P.G. Wodehouse, The Best of Wodehouse: An Anthology — July 10, 2010

P.G. Wodehouse, The Best of Wodehouse: An Anthology

Wodehouse sitting in a suit, hunched over somewhat, or maybe sitting Indian-style, elbows on knees, looking to his right at the camera. It's hard to see in this image, but it's as though we're viewing Wodehouse through many very fine Venetian blinds.

I finally got around to reading Wodehouse! I’ve not known where to start for so many years, and as I’ve mentioned before I’m highly sensitive to the first book I read by an author. If it’s a terrible book — if, say, I’d started my Philip Roth career with the quite awful [book: Plot Against America] — I’m likely never to read anything by that author again. I was concerned that the same would happen with Wodehouse.

I needn’t have feared. My sense, after reading this absolutely delightful story, novel, and autobiographical-essay anthology, is that the bulk of Wodehouse’s stories are essentially the same and are all pure joy. It’s not fair to call Wodehouse a “one-trick pony,” because the real trick that makes all his stories work is an effortless command of English prose. It’s just that the skeleton of the stories, if this anthology is any indication, is more or less the same. I couldn’t have been happier during the hours I spent in Wodehouse’s company.

The structure is like so. Some young member of the English upper class is hard up for money, his allowance from a rich uncle having been frittered away gambling on horses. He’s not so bad off, you’ll understand — his valet still attends to his every need, and his time is spent sauntering from one leisurely meal over one linen tablecloth to another. In fact his needs are so taken care of that he pines — whether or not he acknowledges it — for a bit of spice.

The spice typically comes in the form of a girl he wants to marry, or in some scheme that his (likewise entirely-taken-care-of) aunt hatches. The novel that begins this anthology, for instance, is entirely ridiculous and centers on a “cow creamer” that Wooster’s aunt covets. She commands Wooster to steal it. And why would he do such a thing? Well, because she holds the sword of Damocles over his head: if he doesn’t steal it, she’ll deny him any future meals prepared by her godlike French chef, Anatole. That settles it for Wooster: he will steal that cow-creamer. Anything for Anatole.

A black British policeman's helmet, the strap peeking out from under, big silver badge on the front From there we head down endless ridiculous paths. Wooster, during an earlier moment of debauchery, tried to steal a policeman’s helmet and thereby drew the judge’s undying enmity. Through various [foreign: dei ex machina], he ends up needing to do the very same thing again. I think he gets engaged a couple times in there.

What exactly happens doesn’t matter. What makes these stories endless fun is watching Wodehouse pull the strings and lead you through ever more confusing paths. It’s maybe the reverse of a mystery novel: you keep your eyes peeled throughout a mystery novel to see where the big important clue is, knowing all along that it’s The Person You Never Expected at the very end; in Wodehouse you convince yourself, at every fleeting “well, I guess that mess is over with” moment, that the mess really is over with, only to find a moment later that Wooster is back in the soup.

Jeeves saves everything at the end, of course. Jeeves saves things repeatedly throughout all the Jeeves/Wooster stories. He’s the ultimate, patient, wise, unerring butler. Once during this anthology, Jeeves was off on a vacation somewhere, but eventually Wodehouse realized that this just wouldn’t do: Jeeves came back and saved the day again.

The novel near the end of this anthology — [book: Uncle Fred in the Springtime] — does without Jeeves or Wooster. Instead it features the kindly, doddering old Ninth Earl of Emsworth and the perpetually youthful Fifth Early of Ickenham. These are two wonderful characters who recur in several stories throughout the collection; as with every other story here, they are pure delight. Emsworth is basically senile and mostly deaf; he lives with Constance, his harpy of a sister. She controls everything he does, except for those occasions when she steps out for a bit and the old man does something silly, like shoot his private secretary with an air gun (see “The Crime Wave at Blandings” — see, in general, any number of entertainments that take place at Blandings).

The Earl of Ickenham is similarly situated but not so doddering as the Ninth Earl; whenever his relative (wife, sister, it doesn’t really matter — she exists in these stories to step out at opportune moments) disappears, he finds an excuse to pull his shy, perpetually nervous nephew, Pongo, into a trip to London. These trips rejuvenate the old man, and he finds some new inventive way to make trouble every time. In one story he schemes his and Pongo’s way into a house while pretending to be parrot groomers. [book: Uncle Fred in the Springtime], by contrast, is 200 pages of Ickenham’s scheming — a smile on his face throughout, pretending to be someone new as the situation calls for it, getting everyone out of scrapes through his ingenious improvising. He’s the Jeeves character in these stories, though he’s sprightly and voluble while Jeeves is as careful and standoffish as you’d expect from the perfect valet. In any case, they both specialize in using their speedy brains to get others out of trouble.

The plot matters little in these stories. One, “The Amazing Hat Mystery,” goes like this: two gentlemen — one tall with a massive head, the other short with a little head — buy hats from London’s premier hat-maker; this is the king’s own hat-provider, we’re given to understand. The hats are delivered a short time later. There is a mix-up, with the small hat going to the big man and the big hat to the small. The gentlemen each head out to woo their respective love interests: the tall man is in love with the short woman, the short man with the tall. The respective ladies tell their respective gentlemen that their respective hats are vastly mis-sized: the one looks like a thimble atop the massive man’s head, while the other comes down to the small man’s knees. Both gentlemen take great umbrage at the shot that’s been fired across the bow of London’s premier hat-maker. Both assert the impossibility of a mis-sized hat. Both storm out of their partners’ company, declaring the end of each love affair. They retire to the same public house to drown their sorrows. They hang up their hats on the hat rack. As they leave, they each pick up the right hat. On the street, the tall man runs into the tall woman, the short man into the short woman. Each woman compliments each man on the perfection of his hat. Each man and each woman finds his or her proper mate. No one ever figures out why the hats initially failed to do the trick. The end.

You know from the start of this story how it’s going to work out. The great trick that Wodehouse pulls off is that he’s a magician of the obvious story. He’s laid out all his cards within the first couple pages, yet you are unavoidably hooked. Over and over throughout this anthology, I lost myself in the story — and in Wodehouse’s effortless prose — within moments. 800 pages, containing two novels, 14 short stories, and an autobiographical afterword, flew by.

Now I’m a member of the Church of Wodehouse. I have no choice but to read everything he wrote.

Ben Greenman, What He’s Poised To Do: Stories — July 9, 2010

Ben Greenman, What He’s Poised To Do: Stories

Oil painting of a woman in negligee and knee-high stockings or boots, looking away from the camera toward a table lamp situated on a night-table. You can't see it from this photo, but the image continues over the spine and onto the back cover of the book; on the back cover, we see a man in a somewhat rumpled suit with a turned-down mouth. The woman sits on a rumpled bed, and the man stands on the bed's other side; looks like he's on his way out after a hotel-room assignation

Reading this collection of short stories, I felt a lot like John Mayer narrating a baseball game that he didn’t understand. This was a series of short stories that ended with my saying, “Aaaaand *that* happened!” One of them, for instance, features characters who have — yes, right — moved to the moon. But it’s like … they haven’t *really* moved to the moon. Or maybe they have, but the moon behaves a lot like Nebraska. So … that happened.

Most every story involves people at some emotional distance from their loved ones. There’s the husband away on an extended business trip and listlessly sleeping around while he’s there; he tries to have a phone conversation with his wife, but both of them burst into tears almost immediately. So they settle for writing letters or postcards to one another. That’s how the book works in general: people write letters to one another that sound listless, distant, and a little broken. Sometimes people are so distant from one another that all they can manage is a postcard.

But then sometimes the stories are just plain funny. A guy and his wife head off to a cottage for a romantic getaway; the guy is overwhelmed by the beauty of his surroundings, so he flounces about sniffing honeysuckle and taking in the natural whateverwhatever of it all. Meanwhile his wife is dragging their luggage along to the cottage, glaring at him. He thinks he knows what she means by that glare: sex is on. He rushes up to the bedroom of their cottage, leaving her to deal with the luggage. He throws the bedroom window open, takes in the perfection of the natural scene, gets naked, and reclines upon the bed to await the inevitable carnality.

The fellow who reviewed [book: What He’s Poised To Do] for The Bookslut was overwhelmed. He had the same experience with this book that I had with Nabokov’s [book: Lolita]: he was so affected by it that he had to step away often, take a breath, and think about what he’d just read. I did not feel that way. It took me a couple hours to tear through [book: What He’s Poised To Do] — not wasted hours, certainly, but basically ho-hum hours. Greenman’s characters are so beaten down by life, and (except for one, an African-American man who revisits his roots in Malawi in the late 60s) have such flat affects, that I suspect it would be hard for [book: What He’s Poised To Do] to quicken anyone’s pulse.

Ian Frazier, Lamentations of the Father — June 27, 2010

Ian Frazier, Lamentations of the Father

Cartoon of a vexed father slipping on a child's wheeled toy and falling backwards, a vexed look in his eyes. The [mag: New Yorker] sort of humor gets its canonical expression in S.J. Perelman, whose style is probably best captured in his classic essay “Insert Flap ‘A’ And Throw Away.” I can’t find any full copies of that essay on the web, though Language Log grabs some choice quotes.

At the risk of analyzing [mag: New Yorker] humor to death, it tends to combine a) an excerpt from a real-life newspaper article, which it then expands into b) an absurdist interpretation of that same article, typically including c) the narrator making an ass of himself. It may also include d) the male householder trying and failing to grasp some shred of dignity (see Perelman quote, above).

Ian Frazier does all of these things. What makes him different from Perelman or Woody Allen or any of a long line of absurdist [mag: New Yorker] writers is that Frazier is not funny. I am sorry to declare this. I laughed a few times during [book: Lamentations of the Father], but mostly I had no choice but to step outside the frame and note, “Yes, I see what you’re doing there. I see that you want me to laugh.” Whereas when you read a Perelman or an Allen or a Steve Martin essay, you’re too busy doubled over laughing, in tears, to think about what the author is trying to do.

Perelman brings something else to the enterprise that Frazier just does not have it in him to use: a crazy, effortless, ridiculous command of the English language. Perelman is the man who uses the word “firkin” in two of my favorite sentences ever:

He is a hearty trencherman, as befits a man of his girth, and has been known to consume a firkin of butter and a hectare of gherkins in less time than it takes to say ‘Bo’ to a goose.

and

Of course, five cents in those days bought a good deal more than it does now; it bought a firkin of gherkins or a ramekin of fescue or a pipkin of halvah…

These are sentences that don’t need to exist. They are very, very silly. They add up, through steady and deliberate accretion, to endless belly laughs. They are cleverer than anything I will probably ever come up with in my life. By writing for [mag: The New Yorker], Ian Frazier has placed himself beside these sainted authors; he cannot avoid a negative comparison.

So my advice is to skip [book: Lamentations of the Father] and go straight to what Frazier was aiming for in his cargo-cult-comedy exercise. Read any of Woody Allen’s short collections ([book: Without Feathers], [book: Side Effects]); [book: Most of the Most of S.J. Perelman]; or the [mag: New Yorker]’s own collection, [book: Fierce Pajamas].

Peter-Paul Koch, ppk on JavaScript —

Peter-Paul Koch, ppk on JavaScript

Cover of 'ppk on JavaScript': the letters 'ppk' spelled out hacker-like, with ']{' supposed to form a 'k' and so forth.

This is a book for beginning JavaScript developers. If they come to this book with any pre-existing software-development experience, and they have any choice in the matter, the most sensible response will be to run away from the field as fast as possible.

There’s no *elegance* in this book. It is a collection of ways to hack around browser defects. This is expected, given that its author runs the famous QuirksMode website, documenting in glorious detail all the ways that browsers vary in their support for web standards. You’ll find, for instance, that Internet Explorer calls the target of an event its `srcElement`, while the standard calls it its `target`. So then you’re required to write a little shim like ppk’s `doSomething()` method. Or you’ll find that the XMLHTTPRequest object behaves differently under different browsers, requiring another abstraction like ppk’s `createXMLHTTPObject()`.

None of this is actually interesting. At best, when you’re done using every one of these abstractions, you will have overcome some silly impediments to doing what you actually want to do. What is interesting about software development is *actually solving problems*. When a language — or, in this case, an ill-specified language with competing frameworks — gets in the way of getting the task done, it forces you to gnash your teeth just to accomplish basic chores, not to speak of the challenge that you entered the profession to solve. Syntax hurdles are not interesting; actual substantive problems are.

This sort of problem is why libraries like jQuery exist. Instead of dealing with every browser’s strange implementation of XMLHTTPRequest, you deal with a normalized jQuery object that looks like `$(someObject)`. That `$(…)` business is where all the `target`-versus-`srcObject`, `ActiveXObject`-versus-`XMLHTTPRequest` nastiness gets hidden.

Indeed, throughout [book: ppk on JavaScript], all I could think was that much of what Koch was writing should be hidden behind frameworks like jQuery. (And if Koch were writing this book today, I’m fairly certain he’d help you skip all that.) An ungodly fraction of the rest of [book: ppk on JavaScript] is devoted to the basic syntax details of JavaScript — for-loops, while-loops, and the rest. Any experienced developer is going to skip right over these.

It *is* a valuable book if you want to understand the fundamentals beneath your jQuerys and Node.jses and such. I’m sure it’ll be good to have on my shelf to grab when I encounter some corner case. But over time, the difficulties covered in [book: ppk on JavaScript] are getting hidden more and more beneath frameworks, and pushed out of existence as browsers become more standardized and websites drop support for old browsers. So [book: ppk on JavaScript] starts to look like a dated catalog of the bad old days.

__P.S.__: It’s a small nit, but I really did enjoy this line of Koch’s: “Frankly I don’t believe that Internet over mobile phones will ever amount to much in Europe and North America”. [book: ppk on JavaScript] came out in late 2006; the iPhone came out in mid-2007. Talk about bad timing. This convinces me (as if I needed any more convincing on this point) that playing the tech prognosticator is a mug’s game.

In defense of AT&T — June 22, 2010

In defense of AT&T

People love to bust on AT&T, but I have to say that I have no — zero — complaints about them:

* __Reception__: AT&T’s reception has been better than it ever was when I was on Verizon. I can make calls from inside my girlfriend’s house in New Hampshire, and from inside my parents’ house in Vermont; on Verizon, I always had to step outside in both those places. And AT&T doesn’t even have service in Vermont! Needless to say, their reception in Boston is just fine. I’ve had some problems in the immediate vicinity of my workplace in Kendall Square; I believe that’s because the volume of electronic equipment there is over the top and causes lots of electromagnetic interference. I’ve had some problems with their reception in New York City. (NYC people: has AT&T gotten any better there?)

* __Their online store__: People were bitching and moaning about being unable to buy an iPhone 4 because AT&T’s website got slammed. I had no such problem. I ordered an iPhone from them on the day it became available, and was notified today that it’s shipped. (By the way: is “I’m going to have to wait a few days to order my several-hundred-dollar pocket computer, *and I am pissed*” the definition of “first-world problem”?)

* __Customer service__: Verizon’s customer service was always great, and they always tried to find me the plan that fit my needs. AT&T has done the same. (Bank of America’s customer service is also stellar. I guess I’m supposed to hate BofA too, but I don’t.)

Others may have had worse luck, but I kind of wonder if people just like getting mad at big companies.

Barack Obama…for state senate! —

Barack Obama…for state senate!

Back when I was in college (Carnegie Mellon class of 2000), a friend who was attending the University of Chicago gave me a placard that was posted hither and thither on Chicago’s South Side: a dorky-faced guy with a ridiculously toothy grin smiling out at us. It read

“Barack Obama

for state senate”

My buddy Josh and I thought this was hilarious. Over the years, we turned the guy on the placard into a superhero. We’d be studying for one hard exam or another and would say to one another, “You know who could ace the piss out of this test right now?” The other would respond, “*Barack Obama!*” to which the first would respond, inevitably, “…*for state senate!*” Or we’d be at the gym: “Man, these weights are *tough*! … Know who could lift them without breaking a sweat?” “*Barack Obama!*” “…*for state senate!*”

The years go by. It’s 2004. There’s a dude up on the stage at the Democratic National Convention who’s making everyone ask, “Why do I have to vote for Kerry? Why can’t I vote for this guy?” Josh and I called one another: “Uh … dude, do you see who’s on stage right now?” It was surreal.

It’s still surreal. Every few months it occurs to me afresh that Josh and I were making this obscure local politician the punchline of a joke probably a decade before he became president of the United States. Bizarre.

Little Eclipse nits I want to fix: a series of notes to myself — June 18, 2010

Little Eclipse nits I want to fix: a series of notes to myself

As I think of them, I’ll add notes here on what I want to add to Eclipse. Eclipse is really pretty fantastic, and it’s 90% of the way to feeling like a really comfortable tool for me. Here’s what would make it perfect. Since it’s an open-source tool, I should be able to fix it.

1. Sometimes — but not always — you can Select All in the Project Explorer. When you can’t, you can click the first project in the list, then shift-click to the last project in the list. I submit that if that is possible, then Select All ought to be possible.
2. Periodically, Eclipse or Maven or m2eclipse or somesuch will have a mild freakout: *I can’t build project X until I get project Y!* But it’s just that project Y is closed. So: *get the various plugins to open project Y when necessary.*
3. run-jetty-run ought to honor the pom.xml, specifically the XML directive that tells jetty to use a specific port.
4. Command+Shift+R (under OS X)/Ctrl+Shift+R (everywhere else, I guess) doesn’t let your cursor keys wrap around the list control. My cursor starts at the top of the list of matching resources; I should be able to press the up arrow to go to the bottom-most matching resource, and vice versa.

Much larger than mere nits:

1. I wish Eclipse worked at all for Python development. I don’t know anyone who’s had good luck with Pydev, though maybe I need to give it another shot.
2. I wish Eclipse integrated better with FreeMarker: syntax highlighting, proper indenting and reformatting, jumping from macros to their definitions and their uses within your workspace, etc.
3. There are times when the only way I can unbreak my m2eclipse environment is by dropping to the command line and running various incantations like `mvn clean install eclipse:clean eclipse:eclipse`. I should never have to drop to the command line (that’s the point of an IDE, no?), but much smarter people than me say that they’ve never been able to control Maven flawlessly from inside Eclipse.

A note on blog branding — June 12, 2010

A note on blog branding

I long ago unsubscribed from Jack Balkin’s “Balkinization” blog when it was taken over by people other than its namesake. If you look at its front page now, *none* of the posts there are Balkin’s. Balkin’s voice is the reason I wanted to read it to begin with. Granted, it has other fine people — Marty Lederman, as I recall, has some good things to say, as do Sandy Levinson and Brian Tamanaha — but they don’t have the voice that I signed on for.

Now Matt Yglesias’s blog looks to be in danger of going the same way. He got some guest bloggers when he was away in China, because either he or his employer believed that filling in space was more important than purity of voice. They may be right in the aggregate; maybe people don’t care so much about hearing Yglesias’s distilled voice, and instead care to hear about those *topics* that interest Yglesias.

I hope ThinkProgress has some way to answer this analytically, because my suspicion is that it’s dead wrong. I submit that the reason people come to Yglesias’s blog is for his particular brand of intelligent sarcasm deployed against his opponents on matters of policy. (The Yglesias-Glenn Greenwald feud — Greenwald, as is his wont, constantly inveighing at excessive length against centrists, whom he constantly refers to as “centrists”; Yglesias poking fun at Greenwald and lecturing him as he would an overintellectual eighth grader — is a fine instance of the species.) Merely reading another writer lecture on No Child Left Behind just doesn’t cut it.

Ezra Klein did the same thing when he was on the same junket to China, with somewhat more success. He got Mike Konczal, of the Rortybomb blog, to write about financial reform; Klein had been writing on the topic in the days preceding his departure, and Konzcal happens to be both better qualified and a better writer than anyone else writing on the subject today, so that was a good pick. He had some other guest bloggers during the China trip, none of whom I remember.

It’s one thing to use guest writers when you’re away. It’s quite another to let them contribute to your blog while you’re still in town. That seems to be what Yglesias has done today, allowing one Ryan McNeely to contribute while Yglesias is (presumably) elsewhere in D.C. chilling out. I’m sure McNeely is a fine man, but my first thought upon seeing his name under the Yglesias masthead was, “Who the hell is this guy?” I advanced to the next post in Google Reader posthaste.

My advice to Klein and Yglesias is similar to the advice for aspiring cafés I read years ago: be known *for coffee*; don’t dilute your brand by being known both for high-end coffee and mediocre sandwiches. My advice to Balkin and Yglesias and Klein is: we love reading *you*; we don’t love reading your proxies. We’re not going to run away if you fail to update your blog for a few days. So relax and keep your brand pure.

An incomplete list of things you want from programmers — June 7, 2010

An incomplete list of things you want from programmers

Lest I be accused of being an entirely negative person when I document the difficulty of hiring software developers, let me enumerate — in roughly increasing order of desirability — a partial list of what one wants from developers:

* understand basic syntax in at least one language
* quickly absorb the rudiments of a new language
* quickly program idiomatically in that language
* use algorithms and data structures that reach a solution to your particular problem before the heat death of the universe, using a computer smaller than the Chandrasekhar Limit
* write literate code that you and others can understand months later
* know how to test your code so that you’re not handing QA a steaming mess
* be a good mentor to other developers, which means being a clear thinker and a clear speaker
* debug often mysteriously dysfunctional code
* know when it’s okay to be sloppy in your code and when it’s not
* quickly learn the set of available solutions to the problem before you, know how to compare them, and defend your chosen approach rationally
* take an ill-formed problem and fill in the details enough to start writing
* understand customer needs and turn them into a plan for a program
* understand customer priorities and reflect those in your day-to-day work, strategically cutting corners when it doesn’t deflect you from your path

By no means can I claim that I do all of these, or even do most of them most of the time; I’m still learning, and I expect that most candidates will also be learning. (Maybe “be able to pick up any of the items on this list that you don’t already know” should be the final bullet?) My point is that it is hard to screen for these things during a standard few-hours-long interview, or even during the standard interview+phone screen+coding sample process. Though it would be valuable, and probably not very difficult, to test for more of these during the interview. As it stands, most interview questions address the first couple bullets — or test your ability to repeat the stock answers to stock questions (“My biggest challenge was when I tackled [insert puffed-up big project]; my perfectionism nearly got the best of me, but I persevered”). What’s remarkable is that so many people get the trivial/stock questions wrong. Hopefully we’ll eventually move beyond those questions and start grilling developers on what really matters.

I finally had my first exposure to programmers who can’t program —

I finally had my first exposure to programmers who can’t program

This sort of madness is apparently commonplace. I had never directly encountered it, so I was shocked when I interviewed someone today who was incapable of performing a basic programming task. This was someone with a master’s degree from a prestigious university, and he couldn’t code something that you should be able to write as a freshman in college. Fortunately it only took, by my estimate, $18.07 in salaried time to screen him out: I put him in front of the excellent See[Mike]Code after a few minutes of pleasantries and “what would you like to know about our company?”-type questions, watched him fail to code, and ended the interview. During in-person interviews, we “fail fast”: if the first interviewers raise a red flag, they relay this to the second pair of interviewers; if the second pair of interviewers is negative or only neutral, we show the candidate the door. I’m now inclined to fail phone-screen candidates fast: program first, talk about the company second.

I’ve thought for a very long time that the hiring process is largely a *negative* affair: it establishes those people whom you screen *out*, but it doesn’t do a very good job screening *in*. You filter out the obviously incompetent programmers. Then you filter out those with bad social skills. Then you filter out those who fit badly with the company’s culture. You still may end up with disasters. At my company, we give candidates three to six months to prove their mettle even after we hire them, which is (it seems to be) an admission that the hiring process is imperfect.

In large, advanced market economies centered around anonymous transactions, you avoid some of these problems with credentialing organizations like universities. The assumption is that (apart from MBAs, which I gather are high-cost multi-year networking events) a prestigious school wouldn’t just put its stamp on anyone. After today, I’m not at all convinced that that’s true. I want to call up today’s candidate’s master’s-thesis adviser and demand that he pay me $18.07. Perhaps that would start shifting the incentives the right way.