Interesting that Coover does not believe “that we all are born with something that belongs to the human race”- which I might have believed at one point in my life- which he calls Jungian. He says that we are- have been brought down to this low level by- our upbringings, education, media, conversations, peer groups; it is they who establish who we are.

I agree the black and white “us vs them” “hate-mongering”, dualism, began or was energized ( after McCarthy) by Nixon. It was, to some who remember, shocking and outrageous it was at the time as it still is. Bush was worse than Nixon. It’s been a long haul and we are not yet in the promised land. We have a “glimpse of possibility” with Obama of “how America might work” ( as Coover puts it) and that we might be able to make amends.

I profoundly agree with Coover about the destructive effects of religion, having had my head stuck in understanding the Middle East conflict for many years– this business about “the wrath of God”, holy wars. I am sour on religion.

Coover: “Religion is a violent idea on the whole….. it’s not a peaceful thing. Religion kills. It has it’s peace rationale which those who cling to religion cling to as their own hope.. their own version of hope, but we see the consequences in the world every day and know what it’s real power lies[sic... is].it’s kind of bringing that to the fore” (Answering Chris) … domestically but apocolyptic and present world wide too— where you arrive it you push religion far enough.

At the moment- this “Obama Moment”- I join many others who are troubled by the choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at this historic inauguration.

Coover states in this interview, “we’ve not escaped the past, but we have amended somewhat the past.” Which rings of Tocqueville:

“The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”

This recent gallop poll shows that two-thirds of Americans have confidence in Obama:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/112900/Cabinet-Picks-Not-Affecting-Overall-Confidence-Obama.aspx

What a country, what a country.

When Prophecy Fails

… I ponder the approach of reaching back to the future in the current soul searching of U.S. political discourse, yet we should disagree without being disagreeable? So with a chipper heart, I’ll simply affirm my agreement with the current mantra of the virtues of a phoenix call for CWA conservatism (which in my narrow philistine reading of things alludes to both the Ds and the Rs, but mostly to the Rs). I too advocate getting back to core values. Which when embraced with rhetorical gusto found in the imagery of a Jacques-Louis David call for liberty, one can indeed affirm the logic of dismantlement: that of rallying to assassinate the government while running to inhabit its highest offices. For who better to run a government than those who belittle the very necessity of service. This thread of conservatism is part-and-part of the cognitive dissonance found in the afore mentioned wiki link.

As for me and my place in the Obama moment, I’ll continue upon my humble path as an advocate for a second act for movementarianism.

I was pleased to note that he didn’t laud President Clinton’s economical acumen who merely presided over a perfect storm of cell phone adoption, personal computerizing the masses, and the internet growth.

In fact President Clinton pushed for and got Al Gore to seal NAFTA, repealed Glass-Steagall and signed The Financial Services Modernization Act, all of which arguably created the conditions for and allowed the malfeasance that created the current financial debacle IMO. Not that I dislike the former President, but he was misguided in many areas and not the revered renaissance man to whom disproportionate credit is accorded.

Still it is refreshing to find minds of Coover’s caliber – thanks Chris for unearthing this gem.

Peace to ALL,

Jazzman

The part about post-novel literature was quite refreshing. Many literary-minded people are enamoured with the novel and have a hard time appreciating any literature where the novel takes anything besides centre stage. Moody’s position on Web-based writing (especially blog writing) seemed situated squarely in a novel-focused context. Not saying that Moody is “blinked” («a des oeillères») but Coover’s description came from a much broader perspective, one which saw the rise of the novel in relatively recent history (when compared to human history).
Coover’s point about hypertextuality is insightful, though it may sound a bit too obvious to most people who have spent significant amounts of time online. The hypertextuality of online texts has deep implications in how we perceive the world. Some of us are even wary of linear long-form texts. Sure, Moody would pose a diagnosis of ADHD on us. But what we read integrates a large diversity of voices, a wide variety of perspectives, a broad field of possibilities.

That is not to say that the novel will cease to exist any time soon. But short form art is “of the moment.” It’s quite possible that, similar to the epistolary novel giving way to the romantic novel, the online communication of today will give form to new literary genres.

Personally, I also enjoy the fact that Coover dared call attention to the similarities between US mainstream media outlets. From outside the US, the differences between Fox and CNN are much less visible than the differences between US CNN US and global CNN.