AN ANTHOLOGY OF THOUGHT & EMOTION... Un'antologia di pensieri & emozioni
הידע של אלוהים לא יכול להיות מושגת על ידי המבקשים אותו, אבל רק אלה המבקשים יכול למצוא אותו

Saturday 29 September 2018

IT'S ME, ISN'T IT?

If I push you,
shove you,
what will I find?
Does the sky in your mind
have a limit?
Can you hear what
you are thinking
under what you are reading?
Does it at times drown
the reading out?
Where do the words come from?
What if we drained them of their meaning
just to see what remained?
Do the words fold,
fold back?
How is it with all this language
there is still this thing
so vast that we have
no name for it,
even if we sense it as a thing
we have seen?
Were the words
trapped in the pen,
just waiting?
Did they burst, sperm-like,
into meaning in our mouths?
Can you taste it? Can you feel it?
What about it?
Is it time to think time?
Do the words time?
How many times?
Is it locatable?
Has it a space?
Does it have a secret?
When will you tell it?
Are you anxious?
Are you ready?
Is it simply because you do it?
Are we inside it
Or is it in front of us?
What if we said that we had done this thing?
Can you give a yes or no answer?
Can you say it in a few short words?
Did you go into that phase and go through it?
What is it like to not work?
Would you just go out to the ocean one day
and begin to swim,
outward without limit
toward a vague conclusion?
What of a poem that
stretched from summer to summer?
Will the sun grow cold?
Or will the clouds burn off?
What kept you here?
Are you with me?
Or against me?
It’s me,
Isn’t it?
Artwork by Jantina Peperkamp

Friday 28 September 2018

A CRACK OF LIGHT

We were close friends and I had a tremendous admiration for him as a writer, poet, and singer – as a man. I didn't sit at his feet or anything like that, but I learned a great amount from him because I had the opportunity of a close friend who was a generation older than me, and so in a very effortless way I was able to see how he got through his years, his life.

Thanks Leonard for contributing to the soundtrack of our lives for half a century. As the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inscribed in 2008:
"For six decades, Leonard Cohen revealed his soul to the world through poetry and song—his deep and timeless humanity touching our very core. Simply brilliant. His music and words will resonate forever. "
And here's a loving, beautiful commemoration of my friend Leonard by Rabbi Brian Field...
Leonard Cohen
"Like a bird on a wire, like a drunk in a midnight choir, I have tried in my way to be free." L.C., Bird on the Wire

Leonard Cohen: A Loving Appreciation

By Rabbi Brian Field (2017)

On November 7, 2016, Leonard Cohen died. He was 82. As most who have participated in our High Holy Day services know, we have included songs of Leonard Cohen for the past several years. But the very first work of Leonard Cohen that we included was not one of his songs, but a poem that evokes so eloquently the central theme of the High Holy Days – turning, or in the Hebrew, teshuvah:

I lost my way
I forgot to call on your name.
The raw heart beats against the world,
And the tears were for my lost victory.
But you are here.
You have always been here.
The world is all forgetting,
And the heart is a rage of directions,
But your name unifies the heart,
And the world is lifted into its place.
Blessed is the one
Who waits in the traveler’s heart for his turning.


(Poem #50, from The Book of Mercy)

In the weeks since his passing, there has been an outpouring of tributes to Leonard Cohen, and particularly in the national Jewish press, a highlighting of his most Jewish songs. I’d like to add my own perspective about his songs that strike me as having a particularly powerful Jewish spiritual voice. Some of these songs we’ve sung at JYW services, but not all. Some are well known and some less so.
Leonard Cohen

Of course, the first song of Leonard Cohen that most people think of is Halleluyah. The song begins by evoking the Biblical King David, the traditional author of the Book of Psalms, in a very mystical way–

Now I’ve heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord.

But my favorite verse is one that is often not included in performances of the song:

You say I took the name in vain.
I don’t even know the name
But if I did, then really what’s it to you?
There’s a blaze of light in every word
It doesn’t matter which you heard.
The holy or the broken Halleluyah.

To me, “the name” is a reference to the Jewish way of speaking of God – Ha-Shem, Hebrew for, the name, or The Name. In Jewish spirituality, Ha-Shem refers to Y-H-W-H, the deepest sacred name for God – which conventionally gets pronounced Adonai, meaning, My Lord. In ancient times, this Name was pronounced once a year by the High Priest on Yom Kippur in the Holy of Holies, the very center of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. But following the destruction of the Temple by the Romans and the dispersion and exile of the Jewish people, the knowledge of how to pronounce The Name became lost. Perhaps that was the secret chord that King David played.
But, as Cohen sings, not knowing how to pronounce Y-H-W-H, is not the point. For there’s a blaze of light in every word. This evokes the Jewish mystical teaching about creation – that in order for the Sacred to make room for the Universe, it contracted, placing the Divine Light into vessels. But the vessels shattered, and our resulting world is a mixture of the shards from the shattered vessels and the sparks of the Divine Light. The task of human beings is to repair the broken world by liberating the hidden spark, “the blaze of light,” in each thing, in every moment, in every word.

This is an insight that is deeper than thoughts or feelings or beliefs. It’s even deeper than good or bad. There’s a blaze of light in it all. And in that insight, we see that the holy is the broken. It is all one.

2. "Night Comes On" (Various Positions)

I have always found “Night Comes On” to be deeply spiritual and mystical in a Jewish way. However, perhaps because the song contains nothing that is explicitly Jewish, it has never been included in lists of Cohen’s Jewish songs. Here’s my case for why it should be:
Let’s start with the first verse:

I went down to the place where I knew she lay waiting 
Under the marble and the snow I said, 
Mother I’m frightened, the thunder and the lightning 
I’ll never come through this alone. 
She said, I’ll be with you, my shawl wrapped around you 
My hand on your head when you go 
And the night came on, it was very calm 
I wanted the night to go on and on 
But she said, go back, go back to the world.

This song evokes for me two deeply Jewish spiritual tropes. The first is the figure of the Mother, the Divine Feminine or, in Judaism, the Shechinah. She wraps her shawl around the singer, the way Jews wrap ourselves in the tallit. She places her hand on his head, the way Jewish parents bless our children on Shabbat.

Secondly, the singer wants “the night to go on and on.” In other words, he seems to want to escape, to cloister himself, to use his spirituality to disengage from the world. This theme pervades much of the song: In the third verse, the singer admits that “I needed so much to have nothing to touch, I’ve always been greedy that way.” In the fourth verse, the singer, “lost in his calling” and “tied to the threads of some prayer,” wonders when She, the Shechinah, will come to him. And in the final verse, the singer cries out, “I want to cross over, I want to go home, but She says, “Go back, go back to the world.”

That’s precisely the Jewish way – to “go back to the world.” There are no monasteries in Judaism. Jews have always been encouraged to engage the world rather than retreat from it. And even when it comes to the study of Jewish mystical texts, Jewish tradition requires that one be at least 40 years old, employed and married with children, that is, fully engaged in the world, before one is permitted to begin.

3. "If It Be Your Will" (Various Positions)

In my opinion, “If It Be Your Will,” Cohen’s prayer for healing, is one of his most tightly written and musically exquisite songs. With verses like, “Let the rivers fill, let the hills rejoice,” Cohen has grounded his prayer in the imagery of the Biblical psalms.
“If It Be Your Will” rests in an awareness that we humans are not in charge, an insight that is both obvious when one stops to think about it, and at the same time, something of which we are usually in deep denial. But not Cohen:

If it be Your will
that I sing no more
That my voice be still
as it was before.
I will sing no more.
I shall abide until.
I am spoken for.
If it be Your will.


As Rabbi Maurice Lamm writes in his book, The Jewish Way of Death, life is a day that lies between two nights – the night of “not yet,” before birth, and the night of “no more,” after death. We emerge out of the eternal silence of the “not yet” into life. And at death, we slip back into “no more,” our voices silent as they were before.

But healing does not only imply making peace with one’s mortality. Healing is also our response to frailty in life, both physical and moral. The deepest prayer and the most powerful art for that matter must, in some way, speak the truth.

If it be Your will, that a voice be true
From this broken hill, I will sing to You.


When I heard that Cohen had died, “If It Be Your Will” was what first came to mind.

4. "Who By Fire?" (New Skin for the Old Ceremony)

Similar to “If It Be Your Will,” “Who By Fire?” is based on the awareness that we are not in charge – an insight most eloquently expressed in the High Holy Day prayer Unetaneh Tokef.” Here’s how the traditional prayer puts it:
You set a limit for every creature’s life
And determine each one’s destiny.
On Rosh HaShanah it is written
And on Yom Kippur it is sealed:
How many shall pass away
And how many shall be born,
Who shall live and who shall die
Who in the fullness of years
And who before her time.
Who by fire and who by water…


This last line of the traditional liturgy is how Cohen begins his song. And the list of fates he describes is a contemporary update to that found in the traditional liturgy. But “Who By Fire” is not just an update on the tradition. At the conclusion of each of the three stanzas, Cohen adds a line not found in the liturgy but reflects a question that so many of us are asking, a line that, in my mind, can be read three ways: casually, agnostically and mystically:

Who shall I say is calling?

One can imagine a secretary answering the phone and taking a message, in response to the Divine decree: “Hello…no, he’s not here…is there a message? And who shall I say is calling?”

Is there a God who is calling? If not, then who is? Or perhaps more to the point, who shall I say it is? Cohen revisits the mystery, the not knowing the Sacred Name that we already observed in "Halleluyah".

Finally, one can read this from a mystical perspective. In the Kabbalah, Who is a name for God, a name that points to the emptiness (in Hebew: Ayin) out of which everything arises, and into which everything falls.

5. "Born in Chains" (Popular Problems)

For some reason, this song tends not to make the “most Jewish” lists. But it most definitely makes mine!
The song begins with imagery out of the story of the Exodus from Egypt, the foundational story of Jewish spirituality and peoplehood:

I was born in chains but I was taken out of Egypt.
I was bound to a burden, but the burden it was raised.
Oh Lord I can no longer keep this secret.
Blessed is the Name, the Name be praised.
I fled to the edge of a mighty sea of sorrow.
Pursued by the riders of a cruel and dark regime
But the waters parted and my soul crossed over.
Out of Egypt, out of Pharaoh’s dream.

The song continues with a chorus grounded in Jewish mysticism:

Word of word and measure of all measures
Blessed is the Name, the Name be blessed
Written on my heart in burning letters.
That’s all I know. I do not know the rest.


So much Jewish spirituality is packed into these four lines: The second line of the chorus evokes the Barchu – "Blessed is the One who is to be blessed.” In the third line, the phrase “written on my heart” evokes the passage in the Torah known as the V’Ahavata – “… and these words which I command you this day, shall be on your heart.”

But notice that the letters written upon his heart are burning, evoking both a sense of deep passion but also reflecting the mystical teaching that the Torah is not simply black ink written on white parchment but black fire inscribed on white fire. The image of burning letters evokes other images out of Jewish spirituality – the sacrifices through which ancient Jews expressed their connection to the Sacred, the ner tamid, the eternal flame, burning continuously in front of the Holy Ark in which the Torah Scrolls are housed, and of course, the burning bush out of which Moses encounters God near the beginning of the story of the Exodus, the bush that burned but did not burn up.

Interestingly, in a departure from “Halleluyah” and “Who By Fire,” Cohen now claims to know the Name, which he has discovered on his heart. But that’s all. The rest of the Mystery remains.

Having crossed the sea, the burden lifted, the singer searches for a spiritual path to follow. He meets with challenges. As he sings in the third verse, “I followed very closely but my life remained the same.” In the fourth verse, he is confused, lost on the road. His teachers tell him that he only has himself to blame. But eventually he gets it. Confusion and brokenness are not obstacles on the path. They are the path. In another nod to the Kabbalah’s teaching of the shattered vessels and the hidden sparks, he realizes that “in every atom, broken is the Name.” Ultimately, he allows a “sweet unknowing” to unify the Name.

6. "Anthem" (The Future)

The song “Anthem” has been a Judaism Your Way High Holy Days favorite for several years. Like his poem from Book of Mercy, “Anthem” lifts up the path of teshuvah (turning):
The birds they sang at the break of day
Start again, I heard them say.


At the heart of the song, once again, is the awareness of brokenness in our lives, the reason we need the practice of teshuvah in the first place.

Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.


Many of us turn to spirituality as a last resort. It feels that because we are broken there must be something wrong with us. But brokenness is not an anomaly. Brokenness is the state of the universe. That is the insight of the Kabbalistic teaching of the shattering of the vessels at the start of Creation. Listen to these lines from the chorus:

There is a crack in everything.
That’s how the light gets in.


Teshuvah is the name Judaism gives to the practice of noticing the crack as it expresses itself in our lives, and through humility, forgiveness, and courage, allowing the light back in, not in spite of the brokenness, but through the brokenness. I can think of no purer description of the experience and goal of Yom Kippur than these final lines in "Anthem":

Every heart to love will come
But like a refugee.


Leonard Cohen’s death left a huge crack in the hearts of many throughout the world. May the light of his music and poetry bless us with the wisdom, humility and courage to sing our own holy and broken Halleluyah.
Brian Field
Leonard Cohen and guitar
"I don't think of myself as a singer, writer, or any other thing. The job of being a man is much more than any of that." L. C.
Some magic lyrics, written by Leonard Cohen with music by Buffy Sainte-Marie, who also sings it here:
God is alive, Magic is afoot
God is alive; Magic is afoot
God is afoot; Magic is alive
Alive is afoot.....

Magic never died.
God never sickened; 
Many poor men lied
Many sick men lied
Magic never weakened
Magic never hid
Magic always ruled
God is afoot
God never died.
God was ruler
Though his funeral lengthened
Though his mourners thickened
Magic never fled
Though his shrouds were hoisted
The naked God did live
Though his words were twisted
The naked Magic thrived
Though his death was published
Round and round the world
The heart did not believe
Many hurt men wondered
Many struck men bled
Magic never faltered
Magic always led.
Many stones were rolled
But God would not lie down
Many wild men lied
Many fat men listened
Though they offered stones
Magic still was fed
Though they locked their coffers
God was always served.
Magic is afoot. God rules.
Alive is afoot. Alive is in command.
Many weak men hungered
Many strong men thrived
Though they boasted solitude
God was at their side
Nor the dreamer in his cell
Nor the captain on the hill 
Magic is alive
Though his death was pardoned
Round and round the world
The heart did not believe.
Though laws were carved in marble
They could not shelter men
Though altars built in parliaments
They could not order men
Police arrested Magic
And Magic went with them,
For Magic loves the hungry.
But Magic would not tarry
It moves from arm to arm
It would not stay with them
Magic is afoot
It cannot come to harm
It rests in an empty palm
It spawns in an empty mind
But Magic is no instrument
Magic is the end.
Many men drove Magic
But Magic stayed behind
Many strong men lied
They only passed through Magic
And out the other side
Many weak men lied
They came to God in secret
And though they left him nourished
They would not say who healed
Though mountains danced before them
They said that God was dead
Though his shrouds were hoisted
The naked God did live
This I mean to whisper to my mind
This I mean to laugh with in my mind
This I mean my mind to serve 'til
Service is but Magic
Moving through the world
And mind itself is Magic
Coursing through the flesh
And flesh itself is Magic
Dancing on a clock
And time itself the magic length of God.


...and some great quotes by Leonard Cohen.

Hear this song too, and d'you really want it darker?
Lyrics:
YOU WANT IT DARKER      (הִנֵּֽנִי‎ = Hineni, "Here I am")
If you are the dealer, I'm out of the game
If you are the healer, it means I'm broken and lame
If thine is the glory then mine must be the shame
You want it darker
We kill the flame
Magnified, sanctified, be thy holy name
Vilified, crucified, in the human frame
A million candles burning for the help that never came
You want it darker
Hineni, hineni [הִנֵּֽנִי‎ = here I am]
I'm ready, my lord
There's a lover in the story
But the story's still the same
There's a lullaby for suffering
And a paradox to blame
But it's written in the scriptures
And it's not some idle claim
You want it darker
We kill the flame
They're lining up the prisoners
And the guards are taking aim
I struggled with some demons
They were middle class and tame
I didn't know I had permission to murder and to maim
You want it darker
Hineni, hineni
I'm ready, my lord
Magnified, sanctified, be thy holy name
Vilified, crucified, in the human frame
A million candles burning for the love that never came
You want it darker
We kill the flame
If you are the dealer, let me out of the game
If you are the healer, I'm broken and lame
If thine is the glory, mine must be the shame
You want it darker
Hineni, hineni
Hineni, hineni
I'm ready, my lord
Hineni
Hineni, hineni
Hineni

(
Also listen to a vibrant commentary of this song by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks on video here: https://youtu.be/2s3kQSZ_Qxk)

Leonard Cohen's Greatest Hits:
See also my posts:
and my page with Elliot Wolfson's article:
In 1967-70, Roy Allan of Simon Fraser University wrote a master's thesis entitled—
You may email me requesting a free copy (either in PDF or DOCX - please, specify).
In italiano vedi anche le mie pagine:
Three websites on Leonard:
  1. The official one: Leonard Cohen
  2. Cohencentric: Leonard Cohen Considered
  3. The Leonard Cohen Files

Appropriately, I wish to conclude with the complete lyrics from ANTHEM, also translated freely in Italian / Voglio concludere con le parole della canzone ANTHEM (Inno), tradotte anche in italiano:


The birds they sang
at the break of day
Start again
I heard them say
Don't dwell on what
has passed away
or what is yet to be.
Ah the wars they will
be fought again
The holy dove
She will be caught again
bought and sold
and bought again
the dove is never free.

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.

We asked for signs
the signs were sent:
the birth betrayed
the marriage spent
Yeah the widowhood
of every government —
signs for all to see.


I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

Ring the bells that still can ring ...

You can add up the parts
but you won't have the sum
You can strike up the march,
there is no drum
Every heart, every heart
to love will come
but like a refugee.

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.
That's how the light gets in.
That's how the light gets in...


Gli uccelli cantavano
sul fare del giorno
comincia daccapo
li sentivo dire
non indugiare
su ciò che è passato
o su ciò che deve venire
Altre guerre
saranno combattute
la sacra colomba
sarà ancora imprigionata
comprata, venduta
e ricomprata
colomba mai libera.

Fai suonare le campane che ancora lo possono
scordati la tua offerta impeccabile
c’è una crepa in ogni cosa
ma di lì entra la luce.

Chiedemmo dei segni
e ci furono inviati:
la nascita rinnegata
il matrimonio esausto
sì, la vedovanza
di ogni governo —
segni visibili a tutti.

Non posso più stare
con quell'orda senza leggi
mentre là in alto gli assassini
recitano le loro preghiere ad alta voce.
Ma hanno evocato
una nube di tempesta
e mi sentiranno, eccome.

Fai suonare le campane che ancora lo possono...

Puoi sommare le parti
ma non avrai il totale
puoi dare il via alla marcia,
ma non c'è il tamburo
ogni animo, ogni cuore
giungerà all’amore
ma lo farà da profugo.

Fai suonare le campane che ancora lo possono
scordati la tua offerta impeccabile
c’è una crepa, una crepa in ogni cosa
di lì entra la luce.

Fai suonare le campane che ancora lo possono
scordati la tua offerta impeccabile
c’è una crepa, una crepa in ogni cosa
di lì entra la luce
di lì entra la luce
di lì entra la luce...

Thursday 27 September 2018

Robert B. Parker, the Hard-Boiled Professor

Robert B. Parker
An article by Leonard Cassuto

Of the many crime writers who have tried on Raymond Chandler's mantle, few wore it as easily as Robert B. Parker. Parker, who died on January 18, 2010, wrote more than 60 books, many of them recounting the adventures of a private eye named Spenser (there is no first name). Parker's Spenser books form the centerpiece of a body of work that bears Chandler's torch through the late 20th century and into the 21st, where it continues to light the main roads of the hard-boiled tradition.

Spenser's name echoes the Renaissance poet's and thus invokes visions of the Red Cross Knight saving distressed damsels and battling for virtue in The Faerie Queene. Chandler, too, saw his detective, Philip Marlowe, as a knight, a "shop-soiled Galahad" toiling in a world that "wasn't a game for knights" anymore. Chandler (1888-1959) was canonized in his own time, and his popularity gave great influence to his vision of the tough guy as a principled crusader down the mean streets. Before that, as Chandler famously complained, detective stories simply rendered "problems in logic and deduction," leading to "utterly incomprehensible" fictional scenarios that required figuring out "how somebody stabbed Mrs. Pottington Postlethwaite III with the solid platinum poniard just as she flatted on the top note of the 'Bell Song' from Lakmé in the presence of 15 ill-assorted guests." Chandler and his peers "gave murder back to the kind of people that commit it for reasons."

Chandler's vision prospered under Parker's care. Like Marlowe, Parker's Spenser is an idealist who expresses his hope for the world through his detective work. But Spenser displays none of Marlowe's often sour outlook, and none of the cynicism that Chandler gave the character during the 1950s, his final decade. Instead, Spenser seems always bemused, even when he's under fire, and Parker updates Marlowe's wisecracking, metaphor-filled argot with lots of humor.

Spenser jokes constantly, usually through banter, and often in the form of literary allusions that only he (and the reader) get—like when he greets the villain of A Catskill Eagle (1985) with "Ah, Kurtz," even though he knows the character's real name perfectly well. (The invocation of Conrad's Heart of Darkness goes otherwise unremarked upon, but serves its purpose by suggesting the ambiguities of evil.) The Spenser series is spangled with such references, though Parker never exactly explained
how Spenser, an ex-boxer and ex-cop, managed to acquire such a tony literary sensibility.

Such familiarity with the Western literary canon proceeded directly from Parker's own. The author held a Ph.D. in English literature from Boston University and wrote his 1971 doctoral thesis on Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, and Ross Macdonald at a time when few scholars took genre writing seriously. Parker argued in his dissertation that hard-boiled detectives belong to a romantic tradition that began with James Fenimore Cooper and his frontier hero of the Leatherstocking novels, Natty Bumppo.

Parker taught full time for more than a decade, rising to the rank of full professor at Northeastern University. Although he left the classroom in 1979, when his Spenser novels gained marketplace traction, he never ceased to teach. His writing amounts to a decades-long primer on the meaning of "tough." For Parker, tough was a stance, an ethos, a code, and a worldview, all at once. Through his characters, he acted as the crime genre's professor of hard-boiled studies for nearly 40 years.

Parker consciously dismantled the stereotype of the hard-boiled tough guy in all his books, and then reassembled it with only the parts he liked, creating detectives who update the image for more progressive times. The essential Parker tenet was that you must be tough, but also soft. The two must coexist, but tough comes first. It means, as Spenser puts it in Thin Air (1995), being able to "control feelings so you won't be tripping over them while you're trying to do something useful."

Soft, on the other hand, means that you have to know yourself fully. Spenser's longtime partner, Susan Silverman, admits to him that "you let me see your emotions from time to time." Parker's tough-soft characters understand the value of home and hearth, and of children, even if they don't have their own. In Early Autumn (1981), for example, Spenser becomes the guardian of a young child, a responsibility he accepts and takes seriously. Tough-soft is also tolerant. Parker made Spenser ostentatiously gender- and colorblind, working with and trusting a diverse cast of people, particularly gay tough guys, one of whom is a police officer who appears in a number of books.

Above all, tough-soft must be principled. Spenser is so often willing to put financial motives aside that an observer marvels in Small Vices (1997) that having a paying client must be a "nice change of pace." In short, Parker's detectives—he maintained two other series in addition to the Spenser franchise—are hard-boiled humanists.

That humanism is visible in the earliest hard-boiled writing, but it became more and more explicit as the fiction reflected social changes of the New Deal, the cold war, and the increasing urgency with which crime writing confronted the time-worn stereotypical ideal of the American family. In Parker's books, the latter concern is lit up as if in neon.

Like Chandler, Parker wrote by the scene rather than relying on intricate puzzle-plots. Parker's scenes are dialogue driven, as he specialized in repartee that ranges from belligerent to salacious. Accused of being fired from the police force for "hotdogging," Spenser replies—with professorial sarcasm—"I like to call it inner-directed behavior."

Spenser says the things that most of us only imagine saying to authority figures. He does so with the perfect presence of mind that we envy, and he always gets away with it. To be able to face down power brokers, bureaucrats, and bureaucracies with such ease makes Spenser into a conqueror of soul-crushing mechanization. His casual courage in the face of power of all kinds makes him into what Hammett—speaking of his own creation, Sam Spade—called "a dream man," one who is "able to get the best of anybody he comes in contact with."

Though his own writing evolved little over scores of books, Parker was very important to the development of hard-boiled writing today. Early hard-boiled mysteries experimented with a callousness that proved hard to maintain, even for a tough guy. Sam Spade, arguably the quintessential hard-boiled character, turns his lover in for murder in Hammett's The Maltese Falcon (1930). The strain shows, but he won't "play the sap" for her. Chandler's Marlowe lets his pain show more clearly, and hard-boiled characters invented by later writers like David Goodis, Chester Himes, and Ross Macdonald demonstrate less and less of the vaunted hard-boiled detachment, showing instead a vulnerability and a deepening commitment to people, communities, and love relationships.

Parker's large body of work—which includes two other series characters and various stand-alone works—refines the movement of the contemporary hard-boiled toward a more sentimental center. That refinement has a certain didactic aspect, as Spenser is a deliberate inversion of the hard-boiled image: He's monogamous, domestic (and a good cook), and thoroughly sympathetic. His violence is "in the service of compassion." He is so sensitive that Susan calls him a "good therapist."

Loyalty is the key. Not only does Spenser turn away numerous sexual offers to stay true to Susan, he also demonstrates the same depth of commitment to his friends, especially Hawk, the debonair black outlaw who shares Spenser's values and his trust even though he works on the other side of the law. "Hawk is a bad man," Spenser explains in Promised Land (1976). "But he keeps his word."

"I am a happier man than Chandler was," Parker remarked a few years ago. Parker's positive outlook surely contributed to Spenser's endurance, but the character's domestic centeredness and upbeat attitude also means that he rarely gets upset, unbalanced, or depressed. As a result, there's a general lack of tension in the series. Chandler's Marlowe balances on the edge of despair, barely clinging to a hope planted in his work. Spenser always believes in what he does. That may be one reason for the
failure of Parker's effort—undertaken at the invitation of the Chandler estate—to complete one of the master's manuscript fragments. Poodle Springs (1989) was a critical failure, as was Perchance to Dream (1991), Parker's ill-conceived sequel to Chandler's The Big Sleep.

Parker's safe optimism also kept his writing from greatness. Series characters can be hard to sustain: For one thing, it's hard to talk about the same characters in new ways all the time. Parker described Hawk's shaved head as "gleaming" approximately 1,226 times by my uncertified count. After a few too many of those gleams, I've felt tempted on more than one occasion to pour a bottle of Mr. Clean over Parker's own head.

But the chief problem for a long-running series writer is finding new things for those long-running characters to do, to allow them to change while also keeping them familiar to readers. Successful crime writers have dealt with that problem in different ways. Walter Mosley inserts his popular detective, Easy Rawlins, into different historical eras. John D. MacDonald allowed his series character, Travis McGee, to age slowly over the course of more than 20 novels.

Parker aged Spenser a bit, but he mainly changed his own menu by experimenting with other characters, even as he kept Spenser's story going. Jesse Stone, a series character introduced in 1997 in Night Passage, represents the tough side of Spenser minus the mordant wit. Though laconic, he's in many ways a more emotional character because his feelings are described in the third person in ways that reveal more than the character can himself. Sunny Randall, Parker's female detective, displays Spenser's emotional side along with a female version of Spenser's humor, but without the macho.

Parker created the character of Sunny in 1999 with the idea that Helen Hunt would play her on the screen. That hasn't happened, but Robert Urich played Spenser in a television series that ran for three seasons, beginning in 1985 (with Avery Brooks also taking a memorable turn as Hawk), and Tom Selleck plays Jesse Stone in seven television movies. Although he wrote the occasional screenplay, Parker wasn't a movie or television writer. Nor did he stray far from the crime genre. Unlike his contemporaries James Ellroy and Dennis Lehane, much-decorated crime writers who have gone on to wider fictional canvasses, Parker wrote his series mysteries, steadily, reliably, and influentially.

Lehane credits Parker for teaching him "how to be funny on the page. He taught me how to be succinct. He taught me how to give voice to that wonderfully jaded Boston sarcasm that came out in his books." Another bestselling crime writer, Harlan Coben, said of Parker, "When it comes to detective novels, 90 percent of us admit he's an influence, and the rest of us lie about it."

Critics have been generous, but not as effusive. "Parker avows continuity" with the hard-boiled tradition, says Stephen Knight in a recent history of crime fiction. Knight's take is typical; critics place Parker in the distinguished company of Chandler and Macdonald, but as an epigone (as the literary critic Charles J. Rzepka puts it), not a peer.

Parker didn't always challenge himself, but his fluency came from his honest commitment to the values of his characters. "When I began," Parker admitted in 2005, "I was consciously trying to emulate Raymond Chandler." But he found his own voice as a committed teacher of hard-boiled ethics. That calling, enacted in his fiction, drew on Parker's earlier professorial identity. He could be conventionally disdainful of professoring, but it penetrated his creative bones. He allowed that his literature Ph.D. "probably informed my imagination and maybe gave my writing what Chandler said
Hammett lacked, 'the sound of music from beyond the hill.'"

Even at age 77, Parker continued to write six days a week, turning out five pages in the morning and five more in the afternoon, finishing books faster than his publisher could issue them. "I plan to keep writing until I die," Parker told an interviewer in 2000. He did just that, collapsing at his desk. As a result of his unflagging industry, there are four of his books in the posthumous pipeline, including two Spenser novels. Without a formal coda then, Spenser will end as he began: at work, aiming to improve the world, one job at a time.
___________
Copyright © 2018 The Chronicle of Higher Education

Robert B. Parker at his workdesk
Robert B. Parker, at work

A Closer Look (from Parker's official website)

Robert B. Parker was many things: the son of a telephone company executive, a wise-guy college student, a soldier at a Morse code key on the line between North and South Korea, an extraordinarily knowledgeable sports fan and a first baseman, a writer of technical manuals and the editor of an insurance agents' magazine, a partner in the world's smallest advertising agency, an excellent cook and handyman, a serious student of detective fiction, a Ph.D. professor, and—most important to him—a husband, father, and dog owner. He was a very interesting person who lived a full and very satisfying life. And Bob was genuine: in private, in public, and in his writings, he was the same person.

Between 1973 and 2011, Robert B. Parker published nearly 70 books. Almost all of them were bestsellers.

He started each of his books with a very brief sketch of an idea—a sentence or two, sometimes more. There was never a detailed outline. As he wrote, Bob usually wasn't sure what would happen until it did.

He would sit down to write five and, later, ten pages a day. Once he was in his "groove," the words flowed easily, frequently leading him and his characters in unanticipated directions. Bob loved to write, and he always wondered at how his fingers often seemed to do the thinking for him. He disliked rewriting, however, and grumbled (not always to himself) whenever Joan or his editor, Chris Pepe, thought he should make changes. There were not a lot of them.

While Bob is best known for his bestselling detective series—those featuring Spenser, Jesse Stone or Sunny Randall—the range of things that mattered to him was much broader. He was thrilled when Ed Harris turned one of his westerns, Appaloosa, into an excellent motion picture.

Bob's publisher enabled him to produce books about things he thought about a lot, including baseball (Double Play), generations (All Our Yesterdays), and young love (Love and Glory). He and Joan wrote A Year at the Races, about the world of horse racing, and also combined to write Three Weeks in Spring, about Joan's first battle with breast cancer. Even though young adult novels did not come easily to Bob, he wrote three of them.

Tuesday 25 September 2018

WHY BOTHER?

Why Is There A World?

Carlo Filice wonders why a god would bother to create a world.

Why is there a world? Even if this reality is mere appearance, dream, maya, it would still be something. There could have been nothing, as Leibniz famously observed. So, why this? And why one with conscious beings in it?

We don’t have agreed-upon answers to this question. The responses that have been proposed range from questioning the question, to a scientific brute-fact answer (“It just is”), to religious and otherwise supernatural half-answers, or non-answers.

Perhaps somethingness is the default natural state, hence not needing to be explained. However, how could we know that, since it seems to us that, on the face of things, nothingness is just as likely?

Science cannot give us such ultimate answers. A Big Bang presupposes something already, albeit in a compact energy state. In other words, quantum fields might be able to generate worlds, but their initial presence is itself in need of explanation: why such fields, and not nothing? Or worlds might indeed be fluctuating between form and energy in series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches with no beginning or end. We can’t rule this out. But this option also leaves us baffled: why do we have an everlasting cycle of somethings as opposed to complete nothingness?

In a sense, only one type of answer might suffice, and it’s an old one, deriving from St Thomas Aquinas in the Thirteenth Century: what exists contingently must derive from something that exists of necessity – a God. But religious answers positing a God who precedes the world, temporally or logically, only postpone the answer. Why is there a God in the first place, not nothing? Perhaps a God can be explained as necessary; but most of us remain unpersuaded. And even if we could prove that a necessary God exists, this would not tell us why even a necessary God would make a world. Why would a necessarily existing (and putatively perfect) being produce a world? We might therefore be condemned not to have ultimate answers.

What about penultimate answers? Would accepting some (unexplained) God help to explain why there is this world? There is reason to be more hopeful here.

This leads to the question I want to ask, and try to answer. If we were to presume a divine being, a super-powerful mind, how would it help to explain this world? Why would such a being produce a world?

Alternative World Accounts

We might be able to provide a plausible answer to this question if we presuppose that some things have value intrinsically and objectively. This answer would be appealing not only to monotheists, but also to Platonists, Leibnizians, and Process Philosophers. Hindu metaphysicians would also like it. As a free thinker with theistic leanings, I find it attractive.

First, some words about other options. Some have denied the meaningfulness of the very question ‘Why is there a world?’ They might say that asking this question is similar to asking, ‘Where is the whole universe?’ Just as the latter is nonsensical, perhaps so is the former.

I don’t see the two questions as analogous. Locations in space or even spacetime only apply to objects within this universe, and cannot apply to the universe as a whole. However, questions of reasons or purposes could apply both within and without spacetime parameters.

There may by other reasons why the question ‘Why is there a world?’ is incoherent. But the fact that the question remains alive testifies otherwise.

The current scientific mindset leans heavily toward the study of matter, and is generally dismissive of non-physical explanations such as divine sources or non-material minds. Perhaps we are mere accidental (or even inevitable – if one accepts the infinite worlds that the multiverse might yield) by-products of larger physical processes. Even so, materialism does not preclude us from asking, “Why any physical processes at all, as opposed to nothing?”

So, back to our current formulation of this question: Given a God, why is the world as we know it here? Why would a divine source produce a world (or many worlds) at all? This is a particularly difficult question for those who conceive of God as a fully blissful and self-sufficient being, which is a typical theological conception of God. What would motivate such a self-satisfied super-mind to imagine from nothing a world not-itself, and realize it? Why not simply rest forever or timelessly in its blissful self-state?

It’s remarkable that the foundational texts of the major religions have little to say about this. The Book of Genesis simply begins with God’s process of creation, no motivation offered. The only hint as to motive occurs post-Creation, when God observes the various elements created and recognizes their goodness (“And behold it was good…” is written several times in the first chapter). Perhaps such goodness is itself the reason for the Creation; or perhaps not, and such goodness was a surprising byproduct of the Creation. More would have to be said.

The foundational texts of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Daoism are likewise unhelpful. Buddhism generally refuses to speculate in these areas. The last two systems may not even posit a conscious mind behind the universe. The Hindu Upanishads promote a view of the world as emerging from a divine self-transformation. One god, Brahman, becomes the many-ness of worlds and individuals. This tells us that the world is an aspect or the multifaceted appearance of a divine being; but it does not tell us why this god takes the form of worlds.

However, the eighth century Hindu theologian Shankara suggests that it happens out of a sense of sport or playfulness, on the analogy that even self-sufficient princes opt for sport just for the fun of it. While this suggestion – the world exists for sheer fun – is worth developing, it itself seems insufficiently explanatory. For instance, what makes many-ness, as opposed to some form of undifferentiated being, fun?

Added Value

Let’s use the God-becoming-worlds analogy to consider this idea. Let’s imagine this divine mind in its natural state as blissful, and, at first, content-free. Nothing else is there. As a mind, it would eventually (or perhaps immediately) imagine possibilities. It would imagine virtual (that is, purely imagined) worlds. It would imagine individualized beings in such virtual worlds. For the sheer entertainment value, it would endow such characters with freedoms. It would also eventually (or perhaps immediately) realize that observing such a world is not as much fun as participating in the thrills, drama, and life of its characters from the inside. Maximal fun would require God forgetting itself (in part?) and playing at being these imagined characters in this imagined world. Through the subjective life of such characters, God’s reality would thus be enriched by new sources of fun. God-plus-worlds is greater fun than God alone.

Therefore, the seeming splintering of ‘being’ into many and varied conscious entities is understandable merely on the basis of hedonistic reasoning. Even if it’s a temporary illusion, the sense of individuality and separateness makes possible a wide range of intrinsically good feelings, sensations, and emotions. Moreover, the need for thrill, drama, and zest might require that these individuals see their lives as precarious and finite, as well as subject to pain and loss. But with pain and loss, we come up against the substantial problem that living is not all fun.

Here we can provide philosophical help, and say that a self-sufficient and blissful God would generate worlds that would at least appear to be outside of itself, because such worlds add to the overall value of its being, or of reality overall, in ways other than through fun. We can for instance see how a divine motive of mere entertainment eventually (or maybe immediately) generates moral dimensions. Here is one way. If the created beings have an inner life, and can be hurt, then they each acquire intrinsic worth. A God would realize this, and would be morally obliged to treat them with care. Perhaps, for instance, it would need to grant them multiple lives to equalize their opportunities. Additionally, part of the task of the characters in this world is for them to also recognize the intrinsic value of others as conscious and feeling beings (whether human or not). They could then choose to act accordingly (or not). Moral virtue becomes possible, and this achievement would introduce a new form of intrinsic worth beyond mere fun: moral worth. The game of life as we know would take off.

So, the splintering of one being into many conscious beings with varied experiences and attributes, including moral virtue, would add intrinsic value to any reality. A world that houses such individuals is a world of considerable intrinsic value. Hence, this world may ultimately be here because its value enriches a divine reality: “Behold, it is very good.” So given a creative God, and given the value of subjective lives, this world becomes understandable, in a penultimate way.

This argument only presupposes a God with an imagination and the intrinsic value of conscious experience. I dare say that many current philosophers recognize that conscious experience is a source of intrinsic value. It is widely granted that a zombie world would lose most/all of its value. It is also widely granted that if animals are conscious beings, then we need to treat them with care. The God assumption, of course, remains controversial.
© Carlo Filice 2018

Carlo Filice is Professor of Philosophy at SUNY Geneseo and author of The Purpose of Life: An Eastern Philosophical Vision (UPA, 2011).

Friday 7 September 2018

I LOVE ISRAEL BECAUSE...

WHY I LOVE ISRAEL

Extracted from an article by Forest Rain Marcia

I love Israel because I belong to her and she belongs to me. She is my home and my family, her people are my people.
Through Israel my existence expands outward and encompasses much more than my individual self. I am more than just me – I am my family, my friends and the strangers that live beside me. I am not limited to my individual space or time. I am the Nation of Israel living in Israel, around the world and spanning centuries. I am me and at the same time I am also my ancestors stretching out behind me and future generations stretching out before me. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Mosses, Solomon and David. Yael, Devorah, Rivkah, Sarah and Rachel.
My fellowship is the strength, wisdom and belief of all these people as reflected in me. I am the bones in the ground in Jerusalem, the ashes in the concentration camps, the soldiers and the children of Israel. I am the blood soaked into each grain of dirt in this country, I am all the tears ever shed by my people. I am the centuries old longing to be free in our own land.
I love Israel because she is more than just a place, she is also an idea and I don’t know of any idea that is more beautiful. She is the origin of the morals and values the free world is founded on and in her existence she proves that anything is possible.
I love Israel for the same reason I love “The Lord of the Rings” or “Harry Potter.” She is inspiring. Epic, sweeping stories of adventure, heroes, glory, honor, the battle between good and evil where, although tragedies occur, love always wins are not a fantasy – they are our reality.
In Israel I don’t need faith I just need to LIVE. God is in the earth I walk on, the air I breathe and the water I drink. God is the flowers, the birds and the stars. I don’t need a synagogue to commune with God. I meet with God every time I go to the supermarket or walk my dog.
And like in any family, the people of Israel often annoy each other. We fight and we bicker. Sometimes we sincerely dislike each other. And yet it is love that holds us together. No external enemy can ever bring us down (it has always been true and still is true that the only real danger to Israel is from within). Woe on to the enemy that rises up against Israel. Many a Nation has risen and fallen while Israel still remains…
While other nations belong to each other because they have similar traits, likes or dislikes, Israel is a nation because she is a family. The children of Israel belong to everyone in Israel. One of the more stunning examples of this was when the people of Israel collectively held their breath, waiting for Gilad Shalit on the day he was returned from the bondage of his Hamas kidnappers. An entire nation stopped for a single person. It happens over and over – every person matters, every life must be accounted for… Israelis take this for granted, it is only the reaction of foreigners that shows us how unusual this mindset is.
I love Israel because her heart is bigger than her tiny self. This nation believes in the sanctity of life and strives to protect all life: our own, that of our friends and even our enemies… Israel reaches across the world to help people in need, no matter who they are or what they believe in. All Lives Matter is not a slogan, it is a law of nature. This is why there are so many vegetarians and vegans in Israel. This is why there are so many conservationists. Animals matter, the earth matters too.
I love Israel because she is passionate. Our reality can be harsh but it is also invigorating. The contrasts here are sharper: the topography is high or low, there are hills with rivers and then there is the desert. You drive through a city, turn the corner and there is no one in sight for miles. Even the sun seems closer and larger in Israel. There are people here from everywhere in the world, all with different languages, cultures and religions. Tradition and modern life are intertwined. 
Everyone is passionate about something. People care, no one is apathetic. Life has meaning. You are either loved or hated, however someone feels about you they will let you know. Strangers will die for you so that you may live. Israelis don’t wait for the government or the “authorities” to save them. We save ourselves. And each other. And anyone else we can help on the way. There are so many heroes in this country people stopped counting a long time ago.
Like any home, in some places Israel is run down, dirty, broken and needs to be fixed. I love Israel for her stubbornness. No matter how big the challenge, she always tries and often succeeds beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Israel knows she isn’t perfect but she tries damn hard to get there. Our standards are high and our stubbornness keeps them steady. We aim for the stars and beat ourselves up for “only” reaching the moon. We fall, dust ourselves off and try again the next day.
Israel is inspiration. She is spirit made tangible. She is home for the Jewish people but welcoming to all friends who, through love can also become family. She exists not just for her people but for all people, proof that they too can be bigger than themselves.
Israel is my home and my family. I belong to her and she belongs to me. She has shown me what love is and that anything is possible. She makes me better than I would be without her and for that I am grateful.
Israel is more than just a place. She is an idea, a promise and proof. All anyone has to do is look.
“An age is called dark, not because the light refuses to shine but because people refuse to see.”
That is why I love Israel.