Love in the Time of Covid-19

Covid-19 has certainly revealed some truths about the world we live in. It has exposed weaknesses in our health care systems, revealed large segments of the population to be living in denial, and concentrated individual flaws. One way this has come to light is, of course, of no surprise to lawyers. 

 During the “shelter-at-home” orders around the world, domestic violence has increased significantly. This should surprise no one. Abusers stuck at home with their victims, but now with less money and little to occupy them...surprisingly turn out to abuse more. Likewise, other stressors tend to increase abuse, such as the loss of a job, and stress in general. I would also guess that some who, in normal times, are at most emotionally abusive, escallate their behaviors. And finally, all of us have probably kicked the dog or yelled at our spouse or kids when under significant stress, even if we are not abusive. 

 The bottom line is that the need for restraining orders and divorces has increased during the pandemic. 

 On the other hand, some of us have found that tough times bring out the best in our partners. 

 Amanda and I have always worked well together. (Her parents noted that we were super efficient working together, and others have commented that we are a great team.) Because of the particular way our marriage works, the pandemic wasn’t nearly as much of an adjustment as it was for many. 

 Both of us have worked since the marriage, with Amanda taking only her three months of parental leave with each child. That means I have had sole childcare responsibility for infants - and later kids. We have always split cooking. While she has definitely done more of the cleaning than I have, I know how to do it, and always have chipped in. More than anything, we have split things up in a way that works for us. These days, with three teens and two tweens, they take a larger role as well. 

 The pandemic did make some changes, however. 

 First, my work has been barely enough to keep my overhead paid for the last couple of months. (It turns out seniors don’t want to risk catching a deadly disease….) This has significantly reduced our income. Don’t get me wrong: we are some of the lucky ones, in that she continues to work, we have savings, and we can live below our means without suffering particularly. And the extra time has been helpful for other things. (See below.)

Second, Amanda’s work has become more stressful as a result of all those Covid patients in her unit, between her staff stressing about their health and the scramble to get enough protective equipment. (And yes, the Trump administration has made this MUCH worse by confiscating supplies from California to use as bribery for more favored states, and the lack of a coordinated Federal response has meant hospitals have had to do their own sourcing at large expense. That, and the right wing conspiracy theories accusing nurses of lying about Covid deaths has definitely not helped.) She has had to work extra shifts, and the ones she works have been more stressful for her. 

 Third, the kids, who were already in hybrid charter school programs suddenly had to do all their work at home, with iffy internet and teachers who were not all prepared for a different system. (No diss intended to the teachers, who were put in a tough spot and had to adapt on the fly.) Because of this, I had to take the kids to my office (it was just us there most of the time, and thoroughly distanced otherwise) for a decent internet connection so they could do their video stuff. 

 Other adjustments we made included the kids and I taking over all of the food preparation, planning, and shopping, for a few weeks. We are still doing most of it, and definitely all of it when Amanda works four nights in a row. We have also shifted the days of the week we go hike or otherwise exercise (in a socially distanced manner) so that it coincides with the days between night shifts for Amanda. (So she can sleep.) 

 What feels, in some ways, surprising, is just how little our marriage changed. 

Sure, the specifics are different, but this is how we function. We sit down periodically and hash out schedules and tasks and find solutions. We plan our meals for the week as we always have. We figure out who drives where and when. We shift tasks back and forth based on who is busy and who has time. 

 And, we make the most of those times we are together at home. 

 Today is our 19th anniversary. Time has gone by way too fast. Our eldest will be an adult next year. Neither of us is exactly who we were when we married. We have worked to recover from our cultic indoctrination. We have had to draw some painfully firm lines with our families. We have weathered both our political and religious tribes taking a sharp turn toward the toxic ultra-right. Our own beliefs have changed and evolved with time and circumstance - as they do for any healthy, growing person. 

 But through it all, we have been a team. We are co-conspirators, as I like to say. Us against the world. Covid-19 is just another challenge, another unexpected twist in life’s journey. I am sad that not all couples are able to come together and get things done, but am thankful that we can. 

 A large part of that is Amanda, who has always believed in me, and always let me step in to those areas of “women’s work” that many women get defensive about and try to micromanage. She has always encouraged me to spend time with our kids, and has never complained about all our camping and hiking and kayaking together. She almost always has a creative and workable solution or plan to deal with changes and challenges. (Although she is much better at it if you let her sleep after a night shift…) 

 If anything, the stress of the pandemic has renewed my appreciation for just how great of a spouse - and person - she is. She is literally on the front lines of this - she cares for Covid patients every time she works, either in direct care, or as charge nurse for the Covid unit. She keeps people alive, she keeps her staff focused, she finds solutions. At home, she does the same. And she keeps us all loved and cared for as well. 

 After 19 years as her husband, I am ever more convinced that marrying her is the best decision I ever made. Here’s to many more years together.

Goofing off at the Seattle Space Needle last year.

 ***

 Previous mushy posts:

Anniversary 2011 (republished Valentine’s Day 2013)

Anniversary 2012

Anniversary 2013

Anniversary 2014

Anniversary 2015

Anniversary 2016

Anniversary 2017

Anniversary 2018

Valentine’s Day 2012

Love at First Sight

 

The Wings of the Dove by Henry James

Source of book: I own this. 

 There is an old saying, attributed to various famous people, to the effect that sculpture is easy: just remove whatever stone doesn’t look like a…

 I am reminded of this whenever I read Henry James. His style isn’t really to tell anything outright, but to nibble around the edges by telling you what it mostly, sort of, with a myriad of contingencies and subordinate clauses, what something isn’t, or what it isn’t quite like, or both is and isn’t to differing degrees. As he unfolds his tales, he looks forward and backwards. He views incidents through the eyes of multiple characters, and from different parts of their psyches. He chips away and chips away at the impenetrable opacity of human complexity, until, finally, when all is told, the complete work of art emerges. It takes work, and time, and careful structural analysis of 100 word sentences, but it is definitely worth it.

I'm not always a fan of movie adaptations, particularly ones that take some liberties with the plot.

But Helena Bonham-Carter as Kate does sound promising.

 The Wings of the Dove is arguably Henry James’ finest novel, although it has competition. As one of his later works (1902), it is definitely in his later style (the language in his earlier period is definitely easier and simpler), where sentences are complex and relationships are even more so. The psychology is deep, motives complex, and characters nuanced. Nobody is entirely who they seem, particularly to the other characters. The language itself serves to convey this endless ambiguity, opacity, and conflictedness. 

 I think perhaps the best explanation of this that I have read comes from James Thurber’s essay on this very novel, contained in Lanterns and Lances. Although the whole essay is enlightening, the best quote is actually from Owen Wister. 

 

“I explain to myself his bewildering style thus: he is attempting the impossible with it--a certain very particular form of the impossible; namely, to produce upon the reader, as a painting produces on the gazer, a number of superimposed, simultaneous impressions. He would like to put several sentences on top of each other so that you could read them all at once, and get all at once the various shadings and complexities, instead of getting them consecutively as the mechanical nature of his medium compels. This I am sure is the secret of his involved parentheses, his strangely injected adverbs, the whole structure, in short, of his twisted syntax...He does not undertake to tell a story but to deal with a situation, a single situation. Beginning (in his scheme) at the center of this situation, he works outward, intricately and exhaustively, spinning his web around every part of the situation, every little necessary part no matter how slight, until he gradually presents to you the organic whole, worked out. You don’t get that organic whole until he wishes you to and that is at the very end. But he never lets the situation go, never digresses for a single instant; and no matter how slow or long his pages may seem as you first read them, when you have at the end grasped the whole thing, if you then look back you will find that the voluminous texture is woven closely and that every touch bears upon the main issue.” 

 It’s art of a certain sort. I rather enjoy it, but not as my entire diet of reading. It makes significant demands on one’s brain, and thus is slower reading. To keep in mind all of the built up clauses in a sentence, waiting 50 words to get to the main verb, requires both memory and careful attention. And sometimes (often, actually) rereading. This will be apparent in some of the quotes later in this post, but I did want to discuss some of the techniques specifically. 

 

First is the use of “both/and” as a device. James will mention the effect of some conversation, look, or other incident as having two effects on a character, often as a contradiction or a paradox. It can both be a comfort and yet alarming on a different level - and quite often these effects are simultaneous, although they can also be sequential, offset by hours or days or a nebulous “later.” Second is “neither more nor less than,” a phrase used quite often. James uses it to set boundaries around a fuzzy impression, create a paradox, or focus on a particular joint in the web he is weaving. It is often oddly precise and yet vast, or opaque and intimate, or other unexpected combinations. I could literally have written down an example from each chapter, but they are best in context. The web is greater than its parts. 

 The basic plot is reasonably well known nearly 120 years later, but if you don’t want spoilers, you might skip the next few paragraphs. 

 The story opens in London with Kate Croy and her ne’r-do-well father. It is unclear exactly what his crime is, but I would guess either gambling or opium. In any case, when Kate’s mom died, the two sisters inherited a small legacy. Kate gives half to her sister, who is widowed and poor with a lot of children. Kate is taken in by the wealthy (and tacky) Aunt Maud, who wants to “make something of her.” Kate isn’t thrilled with the impecunious but promising (and definitely aristocratic) Lord Mark. She is actually in love with Merton Densher, a young journalist who is neither rich nor aristocratic. Aunt Maud disapproves. But so do Kate’s sister and father, both of which expect her to marry for money….so they can have some of the spoils. Kate and Merton become secretly engaged, then he heads off to America on a journalistic assignment. 

 At this point, we are through sixty-seven pages and two of the ten “books” in this book, before we even meet the main character. Millie Theale is the very young, very rich, last person in the line of a wealthy American family. She is touring Europe with an older companion, Susan Shepherd Stringham, a novelist. It turns out Susan went to school with Aunt Maud back in the day, so they look her up when they get to London, which is how nearly everyone involved in the story meets. Millie is desperately trying to live life to the fullest, because she is dying of what is probably tuberculosis. (The disease is never named, but James said he based the character of Millie on his cousin Minnie, who died at age 25 of tuberculosis.) 

 Although Millie never says she is dying (and in fact rather denies it), everyone knows eventually. This sets in motion a whole series of schemes. Aunt Maud wants Merton to pursue Millie, because then Kate will be free to marry Lord Mark. Kate wants Merton to marry Millie so he can inherit the fortune, then marry Kate. Presumably Kate is willing to get sloppy seconds for the money. Lord Mark would like to marry Millie himself, so he can inherit. Susan wants to see Millie happy. And Millie wants to LIVE! In both meanings of the word. She fights against her impending death, and also tries to live and love to the fullest while she can. 

Millie and Susan head to Venice for the summer, and the rest tag along, more or less. Millie rebuffs Lord Mark, as she is in love with Merton, who she met in America. Merton agrees to woo Millie at the urging of Kate, who has Merton pretty well whipped. Everyone except Merton, Millie, and Susan return to England, leaving the field free for Merton. However, Lord Mark proposes to Kate, and, being rebuffed, guesses (correctly) that Kate and Merton are engaged. He goes back to Venice and rats Merton out, breaking Millie’s heart, and sending her into a death spiral. 

Millie, however, doesn’t hate Merton and Kate, but chooses to leave a significant fortune after her death to Merton so he can marry Kate. Merton, finally, mans up, and tells Kate that she either takes him as he is, without the fortune (he will disclaim it), or she can have the fortune for herself but not him with it. Kate leaves with a cryptic last word that implies she refuses Merton. 

 

While that is the basic plot, it fails to capture all of the nuance that surrounds it. At any given time, who knows what, who understands what, and who intends what is in constant flux and turmoil. 

 In fact, if I were to state one of the two central themes, it would be this idea of fundamental dishonesty and lack of candor which infects every single character in the book. It is a dishonesty mostly of omission: nobody is open about their desires, their motives, their intentions, or what they know of the situation. The whole social edifice, in fact, depends on these partial deceptions and things left unspoken. It is a figurative giant herd of elephants in the room. Two lines really bring this out, one from the opening of the book, and one near to the end. The first is in the scene between Kate and her father. 

 

The inconvenience--as always happens in such cases--was not that you minded what was false, but that you missed what was true. 

 This could be a synecdoche for the whole book. The little falsehoods told to keep up social pretense aren’t the problem so much as the fact that truth is almost entirely missing from everyone’s public facade. The passage continues:

 

He [Kate’s father] might be ill and it might suit you to know it, but no contact with him, for this, could ever be straight enough. Just so he even might die, but Kate fairly wondered on what evidence of his own she would some day have to believe it.

 At the end, Densher knows that Millie is dying, but the truth is not - and never has been - stated outright. 

 

He hadn’t only never been near the facts of her condition--which counted so as a blessing for him; he hadn’t only, with all the world, hovered outside an impenetrable ring fence, within which there reigned a kind of expensive vagueness made up of smiles and silences and beautiful fictions and priceless arrangements, all strained to breaking; but he had also, with every one else, as he now felt, actively fostered suppressions which were in the direct interest of every one’s good manner, every one’s pity, every one’s really quite generous ideal. It was a conspiracy of silence, as the cliche went, to which no one had made an exception, the great smudge of mortality across the picture, the shadow of pain and horror, finding in no quarter a surface of spirit or of speech that consented to reflect it. 

 For those counting, that’s a sentence of 92 words followed by one of 48. I can’t imagine trying to diagram either. But they are dang effective. All those beautiful fictions and actively fostered suppressions - isn’t that the perfect description for it, in real life as well as the book? James is just relentless in his careful autopsy of his “situation,” as Wister calls it. 

 This never-ending dancing around the truth, concealing it, and playing games finally comes to an end in the last page. Literally. When Merton finally finds the huevos to tell Kate to either take him as a poor man or shove off, it is the first real dose of straight-up honesty we see in the book. And it is devastating. For nearly 500 pages, James weaves the web of deceptions and defense mechanisms and schemes, and then shatters them...and then walks away. It’s brilliant. 

 A weird note here: James wrote an extended preface to the book, explaining how he wrote it (starting with the character of Millie and her doomed attempt to live), how he viewed the characters, and so on. He concludes, at the end, however, that he has failed, and that the book didn’t really “work” as he intended. This is pretty amusing, honestly, because James apparently never realized just how great this book is. The verdict of history has been that it is one of his best - and indeed one of the best novels of all time. 

 The second theme in the book is essentially carpe diem. Henry James chose this as a theme in many of his books, actually. In another irony equal to his underestimation of this book, he felt he had failed in life, had failed to do what he intended, and never really “lived.” And yet, he lived to a decent age (for his era), wrote large number of books which were popular at the time and have endured as classics, had a reputation as the perfect dinner party guest, was well liked by his friends, and would be considered a “success” by any reasonable standard. He never had a significant romantic relationship, it is true, but from his own writings, the general conclusion is that he was on the asexual spectrum, and felt his art was more important anyway. 

 It is Millie in this book who gets to be the personification of carpe diem. After her arrival in London, she consults the famous doctor, Sir Luke Strett, who advises her to do as she wishes. She should be happy, be active, and live her life. James describes her response to this news with a characteristically complicated emotions. 

That had been in fact the final push, as well as the touch that most made a mixture of her consciousness--a strange mixture that tasted at one and the same time of what she had lost and what had been given her. It was wonderful to her, while she took her random course, that these quantities felt so equal: she had been treated--hadn’t she?--as if it were in her power to live; and yet one wasn’t treated so--was one?--unless it had come up, quite as much, that one might die. The beauty of the bloom had gone from the small old sense of safety--that was distinct: she had left it behind her there for ever. But the beauty of the idea of a great adventure, a big dim experiment or struggle in which she might more responsibly than ever before take a hand, had been offered to her instead. 

 In addition to being a great example of James’ paradoxical writing, this is not a bad summary of the human condition, is it not? Millie may die young, but we all die, usually sooner than we would like. We are all offered that opportunity. We will die, but we also live, and can live while we can. 

 After receiving this news, Millie wanders London, including the rough parts, pursuing her own version of adventure while clearing her head, before fatigue makes her rest. 

This and the charm, after a fashion, of the situation in itself made her linger and rest; there was an accepted spell in the sense that nobody in the world knew where she was. It was the first time in her life that this had happened; somebody, everybody appeared to have known before, at every instant of it, where she was; so that she was now suddenly able to put it to herself that that hadn’t been a life. 

I know I freaked out my poor mother a few times as a teen by disappearing for an afternoon, but this is kind of why. I needed, particularly at that time, to be somewhere and have nobody know where. These days, with a family, I have to do it in a more reasonable manner, usually by walking by starlight when we are camping. 

 Anyway, Millie decides to enlist Kate to help her chase adventure. 

 

“I’m to go in for pleasure.”

“Oh the duck!” --Kate with her own shades of familiarity, abounded. “But what kind of pleasure?”

“The highest,” Milly smiled.

Her friend met it as nobly. “Which is the highest?”

“Well, it’s just our chance to find out. You must help me.”

 This all sounds good, and the adventure indeed starts well. The problem is, unlike the naive and pure-hearted Millie, the Brits are all conspiring in some way. Millie may deceive about her illness, but that is really the depth of her prevarication. Her motives are pure. 

 There is an interesting contrast between Millie and Kate throughout. Millie loves without hesitation, and without ulterior motives. Kate has that concealed knife. Perhaps one might see their respective histories in this. Millie is rich and has been protected by her family until they died off in succession, leaving her alone. Kate has always had to protect herself against her father and sister, and then her scheming, if charitable, aunt. Here is an example of Kate, talking with Merton about how Aunt Maud doesn’t trust Lord Mark. 

 

Densher gave it his wonder. “Takes him to her heart and yet thinks he cheats?”

“Yes,” said Kate--”that’s the way people are. What they think of their enemies, goodness knows, is bad enough; but I’m still more struck with what they think of their friends.” 

 Millie, in contrast, is trying to figure out how to navigate the complexities of society. Susan is more worldly wise, although her motives are more pure than Kate’s. Millie concludes that she has good friends and that her friends are good for each other - definitely not the reality, but how Millie sees it. 

 

There came to her on this occasion one of the strangest of her impressions, which was at the same time one of the finest of her alarms--the glimmer of a vision that if she should go, as it were, too far, she might perhaps deprive their relation of facility if not of value. Going too far was failing to try at least to remain simple. 

 Millie does, however, see through Lord Mark, eventually. 

 

“You know, Lord Mark, what I mean. One isn’t in the least turning you out into the cold world. There’s no cold world for you at all, I think,” she went on; “nothing but a very warm and watchful and expectant world that’s waiting for you at any moment you choose to take it up.” 

There is the implication at the end that he is pursuing Aunt Maud, having failed at both Millie and Kate. 

The most fascinating relationship in the book is definitely that of Merton and Kate. Merton is kind of naive in his own way, and pursues the relationship openly and devotedly. He gets frustrated, however, but Kate’s unwillingness to commit, as well as her opacity as to her intentions. To start with, Kate never mentions Densher to Millie (even though other characters do), and Kate never mentions Millie to Densher, until they meet. 

What was to be in the retrospect more distinct to him was the process by which he had become aware that Kate’s acquaintance with her was greater than he had gathered.

 That’s also a good example of James’ time shifts. The incident occurs, Densher draws one insight now, but the other will not come until later - probably at the end. But Densher too hasn’t exactly squared with Kate. He met Millie in New York, and they became closer than either of them entirely admits to themselves, let alone to Kate. 

 

At the same time, while many things in quick succession came up for them, came up in particular for Densher, nothing perhaps was just so sharp as the odd influence of their present conditions on their view of their past ones. It was as if they hadn’t known how “thick” they had originally become, as if, in a manner, they had really fallen to remembrance of more passages of intimacy than there had in fact at the time quite been room for. They were in a relation now so complicated, whether by what they said or by what they didn’t say, that it might have been seeking to justify its speedy growth by reaching back to one of those fabulous periods in which prosperous states place their beginnings. 

 So many Jamesisms in that passage. The tying of the past and present, the recurring motif of “said or didn’t say,” which comes back so many times throughout the book. In any event, Millie realizes she is - and has been - in love with Merton. It takes Merton longer to realize that he is in love with Millie. In fact, he doesn’t fully understand until she is dead. 

 Kate pretty much manipulates Merton half to death to get him to do her bidding and take the risks of the scheme. Little by little, Merton comes to understand this. The first crack comes in this passage. 

His question, as we have called it, was the interesting question of whether he had really no will left. How could he know--that as the point--without putting the matter to the test? It had been right to be bon prince, and the joy, something of the pride, of having lived, in spirit, handsomely, was even now compatible with the impulse to look into their account; but he held his breath a little as it came home to him with supreme sharpness that, whereas he had done absolutely everything that Kate had wanted, she had done nothing whatever that he had. 

 This unhealthy relationship is the setting for two of the most, well, I can’t even find the right word here. There are two sex “scenes” involving Kate and Merton, and both have the tension of a hair-trigger nuclear weapon. I say “scenes,” because James writes about sex like he writes everything else: nibbling around the edges so you know what is there despite never seeing it. When it becomes fully clear to Merton that Kate wants him to marry Millie, he finally starts to put his foot down. He will do as she wishes - but only if she will have sex with him. (It isn’t spelled out that way, but it is damn clear what James means.) We never see the sex, but we get a brief mention of it the next chapter. 

Kate had come to him; it was only once--and this not from any failure of their need, but from such impossibilities, for bravery alike and for subtlety, as there was at the last no blinking; yet she had come, that once, to stay, as people called it; and what survived of her, what remained and insisted, was something he couldn’t have banished if he had wished. Luckily he didn’t wish, even though there might be for a man almost a shade of the awful in so unqualified a consequence of his act. It had simply worked, his idea, the idea he had made her accept; and all erect before him, really covering the ground as far as he could see, was the fact of the gained success that this represented. 

 For a non-graphic description of sex, dang that’s potent. Whatever James’ own sexual identity, he was the master of writing about sexual entanglements. This particular one is both transactional (from Kate’s view) and a moral victory for Merton, who feels he has finally gotten his way on something. 

 The second sex scene occurs after Millie’s death, when Merton receives a letter from her which they both know is to tell them that she has left Merton a fortune. He can’t open it, but gives it to Kate, who throws it in the fire. They then have what has to be described as hate sex. Again, it is all innuendo, but the totally fucked up emotions they express to each other are, perhaps because of the indirect way James describes them, graphic and horrifying. At that point, we know that this will end badly, no matter what. If they marry, they will hate each other. If they don’t they will pine for what could have been - two very different visions of what might have been. 

 The ending of the book is just freaking amazing. Although we know so much and can predict at least an unhappy ending, the one we get is the one we least expect. Merton has spent the entire book kissing Kate’s ass, and doing what she wants, with the exception of that first coerced sexual encounter. Throughout the last couple of chapters, it is clear his conscience is bothering him, and he is furious with Kate for coercing him into pursuing (and being dishonest with) Millie. In the very last scene, he and Kate continue their pattern of avoiding saying what they mean, so it is a shock when, as I said, on the very last page (literally!), he finally mans up and draws a hard line in the sand. 

 The struggle for Kate then assumes two fronts: love and money. While I think she would ultimately have rejected him if she had to take him penniless, what seems to push her over the edge is that he cannot bring himself to deny that he loves Millie. I’ll quote the final bit of it.

“There’s but one thing that can save you from my choice.”

“From your counce of my surrender to you?”

“Yes”--and she gave a nod at the long envelope on the table--”your surrender of that.”

“What is it then?”

“Your word of honour that you’re not in love with her memory.”

“Oh--her memory!”

“Ah”--she made a high gesture--”don’t speak of it as if you couldn’t be. I could in your place; and you’re one for whom it will do. Her memory’s your love. You want no other.” 

He heard her out in stillness, watching her face but not moving. Then he only said: “I’ll marry you, mind you, in an hour.”

“As we were?”

“As we were.”

But she turned to the door, and her headshake was now the end. “We shall never be again as we were!”

 Damn. What a way to end it. 

 I have read it over several times, that last scene, and it still feels like a slug to the chest. That scene is, in its way, the emotional equivalent of the ending of a Shakespeare tragedy, where nearly everyone lies dead, and the survivors sit stunned and traumatized. 

 There is something else unspoken here, a “truth” that James never reveals. After Lord Mark reveals Kate and Merton’s engagement to Millie, she “turns her face to the wall,” as Susan puts it, and refuses to speak to anyone. After time, however, she summons Merton. 

 The substance of that meeting is never fully revealed. We know that it occurred. We know that Millie apparently told Merton to return to London. We also know that Merton hesitates and prevaricates when describing what happened to both Kate and Aunt Maud. In fact, it is strongly implied that he is lying in the little he does tell - other than that he was sent back to London. 

 His hesitancy to discuss it with Kate could be simply due to his guilt at deceiving Millie. But I also wonder if James means to imply that he and Millie had sex, giving Millie her last grasp at love before she died. Because of how oblique James is, it seems possible. The hesitancy to discuss the meeting, combined with Kate’s suspicion and Merton’s inability to deny his love for Millie does make me wonder if that “memory” is of a passionate encounter. 

 Whatever the case, James was such a master of the implied sex scene. No knock on more modern authors, although some definitely write better sex than others. But nobody could do more with less than Henry James. 

 It is hard to be objective about The Wings of the Dove so soon after finishing it. I do know that, with the exception of Daisy Miller (meh), I have enjoyed all the James novels and stories I have read. Right now, I am inclined to consider this one the best of them all, but acknowledge that recency bias is a possibility. 

 Whatever the case, I thought The Wings of the Dove was a fantastic novel, a compelling read, and a true masterpiece. The language is a challenge (that’s not a bad thing in my book, but your mileage may vary), but the depth of characterization and psychology is stunning, and that ending...that’s one of the most memorable endings to a book ever. 

 ***

Other posts about Henry James:

 

Eight Novellas and Stories (including Daisy Miller and The Turn of the Screw)

Washington Square

The Bostonians

The Portrait of a Lady

The Winter's Tale by William Shakespeare

Because of Covid-19, theaters are closed here in California, and the Utah Shakespeare Festival is cancelled. Thus, I doubt I am going to have many chances to see live theater in the near future. We have been getting by with video sources, even though they are not the same. The Globe in London is releasing filmed performances of various plays, including this one.

 I first saw A Winter’s Tale at Bakersfield College about two decades ago. I can’t remember if I was dating my wife or recently married, but it would have been before kids complicated our theater life. Of course, eventually, they started coming with us, which has been all kinds of fun. 

 The Winter’s Tale is one of Shakespeare’s problem plays. Or maybe one of his late romances. Whatever you want to call it, it is a comedy in the sense of having a happy ending, but could easily have been a tragedy with a slightly different ending. 

 I find it fascinating in part because of the way Shakespeare separates the serious drama and the comedy. The first part of the play, set in “Sicilia,” is drama and tragedy. The second part, full of comedy and high spirits, is set in “Bohemia.” (The locations are obviously fictitious, because Bohemia then and now is landlocked, and does not have a coast as in the play.) At the end, the humor of Bohemia practically invades the traumatized Sicily and brings (literally) life back to it. 

 Shakespeare borrowed the plot from a story by Robert Greene, Pandosto. The original is a full tragedy, with the king killing himself after accidentally falling in love with his lost daughter. Shakespeare chose to dramatically change the ending, writing what is now one of the most iconic scenes in the play, when the statue comes to life. But I get ahead of the plot. 

 Leontes, king of Sicilia, is entertaining his childhood friend, Polixenes, king of Bohemia. Polixenes is homesick, and decides to return. Leontes tries to persuade him to stay, but is unsuccessful, until queen Hermione intervenes, and persuades Polixenes to stay. 

 Rather than please Leontes, this act makes him insanely jealous, imagining that Herminone is cheating on him with his friend. Furious, orders one of his lords, Camillo, to poison Polixenes. Instead, Camillo, convinced of the innocence of the queen, warns Polixenes and the two of them flee to Bohemia. Leontes then denounces the queen despite her pleas of innocence. Her tears are of no avail, he calls her unborn child a bastard, and throws her in prison. When the child is born, orders that she be abandoned to her death.

 Herminone appeals to the Oracle, which declares her innocent. Leontes is not convinced, despite the warning that he will have no heir until his lost daughter is found. As a result of his stubbornness, his son dies of a wasting sickness, and Herminone appears to die as well. 

 Bereft, Leontes comes to his senses at last, and realizes he is wrong. However, it is, at this point too late. 

 The courtier sent to abandon the daughter does so, but is chased away soon after, with Shakespeare’s most famous stage direction, “Exit, pursued by a bear.” This was a disappointing moment in this particular production, with just a banner with a picture of a bear unfurled. Was the bear suit at the cleaners or something? 

 The infant is found by a shepherdess (shepherd in the play, but a shepherdess in this production) and her son. 

The next act opens sixteen years later. The infant has grown into a lovely young woman, Perdita, who has caught the eye of Prince Florizel, who courts her in disguise. Polixenes, accompanied by Camillo, spies on them, and erupts in fury at their betrothal. After threatening Perdita and her adoptive family with horrid punishment, he orders them never to see each other. 

 Camillo has other ideas, however. He wishes to return to his native land, and takes Florizel and Perdita with him. 

 At the end of the play, all these identities are revealed, and father and daughter are reunited - and Florizel and Perdita can marry and clinch the alliance. 

 But there is one thing remaining. The faithful Paulina, widow of the unfortunate Autigonus, eaten by the bear, reveals that she has a peculiar statue, true to life of the dead Hermione. It is no spoiler this many centuries later to say that the statue is really Hermione herself, carefully tended by Paulina all these years. After sixteen years of penance, Leontes is a changed man, and finally worthy of Hermione. 

 A play like this, with its improbable plot, stands or falls on the quality of its direction and acting. The Globe, unsurprisingly, rose to the occasion regarding both. (My only quibble is the lack of a bear…) 

 While all of the male leads were good, I thought that the three females around whom the play centers were particularly outstanding. Sirene Saba, as Paulina, had tremendous stage presence and a projection of authority that was a perfect contrast to the unstable and irrational Leontes (Will Kean in a convincing performance.) Nora Lopez-Holden as Perdita brought the right level of exuberance and naivete to the role. Likewise, Luke MacGregor as Florizel seemed just the sort of ditzy prince to make a game of courting a shepherdess. Becci Gemmel, in a trousers role as the clow, Autocylus, was hilarious. Adrien Bower (Camillo), Oliver Ryan (Polixenes), and Howard Ward (Antigonus) were all suited to their parts. 

 Special props, though, go to Priyanga Burford as Hermione. She is every bit as commanding as Paulina, then vulnerable and shattered after the false accusations - but she retains her dignity throughout. The statue scene was incredible because of her ability. In previous versions, Hermione is posed in a neutral position, to make standing perfectly still easy. In this one, Burford held her arms in an artistic pose. For at least ten minutes. The level of control this must have required is astonishing. I couldn’t take my eyes off of her during the whole scene. Since this was a filmed version of a live performance, this wasn’t done with camera cuts. She did this - night after night. Highly impressive.

The unjustly accused Hermione (center), with her irrational husband Leontes (right), as Paulina (left) looks on with horror.

Florizel and Perdita at the carnival.

 I also love that the Globe uses live musicians and music composed for the occasion. This was, like previous plays I have seen, a good bit of the fun. 

Unfortunately, by the time I got to writing this, the streaming of this play had ended. However, The Globe intends to continue to release past productions in two week increments, and I will be watching as many as I can. (Next up: The Merry Wives of Windsor.) 

 

Information about the plays can be found here.

The specifics for The Winter’s Tale are here.  

 

The Pseudoscience Wars by Michael D. Gordin

Source of book: I own this.

 

I had this book on my list, and found a cheap used copy. I usually read books like this from the library, but our system didn’t have it, so I went the used book route. 

 Just to clarify at the outset: this is not a book about what is and isn’t pseudoscience. It isn’t a comprehensive look at the Pseudoscience Wars™ in general. Rather, it is a history of what is generally acknowledged as the original pseudoscience war, between the scientific establishment and Immanuel Velikovsky beginning in the 1950s. 

 Wait, WHO? 

 I imagine most of us, particularly my age or younger, will be saying that. Before reading this book, that was my thought too, although, as I read it, I reached back in the recesses of my memory to some of the Young Earth Creationist stuff I absorbed as a Fundie kid. Not that Velikovsky was a friend of the YEC movement or anything. He thought they were nuts. They hated him as an atheist even while citing his works as “proof” of catastrophism. Older generations might remember some of the controversy surrounding him, but basically, he fell off the map after his death in 1979, and his ideas have become just another flavor on the fringe. 

 So, who was Immanuel Velikovsky? And what did he claim? Well, let’s see. He was a psychologist by training, born in what is now Belarus. He lived in Israel and the United States later. And his claim to fame was a book entitled Worlds in Collision.

 In that book, Velikovsky made some rather bold and unorthodox assertions about history and science. The genesis (so to speak) of his ideas was his belief that the various stories in world mythologies were not mere exaggeration or local events, but accounts of global catastrophes that actually happened. In order to make this work, Velikovsky argued for a series of “alternative” timelines to various human histories - otherwise the dates failed to line up as he wanted them to. This meant, among other adjustments, changing the ancient Egyptian calendar and annals about 600 years so they lined up with the Hebrew Bible. (Velikovsky was Jewish, although not religious, and apparently believed that his people’s sacred book was the most accurate of ancient texts. Which sounds kind of familiar, actually…) With this new timeline, Velikovsky argued that the human race had a collective amnesia of the global trauma which still affected us, and caused mainstream scientists to react to him with anger and denial rather than acceptance. (Hey, that too sounds like Evangelical gaslighting…) 

 It gets better! These global catastrophes were caused by….wait for it….a giant comet which is now the planet Venus nearly hit the earth, causing it to spin on a different axis, prolonged a day (hello, Joshua!), and pelted the earth with hydrocarbons that both made the sky catch fire (multiple myths) and gave us our crude oil reserves. Whew! That’s a lot. Oh, and this also disrupted the orbit of Mars, which made its own near collision and set of catastrophes some years later. 

 To make at least an attempt at a scientific basis for this, Velikovsky proposed that “gravity” as such was a myth, and that the force we experience as gravity isn’t a function of mass, but of electromagnetism.

 Yeah, it starts getting a bit out there once you dig in. And the key thing here is that Velikovsky didn’t start with astrophysics and then formulated a new theory based on science. Rather, he started with psychology and anthropology, then sought a scientific explanation for the psychological theories he invented. In fact, the book literally began as a project about Freud’s last work and kind of...got away from the author into a totally different discussion. By most definitions, this puts it in the category of pseudoscience. The definition, however, is murky, as the author persuasively demonstrates throughout the book. Outright quackery is one thing, but pseudoscience thinks and often acts like legitimate science, and the border often only becomes clear in retrospect. 

 In the actual historical event, Velikovsky’s theories have aged very badly. As ludicrous as they were back then, subsequent scientific discoveries - and not just in astrophysics, but also the very historical and anthropological disciplines Velikovsky relied on - have consigned them to the dustbin of history. 

 So why was there such a huge kerfuffle? That is in large part what this book seeks to explore. 

 It is not an accident, according to Gordin, that the first true pseudoscience war occurred when it did. In the aftermath of World War II and the first atomic weapons, the reputation of science was at a high mark. At the same time, the cost of knowledge had skyrocketed. No more could dilettante aristocrats make earth-shaking discoveries in their labs. Science required money, time, and resources. Thus, when pseudoscience threatened to grab some of that money, mainstream scientists felt threatened. 

 But there was more to it than that. Not long before, a Soviet geneticist named Lysenko had managed to take over the Soviet academy with his unorthodox ideas (that genes weren’t inherited as much as they were changed by the environment - so building the ubermensch wasn’t just about Eugenics, but about creating an environment where good genes would develop and be passed on to future generations.) Lysenko then got the opposing scientists declared traitors and then fired and incarcerated. So, yikes. And then there was Joseph McCarthy on the warpath against anyone perceived as “communist,” and skeptical of science in general…

 There is a heck of a lot more too, but that’s why you should read the book. 

 In the actual event, Velikovsky managed to talk Macmillan into publishing the book in its science category. This was problematic because then the mainstream universities threatened to pull their publishing from Macmillan in retaliation (the book was eventually published by another publisher as a “popular” book), and a war ensued. Velikovsky was furious, and accused the mainstream establishment of censorship, and so on. The reverberations of this still echo today in any discussion of pseudoscience, pseudomedicine, and outright quackery. 

 

During the pseudoscience wars, doctrines that were relegated kicking and screaming to the “fringe” began to respond by deploying new arguments against the establishment, claiming not just that mainstream science was incorrect or incomplete, but that scientists were engaged in a conspiracy to suppress new knowledge.

 No pseudoscientist thinks he or she is one, of course. And drawing that line isn’t always as easy as one might think. 

 

Every discussion of demarcation at its core hinges around this fundamental tension between innovation and crackpottery.

 In addition to this, there is the question of resources, as I noted above. Should scientists spend valuable time refuting non-mainstream ideas? Ignore them? And what happens when the public takes a crackpot idea and runs with it? (Exhibit A: pretty much everything Il Toupee says…) As astronomer said about Worlds in Collision, “No amount if lying will alter the truth--but lying can alter the willingness of a people to accept the truth.” 

 And what about when the idea is so outside the mainstream as to make it difficult for any coexistence to work? As the author says about Worlds in Collision: 

 

The book was, and remains, an enthralling read. It also required, to account for the events described--near collisions of planets, comets the size of Venus, the transformation of a hydrocarbon/petroleum tail of the comet into carbohydrate manna for the Israelites--outright contraventions or at least severe modifications of the conventional understandings of celestial mechanics, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, and biology. 

In figuring out a response, mainstream scientists tried to define pseudoscience, starting with their analysis of Lysenko. The author lists four factors which are most commonly used to describe pseudoscience. After listing the factors, Gordin then shows their limitations. The factors are (simplified by me for this post): (1) claims that are sufficiently wrong to be pseudoscience (2) rejection of scientific methods such as controlled experiments (3) elaboration and justification of the conclusions in terms of philosophy or ideology (4) intervention in the scientific process by church or state or other outside, unscientific force. 

 Like current pseudoscientists, Velikovsky spent his life trying to gain scientific credibility. In one case, he leveraged his friendship with Einstein to that effect. The thing is, the two were friends - most likely because, as Jewish ex-pats who spoke German fluently, they shared a common language and experience. (And, of course, most German speakers had Nazi connections.) In any event, Einstein thought Velikovsky’s ideas were crazy. And told him so. 

 

Einstein answered that Velikovsky had “the stuff to thoroughly disprove even the table of multiplication with your historical-philosophical methods. Of the applause of the laymen, who have a secret grudge against arithmetic, you can be assured.” 

 And then...of course…the book talks at length about Henry Morris, and his relationship to Velikovsky. The parallels (as well as the differences) are fascinating. YEC has consistently been described as pseudoscience, and it fits pretty well. (If you want, go down the rabbit hole at Joel Duff’s blog, which is excellent.) Count me in the group of “liberal” Christians who believe that YEC has done a great disservice to the reputation and practice of Christianity by “detracting from the gospel of Jesus Christ by adding to it the human foolishness of pseudoscience.” 

 Gordin has done is research on YEC, by the way. I appreciate his discussion of George McCready Price, the Adventist founder of “flood geology,” and a big influence on Henry Morris. Price was arguably the first major advocate for the YEC viewpoint, arguing for a literal six day creation 6000 years ago, back in the 1870s. As Gordin points out:

 

At the time, this was decidedly a minority position among American Christians.

 Like a lot of the litmus tests for Evangelicalism (particularly white evangelicalism) that we take for granted today - abortion, social darwinism as economic policy, culture wars - Young Earth Creationism is a relatively recent phenomenon. 

 Speaking of recent phenomena, I was somehow completely unsurprised to find out that Velikovsky enjoyed a resurgence in popularity in the 1960s among the Baby Boomers. If I were to pick a quintessential character trait of that generation (particularly the white, conservative ones), it would have to be the motto, “I got mine, sucks to be you.” But the susceptibility to pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, “alternative facts,” and rejection of science sure is apparent as well. Obviously not all, but good lord, look at what shows up in my Facebook feed from so many Boomers I know. And that’s before you get into the Bill Gothard phenomenon, or Fox News, or the alternative “medicine” industry. 

 With time, Velikovsky’s ideas were adopted by others - mostly on the fringe, which did not make Velikovsky happy. He tried to police his own fringe, but with limited success. Fun in this context was the mention of Erich von Daniken, whose ideas inspired the train wreck of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. This part of the book is pretty amusing - things got weird really fast… 

 Whether it is with pseudoscience or even more fringy stuff, scientists are faced with an impossible choice, as the author notes. Astronomer Dennis Rawlins has the best quote on this issue in the book. 

 

“If one simply ignores the crank, this is ‘close-mindedness’ or ‘arrogance.’ If one then instead agrees to meet him in debated, this is billed as showing that he is a serious scholar. (For why else would the lordly establishment agree even to discuss him.) Irksome either way.” 

 This is so very familiar from my youth, when my family was immersed in both the Fundie subculture and its obsession with YEC, and also in pseudomedicine fads. It is that exact same Catch-22 that they deliberately place the establishment in. 

 So what is the cure? The book doesn’t really offer one, but does note that a number of advocates for Velikovsky eventually rejected his theories. Once they learned more of the actual science, they found the pseudoscience increasingly untenable. That is what happened to me regarding a LOT of the dogma I was taught - it didn’t survive a collision with reality. As Leroy Ellenberger said after he left Velikovskianism: 

 

“The less one knows about science, the more plausible Velikovsky’s scenario appears, especially when most of the discussion is hand-waving. Conversely, the more knowledgeable the reader, the easier it is to see that Velikovsky’s entire physical scenario is untenable. But unless a critic explains why something is wrong, the rejection is more ex cathedra than a credible refutation.” 

 This certainly matches my experience. As I learned more, the less I could believe of YEC and other dogmas. But also, it is hard to “refute” error when the person clinging to the error lacks the base knowledge to understand why the dogma is wrong. 

 The book ends with a look at our own time. Certainly pseudoscience hasn’t gone away. But Gordin draws a sharp contrast between pseudoscientists like Velikovsky and what he calls “denialists.” Velikovsky was wrong, but he was wrong in good faith. That is, he believed what he did genuinely, and without a nefarious agenda. 

 In contrast, denialists are hired guns for an agenda. They exist to protect powerful industries (such as the tobacco and fossil fuel industries), and use the tactics of the pseudoscience wars to create doubt - and achieve specific policy goals. While pseudoscientists are all over the place, and do not conspire or even often agree with each other, denialists are absolutely coordinated, centrally funded, and politically motivated. The lessons of the tobacco industry were learned well, unfortunately. The book is worth the read for this chapter alone. 

 This book is a little dense, and not the easiest read, because of its more academic purpose. It is thoroughly documented from primary sources, filled with direct quotes and historical events. It also intentionally remains fairly neutral in tone, focusing on the events rather than refuting Velikovsky. (As Gordin notes, plenty of books have already done that.) As a study of sociology and psychology as applied to pseudoscience, it is fascinating. 

 The Pseudoscience Wars was fascinating to me, and may be to you if you care about genuine science and how humans judge truth.

***

In addition to YEC, I will mention "Scientific Racism" as a modern day pseudoscience. Unsurprisingly, most of the white people I know who push YEC also have a habit of dragging out ideas from "scientific racism" when discussing protesters and police brutality.