Saturday, October 31, 2009

Sympathy for the Devil, Part 1


"We may not pay Satan reverence, for that would be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents."
- Mark Twain

"Devil or angel, I can't make up my mind
Which one you are I'd like to wake up and find"
- "Devil or Angel", words and music by Blanche Carter

A recent sermon given at the First Parish in Waltham was based on the novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire. This alternative narrative of the familiar Wizard of Oz storyline presents the story from the point of view of Elphaba, the Wicked Witch of the West. In Maguire's retelling, Elphaba and her sister Nessarose really are not nearly as wicked as we were led to believe from the original story. Sure, the witches of the East and the West do have their moral lapses, but in this version of the story, so do the Wizard of Oz and Glinda. Moreover, as we learn more about Elphaba and Nessa, we find that even their worst behavior resulted from understandable motives. Elphaba had fought many injustices and suffered many heartaches before, in sheer desperation, she resorted to the wicked acts that she is now known primarily for.

"Wicked" is part of a growing genre: stories that center around a common popular culture villain, and present him or her in a more sympathetic light.

  • The musical "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog" deals with a super hero (Captain Hammer) battling an evil mad scientist (Dr. Horrible), but this time we see the battle through the mad scientist's eyes. We see Captain Hammer as a conceited jerk who motivation is not really justice; it is his insatiable need for fame and adulation. Dr. Horrible (he really is a doctor, he has a PhD in Horribleness) is much easier to empathize with.
  • In recent decades, fictional works depict vampires as more than just blood-crazed killers; they are shown to more complex and nuanced characters whose misdeeds are driven more by need than by malice. The sympathetic vampire first appeared in the 1960's day time drama "Dark Shadows", and continues to the day in the "Twilight" series of romantic novels and movies.
  • It seems that western bad men appear as heroes almost as frequently as they do a villains: Butch Cassidy, Jesse James, and Belle Starr have all gotten favorable treatments in books, movies, and TV series.

A lot of popular culture utilizes irredeemably evil villains. So why is there so much desire to see the more lovable side of characters originally created to be objects of our hate? In some cases, the "villain-as-hero" story variant is an elegant way of satirizing the original story. This form of role reversal also provides a novel twist to an otherwise familiar story. But most of all, I think these revisionist looks at our fictional antiheroes are motivated by a certain sense of realism: nobody is either purely evil or purely virtuous, hence any tale with such black and white characterizations is not telling you the whole story.

In fact, the need to look beyond black and white characterizations of people was actually the point of the sermon on "Wicked". All too often we base our moral decision making on a highly simplistic stereotypes. Conservative commentators often dismiss their opponents as "unpatriotic Birkenstock-wearing socialistic weasels". Some liberal media figures are no better, characterizing those who disagree with them as "puritanical gap-toothed cave-dwelling rednecks". Far too many religious leaders say that all non-believers are amoral. New atheist writers such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have responded to this outrage with equally broad (and unfair) portraits of religious communities. Not even religious liberals are immune from this problem: how often do we fall back on a comforting but inaccurate vision of the fundamentalists?

Let us end the agony causes by an exaggerated perception of the evil of others. If we can get past clear cut heroes and villains in our fiction, why can't we do it in real life? Gregory Maguire provides us with a valuable lession: if you want to be good, you have to understand "Wicked".

Friday, October 30, 2009

25 Will Get You 35



"Only one deception is possible in the infinite sense, self-deception."
- Søren Kierkegaard

"That ain't working, that's the way you do it
Money for nothing and your chicks for free"
- Mark Knopfler, from "Money for Nothing"

Way back in the 1970's, there was an odd coin operated device advertised in a mail order catalog (I think it was Spencer gifts). When you put a quarter into this device, it would return a quarter and a dime. How can 25 cents get you 35 cents? Simple, you have to load the machine with dimes ahead of time for this machine to work. The idea is to use the device to cheer yourself up: when you've had a bad day where nothing is going right, you can depend on your trusty coin machine to give back a little more than you put in.

When I first saw this device advertised, I could not understand how it could possibly work. Of course I understood how it could spit out a quarter and a previously loaded dime; what I didn't understanding is how it could cheer someone up. Is this device anything more than just a way to scam yourself? And given your active participation in setting this device up, isn't the scam a bit too transparent to be effective? I mean, can melancholy really be cured by playing Lou Costello to a sock puppet Bud Abbott?

Well, that was what I thought when I was a naive young lad. Since then I've seen this coin operated device work quite effectively in many different guises. Take, for example, the euphoria earlier this week over the latest Gross Domestic Product figures. The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the GDP grew 3.5% in the third quarter. Wall Street responded with a big jump in the Dow Jones Average. Isn't this proof that all that stimulus spending is finally having the desired effect of reviving the economy?

Not quite, and to understand why, you have to look at how the Bureau of Labor Statistics computes the GDP. The Bureau includes government spending in the GDP, and does so with the rather optimistic assumption that every dollar spent by the government creates one dollar of economic value. So if the government spends 1.5 billion dollars on a bridge to nowhere that will be used by virtually no one, the BLS would count the building of that bridge as adding 1.5 billion to the GDP. So a lot the 3.5% increase in GDP is simply the tremendous boom in government deficit spending, including those hideously expensive bailouts and stimulus programs. The GDP figures are the Spencer gift coin device all over again: we are cheered by seeing dimes mixed in with the quarters, temporarily forgetting that all those dimes came from us. Or I should say those dimes will come from us, since the stimulus program was financed by borrowing.

Check out this candid, illusion-busting analysis of the latest GDP figures by French economist Veronique de Rugy here.

Well, the euphoria over the GDP turned out to be short lived. The stock market gave up those impressive gains today. The reality of our current economic environment interfered with our dreams of spending ourselves rich. This crisis crisis will eventually pass, but not until we abandon the deceptions and work on creating real wealth.