Graham Robb, The Discovery of France — July 23, 2016

Graham Robb, The Discovery of France

Cover of _Discovery of France_: brown background, title set in Art Deco-ish font. A map of France is overlaid on the silhouette of a man on a bicycle -- seemingly an old man, wearing a hat like gentlemen would have worn in the 1920s or so.

In lieu of a proper review: please go read this book. I read it a few weeks ago, and it’s been quietly haunting me ever since. At one level, it’s a book about the weirdness of France when you dig just below the surface. At another level, it’s about the weirdness lurking under the surface of the entire modern world. We live in a world that has been, in some sense, normalized and channeled in non-weird directions. Come to any place like Boston or Paris, and the weirdness is hidden from you; tourists are directed to completely normal tourist attractions, which present a rather bland and unsurprising face to the world. In the specific case of France, the face that we see is the face of Paris: even the vaunted “French cuisine” is really Parisian cuisine. Consider the provinces:

For tourists who ventured beyond Paris, the true taste of France was stale bread. The degree of staleness reflected the availability of fuel. A manual of rural architecture published in Toulouse in 1820 stated that the public oven should be large enough to allow the week’s bread to be baked in a single twenty-four-hour period. In the Alps, enough bread was produced in a single batch for a year and sometimes two or three years. It was baked, at least once, then hung above a smoky fire or dried in the sun. Sometimes, the ‘loaf’ was just a thin barley and bean-flour biscuit. To make it edible and to improve the colour, it was softened in buttermilk or whey. Rich people used white wine.

As I copy down that passage, the final sentence reminds me of something else I love about this book: the economy of a dry observation. A lesser writer could have elaborated that “Even the wealthy ate no better than this; rich people used white wine.” Robb lets the observation stand on its own, and moves on.

What initially drew me to this book (when my friend Chris directed me) was an absolutely insane passage about babies being carted off to Paris from the provinces, stuffed into bicycle panniers. It’s not just that the pre-industrial era is not far behind us; and it’s not just that the provinces were backwards until quite recently; it’s that our entire way of looking at the world has been canalized into a particularly boring 21st-century mode, and that the world is a phenomenally strange place.

There are many other levels to this book. The only other one I’ll point out is the mutual incomprehensibility in which even adjoining villages often lived. The “French language” is a construct, enforced by the Académie Française, hammered out of the thousands of dialects that filled the countryside. Again, the picture that we moderns — maybe especially Americans — have of the world around us is a world of nations with well-defined borders, governed by strong central governments, speaking basically one (or at most a few) language, with the language and the government spanning roughly the same territory. Graham Robb’s book puts us back in a world where the governments, the languages, and the cultures are all fluid and unnamed.

I recommend it without reservation. And I want to read more books like this one, which give us the historical imagination to return to a just-barely-buried world.

Candidates for the language graveyard — July 5, 2016
PSA on the Provincetown fast ferry — July 4, 2016

PSA on the Provincetown fast ferry

If you want to take an Uber to the Bay State Cruise Company ferry from Boston to Provincetown, don’t tell the Uber driver to go to 200 Seaport Boulevard. That’s a very large building, and you’ll end up blocks (as well as some vertical feet) away from where you want to be. Where you really want to be is at the corner of Seaport Blvd. and B Street. If I invent a location called “165 Northern Ave.,” that seems to be where you want to be.

You don’t have to deserve it — June 29, 2016

You don’t have to deserve it

A World to Make: Eleven Theses for the Bernie Sanders Generation has really stuck with me over the past few months; it reappears in my head with some regularity, especially this thesis:

  1. Not Everything Has to Be Earned
    Bill Clinton often said that he wanted a fair return for people who “work hard and play by the rules.” And of course working hard and honoring the rules (at least where the rules are fair and legitimate) deserves respect. But the national fixation on people getting what they “deserve,” from meritocratic rewards in higher education to incarceration (“Do the crime, do the time,” the prosecutors say) has gotten out of hand. It locks us into a mutual suspicion of people getting away with something—pocketing some perk or job or government benefit that they didn’t “really earn”—while ignoring the way the whole economy tilts its rewards toward those who already have wealth. A left program should shift the attention from zero-sum questions about who gets what, and at whose expense, to bigger questions about what everyone should get just for being part of the social order: education (including good higher education), health care, safety in their neighborhood, an infrastructure that works.

I get that there’s a mismatch between what’s ethically correct — which I think the above thesis is — and what’s politically possible. Matt Yglesias makes the reasonable point in a recent episode of The Weeds that it really is much easier to sell welfare of the “pay people only if they work [i.e., ‘deserve it’]” variety, rather than the “give poor people cash” variety. There’s a broader question there of how we developed a public morality such that these are the terms of the debate, but I get the practicalities.

In a lot of ways the Democratic primary of 2016 has felt like an argument between those two poles: what small incremental improvements can we make to the welfare state (Clinton), versus how do we change the way we even discuss the topic such that fundamental improvement is possible (Sanders). We need both.

Why this is not quoted anywhere on the Internet, I have no idea — June 28, 2016

Why this is not quoted anywhere on the Internet, I have no idea

I tried any number of reasonable Google searches to get this text, then finally gave up and found it in my paper copy of Anthony Lane’s Nobody’s Perfect. Lane is reading each of the top 10 New York Times bestsellers from the week of May 15, 1994. Hence I give you:

No. 5 on the list is Inca Gold, by Clive Cussler. The plot is some farrago about buried treasure in the Andes, and the characters, though intended to be as tough as old boots, are not quite tough enough to curse properly. “Those fornicating baboons” is about as close as they get. The fruitful comparison here is with Judith Krantz, who I thought would be partial to soft-core euphemisms like “manhood” and “moistness” but never hesitates to call a fuck a fuck. The only point of interest in Inca Gold, in fact, is Cussler’s attempt to out-Folsom Alan Folsom, sometimes in the most unsuitable places: “the underwater blast came like the eruption of a huge depth charge as a seething column of white froth and green slime burst out of the sinkhole, splattering everyone and everything standing within 20 meters (66 feet) of the edge.” I love that parenthesis more than I can say. Someone should ask Mr. Cussler to edit an anthology of English verse. He could start with Robert Frost:

And miles (multiples of 1.6 kilometres)
to go before I sleep.
And miles (multiples of 1.6 kilometres)
to go before I sleep.

(British spelling of ‘kilometers’ is [sic], by the way, because The New Yorker. These are the same people who spell it ‘focussed’.)

It’s odd — June 21, 2016
Happiest day of my life — June 6, 2016
Historical imagination and the gutting of Boston — May 15, 2016

Historical imagination and the gutting of Boston

By now I’ve read quite a number of books and any number of blog posts — including this new good one on Vox — about the gutting of U.S. cities by highways. I know about the connection of highways to racism; I know that highways very often cut neighborhoods off from the rest of their cities; I know that highways were thought to be an important part of urban renewal, and as far as I know the people who used that term did not mean it euphemistically — they really did believe they were revitalizing their cities.

But that’s all abstract. I fundamentally have never been able to put myself back into the minds of people who thought that this was a good idea. When I walk around Boston and I find that large parts of the city have had the life sucked out of them by urban-renewal projects that are today universally condemned, I’ve not yet been able to put myself in the heads of those who made these decisions:

Of course I’ve heard all the benign explanations. The future was believed to lie in automobiles: people would commute into the cities for work and commute back to the suburbs at night, and the bulldozed parts of the city weren’t actually that nice anyway. But what I fundamentally have not been able to build yet is the historical imagination to put myself in their shoes. Books like Building A New Boston: Politics and Urban Renewal, 1950-1970 believe that pre-demolition Boston wasn’t anything worth writing home about, whereas books like A People’s History of the New Boston treat it as a problem of organization: plenty of people objected to having their houses destroyed, but they weren’t organized politically. By 1970 they had organized, and the orgy of destruction had ended.

So I still need to put myself back in the shoes of Mayor John Hynes, standing over the map of Boston and deciding what would be bulldozed and what wouldn’t; or of Mayor John Collins, agreeing to tear the Mass Pike right through the middle of the city. I need to understand how decades of mistakes — which we’re only correcting, piece by piece, today — didn’t seem like mistakes at the time.

This is some good-as-heck butter — May 3, 2016

This is some good-as-heck butter

I would commend Beurre de Baratte to your favorable attention. To quote Jonathan Gold:

DTLA’s Lydia Clarke sometimes says that the Beurre de Baratte is her favorite cheese in the store.

It really does have the depth of flavor of a beautiful cheese.

I found out about this stuff from Gold’s appearance on the Bon Appétit podcast; his mentioning the butter comes within the last couple minutes. I apparently need to see the movie about Gold, having first learned about the man, I believe, from a New Yorker article which documents both the man’s gustatory adventurousness and his function as a food anthropologist:

In April, he announced a recent migration from Mexico’s Distrito Federal. How did he know? You could now get D.F.-style carnitas in Highland Park, “loose and juicy, spilling out of the huge $1.99 tacos like Beyoncé out of a tight jumpsuit.”
[…]
In the past year or two, Gold has noticed a surge of new restaurants serving very hot country-style food from Sichuan, a shift that he attributes to migration after the 2008 earthquake.

So three cheers for Jonathan Gold, and three cheers for the butter he loves.

Did someone say Canadian statistics? —

Did someone say Canadian statistics?

A couple years ago I reviewed a book about Canada’s then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Among other things, I wrote:

Then there are Harper’s moves that just seem outright slimy, like getting rid of the long-form census and generally gutting Statistics Canada. Again, this seems to be part of a pattern: if you remove the fundamental tools underlying the welfare state, including its financing and its means of measuring the populace, then there are questions you just never think of asking. If you stop measuring the same people over time, for instance, it’s harder to say that income mobility has gone down.

Gutting the collection of official statistics is right out of the U.S. GOP’s playbook. Wells touches on this a little bit, but perhaps not as much as I’d like. Is Canadian conservatism very similar to its American cousin? Wells is more focused on Harper the man, and on the details of Ottawa politics, so The Longer I’m Prime Minister has more to say about the politics than about these broader questions.

Well look what we have here!

Canada’s long-form census, known as the National Household Survey, was made optional by then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s conservative government back in 2010. As a result, participation in the NHS plummeted from 93.5 percent in 2006, to 68.6 percent four years later. “Voluntary surveys are simply a waste of money,” Munir Sheikh, Statistics Canada’s chief statistician who resigned over the switch, told CityLab last year. “[They] cannot provide you the kind of accurate information that you need to make your policy decisions.”

Seems good!