SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Best Responses to 9/11—and the Worst

POLITICS AUGUST 24, 2011

The Best Responses to 9/11—and the Worst

BY MARTIN PERETZ

I was in bed at a New York hotel when my stock trader called to say that one of the Twin Towers had been hit by an airplane. “A horrible accident,” he surmised, adding “unprecedented” to the presumption. He told me to turn on the “tube,” such nomenclature dating him as middle-aged. The phone rang again: “The second tower is on its way down. And, of course, this means it is no accident at all.” Which was my intuition as soon as I’d heard the first terrible tidings. Moreover, I knew instinctively who’d done the dreadful deed; and it wasn’t a new version of the Unabomber. Indeed, if anybody had had time to poll the public on who was responsible for the death of 3,000 before they had been told, a vast majority would have concluded that it was Muslim extremists. Everybody knew, although some of the discombobulated newscasters were afraid to say unless or until it was “confirmed” by authority. News of other related disasters began to filter in: the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon and the one that slammed into the deserted field in Pennsylvania.

Where was my family? There was no horrible news from Boston, except, to be sure, that one of the fated airplanes had taken off from security-hapless Logan Airport with Mohamed Atta and his satanic comrades on board. (They had been on various “alert” lists. But nobody checked any of them.) I could make no contact with my wife until much later in the day. My son and his girlfriend (now married and the parents of two children) were in Paris and were kept there for days until the skies cleared, so to speak—even as James Baker was able to arrange a private jet flight for an exit from the United States for the many bin Laden kin who had settled in our country. My daughter, who then lived two blocks from the World Trade Center, was in a dentist’s chair somewhere on the Upper East Side, although we didn’t know this for several hours until cellular phone service was more or less restored. Before that, I’d spoken with my son-in-law, the first in the family to succeed in making contact. He’d gone in pursuit of his wife, having joined that seemingly endless trek of New Yorkers who were marching north, a bit dazed, to the Upper East and West Sides, while others were traipsing laterally to Brooklyn, Long Island, and New Jersey.

My mother-in-law, Eve Curie, nearing 100, was still very fit and very much with it. So our skeletal family went out to dinner at what was normally a subdued and very formal French restaurant. This night, the room was filled with agitated conversation. The waiter added to our own emotions: “We are all Israelis now,” he said, the desperate cliché of the first days, more or less true. But Eve, a member of the resistance during World War II, a Free French volunteer and close to General de Gaulle, piped up from her habitual Pouilly Fumé, and declared: “Never say ‘all.’ There will always be people who side with the enemies of civilization. And many more who will, for advantage, out of fear or by disposition, underestimate their threat. At dinner parties in Paris after the war, they sat smug, as if they had always been right: ‘See, we are still here.’ Later, many of them underestimated the communist evil, too. I knew them. I was a Gaulliste and, then, I was against de Gaulle. You remember, Marty—don’t you?—I was deputy to the first NATO secretary-general, Lord Ismay.” Not a bad summation for a centenarian who had lived intimately the whole horridly ideological century, a risk-taking anti-fascist and an anticommunist, both. This omits her mother (of whom she was the biographer), the incarnation of selfless science, the first woman to touch and to be touched by the atom, because she had herself also envisioned it. Back in her apartment, Eve pulled out of a drawer photographs of her mother, Marie Curie, of her father, Pierre Curie, and then with a slight tremor handed me her little treasure, the Cross of Lorraine, evoking at once Joan of Arc and the fight for the freedom of France.

The enormity of the catastrophe had not quite penetrated until the next morning, when, as if in some cruel but haphazard ritual, we began on television to meet the dead and their families. That night, I went to Union Square, always a bustling hippie place but then with a tamped-down sobriety, and from there to the West Village, where bonds of solidarity cut across class and race, religion and affect. America had been sorely wounded, and we were tending to her care. A burly policeman carried an old drunk to a bench and gave him an apple. A small legion of young people carried bunches of flowers to a fire station in tribute to the first responders, of which there were nearly 350 dead firefighters and 60 police. (I thought then and I think now of how much our society really owes these folks in every city and village in the country.) Not for years before, and not since, had there been such a palpable sensation of camaraderie. What appeared was a good deal of patriotic feeling in the streets, of ardor for country, which, if truth be told, had become altogether alien to some progressive intellectuals who try to set the mood for many others, a mood of guilt and self-reproach. Love of country was just a joke to such people.

It did not take long for these heavy thinkers to try to retake the stage. Susan Sontag, Cornel West, and Judith Butler (the hands-down, first-place winner of “The Bad Writing Contest” of the academic journal Philosophy and Literature) were perhaps the three most eager and well-known of the admonishers, and their scoldings were picked up by others. We had done evil to others. So they took revenge. The chickens had come home to roost. Soon larger and crazier explanations were heard. The attacks had not been the work of the young Saudis and one or two other Arabs on the doomed planes. They had actually been carried out by the United States, or by the Mossad, that other residual culprit. Richard Falk, emeritus Milbank professor of international law and practice at Princeton and now special rapporteur on Palestine for the U.N. Human Rights Council, has just lately accused the United States of organizing the 9/11 disasters and somehow getting the press to look elsewhere. (Arabs were ipso facto unblameworthy, since they are the victims of U.S. imperialism.) I’ve known Falk for nearly half a century; nothing surprises me about him, nothing. Then there is Noam Chomsky, a great linguist and political fantasist, who recently opined that there was no evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the mass killings ten years ago. Never mind that the man was claiming credit for the deed until just before his arraignment before his god. The Hamas prime minister disagrees with Chomsky in this matter. He believes that bin Laden was a “holy warrior.”

How did the Muslim world actually respond to the 9/11 happenings? Almost all of the governments (with the notable exception of Saddam Hussein’s) condemned its perpetrators, at least formally. After all, Al Qaeda was also an enemy of these regimes—although we did not yet know how compromised Pakistan was. What occurred on the ground was a more complicated matter. There was certainly no mass protestation, no passionate denunciation, on the Arab street or on the wider Muslim street. Perhaps Arabs and Muslims have become inured to political violence, to jihadi depredations that kill in scores, today in one town, tomorrow in another, morning, noon, or night. There is never a mass protest against such killings. Yasir Arafat denounced, but his people in the streets sang and danced. In Egypt, the anti-Hosni Mubarak press also celebrated the massacre, and this is the press on which liberal optimists are pinning our hopes and on which we are basing our expectations.

The president has already commemorated the tenth anniversary of 9/11. He did so on August 10 at his White House Iftar (break-the-fast) dinner for Ramadan. Barack Obama likes to repeat his oratory—the potted history that his staff routinely puts into his speeches—about how Muslims are central to the American past. Last year, it was about how Thomas Jefferson also gave a Ramadan dinner, this one for the Tunisian emissary. What he neglected to mention was that this dinner took place in the middle of the Barbary Wars. Almost no one noticed. This year’s speech was mostly pabulum. At least he didn’t repeat the libel, put forward in his ridiculous Cairo address, that the IRS prevents Muslims from donating to legitimate Muslim charities. The truth is that Muslims have not had a bad time in the United States, certainly not as bad as Chinese immigrants and Japanese, or Germans and Irish and Italians and, for that matter, many Catholics, some Jews, almost all Mormons, and certainly immigrant slaves from Africa. It’s unseemly for Obama to hint otherwise, when the Muslim and Arab journey in America, including the journey of many Christian Arabs, has been so mercifully uneventful, if by events one means boycotts, lynchings, job discrimination, and school and housing exclusion.

Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when tempers might have been frayed, or hatreds aroused, there was no single incident to bring shame to the American legatees of Enlightenment understanding. Ministers and rabbis and priests charged their churches and congregations to hold out their hands to Muslims in what might otherwise have been for them a period of chilly isolation at best. In the synagogue in which I prayed on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur of 2001, that is precisely what occurred. It was a moment to remember. There was that twisted Florida minister who wanted to burn the Koran, and I do not doubt that some other abuses have occurred, but we are a fairer and more decent society than we ever were, at least with respect to otherness and difference, and those Muslim citizens who are grateful that they live in this country are right.

The narrative of the decade after 9/11 includes, of course, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now the president, having boldly executed bin Laden, is basically dropping our commitments and declaring victory in both countries. In a sleight of hand, the administration now defines the enemy as merely Al Qaeda and allies, which we are said to have almost destroyed (though not in Yemen and Somalia). But, as The New York Times reported the other day: “The 42 apparently coordinated attacks [on August 15] underscored the reality that few places in Iraq are safe. The number of American troops killed this year has jumped, ahead of their planned withdrawal. Monday’s strikes against civilians and security forces made it the deadliest day of the year for Iraqis, and it came in many forms: suicide attacks, car bombs, homemade bombs and gunmen.” The week before, the Taliban, Al Qaeda’s even more formidable ally in Afghanistan, shot down a Chinook helicopter and killed 30 Americans, including 22 Navy SEALS, some from the unit that took out bin Laden. How can Obama claim victory in these two countries? You tell me.

Some good news! As I write, the Qaddafi regime is evaporating. But not, I am sorry to say, much due to the United States. We were belated and half-hearted in our support of the Libyan rebels and in unfreezing their cash, even if our drones provided essential intelligence for the rebel march on Tripoli. And the same prevarication has characterized our (non) policy in Syria. To the very end, Hillary Clinton hedged. Now, we may not be entitled to demand of Anna Wintour what persuaded her to sign up Vogue magazine in the publicity campaign to make Baathist Syria seem oh, so civilized, oh, so chic—but it should be proper, even required, for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to inquire into how and why the administration so misunderstood the Damascus regime, its aims, its intrinsic weaknesses, its supporters, its opponents, and other significant factors in the definition of Syria. The narrative of Obama’s callow and pseudo-clever position on Syria would expose his team’s flaccid standards of argument and proof. If, as many informed people say, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett are in on these decisions, you have at least half an explanation.

As well as the hope generated in the last eight months (much of it already dispersed), what we have seen in the Arab world and Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa is a routinization of brutality. What else can one say about Bashar Al Assad’s relentless war on his own people? And as mosque after mosque gets blown up in Iraq? It is a calamity and a curse. It is not right to gloat at these happenings. But it is neither smart nor just to pretend that they are not with us.

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic. This piece ran in the September 15, 2011, issue of the magazine.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 82 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

82 comments

The worst response to 9/11: TNR printing more useless, narcissictic bilge from this deeply troubled creep.

- WandreyCer

August 31, 2011 at 7:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WandreyCer is a deeply troubled hateful reader.

- Packard

August 31, 2011 at 8:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

9/11 is a horrible tragedy - almost as bad as what Union Carbide did to Nepal.

- whyamihere

August 31, 2011 at 8:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Cer agrees with Noam Chomsky, Judith Butler and Richard Falk and doesn't want anyone to read a counter argument. This is why she is so angry at Martin Peretz.

- Packard

August 31, 2011 at 8:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Nepal disaster was an accident whyamihere. There is a difference between a deliberate attack that kill thousands and an industrial accident even if your Communist ideology can't account for accidents.

- Packard

August 31, 2011 at 8:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bhopal, not Nepal.

- amidut

August 31, 2011 at 8:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Such a mind reader Packard. Too bad I find those silly people you mention every bit as bigoted, narcissistic and useless as Peretz.

- WandreyCer

August 31, 2011 at 9:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Peretz long ago gave up on writing with any kind of elegance or coherence. His lack of interest in readability seems to be his most narcissistic trait. Simple eloquence would have made his point better than the series of implosions in the chopped, hermetic sentences above. I read this hoping for an essay a cut above his rants of the last decade and am disappointed.

- dimbulb

August 31, 2011 at 10:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wandrey is right, horrible bilgewater of an article, filled with personal grievances, pointless name dropping (like I give the slightest rats ass what Judith Butler said 10 years ago) "The truth is that Muslims have not had a bad time in the United States" Marty knows this because he is such a friend to the Muslim community (hah). I have heard Muslims be called Camel jockeys, sand niggers, towel heads, etc. etc. etc. and this well before 9/11. It was so bad growing up that the Maronite Catholics (Lebanese) of which there are quite a few in my town, had their own church instead of joining one of the many established Catholic churches in town, their being Arab was sufficient enough to face bigotry. "As I write, the Qaddafi regime is evaporating. But not, I am sorry to say, much due to the United States." Yes, because the US was only responsible for the majority of the air sorties (but not strike ones) and contributed far more than Marty is willing to admit, from drone strikes to weapon resupply to surveillance to....I could go on. The necessity of our carrying as much of a load was one reason why Gates had such an outburst against Nato...but never mind that, Marty has his own opinion not one backed up by the remotest of facts. Obama could personally capture Gadhafi and Marty would bitch why it wasn't done sooner. And Marty, why don't yuou get off your tired old ass and join the protestors in Syria, ones who are bravely facing bullets with nothing more than a peaceful protest? But any acknowledgement that Muslims can be brave in their desire for freedom is unthinkable. No, all Muslims are bomb throwers and fanatics and that any outreach towards Muslims is weakminded fantasy because, according to Marty: there was no single incident to bring shame to the American legatees of Enlightenment understanding. Never mind an innocent Sikh (non Muslim) killed by some white man screaming at what he did to our country, in fact, one of the other victims (a real honest to God Muslim no less) of that nutjobs shooting rampage has pleaded for mercy. You know, lately I have noticed that even a right wing magazine like Frumforum has more intelligent commentary than TNR lately has, and I don't have to pay to read that.

- blackton

August 31, 2011 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a beautiful and personal reminiscence of the days, months and years after 9/11 that moves effortlessly between the personal and the historic. It rings truthful because it doesn't deign to obscure its judgments behind the artifice of knowing but rather is explicit in its condemnation of those who through their own misguided, dishonest and venal actions place themselves on the side of the enemies of all that is civilized. All the years seem to tumble from one paragraph to the next, events and moments crashing through until the present apogee suspended between hope for the Arab Spring and knowing. A decade suspended between "calamity and a curse" is a fitting coda. This is the kind of writing which makes the TNR great and Marty's work unmissable.

- Andrew Levidis

August 31, 2011 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And of course blackton's Maronites became terrorists and killed their fellow Americans. Those Arabs flying planes into buildings were also discriminated weren't they?

- Packard

August 31, 2011 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bhopal. Embarrassing mistake on my part, actually, and kudos to Amidut for pointing that out. @ Packard: Ooo, you pointed out that I'm a Marxist! Case closed! (Or not). Anyway, yes, accidents happen, and accidents are one thing. On the other hand, Union Carbide was given repeated warnings about the dangers of their site in Bhopal, and ignored them; moreover, we also know that Union Carbide did a piss-poor job maintaining the safety of that site. By any standard, killing 3,000 people in one day out of a political agenda is indeed almost as bad as killing 3,800 people in one day due to willful negligence in pursuit of profit. The response to 9/11, with absolutely no thought of the disasters the US government and US corporations bring on year after year (including a bare minimum of 300,000 civilians killed in the Middle East by the US since 1990), is the epitome of ethnocentrism. Or, put more simply: who in the US media mourns the tragedy in Chile that took place on September 11th (1973), with the aid of the CIA?

- whyamihere

August 31, 2011 at 11:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"@ Packard: Ooo, you pointed out that I'm a Marxist! Case closed! (Or not)." Communists because of their deterministic ideology don't accept accidents in history. Everything that happens is due to some conspiracy. "By any standard, killing 3,000 people in one day out of a political agenda is indeed almost as bad as killing 3,800 people in one day due to willful negligence in pursuit of profit." This says it all. Not only do you equate and industrial disaster with purposeful murder but think that industrial disaster are worse. I can see whyamihere cheering on hijackings and murder of Americans. Not only do you think like a communist (not just Marxist) but you post like a jihadist communist.

- Packard

August 31, 2011 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well said Andrew Levidis.

- Packard

August 31, 2011 at 12:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Packard, what the hell are you talking about? The Arabs that attacked us on 9/11 were not Americans, they were mostly coddled children of Saudi Arabia pissed off that they were losers in their lives, the Maronites in my hometown most assuredly are Americans. To equate Maronites with the hijackers is simply nutso. And this is my point, way too many Americans equate being an Arab or being Muslim with being a terrorist. Are you denying that there is prejudice against arabs in America? As to the rest of this article, it is narcissism and grudgery, nothing more.

- blackton

August 31, 2011 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The greater part of the article seems unobjectionable, if the usual meandering, and I was very interested to find out that Marty's wife is the granddaughter of Marie Curie. Otherwise, the fact that (a) Obama nailed Bin Laden on his watch, and (b) the Libyan intervention has been -- so far -- more successful and less costly in every way than anything GWB tried his hand at, doesn't penetrate that far into the Peretzian Fog. But what else is new? I hear Cheney has a memoir out.

- ironyroad

August 31, 2011 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't even understand Marty's game anymore. He is a far right Republican in all but name. This article looks like it belongs in the Weekly Standard.

- blackton

August 31, 2011 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Are you denying that there is prejudice against arabs in America?" Are you affirming that there is such prejudice? Where? Are there segregation laws against them, are there sings Arabs need not apply? Are there quotas on them at Universities? Are they being lynched? What kind of oppression are Muslim Americans they suffering? Blacks, Irish, East Europeans, Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Catholics, Jews, suffered these kinds of oppression. What exactly do Arab Muslims have to put up with?

- Packard

August 31, 2011 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There was that twisted Florida minister who wanted to burn the Koran, and I do not doubt that some other abuses have occurred, but we are a fairer and more decent society than we ever were, at least with respect to otherness and difference..." The main issue I have with this piece is the above. It focuses on isolated incidents (or abuses) and completely ignores the toxic atmosphere of intolerance that can be seen in everything from the Anti-Sharia law paranoids to the bigotry of opponents of the Park51 Community Center. The prevailing views on the Park51 Community Center certainly do not show America as being a more decent society than we ever were (with respect to otherness and difference). The true problem is not with the fringe nutcases, but with the scores of Father Coughlin-esgue politicians and media figures who are profiting by spouting lies and feeding fears. Sadly Mr. Peretz does not just ignore this problem, he actively promotes it.

- Attrill

August 31, 2011 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Packard, hell yeah I am "affirming" there is such prejudice. In Murfreesboro Tn. they are doing there best to prevent a Mosque being built there. A plan to build an Islamic community center in the middle-Tennessee town of Murfreesboro sparked an eruption of ugly criticism on Thursday from some residents who don't want a mosque built in their backyard. More than 600 people turned out for a meeting of the Rutherford County Commission Thursday night, with some sharing their opposition in public comments that at times turned intolerant. "We have a duty to investigate anyone under the banner of Islam," Allen Jackson, the pastor of World Outreach Church, said at the meeting. "I found out when the sign came up," said Murfreesboro resident Mark Walker, whose home is near the site of the proposed mosque. "We are fighting these people, for crying out loud, we should not be promoting this." "They seem to be against everything I believe in, and so I don't want them necessarily in my neighborhood," said local resident Stan Whiteway. Tracey Steven, who also attended, said, "Our country was founded through the founding fathers -- through the true God, the Father and Jesus Christ." But hey, not being allowed to build a house of worship should be no problem, right? Do me a favor and go over to Redstate.com or other right wing magazines so I don't have to read your garbage. For you to bury your head so far up your own ass as to deny such an evident truth marks you as someone not worthy of engaging in dialogue with.

- blackton

August 31, 2011 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Attrill I would expect this type of shit at Weekly Standard or Freerepublic (which is why I don't go there except the few times I checked it out) but I effing pay money to subscribe to this magazine in hopes that something approximating my own political viewpoint will be put forward, not this absolute shit. Hell, last week TNR praised Perry's educational politcy of turning Universities in Walmarts and students into customers, bringing up Phoenix online University as an example to be emulated. I was damn tempted to cancel my subscription then but figured a few contrary articles is healthy but now we got this shit. Look, if Marty wants to piss his money away on a vanity magazine that is his business, I can't see myself subsidizing this though much longer. I thought my subscription would run out but it was automatically renewed and I am not sure how to cancel automatic renewal so please TNR let my subscription not renew.

- blackton

August 31, 2011 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The usual bellicose, 10-years-of-warfare-aren't-enough harangue from Field Marshal Peretz, manning the barricades from French restaurants in Manhattan and the dinner salons of Cambridge. One supposes that going to dinner that horrilbe night, noting the somber mood, and acknowleding a waiter's silly comment is one of the best reponses to 9/11. Did get the usual digs in at James Baker and Hillary Clinton. How does Marty account for Col. Gadaffis' crush on Condi Rice?

- dubyadoubte

August 31, 2011 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...The greater part of the article seems unobjectionable, if the usual meandering, and I was very interested to find out that Marty's wife is the granddaughter of Marie Curie... I agree with this but find none of the article objectionable. More, it's provocative and interesting as opposed to being mealy mouthed and boring. I like the meandering too.

- basman

August 31, 2011 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hm. You don't think the hollow, predictable-as-clockwork jibes at Obama are -- by now, at least -- mealy-mouthed and boring? It didn't cross the your mind that it's just a little weird that in the entire piece (whose subject is, let us remember, the 9/11 attacks) he can't bring himself to mention that it's THIS president who got Osama bin Laden? Enough! For I taste wormwood in the darkness of the heart, and dude that can't be good.

- ironyroad

August 31, 2011 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@ Packard: "Determinism" is a misreading of historical materialism; the latter includes no claim that accidents never occur. Rather, materialism provides a framework for understanding the relationship between historical events and the material circumstances out of which those events arise. Moreover, you need not define my beliefs for me. As for Union Carbide - the company was informed of the risk, and consciously chose not to mitigate that risk. And, once again, the company chose not to maintain even minimal safety standards. As a result, 3,800 people died on the spot, and several thousand more died in the weeks to follow. To quote Voltaire, "Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." I do not cheer the deaths of Americans - nor do I cheer the deaths of Chileans, of Indians, of Iraqis. All too often, however, I find myself alone mourning the deaths of Chileans, Indians and Iraqis alongside the deaths of Americans. When one mourns the tragedy of September 11, 2001 in the U.S., while ignoring all tragedies of similar (and often much greater) magnitude - many carried out by the US government itself, then I can only conclude that such a person places a higher intrinsic value upon the lives of U.S. citizens than upon the lives of the entire rest of humanity.

- whyamihere

August 31, 2011 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Even in the few years I've been reading this magazine it's noticably tilted rightward, most of all in its coverage of foreign policy, to the point where I'm not sure how center-left it is anymore. I usually attempt to steer clear of Peretz's reactionary tripe but thought I'd drop in for a quick read to see if anything had changed. Obviously not. Chait has been consistently awesome, both through the healthcare debate and also in explaining the intransigence we've witnessed from those who call themselves conservative and then set out to tear down most of the institutions of this nation. There are times I disagree over small points but he, Cohn and Kazin are worth the subscription fee alone. Yet, I find myself wondering how long they will last with editors like this at the helm. Here's hoping I won't have to go back to TPM which, while quite good in getting scoops, is just a tad bit too sensational for my tastes. And it's free.

- tealeaves

August 31, 2011 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...he can't bring himself to mention that it's THIS president who got Osama bin Laden... ...The narrative of the decade after 9/11 includes, of course, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now the president, having boldly executed bin Laden... I know you English profs tend to read quickly to get to the point but in your understandable haste--time is money, which makes money an endless river that can't be stepped in twice--you missed the mention.

- basman

August 31, 2011 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In what way is 9/11 a "tragedy"? A tragedy is either (a) a story of individual fate in which the hubris of the hero opens the door to a fall from a greater height than a normal man might aspire to, or (b) the casual term for an accidental or at least non-premeditated death or catastrophe. Thus the crash of the Air France plane in the Atlantic a couple of years ago is a tragedy; the bombing of Pan Am 103 is a crime involving mass murder.

- ironyroad

August 31, 2011 at 4:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, indeed, you're right. I indeed missed the mention, as it consists of one half-sentence somewhere in three long long paragraphs of complaint. But fair is fair, and I withdraw the accusation that Marty didn't cover it. But the wormwood . . .

- ironyroad

August 31, 2011 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Do me a favor and go over to Redstate.com or other right wing magazines so I don't have to read your garbage. For you to bury your head so far up your own ass as to deny such an evident truth marks you as someone not worthy of engaging in dialogue with." "Do me a favor and go over to some left wing blog like the Daily Kos so I don't have to read your garbage." So a couple of town in a country of 300 million has decided to protest the building of Mosques in their community. The law is against them and that is the whole point. You need to see someone as a victim so brave blackton will ride to their rescue. You are hero in your own mind.

- Packard

August 31, 2011 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty's a sad man, imprisoned in his own twisted view of the world. It's not bad enough that his opinions are irrationally ideological, but he can't write; and that may be the bigger sin for a magazine that supposedly targets an intelligent readership. If you're going to expose yourself as an idiot, at least provide us with well-drafted evidence.

- barijoe

August 31, 2011 at 5:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, are you an English Professor? I didn't know that. As to this article, c'mon, Marty lost me at: Susan Sontag, Cornel West, and Judith Butler. Who the hell really cares about their opinion? Somehow these 3 people stand in for...how many people? Every Liberal in America? And from a normal writer it might be interesting to know that Marty married into the Curie family, but Marty has a history of shameless name dropping, as though the life of his former MIL somehow reflects glory on him. Packard: So a couple of town in a country of 300 million I take it you mean a number of people...but you asked for one example, I provided it. How many instances would satisfy you? 1,000, 10,000, 100,000? I imagine no number would. Muslims clerics being kicked off a plane for praying...well, that was just a couple. A Jewish man (hasidic) also being thrown off a plane because the flight attendant confused his traditional garb as that of being a terrorist outfit...again, that doesn't qualify because....it just doesn't. "You need to see someone as a victim so brave blackton will ride to their rescue" You know what, eff you. Asshole. You know who I see as victims? Actual victims. White people who don't want a mosque in their neighborhood are not victims. Packard go off to your right wing magazines and screech your chickenshit hollerings.

- blackton

August 31, 2011 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's proof that Ironyroad is an English professor: he knows that the biggest ogler in English Literature is King Lear, the biggest party animal-Oscar Wilde, the ultimo sprinter- Jonathan Swift, the man most lost to the pas--John Donne, and the most aristocratic bottom--Lady Windermere's Fan(ny). UBtw, Ironyroad, had Peretz not said the things you wished him to say, or Peretz trotting out the same tored views over and over do not make him mealy mouthed in the first instance and make him the opposite of it in the second. I surmise that the metaphor comes from a mouth full of meal, a kind of porridge or some such--say corn meal, whatever that it, and signifies one who won't, can't be heard to, utter an opinion. Not our Peretz, decidedly not.

- basman

August 31, 2011 at 6:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton, Muslims Arabs or not are not oppressed in the US and polls show that. If your only answer to me is that if I disagree with you I must be right wing, then you don't have much to say. Sorry I wasted any time on a fool like you.

- Packard

August 31, 2011 at 8:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton, basman is correct, but he forgot to mention that I (and he) also know that the sailor in Moby Dick most likely to succeed in business ashore is Starbuck, that the best butcher in all Shakespeare is the Merchant of Venison, that Hemingway has the most powerful description of the loss of the loved one's embrace in A Farewell to Arms, and that the modern American author most likely to find himself trapped on the Dutch coastal protection system was John Updike.

- ironyroad

August 31, 2011 at 8:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@ ironyroad: Straight out of the Cambridge dictionary - "tragedy, noun - a very sad event or situation, especially one involving death or suffering." Merriam-Webster? "[A] disastrous event: calamity." Either definition certainly includes September 11th. If you absolutely have to play the pedant, at least manage not to (a) be insufferable while (b) making an irrelevant point. Failing either, of course, you can at least manage to (c) avoid being wrong.

- whyamihere

August 31, 2011 at 9:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know, whyamihere, I don't recall any particular exchange we've had in the past that might account for the accusation of (a). Even if I occasionally query the assumed meaning of terms, why is it "insufferable"? Isn't thinking about the meanings of words a part of what we do here on these threads, now and again? Do you believe the meanings of the words you deploy are an incontrovertible given in every case? That aside, I'd agree that there is popular meaning of "tragedy," much over-used by politicians and pundits, that has tended toward conflating intentional acts with the "sad event" or "calamity" you quote from M-W. In fact, it tends to shift the event from the status of premeditated crime to the status of vaguely unpredictable accident. For me, in any case, very much not "an irrelevant point."

- ironyroad

August 31, 2011 at 10:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's insufferable because it's condescending while missing the heart of the matter at hand. Upon reading my post filled with indignant, Marxist invective regarding September 11, 2001, your entire response revolves around my usage of the term "tragedy"? (Specifically, your private definition of the term, which happens to be much more restrictive than the definition provided by no less than Cambridge - and Oxford, too, for that matter - though you tellingly ignore my citation of Cambridge in favor of the less authoritative Merriam-Webster dictionary). If you want to attack my ideology, that's okay, but please refrain from lecturing me on the meanings of words I learned in grade school. However, if you can't help yourself, at least verify your position first. (And yes, I realize that parenthetical aside in the previous paragraph is a sentence fragment).

- whyamihere

September 1, 2011 at 12:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I would expect this type of shit at Weekly Standard or Freerepublic (which is why I don't go there except the few times I checked it out) but I effing pay money to subscribe to this magazine in hopes that something approximating my own political viewpoint will be put forward, not this absolute shit." Agreed Blackton. I first subscribed to TNR in the early 80's and then stopped subscribing awhile back because of the coverage of why we should invade Iraq (combined with Lieberman endorsement). Ultimately I came back for the two Jonathans and some decent policy coverage (which is rare these days). I need to remember to not click on the Marty posts.

- Attrill

September 1, 2011 at 1:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know what, whyamihere, you're right. I should restrict myself to attacking your ideology. Much more comfortable. But as it's not entirely clear what your ideology is, it's a bit difficult to attack it. Indeed, I might even agree to some extent with your ideology, but that's neither here nor there, as I was simply challenging the way in which all the events you describe in your post are described as "tragedies," as in my view that tends to conflate premeditated with non-premeditated actions. If you have no interest in engaging on that particular question, that's fine. I'm sure you'll continue to happily think what you think and nurture your "invective" or whatever it was.

- ironyroad

September 1, 2011 at 2:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That might be your view, your view, but this is one of those instances in which one has to ask: "Should I conform to the world, or should I make the world conform to me?" In this case, I've chosen the former while you seem to have chosen the latter - not that my choice is always correct or that yours is always wrong. However, I use the term "tragedy" to denote "calamity" because that's the manner prescribed by authoritative sources in the English language today; for the dual purpose of understanding my fellow English speakers and making myself understood, I do my best to use the language in the state that it exists rather than the state in which it once existed and/or the state in which I wish it existed. If you want to make the point that I'm conflating premeditated with non-premeditated actions, that's a fair and interesting point for discussion - had you in fact laid that point out at first. I'm also quite willing to take on criticism and correction when it is correct, and especially when it's relevant (cf. "Bhopal"/"Nepal" earlier in this thread). I hope you can see, in contrast, how I could have reasonably interpreted your statement as a mere correction for reasons of pedantry. Also bearing in mind that Cambridge and Oxford contradict your view, you ought to be able to understand my reaction. I sense that this discussion ceases to interest you, and will move on accordingly.

- whyamihere

September 1, 2011 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

*...and I will move on accordingly.

- whyamihere

September 1, 2011 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or, even better, 'we'.

- ironyroad

September 1, 2011 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When small minded people have no arguments they indulge into personal attacks. This is the methodology of Iranian paid bloggers and the ultra leftists. Martin Peretz is brilliant as always and very refreshing. Remember what the Nigromante said in 19th century Mexico "there are birds that cross the seas pool and never get dirty, my feathers are of such make" Martin Peretz analysis and comments are at the top of human intelligence. I am proud of this example of what Jewish brains is all about. Honest accurate and above all very ethical. I love it. I always look forward to his writings. And just add this on the Syrian criminality and Washington condoning Remember the friends of Bashar al-Assad the criminal dictator of Syria are Nancy Pelosi, Barack Hussein Obama, Hilary Rodham Clinton, John Perry the tax cheater senator of Mass. And head of the senate foreign relations committee. They have said nothing nothing nothing about killings of unarmed civilians by the Syrian army. And they ostracize our outstanding ambassador. Shame shame. While the tea baggers are busy hurting the poor in America. It is clear that a very small portion of the American people care about these corrupt behavior of our government and congress. Things will change for the better coming 2012. Maybe maybe. If people don't rise and defend their rights we get what we deserve . The haves and the have- nots are separated for ever. America the powerful is in the hands of corrupt evil doers. But we are resilient. We will overcome these maladies of the malfeasants. I kid you not.

- JAIMECHUCH

September 1, 2011 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony I join enthusiastically all those attacking you on this thread, eminences all who can peer into your soul. My "tipping point" came on doing a statistical analysis of your *pedantic* examples and discovered after applying the algorithm now the subject of my post doctoral work that 75% of your quips are drawn from American literature. You sir are a colonialist, jingoist imperialist and, more, shamefully, you have betrayed your own roots. What's the problem, ironyroad, no yucks in Sean O'Casey or Yeats or Micheál MacLiammoir or the unintentionally hilarous Lady Augusta Gregory? It's a fucking tragedy, with all due respect to the ever porfound whyamihere, not to mention the ever whimisical-with-a-light-touch Packard.

- basman

September 1, 2011 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More seriously though I agree with why... that 9/11 was a tragedy and that you defined "tragedy" too restrictively to ground your assertion that 9/11, on your criteria, wasn't a tragedy. For me there are at least two modes of tragedy: one, a kind of universally recognized instance of great and inconsolable loss--which is measured principally if not exclusively objectively; and two, measured both subjectively and objectively, inconsolable loss that is meaningful and affecting to whomever experiences it, as in "it's a tragedy to me." So 9/11 will be an example of the first notion of tragedy as will great and terrible events of loss that we might not have an immediate stake in as such but recognize the immense and terrible gravity of the event. But if my child dies who will say that that is not a tragedy to and for me and who will argue that the word tragedy is misplaced in that instance. But if my goldfish dies I may feel that that is a tragedy but objective assessment will evaluate me as overreacting. No?

- basman

September 1, 2011 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, I admit John Edwards doesn't really cut the mustard as a tragic hero. But Anthony Wiener . . . ?

- ironyroad

September 1, 2011 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't kow if there is irony barreling down the road of your brief comment/question. But I'd say easily, risking getting run down by the possible irony coursing down that road, that the fall from such grace as either enjoyed was not tragic in either case. Anthony Weiner did not have any greatness in him, let alone sufficient greatness, to count as the the subject of tragedy by your original, or anyone's, defintion of the notion, which, by the way, I have given a lot of layman's thought to over the time.

- basman

September 1, 2011 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

p.s. Clearly, however, there are nuances here to be teased out.

- basman

September 1, 2011 at 5:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman: "[I]nconsolable loss"--no such thing anymore. It's 2011. We have support groups, therapists, and talk shows. We have 12 step programs. We can all get "past it," we can all "find closure." ;)

- MOLLYSIMON

September 1, 2011 at 5:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, I think it goes down the ladder: Oedipus -- Hamlet -- Willy Loman -- Anthony Wiener -- goldfish -- John Edwards. I was just noting that the term "tragic hero" is related to a meaning of tragedy you didn't appear to include -- unless I'm not seeing it -- in either of your modes/definitions. And, although I don't want to open up the argument with whyamihere again, it's this aspect of tragedy, the individual or perhaps collective aiming for victory that goes awry, that I think gets lost in the generic application of the term to generically painful or calamitous events. To that extent, perhaps our mission in Afghanistan is a tragedy in some ways too. But wasn't an accident and neither of course was 9/11.

- ironyroad

September 1, 2011 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mollinchka what can I say but Mollinchka.

- basman

September 1, 2011 at 11:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You can't ignore the fact that our failed foreign policy was the catalyst for this. Sure, the attacks were wrong. Every president since Eisenhower is culpable for what happened. The two worst offenders were Reagan and W. Reagan - After becoming elected on the heels of the Iranian students taking control of the US embassy, Reagan chose to ignore the brewing problems in that region and decided to go after commies in third world nations, including invading a golf course in Grenada. The anti American sentiment was ignored, and thus grew. W - Regardless of the warnings he ignored before the attacks, it was his idiotic actions after the attacks. Invade Iraq? A nation that had NOTHING to do with the September 11th attacks. This just further perpetuated the world wide perception of America and oil hungry goons that will do anything to maintain control over oil. If we could rewind the clock and not overthrow the government of Iran in 1953......Who knows.....

- PlanetScot

September 2, 2011 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad let me get back to you at a better moment.

- basman

September 2, 2011 at 11:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, ironyroad, Dick Cheney's book is out and from all the reviews and interviews I get the impression it is a fascinating, provocative, read. I was very encouraged to hear him describe in his conversation with Mika and Joe his youthful shenanigans as a very bad boy and how fortunate he was to have captured the heart of the girl would be his wife and who was graduating summa cum laude while he was sleeping off a very bad hangover on a county jail. You must know we women find bad boys irresistible, for some reason.

- noga1

September 3, 2011 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're still here. I hoped we had exorcised you. You positively exceeded yourself in your comments on the MLK thread. But later for you. _________________________________________ Irony I’ll be mercifully brief. I think a/the problem with your point about tragedy—the fall of the tragic hero—and that notion of it getting lost in the popular use of the term and as the term gets defined in dictionaries—as whyamihere (a metaphysical question if there ever was one) pointed to—is the superimposition of a philosophical-come-literary notion of tragedy (from Aristotle to some work a day literary theorists and critics—at least those around, Frye for example, when I was a girl) on popular use and common understanding of tragedy. If you push your own definition further you’d find popular use coming up short, too, for not having a conception of catharsis. Traditional, straight jacketed and literary based definitions of tragedy (and comedy too), as I recall, corralled a number of commentators trying to superimpose the terms as traditionally defined on works with which they were dealing. I think you compound that problem by your superimposition and I think that that compounded problem shows up in your comment that popular usage of tragedy effects a conflation and in your asking why 9/11 is a tragedy. I for one, btw, welcomed your question as thoughtful and provocative but I can see why some, like the titular metaphysician, would be quite annoyed by it.

- basman

September 3, 2011 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman -- today's NYT, the piece by art critic Edward Rothstein on 9/11 memorials, p. 2 (online edition), first para, last sentence. If I'm way off-target, it's nice to be off-target in good company.

- ironyroad

September 3, 2011 at 12:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm wondering ironyroad whether I misjudged your ability to make sarcastic comments, however subtly, or maybe you actually enjoy the company of garrulous, pompous and high-falutin' old women. There is a lot to be said for the latter, though, I hasten to add.

- noga1

September 3, 2011 at 1:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Edward Rothstein?? Why? Did you read his piece? I didn't provide a link as I thought the NYT is pretty easy to access but here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/arts/design/911-memorials-many-perspectives-few-answers.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha28 I had thought that you would largely agree with him, in fact.

- ironyroad

September 3, 2011 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW basman, regarding Mr. Metaphysical, check out the end of the Summers thread. Twenty-four hours so far and no response.

- ironyroad

September 3, 2011 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Edward Rothstein?? Why? Did you read his piece? " No, and neither did I read your words carefully enough. I should have done both. Forget what I wrote, can you? I am not really interested in this discussion about the meaning of tragedy. I basically agree with you but I seem to recall vaguely a conversation we once in which you were arguing a different position. You were for relaxing the boundaries of meanings of terms, something to which I have an instinctive resistance. I am always worried about terms losing their significance through dilution and inflational overuse leading to abuse and bastardization. (Am I allowed to employ this term, btw? One never knows these days).

- noga1

September 3, 2011 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course with you, ironyroad, one never knows. Full stop.

- noga1

September 3, 2011 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Many years ago I had a friend who was in fact "illegitimate," as they called it then. He had a lot of fun with people who would say something like "that guy was some stupid bastard" and then immediately fall over themselves to apologize "Oh Jimmy, sorry, wasn't thinking" (it tended to be mostly girls, who liked his aura of outsiderdom). About meanings and boundaries, maybe I've come around to your way of thinking. One never knows? It's odd because I tend to think of myself as pretty transparent -- I mean, most people who have spent time around here know what I do, have an idea where I am politically, what kind of movies I watch, and the like. I often even change my mind in public, e.g. over the Libyan intervention.

- ironyroad

September 3, 2011 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

".. his aura of outsiderdom). It's the bad boy attraction syndrome. "About meanings and boundaries, maybe I've come around to your way of thinking." Is that even marginally possible? "I tend to think of myself as pretty transparent" Yes I know all that but you are irony-prone aren't you, in that respect one can never be sure when you are being straightforward or ironical or (worst of all) simultaneously both. Or am I seeing things?

- noga1

September 3, 2011 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony I'll read the article you mentioned and tell you what I think.

- basman

September 3, 2011 at 6:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Different point: someone please tell Malahat I'm looking for him.

- basman

September 3, 2011 at 6:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Different point: Lee Ann Womack can sing bluegrass. Who knew? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81oLEim2oHc&NR=1

- basman

September 3, 2011 at 6:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Human beings are social creatures and need social interaction, feedback, and validation of their worth. The emotionally mature person doesn't need to go hunting for these; they gain it naturally from their daily life, especially from their work and from stable relationships.. The emotionally immature person, however, has low levels of self-esteem and self-confidence and consequently feels insecure; to counter these feelings of insecurity they will spend a large proportion of their lives creating situations in which they become the centre of attention. It may be that the need for attention is inversely proportional to emotional maturity, therefore anyone indulging in attention-seeking behaviours is telling you how emotionally immature they are. ... Insecure and emotionally immature people often exhibit bullying behaviours... Attention seeking methods ... The mind-poisoner: adept at poisoning peoples' minds by manipulating their perceptions of others, especially against the current target."

- noga1

September 3, 2011 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...09/03/2011 - 8:05pm EDT | noga1... Last line. Great insight into yourself there. Congrats.

- basman

September 3, 2011 at 10:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Great insight into yourself there." A typically garrulous and inane line from a person who is incapable of ever saying anything that is not a mind-numbing cliche, or a painfully unamusing, repeatedly- recycled joke.

- noga1

September 4, 2011 at 7:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ahhh she speaks! She is called out and exposed, writhing nakedly for the sheer piece of poison--giving arsenic a good name-- that she is as is well known by those who know her here and who have said so--here, there and everywhere--continuoually.

- basman

September 4, 2011 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oops, let's make that continually not continuoually or continuously for that matter.

- basman

September 4, 2011 at 1:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One of the great advantages of cyber communication is that many posters lose all sense of boundaries and express themselves in such candid ways that it is like climbing into that person's mind and directly inspecting its furniture. Some of the furniture is so breath stopping ugly that one wonders how anyone could possible lose their self control to such an extent as to allow it to be viewed. The above incontinent snarl and its chosen metaphor is a wonderful example of such lack of self-discipline.

- noga1

September 4, 2011 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Apologies for the repetition: One of the great advantages of cyber communication is that many posters lose all sense of boundaries and express themselves in such candid ways that it is like climbing into that person's mind and directly inspecting its furniture. Some of the furniture is so breath stopping ugly that one wonders how anyone could possible lose their self control to such an extent as to allow it to be viewed. The above incontinent snarl and its chosen metaphor is a wonderful example of such lack of self-discipline. I will let the elegant gentleman lawyer from Toronto have the last word.

- noga1

September 4, 2011 at 1:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm all Danish Modern, a little old and worn but still serviceable You, darlin', are a well understood mansion of snakes. More to come no doubt!

- basman

September 4, 2011 at 2:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga 1: I looked again at what I wrote after thinking about it a little. I want take back a few things. First, as far as I am concerned, there will be "no more to come." Second, you are have a point. I regret what I wrote here about you, don't like to see myself reflected in what I wrote, and I'm sorry for what I said. My genuine apology. Further, as I'm concerned, as between us, let the rest be silence. Life is too short. Itzik Basman

- basman

September 4, 2011 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...Further, as I'm concerned... should read ...Further, as far as I'm concerned...

- basman

September 4, 2011 at 4:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad, I read the article by Rothstein, of whom I had never heard. He'd indeed be good company to be in. He's at a minimum impressively credentialled. I don't think you cited him to advance an argument but rather to note him as someone kinda' "up there" who thinks about tragedy as do you. There are of course many things to say about his article, the thrust of which I agree with. These many things are not (immediately) to the point. As far as the argument goes, what he says--"This is why this attack is often mischaracterized as a tragedy, a drama that unfolds out of the flaws or failings of its victim"...merely restates the issue, in a throwawayish sort of way. And I think he's wrong for the reasons I've already given.

- basman

September 4, 2011 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I cited him for the fairly banal reason that he's someone "up there" who not so much thinks about tragedy as I do (which would be both a little presumptuous and a little defensive), but as someone who finds the misapplication of the term in certain significant circumstances worrisome. As I do.

- ironyroad

September 4, 2011 at 7:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...but as someone who finds the misapplication of the term in certain significant circumstances worrisome... I missed the part that's worrisome in him in the way that it is in you. Could you elaborate? For I think what he finds "worrisome" is not the misuse of "tragedy" as such--as in the fall of great men or whatever—or some kind of conflation in popular usage as reflected in dictionary definitions of the term but rather that the” mischaracterization” denotes to him a view of American blameworthiness for the attack, the attack unfolding "out of the flaws or failings of its victim," which blameworthiness I read him principally to reject. He doesn't seem too fussed about conflation in the popular understanding of tragedy. No?

- basman

September 4, 2011 at 9:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think we're at the hair-splitting stage, basman. If you're arguing that the precise object of our concern regarding the use of "tragedy" is not identical, I'm not going to fight it. This is a TNR thread, not an MLA panel. :)

- ironyroad

September 5, 2011 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see a fundamental difference. But okay! Would that I had some hair to split.

- basman

September 5, 2011 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close