping everything. Dan Sullivan Yeah, and one of the things that's really interesting about that, because you're you're the only one who has a unique ability of being Dean in Deanlandia. You know it's pretty. Yeah, it's a complete. We just auditioned and accepted another associate coach, and just last last, this past week in Chicago, and and and Ben Laws, who's a member of the Free Zone. He came up about six, seven months ago and, and you know, usually more because they have to go through an audition. And the way it works is, you know, there's a conversation that develops with someone who indicates that they might be interested in being one of our associate coaches, so he makes number 16 that we have and and we don't. You know, we don't add them at a fast pace, you know, i think the last right maybe three or four years, because we really want to check out first of all. You know we do some due diligence and we talk to referrals that the person gets to us and I said you know and and you know, is this person someone who actually enjoys coaching? you know, seems to be coach, like in their way of operating and you know so we check that out and then we check out you know how the family situation is, the home situation, because it's gonna require, you know, more travel and it's commitment. You know we we're not looking for a one-year associate coach, where I mean, are you know the, the average length of the? if we add the previous the, you know the existing 16 coaches, on average they've got 16 years, 16, 17 years coaching you know and you know some of them are year 28 27 and so you know we wanted to. You know we want it to be timeless, we wanted you know, and and because the program is always developing so there's always new things and they can. You know, with skill and with achievement they can jump from one level you know we just brought up five to the ten times level and, and it's our biggest place yours yeah, yeah, and it's our biggest multiplier in the coach. When you think about it, you know, you know. I mean I coach right now. I coach maybe you know 15% of the clients. The other 85% are coached by the other coaches you know, and they're, they're all coaching. People have written checks to strategic coach right yeah and and the other thing is, i've never seen one of them coach you've never sat in on. Dean Jackson I remember you saying that you don't sit in on the session or you're not and you know I've actually never been. Dan Sullivan I've never been you know I've never been in the room or on a zoom call when they're, when they're coaching, and so what happens? they get to the ultimate moment before you know, before it's yes or no, and and that we have an audition panel of coach, coach clients, who have all trained in the role of being a difficult client, workshop client ah after observation many expert oh no, we're. We're completely familiar with the subject of difficult yeah that's what. I mean after observation yeah, workshop, and each of them sort of masters the role, and they have a series. Usually there are a series of questions or there are series of challenges, and the best way to get them difficult is to turn everybody into an extreme fact finder. I don't, i don't understand what you're saying there. You know? could you, you know? could you give you know? can you, you know? can you explain that a little bit more? I'm not quite getting that chip now and so anyway, and launch ratio, he passed with playing colors, you know, and he's, he's in, but he had auditioned three years ago and we've been turning down we just said, we don't think you're ready yet, okay, we just oh wow yeah, he was only three years, and he was only three years in the program, so right, you know he, you know, i mean he, he just had basic toilet training down, but he didn't have it advanced right now we're now. We're looking for volume and velocity yeah, right, exactly and accuracy well, that's exciting. Dean Jackson I mean, that's a good insight into you know how that that process works. Dan Sullivan But the thing and I want to bring it back to your comment of Dean Landia and because usually you know my role is to go in and say good luck, you know, and everything like- that but. I said that that's stupid. We're not looking for luck, right, right right. We're looking for confidence and capability, you know. And so I went in and I said, ben, be yourself. And I had a huge impact on me afterwards, you know, when the verdict was in and there was a pizza and champagne celebration in the cafe. I went up to him and he said that had a huge impact on me and I said, yeah, but being yourself is is the first free zone, hmm. I like that thought that it's true. There's no competition, no one who can possibly compete at being you yeah, yeah you know, and so, anyway, he and then we, he brought it up, i brought it up and we were in the free zone workshop the next day. This is Wednesday, the free zone was on Thursday. Live, you know, we had actual, live human beings in a physical room and it came up as a topic and it went on for about 45 minutes and you know, and people said, yeah, yeah, be yourself. You know, be yourself. You know Oscar Wilde, you know the sort of the outrageous English British, you know, writer, you know he was a novelist and wrote plays and commentator. Yeah, he had a line which I thought was halfway there. He said be yourself, everyone's taken that's the make of yeah, but that seems like a kind of negative approach to it. My, you know my, my approach, and I'm coming back to the Dean Landia idea and the Dan Landia idea. I'm coming back and I'm saying be yourself, because the territory is entirely you. Dean Jackson You just have to take ownership yes, it's pretty exciting when you start thinking like that, like when I love and then embracing, you know your I'm just thinking this morning in my journal about the, you know the uniqueness of our, both the internal things and the external advantages that we have. Like I was thinking about the element of a perfect life. That was a concept that I've been. You know, 25 years ago we did this exercise of. I know I'm being successful when, when I created this program with Thomas Leonard and you know the, i've been really thinking about these, the elements here of a perfect life, and you know it comes down to, i love, like bedrock things, things that are, you know, universal, contextual rocks that, if you look at, we're all, all the elements that go into creating a perfect life. Our time, where it's, you know that's we're all born into, that it's here, whether we before we were here, it's gonna be here after, but it's one element that we're all working within the construct of the speed of reality 60 minutes we're born and the game is already going you think about it as a? video game. Is we're joining the game in process, right, it's already been yeah going on. Then the next level is what I encompass as me or you. You know you've got everything that is distinctly weird. It's strip you naked, put you on a deserted island. That's the everything that you have right now. Is you so that's? and some of those things are factory settings that you can't really change like your. You're a male. Your IQ, your, your genetic health, your situation, you know all of those you're, you know your brain power, you know, yeah, your brain power, and I think that there is an advantage you can't deny. You say yourself life's not fair. It's not fair that some people are born with super high IQs, super physical strength, super genetic, you know health, makeup, and others are born with, you know, other with challenges, in that sometimes people are born with mental disabilities or physical disabilities or all of the things. But when you do an assessment, if you're kind of pushing the reset button on the game and I love your idea of 25 year framework, so I 25 year terms yeah, that you end up with a you know every thing, if we're joining the game in progress, if you're kind of pushing the reset button now you just turned 79 years old, you had a reset in, you know 75 and you kind of make the, the rules up as you go, because that's the great thing about it everything is made up, like you say, and the. But if you do an assessment at any point, if we just kind of do an inventory of what are my you know me advantages that I have right now, if I were just to say, and I think that's all of your, all of the knowledge, all of your physical situation right now, all of those things are what you're left with. And then the next is the environment, which is all of the settings, all of the external things. Like an environment is where you are in the game. If you're born into rural China, that's a different environment than being born in North America or being born in Canada. You've got a moving sidewalk advantage that you're in the mix. You've got geography on your side, you've got the economy. So all of that stuff is an environmental thing that you can change. This is part of the thing is that anytime we could up and move to rural China if you wanted to or change your environment that's where you are thinking comes in with the immigrant thinking. You're thinking where you're leaving everything behind, and that's kind of this thought is where would be the best environment for what you want for this next 25 years? if you're going to set up the plan there, then the next is people. that there's all the people that are involved and that's distinct from your environment, and who you choose to collaborate with. cooperate with, you know, co-habitate with. Some of them are your family, that you're assigned when you come into the game. Dan Sullivan But then there are other Already pre-assigned. Dean Jackson Actually, that's exactly right, pre-assigned, that's exactly right. And then money is the final element, and I think that the thing becomes taking your imagine. My visual metaphor for it is this continuous runway game like Guitar Hero or something, where it's just constantly coming at you at the speed of 60 minutes per hour and you get to move the joystick into whatever environment where you're going to allocate that time and in what environment, with what people, and those environments are either contributing to money or taking away from you or using money to participate in that part of the environment, or you're in an environment that's making money, and so those five elements of the game are a really fun thing. Dan Sullivan And what you just said is true for everyone. Dean Jackson Yes, that's exact, and that's why the framework. Dan Sullivan The truth. the whole thing is how you play the game. And let's take poker, for example. The best poker players aren't the ones who get an unusual run of good cards. Right, I mean, over the course of, let's say, 50 games, they didn't get any better cards than anybody else did. Dean Jackson No, you're absolutely right. It's so funny. That's really the And those are situations. That's a perfect example that this really is. You're playing it like a game and I wanted to, and that was made the distinction of A perfect life, not D perfect life, because A perfect life acknowledges that there are 8 billion versions of it. Everybody is in possession of one life, that they get to play the game and pursue a perfect for them life. Dean Jackson Yeah. Dean Jackson That's a fun game. Dan Sullivan Yeah, someone one of the FreeZone participants on Thursday just casually was talking, then dropped the line. perfect, i said whoa, whoa whoa, whoa, whoa, perfect, perfect, So right, okay, so I'm going to give you an easy approach to perfection, okay, and this is what I've done. Just declare yourself perfect. Yeah, just say I'm perfect. Now, how am I going to expand that over the next 90 days? Right, yeah. And it takes them right back to unique ability, because that's the only dynamic capability that we have is that we have a unique ability that nobody has, which is a more. Which is a more coach, which is a more coachified way of talking about. You have a unique ability. That's where the perfection is, but you haven't fully explored all the different ways that you can be more conscious of that, and you haven't explored all the ways in which it can move into greater capabilities and impact in the world. Dean Jackson Yeah, and I guess, that's a guess. Dan Sullivan So that's what Dean Landy is. Dean has a unique ability, unique to him, and I think I passed on to you a comment that says a psychologist is doing a study on the ultimate paper on outliers And he was very, very keenly interested in talking to me, because the words gone around about strategic coach and the whole philosophy of strategic coach is based, and the practice of strategic coach is based on a concept called unique ability. And the question to me was what do unique people have in common? And I said, well, nothing, yeah. Dean Jackson What do unique people have in common? Dan Sullivan Nothing. Dean Jackson That's the absolute truth, isn't it? Yeah? Dan Sullivan I mean I said I've looked the term up in the dictionary and it's a thing unto itself and there's no similarity to it with anything else. I mean unique either means what it means or it doesn't mean anything. But you can't have a unique ability cult. Dean Jackson I think you're right. The interesting thing is, there's always this room for improvement. There's always room for progress And I think that if I think about perfection as something being perfect, as an asymptotic curve that continues to prove I never levels out, is I like some of these definitions, like I'm a big entomologist too similar to you in looking at? I look at the definitions of things right, and I think that what's perfect is, as an adjective, having all the required or desirable elements, qualities or characteristics, as good as it is possible to be. My favorite one is highly suitable for someone or something Exactly right. There's always this thing that we always have just like a horizon, we always have an opportunity to move forward, and I think that that, but it's nice to be able to think that. Dan Sullivan Yeah, well, i think, the wildcard. There's a couple of wildcard factors here. One wildcard factor is that we live in the realm of time. Okay, Yeah. And time's always moving on? Yeah, and as it moves on, things change You know, Yeah, at least they change in terms of our awareness. you know that we're aware of. Gee, that's something new, you know and everything. And the thing is that there's a high premium here on adaptability, of saying, well, this is the perfect approach here, but you know, next week it might not be. Dean Jackson And being. This is where being alert, curious, all of those things are. Yeah, i was looking back at the last 25 years and I was actually thinking like I'd like round things. I'm moving to where, you know, i'm three years away from being 60, and that will be a 25-year. You know, from 2000 was when I kind of started that 25-year vision, you know, and I would tell it now that I've got three years to get to 60, and then 25 years from there will take me to 85, right, and But I look at what's happened. You know that's 28 years right now, kind of looking forward there, and I think of them as academic years. So you know, 28 seasons kind of thing or whatever. I think about them starting in September. But the I think I was really thinking this morning, think about all the things that have changed in that 28 years from 1996 to, you know, to now, and the richest people in the world right now none of them were even doing what they're doing to get to that point 28 years ago. Dan Sullivan Yeah, and that wouldn't, there was no. Dean Jackson There was no Google, there was no Facebook there was no YouTube. Dan Sullivan But even if you take Berkshire Hathaway, which is outside of its technological realm, i mean Warren Buffett will tell you that all of his money, you know he's in his, approaching his mid-90s now and all of his money's really been made, you know, recently. Dean Jackson Yeah. Dean Jackson Yeah, and isn't that? I mean you think about that Warren Buffett was? He was the richest guy in the world or among them. Then, you know, 28 years ago, that's just So, it was Bill Gates, and you know, you think about some of those, the OG ones, but you think about how much, like the internet was just a baby in the United States And brand new. Yeah, You know, you see that My favorite is seeing that. You know Brian Gumbel and Katie Couric clip of them discussing what is the internet. Dan Sullivan You know, yeah well, and what's this thing dot com? you know? right, exactly. Yeah, what's a, what's hello, What Yeah well, i mean, do you have a clue? and these are, you know, these are people in the middle of the news media, you know. I mean yeah and yeah I mean and, and you know they're at and they're in New York City. You know they're right in the Center of one of the world's great plugged in cities. You know, and they're wondering there was. So, you know, i mean, it's really interesting. Just a little point about that. I had just been, you know, you know, doing podcasts with Mike Kenix and Peter Diamadas and Both of them said they made a statement similar to Everybody now is paying attention to AI. Okay, yeah, that's the first part. The second part was I was in London for a whole week and I had a whole event all day with, you know, 100 strategic coach clients, and The only reason anybody was talking about the AI was that Evan Ryan happened to be in UK at that time and I invited to come for the day and I had him come in and And everybody wanted to know what this was. You know, and, and I was reading the. You know London is very rich with newspapers and, yeah, i, you know I was reading the tele every day, the telegraph and. Nobody, nobody was talking about AI. And I, you know, and I said, and I said this is London, another globally plugged in city. You know, you know. I mean you know on a par with New York. And I said, you know, i bet, if I, if, if I go to Africa and visit all the capital cities of Africa, i bet they're not talking about AI, you know right and yeah, yeah. So you know, I mean we're very, very biased towards what, what we're involved in. We're very, very biased towards what we're excited about you know, and everything like that, but that's Not being in your own India, you know. Dean Jackson I mean, i find your own private India Yeah yeah, yeah yeah, have you taken ownership of your India yet? Dan Sullivan Yeah, you know you gotta, you gotta register it. There's like the land rush, you know you got. Dean Jackson Your grandfather, did you? nobody's Just got a claim. Dan Sullivan I think I think you're hitting on something very, very fundamental Which I'm suspecting is very Recent in human history. Okay, and by recent I don't mean, you know, the last 10 years, i mean the last 400 years, and the reason I say 400 Is because I was watching a YouTube video. There's a author who's dead now I think he died last year, in his 90s by the name of Harold Bloom, a professor at Yale, and His specialty was Shakespeare. I mean, he was considered the Foremost expert and commentator on Shakespeare in history. No one, no one, has written about, spoken about Shakespeare more. And Shakespeare, for Harold boom, shakespeare is the. He has a book, is a huge book. You know, it's a big, thick book and It's called Shakespeare, the invention, the invention of human. And He, you know he makes his case. He's, you know he's got all sorts of convincing arguments and everything like that. But he said Shakespeare was the first writer of any kind, the first dramatist of any kind Who, on stage and of course in the writing, but on stage has characters talking to themselves. And He said it's the first one. Yeah, we've never seen. He said I've. You know, i've explored all the stories and all the you know The religions and everything, and he's the first. He's the first character, but it's not just one character. He created about 25 different characters who do this and And they talk to themselves, they have conversations with themselves, and he said there's a crossover and That the modern world really exists when people started talking to themselves in the ancient world before they did. Because now you're thinking about your thinking and You're now reflecting on it and sharing it with the audience. Who the character doesn't know is there. You know he thinks he's alone, but there's, yeah you know, there's a thousand people watching this take place, but he says it's also the birth of personality and he says you Prior, prior to Shakespeare. You don't get these really incredible personalities, you know, like Macbeth, hamlet and Yeah yeah, you know, shia I like, and Iago and all these amazing, and they're complete universes in themselves. I mean, there, there, they're not. They're not even in service of the pot. They just have this complete, almost endless depth to them. And And I Was pod raid that. And Freud, the you know, the famous psychiatrist rain around the 1900 was asked Who he thought was the greatest expert on human psychology, thinking that he would talk about someone in his field or someone he you know, and that he was going to be humble and Give credit to some other person. and he said well, you know, every time I think I'm on a completely new insight And it's like walking down a new road. About halfway down the road I see somebody walking back the other way and and And it's Shakespeare, and Shakespeare. Shakespeare says I thought it was promising, but not really. You know, i mean, take it for me. And I found that a very striking comment on Freud's perch. You know, i mean he was, he was, i mean he was totally into himself, i mean he was a character himself and he was a personality. But if you put bloom and Freud together, what he's saying is that this is very, very recent And it actually has to beginning with one thinker, and you know it has that has to begin in. So I think we're living in that That world and what you and I are doing today, we're saying, yeah, we didn't come up with the notion that there's a mainland and a cloud land via. You know, we, we simply put names to something that people were already dealing with. Yeah, but it's like it's binary, you know, it's like when you, when you, you know, reach the border for this border of the mainland, then you're in cloudlandia. Dean Jackson But what you're. Dan Sullivan What you're suggesting is Well. That may be true for most people, But in fact it's possible to create a third zone that lies between Mainland the mainland and cloudlandia. Dean Jackson That's the truth. I look at them as the layers there. You're absolutely right. Yeah, it's the one that. Yeah, it's the thing that puts it all together. Dan Sullivan Yeah, It's interesting, this thing of technology and the book, the quarterly book I'm writing. This is quarter 35, so this is book 35. And it's called Training Technology Like a Good Dog. Dean Jackson Okay. Dan Sullivan And it's really getting interesting and I'm doing some reading on the topic of. has anyone else made this connection between technology and dogs? And a really nice piece, an academic piece, pretty recent, it just sort of came out And it makes the claim that dogs are in fact humanity's first technology. And this is the thinking this is the thinking that it's the first time humans have taken another species. You know, have taken wolves and done a deal with them, you know. Basically, but there was no such thing as a dog until there was a collaboration between some canny wolf and some you know response of human being And together they created a new creature on the planet called dog you know, And so so when you look at, you know all the various shapes and sizes of, you know of dogs. I live in the beaches area of Toronto and there's a boardwalk about a two minutes away from our front door. And I go down and walk and boy, they sure come in a lot of different varieties but it's all a creative, but it's all a created species and did not pre exist before humans and another species did a collaboration And I says therefore how have we done with the technology called dogs? And we've done, we've been very creative. You know, we've been very creative. You know I mean it's, it's hard to you. Don't see them often, but sometimes you see a chihuahua down there. You know which are, you can hold in your hand. And I ran into one I had never seen two weeks ago, called a Leon burger. Okay, never heard of it And it's a German dog. Dean Jackson It's a St. Dan Sullivan Bernardish As a matter of fact, I think it's a it's bred from. it's a combination of putting the St Bernard and several other mountain work dogs together called. Leon burger, and it's arguably the biggest, the biggest of the breeds, and they weigh in at about a hundred and forty, five hundred and fifty pounds. They're a big, big dog and very, very tranquil, you know very tranquil, very, you know, very easy to get along with. And I said well, somebody you know, some back there, series of people says let's get a really, really little dog. You know one you can hold in your hand And you know. And and somebody else said you know what we do, we need a bigger dog. We need a bigger dog. But you have to realize, is you're, you're dealing with a technology that was actually created by human beings in the first place. That's amazing. Dean Jackson It was made. Dan Sullivan they're made up, Dogs are made up. Dean Jackson Yeah, i think you say. then what would be the next collaboration? that paved the way for us to collaborate with donkey and oxen. Dan Sullivan Yeah, Pigs cows, you know yeah yeah, but my feeling is the knowledge of developing dogs then led to you know, led to you know all sorts of you know domestication of animals, just spread very quickly after they cracked the code, after they cracked the code on dogs. Dean Jackson Think about that All the yeah, the golden age of carrier pigeons and falconry, and yeah, parrot, we opened up a whole new yeah. Dean Jackson Yeah, a whole new world. Yeah, yeah, i think you're on the front. Dan Sullivan There's a, there's a, there's a parallel weapon. Well, this is the only topic that Peter Diamandis has ever asked me to share at A360. Dean Jackson And. Dan Sullivan I wasn't asked to come on stage, i just did a little 10 minute riff. Dean Jackson Yeah. Dan Sullivan But I said, you know, i had 10 minute riff there And that was, you know, six, seven years ago And but it's, it's been one of those. It's been like a piece of food that gets caught in your teeth. You know, my tongue's been working away for the last five or six years And I've been saying, you know, i think there was something in that little riff I did there. Dean Jackson Yeah. Dan Sullivan That will be useful now when we talk about the technologies that we have right now, and what I've established in the book is that you don't get a good dog unless you establish completely and take responsibility that you're the owner. Okay, and my sense is the same thing with any technology, but especially the ones that were are you know are the hot numbers in Cloudlandia. Dean Jackson I love it. Dean Jackson I mean this is such great. I can't wait for that one to come out. Dan Sullivan Yeah, and you know the book. The book surprises you, i mean, as you go along. And. but the central thing is, i mean it's it's a bit of a diversion, because I'm talking about dogs and I'm really talking about you know, and I'm talking about technology, but it's actually a diversion. What I'm trying to emphasis is what does ownership mean? Are you a human being who's actually taken ownership of yourself, because it makes a lot easier than to be the owner of a dog and the owner of technology? if you've actually taken ownership of yourself And I think that Dean Lambea is a statement I've taken ownership of this territory. Dean Jackson I think that's right And all that that entails And that's the part of the best thing. If you did inherit a land or took ownership of it, part of the great joy is exploring the territory. That's really what Well, i'm putting yeah. Dan Sullivan And the other thing is putting your mark on it you know, Yeah. I think, that's amazing, Yeah, And the land rush. You know they had the homesteading act. It's an act of Congress. And then the various states would have land rushes, They would be territories and they had goal to be a state. Oklahoma is the very famous, you know the very famous example. And so it didn't have Oklahoma, the Oklahoma territory, which was borrowed from the Native Indians who were there. But they were Yeah, but they were very deficient on property lines, they were. They were very deficient on surveys, you know, and they said it was their land, but there was. They didn't register it, you know they didn't you know they didn't go to the, you know to the Native Territory Registry Office and register it And so got a certain date. You know the financial interests and the political interests in Oklahoma set that up And you have to get in agreement with the federal government that you're doing this. You know it's a teamwork thing but on a particular day you could line up at one border of Oklahoma. You couldn't do it from all four borders. You could do it And there was a gunshot or a cannon was off, and then you would go to claim a hundred, a hundred, i think it was a hundred acres hundred acres And you know, and you had to survey it in, you had to put the survey lines in and you had to put stakes, stakes along the way, and you, they had surveyors who were helpers and they would, you know, give the, you know from their understanding, the, you know the specific latitude and longitude. And then they had a registry office and these were movable registry offices because it was dynamic action for like a six month period And by the end of six months all the land was registered, all the land in the state was registered, and then you know, and then they invited people to move in to the potential new state of Oklahoma and once they got a population that was equal to the state of Rhode Island, they could petition for statehood, and that's how the state got created. Dean Jackson Isn't that interesting? I there was a great movie. There was a great movie called Far and Away and it was Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman and it told the story of them coming from Ireland to Oklahoma, to America, where they're giving away land. They saw flyers in the, you know, in England or in Ireland and decided that they would make the track over and start a new life in America. Yeah, it was a very fascinating thing And it's interesting how the Oklahoma Sooners the Sooners got their name because some of them, as you said, before the gun went off, they went in. Dean Jackson Sooner and already, already. Dan Sullivan Yeah, they yeah, that's why. Yeah, that's why the The name has stuck, you know and I'll go home, Yeah and because they were Too soon. they were too soon, Yeah that's right, Yeah that's they had already. They were already there and then they hit, but and then, if anybody else came, they Suddenly emerged and said no, no, we've staked up this territory, we've already done it, you know, and and Everything else you know, like Italy, i was on a bus in Italy and it was on the Amalfi coast, which is a spectacular, you know, spectacularly beautiful part. But we weren't on the coast, we were in a town and I was sitting the closest a passenger could be to the bus driver, so he was on Left, because they, they, they, they drive on the same way we do in the states, you know, on the same side of the road. And we came in a village where we came down, and then there was a perpendicular road, road we around didn't go through. You had to turn, and, and these client and the sign at the end clearly said Turn right the arrow was pointing right and the bus driver turned left and I said I think that's one way. The other way isn't? he says, mere suggestion. Dean Jackson I'm mere suggestion. That's funny. I love it. Dan Sullivan I love it and that that explains that. That explains Italians approach to all laws merely Yeah. Dean Jackson I thought, by the way, your Go ahead, you're about to talk about you're. Dan Sullivan You're about to talk about me, so I want to hear it fully, of course. Dean Jackson I saw your working genius. Dean Jackson Oh yeah through before. Dean Jackson That'd be a good No surprise, but no is identical. Dean Jackson Yes, we have identical working geniuses. Dean Jackson It's funny, yeah, but Useful. I mean, i've got a. 0:54:16 - Dan Sullivan I found it very useful and we're going to give it to all the free zoners You know we're going to give it you know like we do. We did that with the print, which I find useful in its own way and you know. So you know Strength finder. I find that useful. Cold be very useful. Dean Jackson And you know so. I mean they're like interesting. It would be, or be fascinating For, if everybody in free zone did the working genius and they got a way to combine, to show Like we could show the free zone environment with everybody's strength lit up. As You know, if you need Some particular working genius, these are all the free zone people that are. Dan Sullivan Well, it's really interesting because we just created a tool. Our tech team did the Website on the coach website that's called the who finder, and I like you and you go in and just list who you are. In terms of the kind of kinds of projects you like to work on and where your best abilities are And what your best solutions are and you just listed and anybody else can look at that and contact you. Dean Jackson I like that. I'm just good thinking. Something similar among Looking at the, the VCR assets as well vision capability and reach Assets to be able to be where people have Access, capacity or have need. Yeah, as a framework for collaboration, oh yeah. Dan Sullivan So I mean you could, you could just take the who finder and just expand it to include those categories with credit, with credit given to the originator. Dean Jackson But I think those that would really open up a lot of collaboration. Dean Jackson Yeah. Dan Sullivan Yeah, there's one. I don't know if you've met him because he's a Year into free zone. His name is Chad Jenkins. Have you met Chad Jenkins? I have met Chad. Dean Jackson Yeah, i met Chad and he was in Palm Beach, right. Dan Sullivan Yeah, yeah, and he's a multi-company man and in North Carolina. But he in one year has stripped out all of his Activities except collaborating with other people, mainly in free zone, mainly in free zone And then adding their capabilities to the companies that he owns. I like that. Dean Jackson Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, let's come up. Dan Sullivan Let's just sum up a little bit, three things that emerged and you're thinking, since we started at the Top of the previous hour, what let's come through? that Takes what you were already working on further Well. Dean Jackson I like this idea of You know, claiming your and via. I think It's a really interesting concept, but if you take it like a, a new territory to be explored and mined for all the best resources and outcomes, and I Think there's, i think there's really something to that of thinking of it as Property, you know well, I think the the interesting thing about it It isn't that other people have to know That have to know because they can't They can't right the whole point is do you claim it for yourself? Yeah, I Think that's amazing, like I think there's so much of our. That's really where we spend the most time, you know. I mean, it's there, the It's what shapes everything. You know so much of our life experience is our internal, whether we recognize it as that or not, but where our attention goes well, and I think the other thing that is very crucial about this, and And we didn't really get into that, but since That, i'll just use my own example. Dan Sullivan For a long time in my life I didn't claim my India. I didn't and, but I beat myself up For being there rather than being either in the mainland or in clockland. Dean Jackson Yeah right. Dan Sullivan The meantime I was in Dan Dan landia. I thought it was a waste of time that I you know why are you doing this? Dean Jackson I mean, this is wasted time, this is wasted effort you know why you, why What teachers and authorities kind of beat it out of you. He's always yeah, he's always got his head in the cloud. He's always down. Often, if he's often his own world. It's always beaten out of us as a negative thing. Dan Sullivan Well yeah, or or we tell other, we give other people permission to beat us up Yeah. Dean Jackson Well it's true, right, yeah, i mean. Dan Sullivan I mean it's interesting, I think that It's. It's a new world that we're in, but my, my sense is that it really starts, and I'm I feel good about description. You know that Professor Bloom gives that this really really started with Shakespeare. Shakespeare is the first human being to Open the door That this is available to you know, he's, he's available to you. What's really, really interesting, he comes across as a very tortured soul. So I think he only went halfway with this idea. And that is he says we, we need to worship Shakespeare by this. And I said, no, you got to use Shakespeare as a working example and then, in your own realm, do What he suggested you can do and I get the sense that that he didn't do that. He didn't do that. You know he, you know he turned it, you know he talks about it in almost like religious terms and I said, right, yeah, it's like. It's kind of like you have a retrieval dog and You shoot and you kill the duck. You know the duck fall and then you then you point to the pointer. You know you point to that, and instead of going and getting the duck, he looks your finger. Dean Jackson Oh, right Oh. Dan Sullivan Mighty one, Oh mighty one. I love it when you point you know yeah no, no, there's. There's a project here, You know. Go do what, go do what you're supposed to be doing. Dean Jackson Yeah, and I get it. Dan Sullivan Yeah, i got it feeling with I got a gold mine out of this and Yeah, claiming your andia that's the exactly right. Dean Jackson I got a gold mine out of this, and I got a gold mine out of this, and I did, yeah, claiming your andia. Dan Sullivan That's the exactly right. That's just the t-shirt that we're going to, that's right. I mean coffee cops bumper sticker soon. I mean there's the universe Emerging anyway, Same same time next week. Absolutely, i wouldn't miss it. Dean Jackson Alrighty, thanks, dan, okay. Okay, okay, dean.
Rick and Forrest are joined by award-winning journalist Michael Krasny for an episode focused on how to stay curious, navigate times of transition, and relate to the modern media landscape in healthy ways. They use Michael's recent experience with “retirement” as a jumping off point to explore how we can embrace change and stay curious before diving into a conversation focused on the modern media landscape. Topics include bothsides-ism, navigating challenging conversations, and finding the balance between what “knowing mind” and “don't know mind.”About our Guest: Michael Krasny is the long-time host of the KQED Forum, and has interviewed some of the most prominent figures of the past 50 years, including Maya Angelou, Caesar Chavez, President Jimmy Carter, Carl Sagan, and President Barack Obama. Since retiring from the Forum, Michael has started his own podcast: Grey Matter with Michael Krasny. Watch the Episode: Prefer watching video? You can watch this episode on YouTube.Key Topics:0:00: Introduction1:45: What's helped Michael navigate the transition to a new phase of life3:45: Michael's shift in identity post-KQED Forum5:45: Curiosity and ‘usefulness'8:10: Preparing for interviews11:10: How Michael became an interviewer14:10: Shakespeare characters, the anxiety of influence, and corporal punishment23:10: How the function of media has changed over time26:05: Bothsidesism and offering balanced viewpoints30:40: ‘Always don't know', and not being captured by our strengths33:45: Overpreparation, anxiety, and the role of an interviewer38:20: The value of spacious conversation vs. discourse through sound bytes40:30: Recap Support the Podcast: We're now on Patreon! If you'd like to support the podcast, follow this link.Sponsors:Get 15% off OneSkin with the code BEINGWELL at https://www.oneskin.co/ Go to BrioAirPurifier.com and use code BEINGWELL to save $100 on a Brio Air Purifier.Finally get that project off the ground with Squarespace! Head to squarespace.com/beingwell for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch use coupon code BEINGWELL to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.Join over a million people using BetterHelp, the world's largest online counseling platform. Visit betterhelp.com/beingwell for 10% off your first month!Want to sleep better? Try the Calm app! Visit calm.com/beingwell for 40% off a premium subscription.Connect with the show:Subscribe on iTunesFollow Forrest on YouTubeFollow us on InstagramFollow Forrest on InstagramFollow Rick on FacebookFollow Forrest on FacebookVisit Forrest's website
If you're enjoying the Hardcore Literature Show, there are two ways you can show your support and ensure it continues: 1. Please leave a quick review on iTunes. 2. Join in the fun over at the Hardcore Literature Book Club: patreon.com/hardcoreliterature Thank you so much. Happy listening and reading! - Benjamin
Eugene Sheppard joins his Brandeis colleague John Plotz to speak with Joshua Cohen about The Netanyahus. Is the 2021 novel a Pulitzer-winning bravura story of the world's worst job interview? Or is it a searing indictment of ethno-nationalist Zionism--and the strange act of pretense whereby American Jewish writers and thinkers in postwar America pretended that Israel and its more extreme ethno-nationalist strains didn't concern them? Cohen dramatizes the return of that repressed by imagining the family of Benzion Netanyahu (actual medieval Spanish historian and father of Israel's past and present Prime Minister Bibi) landing itself on a would-be assimilated American Jewish family ripped straight from the pages of a Philip Roth or Bernard Malamud novel. With John and Eugene, Joshua dissects the legacy of earlier American Jewish writers like Cynthia Ozick, and offers finer details of how Ze'ev Jabotinksy's bellicose views would ultimately take hold in Israel, wisecracking his way to a literally jaw-dropping conclusion.... Mentioned in this episode: Zionist and ethnonationalist Ze'ev Jabotinksy (1880-1940): "We must eliminate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will eliminate us." Novalis (the German Romantic writer Georg Von Hardenberg) says somewhere "Every book must contain its counter-book." Slavoj Zizek makes the case that everything is political including the choice not to have a politics. Joshua wants readers to think about why celebrated postwar American fiction by Jewish authors like Cynthia Ozick, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth (starting from his 1959 Goodbye Columbus) largely ignores both the Holocaust and Israel until the 1970s or 1980s. Joshua invokes Harold Bloom's 1973 Anxiety of Influence to explain his relationship to them. He is less interested in Hannah Arendt. "Shoah Religion" is the way in which the Holocaust came to not only function as a key element in post-war American Jewish identification but also to legitimate the state of Israel (cf Abba Eban's famous quip "There's no business like Shoah business") Yekke: a German-Jew in Israel or American characterized by an ethos of industrial self-restraint and German culture, satirized in Israeli culture as a man who wears a three piece suit in the middle of summer heat. Leon Feuchtwanger "There's hope but not for us" Joshua (subtly) quotes a line of Kafka's that Walter Benjamin (in "Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of His Death‟ from Illuminations) apparently lifted from Max Brod ("Oh Hoffnung genug, unendlich viel Hoffnung, — nur nicht für uns.") Yitzhak La'or "you ever want a poem to become real" Netanyahu tells the story of the snowy drive to Ithaca (again) in an interview with Barry Weiss. Philip Roth, The Ghost Writer Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies
Eugene Sheppard joins his Brandeis colleague John Plotz to speak with Joshua Cohen about The Netanyahus. Is the 2021 novel a Pulitzer-winning bravura story of the world's worst job interview? Or is it a searing indictment of ethno-nationalist Zionism--and the strange act of pretense whereby American Jewish writers and thinkers in postwar America pretended that Israel and its more extreme ethno-nationalist strains didn't concern them? Cohen dramatizes the return of that repressed by imagining the family of Benzion Netanyahu (actual medieval Spanish historian and father of Israel's past and present Prime Minister Bibi) landing itself on a would-be assimilated American Jewish family ripped straight from the pages of a Philip Roth or Bernard Malamud novel. With John and Eugene, Joshua dissects the legacy of earlier American Jewish writers like Cynthia Ozick, and offers finer details of how Ze'ev Jabotinksy's bellicose views would ultimately take hold in Israel, wisecracking his way to a literally jaw-dropping conclusion.... Mentioned in this episode: Zionist and ethnonationalist Ze'ev Jabotinksy (1880-1940): "We must eliminate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will eliminate us." Novalis (the German Romantic writer Georg Von Hardenberg) says somewhere "Every book must contain its counter-book." Slavoj Zizek makes the case that everything is political including the choice not to have a politics. Joshua wants readers to think about why celebrated postwar American fiction by Jewish authors like Cynthia Ozick, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth (starting from his 1959 Goodbye Columbus) largely ignores both the Holocaust and Israel until the 1970s or 1980s. Joshua invokes Harold Bloom's 1973 Anxiety of Influence to explain his relationship to them. He is less interested in Hannah Arendt. "Shoah Religion" is the way in which the Holocaust came to not only function as a key element in post-war American Jewish identification but also to legitimate the state of Israel (cf Abba Eban's famous quip "There's no business like Shoah business") Yekke: a German-Jew in Israel or American characterized by an ethos of industrial self-restraint and German culture, satirized in Israeli culture as a man who wears a three piece suit in the middle of summer heat. Leon Feuchtwanger "There's hope but not for us" Joshua (subtly) quotes a line of Kafka's that Walter Benjamin (in "Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of His Death‟ from Illuminations) apparently lifted from Max Brod ("Oh Hoffnung genug, unendlich viel Hoffnung, — nur nicht für uns.") Yitzhak La'or "you ever want a poem to become real" Netanyahu tells the story of the snowy drive to Ithaca (again) in an interview with Barry Weiss. Philip Roth, The Ghost Writer Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
Eugene Sheppard joins his Brandeis colleague John Plotz to speak with Joshua Cohen about The Netanyahus. Is the 2021 novel a Pulitzer-winning bravura story of the world's worst job interview? Or is it a searing indictment of ethno-nationalist Zionism--and the strange act of pretense whereby American Jewish writers and thinkers in postwar America pretended that Israel and its more extreme ethno-nationalist strains didn't concern them? Cohen dramatizes the return of that repressed by imagining the family of Benzion Netanyahu (actual medieval Spanish historian and father of Israel's past and present Prime Minister Bibi) landing itself on a would-be assimilated American Jewish family ripped straight from the pages of a Philip Roth or Bernard Malamud novel. With John and Eugene, Joshua dissects the legacy of earlier American Jewish writers like Cynthia Ozick, and offers finer details of how Ze'ev Jabotinksy's bellicose views would ultimately take hold in Israel, wisecracking his way to a literally jaw-dropping conclusion.... Mentioned in this episode: Zionist and ethnonationalist Ze'ev Jabotinksy (1880-1940): "We must eliminate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will eliminate us." Novalis (the German Romantic writer Georg Von Hardenberg) says somewhere "Every book must contain its counter-book." Slavoj Zizek makes the case that everything is political including the choice not to have a politics. Joshua wants readers to think about why celebrated postwar American fiction by Jewish authors like Cynthia Ozick, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth (starting from his 1959 Goodbye Columbus) largely ignores both the Holocaust and Israel until the 1970s or 1980s. Joshua invokes Harold Bloom's 1973 Anxiety of Influence to explain his relationship to them. He is less interested in Hannah Arendt. "Shoah Religion" is the way in which the Holocaust came to not only function as a key element in post-war American Jewish identification but also to legitimate the state of Israel (cf Abba Eban's famous quip "There's no business like Shoah business") Yekke: a German-Jew in Israel or American characterized by an ethos of industrial self-restraint and German culture, satirized in Israeli culture as a man who wears a three piece suit in the middle of summer heat. Leon Feuchtwanger "There's hope but not for us" Joshua (subtly) quotes a line of Kafka's that Walter Benjamin (in "Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of His Death‟ from Illuminations) apparently lifted from Max Brod ("Oh Hoffnung genug, unendlich viel Hoffnung, — nur nicht für uns.") Yitzhak La'or "you ever want a poem to become real" Netanyahu tells the story of the snowy drive to Ithaca (again) in an interview with Barry Weiss. Philip Roth, The Ghost Writer Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies
Eugene Sheppard joins his Brandeis colleague John Plotz to speak with Joshua Cohen about The Netanyahus. Is the 2021 novel a Pulitzer-winning bravura story of the world's worst job interview? Or is it a searing indictment of ethno-nationalist Zionism--and the strange act of pretense whereby American Jewish writers and thinkers in postwar America pretended that Israel and its more extreme ethno-nationalist strains didn't concern them? Cohen dramatizes the return of that repressed by imagining the family of Benzion Netanyahu (actual medieval Spanish historian and father of Israel's past and present Prime Minister Bibi) landing itself on a would-be assimilated American Jewish family ripped straight from the pages of a Philip Roth or Bernard Malamud novel. With John and Eugene, Joshua dissects the legacy of earlier American Jewish writers like Cynthia Ozick, and offers finer details of how Ze'ev Jabotinksy's bellicose views would ultimately take hold in Israel, wisecracking his way to a literally jaw-dropping conclusion.... Mentioned in this episode: Zionist and ethnonationalist Ze'ev Jabotinksy (1880-1940): "We must eliminate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will eliminate us." Novalis (the German Romantic writer Georg Von Hardenberg) says somewhere "Every book must contain its counter-book." Slavoj Zizek makes the case that everything is political including the choice not to have a politics. Joshua wants readers to think about why celebrated postwar American fiction by Jewish authors like Cynthia Ozick, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth (starting from his 1959 Goodbye Columbus) largely ignores both the Holocaust and Israel until the 1970s or 1980s. Joshua invokes Harold Bloom's 1973 Anxiety of Influence to explain his relationship to them. He is less interested in Hannah Arendt. "Shoah Religion" is the way in which the Holocaust came to not only function as a key element in post-war American Jewish identification but also to legitimate the state of Israel (cf Abba Eban's famous quip "There's no business like Shoah business") Yekke: a German-Jew in Israel or American characterized by an ethos of industrial self-restraint and German culture, satirized in Israeli culture as a man who wears a three piece suit in the middle of summer heat. Leon Feuchtwanger "There's hope but not for us" Joshua (subtly) quotes a line of Kafka's that Walter Benjamin (in "Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of His Death‟ from Illuminations) apparently lifted from Max Brod ("Oh Hoffnung genug, unendlich viel Hoffnung, — nur nicht für uns.") Yitzhak La'or "you ever want a poem to become real" Netanyahu tells the story of the snowy drive to Ithaca (again) in an interview with Barry Weiss. Philip Roth, The Ghost Writer Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature
Remembering the late Harold Bloom who was once called "probably the most famous literary critic in the English-speaking world."
Harold Bloom called Persuasion "the perfect novel." Virginia Woolf said "In Persuasion, Jane Austen is beginning to discover that the world is larger, more mysterious, and more romantic than she supposed." In this episode, the first of three parts, Jacke takes a look at Jane Austen's novel of missed opportunities and second chances. Help support the show at patreon.com/literature or historyofliterature.com/donate. The History of Literature Podcast is a member of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate Network. Learn more at www.thepodglomerate.com/historyofliterature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sources/Recomended Reading:Asgeirsson, Jon (2005). "Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas". Brill.Brakke, David (2012). "Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity". Harvard University Press.Carlson, Stephen C. (2014). "Origen's use of the Gospel of Thomas". Uppsala University.King, Karen (2003). "What is Gnosticism?". Harvard University Press.Van den Broek, Roelof (2013). "Gnostic Religion in Antiquity". Cambridge University Press.Meyer, Marvin (ed.) (2009). "The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts Complete in One Volume ". HarperOne.Meyer, Marvin & Harold Bloom (1993). "The Gospel of St Thomas: The hidden sayings of Jesus". Bravo Ltd.#gospelofjudas #gnosticism #christianity Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Sources/Recomended Reading:Asgeirsson, Jon (2005). "Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas". Brill.Brakke, David (2012). "Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity". Harvard University Press.Carlson, Stephen C. (2014). "Origen's use of the Gospel of Thomas". Uppsala University.King, Karen (2003). "What is Gnosticism?". Harvard University Press.Van den Broek, Roelof (2013). "Gnostic Religion in Antiquity". Cambridge University Press.Meyer, Marvin (ed.) (2009). "The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts Complete in One Volume ". HarperOne.Meyer, Marvin & Harold Bloom (1993). "The Gospel of St Thomas: The hidden sayings of Jesus". Bravo Ltd.#gospelofthomas #gnosticism #christianity Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This episode is a thorough discussion of McCarthy's use of the animal kingdom in his works. My guest in this episode is Wallis Sanborn, Chair of the Department of English, Mass Communication, and Drama, and Graduate Program Head of the Master of Arts-Master of Fine Arts in Literature, Creative Writing, and Social Justice Program at Our Lady of the Lake University in San Antonio, Texas. Dr. Sanborn is the author of Animals in the Fiction of Cormac McCarthy (2006) and The American Novel of War: A Critical Analysis and Classification System (2012) and the editor of The Klondike Stampede (2017). His work has appeared in They Rode On: Blood Meridian and the Tragedy of the AmericanWest, Gale's Contemporary Literary Criticism, Harold Bloom's Modern Critical Views, The Cormac McCarthy Journal, Southwestern American Literature, Texas Books in Review, Voices de la Luna, Iron Horse Literary Review, and Concho River Review. Thanks as well to Thomas Frye, who composed, performed, and produced the music for READING MCCARTHY. The views of the host and his guests do not necessarily reflect the views of their home institutions or the Cormac McCarthy Society, although in our hearts we hope they'll someday see the light. Download and follow us on Apple, Spotify, Google Play, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. If you're agreeable it'll help us if you provide favorable reviews on these platforms. If you enjoy this podcast you may also enjoy the GREAT AMERICAN PODCAST, hosted by myself and Kirk Curnutt. To contact me, please reach out to readingmccarthy(@)gmail.com. Despite the evening redness in the west Reading McCarthy is also on Twitter and Facebook; the website is at readingmccarthy.buzzsprout.com, and if you'd like to support the show you can click on the little heart symbol at the top of the webpage to buy the show a cappuccino, or you can support us at www.patreon.com/readingmccarthy. Support the show
In 1994, Harold Bloom's magnum opus The Western Canon took up the critical cudgels on behalf of 26 writers declared by Bloom to be essential. In this episode, Bethanne Patrick (aka the Book Maven), literary critic and host of the new podcast Missing Pages, joins Jacke to propose some additions to Bloom's narrow list. Additional Listening Suggestions: 83 Overrated! The Top 10 Books You Don't Need to Read 52 Recommend This! The Best 101 Books for College-Bound Readers 54 The Greatest Books Ever (More on the Best 101 Books for College-Bound Readers) Help support the show at patreon.com/literature or historyofliterature.com/shop. The History of Literature Podcast is a member of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate Network. Learn more at www.thepodglomerate.com/historyofliterature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
You can lose yourself in cinema -- and you can find yourself in it. Jai Arjun Singh and Subrat Mohanty join Amit Varma in episode 294 of The Seen and the Unseen to talk about the films in their lives, why we should watch old films, why we should watch new films, why Bollywood and Hollywood and other woods are all great, and why we live in a wonderful technicolor world. This episode is a celebration of cinema! (For full linked show notes, go to SeenUnseen.in.) Also check out: 1. Jai Arjun Singh on Twitter and Instagram. 2. Haal-Chaal Theek Thaak Hai -- Subrat Mohanty and Pavan Jha's podcast. 3. Jai Arjun Singh Lost It at the Movies -- Episode 230 of The Seen and the Unseen. 4. Jabberwock — Jai Arjun Singh's blog. 5. Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron: Seriously Funny Since 1983 — Jai Arjun Singh. 6. The World of Hrishikesh Mukherjee -- Jai Arjun Singh. 7. Popcorn Essayists: What Movies do to Writers -- Edited by Jai Arjun Singh. 8. The Golden Era -- Subrat Mohanty's YouTube playlist of 100 lesser-known songs from the golden era of Hindi film music (mostly 1935-65). 9. The Unseen Lata -- Subrat Mohanty's YouTube playlist of 54 lesser-heard songs from Lata Mangeshkar, from 1948 to 1976. 10. Old posts by Subrat Mohanty from the Passion For Cinema web archives. 11. Some Spotify playlists, courtesy Nishant Shah, from Haal-Chaal Theek Thaak Hai episodes: 1, 2, 3, 4. 12. Pavan Jha's YouTube channel. 13. The only 1980s Maltova Mum commercial I could locate from the 1980s. (Couldn't find Singer.) 14. Kashmir Ki Kali -- Shakti Samanta. 15. Mughal-E-Azam -- K Asif. 16. Khuda Nigehbaan Ho -- Song from Mughal-E-Azam, sung by Lata Mangeshkar, music by Naushad, lyrics by Shakeel Badayuni. 17. Cinema Paradiso -- Giuseppe Tornatore. 18. Phool Khile Hain Gulshan Gulshan -- talk show by Tabassum. 19. Old episodes of Phool Khile Hain Gulshan Gulshan with RD Burman, Deepti Naval, Anand Bakshi and Bhupinder. 20. The Indiana Jones and Superman franchises. 21. The Evil Dead -- Sam Raimi. 22. Sam Raimi, Wes Craven and John Carpenter. 23. The Fugitive and The Bodyguard. 24. The Unbearable Lightness of Being -- Milan Kundera. 25. The Antichrist -- Friedrich Nietzsche. 26. The 400 Blows -- Francois Truffaut. 27. Salò, or The 120 Days of Sodom -- Pier Paolo Pasolini. 28. Łódź Film School and Andrzej Wajda. 29. Do the Right Thing -- Spike Lee. 30. On Exactitude in Science (Wikipedia) -- Jorge Luis Borges. 31. Titus Andronicus -- William Shakespeare. 32. A Chess Story (previously published as The Royal Game) -- Stefan Zweig. 33. The World of Yesterday -- Stefan Zweig. 34. The Friday the 13th franchise. 35. Tracy and Hepburn -- Garson Kanin. 36. Bhimsen Joshi, Mallikarjun Mansur, Kumar Gandharva and Lata Mangeshkar on Spotify. 37. Vijay Anand, Guru Dutt, Raj Kapoor, Bimal Roy and Hrishikesh Mukherjee. 38. Guide -- Vijay Anand. 39. Kaagaz Ke Phool -- Guru Dutt. 40. Jean-Luc Godard and Federico Fellini. 41. Shankar–Jaikishan, Hasrat Jaipuri, Shailendra, Mukesh, KA Abbas, Ramanand Sagar and Kidar Sharma. 42. Aag, Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Awaara, Barsaat and Shree 420.43. Nargis and Nadira. 44. Mud Mud Ke Na Dekh -- Song from Shree 420, sung by Asha Bhosle and Manna Dey, music by Shankar-Jaikishan, lyrics by Shailendra. 45. Orson Welles. 46. Squid Game on Netflix. 47. The Immediate Experience -- Robert Warshow. 48. Dil Dhadakne Do, Luck by Chance and Gully Boy -- Zoya Akhtar. 49. Casablanca -- Michael Curtiz. 50. Yudh and Tridev -- Rajiv Rai. 51. Amit Varma's Twitter threads on the MAMI festival from 2018 and 2019. 52. The Art of Translation -- Episode 168 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Arunava Sinha). 53. Dead Poet's Society -- Peter Weir. 54. The desire to help, and the desire not to be helped — Roger Ebert's review of Goodbye Solo. 55. Pauline Kael on Amazon. 56. Dekalog — Krzysztof Kieślowski. (And Roger Ebert's essay on it.) 57. The Dead — John Huston. 58. In the Bedroom -- Todd Field. 59. Devdas (Sanjay Leela Bhansali) and Parineeta (Pradeep Sarkar). 60. Salman Rushdie, Arundhati Roy and Vikram Seth. 61. Raag Darbari (Hindi) (English) — Shrilal Shukla. 62. PG Wodehouse on Amazon and Wikipedia. 63. Films, Feminism, Paromita — Episode 155 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Paromita Vohra). 64. Dharmyug and Dharamvir Bharati. 65. Andha Yug (Hindi) (English) -- Dharamvir Bharati. 66. Suraj ka Satvaan Ghoda -- Dharamvir Bharati. 67. Gunahon Ka Devta — Dharamvir Bharati. 68. Sara Rai Inhales Literature — Episode 255 of The Seen and the Unseen. 69. The Life and Times of Mrinal Pande — Episode 263 of The Seen and the Unseen. 70. Anil Biswas, SD Burman, Chitragupt, Roshan, C Ramchandra and Madan Mohan. 71. Naushad and Aan. 72. Maan Mera Ehsan -- Song from Aan, sung by Mohammad Rafi, music by Naushad, lyrics by Shakeel Badayuni. 73. Sebastian D'Souza, Anthony Gonsalves, Ghulam Mohammed and Mohammed Shafi. 74. Khayyam and RD Burman. 75. The Long Tail -- Chris Anderson. 76. The Sound of Music -- Robert Wise. 77. Do-Re-Mi -- Song from The Sound of Music. 78. Giacomo Puccini and Giuseppe Verdi on Spotify. 79. Tosca -- Giacomo Puccini -- performed at Arena di Verona. 80. Dua Lipa, Olivia Rodrigo, Lizzo and Billie Eilish on Spotify. 81. About That Time -- Lizzo. 82. Renaissance -- Beyoncé. 83. Ae Dil Hai Mushkil -- Karan Johar. 84. Aar Paar, Geeta Dutt and Eminem. 85. Pet Shop Boys, Guns N' Roses, U2, REM and Stone Temple Pilots on Spotify. 86. Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen. 87. How This Nobel Has Redefined Literature -- Amit Varma. 88. Mera Joota Hai Japani -- Song from Shree 420, sung by Mukesh, music by Shankar-Jaikishen, lyrics by Shailendra. 89. Sahir Ludhianvi and Majrooh Sultanpuri. 90. Do Bigha Zamin -- Bimal Roy. 91. Dharti Kahe Pukaar Ke -- Song from Do Bigha Zamin, sung by Manna Dey and Lata Mangeshkar, music by Salil Chowdhury, lyrics by Shailendra. 92. Varun Grover Is in the House -- Episode 292 of The Seen and the Unseen. 93. Mondegreen. 94. Tragedy -- Bee Gees. 95. Aap Jaisa Koi -- Song from Qurbani, sung by Nazia Hassan, music by Biddu Appaiah, lyrics by Masth Ali & Shashi Pritam. 96. Ek Akela Is Shaher Mein -- Song from Gharaonda, sung by Bhupinder Singh, music by Jaidev, lyrics by Gulzar. 97. Jonathan Haidt on Amazon. 98. Amar Akbar Anthony and Andrei Tarkovsky. 99. 2001: A Space Odyssey -- Stanley Kubrick. 100. Mirza Ghalib (and the show on him by Gulzar). 101. Roy Lichtenstein, Drowning Girl, Jackson Pollock, René Magritte, Pablo Picasso and the Pre-Raphaelites. 102. The Wire, Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. 103. Christopher Nolan, Martin Scorcese, Quentin Tarantino, Coen Brothers and Preston Sturges. 104. Ball of Fire -- Howard Hawks. 105. The Lady Eve -- Preston Sturges. 106. Barbara Stanwyck and Lawrence Olivier. 107. Francis Ford Coppola, Brian De Palma and Alfred Hitchcock. 108. How to Read and Why -- Harold Bloom. 109. Malayankunju -- Sajimon Prabhakar. 110. Muqaddar Ka Sikandar -- Prakash Mehra. 111. Agatha Christie on Amazon and Wikipedia. 112. Nayak -- Satyajit Ray. 113. Prakash Mehra and Kader Khan. 114. Laawaris -- Prakash Mehra. 115. Don and Majboor. 116. Sample SSR conspiracy theory: He's alive! 117. David Cronenberg. 118. Masaan — Directed by Neeraj Ghaywan and written by Varun Grover. 119. Moonlight — Barry Jenkins. 120. Chacha Bhatija, Parvarish, Amar Akbar Anthony and Dharam Veer -- Manmohan Desai. 121. Man, Woman and Child -- Erich Segal. 122. Man, Woman and Child (1983 film) -- Dick Richards. 123. Masoom -- Shekhar Kapoor. 124. Shyam Benegal, Govind Nihalani, Mani Kaul, Kumar Shahani, Mrinal Sen and Robert Bresson. 125. Au Hasard Balthazar -- Robert Bresson. 126. Uski Roti -- Mani Kaul. 127. Narendra Shenoy and Mr Narendra Shenoy — Episode 250 of The Seen and the Unseen. 128. Calcutta 71 -- Mrinal Sen. 129. Ivan's Childhood, Solaris and Andrei Rublev -- Andrei Tarkovsky. 130. Stanislaw Lem on Amazon and Wikipedia. 131. Cahiers du Cinéma and Mayapuri. 132. Black Friday and Paanch -- Anurag Kashyap. 133. Navdeep Singh, Sudhir Mishra, Neeraj Ghaywan, Raj Kumar Gupta and Rajkumar Kohli. 134. Nagin and Nagina. 135. Jaani Dushman -- Rajkumar Kohli. 136. Three Colors: Blue -- Krzysztof Kieślowski. 137. Three Colors: Red -- Krzysztof Kieślowski. 138. Three Colors: White -- Krzysztof Kieślowski. 139. The Double Life of Veronique -- Krzysztof Kieślowski. 140. The legendary Babbar Subhash. 141. Dance Dance -- Babbar Subhash. 142. Aagaya Aagaya Halwa Wala -- Song from Dance Dance. 143. Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro -- Kundan Shah. 144. Leke Pehla Pehla Pyar -- Song from CID, sung by Shamshad Begum, Asha Bhosle and Mohammad Rafi., music by OP Nayyar, lyrics by Majrooh Sultanpuri. 145. Rote Hue Aate Hain Sab -- Song from Muqaddar Ka Sikandar, sung by Kishore Kumar, music by Kalyani-Anandji, lyrics by Anjaan. 146. Kai Baar Yun Bhi Dekha Hai -- Song from Rajnigandha, sung by Mukesh, music by Salil Chowdhury, lyrics by Yogesh. 147. Rim Jhim Gire Saawan -- Song from Manzil, sung by Lata Mangeshkar, music by RD Burman, lyrics by Yogesh. 148. Andrew Sarris and André Bazin. 149. Sergei Eisenstein and the Odessa Steps sequence. 150. Court — Chaitanya Tamhane. 151. Khosla Ka Ghosla, Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye!, Love Sex Aur Dhokha, Shanghai and Detective Byomkesh Bakshy! -- Dibakar Banerjee. 152. Jean Renoir. 153. Akira Kurosawa and Yasujirō Ozu. 154. Tokyo Story -- Yasujirō Ozu. 155. Rashomon -- Akira Kurosawa. 156. The 2012 Sight and Sound poll of the 100 Greatest Films of All Time. 157. Early Summer -- Yasujirō Ozu. 158. Make Way for Tomorrow -- Leo McCarey. 159. Citizen Kane -- Orson Welles. 160. Vertigo -- Alfred Hitchcock. 161. Setsuko Hara. 162. Sara Akash -- Basu Chatterjee. 163. Bhuvan Shome -- Mrinal Sen. 164. KK Mahajan. 165. One Cut of the Dead -- Shin'ichirō Ueda. 166. Unsane -- Steven Soderbergh. 167. Promising Young Woman -- Emerald Fennell. 168. Psycho -- Alfred Hitchcock. 169. Hitchcock's Films Revisited -- Robin Wood. 170. Picnic at Hanging Rock, Gallipoli, Witness, Dead Poet's Society and The Truman Show -- Peter Weir. 171. Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. 172. John Ford and Girish Shahane. 173. Everything is Cinema -- Don Palathara. 174. Hi Mom! -- Brian De Palma. 175. Taxi Driver -- Martin Scorcese. 176. Joyful Mystery -- Don Palathara. 177. The Postman Always Rings Twice -- Tay Garnett. 178. Treasure of the Sierra Madre -- John Huston. 179. Noir's arc - notes on an excellent anthology -- Jai Arjun Singh. 180. Key Largo -- John Huston. 181. Gun Crazy -- Joseph H Lewis. 182. Sullivan's Travels -- Preston Sturges. 183. O Brother, Where Art Thou? -- Coen Brothers. 184. Winchester '73 and Bend of the River -- Anthony Mann. 185. Shaheed (1948) -- Ramesh Saigal, starring Dilip Kumar. 186. Andaz -- Mehboob Khan. 187. Duniya Na Mane -- V Shantaram. 188. Some Like it Hot and Ace in the Hole -- Billy Wilder. 189. Ernst Lubitsch and James Wong Howe. 190. Sweet Smell of Success -- Alexander Mackendrick. 191. Mere Apne -- Gulzar. 192. Haal Chaal Thik Thak Hai -- Song from Mere Apne, sung by Kishore Kumar and Mukesh, music by Salil Chowdhury, lyrics by Gulzar. 193. Mr Sampat -- SS Vasan. 194. Miss Malini -- Kothamangalam Subbu. 195. Mr. Sampath: The Printer Of Malgudi -- RK Narayan. 196. Achhe Din Aa Rahe Hain -- Song from Mr Sampat, sung by Shamshad Begum and ML Vasantakumari, music by Balkrishna Kalla, lyrics by Pandit Indra Chander. 197. Parakh -- Bimal Roy. 198. O Sajna Barkha Bahaar Aayee -- Song from Parakh, sung by Lata Mangeshkar, music by Salil Chowdhury, lyrics by Shailendra. 199. Oonche Log -- Phani Majumdar. 200. Major Chandrakanth -- K Balachander. 201. Jaag Dil-E-Deewana -- Song from Oonche Log, sung by Mohammad Rafi, music by Chitragupt, lyrics by Majrooh Sultanpuri. 202. Birendranath Sircar, RC Boral and Timir Baran. 203. PC Barua, Bimal Roy and KL Saigal. 204. Devdas (1936) -- PC Barua. 205. President -- Nitin Bose. 206. Ek Bangla Bane Nyara -- Song from President, sung by KL Saigal, music by RC Boral, lyrcs by Kidar Sharma. 207. Street Singer -- Phani Majumdar. 208. Babul Mora Naihar Chhooto Hi Jaye -- Song from Street Singer, sung by KL Saigal, music by RC Boral, lyrics by Nawab Wajid Ali Shah. 209. Wajid Ali Shah. 210. Shatranj Ke Khilari -- Satyajit Ray. 211. Duniya, Yeh Duniya, Toofan Mail-- Song from Jawab, sung by Kanan Devi, music by Kamal Dasgupta, lyrics by Pandit Madhur. 212. Rajnigandha -- Basu Chatterjee. 213. Rajnigandha/राजनीगंधा -- Mannu Bhandari. 214. The Conversation -- Francis Ford Coppola. 215. Deer Hunter -- Michael Cimino. 216. The Godfather -- Francis Ford Coppola. 217. The Godfather: Part 2 -- Francis Ford Coppola. 218. Sisters -- Brian De Palma. 219. Blow Out -- Brian De Palma. 220. Blowup -- Michelangelo Antonioni. 221. The Long Goodbye and Nashville -- Robert Altman. 222. The Missouri Breaks -- Arthur Penn. 223. The Last Picture Show, Paper Moon, What's Up, Doc? and Targets -- Peter Bogdanovich. 224. This is Orson Welles -- Orson Welles and Peter Bogdanovich. 225. Hitchcock -- Francois Truffaut. 226. Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, The Big Sleep and To Have and Have Not -- Howard Hawks. 227. The Big Sleep -- Raymond Chandler. 228. William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway on Amazon. 229. Johny Mera Naam and Jewel Thief -- Vijay Anand. 230. Sholay -- Ramesh Sippy. 231. Back to the Future -- Robert Zemeckis. 232. Mr India -- Shekhar Kapoor. 233. Rahul Rawail, JP Dutta, Mukul Anand and Rajiv Rai. 234. Hathyar and Ghulami -- JP Dutta. 235. Raat Bhat Jaam Se Jaam Takrayega -- Song from Tridev with galaxy of villains. 236. Naseeb -- Manmohan Desai. 237. Dan Dhanoa, Mahesh Anand, Dalip Tahil and Tej Sapru. 238. The Ramsay Brothers! 239. Don't Disturb the Dead: The Story of the Ramsay Brothers -- Shamya Dasgupta. 240. Do Gaz Zameen Ke Neeche -- Tulsi and Shyam Ramsay. 241. Veerana -- Ramsay Brothers. 242. Purana Mandir -- Ramsay Brothers. 243. Govinda! 244. Ilzaam -- Shibu Mitra. 245. I am a Street Dancer and Main Aaya Tere Liye from Ilzaam. 246. Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction -- Quentin Tarantino. 247. Halloween -- John Carpenter. 248. A Nightmare on Elm Street -- Wes Craven. 249. Scream -- Wes Craven. 250. Terminator 2: Judgment Day -- James Cameron. 251. Mad Max: Fury Road -- George Miller. 252. Nicholas Cage and Keanu Reeves. 253. Wild at Heart -- David Lynch. 254. Red Rock West -- John Dahl. 255. The Last Seduction -- John Dahl. 256. Edward Norton in American History X and Rounders. 257. New Delhi Times -- Ramesh Sharma. 258. Drohkaal -- Govind Niahalani. 259. Gupt and Mohra by Rajiv Rai. 260. Sonam! 261. Wild -- Nicolette Krebitz. 262. Waves -- Trey Edward Shults. 263. Climax -- Gaspar Noé. 264. Mother! -- Darren Aronofsky. 265 Eho — Dren Zherka. 266. The Magic Mountain -- Thomas Mann. 267. Invisible Cities -- Italo Calvino. 268. Cosmicomics -- Itali Calvino. 269. If on a Winter's Night a Traveller -- Italo Calvino. 270. A House For Mr Biswas -- VS Naipaul. 271. A Bend in the River -- VS Naipaul. 272. Middlemarch -- George Eliot. 273. Mrs Dalloway -- Virginia Woolf. 274. To the Lighthouse -- Virginia Woolf. 275. Decline and Fall -- Evelyn Waugh. 276. Scoop -- Evelyn Waugh. 277. Brighton Rock -- Graham Greene. 278. Brighton Rock (1948 film) -- John Boulting. 279. Kingsley Amis and Martin Amis. 280. Lucky Jim -- Kingsley Amis. 281. The Siege Of Krishnapur -- JG Farrell. 282. Alfie -- Lewis Gilbert. 283. Get Carter -- Mike Hodges. 284. Blame it on Rio -- Stanley Donen. 285. Gangs of Wasseypur -- Anurag Kashyap. 286. Tamas -- Govind Nihalani. This episode is sponsored by Capital Mind. Check out their offerings here. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! Episode art by Simahina, in a homage to Jackson Pollock.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
