newyorker--2020-01-29--Ben Smith on Leaving BuzzFeed News

Ben Smith on Leaving BuzzFeed News

On Tuesday , the New York Times announced that its new media columnist , a job most famously held by the late David Carr , will be Ben Smith , the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed News .
Smith , who was previously a political reporter for the New York Observer , the New York Daily News , and Politico , has led BuzzFeed News since 2012 , making it into a major source of investigative reporting , as well as some media controversies .
In 2017 , BuzzFeed was the first mainstream news outlet to publish the full Steele dossier , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s activities in Russia .
Last January , BuzzFeed announced that it would lay off fifteen per cent of its staff ; the following month , the editorial staff announced that it had formed a union .
Smith ’ s departure follows that of BuzzFeed ’ s vice-president of news and programming , Shani Hilton , who left last year , for the Los Angeles Times .
I spoke by phone with Smith on Tuesday , soon after the announcement .
During our conversation , which has been edited for length @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at BuzzFeed News , his vision of his role at the Times , and whether he has second thoughts about publishing the Steele dossier .
What is the state of media reporting and commentary today , and what , if anything , do you feel is missing ?
You know , I think , and I don ’ t want to talk a lot about other people ’ s reporting , but I think— That ’ s your whole job now .
Ha .
Is it ?
I think we live in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation where the President of the United States is a former NBCUniversal employee who is fundamentally a media figure , and where many of the biggest stories in the world are media stories , and the most explosive stories are at the intersection of media and something else—media and tech , media and politics , media and culture and entertainment—and those seem to me like the great stories , where you can touch those live wires together .
That ’ s always been interesting to me , and I always covered those stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Observer , from Peter Kaplan , was that media is contiguous with other stories about power .
Say more about what that means .
Just that there is no—and I am a political reporter—no clean line .
There is no clean line between politics and media .
Political campaigns are basically media operations that produce text and images and video and audio , and try to circulate them and compete with news organizations for the attention of audiences , and also are staffed up to manipulate , and get journalists to cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you try to draw some kind of clean line between media and politics you just miss the story .
And it makes political reporting both totally compromised and totally fascinating .
It seems like you are saying both that things are different now because we have a media figure as President and that politics and media have always been intertwined .
No , I think they have been increasingly intertwined since Roosevelt , but increasing steadily with the gradual collapse of the Party structures and their replacement by media .
Not in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trend that started in the nineteen-thirties and hasn ’ t stopped , and it has reached its culmination with Trump .
Do you see yourself in this role being more of an analyst or a reporter ?
So you are not going to be writing media criticism ?
I think a good story always breaks news .
I hope I can do that .
I also think every good story makes an argument .
I guess I am skeptical of the distinction between reporting and analysis , and I think good stories usually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times have a different duty or role in how it covers media by virtue of being the most important newspaper in America ?
I have never worked for the Times .
I have always competed against it .
And I am hoping to keep myself from getting scared of my own shadow .
I don ’ t plan to think about things like that much .
Except at dinner parties , where you tell everyone you work for the Times .
When I was trying to hire [ the Times reporter ] Nicholas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the thing about working for the Times is that you never have to explain yourself .
[ Laughs . ]
I don ’ t know .
I have always enjoyed competing against the Times .
Did you approach the Times , or did they approach you ?
And was it before or after your big piece on the upcoming executive-editor sweepstakes at the paper , which ran in November of last year ?
[ Laughs . ]
It was after .
I have talked to Dean [ Baquet , the Times ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , because I think he is the most thoughtful manager of a newsroom I have ever encountered , and , as I have hit difficult things in running the BuzzFeed newsroom , he is the person who has given me incredibly good and sometimes totally unsolicited advice .
I have had sort of a running conversation with him .
I don ’ t know him well , but he has been generous to me through the years .
And I think one of those conversations turned into a “ Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hire you for something ” conversation .
So they sought you out ?
Yeah , it wasn ’ t like I applied on the Web site .
What gives you confidence in the future of a place like BuzzFeed News in the current media environment ?
I mean , two things .
One is that I think great reporting speaks for itself and stands for itself , and BuzzFeed News has really been able to carve out this lane where we are competing at the highest level on breaking huge stories , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world , with a really small staff .
And with the real support of the company ’ s board and C.E.O .
I have real , obvious , non-public insight into that , and the fact that BuzzFeed is doing pretty well right now .
I think the company is in pretty good shape .
So those things make me confident .
Do you feel more confident than you did a year ago , when there were layoffs ?
I can ’ t remember what my confidence level was then , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that because we thought we had to make the place stable and successful , and that was awful , but I think did achieve what we wanted it to .
What do you view as your biggest journalistic decision and biggest journalistic accomplishment at BuzzFeed ?
I think that is for other people to say .
I don ’ t know .
Forget accomplishment .
You said Dean Baquet was good at giving advice .
If you were talking to the editor of a smaller place , and he or she asked about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say ?
The most important decisions I made at BuzzFeed were hiring editors , hiring people , particularly in those early days , and persuading people like Miriam Elder , Mark Schoofs , and Lisa Tozzi to join this totally insane venture .
And I think we were able to hire , through the years , great reporters and editors and producers , and I think those decisions and their decisions to come are the difference between success and failure .

On Tuesday, the New York Times announced that its new media columnist, a job most famously held by the late David Carr, will be Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed News. Smith, who was previously a political reporter for the New York Observer, the New York Daily News, and Politico, has led BuzzFeed News since 2012, making it into a major source of investigative reporting, as well as some media controversies. In 2017, BuzzFeed was the first mainstream news outlet to publish the full Steele dossier, a collection of intelligence reports about President Trump’s activities in Russia. Last January, BuzzFeed announced that it would lay off fifteen per cent of its staff; the following month, the editorial staff announced that it had formed a union. Smith’s departure follows that of BuzzFeed’s vice-president of news and programming, Shani Hilton, who left last year, for the Los Angeles Times.
I spoke by phone with Smith on Tuesday, soon after the announcement. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed his years at BuzzFeed News, his vision of his role at the Times, and whether he has second thoughts about publishing the Steele dossier.
What is the state of media reporting and commentary today, and what, if anything, do you feel is missing?
You know, I think, and I don’t want to talk a lot about other people’s reporting, but I think—
That’s your whole job now.
Ha. Is it? I think we live in a media age, and you have a situation where the President of the United States is a former NBCUniversal employee who is fundamentally a media figure, and where many of the biggest stories in the world are media stories, and the most explosive stories are at the intersection of media and something else—media and tech, media and politics, media and culture and entertainment—and those seem to me like the great stories, where you can touch those live wires together. That’s always been interesting to me, and I always covered those stories. Something I learned at the New York Observer, from Peter Kaplan, was that media is contiguous with other stories about power.
Say more about what that means.
Just that there is no—and I am a political reporter—no clean line. There is no clean line between politics and media. Political campaigns are basically media operations that produce text and images and video and audio, and try to circulate them and compete with news organizations for the attention of audiences, and also are staffed up to manipulate, and get journalists to cover them in certain ways, and if you try to draw some kind of clean line between media and politics you just miss the story. And it makes political reporting both totally compromised and totally fascinating.
It seems like you are saying both that things are different now because we have a media figure as President and that politics and media have always been intertwined.
No, I think they have been increasingly intertwined since Roosevelt, but increasing steadily with the gradual collapse of the Party structures and their replacement by media. Not in a linear way, but that is a trend that started in the nineteen-thirties and hasn’t stopped, and it has reached its culmination with Trump.
Do you see yourself in this role being more of an analyst or a reporter?
Reporter. I’m a reporter.
So you are not going to be writing media criticism?
I think a good story always breaks news. I hope I can do that. I also think every good story makes an argument. I guess I am skeptical of the distinction between reporting and analysis, and I think good stories usually contain reporting and analysis.
Does the Times have a different duty or role in how it covers media by virtue of being the most important newspaper in America?
I have never worked for the Times. I have always competed against it. And I am hoping to keep myself from getting scared of my own shadow. I don’t plan to think about things like that much.
Except at dinner parties, where you tell everyone you work for the Times.
When I was trying to hire [the Times reporter] Nicholas Confessore once, he said to me that the thing about working for the Times is that you never have to explain yourself. [Laughs.] I don’t know. I have always enjoyed competing against the Times.
Did you approach the Times, or did they approach you? And was it before or after your big piece on the upcoming executive-editor sweepstakes at the paper, which ran in November of last year?
[Laughs.] It was after. I have talked to Dean [Baquet, the Times’ executive editor] a lot throughout the years, because I think he is the most thoughtful manager of a newsroom I have ever encountered, and, as I have hit difficult things in running the BuzzFeed newsroom, he is the person who has given me incredibly good and sometimes totally unsolicited advice. I have had sort of a running conversation with him. I don’t know him well, but he has been generous to me through the years. And I think one of those conversations turned into a “Let’s have lunch; I want to try and hire you for something” conversation.
So they sought you out?
Yeah, it wasn’t like I applied on the Web site.
What gives you confidence in the future of a place like BuzzFeed News in the current media environment?
I mean, two things. One is that I think great reporting speaks for itself and stands for itself, and BuzzFeed News has really been able to carve out this lane where we are competing at the highest level on breaking huge stories, competitive with the biggest outlets in the world, with a really small staff. And with the real support of the company’s board and C.E.O. I have real, obvious, non-public insight into that, and the fact that BuzzFeed is doing pretty well right now. I think the company is in pretty good shape. So those things make me confident.
Do you feel more confident than you did a year ago, when there were layoffs?
I can’t remember what my confidence level was then, but that was awful, obviously. We did that because we thought we had to make the place stable and successful, and that was awful, but I think did achieve what we wanted it to.
What do you view as your biggest journalistic decision and biggest journalistic accomplishment at BuzzFeed?
I think that is for other people to say. I don’t know.
Forget accomplishment. You said Dean Baquet was good at giving advice. If you were talking to the editor of a smaller place, and he or she asked about your biggest decision, what would you say?
The most important decisions I made at BuzzFeed were hiring editors, hiring people, particularly in those early days, and persuading people like Miriam Elder, Mark Schoofs, and Lisa Tozzi to join this totally insane venture. And I think we were able to hire, through the years, great reporters and editors and producers, and I think those decisions and their decisions to come are the difference between success and failure.
When you say “totally insane venture,” are you referring—
Yeah, the brand. In 2012 and 2013, it required a certain leap of faith to believe me when I said we were going to be competing against the Times and the Post from the world’s leading animal Web site, which, by the way, we are proud to remain.
How much do you think about the Steele dossier?
How much do I think about it by what metric?
The pee tape. No, I meant as an editorial decision.
I think I don’t totally understand the question.
You were the first major news organization to publish the Steele dossier. It was controversial. I am wondering if you think back on that and weigh it in your mind, or, instead, what’s done is done, and you think it was the right one, and onward.


newyorker--2020-01-29--The People Who Power the Presidential Campaigns in Iowa

American political campaigns are embarked upon by politicians and staffed by professionals , but they achieve scale only with the help of volunteers .
More than two dozen Democrats came to Iowa in the past year looking to gain supporters for Presidential bids .
And , in a year when many voters hesitated to commit their support—many Iowans remain undecided even now , just days away from the state ’ s caucuses—almost all of these Democrats found people not just willing to support them but willing to give their time and effort to the cause .
Volunteers do on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggregate : they find people , they listen , they try to persuade .
As our politics have become more national and our campaigns more expensive and technology-driven , the tasks of volunteers have remained remarkably consistent .
Knock on one door , and then another .
Make one call , and then another .
Their work is intimate , humble , and hard .
Who are these people ?
I ’ ve spoken to Iowa volunteers from a number of the 2020 Democratic campaigns .
For the most part , they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly dedicated .
They include an Elizabeth Warren supporter who has essentially turned over her home to a campaign organizer , a Bernie Sanders supporter now on her second run with him , and a John Delaney supporter who came to the campaign , in part , after speaking with the former Maryland congressman about their shared Roman Catholic faith .
These volunteers have collectively conducted thousands of conversations with fellow-voters ; they are holding extremely rich survey data in their heads .
They have seen these campaigns from the ground level .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who volunteered for Cory Booker , her candidate dropped out between the time we spoke and the publication of this piece .
Bobo is experiencing early on what all but one of these volunteers will eventually : she dedicated herself to a candidate and a campaign , only to come up short .
Below , the volunteers discuss what turned them on to their candidates , and what in their lives has influenced their view of politics .
They tell the story of the 2020 Democratic race in Iowa as they saw it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been edited and condensed for clarity and length .
“ I grew up in Waterloo , Iowa .
I ’ m the youngest of five , the only Democrat in a house full of Republicans .
My husband is a Democrat , thank God .
“ I can understand people being Republican .
I have no problem with that .
I have problems with Trump .
I don ’ t know how you can be a Christian and support Trump .
I don ’ t know how you can be a good person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrap my mind around it .
I have a nephew who is handicapped .
And when Trump mocked that reporter , it crushed me .
“ I went to Coe College , in Cedar Rapids .
I was the only one in my family who went to college .
Part of my story and why I went to college is , when I was thirteen , I found out I had ovarian cancer .
I had a very rare form of cancer .
My parents took me to the Mayo Clinic .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have to go to college.
’ And I was , like , what does that have to do with this ?
And he said , ‘ You can only be on my insurance for four more years .
Your health now , that ’ s going to be important.
’ That ’ s why the Affordable Care Act , and protections for people with preëxisting conditions , means so much to me .
My kids , you know , they got to get through college and grad school and get started in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance .
“ Politics wasn ’ t really discussed in my house growing up .
I want to say Bill Clinton—that was the first time politics really started being discussed .
But I never have gotten involved until this year .
It basically is Trump .
He ’ s a bully , and we just can not handle four more years of him .
I just felt it was very important that we do something , and so I thought Joe Biden—I like him as a person , I think he has good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience , and I think he can beat Trump .
“ I got a call from Biden ’ s district coördinator here in Cedar Rapids .
I actually had just read the book ‘ Becoming , ’ by Michelle Obama .
And I ’ m , like , you know what , I need to get involved .
I just kind of felt that calling .
“ I have never attended a caucus .
This will be my first , and I ’ m going to be my precinct leader .
I just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters all over this area .
I call to let people know when Joe ’ s going to be in town , or the debate parties .
Basically , they just give me a list of people , and they tell me what message they need to get out , and I just start calling .
I do it most Saturdays , and then probably one or two nights a week .
“ A lot of people have a feeling that we really need to beat Trump .
I hear from people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s age .
Some people , they ’ ll say , ‘ I really like Buttigieg , but Joe ’ s my second choice.
’ Some people say , ‘ I ’ m a Trump supporter ’ and hang up on me .
I tell people Joe ’ s a really good candidate .
I let them know that Joe ’ s office is open in Cedar Rapids , if they want to stop by .
I answer questions about what a caucus is .
I talk people through the process .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t like conflict .
I had one person I called—a person at one of the events had stopped Joe and was upset about the situation with Hunter Biden , and I guess Joe kind of fired back angrily , saying , you know , ‘ My son did nothing wrong ’ —but I had one person right after that I called who said , ‘ I don ’ t like how Joe answered that question.
’ Iowans don ’ t like people who are confrontational .
I don ’ t think that plays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates .
“ But I got to meet Joe one day and talk to him .
He ’ s what I expected .
He seems really nice , asked me what my name was , thanked me for volunteering—I was sitting in a group where all the volunteers were .
I just told him , ‘ God bless , and keep up the good work.
’ “ My daughter actually kind of likes Warren .
That ’ s absolutely fine .
I ’ m not there to push my perspective on anybody .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the issues .
My husband hasn ’ t made up his mind yet , either .
He likes Buttigieg a lot ; he likes Biden a lot .
He will not go for Warren or Bernie—Medicare for All is not something that either he or I agree with .
I don ’ t think it ’ ll pass .
I think we need to work our way into it .
I ’ m not saying that someday that might not be an option .
But I don ’ t think you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come over and vote Democratic if you ’ re asking for Medicare for All .
We need someone who can get in there on Day 1 and put things back in order.
” “ My family owns a construction business .
We ’ re a small company .
My technical title is lead designer , but , as it goes in a small family business , you do , well , whatever .
Today I ’ m out sanding and staining woodwork .
My father-in-law started the business .
I joined probably twelve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were very politically active .
I was a lifelong Republican .
They still are .
There were a lot of things that made sense to me .
Being fiscally conservative , that makes sense .
You don ’ t spend money on things that you don ’ t have the money for .
The idea of small government , that the federal government should have a fairly limited role in people ’ s lives and the choices they make every day .
Those sorts of things appealed to me .
Unfortunately , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party today .

American political campaigns are embarked upon by politicians and staffed by professionals, but they achieve scale only with the help of volunteers. More than two dozen Democrats came to Iowa in the past year looking to gain supporters for Presidential bids. And, in a year when many voters hesitated to commit their support—many Iowans remain undecided even now, just days away from the state’s caucuses—almost all of these Democrats found people not just willing to support them but willing to give their time and effort to the cause. Volunteers do on their own everything that a campaign does in aggregate: they find people, they listen, they try to persuade. As our politics have become more national and our campaigns more expensive and technology-driven, the tasks of volunteers have remained remarkably consistent. Knock on one door, and then another. Make one call, and then another. Their work is intimate, humble, and hard.
Who are these people? I’ve spoken to Iowa volunteers from a number of the 2020 Democratic campaigns. For the most part, they were people identified by the campaigns themselves as particularly dedicated. They include an Elizabeth Warren supporter who has essentially turned over her home to a campaign organizer, a Bernie Sanders supporter now on her second run with him, and a John Delaney supporter who came to the campaign, in part, after speaking with the former Maryland congressman about their shared Roman Catholic faith. These volunteers have collectively conducted thousands of conversations with fellow-voters; they are holding extremely rich survey data in their heads. They have seen these campaigns from the ground level. In the case of Nancy Bobo, who volunteered for Cory Booker, her candidate dropped out between the time we spoke and the publication of this piece. Bobo is experiencing early on what all but one of these volunteers will eventually: she dedicated herself to a candidate and a campaign, only to come up short.
Below, the volunteers discuss what turned them on to their candidates, and what in their lives has influenced their view of politics. They tell the story of the 2020 Democratic race in Iowa as they saw it, up close. Their accounts have been edited and condensed for clarity and length.
Name: Dee Even
Candidate: Joe Biden
Age: Fifty-two
Place of residence: Cedar Rapids
“I grew up in Waterloo, Iowa. I’m the youngest of five, the only Democrat in a house full of Republicans. My husband is a Democrat, thank God.
“I can understand people being Republican. I have no problem with that. I have problems with Trump. I don’t know how you can be a Christian and support Trump. I don’t know how you can be a good person and support Trump. I cannot wrap my mind around it. I have a nephew who is handicapped. And when Trump mocked that reporter, it crushed me.
“I went to Coe College, in Cedar Rapids. I was the only one in my family who went to college. Part of my story and why I went to college is, when I was thirteen, I found out I had ovarian cancer. I had a very rare form of cancer. My parents took me to the Mayo Clinic. I remember my dad saying, ‘Now you have to go to college.’ And I was, like, what does that have to do with this? And he said, ‘You can only be on my insurance for four more years. Your health now, that’s going to be important.’ That’s why the Affordable Care Act, and protections for people with preëxisting conditions, means so much to me. My kids, you know, they got to get through college and grad school and get started in careers before they had to worry about insurance.
“Politics wasn’t really discussed in my house growing up. I want to say Bill Clinton—that was the first time politics really started being discussed. But I never have gotten involved until this year. It basically is Trump. He’s a bully, and we just cannot handle four more years of him. I just felt it was very important that we do something, and so I thought Joe Biden—I like him as a person, I think he has good character, he has a ton of experience, and I think he can beat Trump.
“I got a call from Biden’s district coördinator here in Cedar Rapids. I actually had just read the book ‘Becoming,’ by Michelle Obama. And I’m, like, you know what, I need to get involved. I just kind of felt that calling.
“I have never attended a caucus. This will be my first, and I’m going to be my precinct leader. I just started making phone calls and talking to voters all over this area. I call to let people know when Joe’s going to be in town, or the debate parties. Basically, they just give me a list of people, and they tell me what message they need to get out, and I just start calling. I do it most Saturdays, and then probably one or two nights a week.
“A lot of people have a feeling that we really need to beat Trump. I hear from people, some people are concerned about Joe’s age. Some people, they’ll say, ‘I really like Buttigieg, but Joe’s my second choice.’ Some people say, ‘I’m a Trump supporter’ and hang up on me. I tell people Joe’s a really good candidate. I let them know that Joe’s office is open in Cedar Rapids, if they want to stop by. I answer questions about what a caucus is. I talk people through the process.
“I think Iowa in general doesn’t like conflict. I had one person I called—a person at one of the events had stopped Joe and was upset about the situation with Hunter Biden, and I guess Joe kind of fired back angrily, saying, you know, ‘My son did nothing wrong’—but I had one person right after that I called who said, ‘I don’t like how Joe answered that question.’ Iowans don’t like people who are confrontational. I don’t think that plays well here, for any of the candidates.
“But I got to meet Joe one day and talk to him. He’s what I expected. He seems really nice, asked me what my name was, thanked me for volunteering—I was sitting in a group where all the volunteers were. I just told him, ‘God bless, and keep up the good work.’
“My daughter actually kind of likes Warren. That’s absolutely fine. I’m not there to push my perspective on anybody. I just want them to be aware of the issues. My husband hasn’t made up his mind yet, either. He likes Buttigieg a lot; he likes Biden a lot. He will not go for Warren or Bernie—Medicare for All is not something that either he or I agree with. I don’t think it’ll pass. I think we need to work our way into it. I’m not saying that someday that might not be an option. But I don’t think you’re going to get moderate Republicans to come over and vote Democratic if you’re asking for Medicare for All. We need someone who can get in there on Day 1 and put things back in order.”
Name: Lisa Fleishman
Candidate: Pete Buttigieg
Age: Forty-four
Place of residence: Carlisle
“My family owns a construction business. We’re a small company. My technical title is lead designer, but, as it goes in a small family business, you do, well, whatever. Today I’m out sanding and staining woodwork. My father-in-law started the business. I joined probably twelve years ago now.
“My parents were very politically active. I was a lifelong Republican. They still are. There were a lot of things that made sense to me. Being fiscally conservative, that makes sense. You don’t spend money on things that you don’t have the money for. The idea of small government, that the federal government should have a fairly limited role in people’s lives and the choices they make every day. Those sorts of things appealed to me. Unfortunately, that is not the story of the Republican Party today.
“I can actually tell you the day it happened. In 2008, I was going to go vote for John McCain. And, as I went to the polls, there were some fellas standing outside talking about Obama in very racial and unflattering terms. And I thought to myself at that time, That isn’t who I am—I don’t agree with any of that at all. And, just as my small, little act of rebellion, I went into the voting booth, and, instead of putting the check mark next to McCain’s name, I put the check mark next to Obama’s.


newyorker--2020-01-29--Watch Live: Donald Trump’s Senate Impeachment Trial Enters a New Phase

With both sides in Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial having completed their opening arguments , Wednesday ’ s hearing moves into less predictable territory .
The defense wrapped up its closing arguments in two hours on Tuesday , ending a three-day effort to clear the President of any wrongdoing .
One of the President ’ s attorneys , Jay Sekulow , primarily sought to downplay the recent revelations from a manuscript by John Bolton .
According to Bolton ’ s book , tentatively scheduled to be released in March , President Trump withheld military aid for Ukraine to pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the gas company Burisma and of the Bidens—and said so to Bolton while he served as Trump ’ s national-security adviser .
Senate Republicans , and the President ’ s defense team , have so far relied on a sliver of ambiguity between the quid and the quo .
Bolton ’ s narrative upends that notion .
John Cassidy writes that the Bolton news is showing the depth of the Senate Republicans ’ obsequiousness : “ Rarely , if ever , has a political blood oath—in this case , a pledge to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence against him , and without even bothering to call any witnesses—rebounded so horribly , publicly , and spectacularly.
” Whether the Senate decides to call witnesses , including Bolton , remains to be seen .
According to reporting by the Times , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell informed his caucus that he did not have enough votes to prevent the calling of witnesses .
Several moderate Republicans , including Susan Collins , of Maine and Mitt Romney , of Utah , have signalled that they are open to supporting an effort to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to flip in order for the Senate to call witnesses .
Additional testimony could open up other avenues of investigation and prolong the trial by several weeks .
The Democratic senators who are running for President—Elizabeth Warren , Bernie Sanders , Amy Klobuchar , and Michael Bennet—are already absent from the campaign trail , and an extension of the impeachment trial could affect their performances in the early-primary states .
On the other hand , if , in the end , McConnell is able to wrangle his caucus , the trial would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an acquittal .
Watch the live stream above for the latest in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump .

With both sides in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial having completed their opening arguments, Wednesday’s hearing moves into less predictable territory. The defense wrapped up its closing arguments in two hours on Tuesday, ending a three-day effort to clear the President of any wrongdoing. One of the President’s attorneys, Jay Sekulow, primarily sought to downplay the recent revelations from a manuscript by John Bolton. According to Bolton’s book, tentatively scheduled to be released in March, President Trump withheld military aid for Ukraine to pressure the Ukrainian government to announce an investigation of the gas company Burisma and of the Bidens—and said so to Bolton while he served as Trump’s national-security adviser.
Senate Republicans, and the President’s defense team, have so far relied on a sliver of ambiguity between the quid and the quo. Bolton’s narrative upends that notion. John Cassidy writes that the Bolton news is showing the depth of the Senate Republicans’ obsequiousness: “Rarely, if ever, has a political blood oath—in this case, a pledge to acquit a crooked President regardless of the evidence against him, and without even bothering to call any witnesses—rebounded so horribly, publicly, and spectacularly.”
Whether the Senate decides to call witnesses, including Bolton, remains to be seen. According to reporting by the Times, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell informed his caucus that he did not have enough votes to prevent the calling of witnesses. Several moderate Republicans, including Susan Collins, of Maine and Mitt Romney, of Utah, have signalled that they are open to supporting an effort to gather more information. Four Republicans would need to flip in order for the Senate to call witnesses. Additional testimony could open up other avenues of investigation and prolong the trial by several weeks. The Democratic senators who are running for President—Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, and Michael Bennet—are already absent from the campaign trail, and an extension of the impeachment trial could affect their performances in the early-primary states. On the other hand, if, in the end, McConnell is able to wrangle his caucus, the trial would very likely come to a swift end with an acquittal.
Watch the live stream above for the latest in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump.


newyorker--2020-01-29--Holding Virginia Woolf in Your Hands

Holding Virginia Woolf in Your Hands

What moves you to stand in the presence of the house , the landscape , the objects of a writer whom you so admire ?
Why are literary pilgrimages so compelling ?
Virginia Woolf explains : “ It would seem to be a fact that writers stamp themselves upon their possessions more indelibly than other people.
” Certainly , each year , thousands of people visit Monk ’ s House , Leonard and Virginia Woolf ’ s sixteenth-century cottage , in Rodmell , East Sussex .
It ’ s set right on the village street , a modest clapboard building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the small , low-ceilinged rooms are peopled with pilgrims .
You move quietly among them ; the atmosphere is hushed and meditative , like that in a church .
You are caught up in a silent current , adrift in Woolf ’ s life : these are the chairs that were decorated by her sister ; here is her narrow bed by the window ; here are her books , tightly packed , floor to ceiling .
You are very close to her here .
You are speaking with her in your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you could go to England and visit Woolf ’ s houses .
Or you could simply go to New York and visit the Berg Collection .
For decades , the collector William Beekman acquired things related to Woolf : letters , manuscripts , photographs , postcards , rare editions .
The William Beekman Collection of Virginia Woolf and Her Circle , consisting of a hundred and fifty-three such objects , has just been added to the Henry W. and Albert A. Berg Collection of English and American Literature , at the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a journey to the Berg imposes certain exigencies .
Access is restricted , and you must make an appointment .
You must leave your coat and bag downstairs .
The atmosphere is hushed and solemn : this is the inner sanctum .
Here are words that have changed history , governments , laws , morals , mores , marriages , and minds .
The librarian brings things out to you , one by one .
The Beekman materials are encased in beautiful clothbound slipcases , with gold titles on the spines .
Opening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The earliest letter in the collection is one from Virginia to her sister Vanessa , on the occasion of Vanessa ’ s wedding , in 1907 .
It ’ s written on two big sheets of heavy paper , folded in half and stitched down the center , making four leaves .
The message is whimsical and charming : “ Address of Congratulation to our Mistress on her Approaching Marriage.
” It ’ s written in the collective voice of the siblings , who are presented in the guise of animals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ art critic Clive Bell ) to be “ clean , merry , and sagacious , ” and their Mistress ( Vanessa ) to be “ very understanding of Apes , loving & wholesome , vigilant after fleas , & scourging of all Misdoing.
” The letter is signed , in a different colored ink , by Virginia , as the three apes and the wombat .
It ’ s hard to think of anything more playful , more intimate , more deeply familial than this handwritten , hand-sewn message to a beloved sister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a part of Virginia Woolf ’ s life .
It ’ s odd to find yourself so deep inside it , reading this note .
Do you wonder by what right you read it ?
But the letters are here , so you read on .
Animal nicknames were rife in the family .
Vanessa called Virginia Goat , or Singe ( French for “ ape ” ) .
Virginia called Vanessa Dolphin .
Leonard and Virginia had their own pet names for each other : he was Mongoose ; she was Mandrill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) from Leonard Woolf to Vita Sackville-West continues the trope : This letter was written during a period when Virginia was pursuing an erotic friendship with Sackville-West .
Virginia suffered periodically from depression and illness , and was frequently under doctors ’ orders regarding diet and rest .
Leonard ’ s playful , affectionate request shows his trust in Sackville-West , and also his deep concern for his wife .
Not all the messages are so private .
A postcard to Virginia ’ s nephew Julian Bell reads , in its entirety , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does ‘ Die like a rose in aromatic pain ’ come from ?
Pope ?
And what is the right quotation ?
And where are your poems , VW.
” To a friend , Marjorie Joad , Virginia describes a chaotic day at Hogarth Press , the publishing house that she founded with her husband : “ I ’ ve been meaning every day to write to you , but we live in a gale of wind and every feather on my head is upright .
.
.
all the psycho-analyst books have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Windsor castle in ruins upon the floor ; Leonard ’ s in his shirt sleeves .
.
.
.
Grizzle [ the dog ] is making darts for peoples legs .
.
.
.
I have just counted out a ream of paper and found large hoof marks halfway through .
Then you think I can write a novel !
” It ’ s so like Woolf to jumble these things together , the many parts of her life—intellectual , emotional , fierce , tender , and hilarious .
We know the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was Woolf herself who taught us that it ’ s from such shifting bits of awareness that the whole person can be revealed , or the whole world .

What moves you to stand in the presence of the house, the landscape, the objects of a writer whom you so admire? Why are literary pilgrimages so compelling? Virginia Woolf explains: “It would seem to be a fact that writers stamp themselves upon their possessions more indelibly than other people.” Certainly, each year, thousands of people visit Monk’s House, Leonard and Virginia Woolf’s sixteenth-century cottage, in Rodmell, East Sussex. It’s set right on the village street, a modest clapboard building with a big garden beyond. Inside, the small, low-ceilinged rooms are peopled with pilgrims. You move quietly among them; the atmosphere is hushed and meditative, like that in a church. You are caught up in a silent current, adrift in Woolf’s life: these are the chairs that were decorated by her sister; here is her narrow bed by the window; here are her books, tightly packed, floor to ceiling. You are very close to her here. You are speaking with her in your mind.
As a literary pilgrim, you could go to England and visit Woolf’s houses. Or you could simply go to New York and visit the Berg Collection. For decades, the collector William Beekman acquired things related to Woolf: letters, manuscripts, photographs, postcards, rare editions. The William Beekman Collection of Virginia Woolf and Her Circle, consisting of a hundred and fifty-three such objects, has just been added to the Henry W. and Albert A. Berg Collection of English and American Literature, at the New York Public Library. Like any pilgrimage, a journey to the Berg imposes certain exigencies. Access is restricted, and you must make an appointment. You must leave your coat and bag downstairs. The atmosphere is hushed and solemn: this is the inner sanctum. Here are words that have changed history, governments, laws, morals, mores, marriages, and minds. The librarian brings things out to you, one by one. The Beekman materials are encased in beautiful clothbound slipcases, with gold titles on the spines. Opening these exquisite cases is like unwrapping treasure.
Virginia Woolf’s study, at Monk’s House, in Rodmell, East Sussex. Photograph by Albert Knapp / Alamy
The earliest letter in the collection is one from Virginia to her sister Vanessa, on the occasion of Vanessa’s wedding, in 1907. It’s written on two big sheets of heavy paper, folded in half and stitched down the center, making four leaves. The message is whimsical and charming: “Address of Congratulation to our Mistress on her Approaching Marriage.” It’s written in the collective voice of the siblings, who are presented in the guise of animals.
Dear Mistress, We the undersigned three Apes and a Wombat wish to make known to you our great grief and joy at the news that you intend to marry. We hear that you have found a new Red Ape of a kind not known before who is better than all other apes because he can both talk & marry you: from which we are debarred.
They declare the Red Ape (the art critic Clive Bell) to be “clean, merry, and sagacious,” and their Mistress (Vanessa) to be “very understanding of Apes, loving & wholesome, vigilant after fleas, & scourging of all Misdoing.” The letter is signed, in a different colored ink, by Virginia, as the three apes and the wombat.
It’s hard to think of anything more playful, more intimate, more deeply familial than this handwritten, hand-sewn message to a beloved sister. Holding these pages, you hold a part of Virginia Woolf’s life. It’s odd to find yourself so deep inside it, reading this note. Do you wonder by what right you read it? But the letters are here, so you read on.
Animal nicknames were rife in the family. Vanessa called Virginia Goat, or Singe (French for “ape”). Virginia called Vanessa Dolphin. Leonard and Virginia had their own pet names for each other: he was Mongoose; she was Mandrill. An undated letter (circa 1927) from Leonard Woolf to Vita Sackville-West continues the trope:
Dear Vita, I am entrusting a valuable animal out of my menagerie to you for the night. It is not quite sound in the headpiece. It should be well fed & put to bed punctually at 11. It will be v. good of you if you will see to this & pay no attention to anything wh. it may try to say for itself. LW.
This letter was written during a period when Virginia was pursuing an erotic friendship with Sackville-West. Virginia suffered periodically from depression and illness, and was frequently under doctors’ orders regarding diet and rest. Leonard’s playful, affectionate request shows his trust in Sackville-West, and also his deep concern for his wife.
Not all the messages are so private. A postcard to Virginia’s nephew Julian Bell reads, in its entirety, “For Heavens sake tell me where does ‘Die like a rose in aromatic pain’ come from? Pope? And what is the right quotation? And where are your poems, VW.” To a friend, Marjorie Joad, Virginia describes a chaotic day at Hogarth Press, the publishing house that she founded with her husband: “I’ve been meaning every day to write to you, but we live in a gale of wind and every feather on my head is upright . . . all the psycho-analyst books have been dumped in a fortress the size of Windsor castle in ruins upon the floor; Leonard’s in his shirt sleeves. . . . Grizzle [the dog] is making darts for peoples legs. . . . I have just counted out a ream of paper and found large hoof marks halfway through. Then you think I can write a novel!”
It’s so like Woolf to jumble these things together, the many parts of her life—intellectual, emotional, fierce, tender, and hilarious. We know the value of these scattered shards; it was Woolf herself who taught us that it’s from such shifting bits of awareness that the whole person can be revealed, or the whole world.
Woolf’s writing brought her fame, but part of her appeal comes from the seductive glow of her suicide, that black comet streaking across her sky. Her final act is one we can never absorb, never forgive, never understand. She chose to leave us in a way that feels brutal; it feels personal.
“Oh, the death letters,” says the librarian.
There are thirteen of them, held in an ebony case titled “Letters to Vita Sackville-West on the Death of Virginia Woolf.” These letters reveal a place so sad and private, so deep in the interior, that, although we may read them, we understand that they are not ours to know. We can only approach the mystery of another consciousness; we can’t share this passage.
The letters to Sackville-West are from Leonard and Vanessa. After Woolf’s death, by drowning, in the River Ouse, at first the body was not found. It was thought to have floated out to sea. Vanessa wrote, “There is no news of course—It seems to me likely there never will be, which perhaps is best.” But later the body was found. It was sickening news; the body was now a thing. Vanessa wrote this about Leonard: “He arranged too for cremation at Brighton yesterday & didn’t want me to go. So I didn’t. There was no ceremony, nothing. . . . But I cannot bear to think of him alone in that house—though I know he would not stand being anywhere else.” What is moving about the letters is their immediacy: Virginia’s death was still ringing in the air when the words were set down.
The most powerful letter is Leonard’s. He sat down to write on the day itself, March 28, 1941.


newyorker--2020-01-29--John Bolton’s Book Is Making Fools of Trump’s Republican Enablers

Speaking to reporters after Donald Trump ’ s lawyers completed their opening arguments in his impeachment trial on Tuesday , Chuck Schumer , the Senate Minority Leader , could barely conceal a smile .
“ I hope we have just four Republicans .
All we need is four , ” he said .
At another press conference , Adam Schiff , the leader of the House managers , said it was clear that the President ’ s lawyers were “ still reeling from the revelations of John Bolton ’ s book.
” John Kelly , Trump ’ s former chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he believed Bolton ’ s claim , first reported in the Times , that Trump told his former national-security adviser that he wouldn ’ t release military aid to Ukraine unless the Ukrainian government pursued an investigation of the Bidens .
Schiff called this “ extraordinary.
” That term also describes the pickle in which Mitch McConnell , John Cornyn , Lindsey Graham , Ted Cruz , and the rest of Trump ’ s Republican enablers now find themselves .
“ Mortifying ” is another word that could be used .
Rarely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oath—in this case , a pledge to acquit a crooked President regardless of the evidence against him , and without even bothering to call any witnesses—rebounded so horribly , publicly , and spectacularly .
Like Trump , when the whistle-blower ’ s complaint originally emerged , McConnell and his colleagues have been caught in the act .
And it couldn ’ t have happened to a more deserving bunch .
Schiff ’ s description was off in one respect .
Trump ’ s lawyers aren ’ t the only ones who are reeling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book ; the entire G.O.P .
ecosystem is frazzled .
On his show on Monday night , the Fox Business channel ’ s Lou Dobbs , whose on-air encomiums to Trump have earned him special treatment from the White House , was reduced to putting up a picture of Bolton , a veteran Republican hawk who has served in the Administrations of four G.O.P .
Presidents , with the label “ A TOOL FOR THE LEFT.
” Next , Dobbs will be telling us that John Kelly is a member of the Fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called on Bolton to testify , is a closet Bernie Sanders supporter .
Even Sean Hannity , the primus inter pares of Trump ’ s media outriders , seemed a bit discombobulated by the Bolton news .
On his radio show on Monday , the best Hannity could manage was to fire at the messenger .
“ The problem is it ’ s a Times story , ” he told his listeners .
“ How often did this New York Times get things wrong ?
” In this case , it seems , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Bolton , his literary agency , and his publisher released a joint statement on Monday denying that they had anything to do with leaking the contents of the book , they didn ’ t deny a word of the newspaper ’ s original report .
Oh , to be a fly on the wall when Pat Cipollone , the lead member of Trump ’ s legal team , learned about the Times scoop .
Rather than arguing that their client ’ s misdeeds didn ’ t rise to the level of impeachable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with straight faces , echoed the President ’ s claim that he didn ’ t demand a quid pro quo from Ukraine and , indeed , did nothing wrong at all .
They ’ ve also argued that there is no firsthand evidence to show that he did .
On Monday night , in closing the defense ’ s arguments for the day , Cipollone seemed to hint at a shift in strategy when he said , “ This choice belongs to the people .
They will make it months from now.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ loyalists in the Senate who were left most exposed .
( Trump lawyers and Fox News anchors are paid to twist the truth , after all . )
The initial reaction , typified by John Cornyn , the second-ranking G.O.P .
senator , was to say that there was nothing new in the Bolton story .
Late Tuesday afternoon , Senate Republicans emerged from a meeting at which McConnell had reportedly told them that he no longer had enough votes to block witnesses , including Bolton .
Once again , they tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what we could learn ” from witnesses , Rand Paul said to CNN .
“ We ’ ve heard all we could possibly hear.
” To be sure , there isn ’ t much more to be said about Trump ’ s perfidy , and , in the grand scheme of things , even the spectacle of Bolton providing a firsthand account of the President ’ s lying and venality may not do him much further damage .
We all recall his quote about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue .
Many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Washington pariah .
But the former national-security adviser showing up on Capitol Hill and telling his damaging tale ( evidently , the Ukraine material isn ’ t the only revelation in Bolton ’ s book ) would certainly reflect badly on the Republicans who tried to prevent him from appearing .
These senators already look like patsies and enablers .
If Bolton repeated what is reportedly in the book for all the world to see and hear , it would make them look like blithering idiots as well .
Who else would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preposterous defense—that his real concern was corruption inside Ukraine ?
Regardless of what happens next , the Republicans are still likely to acquit the President—there has never been much doubt about that .
But if McConnell somehow succeeds in preventing Bolton from testifying after all this , there can no longer be even any pretense that the trial is on the level , or that an acquittal along party lines is anything other than an abject display of political cowardice and self-abasement by the current generation of Republican senators .
For the timely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whoever told the Times about what ’ s in Bolton ’ s book .

Speaking to reporters after Donald Trump’s lawyers completed their opening arguments in his impeachment trial on Tuesday, Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, could barely conceal a smile. “I hope we have just four Republicans. All we need is four,” he said. At another press conference, Adam Schiff, the leader of the House managers, said it was clear that the President’s lawyers were “still reeling from the revelations of John Bolton’s book.” John Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff, said on Monday that he believed Bolton’s claim, first reported in the Times, that Trump told his former national-security adviser that he wouldn’t release military aid to Ukraine unless the Ukrainian government pursued an investigation of the Bidens. Schiff called this “extraordinary.”
That term also describes the pickle in which Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and the rest of Trump’s Republican enablers now find themselves. “Mortifying” is another word that could be used. Rarely, if ever, has a political blood oath—in this case, a pledge to acquit a crooked President regardless of the evidence against him, and without even bothering to call any witnesses—rebounded so horribly, publicly, and spectacularly. Like Trump, when the whistle-blower’s complaint originally emerged, McConnell and his colleagues have been caught in the act. And it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving bunch.
Schiff’s description was off in one respect. Trump’s lawyers aren’t the only ones who are reeling from the news about Bolton’s book; the entire G.O.P. ecosystem is frazzled. On his show on Monday night, the Fox Business channel’s Lou Dobbs, whose on-air encomiums to Trump have earned him special treatment from the White House, was reduced to putting up a picture of Bolton, a veteran Republican hawk who has served in the Administrations of four G.O.P. Presidents, with the label “A TOOL FOR THE LEFT.” Next, Dobbs will be telling us that John Kelly is a member of the Fourth International and Mitt Romney, who has called on Bolton to testify, is a closet Bernie Sanders supporter.
Even Sean Hannity, the primus inter pares of Trump’s media outriders, seemed a bit discombobulated by the Bolton news. On his radio show on Monday, the best Hannity could manage was to fire at the messenger. “The problem is it’s a Times story,” he told his listeners. “How often did this New York Times get things wrong?” In this case, it seems, the Times got it exactly right. When Bolton, his literary agency, and his publisher released a joint statement on Monday denying that they had anything to do with leaking the contents of the book, they didn’t deny a word of the newspaper’s original report.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Pat Cipollone, the lead member of Trump’s legal team, learned about the Times scoop. Rather than arguing that their client’s misdeeds didn’t rise to the level of impeachable offenses, he and his colleagues have, with straight faces, echoed the President’s claim that he didn’t demand a quid pro quo from Ukraine and, indeed, did nothing wrong at all. They’ve also argued that there is no firsthand evidence to show that he did. On Monday night, in closing the defense’s arguments for the day, Cipollone seemed to hint at a shift in strategy when he said, “This choice belongs to the people. They will make it months from now.”
But it was Trump’s loyalists in the Senate who were left most exposed. (Trump lawyers and Fox News anchors are paid to twist the truth, after all.) The initial reaction, typified by John Cornyn, the second-ranking G.O.P. senator, was to say that there was nothing new in the Bolton story. Late Tuesday afternoon, Senate Republicans emerged from a meeting at which McConnell had reportedly told them that he no longer had enough votes to block witnesses, including Bolton. Once again, they tried to stonewall. “I don’t know what we could learn” from witnesses, Rand Paul said to CNN. “We’ve heard all we could possibly hear.”
To be sure, there isn’t much more to be said about Trump’s perfidy, and, in the grand scheme of things, even the spectacle of Bolton providing a firsthand account of the President’s lying and venality may not do him much further damage. We all recall his quote about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. Many of his supporters revel in his status as a Washington pariah. But the former national-security adviser showing up on Capitol Hill and telling his damaging tale (evidently, the Ukraine material isn’t the only revelation in Bolton’s book) would certainly reflect badly on the Republicans who tried to prevent him from appearing. These senators already look like patsies and enablers. If Bolton repeated what is reportedly in the book for all the world to see and hear, it would make them look like blithering idiots as well. Who else would have agreed to countenance Trump’s preposterous defense—that his real concern was corruption inside Ukraine?
Regardless of what happens next, the Republicans are still likely to acquit the President—there has never been much doubt about that. But if McConnell somehow succeeds in preventing Bolton from testifying after all this, there can no longer be even any pretense that the trial is on the level, or that an acquittal along party lines is anything other than an abject display of political cowardice and self-abasement by the current generation of Republican senators. For the timely clarification, we are in debt to whoever told the Times about what’s in Bolton’s book.


newyorker--2020-01-29--If You Teach a Man to Fish

If You Teach a Man to Fish

If you give a man a fish , he will eat for a day .
If you teach a man to fish , he will spend a bunch of money on new fishing gear that he ’ ll use once and then leave in his garage for ten years .
Then , after a decade of collecting dust , the fishing gear will finally have a purpose .
You see , the man will be asked to go on a fishing-themed bachelor-party trip—his friend is getting remarried—and he ’ ll go to R.E.I .
to buy a fishing pole .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ ll remember that he already has a pole ( the one that you basically made him get when you taught him how to fish ) .
So he ’ ll abandon his R.E.I .
shopping cart , run home , and pull everything out of storage—the pole , the tackle box , even the wrinkled T-shirt that says “ Gone Fishing , Back Never !
” And he ’ ll think , I remember how to do this .
And he will go on the fishing-themed bachelor trip .
And on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarried—will ask the man to teach him how to cast a line , and the man will recall what you taught him .
And the man ’ s friend will be impressed and feel safe enough to confess that he doesn ’ t want to get remarried , because he isn ’ t really in love again .
He actually isn ’ t sure that he ’ s ever felt love before .
“ What is love ?
” the friend will ask .
“ Is it what we see in the movies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feeling or an action ?
Is it God ?
” “ This is love , ” the man will reply , motioning between them .
“ Being vulnerable .
Being open .
That ’ s love .
Now help me reel this in !
” And the man and his friend will reel in the line , and on the end of it they will find , instead of a fish , a severed human hand .
And they will scream .
And they will report it to the local police .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the man will become a suspect in the case .
And , even though he is innocent , he will leave the country out of resentment , vowing never to return .
And this will make him look even more guilty .
And the man will miss his friend ’ s wedding .
And his friend will look out into the pews and realize that the man isn ’ t there , and he will take this as a sign that love is God , and the friend will call off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the man will bounce around overseas for a while—first in Greece , where he will get a job on a fishing boat , catching as many fish as possible , trying to fill a void in himself that was created by the severed hand .
And , eventually , wanted posters for the man will go up on a nearby Greek island which read “ Have you seen this man ?
Because he probably cut off someone ’ s hand.
” And the man ’ s crew will start to ask too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to prove his innocence , he will move to Nepal , where he will attempt to climb Mount Everest .
And , when he nearly runs out of oxygen , he will understand what it is like to be one of the fish he knows how to catch , and he will feel a deep , sad empathy that he has never felt before .
And he will legally change his name to Fish .
And then , finally , Fish will settle down in Lithuania .
And , in Lithuania , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself a house near a small village at the edge of a lake , where he will live by himself .
And , one day , a stranger will walk up to him and say , “ I see you fishing here every day , and you catch so many , but you always let them go.
” And it will be true—ever since Everest , Fish hasn ’ t been able to eat a single fish .
He just watches them gasp for breath , then , just before they pass over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the water , tears streaming down his face .
And the stranger will say , “ Would you teach me how to fish ?
” And the man will look up , wipe his eyes , smile , take a deep breath , and say , “ Absolutely fucking not .
”

If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he will spend a bunch of money on new fishing gear that he’ll use once and then leave in his garage for ten years.
Then, after a decade of collecting dust, the fishing gear will finally have a purpose. You see, the man will be asked to go on a fishing-themed bachelor-party trip—his friend is getting remarried—and he’ll go to R.E.I. to buy a fishing pole. And, while waiting in line, he’ll remember that he already has a pole (the one that you basically made him get when you taught him how to fish). So he’ll abandon his R.E.I. shopping cart, run home, and pull everything out of storage—the pole, the tackle box, even the wrinkled T-shirt that says “Gone Fishing, Back Never!” And he’ll think, I remember how to do this.
And he will go on the fishing-themed bachelor trip. And on the trip, his friend—who is getting remarried—will ask the man to teach him how to cast a line, and the man will recall what you taught him. And the man’s friend will be impressed and feel safe enough to confess that he doesn’t want to get remarried, because he isn’t really in love again. He actually isn’t sure that he’s ever felt love before.
“What is love?” the friend will ask. “Is it what we see in the movies and on TV? Is it a feeling or an action? Is it God?”
“This is love,” the man will reply, motioning between them. “Being vulnerable. Being open. That’s love. Now help me reel this in!”
And the man and his friend will reel in the line, and on the end of it they will find, instead of a fish, a severed human hand. And they will scream. And they will report it to the local police. And it will totally derail the bachelor trip.
And the man will become a suspect in the case. And, even though he is innocent, he will leave the country out of resentment, vowing never to return. And this will make him look even more guilty. And the man will miss his friend’s wedding. And his friend will look out into the pews and realize that the man isn’t there, and he will take this as a sign that love is God, and the friend will call off the wedding and join the ministry.
And the man will bounce around overseas for a while—first in Greece, where he will get a job on a fishing boat, catching as many fish as possible, trying to fill a void in himself that was created by the severed hand. And, eventually, wanted posters for the man will go up on a nearby Greek island which read “Have you seen this man? Because he probably cut off someone’s hand.”
And the man’s crew will start to ask too many questions. And, instead of trying to prove his innocence, he will move to Nepal, where he will attempt to climb Mount Everest. And, when he nearly runs out of oxygen, he will understand what it is like to be one of the fish he knows how to catch, and he will feel a deep, sad empathy that he has never felt before. And he will legally change his name to Fish.
And then, finally, Fish will settle down in Lithuania. And, in Lithuania, he will learn the language and build himself a house near a small village at the edge of a lake, where he will live by himself. And, one day, a stranger will walk up to him and say, “I see you fishing here every day, and you catch so many, but you always let them go.” And it will be true—ever since Everest, Fish hasn’t been able to eat a single fish. He just watches them gasp for breath, then, just before they pass over into death, he throws them back in the water, tears streaming down his face.
And the stranger will say, “Would you teach me how to fish?” And the man will look up, wipe his eyes, smile, take a deep breath, and say, “Absolutely fucking not.”


newyorker--2020-01-30--Connie Schultz on the Politics of the Primaries

This week marks a particularly eventful moment in American politics , with the Senate conducting the impeachment trial of Donald Trump and the Democratic candidates for President—including four senators , who will vote on impeachment—holding their final campaign events before the Iowa caucuses , on February 3rd .
Bernie Sanders , who lost Iowa to Hillary Clinton by the narrowest of margins in 2016 , now appears likely to win the state , with former Vice-President Joe Biden running just behind him .
To discuss the latest turns in American politics , I recently spoke by phone with Connie Schultz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often addresses her working-class background and progressive politics .
Though Schultz , a lifelong Midwesterner , has spent much of her career writing about the region , she has an insider ’ s view on the workings of Washington : she is married to Senator Sherrod Brown , of Ohio , who considered running for the Democratic nomination last year .
Schultz ’ s last book , “ .
.
.
And His Lovely Wife , ” chronicles her time on the Senate campaign trail with Brown in 2005 and 2006 .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ novel , “ The Daughters of Erietown.
” During our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , we discussed Midwestern Democrats ’ concerns about Medicare for All , Schultz ’ s reservations about some Sanders supporters , and what the impeachment trial has revealed about Senate Republicans .
One interesting dynamic of this Democratic primary has been a lot of élite concern about the field , coupled with polls revealing that voters are mostly happy with the choice of candidates .
How do you understand that gap ?
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billionaires , people close to Barack Obama , many media analysts .
That ’ s fair .
Depending on where I am walking and with whom I am talking , I can certainly hear that at times .
But I also remind everyone that this is what it means to have a Democratic primary .
It ’ s always like this .
I grew up in a union family , and I am used to complaints about the Democratic field , as a journalist covering it for so many years and obviously as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I just feel accustomed to hearing this and am not too concerned right now .
You mention billionaires , and of course you have two in the race now .
Is [ Tom ] Steyer a billionaire or just a multimillionaire ?
It ’ s a question we have asked about Trump .
For them to argue that the field needed them—I am sorry , I never quite understood that .
But it is not an uncommon thing to hear right now .
You have been covering politics for a long time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have heard this before .
Oh , that ’ s interesting .
Well , we didn ’ t have as many candidates , of course .
I don ’ t know that that ’ s the reason we didn ’ t hear it in 2008 , though .
Why do you think it was that we didn ’ t hear it as much ?
There was a unique , generational political talent in Barack Obama , and there was also someone who was perceived as a strong candidate of enormous accomplishment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rubber hit the road in 2016 , things became more complicated .
But putting aside the complaints of billionaires , I don ’ t think it is crazy that people feel anxiety about this field .
I don ’ t think it ’ s crazy .
I guess I think it ’ s not unexpected , no matter who is running .
I feel like the disclosure is so important here .
You obviously know who I am married to , and you know that we have been hearing this probably more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sherrod to run .
But that may be why I tend to be a little more relaxed about it Another way of phrasing this : One thing we don ’ t really see is a candidate like your husband—an office-holder in the Midwest with a more economically populist message .
Given what needs to be done to defeat Trump , that seems noticeable .
Well , certainly , if you talk to some of the candidates , they would tell you that they absolutely fill all the gaps , as you know .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that argument , being a Midwesterner .
If you listen to Sanders , you would never think anybody had to be from the Midwest .
I am not going to make the claim—and I don ’ t know if this is why you called me—that the only person who could effectively defeat Donald Trump , or who would be the ideal candidate , is my husband .
I wasn ’ t asking for that at all .
But I guess what I am saying is that there is a reason people wanted your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a certain niche , and I am not sure that niche is currently being filled .
I appreciate that , and certainly I hear that regularly .
I think there are a number of people in this field right now who can beat Donald Trump , and I think it all depends on turnout .
I just had two young students in my office today talking to me about their concerns about the election , and I said , “ Look , if most of you register to vote , the election is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large numbers , first of all , everybody would be talking about issues they care about , including climate change and student debt .
You ’ re not hearing as much about it—and you ’ re certainly never going to hear about it from the Republicans—at the rate they want , unless they start voting .
How would you differentiate your politics , or Senator Brown ’ s , from Elizabeth Warren ’ s and Sanders ’ s , respectively ?
I am not going to speak for Sherrod , first of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t see the point in tearing down other candidates .
Sherrod is from the Midwest , and he is in a state—and this is a little different than anyone else , I suppose—that Trump won by a little over eight points , and Sherrod ran for reëlection two years later and won by seven points .
Sherrod never sat in on the focus groups , but I did , and we did focus groups of Trump voters throughout 2018 .
We would separate them by gender—you always separate by gender if women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what was interesting to me at that time is that the male Trump voters were essentially lost to us , no matter what .
I remember , weeks after John McCain died , hearing two of them talk about how he wasn ’ t a war hero because he got captured , which is absolutely parroting Donald Trump .
But the female voters started to peel off over family separations and health care .
Since then , we have had the horrible mass murder in Dayton , and I wouldn ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have us hearing about guns more than we did before .
So that has left me optimistic about some Trump voters .
And that ’ s why I have always thought Ohio can still be in play , too .
The debate over health care has shifted since 2018 from saving Obamacare to passing Medicare for All .
Do you worry how that debate will play in the Midwest ?
I worry about this .
If your platform is going to be Medicare for All , you are going to lose a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who like their health-care plans .
They hear that—no matter how you explain it—as losing the insurance they have come to depend on and have negotiated for .
These are union contracts .
That ’ s what makes me worry about Medicare for All .
And also just the cost of it .
For some reason , some of the candidates talk about how they are going to pay for it .
That ’ s not what voters are listening to .
What they are listening to is what is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have always thought—independent of my husband—that incremental is the way to go on this .
We can eventually get there over time , but I worry that running on it in 2020 is a losing cause for us .

This week marks a particularly eventful moment in American politics, with the Senate conducting the impeachment trial of Donald Trump and the Democratic candidates for President—including four senators, who will vote on impeachment—holding their final campaign events before the Iowa caucuses, on February 3rd. Bernie Sanders, who lost Iowa to Hillary Clinton by the narrowest of margins in 2016, now appears likely to win the state, with former Vice-President Joe Biden running just behind him.
To discuss the latest turns in American politics, I recently spoke by phone with Connie Schultz, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist whose work often addresses her working-class background and progressive politics. Though Schultz, a lifelong Midwesterner, has spent much of her career writing about the region, she has an insider’s view on the workings of Washington: she is married to Senator Sherrod Brown, of Ohio, who considered running for the Democratic nomination last year. Schultz’s last book, “. . . And His Lovely Wife,” chronicles her time on the Senate campaign trail with Brown in 2005 and 2006. This June, she will publish her first novel, “The Daughters of Erietown.” During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed Midwestern Democrats’ concerns about Medicare for All, Schultz’s reservations about some Sanders supporters, and what the impeachment trial has revealed about Senate Republicans.
One interesting dynamic of this Democratic primary has been a lot of élite concern about the field, coupled with polls revealing that voters are mostly happy with the choice of candidates. How do you understand that gap?
So how are you defining élites?
Certain billionaires, people close to Barack Obama, many media analysts.
That’s fair. Depending on where I am walking and with whom I am talking, I can certainly hear that at times. But I also remind everyone that this is what it means to have a Democratic primary. It’s always like this. I grew up in a union family, and I am used to complaints about the Democratic field, as a journalist covering it for so many years and obviously as someone married to a United States senator. I just feel accustomed to hearing this and am not too concerned right now.
You mention billionaires, and of course you have two in the race now. Is [Tom] Steyer a billionaire or just a multimillionaire?
It’s a question we have asked about Trump.
For them to argue that the field needed them—I am sorry, I never quite understood that. But it is not an uncommon thing to hear right now. You have been covering politics for a long time, haven’t you?
Yeah, I guess almost fifteen years.
So you have heard this before.
I didn’t hear it in 2008.
Oh, that’s interesting. Well, we didn’t have as many candidates, of course.
I don’t know that that’s the reason we didn’t hear it in 2008, though.
Why do you think it was that we didn’t hear it as much?
There was a unique, generational political talent in Barack Obama, and there was also someone who was perceived as a strong candidate of enormous accomplishment in Hillary Clinton. Obviously, when the rubber hit the road in 2016, things became more complicated. But putting aside the complaints of billionaires, I don’t think it is crazy that people feel anxiety about this field.
I don’t think it’s crazy. I guess I think it’s not unexpected, no matter who is running. I feel like the disclosure is so important here. You obviously know who I am married to, and you know that we have been hearing this probably more than average because there were people who wanted Sherrod to run. But that may be why I tend to be a little more relaxed about it
Another way of phrasing this: One thing we don’t really see is a candidate like your husband—an office-holder in the Midwest with a more economically populist message. Given what needs to be done to defeat Trump, that seems noticeable.
Well, certainly, if you talk to some of the candidates, they would tell you that they absolutely fill all the gaps, as you know. [Amy] Klobuchar would certainly make that argument, being a Midwesterner. If you listen to Sanders, you would never think anybody had to be from the Midwest. I am not going to make the claim—and I don’t know if this is why you called me—that the only person who could effectively defeat Donald Trump, or who would be the ideal candidate, is my husband.
I wasn’t asking for that at all. But I guess what I am saying is that there is a reason people wanted your husband to run, because he filled a certain niche, and I am not sure that niche is currently being filled.
I appreciate that, and certainly I hear that regularly. I think there are a number of people in this field right now who can beat Donald Trump, and I think it all depends on turnout. I just had two young students in my office today talking to me about their concerns about the election, and I said, “Look, if most of you register to vote, the election is won.” If young people registered in large numbers, first of all, everybody would be talking about issues they care about, including climate change and student debt. You’re not hearing as much about it—and you’re certainly never going to hear about it from the Republicans—at the rate they want, unless they start voting.
How would you differentiate your politics, or Senator Brown’s, from Elizabeth Warren’s and Sanders’s, respectively?
I am not going to speak for Sherrod, first of all. I will say that I don’t see the point in tearing down other candidates. Sherrod is from the Midwest, and he is in a state—and this is a little different than anyone else, I suppose—that Trump won by a little over eight points, and Sherrod ran for reëlection two years later and won by seven points. Sherrod never sat in on the focus groups, but I did, and we did focus groups of Trump voters throughout 2018. We would separate them by gender—you always separate by gender if women are ever going to talk. But what was interesting to me at that time is that the male Trump voters were essentially lost to us, no matter what. I remember, weeks after John McCain died, hearing two of them talk about how he wasn’t a war hero because he got captured, which is absolutely parroting Donald Trump.
But the female voters started to peel off over family separations and health care. Since then, we have had the horrible mass murder in Dayton, and I wouldn’t be surprised if those focus groups now would have us hearing about guns more than we did before. So that has left me optimistic about some Trump voters. And that’s why I have always thought Ohio can still be in play, too.


newyorker--2020-01-30--Joanna Russ, the Science-Fiction Writer Who Said No

Yet , in her letters to James Tiptree—who was herself no stranger to mother issues—Russ returned often to the subject of her mother , and in a different tone .
She described her mother in one letter as being “ nutty as a fruitcake , ” writing , “ There is something particularly awful about having a crazy mother who also tries to possess you utterly .
( And a father who shrinks from interfering—who , in fact , colludes . )
” In another letter , she writes that , when she was fifteen , she was “ absolutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt inside me all the time was me .
.
.
.
Ever since I ’ ve been sure that the only people who could like me were vampires like my mother , or fellow-defectives.
” Russ ’ s stories about her childhood—mother-victim , mother-vampire—represent not contradictory accounts but a process , neither linear nor ever really over , of trying to think herself into having some sort of friendship with her mother .
In one of her short stories from the seventies , Russ imagines repeatedly encountering and trying to rescue her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russ asks herself , toward the end of the story , “ my mother ’ s mother ?
” Feminist utopias , as she wrote in one essay , often concerned themselves with “ the rescue of the female child.
” Bertha had once been a child , too .
Even if Russ could save her only through fiction , it was still worth a try .
Though “ The Female Man ” is Russ ’ s most famous book , and deservedly so , the exploration of this particular dynamic—of saving children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too—emerges most provocatively in “ The Two of Them , ” from 1978 , which follows Ernst and Irene , romantically involved agents from an organization called the Trans-Temporal Authority .
The couple are on a mission to Ka ’ abah , a subterranean society on a desert planet where gender roles are so intensely enforced that any woman who seeks to live otherwise is functionally lobotomized .
( Russ borrowed this setting from the writer Suzette Haden Elgin , to whom the novel is dedicated , but later expressed regret at deploying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
Zubeydeh , a little girl whom the two encounter during their stay , wishes to be a poet ; her Aunt Dunya shared the same ambition , “ went mad , ” and disappeared .
Irene and Ernst have an ideal partnership—respectful , sexually appreciative , and full of the gentle inside jokes and shared knowledge that come with time .
As a teen-ager , Irene ran away with Ernst , in part to escape the suffocating world of her childhood on Earth , a decision that has paid off .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s difficult mother , presenting himself as her “ friend ” even though they don ’ t really seem to know each other .
( It ’ s not impossible that Irene ’ s mother , too , once travelled with Ernst . )
In Ka ’ abah , Irene discovers an intensified version of what she left behind and decides to rescue Zubeydeh—who displays no great talent for poetry—over the objections of Ernst .
Once the couple have taken Zubeydeh and begun their journey back to headquarters , they start , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little things about how she and Ernst talk to each other : his habit of condescending to her , her habit of appealing to his authority .
She apologizes too much .
She has , perhaps , not left her childhood at all : she has made “ a big loop—even into the stars—and all for nothing.
” She plans to flee with the child back to Earth .
When Ernst tries to stop her , she shoots and kills him .
And , when offered the chance to save another child , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is Irene ’ s life-work , ” the narrator coolly tells us , “ to collect women and little girls from the far corners of the Universe .
But not little boys.
” That the little boy in question seems as if he might be abused by men , too , is not Irene ’ s problem .
“ The Two of Them ” was Russ ’ s last great sci-fi novel , part of a streak of increasingly bleak books that began with “ The Female Man ” and continued with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
.
, ” a story of shipwrecked space travellers .
Within the novel , killing Ernst and refusing to save the other child are both genuinely shocking acts .
They are so shocking that the narrator entertains , for a moment , the possibility that they didn ’ t happen .
But , instead , Russ makes a more interesting decision : she crafts a world in which patriarchy is inescapable , and then she suggests that within that world her heroine is still capable of evil .
The “ good ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the kind of power he knows he can take back .
But , within these structures , people also make choices , and they are still responsible for the evil they do , even if they did it to survive , because the imperative of survival is itself dubious .
After all , that ’ s what drives the men in these stories , too .
This is a dynamic that shows up in much of Russ ’ s fiction .
In “ We Who Are About to .
.
.
, ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newly discovered planet try to perpetuate themselves through enforced breeding of the female passengers .
When one , Elaine , peacefully opts out , the others pursue her ; she kills all of them , including a child .
The colonists ’ delusional need to feel as if they can rebuild civilization , even if through rape , is inexcusable ; yet it is not clear that murdering all of them is excusable , either .
Dying alone , Elaine hallucinates the ghosts of those she killed .
“ I had the muscles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , ” one says to her .
“ I was not beautiful , I was stupid , and I knew nothing .
.
.
.
But still , you killed me.
” Rescuing or not rescuing the girl in distress , rebelling or choosing not to , shooting or not shooting the man in your way : these are all choices that must be made in desperate circumstances , but they are not choices that should escape judgment .
In “ The Two of Them , ” Irene also wants to rescue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the mother doesn ’ t wish to leave .
Though she spends all her time drugged into submission , and though she ’ s complicit in the destruction of her sister , she would rather sacrifice her child and her sister than resist her husband .
She has dreams of being a cat , dreams in which she appears to achieve some kind of happiness .
Next to this , a freedom she can not be sure she ’ ll even enjoy holds few attractions .
That she is undoubtedly a victim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coward .
Russ ’ s alternatives , to return to Le Guin ’ s term , came down not to looking backward or to mulling over grievances but to saying no .
Maybe it wasn ’ t enough to reject the world , but without that rejection nothing else could begin .
One had to say no and go on saying it .
The title of “ The Female Man ” refers to the moment when one of its protagonists , Joanna , rejects her own social role ; toward the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ I love my body dearly and yet I would copulate with a rhinoceros if I could become not-a-woman ” :

The idea started innocuously enough. In 1975, one Jeff Smith, the publisher of the fanzine Khatru, moderated a symposium in letters on “Women in Science Fiction.” Smith invited some of the foremost women in the field to participate and, alongside them, two men: Samuel R. Delany and James Tiptree, Jr. (Tiptree was not, as it would turn out, a man, but nobody would know that until after the symposium had ended.)
Unsurprisingly, the tone of the exchanges quickly turned combative. Many of the participants took jabs at Smith, who meant well yet was often clueless. (“I did not realize how emotional a subject this could be,” he wrote, at one point.) But the most interesting dispute emerged among the women. As the symposium was drawing to a close, Ursula K. Le Guin bowed out of the conversation with what she dubbed her “Final Deliberately Irritating Statements.” “It’s time,” she said,
we stop whining about what awful things I have done to women and what awful things men have done to me, and then compensating by daydreaming about retaliation and the Perfectly Guiltless Society; it’s time we try to start intelligently and passionately and compassionately considering, proposing, inventing, and acting out alternatives. If even people in science fiction can’t do that, can’t look forward instead of back, it’s bad news for the women’s movement, and everybody else.
Le Guin was not targeting the symposium at large but two participants in particular: Delany and the science-fiction author Joanna Russ. When Le Guin asked, elsewhere in her statement, if the idea was that women “write John Wayne’s wet dreams with the sexes reversed,” she was probably thinking of Russ’s just-published novel “The Female Man,” which features both an all-women planet, on which women engage in duels, and a sex-segregated planet in a state of permanent war.
In her heyday, Russ was known as a raging man-hater. This reputation was not entirely unearned, though it was sometimes overstated. Of one of her short stories, “When It Changed,” which mourns a lost female utopia, the science-fiction novelist Michael Coney wrote, “The hatred, the destructiveness that comes out in the story makes me sick for humanity. . . . I’ve just come from the West Indies, where I spent three years being hated merely because my skin was white. . . . [Now I] find that I am hated for another reason—because Joanna Russ hasn’t got a prick.” To read “When It Changed” after reading this description is to be a bit let down.
But the rift between Russ and Le Guin was a different sort of disagreement. Even before the symposium, the two writers had begun to distinguish themselves from each other, though Russ seems to have been more invested in these differences than Le Guin was. In public, Russ had written a harsh review of Le Guin’s “The Dispossessed,” characterizing some of the book’s central conceits as “a fancy way of disguising what we already know” and its anarchist society as poorly realized. Privately, to mutual friends, Russ accused Le Guin of being accommodating to men, of refusing to write as a woman. In some ways, Le Guin conceded the argument—she claimed to write under the influence of her male “animus”—but in other ways she resisted. After all, wasn’t her freedom not to write “as a woman” precisely the point?
At stake in this disagreement was not simply the sorts of struggles that feminists have always had with one another. There was also a question of what science fiction was for and what it should ultimately do. For Russ and Le Guin both, science fiction represented the possibility of telling a genuinely new story. Science fiction, Russ once wrote, was poised to “provide myths for dealing with kinds of experiences we are actually having now, instead of the literary myths we have inherited, which only tell us about the kinds of experiences we think we ought to be having.” The form aspired not to fantasy but to reality.
The search for that reality led Russ and Le Guin in different directions, and, though the latter has become, in the years since, the face of women in speculative fiction, it would be a mistake to regard Russ as overshadowed. Russ entered college at fifteen, sold her first story at twenty-two, came out as a lesbian in a field dominated by men, and, before her death, in 2011, published several science-fiction novels, a handful of story collections, a lesbian romance called “On Strike Against God,” and a stream of sharp-elbowed criticism, becoming an inescapable member of the community. Furthermore, she was brilliant in a way that couldn’t be denied, even by those who hated her. Her writing was at once arch and serious; she issued her judgments with supreme confidence, even when they were issued against herself. She was here to imagine, to invent wildly, and to undo the process, as one of her heroines puts it, of “learning to despise one’s self.” But she was going to have a lot of fun doing it. And, if you were doing anything else, you were not really, to her mind, writing science fiction.
In “Joanna Russ,” a new survey of Russ’s work, the writer and critic Gwyneth Jones provides a helpful window into Russ’s early life. Born to a Jewish family in the Bronx in the late nineteen-thirties, Russ initially had a charmed childhood. Her parents, Bertha and Evarett, were schoolteachers, and they encouraged their daughter in various pursuits. There were trips to the Bronx Zoo and the Museum of Natural History; Russ often spent evenings gazing through a telescope with her father. Afterward, with the help of her parents, she would put together little books about what she’d seen, giving them titles like “Thoughts of a Deluded Scientist.”
But something changed, either when Russ was around eight or when she was in her early teens. Her story, at this point, is not always the same. In the story that Jones quotes, Russ’s father fell ill and, afraid he might die, became a bully. This is a version of the story Russ told, particularly in public. At the Khatru symposium, she recalled Bertha as “a Squashed Woman,” “guilty at being intelligent, guilty at having gone to graduate school (she always explained effusively how much she hated it—she, who knew the Oxford Book of English Verse by heart!) . . . guilty at being competent at anything.”
Yet, in her letters to James Tiptree—who was herself no stranger to mother issues—Russ returned often to the subject of her mother, and in a different tone. She described her mother in one letter as being “nutty as a fruitcake,” writing, “There is something particularly awful about having a crazy mother who also tries to possess you utterly. (And a father who shrinks from interfering—who, in fact, colludes.)” In another letter, she writes that, when she was fifteen, she was “absolutely convinced the cold, starving badness I felt inside me all the time was me. . . . Ever since I’ve been sure that the only people who could like me were vampires like my mother, or fellow-defectives.”
Russ’s stories about her childhood—mother-victim, mother-vampire—represent not contradictory accounts but a process, neither linear nor ever really over, of trying to think herself into having some sort of friendship with her mother. In one of her short stories from the seventies, Russ imagines repeatedly encountering and trying to rescue her mother. “Am I,” Russ asks herself, toward the end of the story, “my mother’s mother?” Feminist utopias, as she wrote in one essay, often concerned themselves with “the rescue of the female child.” Bertha had once been a child, too. Even if Russ could save her only through fiction, it was still worth a try.