Some faculty still remember his mop top of hair and every now and then an archival file is discovered and oohed and ahhed over. (See image to the right, a shrink-wrapped collection of readings dated fall 1988.) On rare occasions, desk copies still arrive addressed to Professor Michael Chabon.
Michael has an essay in the October 9th issue of the New York Review of Books: "Obama and the Conquest of Denver." Chabon accompanied his wife, the writer Ayelet Waldman, a pledged Obama delegate, to the convention. He writes about it. It's something.
excerpt:
It was not that, arriving for the DNC, I now felt less faith or confidence in Barack Obama than I did back in February. Obama turned out to be the kind of man he said he was in his books, dogged and perspicacious, considerate, principled but pragmatic, driven, and oddly blessed with a kind of universal point of human connection, of the understanding of loss, in the place where the memory of his father ought to be. No one who could see history the way Obama saw history, or who read the man’s books, would have expected him to emerge from a nasty, bitter, all but eternal presidential election campaign with his dignity or his principles entirely intact; but Obama had tried, and for the most part, I thought, he had conducted himself with honor. There could have been only one way for the idealized Obama—the perfect candidate he never claimed to be—to escape the rough and tumble of history, and that was too terrible to contemplate.
The problem was not Obama; the problem was that at the instant when Hillary Clinton at last conceded, the nature of the campaign changed. It was, I considered (perhaps under the influence of the kind smile and exhortatory squeeze on the arm bestowed on me by Jimmy Carter, president of my darkest adolescence, as he passed me in the doorway of a LoDo Mexican restaurant), like the change that might occur between the first and second volumes of some spectacular science fiction fantasy epic. At the end of the first volume, after bitter struggle, Obama had claimed the presumptive nomination. We Fremen had done the impossible, against Sardaukar and imperial shock troops alike. We had brought water to Arrakis. Now the gathered tribes of the Democratic Party—hacks, Teamsters, hat ladies, New Mexicans, residents of those states most nearly resembling Canada, Jews of South Florida, dreadlocks, crewcuts, elderlies and goths, a cowboy or two, sons and daughters of interned Japanese-Americans—had assembled on the plains of Denver to attempt to vanquish old Saruman McCain.
Suddenly it was hard not to feel that we were, once again, teetering on the point of something momentous, but something different than the previous momentousness. It was time to get serious. It was time to put on a little Curtis Mayfield (whose “Move On Up” has been one of the campaign’s unofficial theme songs) and take stock of our forces, our resolve, and the odds against us. It was time to take the fight directly to the Padishah Emperor himself. Game on was the nerdy expression I kept hearing people use.
To read the rest, click here.
22 comments:
I didn't know he had taught here!
Chabon has that old timey comic book sensibility - I like it too.
Dune! Yes, I see it now.
I get it, yes, Frank Herbert's Dune - but didn't that series go on and on and on?
And it's not Saruman McCain, it's Shaddam McCain. This type of tripe and carelessness is rewarded with a Pulitzer, huh? Sad.
Ahem, Chabon didn't get the Pulitzer for this article.
It's too bad about the kind of knee-jerk judgement some posters can exert when they haven't perhaps read a body of work before, let alone a novel. Too easy to be a smug dismissive critic.
I have a rule in my class where you can't speak about a book if you haven't read it - it keeps the people who are trying to pretend theyve done their homework silent. Otherwise they just jabber and zing - like the previous poster - trying to pretend they know something.
Dune is an interesting analogy to the current sitution - but I hope ours is not quite so epic.
Love Curtis Mayfield. Chunk, do you take requests? Maybe you can post one of those YouTube videos of that song? I'd love to see it.
Ho hum, Rebel Girl showcases another leftist stooge.
I know Chabon gets attention for the novels but I like his short fiction best - The Model World and Werewolves in Their Youth. Great stuff. One of his early short stories is set in Laguna beach at the Cafe Zinc.
He does a lot with a literacy project in the bay area, working with underserved high school kids.
Ah, yes, once again, a right-winger presents his "arguments." Such a powerful one, too!
I liked his last novel - The Yiddish Policeman's Union - a wacky kind of story, part fantasy, part parable, part detective novel. Brilliant guy. Thanks for this article - I wouldn't have otherwise seen it. (PS - I never read Dune! But I see his point.)
I think it's terrific that a winner of the Pulitzer Prize taught at IVC - why doesn't the administration ever mention this? Would he come back to speak sometime?
ooooh!
Better spell the name of the right-wing emperor correctly or they'll get sniffy!
He didn’t “misspell” the name of the right wing emperor (who, by the way, was hardly a right wing emperor in the Dune universe and certainly to the left of the two emperors who succeeded him). A misspelling would be “Saddam” or “Shadam.” No, he confused characters from vastly different novels. That would be like calling Huck Finn by the name Jean Valjean. Not a big deal. It’s just what I called it, careless.
And I certainly never said Chabon won the Pulitzer for this piece. As Chunky likes to admonish, pay attention. I said the Pulitzer goes to this “type” of tripe. And, yes, this piece is of a type with some of Chabon’s work which I have read. Haven’t read all of it; he’s not worth the time. But some, and this is of the “type.”
er, could be be a poor editor's problem and not the author? Me thinks so.
Chabon knows his stuff.
And yeah, watch out, thoae rightys are awfully sensitive about Lord of the Rings and Ayn Rand too.
1:23,
Love to know which writers you spend your time on...obviously Frank Herbert is among them - and that Hobbit guy. Touchy, touchy.
Yeah, I think the editor made the mistake, not Chabon.
Yeah - and post some Curtis Mayfield, Chunk! Now's the time.
Rosie,
Well, you asked: I'm 2/3 through War & Peace again. The Rostovs are fleeing Moscow ahead of Napolean with the wounded, including Prince Andrew, in tow. Natasha doesn't know it's him yet.
Also, I just finished Bloom's and Gardiner's respective books of essays on Shakespeare. I read them in conjunction with the plays (though frankly, I didn't necessarily re-read all of the plays). Bloom's a bit ideosyncratic, but his take on Falstaff is right on.
I might try next Jess Winfield's new book My Name Is Will. It picks up on Stephen Greenblatt's reasonably convincing Will in the World. My expectation is though, that it suffers from a typical leftist lack of perspective in its misleading analogizing of Catholic persecution under Elizabeth I to the war on drugs. Sort of like the inescapable flaw at the heart of Arthur Miller's The Crucible which renders that overrated twaddle a complete lie. (There really weren't witches, you know.)
I don't read so much Frank Herbert. He was still alive last time I read something by him.
And finally, no, the editor clearly didn't make the original mistake. How does that work, please? The editor is reading along and gets the Dune references but still changes the author's work to randomly stick in a Lord of the Rings character? Or he is reading along and doesn't get the Dune references but still changes what he doesn't understand to stick in a Lord of the Rings character? None of that makes a lick of sense. The simplest explanation is that Chabon screwed up and the editor didn't notice. Careless on both their parts, but the original mistake was certainly the author's. Occam's razor and all that.
Okay guys - I went and read the entire piece and you know what?
Chabon meant what appeared in the text: Saruman McCain - there is more than one reference to more than one book in the article. He knows his Hobbit from his Dune.
Ahem, so let's NOT argue about what we haven't read folks, okay? That kind of lazy intellectual behavior is sadly too frequent in the classroom.
Jeez.
Hey, that name-dropping guy from Saddleback is flirting with our Rosie! Tell him to stop! He's past his prime anyway and everyone knows it! It gets embarrassing!
and uh, 1:39, the reason the Complaining One didn't read the whole article is because, well, that how he is, that's his rigorous intellect, all right. No doubt he'll say he couldn't be bothered to - (ah, that Michael Chabon, too beneath him!) but note how he COULD be bothered to blow hard and to do so without any kind of reference to what exactly he was condemning. Talk about an embarrassment in the classroom! But that's all too typical, I'm afraid. He's not alone.
What are you talking about, Chunk? It is Chunk, right? There might be more than one reference to more than one book, but there is no reference to Lord of the Rings other than the cheap McCain shot. And it's in an extended analogy to Dune. It makes no sense in context other than as a mistake.
Why can't you people admit a simple mistake? This isn't in the least bit important except by your side's dissembling and patholigical need to not be wrong, ever, about anything.
Jeez, indeed.
And 1:51, even people who move their lips when they read should pick up on the fact that this is about careless liberal tripe from Chabon. Pay attention.
I gotta get a better class of opponents.
ooh, I LOVE it when your lips move baby! Feel the heat! I LOVE when you call me names! (Figure out that reference big boy!)
Students say that all the time about your "class" - gotta get "a better one"!
And no, this isn't Chunk. You really can't recognise voice, can you?
By all means, get a better class of opponents. You won't be missed.
and calm down! You're not looking so good these days. A bit florid, if you ask me.
well, I could care less about the battles about sci-fi/fanatsy references. If you ask me, you're taking that bit a bit too seriously. Calm down indeed.
I liked this part of the article, at the end, where it all comes together:
"And then, in the speech's final four minutes, Obama began to speak of the morale and the responsibilities of Americans, and ushered in, as we had known and hoped that he would, the presiding memory of Martin Luther King Jr. Obama drew out the terminal s in "promise," tasting and savoring the word. His resonant pinewood voice lifted, and roughened, and his cadence shifted gradually to that of testifying. Sometimes he paused, inclining his head, listening to the words, hearing just before he said them how they were meant to sound:
'And it is that promise that forty-five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.
The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.
But what the people heard instead—people of every creed and color, from every walk of life—is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.'
I have written elsewhere about how my having grown up during its utopian heyday in the planned city of Columbia, Maryland—in an integrated neighborhood, taught by black teachers to revere Dr. King, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Ida B. Wells, Benjamin Banneker—might help explain the appeal of Barack Obama to me.[2] I knew, listening to him in Denver, that there had been a lot of speeches about equality and justice given since August 28, 1963. I knew that it was in the nature of promises, American or otherwise, to be broken. Over the years my hometown of Columbia lost its vision and became divided by lines of race and class and religion. The candidate who promised to try to remake our politics had yet to fulfill his goal. He might fail. But promises, I thought, were like speeches; if you didn't make them, you would never be able to imagine the better world that they implied.
When Obama concluded his speech, we looked at each other, and then at him, and all stood up, wild with applause. (God knows what kind of madness was going on down there among the California delegation.) We had come to the end of volume two of the great adventure. Now it was time to go save the world. Game on."
Uh, there ARE mroe important things than whether or not one absurd sci-fi king was invoked or another. Really. There are.
I think it's sort of cute when guys get all upset about the names of their make-believe fantasy kings and such.
Post a Comment