Lewis Lapham has died
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
"In 2005, Mr. Lapham wrote and appeared in 'The American Ruling Class,' a documentary-style film featuring fictional characters as well as interviews with real celebrities, including Bill Bradley, Walter Cronkite, Pete Seeger, Robert Altman and Barbara Ehrenreich."
Unfortunately as described it doesn't capture quite how unusual, innovative, and special this film is.
It's a "dramatic-documentary-musical." A mixture of dramatic filmmaking, documentary filmmaking, and even some elements of musical.
Its main topic/idea is to show two promising college students on graduation day, one pursuing a career of money and power (in high finance) and the other pursuing art (via writing). Lapham uses this lens to analyze all aspects of American society from a class and power direction. Mainly to show the draw of power and conformity for the college-educated elite, and the way a struggling working class subsidizes their ambitions with their labor.
In the film, Lapham himself is both a narrator and a principal, acting as a mentor to one of the two "characters," who are played by actors, but thrown into conversation with real people, including some people holding powerful positions, and some intellectual celebrities.
Ehrenreich, who had recently completed the book "Nickel and Dimed" (2001), in which she goes "undercover" as the working poor, has a role in the film, too. She "plays" the role of a worker at a restaurant, and she and the other workers, at one point, break out in song, a song titled "Nickel and Dimed." I read a review of this movie that called this scene "divine madness," and I agree.
This is one of a small collection of movies I have on DVD, because it's so small and interesting as a film, that I rewatch it from time to time. I sometimes struggle to find it on streaming networks or online. It acts as a little bit of a life decoder for me, since I grew up as a public school educated child of immigrants with not-that-much class awareness, graduated from a top college around the time the film was made, got recruited to work on Wall Street (much as the film portrays in its opening scenes), then left a Wall Street job after 3 years to co-found and work on a tech startup for many years.
Anyway, I was influenced by a lot of Lapham's work, especially his moral clarity in anti-war writing during the Iraq War years. But this one little film really stuck with me. RIP, Lewis Lapham.
It's currently on the Internet Archive:
https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/the-american-ruling-class
I did just find the DVD though:
https://kinolorber.com/product/the-american-ruling-class-dvd
Apparently home DVD and educational rights are split. Kino has the home rights. Educational rights are here:
https://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/arc.html
This is the point at which I throw up my hands and download it from the Internet Archive.
[1] https://worrydream.com/refs/Lapham_1994_-_The_Eternal_Now.pd...
15 minutes you won't regret!
Specifically, I'd like to call out his podcast ("The World In Time"). Its past episodes remain treasure troves of wisdom, with LL's resonant voice asking the kind of engaging questions that are a rarity these days. Highly recommended.
And when I say entire history, I mean back to 1850 something. It's also indexed, subject tagged and searchable. If you search the archive for "Dickens" you'll see that several of his novels were published there originally in serial form, but you'll also find random non-fiction essays he published, as well as his contemporaries writing about him. It's kind of an extraordinary resource.
2022: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lewis-lapham-money-and...
<https://web.archive.org/web/20231129142353/https://www.lapha...>
It's easy to say something like 'War am Bad", but are you willing to be civil to sh*theads?
I do believe that FAFO moment is coming, but it's going to come as a surprise to the folks that distorted the definition of authoritarianism and employed it as a dishonest attack against everyone who simply disagreed with their opinion.
Both-sidesism doesn't work here. Only one side is trying to make democratic voting more difficult, and it isn't the American liberals. Only one side is arguing that the rule of law should not apply to politicians in power, and it isn't the American liberals.
You can make an argument that liberals are weaponizing social opinion, and you can completely critique liberals for a lot of things, but authoritarianism is disingenuous.
But it looks like the limits of your comprehension and ability to dialogue in an objective manner have been met.
Ideology is a hell of a drug.
Your argument is in bad faith and trying to be deliberately obtuse doesn't do you any favors.
Tell me, which politician said “I love you. You got to get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not going to have to vote.”?
American liberals are not above reproach in any sense of the word, but your argument about authoritarianism only applies to the Trump section of the Republican Party in America, along with the associated Christian Nationalists. Any other group is so small as not to matter.
What you refer to as "painfully obvious" is in reality a construct that was born, and continues to live, in your highly ideological, Leftist radicalized mind. Both sides accuse each other's candidate, every four years, of plotting to perpetually stay in power. This is a strong indication that you're not over 30-years old and again, still easily inflamed by the passion of the masses. Neither Obama, Biden, or Trump have ever had plans to become dictators.
Hopefully you mature past this ideologically-fueled phase you're in and you realize just what a political pawn you've allowed yourself to become.
Kamala just had an artist perform a song about her "fat pu#sy" and twerked on stage at her fundraising event.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the party that will restore decency in America.
I wish you the best. But you are wrong -- and blind.
'When standing on the thirteenth tee at the National Golf Links in Southampton, which club does one take from the bag? On final approach under sail into Hay Harbor on Fishers Island, what is the direction (at dusk in late August) of the prevailing wind?'"
Does anyone know where I could get issues of Laphams Quarterly in person in London?
Anytime I look online the price is extortionate because it is coming from the US.
Edit: that was more than a year ago, though, so I'm not sure if they still carry it, but I'd hope so.
(They have an awesome podcast too, if you’re interested in indie publishing: https://magculture.com/blogs/podcast)
"Lapham's Quarterly was placed on an indefinite hiatus on November 3, 2023, citing "a combination of financial challenges". The most recent issue, titled "Energy", was released digitally."
I don't know what was happening internally, but it was just impossible for me to support them after that, and I imagine it was the beginning of the end for them.
Unfortunately one of the consequences of the ad and attention-based technocratic economy is that people like them aren’t valued anymore. Making silly memes or offensive jokes gets you about 10x the attention, and as far as I can tell, every platform is optimized for this. Even the better ones like Substack end up being dominated by loud people with narrow viewpoints.
Ironically, the front section of Harper's featuring short tidbits and excerpts from random sources had a social-media-esque ADD vibe to it that made it feel edgy to aspiring and enlightened 20 year-olds. E.g. post 9-11 there was a list of songs banned from the radio ("it's raining men" etc.) sharing a page with a court transcript of a wiretapped conversation between a Mafia don to one of his stooges that wouldn't be out of place in an episode of the Sopranos.
Lapham Quarterly also had that vibe -- I seem to remember a tongue-in-cheek visual on how many people Rambo killed in every Rambo movie.
Now and then I see some people with thousands of followers on twitter mimic that style to great effect.
The main difference is obviously how far down the rabbit hole they went with connecting two bits of random information, e.g being able to juxtapose a Don't Play list for the radio during modern times to a Don't Eat list from an edict in the Roman Empire during some plague.
In 1984, Harper’s Magazine was completely redesigned by editor Lewis H. Lapham and MacArthur...Recognizing the time constraints of the modern reader, the revived magazine introduced such original journalistic forms as the Harper’s Index, Readings, and the Annotation to complement its acclaimed fiction, essays, and reporting.
How long will it be before we can't believe any of it?
And with books going obsolete, then what?
The internet has slop, distractions, and pernicious falsehoods.
If you remember encyclopedias from before computers, 99% of the time you attempted to look something up, you found a singular paragraph, with no sources, barely introducing you to a topic. Even Microsoft Encarta on a bunch of CDs was that barren.
Wikipedia has expanded the expected content and coverage of encyclopedias 10x, and has not significantly reduced accuracy despite a supposed "anyone can contribute" model.
It's no coincidence in my life that I was constantly starving for knowledge until Wikipedia was created. Not that stumbling down wikipedia rabbit holes for hours on end made me a brilliant person or whatever, but it did give me a love for computing history and enough surface level knowledge to hang out around TheDailyWTF since I was 12, and that led to learning that I liked programming and a career in it that I definitely would not have found without wikipedia.
But having a non-internet reference is very good because it encourages learning and curiosity in a way that a website just doesn't. The main thing that's wrong with Wikipedia is that every other distraction online is just a click away.
early 20th century encyclopedia: useless, source of confusion.
A singular "objective truth" never existed. That’s the basis of historiography.
Publications can be "palatable" while not fitting one’s "worldview". The goal of reading should be to be challenged. You can find interesting things anchored in many theoretical frameworks and I encourage people to read editorials spanning different political leanings.
To answer the original comment, I personally read and enjoy The New Yorker and grab the LRB and the Economist from time to time on top of what I read in my native language.
PROSPECTUS of a weekly paper, to be published every Saturday, and to be called THE ECONOMIST, which will contain — First.—ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day ...
<https://web.archive.org/web/20181105190846/https://www.econo...>
I'll also note that I find the Economist to be among the better sources I read, and its (broadly-advertised) advocacy isn't as obnoxious as in some other pubs or institutions which come to mind.
If you like soccer, The Blizzard