Keith Richards’ Life and what the world used to look like

I skimmed Keith Richards’ memoir Life, which might be of interest to virulent Rolling Stones fans and people interested in how to live despite ingesting massive quantities of poisonous substances in search of altered states (answer: luck). Although most of the memoir is forgettable, this passage stands out because it describes a kind of insanity that feels completely foreign and bizarre to me:

It was 1975, a time of brutality and confrontation. Open season on the Stones had been declared since our last tour, the tour of ’72, known as the STP. The State Department had noted riots (true), civil disobedience (also true), illicit sex (whatever that is), and violence across the United States. All the fault of us, mere minstrels. We had been inciting youth to rebellion, we were corrupting America, and they had ruled never to let us travel in the United States again. It had become, in the time of Nixon, a serious political matter. He had personally deployed his dogs and dirty tricks against John Lennon, who he thought might cost him an election. We, in turn, they told our lawyer officially, were the most dangerous rock-and-roll band in the world.

Must be gratifying to be the most dangerous rock band in the world. It’s also astonishing to imagine that a rock-and-roll band could marshall this kind of attention; these days, the youth who were rebelling in the 1970s have grown up and assumed the reins of power, such that rock-and-roll has grown up with them, becoming rock-and-roll instead of rock ‘n’ roll.

Now it’s no longer subversive, so we have to turn our attention to other topics, like rap, but even that doesn’t inspire so much fear as Richards says the Stones did; rap is regularly reviewed in the New Yorker. Today, nothing is worse than being square. Almost anything goes. 1975 looks bizarre from the perspective of someone born after it: what was all the fuss about? The real question is what subjects generate all the fuss today that will be the same way in the future. I could generate a list of them but choose not to, per Paul Graham’s “What You Can’t Say,” but I bet regular readers could imagine a few things that might end up on the list.

There are other moments of bizarre provincialism too:

When I was growing up, the idea of leaving England was pretty much remote. My dad did it once, but that was in the army to go to Normandy and get his leg blown off. The idea was totally impossible. You just read about other countries and looked at them on TV, and in National Geographic, the black chicks with their tits hanging out and their long necks. But you never expected to see it. Scraping up the money to get out of England would have been way beyond my capabilities.

Although many people today no doubt feel the same, the rise of deregulated air service makes leaving virtually any industrialized country within the reach of a large proportion of the population. Not everyone, to be sure, but it’s much more normal now than it once was. Many fewer find the idea “totally impossible.” It’s easy, at least for me, to forget what the past was like. I think we all have a tendency to assume that the present is “normal,” along with whatever our situation is, and the past different. Then I read about someone who “never expected to see” a foreign country and remember that the time and place I live in is very different from those others have lived in. Such moments are the most revealing part of Life. The book made it on the New York Times bestseller list. Prediction: a large number of copies hit the used book market within six months. If you want to read the book, wait and snag a used copy cheap, or get it from the library.

Six books I wish someone had handed to me:

1. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

2. The Guide to Getting It On by Paul Joannides

3. The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature by Geoffrey Miller

4. Hackers & Painters by Paul Graham; you can also get this material from his essays, which are posted online.

5. Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl

6. Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert

Each book profoundly shaped how not only I think, but how I live and view the world. All suddenly revealed new connections and ideas about the world I’d never experienced or expected to experience before. Their tendrils extend into a great deal of my thought and work.

Granted, no book can be removed from its context, and its possible that if I’d read some of these books as a younger person I wouldn’t have been ready to appreciate them. But Flow seems by far the most valuable of the choices listed above because it engulfs more of the content of the others than any other choice. Still, each one made me think so profoundly differently than I had before that I feel compelled to list them.

The dangers of romanticizing poverty and James Joyce’s Ulysses

“Stephen [Dedalus] is entirely without means. He stands in boots and clothes that were given to him by Mulligan. He has a job as a teacher at Mr. Deasy’s school but his salary is barely sufficient for drinks. He owes bits of money all round the town. Let an individualist artist deny religion as vehemently as he will, economics is something he cannot deny. [. . .] Some misguided people have at times affirmed that the stimulus of poverty is useful to the artist and it may be darkly hinted that one day one of these misguided individuals will come to any untimely end. Poverty was never any good to anybody.”

—Frank Budgen, James Joyce and the Making of ‘Ulysses’.

(And, perhaps weirdly, Tucker Max says something very similar of poverty in Assholes Finish First:

When I first moved to Chicago, it was to be a writer, so I refused to use my law degree to get a ‘real’ job. I knew it would pay so much that it’d make me complacent and drain my creative energy. If I was going to become a writer, I was going to do it full-time. Anything else was a distraction from my goal, and a compromise I was unwilling to make.

That’s great in theory, but in practice, not making any money means that at some point you can’t afford to buy food. That’s pretty bad. Then you don’t have enough to buy alcohol. That’s really bad. But when you don’t have enough money to even go to $1 beer night, it’s an emergency.

I think there’s an element of violating a sacred taboo to acknowledge that money and material conditions affect the artist and what the artist can or will do.)

The dangers of romanticizing poverty and James Joyce's Ulysses

“Stephen [Dedalus] is entirely without means. He stands in boots and clothes that were given to him by Mulligan. He has a job as a teacher at Mr. Deasy’s school but his salary is barely sufficient for drinks. He owes bits of money all round the town. Let an individualist artist deny religion as vehemently as he will, economics is something he cannot deny. [. . .] Some misguided people have at times affirmed that the stimulus of poverty is useful to the artist and it may be darkly hinted that one day one of these misguided individuals will come to any untimely end. Poverty was never any good to anybody.”

—Frank Budgen, James Joyce and the Making of ‘Ulysses’.

(And, perhaps weirdly, Tucker Max says something very similar of poverty in Assholes Finish First:

When I first moved to Chicago, it was to be a writer, so I refused to use my law degree to get a ‘real’ job. I knew it would pay so much that it’d make me complacent and drain my creative energy. If I was going to become a writer, I was going to do it full-time. Anything else was a distraction from my goal, and a compromise I was unwilling to make.

That’s great in theory, but in practice, not making any money means that at some point you can’t afford to buy food. That’s pretty bad. Then you don’t have enough to buy alcohol. That’s really bad. But when you don’t have enough money to even go to $1 beer night, it’s an emergency.

I think there’s an element of violating a sacred taboo to acknowledge that money and material conditions affect the artist and what the artist can or will do.)

Precisely how I often feel about the classics:

“[Martin] Amis always feels able to acknowledge greatness without denying that it can be boring and make insolent demands on one’s time.”

—Frank Kermode, Bury Place Papers, a book which reminds one that scholarly critics can have a light, delightful and yet erudite touch, their reputation to the contrary.

Parties and sobriety

“I drank for years, and then I stopped drinking and discovered the sad truth about parties. A sober man at a party is lonely as a journalist, implacable of a coroner, bitter as an angel looking down from heaven. There’s something purely foolish about attending any large gathering of men and women without benefit of some kind of philter or magic dust to blind you and weaken your critical faculties. I don’t mean to make a big deal out of sobriety, by the way. Of all the modes of human consciousness available to the modern consumer I consider it to be the most overrated.”

—Michael Chabon, Wonder Boys

Life: The dangers of reading edition

“Perhaps reading books is the opiate of the educated classes.”

—Philip Roth, The Professor of Desire.

(The older I get, the funnier Roth gets—if only he’d had the same amazing humor when I was 16!)

Life: loser edition, courtesy of Lucky Jim

“Your attitude measures up to the two requirements of love. You want to go to bed with her and can’t, and you don’t know her very well. Ignorance of the other person topped with deprivation, Jim. You fit the formula all right, and what’s more you want to go on fitting it. The old hopeless passion, isn’t it?”

—Kinglsey Amis, Lucky Jim

Life and The Possessed

“The title of this book is borrowed from Dostoevsky’s weirdest novel, The Demons, formerly translated as The Possessed, which narrates the descent into madness of a circle of intellectuals in a remote Russian province: a situation analogous, in certain ways to my own experiences in graduate school.”

—Elif Batuman, The Possessed: Adventures with Russian Books and the People Who Read Them.

If you haven’t read this book, which is a hybrid sort of essay collection / memoir / how-not-to, you need to. It’s almost impossible to describe what makes it so wonderful because its humor is cumulative: quotes out of context don’t work and make it sound less funny than it is.

Michael Silverblatt’s interview with Batuman is also characteristically good.

Who is our authentic self, exactly?

We can tie ourselves in knots [over the cynical idea of society’s corruption and commerce’s alienation], but the fact is, the relationship between the stuff we buy and who we are, and the broader relationship among consumer culture, artistic vision, and the authentic self, is fraught with bad arguments and bad faith, and the usual themes and oppositions (between genuine needs and false wants, or between the shallowness of a branded identity and the depths of the true self) are too crude to be helpful.

That’s from Andrew Potter’s The Authenticity Hoax, which is so far a fascinating rebuttal to the idea that we’re all merely automatons, creations of the media, men in gray flannel suits, mindless conformists, better off going back to nature, incapable of meta thinking, mere cogs in the machine, alienated labor, brainwashed by Disney, or instinctive conservative reactionaries.

My authentic self appears to be the kind of person who doubts that my authentic self exists.