Bad Romance Novels

“ Fifty Shades of Let ’ s Just Be Friends ” “ He Told Me Secrets , He Told Me Lies , He Told Me He Had Health Insurance ” “ In Space , No One Can Hear You Scream ‘ I Love You ’ ” “ The Duke and I and the Duke ’ s Weird Horse , Sunday Johnson ” “ Not Quite a Gentleman , but Definitely a Deadbeat Dad ” “ Always and Forever , or Until Our Netflix Queue Runs Out ” “ Lucky in Love , Unlucky in Winning the Peloponnesian War ” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ This Feels Like Love—Wait , Sorry , False Alarm , This Is Not Love ” “ Cowboy at Dawn , Devil at Dusk , Unemployed Musician at All Other Times ” “ Lusting for Libertarians : Volume 1 of the ‘ Lusting for Libertarians ’ Series ” “ He Left Me Breathless and We Never Did CrossFit Again ” “ Love Works in Mysterious Ways , but Then So Does the Higgs Boson ” “ Once a Thief , Twice a Thief , Three Times a Thief , Four Times I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Be with a Man Who Steals This Much ” “ You Make Me Feel So Young , Too Young , Like a Baby ” “ Yes , and .
.
.
I Love You ( My Improv Fiancée ) ” “ Listen to My Heart , Then Audit the Fed : Lusting for Libertarians , Volume 2 ” “ Do You Think He Loves Me ?
The U.N. Committee Unanimously Votes No ” “ Their First Kiss for the Last Time but Her Second Chance for a Third Marriage ” “ The Sexiest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Betrothed to a Zombie ” “ His Eyes Said , ‘ I Love You , ’ but His Mouth Said , ‘ Hi , I ’ m Al Roker , Here ’ s Your Daily Weather Forecast , America ’ ” “ P.S .
I Love You .
P.P.S .
I Don ’ t Believe in Evolution , I Hope That Isn ’ t a Deal Breaker ” “ Can ’ t Help Falling in Love with You ( Because Free Will Is but an Illusion and We Are but Slaves to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” by B. F. Skinner “ Wrapped in Her Arms , Tangled in Her Sheets , Lost in the Abandoned Corn Maze That Grows Outside Her Cabin ” “ Pride and Prejudice and Legal Heroin : Lusting for Libertarians , Volume 3 ” “ I Married a Sex God , but He Has No Body and I Don ’ t Know How We Will Make Love !
” “ The Things He Whispers in My Ear Sound Like Anti-Vaccination Conspiracies ” “ I Lost My Heart and My Luggage at Newark Liberty International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Report but All the Redacted Sections Are Replaced with Quotes from ‘ The Notebook , ’ Because That ’ s Where Democracy Is Right Now , Apparently ” “ Love in the Time of Cholera but , Like , with Wa-a-ay More Cholera This Time ” “ Five Nights of Untamed Passion with the Hunky Farm Boy Who Owns the World ’ s Largest Collection of ‘ Ant-Man ’ Paraphernalia ” “ Now That ’ s What I Call Kissing !
, ” by the creators of “ Now That ’ s What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Love , Early to Adopt the Blockchain to Replace Fiat Currencies : Lusting for Libertarians , Volume 4 ” “ Love Is Patient , Love Is Blind , Love Is Right Around the Corner , Love Is Coming for You , Love Is in the Bushes , Run , Run , for the Love of God , Run ”

“Always a Bridesmaid, Never a Bride, Occasionally a Werewolf”
“Fifty Shades of Let’s Just Be Friends”
“He Told Me Secrets, He Told Me Lies, He Told Me He Had Health Insurance”
“In Space, No One Can Hear You Scream ‘I Love You’ ”
“The Duke and I and the Duke’s Weird Horse, Sunday Johnson”
“Friends with Unemployment Benefits”
“Not Quite a Gentleman, but Definitely a Deadbeat Dad”
“Always and Forever, or Until Our Netflix Queue Runs Out”
“Lucky in Love, Unlucky in Winning the Peloponnesian War”
“Wined and Dined and Framed for Arson”
“Healed by Love, Fortunately, Because She’s a Christian Scientist”
“Sex Dentist”
“This Feels Like Love—Wait, Sorry, False Alarm, This Is Not Love”
“Cowboy at Dawn, Devil at Dusk, Unemployed Musician at All Other Times”
“Lusting for Libertarians: Volume 1 of the ‘Lusting for Libertarians’ Series”
“He Left Me Breathless and We Never Did CrossFit Again”
“Love Works in Mysterious Ways, but Then So Does the Higgs Boson”
“Once a Thief, Twice a Thief, Three Times a Thief, Four Times I Don’t Know if I Can Be with a Man Who Steals This Much”
“The Time Traveler’s Wife’s Accountant, Murphy”
“My Secret Boyfriend, Søren Kierkegaard”
“You Make Me Feel So Young, Too Young, Like a Baby”
“Yes, and . . . I Love You (My Improv Fiancée)”
“Listen to My Heart, Then Audit the Fed: Lusting for Libertarians, Volume 2”
“Do You Think He Loves Me? The U.N. Committee Unanimously Votes No”
“Their First Kiss for the Last Time but Her Second Chance for a Third Marriage”
“The Sexiest Man Who Used to Be Alive: Betrothed to a Zombie”
“His Eyes Said, ‘I Love You,’ but His Mouth Said, ‘Hi, I’m Al Roker, Here’s Your Daily Weather Forecast, America’ ”
“The Amtrak Seduction”
“P.S. I Love You. P.P.S. I Don’t Believe in Evolution, I Hope That Isn’t a Deal Breaker”
“Can’t Help Falling in Love with You (Because Free Will Is but an Illusion and We Are but Slaves to the Cruel Whims of Operant Conditioning),” by B. F. Skinner
“Horse-Man: Half Horse, Half Man, All Hunk”
“Wrapped in Her Arms, Tangled in Her Sheets, Lost in the Abandoned Corn Maze That Grows Outside Her Cabin”
“Pride and Prejudice and Legal Heroin: Lusting for Libertarians, Volume 3”
“Ravished by Giamatti,” by Paul Giamatti
“I Married a Sex God, but He Has No Body and I Don’t Know How We Will Make Love!”
“The Things He Whispers in My Ear Sound Like Anti-Vaccination Conspiracies”
“I Lost My Heart and My Luggage at Newark Liberty International”
“A Copy of the Mueller Report but All the Redacted Sections Are Replaced with Quotes from ‘The Notebook,’ Because That’s Where Democracy Is Right Now, Apparently”
“Love in the Time of Cholera but, Like, with Wa-a-ay More Cholera This Time”
“Five Nights of Untamed Passion with the Hunky Farm Boy Who Owns the World’s Largest Collection of ‘Ant-Man’ Paraphernalia”
“Now That’s What I Call Kissing!,” by the creators of “Now That’s What I Call Music!”
“Quick to Love, Early to Adopt the Blockchain to Replace Fiat Currencies: Lusting for Libertarians, Volume 4”
“Love Is Patient, Love Is Blind, Love Is Right Around the Corner, Love Is Coming for You, Love Is in the Bushes, Run, Run, for the Love of God, Run”


newyorker--2020-02-14--Wedding Rings for Real Men

Wedding Rings for Real Men

Leather from a Cow That You Killed Yourself Pledging to honor and cherish another person for the rest of your life might make some of your Halo buddies think you ’ re whipped .
Prove them all hella wrong by slaying an innocent animal and using its hide to symbolize your commitment to your freakin ’ wife .
After you tan and mold the strip of leather , use the rest of the cow to cook a steak dinner for your best guys , or just leave it there to rot , because you are at the top of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want .
As my bros know , sometimes the ladies can be a real drag—even the lady whom , you announced to the world , you want to share your life and finances with .
And nothing says , “ Ugh , fine , ” better than a big ball of lead hanging from a chunky metal chain .
Next time you ’ re out having some Buds with your buds , remind everyone that you ’ re the man by showing off how your mutually agreed-upon union ( which has been statistically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lessen those of your freakin ’ wife ) makes you feel like a prisoner serving a life sentence .
You may be thinking , jewelry is for ladies .
But , my dude , it is 2020 .
We ’ re allowed to like Baby Yoda , put elderflower in our spiked seltzers ( eight per cent A.B.V.
! )
, and enjoy delicate metals that elongate our fingies while demonstrating to the world that we locked dat down .
But , just to be safe , this beautiful gold band is engraved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remind any broheem that , just because you ’ re wearing a ring to symbolize your everlasting commitment to a freakin ’ member of the opposite sex , it doesn ’ t mean you ’ re gay or something .
This classic ring reminds us of the good old days—the days when a man could take a swig of his favorite Scotch in the middle of the day .
This is a ring for a man who appreciates the way things used to be : when P.C .
culture and “ open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t exist .
This carefully crafted flask-ring comes in amber gold , if you fill it with scotch , or nuclear green , if you ’ re more of a Four Loko guy .
Most wedding rings just say , “ I committed to spending the rest of my life with someone I love.
” But why choose that when yours can say , “ I had the winningest record in my geographic division , and then won four consecutive post-season games , to become the reigning N.F.L .
champion ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ question .
Your woman might be your freakin ’ wife now , but your car will always be your lover .
Make sure that your promise to be faithful to one person , as long as you both shall live , doesn ’ t make people think that you ’ re a minivan bitch or anything .
Show the world how much you love hearing that engine purr , caressing that leather upholstery , and occasionally sticking your junk into that exhaust pipe .
A sedan tire might work for a lesser man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , Jr. , of your own damned life .
You already haul around an unnecessarily bulky tire when you work out at CrossFit , but CrossFit isn ’ t just a workout ; it ’ s a life style .
Plus , this gigantic rubber tire will turn any embarrassing wedding photo on your freakin ’ wife ’ s Instagram into a workout pic !
A real man doesn ’ t need an accessory , a token of affection , or a symbol of an unbreakable bond with another human being .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , assert your dominance by responding to the guests who tells you that “ the ceremony was beautiful ” by pulling a switchblade on them and cutting their steak into itty-bitty pieces .
You ’ re a married man now—emphasis still on man .
Wow , looks like you wore so much Axe body spray that you got a lady to become your freakin ’ wife .
Nice , brah .
Now show her it ’ s forever by crushing your last-ever can of Axe , welding it into a ring , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big like boat .
You need big rope keep you still .
Nothing tie you down .
Not even freakin ’ wife .
Put big rope around big finger .
Feel big .
Strong .
Manly .
Are you a playboy-bachelor millionaire meets industrialist-inventor genius ?
If so , this replica of Tony Stark ’ s Arc Reactor is the wedding ring for you .
After all , you ’ re the Tony Stark of your Ultimate Frisbee team , the Iron Man of your improv team , the Robert Downey , Jr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sur La Table .
Show your freakin ’ wife that , if she wants your goateed genius , she ’ d better be your Pepper Potts—thin , dry , and generally uninvolved in most major events in your life .
Why do only girls get to have expensive rings ?
Demand two months of your freakin ’ wife ’ s paycheck , and millions more dollars to create a ring of constant energy , like the one that Tony Stark uses to keep himself alive in the Marvel movies .

Taylor Kay Phillips, Felipe Torres Medina

Leather from a Cow That You Killed Yourself
Pledging to honor and cherish another person for the rest of your life might make some of your Halo buddies think you’re whipped. Prove them all hella wrong by slaying an innocent animal and using its hide to symbolize your commitment to your freakin’ wife. After you tan and mold the strip of leather, use the rest of the cow to cook a steak dinner for your best guys, or just leave it there to rot, because you are at the top of the food chain and you do what you want.
An Actual Ball and Chain
As my bros know, sometimes the ladies can be a real drag—even the lady whom, you announced to the world, you want to share your life and finances with. And nothing says, “Ugh, fine,” better than a big ball of lead hanging from a chunky metal chain. Next time you’re out having some Buds with your buds, remind everyone that you’re the man by showing off how your mutually agreed-upon union (which has been statistically shown to improve your life prospects and lessen those of your freakin’ wife) makes you feel like a prisoner serving a life sentence.
A Beautiful 18k.-Gold Band Engraved with the Words “No Homo”
You may be thinking, jewelry is for ladies. But, my dude, it is 2020. We’re allowed to like Baby Yoda, put elderflower in our spiked seltzers (eight per cent A.B.V.!), and enjoy delicate metals that elongate our fingies while demonstrating to the world that we locked dat down. But, just to be safe, this beautiful gold band is engraved with the words “No Homo” to remind any broheem that, just because you’re wearing a ring to symbolize your everlasting commitment to a freakin’ member of the opposite sex, it doesn’t mean you’re gay or something.
A Glass Ring that Doubles as a Flask
This classic ring reminds us of the good old days—the days when a man could take a swig of his favorite Scotch in the middle of the day. This is a ring for a man who appreciates the way things used to be: when P.C. culture and “open communication” with your freakin’ wife didn’t exist. This carefully crafted flask-ring comes in amber gold, if you fill it with scotch, or nuclear green, if you’re more of a Four Loko guy.
A Super Bowl Ring
Most wedding rings just say, “I committed to spending the rest of my life with someone I love.” But why choose that when yours can say, “I had the winningest record in my geographic division, and then won four consecutive post-season games, to become the reigning N.F.L. champion?” It’s not even a question.
A Tire
Your woman might be your freakin’ wife now, but your car will always be your lover. Make sure that your promise to be faithful to one person, as long as you both shall live, doesn’t make people think that you’re a minivan bitch or anything. Show the world how much you love hearing that engine purr, caressing that leather upholstery, and occasionally sticking your junk into that exhaust pipe.
A CrossFit Tire
A sedan tire might work for a lesser man, but you’re the Donald Trump, Jr., of your own damned life. You already haul around an unnecessarily bulky tire when you work out at CrossFit, but CrossFit isn’t just a workout; it’s a life style. Plus, this gigantic rubber tire will turn any embarrassing wedding photo on your freakin’ wife’s Instagram into a workout pic!
A Round Pocketknife with Seven Blades
A real man doesn’t need an accessory, a token of affection, or a symbol of an unbreakable bond with another human being. Man needs machine. At the wedding, assert your dominance by responding to the guests who tells you that “the ceremony was beautiful” by pulling a switchblade on them and cutting their steak into itty-bitty pieces. You’re a married man now—emphasis still on man.
A Can of Axe Body Spray
Wow, looks like you wore so much Axe body spray that you got a lady to become your freakin’ wife. Nice, brah. Now show her it’s forever by crushing your last-ever can of Axe, welding it into a ring, and wearing it on your finger.
Big Boat Rope
You big like boat. You need big rope keep you still. Nothing tie you down. Not even freakin’ wife. Put big rope around big finger. Feel big. Strong. Manly.
Iron Man’s Arc Reactor (Replica)
Are you a playboy-bachelor millionaire meets industrialist-inventor genius? If so, this replica of Tony Stark’s Arc Reactor is the wedding ring for you. After all, you’re the Tony Stark of your Ultimate Frisbee team, the Iron Man of your improv team, the Robert Downey, Jr., of the couples cooking class at Sur La Table. Show your freakin’ wife that, if she wants your goateed genius, she’d better be your Pepper Potts—thin, dry, and generally uninvolved in most major events in your life.
Iron Man’s Arc Reactor (Actual)
Why do only girls get to have expensive rings? Demand two months of your freakin’ wife’s paycheck, and millions more dollars to create a ring of constant energy, like the one that Tony Stark uses to keep himself alive in the Marvel movies.


newyorker--2020-02-14--Reading J. M. Coetzee’s “Disgrace” During the Harvey Weinstein Trial

“ These are puritanical times , ” David Lurie , the protagonist of J. M. Coetzee ’ s novel “ Disgrace , ” from 1999 , tells his daughter , Lucy .
“ Private life is public business .
Prurience is respectable , prurience and sentiment.
” Lurie is speaking with his daughter at her small landholding in eastern South Africa , which is serving as his temporary escape from Cape Town .
He is in retreat , having been fired from a university , where he taught Romantic poetry , over what he regards as a lusty affair with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , named Melanie , regards as coercion , perhaps rape .
Lurie is unashamed of what he ’ s done—there is an icy near-clarity to the way he experiences the act of overpowering her .
When he calls Melanie on the phone , he hears in her voice “ all her uncertainty .
Too young .
She will not know how to deal with him ; he ought to let her go .
But he is in the grip of something.
” He shows up at her apartment , uninvited , and Melanie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intruder who thrusts himself upon her.
” Her limbs crumple , and she struggles , tells him no .
But “ nothing will stop him , ” and Lurie carries Melanie to her bedroom .
“ She does not resist , ” Coetzee writes .
“ All she does is avert herself : avert her lips , avert her eyes .
.
.
.
Little shivers of cold run through her .
.
.
.
Not rape , not quite that , but undesired nevertheless , undesired to the core .
As though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ die within herself for the duration .
.
.
.
So that everything done to her might be done , as it were , far away.
” After it ’ s over , she asks him to leave , and in his car Lurie has “ no doubt , she , Melanie , is trying to cleanse herself of it , of him .
.
.
.
running a bath , stepping into the water , eyes closed like a sleepwalker.
” But Melanie ’ s experience feels immaterial to Lurie .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it be wrong ?
When , later , he recalls the university ’ s investigation , he identifies his age as the real crime , and his decaying body the punishment .
He believes himself guilty not of raping a student but simply of growing old , becoming one of those men from whom a prostitute might shudder “ as one shudders at a cockroach in a washbasin in the middle of the night.
” He had been put on trial “ for his way of life , ” he thinks .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seed , tired seed , seed that does not quicken , contra naturam .
If the old men hog the young women , what will be the future of the species ?
That , at bottom , was the case for the prosecution .
Half of literature is about it : young women struggling to escape from under the weight of old men , for the sake of the species.
” Lurie , who is white , believes that he has become disenfranchised , and this feeling goes hand in hand with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body .
Old men , with their “ stained raincoats and cracked false teeth and hairy earlobes—all of them were once upon a time children of God , with straight limbs and clear eyes , ” he thinks , sitting hidden in a dark auditorium and watching her rehearse a play .
“ Can they be blamed for clinging to the last to their place at the sweet banquet of the senses ?
” Coetzee ’ s novel , though , doesn ’ t deal in blame .
“ Disgrace ” is marked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of inevitability and unfathomability—it suggests that power exerted without consideration of humanity carries fearsome , unknowable , and often directly retributive costs .
The word “ disgrace ” now follows Harvey Weinstein like a shadow—elongating , stretching beyond him , as the light gets lower on his life .
He ’ s the disgraced producer , the disgraced mogul .
His sexual-assault trial in New York is completing its fourth week .
Six women have testified that he assaulted them .
The defense ’ s first witness , a friend of Weinstein ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ texts he ’ d written to Weinstein saying that there was “ likely a bunch of truth to the claims that you behaved like a cad and more , ” and that , if “ a lot of these girls had been my daughter , I would have wanted to beat the shit out of you.
” The prosecution and the defense have both wrapped .
In the defense ’ s closing argument , Donna Rotunno , one of Weinstein ’ s attorneys , suggested that the prosecution ’ s case imagines a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible ” for their actions .
The prosecution will offer its closing statement on Friday , and the jury will begin deliberating next week .
Outside the courtroom , the verdict has already been handed down : a hundred women have accused Weinstein of assault or harassment , ninety-four of them on the record .
And yet a criminal conviction is uncertain .
It is uniquely and brutally difficult to prove rape in a courtroom ; for most of history , legal guidelines were written to insure that this would be so .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , might seem like a precedent for Weinstein ’ s trial : both cases involve a famous defendant facing old accusations , with a lack of physical evidence , amid a wider scandal in the media .
But Weinstein ’ s trial demands that the jury consider sexual assault in contexts that have almost always been regarded as too complicated for a courtroom : the charges come from the testimony of two women , Jessica Mann , who engaged in consensual sex with Weinstein after he allegedly assaulted her , and Miriam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the alleged incident .
This consensual contact , by their accounts , was also profoundly unwanted—a nuance that may illuminate the incidents in question or obscure them , depending on who ’ s looking .
Mann , who was twenty-seven when she alleges Weinstein raped her , testified over the course of three days , the second of which was cut short when she couldn ’ t stop sobbing on the stand .
On Monday , the defense called as a witness a former friend of Mann ’ s , who characterized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ romantic rather than abusive and degrading .
Rotunno , the defense attorney , has argued that Mann was the one exploiting Weinstein , for a chance at professional success .
Rotunno also recently told the Times ’ Megan Twohey that she ’ d never been assaulted because “ I would never put myself in that position.
” ( In “ Disgrace , ” Lurie ’ s lawyer advises him to get a woman to represent him , “ as a matter of strategy.
” ) Melanie , Lurie ’ s victim in Coetzee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s house after the assault and spends the night in his daughter ’ s room .
She asks him to excuse her absences from class .
Faced with this reminder that Melanie is a person whose life he has severely disrupted , Lurie thinks , “ She is behaving badly .
.
.
.
she is learning to exploit him and will probably exploit him further.
” Then , one day , after Lurie has gone to live with Lucy , three black South African men approach the farm and ask to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , set him on fire , shoot the dogs who board in Lucy ’ s kennel , burglarize the house , and steal the car .
Lucy is silent about what the men do to her , but , later , her pregnancy gives it away .
A monstrous parallel is established : the perpetrators of violence—both Lurie and the men who rape Lucy—act out of a semi-conscious conviction that they are righting an imbalance beyond their control .

“These are puritanical times,” David Lurie, the protagonist of J. M. Coetzee’s novel “Disgrace,” from 1999, tells his daughter, Lucy. “Private life is public business. Prurience is respectable, prurience and sentiment.” Lurie is speaking with his daughter at her small landholding in eastern South Africa, which is serving as his temporary escape from Cape Town. He is in retreat, having been fired from a university, where he taught Romantic poetry, over what he regards as a lusty affair with a student, and what that student, named Melanie, regards as coercion, perhaps rape.
Lurie is unashamed of what he’s done—there is an icy near-clarity to the way he experiences the act of overpowering her. When he calls Melanie on the phone, he hears in her voice “all her uncertainty. Too young. She will not know how to deal with him; he ought to let her go. But he is in the grip of something.” He shows up at her apartment, uninvited, and Melanie is “too surprised to resist the intruder who thrusts himself upon her.” Her limbs crumple, and she struggles, tells him no. But “nothing will stop him,” and Lurie carries Melanie to her bedroom. “She does not resist,” Coetzee writes. “All she does is avert herself: avert her lips, avert her eyes. . . . Little shivers of cold run through her. . . . Not rape, not quite that, but undesired nevertheless, undesired to the core. As though she had decided to go slack, die within herself for the duration. . . . So that everything done to her might be done, as it were, far away.” After it’s over, she asks him to leave, and in his car Lurie has “no doubt, she, Melanie, is trying to cleanse herself of it, of him. . . . running a bath, stepping into the water, eyes closed like a sleepwalker.”
But Melanie’s experience feels immaterial to Lurie. If his desire is real, how could it be wrong? When, later, he recalls the university’s investigation, he identifies his age as the real crime, and his decaying body the punishment. He believes himself guilty not of raping a student but simply of growing old, becoming one of those men from whom a prostitute might shudder “as one shudders at a cockroach in a washbasin in the middle of the night.” He had been put on trial “for his way of life,” he thinks. “For unnatural acts: for broadcasting old seed, tired seed, seed that does not quicken, contra naturam. If the old men hog the young women, what will be the future of the species? That, at bottom, was the case for the prosecution. Half of literature is about it: young women struggling to escape from under the weight of old men, for the sake of the species.”
Lurie, who is white, believes that he has become disenfranchised, and this feeling goes hand in hand with his sense of entitlement to Melanie’s body. Old men, with their “stained raincoats and cracked false teeth and hairy earlobes—all of them were once upon a time children of God, with straight limbs and clear eyes,” he thinks, sitting hidden in a dark auditorium and watching her rehearse a play. “Can they be blamed for clinging to the last to their place at the sweet banquet of the senses?” Coetzee’s novel, though, doesn’t deal in blame. “Disgrace” is marked, instead, by the sustained juxtaposition of inevitability and unfathomability—it suggests that power exerted without consideration of humanity carries fearsome, unknowable, and often directly retributive costs.
The word “disgrace” now follows Harvey Weinstein like a shadow—elongating, stretching beyond him, as the light gets lower on his life. He’s the disgraced producer, the disgraced mogul. His sexual-assault trial in New York is completing its fourth week. Six women have testified that he assaulted them. The defense’s first witness, a friend of Weinstein’s, was confronted in court with texts he’d written to Weinstein saying that there was “likely a bunch of truth to the claims that you behaved like a cad and more,” and that, if “a lot of these girls had been my daughter, I would have wanted to beat the shit out of you.” The prosecution and the defense have both wrapped. In the defense’s closing argument, Donna Rotunno, one of Weinstein’s attorneys, suggested that the prosecution’s case imagines a universe in which “women are not responsible” for their actions. The prosecution will offer its closing statement on Friday, and the jury will begin deliberating next week.
Outside the courtroom, the verdict has already been handed down: a hundred women have accused Weinstein of assault or harassment, ninety-four of them on the record. And yet a criminal conviction is uncertain. It is uniquely and brutally difficult to prove rape in a courtroom; for most of history, legal guidelines were written to insure that this would be so. Bill Cosby’s conviction, in 2018, might seem like a precedent for Weinstein’s trial: both cases involve a famous defendant facing old accusations, with a lack of physical evidence, amid a wider scandal in the media. But Weinstein’s trial demands that the jury consider sexual assault in contexts that have almost always been regarded as too complicated for a courtroom: the charges come from the testimony of two women, Jessica Mann, who engaged in consensual sex with Weinstein after he allegedly assaulted her, and Miriam Haleyi, who sent him friendly e-mails after the alleged incident. This consensual contact, by their accounts, was also profoundly unwanted—a nuance that may illuminate the incidents in question or obscure them, depending on who’s looking. Mann, who was twenty-seven when she alleges Weinstein raped her, testified over the course of three days, the second of which was cut short when she couldn’t stop sobbing on the stand. On Monday, the defense called as a witness a former friend of Mann’s, who characterized Mann’s relationship with Weinstein as romantic rather than abusive and degrading. Rotunno, the defense attorney, has argued that Mann was the one exploiting Weinstein, for a chance at professional success. Rotunno also recently told the Times’ Megan Twohey that she’d never been assaulted because “I would never put myself in that position.” (In “Disgrace,” Lurie’s lawyer advises him to get a woman to represent him, “as a matter of strategy.”)
Melanie, Lurie’s victim in Coetzee’s novel, goes to Lurie’s house after the assault and spends the night in his daughter’s room. She asks him to excuse her absences from class. Faced with this reminder that Melanie is a person whose life he has severely disrupted, Lurie thinks, “She is behaving badly. . . . she is learning to exploit him and will probably exploit him further.” Then, one day, after Lurie has gone to live with Lucy, three black South African men approach the farm and ask to use the telephone. They attack Lurie, set him on fire, shoot the dogs who board in Lucy’s kennel, burglarize the house, and steal the car. Lucy is silent about what the men do to her, but, later, her pregnancy gives it away. A monstrous parallel is established: the perpetrators of violence—both Lurie and the men who rape Lucy—act out of a semi-conscious conviction that they are righting an imbalance beyond their control.
At Weinstein’s trial, the particulars of the defendant’s appearance—his body, his age—have been evoked repeatedly, by both sides. Now sixty-seven, Weinstein has shown up in court looking older than that, and dishevelled in a way that seems deliberate. He had spinal surgery last month, to treat an injury from a car accident, and he has been using a walker with tennis balls affixed to the bottoms of its legs. (Reports of his behavior outside the courtroom contrast with this apparent frailty: Page Six reported that Weinstein threw a Super Bowl party the night before he was spotted dozing off in court.) The prosecution, meanwhile, has made a point of displaying images of Weinstein around the time of the alleged assaults, reminding the jurors that he was six feet tall and close to three hundred pounds. The prosecution has also, at times, seemed to imply that Weinstein was too ugly or disgusting for any of the young and beautiful women who were his alleged victims to have plausibly wanted to have sex with him. Mann, reflexively invoking the sort of discrimination that is faced by intersex people, testified, with apparent distress, that Weinstein’s genitals had “extreme scarring,” adding, “He does not have testicles, and it appears that he has a vagina.” Lauren Young, a corroborating witness, who says that Weinstein trapped her in a bathroom in Los Angeles and groped her while masturbating, told the jury that Weinstein was “hairy,” with rolls, moles, and had a “disgusting-looking penis.” Jurors have been shown photos of Weinstein’s naked body, which are intended to corroborate these accounts.
Weinstein does not deny that these women saw him naked, so establishing the details of his anatomy does not seem entirely necessary for establishing the truth of their claims. One can consent to and desire sex with people who are not conventionally physically attractive, and rapists can be good-looking; in her closing argument, Rotunno derided the prosecution for providing a “script” in which Weinstein “is so unattractive and large that no woman would want to sleep with him.”
Insofar as the prosecution did push this line of reasoning, it feels like a mistake. Of course the women had thoughts about Weinstein’s appearance; one of the prosecution’s corroborating witnesses said that she and Haleyi regarded him, at one point, as a “pathetic older man who was trying really hard to hit on Miriam,” and that they found this, at the time, a little bit funny. But the trial isn’t, or shouldn’t be, about how they saw him—it’s about how he saw them. In “Disgrace,” when Lurie first attempts to sleep with Melanie, he plies her with alcohol and says that “a woman’s beauty does not belong to her alone.” Later, he watches her act in a student play, tottering around in high heels, and thinks, “She does not own herself; perhaps he does not own himself either.” The sheer banality of this justification for rape is matched by Lurie’s conviction that his aging body is world-historically meaningful and elegiac. In a recent interview with David Marchese at the Times, Tina Brown, who launched the magazine Talk with Weinstein, in 1999, surmised that his psychology came down to “self-hatred, that he thought of himself as a deeply unattractive man and was tortured about that.” As a movie producer, Weinstein advanced the careers of beautiful young women—a life’s work that appears to have had two inseparable faces of generosity and demand. Hollywood systematically reduces people to their ability to inspire lust and longing from strangers; if Weinstein reduced women to a walking surfeit of a resource—beauty—that demanded seizure and distribution, perhaps he also imagined himself as a walking deficit of that resource. A man fixated on the supposed injustice of his own lack sometimes concludes that he is entitled to what he doesn’t possess.
Coetzee does not portray Lurie as the serial predator that Weinstein is alleged to be. Still, for much of the novel, Coetzee appears to be erecting an allegorical and moralistic edifice: Lurie harms Melanie, refuses to recognize what he’s done, and is subsequently punished by having his own violence rendered bloody and unspeakable on his daughter. Lucy then attempts to defend her rapists with a more righteous version of her father’s defense of himself: her plight, she suggests, is a consequence of the rapacious domination that South African whites have exercised over the country’s black population. As this awful symmetry arises, however, Coetzee simultaneously erases it; the atmosphere of the novel is acidic, hazy, dissolving. All of the characters—including the student protesters who slide a pamphlet reading “WOMEN SPEAK OUT” under Lurie’s office door, and who organize a group called Women Against Rape, which Coetzee sardonically abbreviates as “WAR”—seem like tiny figures, alive for a vanishing breath of changing weather, caught up in forces they can hardly begin to see.
Lurie is a more readily visible figure now. He is the man who frets about the overreach of #MeToo while demonstrating the tenacity of the attitudes that make such a movement necessary. (In Sigrid Nunez’s novel “The Friend,” published in 2018, the narrator describes a character as “one of several Lurian friends I’ve known: reckless, priapic men risking careers, livelihoods, marriages—everything.”) Lurie believes that he is the victim of a purge. “Watchfulness became the watchword; the watchfulness of all over all,” he thinks. After Lucy’s rape, he muses that among the “legions of countesses and kitchenmaids that Byron pushed himself into there were no doubt those who called it rape. But none surely had cause to fear that the session would end with her throat being slit.” That sort of thing, done at knifepoint, is real rape, he—like Weinstein’s defenders—implies. Lurie imagines poor Lucy, numb and mute and dissociating, “frightened near to death.” He understands, he thinks. He “can, if he concentrates, if he loses himself, be there, be the men, inhabit them, fill them with the ghost of himself. The question is, does he have it in him to be the woman?”


newyorker--2020-02-14--Donald Trump, a President So Unhinged That Even Bill Barr Says He’s Out of Control

President Trump is not moving on .
He is not getting over it .
In the eight days since his acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate , Trump has shown all too clearly what he took from the experience of being the third President in American history to be impeached and tried .
On Wednesday , marking the one-week anniversary of the Senate ’ s preordained verdict almost to the minute , reporters asked Trump what lesson he had learned from impeachment .
His response was “ that the Democrats are crooked .
.
.
that they are vicious , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” On Thursday , the President attacked Mike Bloomberg , John Kelly , a juror who voted to convict Roger Stone , Robert Mueller , and his own “ Justice ” Department .
( Trump ’ s quotes , not mine . )
And that was just before noon .
Through it all , he has been carrying out a purge of those who figured , in ways large and small , in the impeachment and threatening to root out additional dissenters in his midst .
“ We want bad people out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday morning .
The level of alarm about Trump ’ s post-acquittal rampage has been predictably high—five-alarm-fire , red-siren-for-our-democracy high .
Trump may have gone too far even for one of his most stalwart loyalists .
In a striking interview with ABC News , released on Thursday afternoon , Attorney General William Barr broke with Trump over the President ’ s public demand that the Justice Department change its recommended prison sentence for Stone , Trump ’ s friend and adviser , who was convicted of lying to Congress and of other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation .
Barr denied overruling his own prosecutors in response to the President and agreed that Stone ’ s sentence should be reduced , but then he let loose on Trump , anyway .
Trump ’ s tweets , Barr said , “ make it impossible for me to do my job.
” What ’ s more , he added , in a swipe at the President , “ I ’ m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody.
” Democrats , understandably , were more inclined to say “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barr the benefit of the doubt .
He has , after all , been a willing accomplice in Trump ’ s assertion of essentially unlimited executive powers , and he only seems to be speaking out now because his own credibility has been questioned .
Still , for many , the rare rebuke of Trump from his Attorney General will only underscore the grim fallout from the Senate acquittal : a President so unhinged that even Bill Barr says he is out of control .
On Capitol Hill , Democrats were already furious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to a degree that I can ’ t recall having witnessed in my decades of observing congressional politics .
They accuse G.O.P .
senators of having enabled and facilitated Trump ’ s “ Personal Retribution Tour , ” as Sherrod Brown , of Ohio , termed it .
“ He ’ s unleashed , ” Brown said .
“ The lesson is he can do whatever he wants , abuse his office , and he ’ ll never , ever be held accountable.
” When the President , on Thursday , publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop lawsuits and other “ harassment ” against him—even as the Trump Administration has banned New Yorkers from joining the federal government ’ s “ trusted traveler ” program—it was an almost uncanny parallel to one of the post-acquittal scenarios that the House impeachment managers had warned about .
If Trump was allowed by the Senate to withhold nearly four hundred million dollars in congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine , their trial brief warned , what was to stop him in the future from demanding that individual states “ perform personal political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Democrats were defeated , but Trump ’ s post-trial vindictiveness has left them feeling vindicated .
“ Like we warned , ” Senator Chris Murphy , of Connecticut , tweeted , “ acquittal has turned out to be a green light for him to take a wrecking ball to democracy.
” So will we remember Trump ’ s February 5th acquittal as the date when everything changed in America ?
Did Republican senators end impeachment only to begin something even more dangerous and divisive for the country ?
I found myself thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of covering the former Soviet Union and watching aspiring authoritarians in action .
Before Vladimir Putin refused to give up power , despite the Russian Constitution ’ s two-term limit , two senior Bush Administration officials told me that he would not do so , simply because Putin had personally assured them that he wouldn ’ t .
These same officials believed that Putin would never arrest Russia ’ s richest man , Mikhail Khodorkovsky , until he did .
They also believed that Putin would never renationalize Khodorkovsky ’ s oil company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Azerbaijan , in 2003 , I watched thousands of protesters in the streets on the night of a rigged election , in which Ilham Aliyev , the widely derided playboy son of the country ’ s gravely ailing dictator , received an implausible seventy-seven per cent of the votes .
Western observers condemned the balloting as neither free nor fair , but the real insight for me came the next day , while I was flying back to Moscow .
On the plane with the Russian election-observation team , which had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wondered why Aliyev and his ruling party had seemed to go for such overkill , such an obviously fake result , rather than stealing the election with a more credible fifty-five per cent .
One of the Russians laughed at me , saying , in effect , that the overkill was the point .
That ’ s how power works around here .
Strength lies in forcing people to accept the unacceptable .
Aliyev , incidentally , remains in charge to this day .
Neither Putin ’ s bald decision to rewrite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office nor Aliyev ’ s election fraud were in the least bit surprising to their subjects .
But they were important moments , nonetheless .
Blowing through previously established rules and norms matters .
Having suffered no consequences for such acts , leaders move on to bigger and more audacious targets .
The appetite grows while eating , as the Russian saying goes .
Still , this isn ’ t Russia , and , for Trump-watchers , there was a notable familiarity to the week of mayhem that followed the President ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look back when so much is happening each day , Trump has been nutty and angry before , ranting and vindictive , blasting norms and lying with abandon .
Trump has been insulting his enemies and wreaking vengeance and claiming the “ absolute right ” to do things that he does not have the absolute right to do—for years .
The Washington Post counted more than sixteen thousand lies , misstatements , and untruths from the President—before a single senator voted to acquit him .
Months before he hijacked U.S. foreign policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal political interests , he ordered the U.S. military to the Southern border to combat a nonexistent “ invasion , ” only days in advance of the 2018 midterm elections .
Is this time really different ?
The answer , I ’ m afraid , is yes .
In his post-impeachment rage , Trump wanted vengeance , and he wanted us to know it .
There was no one inside his Administration to stop him .
A month ago , Congress had at least the theoretical power to do something about his overreaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s very clear vote , it does not .
So , although the President himself is unchanged , the context around him is very much altered .
In the history of the Trump Presidency , there will be a before impeachment and an after .
It ’ s too late for lessons learned , and it ’ s most definitely too late for Bill Barr to complain about the President ’ s tweets .
The constraints are gone .
The leverage is lost .
One ABC News interview with a single Cabinet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump , unhinged and unleashed , may actually turn out to be everything we feared .

President Trump is not moving on. He is not getting over it. In the eight days since his acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate, Trump has shown all too clearly what he took from the experience of being the third President in American history to be impeached and tried. On Wednesday, marking the one-week anniversary of the Senate’s preordained verdict almost to the minute, reporters asked Trump what lesson he had learned from impeachment. His response was “that the Democrats are crooked . . . that they are vicious, that they shouldn’t have brought impeachment.” On Thursday, the President attacked Mike Bloomberg, John Kelly, a juror who voted to convict Roger Stone, Robert Mueller, and his own “Justice” Department. (Trump’s quotes, not mine.) And that was just before noon. Through it all, he has been carrying out a purge of those who figured, in ways large and small, in the impeachment and threatening to root out additional dissenters in his midst. “We want bad people out of our government!” the President tweeted on Thursday morning.
The level of alarm about Trump’s post-acquittal rampage has been predictably high—five-alarm-fire, red-siren-for-our-democracy high. Trump may have gone too far even for one of his most stalwart loyalists. In a striking interview with ABC News, released on Thursday afternoon, Attorney General William Barr broke with Trump over the President’s public demand that the Justice Department change its recommended prison sentence for Stone, Trump’s friend and adviser, who was convicted of lying to Congress and of other offenses that came out in the Mueller investigation. Barr denied overruling his own prosecutors in response to the President and agreed that Stone’s sentence should be reduced, but then he let loose on Trump, anyway. Trump’s tweets, Barr said, “make it impossible for me to do my job.” What’s more, he added, in a swipe at the President, “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody.” Democrats, understandably, were more inclined to say “I told you so” than to give Barr the benefit of the doubt. He has, after all, been a willing accomplice in Trump’s assertion of essentially unlimited executive powers, and he only seems to be speaking out now because his own credibility has been questioned. Still, for many, the rare rebuke of Trump from his Attorney General will only underscore the grim fallout from the Senate acquittal: a President so unhinged that even Bill Barr says he is out of control.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats were already furious with their Republican colleagues about the acquittal, to a degree that I can’t recall having witnessed in my decades of observing congressional politics. They accuse G.O.P. senators of having enabled and facilitated Trump’s “Personal Retribution Tour,” as Sherrod Brown, of Ohio, termed it. “He’s unleashed,” Brown said. “The lesson is he can do whatever he wants, abuse his office, and he’ll never, ever be held accountable.” When the President, on Thursday, publicly demanded that the governor of New York drop lawsuits and other “harassment” against him—even as the Trump Administration has banned New Yorkers from joining the federal government’s “trusted traveler” program—it was an almost uncanny parallel to one of the post-acquittal scenarios that the House impeachment managers had warned about. If Trump was allowed by the Senate to withhold nearly four hundred million dollars in congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine, their trial brief warned, what was to stop him in the future from demanding that individual states “perform personal political favors” or else face federal wrath? Democrats were defeated, but Trump’s post-trial vindictiveness has left them feeling vindicated. “Like we warned,” Senator Chris Murphy, of Connecticut, tweeted, “acquittal has turned out to be a green light for him to take a wrecking ball to democracy.”
So will we remember Trump’s February 5th acquittal as the date when everything changed in America? Did Republican senators end impeachment only to begin something even more dangerous and divisive for the country?
I found myself thinking a lot this week about my experience of covering the former Soviet Union and watching aspiring authoritarians in action. Before Vladimir Putin refused to give up power, despite the Russian Constitution’s two-term limit, two senior Bush Administration officials told me that he would not do so, simply because Putin had personally assured them that he wouldn’t. These same officials believed that Putin would never arrest Russia’s richest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, until he did. They also believed that Putin would never renationalize Khodorkovsky’s oil company. But he did that, too.
In Azerbaijan, in 2003, I watched thousands of protesters in the streets on the night of a rigged election, in which Ilham Aliyev, the widely derided playboy son of the country’s gravely ailing dictator, received an implausible seventy-seven per cent of the votes. Western observers condemned the balloting as neither free nor fair, but the real insight for me came the next day, while I was flying back to Moscow. On the plane with the Russian election-observation team, which had seen nothing to object to, I wondered why Aliyev and his ruling party had seemed to go for such overkill, such an obviously fake result, rather than stealing the election with a more credible fifty-five per cent. One of the Russians laughed at me, saying, in effect, that the overkill was the point. That’s how power works around here. Strength lies in forcing people to accept the unacceptable. Aliyev, incidentally, remains in charge to this day.
Neither Putin’s bald decision to rewrite the rules so that he could stay in office nor Aliyev’s election fraud were in the least bit surprising to their subjects. But they were important moments, nonetheless. Blowing through previously established rules and norms matters. Having suffered no consequences for such acts, leaders move on to bigger and more audacious targets. The appetite grows while eating, as the Russian saying goes.
Still, this isn’t Russia, and, for Trump-watchers, there was a notable familiarity to the week of mayhem that followed the President’s acquittal. Although it is often difficult to look back when so much is happening each day, Trump has been nutty and angry before, ranting and vindictive, blasting norms and lying with abandon. Trump has been insulting his enemies and wreaking vengeance and claiming the “absolute right” to do things that he does not have the absolute right to do—for years. The Washington Post counted more than sixteen thousand lies, misstatements, and untruths from the President—before a single senator voted to acquit him. Months before he hijacked U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine, in service of his personal political interests, he ordered the U.S. military to the Southern border to combat a nonexistent “invasion,” only days in advance of the 2018 midterm elections. Is this time really different?
The answer, I’m afraid, is yes. In his post-impeachment rage, Trump wanted vengeance, and he wanted us to know it. There was no one inside his Administration to stop him. A month ago, Congress had at least the theoretical power to do something about his overreaching. Today, thanks to the Senate’s very clear vote, it does not. So, although the President himself is unchanged, the context around him is very much altered. In the history of the Trump Presidency, there will be a before impeachment and an after. It’s too late for lessons learned, and it’s most definitely too late for Bill Barr to complain about the President’s tweets. The constraints are gone. The leverage is lost. One ABC News interview with a single Cabinet official is not going to restore it. Trump, unhinged and unleashed, may actually turn out to be everything we feared.


newyorker--2020-02-14--Why Is William Barr Really Criticizing Donald Trump?

In the spring of 2001 , historians interviewed William Barr about his tenure as Attorney General in the George H. W. Bush Administration .
The multi-hour discussion was conducted by the University of Virginia ’ s Miller Center , as part of a project to record oral histories from former Presidents and the senior officials who served them .
Midway through the interview , Barr spoke about the tremendous influence and discretion that federal prosecutors wield when deciding whether to charge a person with a crime .
“ One of the things I took away from the Department of Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
“ There ’ s no other power like it in government .
Maybe the power to shoot a foreigner in war , but the prosecutive power destroys lives.
” Barr then proceeded to make an argument that turned a central premise of the post-Watergate American legal order on its head .
After Watergate—and , particularly , Richard Nixon ’ s request to have the I.R.S .
prosecute two hundred of his political enemies for tax fraud—there had been a drive in the Justice Department to prevent elected officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The goal was to reassure the public that the department would apply the law equally to all Americans , regardless of whether they were the President ’ s rivals or his toadies .
Barr argued that the threat of unjust criminal prosecutions came not from elected politicians and their appointees but instead from unelected prosecutors who were simply trying to make a name for themselves .
“ I think it started picking up after Watergate , the idea that the Department of Justice has to be ‘ independent , ’ ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has been widely embraced in the forty-five years since Nixon resigned .
Barr further contended that appointed officials should be allowed to oversee criminal cases because they—or their bosses—are ultimately held accountable by the voters .
“ I have come to feel that political supervision of the Department is very important , ” he said .
“ Someone ultimately has to answer to the political process.
” He added that elected officials don ’ t necessarily resolve cases based on political expediency .
“ The second-guessing is not for political reasons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercising some maturity of judgment and putting things in perspective and saying , Why would you indict this person over this ?
” On Thursday , after a year of serving as Donald Trump ’ s Attorney General , Barr struck a very different tone .
In an interview with ABC News , he said , in reference to the President ’ s behavior , “ To have public statements and tweets made about the department , about people in the department , our men and women here , about cases pending in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom we have cases , make it impossible for me to do my job , and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we ’ re doing our work with integrity.
” And , in a second apparent break with Trump , the Justice Department announced on Friday that it would not be pursuing criminal charges in a case that the President has tried to influence : whether the former F.B.I .
deputy director Andrew McCabe will be prosecuted for lying to investigators about his role in a news-media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation , was damaging to Hillary Clinton ’ s Presidential campaign , but Trump has used the case to declare McCabe , an ally of the former F.B.I .
director James Comey , a criminal .
Prior to this week , of course , Barr and Trump seemed to be working together seamlessly to politicize the Justice Department , deciding legal issues—and , increasingly , criminal prosecutions , as well—in ways that benefit the President politically .
With surprising ease , they have reversed half a century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption in the criminal-justice system , and earned the enmity of hundreds of former Justice Department officials and legal experts .
Many of those officials were deeply skeptical of Barr ’ s seeming rebuke of Trump in the ABC interview .
“ Barr ’ s insistence on his independence is not credible , considering his slavish devotion to Trump ’ s interests ahead of the nation ’ s interests until now , ” Stephen Gillers , a professor of legal ethics at the New York University School of Law , told me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to potential targets of criminal investigations—from wealthy individuals to large corporations—that they may receive special treatment if they show loyalty to him .
“ Once you inject the idea that political considerations can affect any prosecution , even if it ’ s a small number , you encourage political contributions in order to win favor , to increase the possibility of a pardon or favorable treatment , ” Gillers said .
“ Once that gate is opened , the public confidence is going to be destroyed.
” Some conservative commentators were enraged at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dobbs said that “ it ’ s a damn shame ” that Barr doesn ’ t understand what Trump and his family have been through , and demanded to know why Barr hadn ’ t arrested the dozens of people in the “ politically corrupt deep state within the Justice Department , the F.B.I.
” Dobbs wholly endorsed the idea that the President should control the Justice Department and criminal prosecutions .
“ I don ’ t want to hear any crap about an independent Justice Department , ” Dobbs said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , works for the President .
It ’ s part of the executive branch.
” The events of the past few days provide yet more examples of the impulsiveness and divisiveness that mark Trump ’ s Presidency .
The current turmoil relates to the February 20th sentencing of Roger Stone , Trump ’ s longtime friend and former campaign adviser .
In a case brought by prosecutors working for the special counsel Robert Mueller , a federal jury convicted Stone , in November , of lying to Congress and tampering with a witness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump campaign tried to benefit from e-mails stolen from the Democratic Party in 2016 .
In a court filing on Monday , the four prosecutors who handled the case recommended to a federal judge , Amy Berman Jackson , that Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison .
In the interview with ABC , Barr said that he was surprised when he heard of the recommendation that evening .
Earlier in the day , he had spoken with Timothy Shea , a longtime aide whom he recently appointed U.S. Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommendation to be shorter .
Barr said that he supported the prosecution of Stone , calling it “ righteous , ” and added that he was not “ a fan ” of the political operative , who has bragged about employing dirty tricks in campaigns since his involvement in Watergate .
But Barr felt that seven to nine years was excessive , so he told his subordinates to issue a new recommendation on Tuesday morning .
Later that night , though , after conservative commentators criticized the sentencing recommendation on Twitter , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Stone and the Mueller investigation .
“ This is a horrible and very unfair situation , ” Trump tweeted , at 1:48 a.m. “ The real crimes were on the other side , as nothing happens to them .
Can not allow this miscarriage of justice !
” When Barr learned of the tweet , he told ABC , he wasn ’ t sure if he should go ahead and submit a new sentencing recommendation .
Doing so would signal to the public that Trump had intervened in the case .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” he recalled thinking .
“ Do you go forward with what you think is the right decision , or do you pull back because of the tweet ?
And that just sort of illustrates how disruptive these tweets can be .
”

In the spring of 2001, historians interviewed William Barr about his tenure as Attorney General in the George H. W. Bush Administration. The multi-hour discussion was conducted by the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, as part of a project to record oral histories from former Presidents and the senior officials who served them. Midway through the interview, Barr spoke about the tremendous influence and discretion that federal prosecutors wield when deciding whether to charge a person with a crime. “One of the things I took away from the Department of Justice is what awesome power prosecutorial power is,” he said. “There’s no other power like it in government. Maybe the power to shoot a foreigner in war, but the prosecutive power destroys lives.”
Barr then proceeded to make an argument that turned a central premise of the post-Watergate American legal order on its head. After Watergate—and, particularly, Richard Nixon’s request to have the I.R.S. prosecute two hundred of his political enemies for tax fraud—there had been a drive in the Justice Department to prevent elected officials and their appointees from handling criminal prosecutions. The goal was to reassure the public that the department would apply the law equally to all Americans, regardless of whether they were the President’s rivals or his toadies.
Barr argued that the threat of unjust criminal prosecutions came not from elected politicians and their appointees but instead from unelected prosecutors who were simply trying to make a name for themselves. “I think it started picking up after Watergate, the idea that the Department of Justice has to be ‘independent,’ ” he told the historians, questioning a presumption that has been widely embraced in the forty-five years since Nixon resigned. Barr further contended that appointed officials should be allowed to oversee criminal cases because they—or their bosses—are ultimately held accountable by the voters. “I have come to feel that political supervision of the Department is very important,” he said. “Someone ultimately has to answer to the political process.” He added that elected officials don’t necessarily resolve cases based on political expediency. “The second-guessing is not for political reasons, it’s really because someone is exercising some maturity of judgment and putting things in perspective and saying, Why would you indict this person over this?”
On Thursday, after a year of serving as Donald Trump’s Attorney General, Barr struck a very different tone. In an interview with ABC News, he said, in reference to the President’s behavior, “To have public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job, and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we’re doing our work with integrity.”
And, in a second apparent break with Trump, the Justice Department announced on Friday that it would not be pursuing criminal charges in a case that the President has tried to influence: whether the former F.B.I. deputy director Andrew McCabe will be prosecuted for lying to investigators about his role in a news-media leak in 2016. That disclosure, about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, was damaging to Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign, but Trump has used the case to declare McCabe, an ally of the former F.B.I. director James Comey, a criminal.
Prior to this week, of course, Barr and Trump seemed to be working together seamlessly to politicize the Justice Department, deciding legal issues—and, increasingly, criminal prosecutions, as well—in ways that benefit the President politically. With surprising ease, they have reversed half a century of precedent that was designed to curb corruption in the criminal-justice system, and earned the enmity of hundreds of former Justice Department officials and legal experts. Many of those officials were deeply skeptical of Barr’s seeming rebuke of Trump in the ABC interview. “Barr’s insistence on his independence is not credible, considering his slavish devotion to Trump’s interests ahead of the nation’s interests until now,” Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at the New York University School of Law, told me.
Gillers argued that Trump has repeatedly signalled to potential targets of criminal investigations—from wealthy individuals to large corporations—that they may receive special treatment if they show loyalty to him. “Once you inject the idea that political considerations can affect any prosecution, even if it’s a small number, you encourage political contributions in order to win favor, to increase the possibility of a pardon or favorable treatment,” Gillers said. “Once that gate is opened, the public confidence is going to be destroyed.”
Some conservative commentators were enraged at Barr. The Fox News host Lou Dobbs said that “it’s a damn shame” that Barr doesn’t understand what Trump and his family have been through, and demanded to know why Barr hadn’t arrested the dozens of people in the “politically corrupt deep state within the Justice Department, the F.B.I.” Dobbs wholly endorsed the idea that the President should control the Justice Department and criminal prosecutions. “I don’t want to hear any crap about an independent Justice Department,” Dobbs said. “This Justice Department, as does everyone, works for the President. It’s part of the executive branch.”
The events of the past few days provide yet more examples of the impulsiveness and divisiveness that mark Trump’s Presidency. The current turmoil relates to the February 20th sentencing of Roger Stone, Trump’s longtime friend and former campaign adviser. In a case brought by prosecutors working for the special counsel Robert Mueller, a federal jury convicted Stone, in November, of lying to Congress and tampering with a witness to prevent investigators from learning how the Trump campaign tried to benefit from e-mails stolen from the Democratic Party in 2016.
In a court filing on Monday, the four prosecutors who handled the case recommended to a federal judge, Amy Berman Jackson, that Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison. In the interview with ABC, Barr said that he was surprised when he heard of the recommendation that evening. Earlier in the day, he had spoken with Timothy Shea, a longtime aide whom he recently appointed U.S. Attorney in Washington, and expected the sentencing recommendation to be shorter. Barr said that he supported the prosecution of Stone, calling it “righteous,” and added that he was not “a fan” of the political operative, who has bragged about employing dirty tricks in campaigns since his involvement in Watergate. But Barr felt that seven to nine years was excessive, so he told his subordinates to issue a new recommendation on Tuesday morning.
Later that night, though, after conservative commentators criticized the sentencing recommendation on Twitter, Trump weighed in, condemning both the treatment of Stone and the Mueller investigation. “This is a horrible and very unfair situation,” Trump tweeted, at 1:48 a.m. “The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!”
When Barr learned of the tweet, he told ABC, he wasn’t sure if he should go ahead and submit a new sentencing recommendation. Doing so would signal to the public that Trump had intervened in the case. “Well, now what do I do?” he recalled thinking. “Do you go forward with what you think is the right decision, or do you pull back because of the tweet? And that just sort of illustrates how disruptive these tweets can be.”
Nevertheless, Barr, who said that Trump has never asked him to intervene in any criminal case, submitted the new Stone filing. In a highly unusual step, senior Justice Department officials withdrew the four prosecutors’ recommendation and called for Stone to receive “far less” of a sentence. Their statement urged Judge Berman to consider Stone’s “advanced age, health, personal circumstances, and lack of criminal history in fashioning an appropriate sentence.”


newyorker--2020-02-14--The Ascendance of Bernie Sanders, and the Novelist Gish Jen

Centrist Democrats regard Sanders ’ s front-runner status as an existential threat .
Can a leftist—even a democratic socialist—consolidate the Party and win over swing-state voters in the general election ?
We revisit a high school that runs an election simulation , where a teen-age Trump tries to win over fellow-students from immigrant families .
And Gish Jen departs from her path in realistic fiction to write about a near future of class warfare , baseball , and a sentient Internet .
“ To write in a realistic mode about our times and everything that ’ s happening , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have nothing but shock and anger.
” Is Bernie Sanders So Bad for Democrats ?
Centrist Democrats regard Sanders ’ s front-runner status as an existential threat .
But can a leftist win over the Party faithful and rally voters in the general election ?
A Teen-age Trump Tries to Win His High School ’ s Election A civics project goes off the rails when high-school students run a simulation of the 2020 primaries .
The author ’ s fifth novel is about baseball , class warfare , and a sentient Internet @

Illustration by Golden Cosmos
Centrist Democrats regard Sanders’s front-runner status as an existential threat. Can a leftist—even a democratic socialist—consolidate the Party and win over swing-state voters in the general election? We revisit a high school that runs an election simulation, where a teen-age Trump tries to win over fellow-students from immigrant families. And Gish Jen departs from her path in realistic fiction to write about a near future of class warfare, baseball, and a sentient Internet. “To write in a realistic mode about our times and everything that’s happening,” she tells Katy Waldman, “we would have nothing but shock and anger.”
Is Bernie Sanders So Bad for Democrats?
Centrist Democrats regard Sanders’s front-runner status as an existential threat. But can a leftist win over the Party faithful and rally voters in the general election?
A Teen-age Trump Tries to Win His High School’s Election
A civics project goes off the rails when high-school students run a simulation of the 2020 primaries.
Gish Jen’s “The Resisters”
The author’s fifth novel is about baseball, class warfare, and a sentient Internet.


newyorker--2020-02-14--A Pioneering Video-Art Curator Chronicles the Medium in “Video/Art: The First Fifty Years”

Don ’ t be fooled by the straightforward title of the lively new book “ Video/Art : The First Fifty Years.
” A better description of Barbara London ’ s indispensable and enticingly personal history arrives two pages in , when she writes , “ This book describes the madcap trajectory of a pliable medium.
” Few guides are more qualified to lead readers through the rapid rise of the once renegade art form , which is now so ubiquitous that screens and paintings share walls in museums—London was the very first curator to introduce video to the Museum of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiments for forty-three years .
( She retired in 2013 . )
What makes her book such a fun read is that it ’ s not exactly the comprehensive survey its title implies .
Instead , it ’ s as much memoir as exegesis , an idiosyncratic front-line report from a deeply informed , intrepid , and passionate pioneer who is still in the trenches .
( London now teaches graduate students at Yale , and her exhibition on sound art is about to commence a five-year tour . )
Even her curatorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yorker was pursuing a graduate degree in Islamic art when she traded the classroom for downtown haunts , like Max ’ s Kansas City , which was the Cedar Tavern of the electronic avant-garde—or “ scenester intermedia mavericks , ” in London ’ s words .
So , although readers won ’ t learn about , say , Christian Marclay ’ s iconic twenty-four-hour video installation “ The Clock , ” from 2010 ( the artist merits a mention , but not regarding his most famous work ) , they will travel with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Shanghai , Hangzhou , and Guangzhou , in 1997 .
( Full disclosure : I was part of a team in New York that produced London ’ s daily online diary of that visit for MOMA , a blog before the word existed . )
Any history of video must begin with the wizardly Korean innovator Nam June Paik ( 1932-2006 ) , who is widely acknowledged as the medium ’ s founding father .
Paik plays a major role in London ’ s story , but , in addition to contextualizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she shares personal anecdotes , including this vivid description of his studio : “ I would crawl over and through a maze of electrical wire , tubes , and old circuitry to find Paik often standing in rubber boots , so as not to be electrocuted.
” Similarly , an in-depth account of the work of the influential New York artist Joan Jonas—who has been combining performance with technology since the late sixties and whose bewitching room-sized installation “ Mirage ” ( conceived in 1976 ) , a six-part game of drawing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new MOMA—includes the astrological tidbit that both the curator and the artist are Cancers .
( London writes , of this cosmic affinity , “ Once we met , I identified with her tenaciousness , imagination , and loyalty as a sympathetic friend.
” ) One special merit of London ’ s perspective is her emphasis on the role of women in the medium ’ s evolution , from familiar names like the pop-culture crossover artist Laurie Anderson to equally important but lesser-known figures like Dara Birnbaum , whose deliriously feminist spin on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view at MOMA , in the five-minute video “ Technology/Transformation : Wonder Woman.
” Not a bad label for the pathbreaking insights of London herself .

Don’t be fooled by the straightforward title of the lively new book “Video/Art: The First Fifty Years.” A better description of Barbara London’s indispensable and enticingly personal history arrives two pages in, when she writes, “This book describes the madcap trajectory of a pliable medium.” Few guides are more qualified to lead readers through the rapid rise of the once renegade art form, which is now so ubiquitous that screens and paintings share walls in museums—London was the very first curator to introduce video to the Museum of Modern Art, where she championed tech-based experiments for forty-three years. (She retired in 2013.) What makes her book such a fun read is that it’s not exactly the comprehensive survey its title implies. Instead, it’s as much memoir as exegesis, an idiosyncratic front-line report from a deeply informed, intrepid, and passionate pioneer who is still in the trenches. (London now teaches graduate students at Yale, and her exhibition on sound art is about to commence a five-year tour.) Even her curatorial path was unconventional: the native New Yorker was pursuing a graduate degree in Islamic art when she traded the classroom for downtown haunts, like Max’s Kansas City, which was the Cedar Tavern of the electronic avant-garde—or “scenester intermedia mavericks,” in London’s words.
So, although readers won’t learn about, say, Christian Marclay’s iconic twenty-four-hour video installation “The Clock,” from 2010 (the artist merits a mention, but not regarding his most famous work), they will travel with London to meet Chinese artists in Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Guangzhou, in 1997. (Full disclosure: I was part of a team in New York that produced London’s daily online diary of that visit for MOMA, a blog before the word existed.) Any history of video must begin with the wizardly Korean innovator Nam June Paik (1932-2006), who is widely acknowledged as the medium’s founding father. Paik plays a major role in London’s story, but, in addition to contextualizing him as a towering historical figure, she shares personal anecdotes, including this vivid description of his studio: “I would crawl over and through a maze of electrical wire, tubes, and old circuitry to find Paik often standing in rubber boots, so as not to be electrocuted.”
Similarly, an in-depth account of the work of the influential New York artist Joan Jonas—who has been combining performance with technology since the late sixties and whose bewitching room-sized installation “Mirage” (conceived in 1976), a six-part game of drawing and erasure, is a highlight of the new MOMA—includes the astrological tidbit that both the curator and the artist are Cancers. (London writes, of this cosmic affinity, “Once we met, I identified with her tenaciousness, imagination, and loyalty as a sympathetic friend.”) One special merit of London’s perspective is her emphasis on the role of women in the medium’s evolution, from familiar names like the pop-culture crossover artist Laurie Anderson to equally important but lesser-known figures like Dara Birnbaum, whose deliriously feminist spin on a DC superhero is also now on view at MOMA, in the five-minute video “Technology/Transformation: Wonder Woman.” Not a bad label for the pathbreaking insights of London herself.


newyorker--2020-02-14--A Couple in China on Living (and Cooking) Under Coronavirus Lockdown

Chris Thomas and Stephanie Li , a thirtysomething couple living in Shunde , China , run “ Chinese Cooking Demystified , ” one of YouTube ’ s most popular English-language series on Chinese cooking .
Thomas , who is white and American , has lived in China since graduating from college , in 2009 .
He met Li , who is Chinese and grew up in Zhaoqing , five years ago , when both were living in Shenzhen .
The couple bonded over their interest in Chinese cuisine , travelling together throughout the country to revel in regional specialties—street food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between—and then attempting to replicate their favorite dishes at home .
Last year , Thomas quit his day job , as a teacher , in order to focus on the series full time ; a few months later , Li , a translator , did too .
The couple film most of their videos on their apartment ’ s sunny , plant-filled balcony , using woks and skillets set over a portable burner .
But for their latest video , on mantou—steamed buns—they hit a snag .
In the video , we see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and form the buns , then arrange them in a bamboo steamer set in a wok over the camp stove on their balcony .
Then , unexpectedly , Li picks up the wok and steamer and carries them indoors .
“ Forgive us real quick for moving into our terribly lit kitchen for this step , ” Thomas says , in a voice-over .
“ See , our little outside camper burner is down to its very last can of butane .
And right now it ’ s a touch annoying to buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apocalypse outside.
” Like many cities in China , Shunde has placed its residents under lockdown , as the country tries to contain the breakout of the coronavirus .
The majority of confirmed cases of the disease are concentrated in areas around the city of Wuhan , more than a thousand kilometres to the north , where epidemiologists believe the virus most likely originated in a wet food market .
But there have been several dozen confirmed diagnoses in the cities of the Pearl River Delta , a dense megalopolis that includes Shunde @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and half a dozen other cities , collectively populated by more than fifty million people .
Last Saturday , after nearly two weeks of living under lockdown , Thomas posted a long , detailed , riveting entry about the experience on Reddit ’ s cooking forum , which quickly spread far beyond the usual readers of the site .
In the post , he discussed his and Li ’ s surreal daily routine and what they ’ ve learned about making their limited food stores last .
Like most people feeding themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Thomas and Li had been accustomed to working with an abundance of easily available ingredients and a shortage of time .
Now , on lockdown , this relationship was reversed—a change that , as Thomas wrote , has fundamentally changed the way he and Li think about cooking , recipes , and the notion of “ authenticity.
” I spoke to Li and Thomas via Skype , early in the morning of their eighteenth day on lockdown , about living and cooking in China right now .
This conversation has been edited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like right now , being under lockdown ?
Stephanie Li : For the first couple of days after the virus , the whole city was quiet ; nobody was on the street .
That ’ s very rare for Chinese cities .
You stay in your apartment ; you don ’ t go anywhere .
If you ’ re going on a grocery run , you wear a mask .
If you ’ re walking your dog on the rooftop , you wear a mask .
We don ’ t really get food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus , the markets had been closed down already for the Lunar New Year , and supermarkets only get one shipment a day .
Because everybody ’ s cooking at home , the fresh vegetables run out in the first half-hour .
We were running on our vegetable supply that we bought before the Lunar New Year for at least a week .
Chris Thomas : There was some sad-looking broccoli for a while there .
S.L .
: After that first week , supplies started coming back in the stores , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose what you get .
You just take whatever ’ s available .
C.T .
: It ’ s definitely getting better .
About a day after I posted that Reddit article , the markets opened again—for a Chinese city , that ’ s absolutely huge .
Certain people , especially U.S.-based , have this position of looking down on open-air markets .
They ’ ll say things , like , “ Of course this virus happened in China , they have open-air markets.
” I don ’ t know how much you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be absolutely wonderful .
And in China , especially , the markets themselves are so important to the food-supply chain .
In the U.S. , the major suppliers of food are the supermarkets , and maybe you go to the farmers ’ market to get some extra-fresh produce or whatever artisanal goods .
Here , the importance is really reversed .
So getting the markets back was huge .
They still run out of stuff , but it was really something today that we could actually get some scallions .
That was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did the lockdown in Shunde unfold ?
S.L .
: Things really escalated after Wuhan had all been locked down .
That ’ s when cities in other parts of China started being in a semi-locked-down mode .
There ’ s a community-management level of government , and they would arrange for apartment complexes to be locked down .
No delivery guys allowed ; only residents could come and go .
In some places , some bus lines are closed , some public transportation .
They tell you not to go out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway .
It ’ s also mandatory that you wear a mask to go out , and many people didn ’ t have the luck to actually have any masks .
C.T .
: Yeah , that was very quick thinking on Steph ’ s part .
At the beginning of all this I was , like , “ Oh , it ’ s just some news.
” But Steph went out immediately and bought masks .
I remember saying to Steph something , like , “ Well , how long can this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the SARS scare , back in ’ 03 , that whole thing was about two months .
I was , like , “ Jesus , two months ?
” That was the moment I realized , O.K.
, yeah , at the very least , life is not going to be normal for a while .
When the markets were closed , where were you able to get food ?
S.L .
: There was one bakery in the market that was open , and we ’ d order from them online .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we can get snacks , drinks , some packaged foods , like instant noodles .
Pickles .
C.T .
: We ’ ve had a couple of orders from the supermarket .
S.L .
: Basically to get whatever vegetables were available there .
C.T .
: The big ones are broccoli , carrot , and chilies .
They always have carrots .
Nobody likes carrots , really .
S.L .
: I saw fresh shiitake mushrooms one time , and there ’ s some kind of red-stem choy sum that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see it , because it ’ s a leafy green .
There were—are they sweet peas ?
Snow peas ?
S.L .
: Oh , and the chinese yam .
White chinese yam is always there .
That ’ s a root vegetable that we don ’ t really buy , because we already had potatoes at home .
C.T .
: This is where we ’ re lucky with the strange job that we have .
We had done a video of a mashed-potato dish from Yunnan , back in December , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these specific Yunnan potatoes , which turned out to be a whole thing .
To get the Yunnan potatoes here in Shunde we had to get these monster-sized bags of them—which have since run out , but , boy , we had those baby potatoes for a while .

Chris Thomas and Stephanie Li, a thirtysomething couple living in Shunde, China, run “Chinese Cooking Demystified,” one of YouTube’s most popular English-language series on Chinese cooking. Thomas, who is white and American, has lived in China since graduating from college, in 2009. He met Li, who is Chinese and grew up in Zhaoqing, five years ago, when both were living in Shenzhen. The couple bonded over their interest in Chinese cuisine, travelling together throughout the country to revel in regional specialties—street food, banquet food, and everything in between—and then attempting to replicate their favorite dishes at home. Last year, Thomas quit his day job, as a teacher, in order to focus on the series full time; a few months later, Li, a translator, did too.
The couple film most of their videos on their apartment’s sunny, plant-filled balcony, using woks and skillets set over a portable burner. But for their latest video, on mantou—steamed buns—they hit a snag. In the video, we see Li’s hands mix the dough and form the buns, then arrange them in a bamboo steamer set in a wok over the camp stove on their balcony. Then, unexpectedly, Li picks up the wok and steamer and carries them indoors. “Forgive us real quick for moving into our terribly lit kitchen for this step,” Thomas says, in a voice-over. “See, our little outside camper burner is down to its very last can of butane. And right now it’s a touch annoying to buy more, because it’s the apocalypse outside.”
Like many cities in China, Shunde has placed its residents under lockdown, as the country tries to contain the breakout of the coronavirus. The majority of confirmed cases of the disease are concentrated in areas around the city of Wuhan, more than a thousand kilometres to the north, where epidemiologists believe the virus most likely originated in a wet food market. But there have been several dozen confirmed diagnoses in the cities of the Pearl River Delta, a dense megalopolis that includes Shunde, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Macau, and half a dozen other cities, collectively populated by more than fifty million people.
Last Saturday, after nearly two weeks of living under lockdown, Thomas posted a long, detailed, riveting entry about the experience on Reddit’s cooking forum, which quickly spread far beyond the usual readers of the site. In the post, he discussed his and Li’s surreal daily routine and what they’ve learned about making their limited food stores last. Like most people feeding themselves in the world’s developed cities, Thomas and Li had been accustomed to working with an abundance of easily available ingredients and a shortage of time. Now, on lockdown, this relationship was reversed—a change that, as Thomas wrote, has fundamentally changed the way he and Li think about cooking, recipes, and the notion of “authenticity.” I spoke to Li and Thomas via Skype, early in the morning of their eighteenth day on lockdown, about living and cooking in China right now. This conversation has been edited and condensed.
What’s it like right now, being under lockdown?
Stephanie Li: For the first couple of days after the virus, the whole city was quiet; nobody was on the street. That’s very rare for Chinese cities. You stay in your apartment; you don’t go anywhere. If you’re going on a grocery run, you wear a mask. If you’re walking your dog on the rooftop, you wear a mask. We don’t really get food supplies, especially fresh vegetables. Before the virus, the markets had been closed down already for the Lunar New Year, and supermarkets only get one shipment a day. Because everybody’s cooking at home, the fresh vegetables run out in the first half-hour. We were running on our vegetable supply that we bought before the Lunar New Year for at least a week.
Chris Thomas: There was some sad-looking broccoli for a while there.
S.L.: After that first week, supplies started coming back in the stores, but you don’t get to choose what you get. You just take whatever’s available.
C.T.: It’s definitely getting better. About a day after I posted that Reddit article, the markets opened again—for a Chinese city, that’s absolutely huge. Certain people, especially U.S.-based, have this position of looking down on open-air markets. They’ll say things, like, “Of course this virus happened in China, they have open-air markets.” I don’t know how much you’ve travelled, but open-air markets can be absolutely wonderful. And in China, especially, the markets themselves are so important to the food-supply chain. In the U.S., the major suppliers of food are the supermarkets, and maybe you go to the farmers’ market to get some extra-fresh produce or whatever artisanal goods. Here, the importance is really reversed. So getting the markets back was huge. They still run out of stuff, but it was really something today that we could actually get some scallions. That was big. That was exciting.
How did the lockdown in Shunde unfold?
S.L.: Things really escalated after Wuhan had all been locked down. That’s when cities in other parts of China started being in a semi-locked-down mode. There’s a community-management level of government, and they would arrange for apartment complexes to be locked down. No delivery guys allowed; only residents could come and go. In some places, some bus lines are closed, some public transportation. They tell you not to go out, but people are scared to go outside anyway. It’s also mandatory that you wear a mask to go out, and many people didn’t have the luck to actually have any masks.
C.T.: Yeah, that was very quick thinking on Steph’s part. At the beginning of all this I was, like, “Oh, it’s just some news.” But Steph went out immediately and bought masks.
I remember saying to Steph something, like, “Well, how long can this last?” And she said that the SARS scare, back in ’03, that whole thing was about two months. I was, like, “Jesus, two months?” That was the moment I realized, O.K., yeah, at the very least, life is not going to be normal for a while.
When the markets were closed, where were you able to get food?
S.L.: There was one bakery in the market that was open, and we’d order from them online. We have a 7-Eleven across the street, and we can get snacks, drinks, some packaged foods, like instant noodles. Pickles.
C.T.: We’ve had a couple of orders from the supermarket.
S.L.: Basically to get whatever vegetables were available there.
C.T.: The big ones are broccoli, carrot, and chilies. They always have carrots. Nobody likes carrots, really.
S.L.: I saw fresh shiitake mushrooms one time, and there’s some kind of red-stem choy sum that’s we just get whenever we see it, because it’s a leafy green. There were—are they sweet peas? Snow peas?
C.T.: Sugar-snap peas.
S.L.: Oh, and the chinese yam. White chinese yam is always there. That’s a root vegetable that we don’t really buy, because we already had potatoes at home.
C.T.: This is where we’re lucky with the strange job that we have. We had done a video of a mashed-potato dish from Yunnan, back in December, and we needed to test it with these specific Yunnan potatoes, which turned out to be a whole thing. To get the Yunnan potatoes here in Shunde we had to get these monster-sized bags of them—which have since run out, but, boy, we had those baby potatoes for a while.
S.L.: Luckily our latest video was about mantou, so all you need is flour and yeast, and we had that at home. So during this time we also have an abundance of these sweet steamed buns. And, coming up, we’re going to do a video that’s just discussing ingredients.