 How Do I Know What You Are Saying If I Can’t Get Past Your Hysteria? If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into what you believe? The things most worth reading are precisely those that challenge our convictions. Unknown Last week one of my best friends who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me forwarded to me what she termed an informational piece from a jurist about the health care bill in its current form. “I’m forwarding this on to you,” she wrote, “because where I was scared about this bill before, I am now terrified.” As I read it my jaw came closer and closer to the floor. Not because I disagreed with it, though I did, but because the hysterical, ranting “Limbaughesque” tone throughout was not even subtle: The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. And that was just the beginning. I told my friend precisely what I thought of the e-mail. It didn’t go over well. We had some difficult words, but thankfully were able to overcome them and resume our important friendship. Nevertheless, her belief that the e-mail she forwarded was factual and informational left a disturbing impression on me because it called into my mind something I have long been concerned about: the ever-increasing use of hysteria and ranting rather than reasoned logic in disagreements, and especially the blind acceptance of those techniques as conveyances of information. What scared me the most was her assertion that the mounting hysteria was a thoughtful analysis despite acknowledging, grudgingly that one piece of it was wrong. Was it because this e-mail (sent to her by another friend) coincided with her views that it made it impossible to see that it was a rant rather than a considered argument? Has she, or more importantly, have many of us, lost sight of what a reasoned analysis is or should be? Do we read wrong? Do we not appreciate the beauty of a well-reasoned argument whether we agree or not? Do we need to shout our views rather than listen to another’s? Are we losing the capacity to recognize irony? Can we distinguish between an emotional outburst and a strongly-worded dispute? Is our capacity for and appreciation of articulate persuasion being squashed under the waves of anger-infused rhetoric that seem to dominate online and airwave discussions? I fear so. And I honestly don’t think I am wrong. One need look only at the success of the Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh books. Their words are loaded with sufficient fuel designed to set off emotions like a rocket ship. Whether either of them has any good ideas to begin with is something I’ll never know because I refuse to read books, articles, essays, e-mails, or other written pieces whose design is not to enlighten or persuade but rather to create an atmosphere of bitterness even if it is dressed in humor. Yes, I know. These types of things were never intended to persuade any but the already persuaded, and affirm to them that their way is the right way. But have we always been like this? Could it be that rational, calm, logical disagreement offered with the intent of persuading have never really existed except in philosophical circles? Do I live in a dream? The politics of today have life-threatening consequences. We are dangerously close to extinction of the planet and all life on it. I have come to believe that I may not live to see the natural end of my life. The thought is so terrifying that I try not to think about it often. But given the increasing rate of talking and writing that uses extremes to validate viewpoints and emotions to create “us vs. them” scenarios I have to wonder if there is any real hope of going backwards, of at least trying to achieve a place where people might want to understand their opponents’ positions, to argue their positions with logic and facts, to listen to points of view that feel “wrong” to them and learn something, to try and persuade others without condemning them?, and maybe even be persuaded to change their minds? I would love it if my friend and I could sit and talk about the facts of the health care bill without our emotions taking over. I don’t know the answer to the problems it is supposed to fix even though both of us, in fact all Americans, have a vital stake in the healthcare issue. It’s that common stake, that whatever happens will affect us in some way, that is the common ground upon which we can begin. I guess the question is: are we sufficiently interested in finding a solution that we can all live with to put aside the venom and take up the language of discourse?Upcoming Book Festivals: Zora!, the festival held to celebrate the life and work of African American writer, folklorist, and anthropologist Zora Neal Hurston as well as her hometown, the nation’s oldest incorporated African American municipality, and the cultural contributions of people of African ancestry. Included in the week-long event are museum exhibitions, public talks, panel discussions, workshops, and concerts, the latter headlined by Kem, a noted R&B artist. Several events require tickets—a Reading Group Mobile Tour, a play, the Legacy Awards, and more—but many, including an Outdoor Festival of the Arts, are free. It continues through January 31. The Pub House: I had spent years recommending books to my customers. I got a big kick out of this, but that kick kept getting harder to find, as mass consolidations in the publishing industry meant that thousands of good books were being taken out of print. Time and again, I would find myself saying “I have the perfect book for you! And . . . we can’t get it anymore.” This made me cranky. Then I read an article in the New York Times about a machine invented by some fellow in Florida. . . . The inventor claimed it could produce a paperback book in seven minutes. . . . for one brief, shining moment I was captivated: We could get the rights to these out-of-print books, manufacture them in our basement, and sell them at Partners & Crime! My partner put the kibosh on the idea, in part by pointing out that we had room in the basement for perhaps two large shoeboxes. But the idea of bringing out-of-print books back to life had taken hold. From there it was merely a matter of making an insane number of phone calls, borrowing a terrifying amount of money, and mailing out catalogs. We launched officially in June 2005, and now have more than 100 titles in print. Many of them, including some of our bestsellers, are reissues, but we also publish an increasing number of first paperback editions of books previously published in hardcover, and (particularly) first U.S. editions of books that initially came out overseas. We are not at present publishing original work, but we never say never, and yes, we do look at everything that’s submitted. Among their current titles are The Art of Deception in its first American printing. Art historian Nicholas Ochterlonie, the perfect English gentleman has his world shaken up when his wife suddenly demands a divorce, he begins to take chances with his professional reputation, the law, and his life when his new affair with a mysterious woman whose background includes a Russian gangster brings the Mafya into his life. Will he find the difficult truths, or will he pay the ultimate price? And for fans of classical literature who like to dip a toe into an occasional mystery, Ovid should prove interesting. Nobleman Marcus Corvinus, a citizen of ancient Rome, is attracted to the beautiful Lady Perilla. She is willing to give herself to him—but only if he helps retrieve her stepfather’s ashes for burial in Rome. However, it’s not quite the simple task it seems, and Corvinus is becoming the focus of the unwanted attention of Emperor Tiberius’s thugs. Of Interest: This Week . . . Until next week, read well, read often and read on!
|