¶ The most memorable long piece that we read this month was Michael Sandel’s essay “How Markets Crowd Out Morals,” in the Boston Review. And the most compelling paragraph in the essay was certainly Sandel’s quizzical dismissal of Kenneth Arrow’s economics of love (the second of the two following).

It is easy to see how this economistic conception of virtue, if true, provides yet further grounds for extending markets into every sphere of life, including those traditionally governed by non-market values. If the supply of altruism, generosity, and civic virtue is fixed, like the supply of fossil fuels, then we should try to conserve it. The more we use, the less we have. On this assumption, relying more on markets and less on morals is a way of preserving a scarce resource.

But to those not steeped in economics, this way of thinking about the generous virtues is strange, even far-fetched. It ignores the possibility that our capacity for love and benevolence is not depleted with use but enlarged with practice. Think of a loving couple. If, over a lifetime, they asked little of one another, in hopes of hoarding their love, how well would they fare? Wouldn’t their love deepen rather than diminish the more they called upon it? Would they do better to treat one another in more calculating fashion, to conserve their love for the times they really needed it?

We came away from this not only refreshed but convinced that, one fine day, modern economists are going to take their place alongside the Scholastic “philosophers” of the late Middle Ages as spouters of nonsensical cant. (via The Browser; 5/29)

¶ J Luis Martín interviews Daron Acemoglu, co-author of Why Nations Fail, and a convincing discussion of the primacy of political institutions ensues. (Truman Factor; via The Browser; 5/2)

In Greece, for example, people don’t work hard and evade taxes not because of their inherent values or some ethnic disposition to such behavior, but because the incentives that have been created. Politicians created a system in which work was not rewarded, tax evasion was easy, almost encouraged, and clientelistic transfer payments made entrepreneurship and innovation less attractive.

¶ Every time we see a link to some TED presentation or other, we’re reminded of the fantasy, sprung when we were young, of learning difficult subjects (such as foreign languages) by “listening” to lectures on headsets — while asleep. We’ve watched a few of the videos and found them entertaining and “thought provoking,” although they’ve never inspired us to sit down and work out any of the thoughts provoked. That’s of course where the work, the real learning, would lie. Learning is hard work, and watching TED videos is easy. So: we were not horribly upset or disappointed by the Hanauer Affair, nor alarmed to read that the heart of TED is a Davos-level confab for moneyed brainiacs (who probably aren’t very good listeners anyway). (Good; Salon; 5/24) 

¶ John Scalzi explains the matter in plain terms: In the game of life, “straight white male” is the lowest difficulty setting. It’s a pity that so many of us are under the impression that they’re keeping the world turning. (via kottke.org; 5/24) ¶ Don’t miss the always-amazing Maria Bustillo’s take on “l’affaire Scalzi,” as she calls it. (The Awl) ¶ Are you a guy who’s having trouble putting his finances in order? Studies show: you ought to get married. Then, perhaps, you’ll stop listening to “the swashbucklers and the cowboys,” according to Reformed (!) Broker Joshua Brown. (5/29)

¶ JRParis’s kiss-off to Nicolas Sarkozy reminds us of an abbreviated Declaration of Independence in which the sins nevertheless do pile up. (“Ses rodomontades.”) We’re glad to see his coattails, too. (5/9) ¶ As the United Kingdom celebrates the Queen’s 60th, we believe more than ever that the success is all hers, not that of “the monarchy” — which, a little bit of medieval history will teach you, always had to be reinvented by new incumbents. Nevertheless, it is nice to think that the Brits have figured out how to do the magic. (Globe and Mail; 5/29)

¶ Alison Bechdel’s new book, Are You My Mother, has just come out, and it’s certainly going to be one of the most talked-about things this month. Maud Newton interviews the author at Barnes and Noble Review. As graphic writers go, Bechdel, without stinting on the drawing, is decidedly at the writerly end of the range. She begins with blank frames and dialogue boxes; amazingly, her editor can make sense of this. (via Maud Newton; 5/3) ¶ Elif Batuman visits the (actual) Museum of Innocence, in Istanbul, writing a report that fills us to overflowing with envy and admiration. (LRB; 5/30)

The evening of the opening, Pamuk hosted a cocktail reception for 385 people on the terrace of a nearby restaurant. Waiters passed among the guests, distributing cloudy glasses of raki that looked exactly like the plastic replicas in the museum. I met Pamuk’s editor, who made my head explode by relating that, since he hadn’t ended up writing the novel in the form of a museum catalogue, Pamuk had recently decided to write the catalogue as a separate book. (The English translation, The Innocence of Objects, will be published later this year.) Borges could have written a four-page story about the madman who builds a museum while writing a novel about building the museum, but Pamuk wrote the novel, built the museum, and then wrote a book-length catalogue about it.

¶ Ellen Moody writes about Colm Tóibín, and the similarities between her own background and that of Eilis Lacey (Brooklyn). When Ellen notes how her feelings about Eilis changed at the end, it’s almost as thrilling as reading the novel. ¶ At The Bygone Bureau, Kevin Nguyen and Julie Disparte confer about Fifty Shades of Grey. Upshot? Kevin liked it better than he thought he would, but will not, unlike Julie, read the next two. (5/3) ¶ Jonah Lehrer’s Rumpus interview left us wondering what Lehrer thinks a book is for. On the one hand, he finds a book project to be a great excuse to explore all sorts of interesting things. On the other hand, a great many of those explorations would end up on the cutting-room floor, if it weren’t for miscellaneous publication in magazines. Next up: love. (5/4) ¶ Bezalel Stern interviews Damion Searls, the translator of Nescio’s Amsterdam Stories. (The Rumpus; 5/9)

One of the things I like about Nescio is that our sense of the Dutch character is so split: there are all these stereotypical boring, badly dressed businessmen and then the occasional flamboyant utter genius: Van Gogh, Rembrandt. How could Dutch culture produce both? I feel like Nescio is the missing link—he shows us both the bohemian visionaries and plodding bourgeoisie, each turning into the other, each from the other one’s point of view.

¶ Eventually, either Alan Hollinghurst or Andrew Motion will have to find a new literary executor (unless they die in a plane crash together, on the way to some awards ceremony — happily unlikely. With endearing cheek, Hollinghurst describes his first book, a collection of poems called Chats With Boys, “intensely rare.” (Guardian; via Arts Journal; 5/24) ¶ Speaking of Hollinghurst, our Man in Manila reminds us that literature does not grow on convenient bookshelves everywhere. ¶ Nige recommends casting a gimlet eye on the best-sellers on your shelves: they’ll probably be considered unreadable in a generation or two. Consider, as he did, Edward “Dark and Stormy Night” Bulwer-Lytton. Nige tried to, but was defeated by the writer’s “peerless unreadability.” (Nigeness) ¶ Two pieces on Joan Didion caught our eye: Maria Popova’s excerpts from “On Self-Respect,” a piece that, from Michelle Dean’s overview of early criticism of Didion, we learn was written in two days, to fill suddenly empty space in Vogue. (Brain Pickings; The Awl; 5/29)

¶ Alex Ross hails Andrew Ford for a valiant rebuttal to Steven Pinker’s claim that music is “auditory cheesecake.” But the column is important because it lays out the three simple steps to developing a musical intelligence. (Inside Story; via  The Rest Is Noise; 5/9) ¶ Leo Carey contemplates the voice of Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, the great German baritone who died on 18 May. There’s a lovely clip of DFD singing Schumann’s “Ich grolle nicht,” for all the world as though he was making it up as he went along. (New Yorker; 5/24)

¶ We heartily agree with Felix Salmon’s implication about Munch’s The Scream: it’s worth more money precisely because it’s not unique. Art in the Age of Branding.

And while the Scream is an extreme example of the phenomenon, it can be seen in every major modern and contemporary art auction. It explains pretty much all of Damien Hirst, for instance, not to mention Takashi Murakami, a man whose paintings go up in value proportionally with the number of Murakami Louis Vuitton handbags spotted in the wild.

All of which just softens you up for Felix’s amazing China kickler. (5/9)

¶ At AltScreen, Dan Callahan writes about Romy Schneider, whom he thinks has been forgotten. Not by us, for damn sure! How do we get our hands on all her French movies? (via The House Next Door; 5/3) ¶ At Café Muscato, a really good appreciation of Alice Faye. “Within her fach, as it were, there’s no one better, but there’s no denying it’s very narrow terrain.” ¶ Jim Emerson reminds us that the good critic’s bottom-line judgment is always the least interesting part of a review. (Scanners; 5/24)

¶ As only he can, Tom Scocca excoriates the food writers for lying about how long it takes to caramelize onions. Onions cannot be caramelized in ten minutes. One senses the anxieties of food editors: anything too difficult-sounding will put off readers (so it’s better to lie?) When we prepare onions for a quiche, they’re stirred over the lowest heat for upwards of two hours. (Slate; via The Awl; 5/4) ¶ If these were the bad old days, we’d probably say that Victoria Johnson has a great sense of direction foragirl. We, of course, never get lost — but then, we haven’t been to Venice yet. (The Awl; 5/24)

Have a Look: ¶ Maria Popova shares Alice and Martin Provensen, noting that Alice is still at it. (Brain Pickings; 5/2) ¶ Geoff Manaugh stretches topography a bit in search of the “Lost Lakes of the Empire State Building.” (BLDGBLOG) ¶ Steerforth picks up a Ladybird book from the Fifties and wishes that he’d been born in 1946. As only someone who wasn’t would. (The Age of Uncertainty) ¶ People born long after 1946 may never have appreciated the impact that American Gigolo had on men’s fashion. Chris Laverty fixes that. (Clothes on Film; 5/9) ¶ Well, not in our back pocket. (@ Joe.My.God) ¶ Popcorn Explained. (Brainiac; 5/24) ¶ Jane Hu on Felix Salmon on Gerhard Richter. (The Awl; 5/29)

Noted: ¶ Reformed Broker Brown joshes all that dirty old M&A spring-fever sex. (5/2) ¶ The Branson cube, smiling up from your drink. (Telegraph; via Kathleen!; 5/3) ¶ Broccoli it’s not:? “Roman Emperors, Up to AD 476 And Not Including Usurpers, In Order of How Hardcore Their Deaths Were.” (The Awl; 5/4) ¶ The Full English Breakfast via MetaFilter. (5/6) ¶ Jonathan Franzen gets a friendly, favorable review! (The Millions) ¶ Wayne Koestenbaum on parataxis. (Bookforum; via 3 Quarks Daily; 5/9) ¶ Douche Parking, @ kottke.org (5/24) ¶ Edward Mendelson on “The Demonic Lionel Trilling“; we’d say more, but we haven’t digested it yet. (NYRB) ¶ You’ll be happy to know that Martin Amis lives in Cobble Hill because it’s “like living in the 1950s!” (Telegraph; via 3 Quarks Daily; 5/29)

Drop me a line at rjk@dailyblague.com
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 12:01 am.