__________________?

Have you ever wondered what your offspring would be like if you had married someone else?ⁱ What would theyⁱⁱ look like? Would their intelligence be different? And what about personality? Chances are there wouldn't be that much of a difference. You'd probably have chosen a mate with some similarities to the one you did – physical, intellectual and personality ones – and that means the children wouldn't be all that much different from what you have. Your parenting techniques would probably be much like the ones you used or are using now, so nurture, like nature, wouldn't vary all that much from what's currently the case. Of course you'll never know. If that had been the case you'd have other offspring and there would be no one available for the comparison with them.

But there would be one major difference – _____________ [fill in with your children's namesⁱⁱⁱ] wouldn't exist. The ones you love dearly, simply wouldn't be there. And you'd never know the difference.^iv Nor would they. Not existing, how could they know the opportunity lost to them? And whatever impact they would have had on the world won't come about, but no one will ever be aware of that. And their children – the images of your beloved sons and daughters – will never be known to you. That, though, is life. Or, more to the point, that isn't life. And, of course, there's always the possibility that you might never have existed.

Abortion is like that – the child^v lost will never be known by us, nor ever self-aware. But there's one important difference, because no other would be born in his place. The first situation – a different child because one of the parents is different – represents a kind of zero-sum exercise, even if the gain and loss can't be compared because they won't both exist. In the case of abortion, it's all loss. It's not zero-sum, but all negative. The starting point – the fetus – will never mature into a human. It will be ablated before it is fully developed. Almost the same as contraception, except that the latter is more passive than active.^vi Almost the same, but not quite. There's no need to destroy what never existed. In that way, it's more zero-sum than negative.

What is the meaning of life? That's what it all comes down to, even if I have no idea what is the answer to the question. I don't even know what the question is.^vii It is clearly a matter of concern to the general population though. Just as the question of abortion^viii troubles society, so does the use of capital punishment in American society.^ix And there are numerous vegetarians and their “extremists,” vegans. Where they all stand on the treatment of bacterial infections, which require the killing of bacteria, I don't know. Perhaps, because they consider vegetables fair game, this doesn't bother them.^x,xi But what about killing tapeworms? And even if they believe the use of leather should be proscribed, what's the status of wool? Is there a single answer to the question of life or do individuals and society have to draw their own lines?

I don't recall the invention of fire. Nor do I remember Socrates, Attila the Hun, Napoleon, or Woodrow Wilson. I hadn't been born. I didn't exist. Suppose you never existed. Of course you wouldn't be aware of it. Nor would you be aware that you weren't aware. Nor would you be. You would certainly have no memory of those past events I mentioned. Or anything else. But, unaware, you wouldn't care.

That's all philosophy. The good thing about being a philosopher is that you can ask unanswerable questions and, if you come up with any kind of a system to account for the problems you raise, you can use terminology so arcane that it won't be understood. The only person who can come close is the clergyman. His questions, however, even if answered by unprovable assertions, are usually followed by an understandable explanation – but one that often ends with a declaration of faith.

So what's the point? There are no answers. The “ultimate question” will always be around and no one will be able to answer it. All we can do is imagine. And as you're considering questions of life and death – as you're formulating a position on the issues raised here – imagine, for example, that _____________ had never been born.

Next episode: “There She Is, Myth America?” – A conventional solution to an unconverniotnal problem.

i     Read on even if you're not married. The points are the same.

ii     For a single child make the appropriate pronoun substitution here and in later references.

iii     Or, if you have no children, the name or names of whoever is dear to you.

iv     You'd love whoever was there and not give any thought to what might have been.

v     Make substitution(s) here if needed. This is the last time I'll mention it. From now on you're on your own.

vi     Intra-uterine devices (IUDs) are abortifacients, not contraceptives.

vii    For Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything was 42. I guess that's as good as anything, even if the saga's computer had decided that the question was to find the product of nine and six. By the way, it words in base thirteen – however neither Adams nor the computer was working with this base.

viii   Viewed by the courts as an issue of privacy.

ix    Ignoring the question of whether mistakes may be made, there is a real argument about whether it is ever justified to take a life. Some pacifists don't even consider that war justifies such action. And self-defense is not an adequate reason. Life was given by G-d and only he is justified in taking it away. In the final chapter of Samuel II (24:14) David says: “... let us fall into the hand of the Lord for his mercies are great; don't let me fall into the hand of man.”

x    Some claim that vegetables are sensate and we should feel their pain.

xi    I'd view that as a facetious question except that I know that pacifists might not consider “self-defense” as a satisfactory reason for killing, and that some religious believers may prefer to leave all healing in G-d's “hands.”

Morning Is Dawning

One of the most effective educational experiences I ever had took place in elementary school. It was also one of the most destructive. Taught with all the best intentions, “Music Appreciation” reflected the fact that at one time we valued education in the arts and viewed it as an integral part of a rounded education. Sadly, the arts are quick to be dropped when schools suffer fiscal pressures.ⁱ But teaching about Mozart's 41^st Symphony by training young minds to forever associate it with “This is Jupiter, this is Jupiter” results in our never being able to enjoy it free of that overlay. Similarly, Peer Gynt, always accompanied by “Morning is dawning and Peer Gynt is yawning,” or Schubert's 8^th Symphony, forever remembered by the line “This is the symphony, that Schubert wrote but never finished,” may cause these classics to be imprinted in your memory, but it doesn't lead to appreciating them. Much the opposite. It turns them into meaningless themes. It takes the music out of them.

Unfortunately, our current mantra, “No Child Left Behind,” is equally likely to be counterproductive. By setting national “standards” based on standardized examinations unrelated to the interests and abilities of the students, and requiring teachers to teach to the test, we're placing too much emphasis on test-taking ability, and not enough on knowledge and understanding. We're taking the learning out of education. And we're also teaching the students the wrong message.

A large part of the problem is the belief that a student's performance is based solely on that of his teacher.ⁱⁱ No cognizance is taken of inherent ability,ⁱⁱⁱ student interest, parental involvement,^iv or the involvement of the principal, school board, union, PTA, and the community in general. All play a part in education. As do the media and the student's peers.

Other factors that affect learning are the physical plant in which the child is educated, the number and composition of students in the class,^v the texts,^vi the school's hours – which rarely take the sleep patterns of children and adolescents into consideration,^vii transportation to and from school, curriculum,^viii availability of extra-curricular activities, school taxes and the budget, and the school's philosophy of education.

That's not to suggest that the teacher is unimportant. Indeed, a really good teacher may be the difference between a dropout and a committed student.^ix There are many qualities that go into that teacher, but humor, enthusiasm, a knowledge and love of the material being taught, and the ability to teach – to engage the students – are among the most important. And the teacher must know that the student, and not the test, is the focus of his efforts. To get to this level he must be helped and, sometimes, directed. But he should not be second guessed. The first responsibility of a principal is to choose good teachers and help them along.^x And some mechanism should be found to ease inept teachers from the profession, even if they're tenured. Their salaries and pensions could be better used.^xi

How should those teachers be evaluated and chosen? The answers are not simple. Evaluation by students and their parents is certainly important in judging a teacher's effectiveness.^xii But so are the views of his principal and his peers. Test scores may play a part, but that can only be in relation to the starting point. And those scores should reflect an understanding of the subject by the students, rather than an ability to “ace” the test.^xiii

And how should the best^xiv have the opportunity to do their best in the setting they choose? One approach would be to let them choose first, and to give bonuses based on their students' real improvement.^xv (Tenure and seniority are not the best benchmarks of performance.) Bonuses should be substantial in order to induce the best to choose schools with poorly performing students, since the chance of improving their performance is better than that in a rich, middle-class school.^xvi It's inevitable that the “better” school districts would oppose this, since teachers whom they like and who are benefiting from plush conditions might leave. But that valid concern would be overcome by the benefit of improving the performance and interest of a larger group.^xvii

Perhaps there are too few really good teachers, however we define them. That doesn't necessarily mean that we can't provide good education for everyone. New technology allows a way for the best to teach all, with the remaining teachers supplementing in order to reinforce the lessons, teach other subjects and help students with questions. That technology also permits the presentation of extra material that can be viewed outside of usual hours for those motivated to use it. Although not all of that technology is desirable in a school, there is much that can be used. And as time goes by, there will be more.

Not all of the new devices are likely to contribute to the educational experience however, and it may be necessary to exclude some. Most of the hand-held devices detract from learning – whether telephones, texting devices, or gadgets with all the latest “apps.” Perhaps calculators are desirable for math classes, but the rest should be checked at the door, and returned at the end of the school day. It's likely that some students will assert infringement of their constitutional rights because of their age, especially demanding that they have free speech, but that's a phony claim. Even the courts recognize that there are constitutionally permissible age minimums for voting, military service, contract responsibilities, driving, and drinking,^xviii and since we can require school attendance up to a certain age, we can also, to a point, decide what rights students have in the mandated schools. The ability to send a message – possibly a test answer – to another student is not such a right.

But there are some basic questions that have not been addressed, and for which I offer no answers. They are, however, worthy of discussion, irrespective of rules already in existence:

1.     Is education a governmental responsibility?

2.   Should funding for education be given to schools – public, private and parochial – or to students?

3.    Should decisions about the content of education be national or local?

4.    Should all students, irrespective of their achievements, have a “right” to go to college?

5.    Do we have the right number of colleges? Are they appropriately selective?

6.    Are we required to provide the same education for everyone? Does one size fit all?

7.    Should funds be directed to “needed” programs (however defined) and the students who enroll in them? (This includes high school and college level programs – including “trades.”) Is it important that some disciplines might suffer (eg Philosophy and History) in comparison to hard science?

Questions without answers. And no standardized test will even be able to offer multiple choices. They're phrased as “Yes-No” questions, but that kind of a simple response misses the point entirely. It was noted that they're worthy of discussion. As is the entire subject of educating our young. It's a cliché to note that our children are our future, but it's a disservice to ignore the problems with which we're saddling them. If morning is dawning, it should be on a new educational system.

Not “Education Appreciation,” but appreciation of education.

Next episode: “ ______?” – It's ten o'clock. Do you know where your children are?

i     As we restructure education, it's critical that we find a place for art and music. Perhaps that can only be accomplished by “piping in” “good” music to lunchrooms, hallways and the like, and decorating the walls with classic art, until time and funds are available for prepared classes. But “music appreciation” is not the way.

ii    That's certainly the claim made when people are looking for a scapegoat to blame for the fact that not all students do well.

iii    The reality, whether or not people accept it, is that we're not all created equal.

iv   Perhaps offering monetary incentives to parents and students for improvement might lead to increased attention to in-school work and to homework.

v     For better or worse, boys learn differently from boys, and interested from “disruptive” students. They need different teachers and different classes. Homogeneous classes are more likely to produce good results than attempts to “main-line” all students and to reflect a heterogeneous society in every classroom. If we're looking for the few who will be the most innovative and productive members of society, they shouldn't be educated in a milieu that caters to the lowest common denominator.

vi     Which are sometimes biased in response to the biases in a school district.

vii    Perhaps sports, lunch, nap time, snack time, and other “non-intellectual” activities should be scheduled during times when the students are most likely to be sleepy and leave the “awake” periods for the academic subjects. This would allow the retention of sports – during which the students are likely to wake up – while also increasing the level of attention when the core curriculum is being taught.

viii   A long-standing debate on curriculum centers on whether it should be decided nationally or locally. National goals suggest that attention it should be able to set some overall guidelines on this issue, but there are different cultures in different pars of the country, and they cannot be ignored. In addition, even within a local area there may be different communities – religious and otherwise – which should play a part in the choice of curriculum.

ix    As a society we owe a good deal of respect to our teachers – far more than we accord them. We also owe them larger salaries. We always view teachers as those who lack other skills, and we parody Aristotle's assertion: “Those that know, do. Those that understand, teach.”

 

x     Actually, once the principal has chosen a good teacher and agreed on the material to be covered, the best approach is to get out of the way.

xi    They shouldn't have gotten to that position in the first place. But perpetuating a mistake is an even worse mistake.

xii    Grudges and biases will certainly play a part, but teachers who “connect” with students are likely to be easily recognized. The positives are sure to outweigh the negatives and be more clearly and convincingly stated.

xiii   I'll leave the construction of such an examination – and its grading – for another time. One thing is certain, however. A standardized examination, under the best of circumstances, only teaches students to take standardized examinations.

xiv    By whatever criteria are used to judge them.

xv     Methods for student evaluation are better formulated by schools of education and teachers' organizations rather than by relying on raw scores from standardized tests.

xvi     Even though the brightest students – the ones most likely to contribute to the advancement of the country – should have talented teachers, they're likely to get it, since it's likely that many good teachers will be attracted by the opportunity to teach this group even though they might be able to earn more elsewhere.

xvii   And, of course, for the teachers, by increased salaries.

xviii   Though they may vary from state to state.

Edelweiss

A few months ago my wife and I were visiting our daughter, son-in-law, and five grandchildren in Jerusalem. It was Hanukkah, and on the last day we went out “caroling.” We had enough people in our little group to sing four part harmonies and, since we knew them, we did so. One of my grandsons, our lead soprano, pointed out that the Hanukkah song, Maoz Tsur, fit perfectly into the music of Edelweiss, so that was one of the things we sang. As we wandered through the streets, groups of tourists stopped to listen as did the local residents, and we were offered food and even invited into a party. It was a lot of fun. But I went no further in arranging the song because of copyright considerations. I wasn't about to break the law, even if it would result in something positive. I wrote about that recently in an entirely different context from what I have in mind now.ⁱ

This time, thoughts about the caroling and the essay came back as I digested the news of Whitney Houston's recent death. In the earlier piece I had considered use of illegally obtained informationⁱⁱ and the question of right and wrong. In regard to Ms. Houston a related question came up now, but from a different perspective. It was a matter of the people who were, perhaps, to be written off, not the information I had discussed before. I wrestled then with the ethics of society, or its individual members, benefiting from acts that were, in many cases, morally “wrong.” Now I considered the way we react to great people who suffer from what many view as moral “wrongs.”

I recall the time when it was a daring act to perform the works of Richard Wagner in Israel. His anti-semitic bent and popularity with Hitler made him anathema with Israelis. And Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice was also censured because it is considered by many to be the most anti-semitic play ever to receive wide circulation. It is not my intent to compare Whitney Houston to either Wagner or Shakespeare, but it is hard to ignore the difficulty we have with the acceptance of the idea that great works may be achieved by damaged people. Or, at least, by people whom many consider damaged.

Were Noël Coward, Cole Porter, and Oscar Wilde any the less creative because they were homosexual? Was Herbert von Karajan a less talented conductor because he was a member of the Nazi Party? Thomas Aquinas, Paracelsus, and Isaac Newton were alchemists, but that doesn't lessen the impact of their work. And how many famous and powerful people were adulterers, or engaged in other acts that are condemned by society?

Whitney Houston was a drug addict. Her dependence on drugs, legal and illegal, was well known and, from time to time, she received treatment for it. But addiction is not curable, even if its manifestations may be hidden or even suppressed. Some can avoid the triggers, but those who depend on artificial substances in order to achieve their goals or to live with them are never free of the potential to do so again. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, addict is an addict is an addict.

That was the case with Billie Holiday, John Beluschi, Amy Winehouse, and Elvis Presley, who were addicted to both legal and illegal drugs. And among the many other drug users were Judy Garland, Janis Joplin, Lenny Bruce and Ray Charles. Nonetheless, however, they were among our greats. As were Sigmund Freud, Lewis Carroll, and Arthur Conan Doyle. Do mind-altering drugs contribute to creativity? Should the use of what we now consider illegal drugs be legalized? Is prohibition a wise option? These are not questions that are to be answered today. They're far too complex and they are tangential to the main issue.

What we really have to consider, at a time when Whitney Houston and the tributes to her are major news items, is the way we react to her life and death. It's easy to join in those tributes, but it is also easy to wonder what their message is. Does greatness excuse illegal behavior? Is the prohibition of certain materials an impingement on liberty and a “sickness” of society rather than a protection of the individual? It's hard not notice that society's rules change periodically and that different societies have different rules.

Bottom line. Perhaps what Gandhiⁱⁱⁱ said “Hate the sin and not the sinner," makes the most sense. As we lionize those who have enriched our lives, we cannot ignore the fact that we are making those people into role models for our children. We're teaching them. An unalloyed burnish we might apply to the image of our heroes could be interpreted as acceptance, if not endorsement, of their faults as well as their triumphs. Better to condemn clearly the characteristics we don't accept – those we would want our children to reject – while praising their accomplishments. Those we honor are, like us, fallible human beings. That doesn't diminish them in any way. But along with the approval it makes them human. What greater compliment can we offer?

i     Soothing The Savage Beast. February 12, 2012.

ii    And, in fact, any benefits that might accrue from an impermissible act.

iii   Possibly based on the words of St. Augustine.

Soothing The Savage Beast

Soothing The Savage Beastⁱ

One of my wife's favorite compositions is “Symphonie sur un chant montagnard français,” (Symphony on a French Mountain Air). It was written in 1886 and was Vincent d'Indy's, best known work, his Opus 25. Also known as the “Symphonie cévencole,” it was named after the Cévennes Mountains in southern France. The chant montagnard français is a lovely melody, a folk song d'Indy heard while at Périer, overlooking the mountains. The entire piece lasts just under thirty minutes.

Just about the same length is a work by another of her favorite composers, Johannes Brahms. That work is his Opus 24, “Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel,” which he wrote a quarter of a century earlier. This particular composition is considered by some to be one of the finest sets of variations ever written.

What's interesting about these two works is that both rely on a prior musical idea.ⁱⁱ Put otherwise – more starkly, perhaps – they represent a form of plagiarism. In each case the theme used was very old – out of copyright in current terminology – but, in a sense, these were stolen ideas.ⁱⁱⁱ We don't view them that way, however it isn't clear to me why that's the case. Perhaps it's the copyright itself – however that is human law, and doesn't really tell us what is “right” and “wrong.”^iv

More and more we read about authors who have appropriated, without attribution, passages from other works. It's plagiarism as well, and, once discovered, it's scorned by all. That's an easy one. In principle, the distinction between that and a theme and variations seems less clear though. If the use of “stolen” goods, and the benefit from them, is “wrong,” what's the difference between these two situations? It can't be the age of the stolen material.

The bigger question – the one that governs this and numerous other issues – relates to the ethics of benefiting from any crime. Perhaps the other end of the spectrum that begins with variations on a folk song is the use of information that the Nazis gained during their infamous experiments. While current research facilities use ethics committees to help investigators avoid going off track, ethics was not a consideration for the Nazis. But are we justified in ignoring the results of their work, criminal as it might have been, if it can help someone now? How is the use of that information different from the transplanting of organs harvested from someone murdered in a robbery?^v

There is a concept in law which deals with the “fruit of the poisoned tree.” If information is obtained in a forbidden manner, anything derived from it is also illegal and inadmissible for use in a prosecution. Law enforcement, therefore, cannot benefit from the crime of gathering intelligence illegally. They won't be able to use it in court. And if leads were obtained from it, they'll be off limits as well. But a similar question is whether we should we listen to the “whistle-blower” who has pledged confidentiality to his employer. In reality the two situations have something in common. Both use nominally protected information. In both cases, notwithstanding any self-serving justifications, an individual tried to benefit from questionably gathered knowledge.

And there are numerous other examples of the same problem – the benefiting from a proscribed action. Can you torture one person to prevent harm to another?^vi Can you monitor “free speech” in order to gather information about planned crimes? What are the ethics of spying? Of “sting” operations? Is it justified to offer a reward or a bounty, since this will wind up with someone benefiting from the fact that a crime was committed? Is the lawyer who defends the criminal benefiting from the crime? Can the lawyer – or the criminal for that matter – gain by telling the story of the crime? And if the criminal has stolen something but has been found “not guilty,”^vii is he entitled to keep the booty?

What do you do about situations in which you're willing to reward the criminal? Gilad Shalit, a kidnap victim, was returned to Israel at the cost of over a thousand Palestinians who had had been convicted of committing crimes. An individual or a company may be willing to pay a ransom to obtain the return of the victim of a kidnaping. An insurance company may give a reward for the return of an item, “no questions asked.” And otherwise honest citizens are often willing to buy items that “fell from a truck” if the price is right. Not to mention, of course, when municipalities "buy" illegal guns to get them off the streets.

There are other situations, equally questionable from a moral point of view, but which don't seem to be of as great concern to the public – possibly because most of us can't relate to them,^viii but there are also those which are easily forgiven. If, for example, someone who gained some money illegally (perhaps by insider trading) gives that money to a charity desperately in need of funds, should the charity^ix,x and those it serves be penalized by a requirement to repay the donation? Should an antiquity or piece of art, obtained long before by unsavory means, that has been on display in a museum for a while – one obtained by the museum unknowingly and by legal means – be taken away? How shall we deal with a “legitimate” business, one providing numerous well-paying jobs, which is owned by a racketeer?

And there are questions for which, despite legislation, we have no satisfactory answers. At what point should a clergyman, a lawyer, a doctor, or a journalist have to reveal information relating to a crime? Should the criminal benefit from confidentiality? How shall we deal with “crimes” like prostitution, adultery, overcharging, the copying of products, and similar ones in which people benefit what many view as immoral acts?

These are some of the situations in which a crime^xi occurs and someone benefits. Where do we draw the line? No one has a problem with the folk song, but the prohibition of using illegally obtained intelligence is well established in law.^xii Many would argue that somewhere in between, along the “slippery slope” that separates them, though, that line must exist. Unfortunately they would all put it in different places. Shall we be absolutists like the ACLU, or practical people who do “what seems right at the time?” Where does intent fit in? Does it matter whether it's the criminal or someone else who benefits? Does it matter who that “someone else” is? And who decides where the line is and what's right and what's wrong?

Not all questions have answers. And not all answers are correct. I'm not an absolutist. I think there's a line, even if my location may differ from yours. I can live with that. Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.” It's not a very precise answer to the question, but it may be all we have in some circumstances.

As with beautiful music, we play some things by ear.

Next episode: “Morning Is Dawning” – What time does class start?

i    Yes, I know it's “breast,” but this seemed more appropriate since it extends well beyond music. We wrestle with the beast of conflicting values every day. And that's the real subject of today's essay.

ii    Actually the use of folk themes is common in classical music, as is the use of earlier themes.

iii    The same is true of music that is not “classical,” although it may be similarly be based on formal rules. “Popular” music may be derivative of classical themes, and a jazz performance may include bits and pieces of many melodies.

iv    My grandson told me that “Maoz Tsur,” a Hanukkah song, fit perfectly to the music of “Edelweiss.” He was right, but because it was protected by copyright, we couldn't do much with his insight.

v     Actually, the use of Nazi information, however inexcusably obtained, may be more justified ethically. It can be argued that although the information was obtained during a horrible sadistic exercise, the goal in some instances was to gain knowledge, even if the science was bad. In the case of the murder, however, there was no “worthy” goal. I doubt, though, that someone who needs a heart would quibble.

vi    The “ticking bomb,” who has information about a terrorist plot or the planned murder of many, is only one example of this phenomenon. But it raises the questions of torture and crime prevention. Can we benefit from the crime of torture, or is it proscribed irrespective of the justification offered? Must we let people die and then prosecute the murderer?

vii    Or if he has served his time for the crime, or if the statute of limitations has expired.

viii   Like industrial espionage leading to the introduction of new products, competition, and lower prices for the consumer.

ix    And those who might be helped by it.

x     Contributions may be given as well to political parties or candidates, and they may be accepted in good faith.

xi    Or an act which some view as a crime.

xii    Though many question it.

Winning And Losing

I saw Bill Belichick walking off the field last night after his team, the New England Patriots, lost the Super Bowl game to the Giants. He looked crestfallen. He must have been both disappointed and upset that the Patriots had come so close, and then lost. So must the team members. The Vince Lombardi Trophy was presented to the other team.

Vince Lombardi was a great coach. He was dedicated and determined, with a nearly seventy-five percent average for regular season games, and even higher for post-season play. For a while he was an assistant coach for the Giants – the team that beat the Patriots. He was the kind of coach who conceded nothing. “Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing.” He wanted to win. And most of the time he did.

But Bill Belichick is also a great coach. He's had his share of victories and defeats, though somehow or other defeats stay with you longer than victories. Especially in the “big” games. I guess that's true in all areas of life. We focus more on what might have been than what is. Not that Belichick shouldn't be disappointed, but that game is now behind him. It's better to hang up your disappointment than your helmet. I suspect that, like the professional he is, his focus now is on next season and finding a way to do better than he did this year. It won't be easy, but nothing is for a pro. And nothing is more satisfying than winning a difficult battle.

I rooted for the Giants, and I'm glad they won. They earned it. That doesn't lessen my sadness for the Patriots. They worked hard and prepared for a struggle which they knew would be difficult, but they were looking for a prize that was worth the effort.

Unfortunately not everyone in our society follows this model. And not everyone – especially those who see the prize as something they deserve, no matter what happens – will get a reward. The real reason they don't get it is that they don't get it. We live in a world where we want everyone to be a winner. “It's not whether you win or lose that counts, it's how you play the game.” That's what we teach our children. Everyone's a winner. Everyone gets a prize. It's nice sentiment, but it's nonsense. Many of those who lose are losers. They don't want to put in the effort necessary to win. They've grown up in a society that rewards them no matter what they do, and never makes demands of them, so why should they make demands of themselves? Their expectations are for a prize even when they fail. And if they don't get it, it's someone else's fault.

Not so Belichick and the Patriots. No excuses. They lost. But they lost like pros.

Chekhov's Gun

A while agoⁱ I discussed some of the “rules” of writing. One I didn't mention then – one that has subsequently bothered me for a variety of reasons – is “Chekhov's Gun.” As he put it, “If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." ⁱⁱ An earlier statementⁱⁱⁱ of this principle reads, "If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there."

Although the goal of this principle is apparently to tighten up the text, to avoid red herrings, that hardly seems to be adequate justification. Indeed, I can't imagine a Russian who would shun herring. Nor would generations of them be likely to have condemned Reds.^iv,v I'm not Russian, but I find this rule to be misplaced.

Why hang a gun on the wall and tell the reader about it if not as a plot device? Perhaps the goal would be to tell us a little about the wall, or the person who hung it. Or about the gun itself. Is the weapon a part of a larger display? Is it intended to depict the history or nature of the wall, room, or dwelling where it is found? If the action takes place in the United States, does the gun tell us anything of the owner's view of the Constitution – specifically the Second Amendment? Is he simply a collector? Would a gun of great value – perhaps an historical relic – testify to the owner's wealth?

Put otherwise, there may be other reasons in the mind of the author than mayhem to hang the gun on the wall. Further spinning of the yarn may clarify that point. Or it may not. The significance of the description may be left to the reader. His interpretation is an important part of the story.

Interpretation has always played a major role in the understanding^vi of a passage – sometimes rivaling or even overriding its apparent meaning. Such interpretations may provide help in the understanding of what was written, but since they represent the view of the interpreter, it is likely that they will contain his biases. Thus there may be many, contrary, interpretations of the same work. The explications and annotations offered my clarify the original author's intent, or they may be totally off base and contradict him. Reading an interpretation may tell us more about the interpretor than about the text.

One of the joys of reading is that you're free to create whatever images in your mind that the words before you suggest. Your image may be very different from that of the author, because you'll be bringing to the encounter a background and experiences different from his. That doesn't mean that he's right and you're wrong, only that your views of what was written vary. Not a big surprise. Just as two witnesses may see a crime differently, two readers of a work may have contrasting views of what the author intended. In fact, the author may not be completely aware of what he has written, and the interpreter may understand it better than the one who wrote it. We're not always conscious of all that we write or say, even if it seems correct at the time.^vii

Recognizing that there may be very different constructions put on a single body of text,^viii having a variety of interpretations available to you, may enhance your understanding of what you've read can widen your understanding. Biblical interpretation, the explication of literary works like Shakespeare, and the understanding of history are only three of the areas in which the interpretation of texts plays a major part. Perhaps a particular construction is unsatisfying, or even wrong, it will give the reader a perspective he might not have had otherwise, and it can contribute to his own thinking about the subject in question. Utility and function, however important, aren't the sole criteria which govern meaning.

Chekhov's error^ix was that he believed that the author's perspective was the only one, and that all the pieces had to fit together neatly. Life isn't that way, however useful such a view is for a short-story author.

I think Chekhov was too quick on the trigger with this one.

Next episode: “Soothing The Savage Beast” – Beast, breast. What's the difference?

i     Writer's Bl... June 19, 2011

ii    Memoirs, S. Shchukin, 1911. Cited in Wikipedia.

iii    1904. Another iteration, according to Wikipedia, was stated in 1889. Use of this principle can be found in Uncle Vanya.

iv    They certainly wouldn't live to tell about it.

v     All right. I admit it. Chekhov lived before Russia became a communist state.

vi    And in the clouding or confusion of its meaning.

vii    Not only are there unconscious areas of uncertainty, there are conscious ones as well. For example, there are occasions when the story doesn't even have an ending and the reader is free to imagine what happened next.

viii  Reading comprehension tests make this very obvious, although they don't necessarily clarify meanings for you.

ix    Or at least what I consider an error.