Notes on the Death of Culture, by Mario Vargas Llosa

s

This book will keep you entertained, but not always in the best possible way. It is all over the place with regards to theme, structure and degree of coherence in the different texts. That might not come as a big surprise as it is a collection of articles, but it is hard to find any common thread that link to the theme of death of culture. Still the pure energy and passion from Llosa addressing a very interesting subject makes an interesting read.

I feel a bit disappointed, as he starts of well and then get’s lost as soon as he ventures into the concrete challenges of the 21st century. Instead of trying to understand the world we live in it looks as he just gets frustrated. The sad thing is that he often confuses his lack of understanding of different things with negative implications for culture. Just because you do not understand something does not mean that it is bad. The result is a text that is a confusing mix of reflections that rage between brilliant and ridiculous. It is like listening to person that can go from a wise old man to a pathetic and confused person, who is just bitter that the world has left him behind, in a few sentences.

The book can be divided into three parts: 1. A general discussion about culture 2. A critique of those who have diluted the concept of culture 3. Concrete examples from politics and "power"

The first part is very well written, interesting and important. It covers a number of key questions, including what does the concept "culture" mean and what are the negative consequences of the (often well intended) culture relativism that dominate the intellectuals of our time. What structures are defending culture and what’s the responsibility of mainstream media?

The second focus on important groups, including media, policy makers, and academics as well as those representing culture (artists, authors, etc.). This brings up some valid but vague points, but as the book lack any framework or narrative it is hard to really find much of substance. The third category is where you have to chose if you want to laugh, feel sorry, or just skip a page or two.

The problem with the book is that about 95% of what is really interesting can be found in two chapters; The introduction “metamorphosis of a Word” that discusses the concept of culture and in “final thoughts” where he reelects on the tension between two characteristics of our time captured in the following two quotes:

“Never before have we lived in an age so rich in scientific knowledge and technological discoveries; never have we been better equipped to defeat illness, ignorance and poverty, and yet perhaps we have never been so confused about certain basic questions such as what are we doing on this lightless planet of ours, if mere survival is the sole aim that justifies life, if concepts such as spirit, ideals, pleasure, love, solidarity, art, creation, beauty, soul, transcendence still have meaning and, if so, what these meanings might be? The raison d’être of culture was to give an answer to these questions. ”

“why is it that the culture we inhabit has become so banal as to be, in many cases, a pale reflection of what our fathers and grandfathers understood by the term?”

The text in these two chapters is really sharp and interesting. I really hope that as many as possible of those who are trying to make the world a better place will read it at it addresses many of the broader trends in society they tend to be ignored. Llosa discusses the implications of a society where nothing is better than anything else and where we no longer accept to be challenged, only entertained. You will not find many original ideas, but it is well written and these basic questions are seldom discussed outside academic rooms.

For the next chapters, it is not very much there. Perhaps part of Llosa’s frustration is that his own thinking becomes trivial when he tries to fit them in mainstream magazines, if that is the case it is something that I would really like to hear him discuss. This is however not the case and in the book he writes introductions to articles he has written for El país over the years and generally the introductions are more interesting than the articles themselves. I actually think it would have been better if he left the old articles out and just expanded the introductions.

For the chapters between the introduction and conclusion I was primarily fascinated with the bitterness, incoherent reasoning and lack of understanding when it comes to new trends and technologies. As it is translated from Spanish it was surprising that the main thing I enjoyed with the book was the language, so I have to congratulate to John King who translated the book. Either he did a fantastic work where he captured a text that was originally very well written, or he made it a joy to read anyway.

Instead of going through all the gems and the strange ramblings in the book I will just comment on a few quotes from the book. First, three examples of the kind of gems you will find. They are nothing special and once I finished the book and went back I realized that I mainly picked quite trivial observations, as I wanted to find something, so most of them feel more like pyrite than actual gems.

On reading a good book: “what is important about reading good novels always happens after the event; it is an effect that lights up in one’s memory and over time. This fire is still alive within me because, without these books, for better or worse, I would not be who I am, I would not believe what I believe, nor would I have the doubts and certainties that sustain me.”

I like the long-term perspective and one reason I stopped writing book reviews in newspapers was that I felt that the rush to comment did not allow me to really reflect on the book. I feel that much of what is out there are books that are written quickly, read in an hour or two and forgotten in a month or two. It is a market for this kind of airport literature and I’m interested to explore the dynamics behind this phenomenon at some stage. The reason I want to do this is that I’m afraid that they might play an important and especially dangerous role when it comes to making society more stupid. Especially as these books are the only things containing some kind of coherent reasoning (then it is just magazines and TED-talks with close to zero intellectual value, but high entertainment value) for many decision makers.

On the problem with markets in relation to culture: “The free market fixes the prices of products solely in terms of supply and demand, which has meant that almost everywhere, including in the most cultured societies, literary and artistic works of the highest worth are under-appreciated and marginalized because they are difficult and require a certain intellectual background and refined sensibility in order to be fully appreciated”

This is one of the most important issues today. Unfortunately Llosa does little more than reminding us that it is an important issue, but there are no real ideas for how to take steps to improve the situation. If you write about a new area it might be OK just to make people aware, but this is not a new area, so something more substantial would be good.

On responsibility of authors “although I believe that literature should be engaged with the problems of its time and that writers should write with the conviction that, by writing, they can help others become more free, sensitive and lucid, I am far from advocating that the civic and moral ‘commitment’ of intellectuals will guarantee that they will make good decisions, support the best options to curb violence, reduce injustice and promote freedom. I have been wrong myself too many times, and I have seen too many writers that I admired also make mistakes, sometimes putting their talents to supporting ideological lies and state crimes, to delude myself.”… “which does not mean that we should not do everything in our power not to make it worse than it is”

This is a very interesting topic and it would have been great to see Llosa elaborate on these thoughts. What does it mean in practice and in what ways has he engaged in different issues? The fact that Llosa has moved politically over the years has been discussed a lot and it would have been interesting to hear his own words on his changes.

Second, a few examples of the weird writing.

On reading digital: “Of course the Web can store Proust, Homer, Popper and Plato, but it would be difficult to imagine that their work will have many digital readers. Why take the time to read the books if in Google I can find simple, clear and approachable summaries of what they wrote in those dense, massive books that prehistoric readers once read?”

I think it is safe to say that the lack of reading classics today has very little to do with the format, physical or digital, that book are delivered in, as long as it is easy on the eye (that was not the case until a few years ago).

The fact that many studies indicate the reading of books is going slightly down (about 10% points last 30 years) should have very little to do with the web (the trends started before the web played any significant role).  Still it is an important issue that should be discussed. Not just from a quantitative perspective, but also quality.

It would be interesting to know how many people today who has read Plato, Popper, Homer and Proust. If anyone knows of such studies please let me know.

You could even argue that the possibility to read other peoples comments and share interesting parts in more complex/demanding books would increase the possibility of people reading the classics. If people only want to read the summary it is because we have a society where this is enough. When people read all books as if they have one idea that can be forgotten in a few months this has an impact on how you read as well as what you read. The easy access for information and the possibility to browsing provides might have an impact on how we read and this have been discussed in many books (some of them I have discussed). The fact that role models today, policy makers, business leaders, pop stars seldom talk about/quote Plato, Popper, Homer or Proust is probably one of the main challenges and that responsibility is shared by many.

On religion in society “But perhaps even more damaging still for the cause that the Constitutional Court is championing is that the only politicians who have thus far come out in its defence have been that handful of shabby and vegetarian parliamentarians, lovers of chlorophyll and fasting – the Greens – whom nobody in this country of dedicated sausage and steak eaters takes very seriously.”

This is an example of when Llosas lack of political understanding and his as well as dated perspective becomes painfully clear. Llosa wrote this in 1995, and in 1998 the Greens became a governing party. When it comes to religion (especially in Germany) I think people like Joschka Fischer, from the Greens, have things that Llosa might learn from… The style is also so conservative that it is hard to take Llosa serious as it sounds like a caricature in one of Houellebecq’s books.

Simplification/entertainment in media/society and Julian Assange “Julian Assange, rather than being a great freedom fighter, is a successful entertainer, the Oprah Winfrey of the information world.”

There is much that can be said about Julian Assange and Wikileaks, but to call him “the Oprah Winfrey of the information world” and accuse him for trivializing the public debate is very strange to say the least. If anything Assange and Wikileaks (and other groups working for transformative transparency for powerful organisations and the right for individuals to protect their data) has contributed to a much needed discussion about information/rights and power structures in the 21st Century. The individual leaks are the less important contribution, the ideas about transparency, civil courage and collaboration that they have helped make part of the mainstream conversation is something to be very grateful for.

There are challenges with Wikileaks, ranging from unbalance in leaks where the most secretive governments and companies (so far) has not come under very much scrutiny, to the protection of privacy (e.g. when private mails from one of CIA chiefs John Brennan). The first Wikileaks has not addressed very much so far, but the later has been discussed.  I should add that Julian have made clear that he want more leaks from countries like China and Russia, but I have not seen a discussion about possible consequences when those countries who are relatively more transparent and have better working legal systems are exposed to leaks, while those where almost no transparency exist and where you can disappear if you say something that the government does not approve of. I have seen this problem in the corporate sector where those with some transparency are hunted by NGOs and media, while the really dirty and secretive are not criticised. This is a difficult question the require serious thinking.

But challenges exist in all areas, and the more important the area is the more significant challenges you tend to get. It is just sad that so many conservative people seem to ignore the problem in the existing system and only see problem when someone is challenging this old system. Of all people to pick as an example for simplicity in media, Assange is probably one of the worst on the planet. Talk about any owner of the main media outlets, talk about the key journalists, talk about politicians (both as regulators of the media and how the participate). The way Assange and Wikileaks have helped open up the closet and let some light in when it comes to some of the most powerful and most corrupt areas today is nothing short of historic.

The one thing I would say that I like about Llosa is that he talks about what Assange has done. So many (especially irrelevant journalist in outlets that have no global relevance and who have done nothing ground braking in their lives) retreat to ad hominem

The whole discussion about entertainment in society is obviously very interesting and relevant. I can see a significant problem when one of the most influential and trusted persons in US politics is/was John Stuart, a comedian who communicates news with slapstick humour. He is very funny and entertaining, like Steven Colbert and other talk show hosts, but if that is the best we have when it comes to serious political dialogue we are in deep trouble.

With regards to John Stewart I would like to recommend the now classic clip of John Stewart at Crossfire, when he discuss the role of journalists, just to make it clear that it is not John Stuart, or Colbert, I’m criticizing, it is the media environment that makes this the best we have to offer in terms of political discussion. This is what I would have hoped that Llosa could have discussed.

To end on a positive note, there those who want to do more than put simple messages when it comes to the challenges we face, and quite a few use new medium. Here are a few (I should not have to say it, but obviously I don't agree with all of them, or even most, that why I like them. They are doing an honest job of trying to take issues serious most of the time).

https://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PulitzerCenter
https://www.youtube.com/profile?user=uchannel
https://www.youtube.com/user/IntelligenceSquared
https://www.youtube.com/user/egsvideo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZO0sfXzrac

PS (21st March 2016) I got some feedback about the example I usually give when it comes to media with content, and it is true that I tend to use older examples as references for what can be done. Here are two fantastic examples. They are still better than anything contemporary I have found:

Dennis Potter's last interview

A discussion between Noam Chomsky & Michel Foucault - On human nature

Aurora, by Kim Stanley Robinson

I thought this book was short and my idea was to start by saying that it is fantastic how much Robinson has fitted on so few pages. When I checked the number of pages (480) I first thought I looked at the wrong book as i thought it was under 200. It is still impressive to create the kind of epos that Auroa is in 480 pages (it is the kind of story that tend to be a trilogy), but with 480 pages I'm impressed that I never lost interest.

I don’t know why I liked this book so much, it just felt as if it was written with passion and an curiosity to explore new areas in new ways. I will try to not provide any spoilers, but there is a theme that should feel very depressing and limiting, still I felt it was presented in such a beautiful way that I felt very inspired when the book was over.

I would not go as far as saying that it opened up a new category for me, but usually I look for one of four things in a science fiction.

1. Extrapolation: A world where new technology/trend is extrapolated in a way that is interesting, especially the social/psychological implications (e.g. if we are where to upload our minds into computers how could such a society look and what are the new challenges/opportunities, or what will happen if the geopolitical situation changes dramatically)

2. Creative solutions: A mystery solved in a fascinating way or a new twist on a well known phenomena (a creative solution to the Fermi paradox is a good, and common, example)

3. Utopias/dystopias: Where a whole new world is created that is portrayed as something positive (more interesting but not very common) or negative)

4. Transitions: What happens over time, not just one transition - multiple transitions.

I would argue that this book covers all four areas and one more, it creates a set of characters that you get to know as they pursue a journey that in many ways is a modern Aniara. As I wrote above I still do not know why I like the book so much, but in some ways it feels like a friend that you do not want to analyze just for the sake of finding flaws.

For me it was also surprising that I liked the book the way I did as I think the way the narrative was created was simple and used no fancy tricks to capture the imagination. As I tend to like smart tricks in science fiction this book almost felt like a good book, that just happened a science fiction setting.

Compared with many other science fiction authors Robinson focus on the human element, and does so with empathy. So many science fiction writers only have people in the stories to explain the technologies and/or cool ideas. It is as if Robinson really want humanity to find a way forward.

Not sure if any of what I write about this book make sense, regardless I would recommend giving this book a chance. I feel lucky that I came across Robinson and will look for more books to read.

[Ps. As I was looking for another book by Robinson I came across this article… that I recommend as it provides an interesting perspective on Robinson. The article was written before Aurora, and it looks like Robinson might have a few books that I look forward to read.]

Submission, by Michel Houellebecq

It took me a few months to get around to read this book and another few months to gather my thoughts and figure about what/if I wanted to say about it. The fact that Houellebecq was on the cover of the magazine Charlie Hebdo when his book launched was obviously no coincident and a total coincident. The fact that this book and his persona are both entangled in the story he is writing and transcending it makes this a book difficult and very interesting to approach. The possibilities to upset people when discussing the book is almost guaranteed.

One part of me want to just focus on the way he approaches a situation and deconstructs it in a playful way while he constantly keeps pulling you out of the magic with trivia and poses. It is a perfect example of a book that not only has many levels, but a book that also moves between these levels in a way that you often makes you feel as if you are in the middle of an Escher painting; never knowing if you are in a reality, or an illusion, or of the distinction is meaningless.

The book could easily be seen as a critique of "political" academics who can't see beyond their esoteric subjects, in this case by using the reflection of today’s academic life through the lens of Joris-Karl Huysmans. Even easier it could be seen as a critique of our current politicians who have no vision beyond survival. We get a mirror reflecting back so many of the inconsistencies in western societies, and France in particular, that we lose our original vantage point; as you do when you close to mirrors and see the number of reflections move towards infinity. If anything provides a safe haven and stability it is the moderate Muslim, Ben Abbes, who bring some vision and passion to politics.

The book obviously include some of Houellebecq's standard provocations, but I think Houellebecq has found a way to use them to guide us though difficult passages in the Escher maze.

The role of religion as a potential provider of a deeper meaning in society is a very interesting theme of the book. We get a secular France of today contrasted with a culture that might not be very religious in the spiritual sense, but the practical and passionate sense.

In parts it is almost as if Houellebecq is asking his fellow Frenchmen if they realize that the dream they have for a glorious France can only be found 100 years ago with a strong role for Catholicism, or today with Islam…

As with all Houellebecq's books the beauty of it is that it is impossible to know when the author is just provocative, when he is just holding up a mirror, when he is making a political/ethical point (the last something I guess he will never admit doing, and that makes the books so much more powerful), and when we are just getting lost in the maze.

I don't think the book is as challenging, or as beautiful written, as some of his earlier books. But it is perhaps the book that is most coherent and “mature” in the positive sense of the word.

As I still feel insecure about what aspects I really want to discuss in the book I would like to recommend this text by Elif Batuman. It covers some of the aspects that I have not discussed in this text and her beautiful writing is not just a contrast to this text, it was actually the first text that I thought approached Submission in a way that added to the book with the kind of honesty that you tend to long for after reading Houellebecq.

Charlie_Hebo-houellebecq

Superforecasting, by Philip Tetlock & Dan Gardner

Superforecasting

This is a very interesting book, not just for those interested in forecasting and how different groups tend to use it, but also as a general guidance book for how to think if you want to contribute to change (not just be visible in media that many seem to confuse with actual change).

I would describe the overall theme of the book as a discussion of the value of critical/scientific thinking. These days this alone makes it an unusual and valuable contribution. Even basic knowledge, like having an open mind and learn from those you don’t like, is described in a surprisingly good way. Especially as these are things that are easy to say and might sound obvious if you have never been in the situation, but Tedlock does a good job in explaining why it is difficult to be open and critical both on an individual level and within the structures we have and then provide some guidance on how to address this.

There are a lot of areas that Tedlock covers, but I will focus on four that I found especially interesting.

First, an area that Tedlock covers too briefly, but that I really would like someone to explore further, is the role of "forecasting experts" and media. Tedlock is unusually clear: Media is a big problem when it comes to presenting important issues, as they look for simplicity and drama. Therefore they don’t allow people to hear experts (people who actually know what they talk about and make scientific predictions), instead media is providing a platform for “experts” (people with strong opinions and a capacity to present those opinions in simple and dramatic terms).

I should probably emphasize that by media I - and I think also Tedlock - mean mainstream media, especially the big new papers and TV channels. There is a lot of sophisticated and elaborated discussions in more specialized media, even if the simplicity seem to be spreading as we have seen in the case like Foreign Affairs and Financial Times.

If it was only media that engaged in the simplicity circus together with the media pundits it would not be much to care about. The problem is that it is mainstream media that influence much of policymaking, business decisions and also the public opinion. Much of the discussion focus on individual issues, but an even bigger problem is the long-term trend where actual knowledge and science plays a less and less important role. It would be interesting to explore how a scientific forecasting approach could be used to guide better governance structures, especially for global governance.

Second, another related area that I find interesting is that there are almost never any evaluations of statements and conclusions by different experts, even when it comes to reports and studies. Almost never are the experts, who are asked to comment on different issues and who also suggests actions that influence decision makers, evaluated. Such an evaluation process would show that the experts visible in media are very often wrong (more so than those with a more scientific approach to different areas) or, even more common, make such vague and sweeping statements that they are impossible to evaluate.

I think Björn Lomborg is a very good example (much better than Friedman, that Tedlock uses) of the kind of problem Tedlock highlights with media, experts and evaluation. Lomborg pretends that he is scientific and media often treats him as if he has something serious to say. A good example of his simplistic rhetoric is his approach to climate change. He never clarifies what probabilities he assumes for different climate scenarios. He just keep claiming that too much is being done and in the wrong way, but any serious person would fist clarify what probabilities they assume for different impacts and then talk about reasonable measures. He is also changing his messages without clarifying how and why, but one can assume it is to make donors happy and to make sure that he fits within the existing media narrative.

Third, I like that Tedlock discusses “black swans”, as this is one of the buzzwords that have influenced policymaking and the general discussion about risk in a way that I think is problematic. A black swan event is usually used to refer to an event as something that was (almost) impossible to predict. A closer look makes it obvious that very few of the events that are called “black swans” are anything like black swans. They might be low-probability or not fit in the models influential people like to use, but they are not black swans.

To create a culture where society accepts that there are many “black swan events” that we can never foresee is a dangerous (and in many ways a very unscientific) path to walk down. In reality there are very few black swans and I would have liked Tedlock to spend some more time on how to address this challenge (beyond showing that few black swan events exists). I guess it might because Tedlock tries to expand a quite traditional approach to include also events that are harder to foresee. My focus is more on the low-probability high-impact events, and in that area black swans are a significant problem.

The idea of using “dragon kings” to refer to events that are known outliers I think is a much more interesting and fruitful starting point. With such an a approach it is also possible to discuss how we can gather more data and improve our ways of assessing data to ensure that black swan events are kept to a minimum. There are some earlier potential black swan events that are now well understood and where systems exist to reduce the probabilities and impacts of such events. Often research is the best cure, but we need to create systems where we better understand what data we need to look for and how to process it.

I should point out that I think there are a lot of merits in the approach by the main “brain” behind the black swan concept, Taleb. Especially his idea of “antifragile”, as a way to describe a situation where a system "thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder, and stressors and love adventure, risk, and uncertainty". This way to approach risk management as an opportunity and think about how we turn problems into something positive. Especially how we can incorporate such an approach in our urge for efficiency as efficiency usually result in very fragile and unstable systems.

Finally, the fact that Tedlock also spends a significant part of the book discussing different tools to evaluate and improve forecasting makes the book very valuable. The area of evaluating experts/foresights is one of the most important areas moving forward. In this process a key priority should be to update/reform the Brier score (and other similar tools) to address the challenge with those who claims 100% certainty as well as the risks that are unique in their impacts (e.g. risks with potentially infinite impacts).

There are a few things that I think are problematic with this book, and it becomes clear that Tedlock’s strength is research about groups doing forecasting in controlled environments. As soon as he starts discussing practical implementation of forecasting the books start to loose focus, and/or feel out-dated and sometimes even wrong. Most of the concrete examples suffer from this. E.g. even if Tedlock makes a point of learning from those we do not sympathise with it is strange when he only include companies like Walmart and 3M as examples of good forecasting. These are companies might have been of interest 10-20 years ago when they broke some new ground.

What I like is that the weakness, when it comes to actual implementation and broader implications, is actually an inspiration to take things further. I think it would have been better if Tedlock made it clear that others must take this further, but for anyone interested in more than academic work it is clear that he has provided us with a very good framework to develop further.

To conclude, this is a book that rests on many years of serious research and is presented in a way that makes it very easy to challenge the different assumptions, the way good scientific work should conducted and presented. The fact that you can actually create structures/cultures to facilitate better forecasting is very interesting. Even more are the structures we have today that are working against a structured and scientific approach to approaching the future. I would have liked to see more discussion about the challenge that low-probability extreme high-impact event present. This in particularly as much of the focus in media/media focused institutions (like WEF and TED) is on the short-term and the aspects that are easy to measure (in economic terms). Hopefully this will be addressed in the next book.

The Resurrectionist, by Eric Hudspeth

Not sure if I liked the form or idea better, but does it matter when they complement each other? This is book that gave me a feeling of someone who tried something interesting and it worked. The drawings are magnificent and while the basic story is not really breaking any new ground the combination of text and images brings the book to life in a way that surprised me.

That I would like to have seen a much longer novel where the character was more fully developed - and both the different events and the creatures where described in more details - I think the short format and almost sketch-like writing added to the feeling of realism.

The book tells the story of Spencer Black. He is a 19th-century physician who as a young boy helps his father, who is a professor of anatomy, with grave-robbing. He is fascinated with anatomy and one of the first areas he focus on are transformations in the insect world. Then he takes this further to the human body where deformations becomes his passion. This passion then leads him on a path where he ventures into new territories. Territories where madness and genius are very close to each other.

A short story where metamorphosis , anatomy, myths are reflected in illustrations that pays homage to the early scientists is something woth experiencing, and I hope as many as possible will give the book the chance it deserves.