Re: The forecast for tonight is dark, with scattered light toward morning.

1

You are not missing anything.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 9:40 AM
horizontal rule
2

Well, I guess we can close the thread, then.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 9:44 AM
horizontal rule
3

Is no one going to point out that Sausagely just did a post about finding $5?


Posted by: tulip | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
4

3: For obvious reasons, that's in the Hank Williams Jr. thread.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
5

You clearly aren't reading all the comments. Three demerits.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
6

Intrade says LB will probably point it out.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
7

I suppose in trade could be interpreted as "what if everyone with money was allowed to weigh in with their blind guess?" there might be a consensus that the msm was getting something wrong.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
8

Autocorrected.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 9:48 AM
horizontal rule
9

Its not all bad. Intrade did an excellent job of forecasting President Kerry's victory on Election Day, 2004.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 9:48 AM
horizontal rule
10

I'm too lazy to look it up, but there must be research out there on Intrade's predictive power. What's it say? Particularly this far out. I gather that Intrade is more effective than any one poll or pundit, but that's not saying much.

3: If you mean Yglesias, it popped up in comments.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 9:48 AM
horizontal rule
11

Huh. I did not know this: "On the 24 May 2011, it was announced that the founder and CEO of Intrade, John Delaney, died while only 50 metres from the peak of Mount Everest. Delaney's body could not be recovered. He is survived by his wife, two sons, and a daughter who was born prematurely during the expedition."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:03 AM
horizontal rule
12

11: Ugh.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:08 AM
horizontal rule
13

How many bodies are there littering Everest now? Can it be climbed without stepping on one?


Posted by: jim | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:08 AM
horizontal rule
14

11: Christ, what an asshole.


Posted by: Mr. Blandings | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:09 AM
horizontal rule
15

12 and 14 were my exact thoughts.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:10 AM
horizontal rule
16

I'm likely to die 12,231,014 meters or more from the peak of Mt. Everest, so I won't be the way of future climbers.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:12 AM
horizontal rule
17

And here I'd been under the impression that Into Thin Air had made the whole Everest thing unfashionable.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:13 AM
horizontal rule
18

13: At least 150 unrecoverable bodies on Everest. (That link is fascinating, if a bit gruesome.)


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:14 AM
horizontal rule
19

17: Only to people among whom it had already been unfashionable.


Posted by: jim | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:14 AM
horizontal rule
20

If we can't avoid political prognostication already even though the 2012 election is too far away, an "it's too far out" disclaimer should appear in every single sentence about it. In October 2007 (a weird example because there was no incumbent or even VP on either ticket, but anyways), the Democratic primary field of serious contenders had been narrowed to Clinton, Obama and Edwards, and even at the end of 2007 Clinton had a substantial lead. In the Republican primaries at the time, I think Guiliani was still in the lead and Fred Thompson had just barely entered. In the fall of 2003, the Democratic primary was a tossup between Howard Dean and Wesley Clark.

Of course, being "in the lead" is a combination of polling and money and other stuff and different pundits handle different things differently. But anything anyone says about 2012 now should be checked against what they were saying in October of 2007 or 2003.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:14 AM
horizontal rule
21

InTrade is a pseudo-scientific way to determine what the conventional wisdom is. That's what Nate Siver uses it for, and it has some usefulness for what he writes about. Without it, people would just argue about what the conventional wisdom is.

Of course, it's still easy to manipulate, prone to huge random fluctuations, etc.


Posted by: unimaginative | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:16 AM
horizontal rule
22

a bit


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:17 AM
horizontal rule
23

18: Yeah, that link is amazing. A recent episode of The Good Wife was devoted to the crazy shit that goes down in "the dead zone" on Everest.

(I don't even have an off switch for my teevee.)


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:29 AM
horizontal rule
24

Well, if there really is widely distributed knowledge about something, prediction markets can work to average out all the little bits different people know - I think this has been demonstrated. Elections are something it doesn't work so well for.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:35 AM
horizontal rule
25

14: what, because he died on Everest? Good grief.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:36 AM
horizontal rule
26

Because he climbed Everest, a pointless activity with a serious risk of death, while his wife was pregnant, I'd think.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:38 AM
horizontal rule
27

And presumably in her third trimester.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:38 AM
horizontal rule
28

a serious risk of death

About 1 in 10, according to the article.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
29

That's safer than Russian roulette or smoking in an oil refinery.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
30

Widow defends husband's Everest climb


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
31

Huh. If she was all in, I'm less inclined to judge.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:47 AM
horizontal rule
32

21.1 gets it right. To the extent that Nate Silver cites it for backup, it may be because he feels the need to preemptively answer a challenge to provide some evidence for his claims ("Cite?! Cite?!"). Intrade he can point to; the latest blah-blah from the talking heads on the Sunday shows and in major newspapers isn't quantifiable, see. Too vague.

It's a cheap move.

Also -- I'm not familiar with Intrade to speak of, but I'd had the idea that it was used mostly by people for short term betting / financial gains. i.e. This week we like Mitt Romney; last week we liked Rick Perry. That kind of activity doesn't reflect any real, sustained belief about eventual outcomes, does it? Do people keep their money on an Intrade longshot for any significant length of time? (n.b. I do not speak gambling language)


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:47 AM
horizontal rule
33

31: It's none of my business, so I don't really judge, but a recent widow saying "Don't call my recently dead husband an asshole, I'm proud of him," doesn't seem to me strong evidence that he wasn't an asshole for taking the risk, just that she cared enough about him not to want to hear him badmouthed after his death.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:50 AM
horizontal rule
34

I am still entirely inclined to judge.

Christ, what an asshole.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:50 AM
horizontal rule
35

I suppose it could have been planned way in advance; and even if not, we can't judge the expectations they had of each other.

'I packed his bags and left him go'

Is "leave" for "let" still current in Ireland, I wonder?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:52 AM
horizontal rule
36

I am still entirely inclined to judge.

Surprise!


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:52 AM
horizontal rule
37

So if you have a super wealthy couple operating under the assumption that in order to be true to themselves, they've just got to take life-threatening risks, then they're being assholes? I suppose so, with the small children.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
38

People who act under the assumption that they have to be "true to themselves" are often assholes.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
39

Nah, I'd leave this one go. The couple had their own understanding, which was their own business.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
40

Pointless life threatening risks. If he were doing anything even moderately useful but equally daredevil, like fighting wildfires, I'd keep my mouth shut.

Thanks, neb!


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
41

People who act under the assumption that they have to be "true to themselves" are often assholes.

Listen to the man in California.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
42

At what age do your children have to be before you can resume life-threatening risks? 18? If he didn't do it then, he'd otherwise have to resign himself to possibly never climbing Everest.

(Which is fine with me. I'm just imagining how the conversation might have unfolded between them.)


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
43

People who act under the assumption that they have to be "true to themselves" are often assholes.

I dunno. I don't wear make-up, dress how I dress, and will myself to speak up, using this as a rationale, a lot.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:58 AM
horizontal rule
44

Well, it's interesting to me that people would be less inclined to condemn a father of three very young children for climbing Everest than for shooting speedballs, when the latter is almost certainly an objectively less risky endeavor.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
45

Off to go jogging!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
46

A man, a plan, a California, Ainrofila Canal, Panama.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:00 AM
horizontal rule
47

Don't die out there, heebie.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
48

11 et seq.: Relevant?

(My favorite cartoon.)


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:02 AM
horizontal rule
49

... in which Apo treads perilously close to violating the analogy ban ...


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:02 AM
horizontal rule
50

48: You don't know how happy I am to be reminded of that site.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
51

23: I watched part of American Horror Story (brought to you by the people who brought you Glee? maybe?) last night. It was variously overwrought, overwritten, and filled with cheesy exploitation, but also maybe good enough to keep watching. My low standards: let me show you them.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
52

48 is one of the funniest things I've seen a long time. Source?


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
53

51: Jessica Lange is well cast in that.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
54

52: The source is, you know, there in the URL.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
55

54: I thought maybe it had been compiled there but had originated elsewhere, Mr. Snippypants.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:12 AM
horizontal rule
56

52: I saw it in a magazine, I think in college, and clipped it out because I loved it so much, but I can't remember what magazine.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
57

Mr. Snippypants.

The vasectomy you can wear.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
58

Okay, sorry. Random House says "[O'Donnell's] humor, cartoons, and poetry have appeared in The New Yorker, Spy, Atlantic Monthly, and the New York Times Magazine."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
59

||
A friend's FB status: "Occupy Evanston is one guy, standing in front of the Chase bank in the rain."
|>


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
60

When Silver brings up InTrade, it's often to contrast his own view with the conventional wisdom.

Prediction markets have their uses. I don't think InTrade can be blamed for the Kerry debacle, because early, seemingly reliable reports on election day said that the exit polling put it in the bag for Kerry. Efficient markets hypothesis notwithstanding, it's well understood that false reports can move markets.

I was going to sign up for InTrade, but apparently they charge $5 a month rather than a sum for each trade, and I'm not interested in putting enough money into it to make the vig worthwhile.

But my theory (in case anyone wants to try it) is that Intrade has a systematic rightwing bias.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
61

Efficient markets hypothesis notwithstanding being false and all...


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
62

I wonder how much a staffer could make insider trading on InTrade.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
63

"Occupy Evanston is one guy, standing in front of the Chase bank in the rain."

The one in WY? I'm only a bit over an hour's drive from there. Maybe I should go picket with the dude for a bit. I could pick up some fireworks while I'm at it.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
64

63: Illinois.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:40 AM
horizontal rule
65

Everest is fatal not least because its renown attracts people with less technical skill and experience than really ought to be prerequisite, but I don't think doing dangerous things necessarily constitutes the unforgivable offense implied in all the "Christ, what an asshole" comments above.

OT: I find this quote from an Updike review of a novel by Alan Hollinghurst more provocative and interesting than offensive, but I suppose I'm biased in Updike's favor for all sorts of reasons (heterosexuality not least among them; there's also my default position that Slate sucks and its writers ought to get honest jobs).


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:41 AM
horizontal rule
66

I figured as much. The one is WY is a dusty border town of like 10k people.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:41 AM
horizontal rule
67

I thought about making some money betting against Michelle Bachman, which seemed like the easiest free money in the world, but it turns out there's not a lot of liquidity and that if you bet at the reported prices you can make like a total o $1.80. You have to offer your own contracts in large volumes to even think about making money. This was all discussed on some past thread somewhere.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
68

the easiest free money in the world

Speculating on bitcoin is pretty good, but the success of that is probably mildly correlated to the ongoing success of michelle bachmann, so maybe not after all.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:45 AM
horizontal rule
69

"correlated with"


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
70

58: you should be sorry. I was on my way to Occupy Evanston until you made me cry.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
71

65: Srsly, this is not offensive?

"Novels about heterosexual partnering, however frivolous and reducible to increments of selfishness, social accident, foolish overestimations, and inflamed phsyical detail, do involve the perpetuation of the species and the ancient, sacralized structures of the family."?

Or "...after a while you begin to long for the chirp and swing and civilizing animation of a female character."?

That's what I love so much about females, how chirpy they are, how civilized in their animation. (I'm sorry, what?)


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
72

71: I read the first part as more a (harsh) challenge than a dismissal. The second part is kind of funny, nothing to dig up and torment the man's corpse for.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
73

71: Seriously. Updike is an old man and times have changed, so ignorance on this level might be forgiven somewhat if you otherwise like his work and are charitably inclined, but how is it anything other than a grossly ignorant thing to say?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
74

nothing to dig up and torment the man's corpse for

If you knew anything about the plight of indigenous North Americans, you'd understand just how racist this is.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
75

73: Oops. Updike "was".


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
76

72: Seems hard to sustain that view given Updike's own explanation:

Novels about heterosexual partnering, however frivolous and reducible to increments of selfishness, social accident, foolish overestimations, and inflamed phsyical detail, do involve the perpetuation of the species and the ancient, sacralized structures of the family.

I mean, come on.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
77

65.2: As Juliet Lapidos writes in Slate today, many critics have mentioned the absence of explicit sex in Hollinghurst's new book, The Stranger's Child, and have suggested perhaps the author is kowtowing to critics. Yet the reviews she points to don't mention Updike

Maybe because it would be silly to kowtow to a dead critic. Maybe because he's written 3 sexually explicit novels since the Updike review.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
78

74: Way to pop the racist flashbulb early, VW. Now I'm going to have to defend myself by accusing people of anti-semitism, and that's a pretty hard row to hoe w/r/t John Updike.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
79

as more a (harsh) challenge than a dismissal

Go ahead, homos! Just try to have a babies by yourselves!


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
80

79: An artistic challenge, Blume.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
81

there's also my default position that Slate sucks and its writers ought to get honest jobs

My friend who has written a few things for Slate now gets one of the largest chunks of her freelance work from the Ralph Lauren magazine. Does that better meet your approval?


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
82

81: I'd rather read Ralph Lauren's magazine than wear Slate's khaki pants.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
83

80: What does that mean? (Serious question.)


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
84

83 to 82 as well, it probably goes without saying.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
85

In the first one he's saying gay stories and straight stories may be equally uninteresting but at least the straight ones are about things as they always have been and should be. (WSPTOTC!)

I don't think he's history's worst monster or anything but really, this is from 1999. My grandmother, born about the same time as Updike, does better than this and she was not exactly a bohemian. If the quote were from thirty years earlier I'd say even novelists are subject to the zeitgeist but no, it's just assholery all around.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
86

76: If you go to the original source, rather than the inflammatory, out of context quote, it doesn't seem to me that he's making an unreasonable point.

I don't think he's condemning gay sex - he seems to be saying the gay sex in this book didn't have any depth to it beyond being sex for pleasure.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
87

Novels about heterosexual partnering, however frivolous and reducible to increments of selfishness, social accident, foolish overestimations, and inflamed phsyical detail, do involve the perpetuation of the species and the ancient, sacralized structures of the family

Isn't it transparent that Updike is trying to defend his own fiction against the critique he is making of Hollinghurst's novel?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
88

sex for pleasure

Horrible!


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
89

89: Not horrible, but, according to Updike, boring.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
90

Yeah, the article in 86, read as a whole, really does alter one's view of the quote in 76. The point seems to be that this particular chronicle of gay sex seems particularly lonely and bleak, and not in the good buttsex/compelling chronicle of social alienation way.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:27 PM
horizontal rule
91

83: I think it can be read (perhaps only by me, of course) as at least two directions: first, to novelists of "heterosexual partnering," to exceed the unearned headstart of their majoritarian advantage and not to lapse into the "frivolous and reducible...," as Updike pretty much says many or most do; and, second, to novelists of non-heterosexual partnering, to write up to the level of their competition and its advantage, fair or not.

As I suggested, it amounts to a pretty harsh judgment of poor old Hollinghurst, and perhaps I give J.U. too much credit for saying something -- anything! please! -- interesting in a book review, the doldrums of the literary weather (at least these days).


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:29 PM
horizontal rule
92

I don't think he's condemning gay sex - he seems to be saying the gay sex in this book didn't have any depth to it beyond being sex for pleasure.

This is a weary canard about gay people. Ok, I didn't log in to read the whole thing but may I wager that he didn't contrast it with other descriptions of gay sex he found to be illustrative of love and commitment and an interest in child-rearing and other things to build a society on?


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:29 PM
horizontal rule
93

92: You'll be glad to know that Updike thinks you may "feel the lonely human condition with a special bleakness."


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:36 PM
horizontal rule
94

Sorry, thought it was something you had to be a subscriber to read. I clicked through and read it on google books and feel...about the same as I did before. I suppose it's interesting that there's so much praise for Hollinghurst in there, but the essential tone about homosexuality still seems patronizing and ahistorical and full of frustrating assumptions.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
95

sex for pleasure

Horrible!

Not horrible, but, according to Updike, boring.

Boring if it's between homosexuals. Hetereosexual sexual encounters, however frivolous and reducible to increments of selfishness, social accident, foolish overestimations, and inflamed phsyical detail, do involve the perpetuation of the species and the ancient, sacralized structures of the family. Which make them inherently less boring. According to Updike.

It basically sounds like he's working very hard to find a way to say "I'm not interested in reading about gay sex."


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:42 PM
horizontal rule
96

94: How can you say this after reading Updike explain how Waugh and Proust were able to overcome their handicap?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:42 PM
horizontal rule
97

92 --

The point seems to be that this particular novel by Alan Hollingsworth is less moving than it might be. The book gets boring because it's entirely about relationships, but nothing much seems at stake in whether or not the relationship succeeds or fails. I think Updike is saying that this is Hollingsworth's problem as a novelist, not a problem with gay relationships in general in the real world. Then, Updike suggests that novels about heterosexual relationships, while often suffering from the same structural artistic problem (that is, explaining to the reader why the relationship matters), have a kind of built-in easy resolution because the author can introduce children into the story.

Not having read the Hollingsworth book, I have no idea if this is a fair critique or not. Perhaps it's really not, and Updike is simply imposing a homophobic view about gay relationships on a novel that treats the relevant relationships with a lot of depth. But that's not at all apparent from the surface of the review, and I don't think it's fair to say that Updike is simply saying that, as a general rule, gay people only have sex for "mere" pleasure. There's not an implication that one couldn't write a different novel that actually explores the depth and meaning of homosexual relationships. That said, I don't think anyone in my generation would ever have written the sentence in 72, and that's probably a good thing.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:48 PM
horizontal rule
98

I mean, I'm not particularly interested in defending Updike's view, especially without having read the novel in question. My only point is that things look better in context than they do when you excerpt the most condemning passage out of context.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:50 PM
horizontal rule
99

I'm... interested in defending Updike. My... point is... condemning.

Well that's just awful, Halford.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
100

97: Perhaps you're right. I was already pissed off by the excerpt so I don't know that I gave the whole thing a fair read.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:55 PM
horizontal rule
101

100: Racist.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
102

It basically sounds like he's working very hard to find a way to say "I'm not interested in reading about gay sex."

Yeah, that's what I get out of it, too. And I don't think that not being interested in reading about gay sex is the same crime as homophobia, which is what Slate seems to be making it out to be.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 12:57 PM
horizontal rule
103

Then, Updike suggests that novels about heterosexual relationships, while often suffering from the same structural artistic problem (that is, explaining to the reader why the relationship matters), have a kind of built-in easy resolution because the author can introduce children into the story.

Had this been what Updike was going for, he could have talked about the class of fiction that treats relationships superficially, and compared it to deeper treatments of relationships. If he was really interested in the point about children, he could have compared fiction involving relationships with children to fiction involving the childless.

Partly, I suspect, he didn't make that latter choice because it would be a transparently silly comparison.

But he also didn't do it because that's not the subject that he was talking about. He was talking about the depth and gravity of heterosexual relationships vs. gay relationships. He was explaining why fiction that explores relationships is inherently better if it involves heterosexuals. He explicitly wasn't just talking about Hollinghurst, but about fiction that in some fashion evoked homosexuality.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
104

I don't think that not being interested in reading about gay sex is the same crime as homophobia

Dismissing an otherwise excellent book about relationships and sex, simply because the relationships are between men and the sex is gay, does strike me as pretty much homophobia simpliciter. If I thought that's what Updike was doing, I would be pretty quick to condemn him.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
105

And I don't think that not being interested in reading about gay sex is the same crime as homophobia, which is what Slate seems to be making it out to be.

I do think that writing a review about being uninterested in reading about gay sex is reasonably likely to be at least related to homophobia. Someone who reviewed Stephanie Pearl-McPhee's latest (she's a knitting writer) with an extended discussion of how uninterested they are in knitting, fiber arts, and crafts generally would either be doing something completely pointless, or implicitly advocating for the idea that there's something questionable about being interested in that kind of thing.

If Updike is so uninterested in reading about gay sex that it spoils a book for him, he's probably a bad reviewer of that book, and if he reviews it anyway he seems to me to be implying that gay relationships aren't a proper subject of literature.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
106

Or what Halford said.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
107

And I don't think that not being interested in reading about gay sex is the same crime as homophobia, which is what Slate seems to be making it out to be.

Yeah, this identifies the exact nature of our disagreement. In the context of a book reviewer discussing a class of writers and fiction, I think it's basically the same thing as homophobia.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:05 PM
horizontal rule
108

Yeah, I think 103.3 is a pretty clear misreading, but I can see how, if you're willing to be super-uncharitable to Updike, you can get there.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:05 PM
horizontal rule
109

I haven't actually read Updike's full review, I should say, and I kind of hate him generally, so I'm happy to condemn him on too little data.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
110

Or what Halford and LB said.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
111

Well, clarity of thought and unambiguous prose are important to a writer and flowery embellishment is unnecessary in a book review, so if Updike was not unusually homophobic for his day, then clearly he was a shitty writer.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
112

For full disclosure of bias, I will admit to a love of the Rabbit series, which I understand is highly uncool. Does anything capture the straight-up wacked-out-edness of the late 60s better than Rabbit Redux?


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:09 PM
horizontal rule
113

I like how this thread moved seamlessly from prediction markets to mountain climbing to perceived homophobia in Updike.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
114

Because it's there.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
115

112: I remember picking one up as a very little kid and being like, "WTF? Where is the rabbit?!"


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
116

105: Books about knitting or other technical subjects are distinguishable from novels; it would be awkward to argue that Stephanie Pearl-McPhee's book ought to interest me in knitting, or knitting the particular n [sweater? scarf? socks? tea cozy? fire engine?] that is her subject, but one could argue that a novel about n that failed to win and/or hold John Updike's interest, and consequently got a review that said as much, failed both the theme of n and the reader John Updike, while John Updike failed nobody.*

* The foregoing not valid for readers other than the generally empathetic and sensitive John Updike with patently animating hostilities (e.g., some wanker at National Review and my latest collection of feminist short stories).


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
117

112 -- Hah!! I did the same thing, combing the book for pictures. Maybe this is like reading old Doonesburys, and we'll discover that 90% of the Unfogged commentariat did this.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
118

117 to 115.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
119

Notwithstanding the unspeakable Lovecraftian horror of novels and short stories about people of one's parents' or grandparents' generation having any kind of sex, I really enjoyed and appreciated Updike's essays on art. I am probably defending him for that.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
120

Wait, I'm supposed to be chirpy?!?

Well fuck that.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
121

If Updike is so uninterested in reading about gay sex that it spoils a book for him, he's probably a bad reviewer of that book, and if he reviews it anyway he seems to me to be implying that gay relationships aren't a proper subject of literature.

I think that's being unfair to Updike. He seemed to like the author's previous novels, gay relationships notwithstanding.

Although I don't actually give a shit about Updike either way. Mostly I think Slate is crap.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:28 PM
horizontal rule
122

120: I don't think he was suggesting simultaneous chirping and fucking.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:28 PM
horizontal rule
123

"Wait. You made a woman chirp? You made a woman chirp!?"


Posted by: Reanimated Bruno Kirby | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
124

Good, because that would really spoil the moment for me.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
125

122: "chirp and swing" - are you sure, Flip?

Or are women part-chipmunk, part-monkey, and yet all-civilized?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
126

125: I think friends and enemies alike would agree that Updike's female characters tend to be the most remote from civilization. He's pretty cruel about and to them.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 1:35 PM
horizontal rule
127

"...and Helen was drawn up short by 'The more a lady has to say, the better,' administered waggishly.

'Oh yes,' she said.

'Ladies brighten--'

'Yes, I know. The darlings are regular sunbeams. Let me give you a plate.'

[Passage from Howards End that the chirpy thing reminded me of.]


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
128

I guess I'd always assumed Howard's End was about gay sex.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 2:19 PM
horizontal rule
129

128: If 20th and 21st century movies and books have taught me anything, it is that everyone in Victorian and Edwardian Britain was having gay sex.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
130

128:Goes to the Updike.

Interesting question the degree to which we can write, or read, about experiences or feelings alien or other to us, or patronizingly and in some kind of subset of "Orientalism", claim that such experiences are not really alien since "we're deep down all the same."

Was Forster (and Proust) writing about gay love and romance? Could they apprehend/comprehend hetero relationships?

Was The Wire largely bullshit? Or if not, should we still remember it was a white writer?

Doesn't feel right to say I can never "get it" about Japan or trans or gays or women. The opposite, that of course I can completely relate and understand, feels wrong. Could it be...a dialectic?

Updike is an ass. Best to keep shit like that to yourself.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
131

I've mentioned before that a dear friend of mine married a guy who'd been up Mt Everest twice. I wouldn't have married him or anything, but he's a decent and interesting man. As for condemning people for wasting time, I'm not sure who can really cast the first stone. Certainly not anyone who reads Slate, Updike, or references to Intrade.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
132

Who was condemning people for wasting time?


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
133

We think that people today are too advanced to say that "the female character" has "chirp and swing," yet movies keep coming out where manic pixie dream girls chirp away.

Maybe this could be the test of whether Husband X is right to say that Alameida is a manic pixie dream girl. The question is, does she chirp?


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
134

And how many times in a row?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 3:09 PM
horizontal rule
135

And does the smoke detector have batteries? That could confuse things.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
136

Re Intrade, anyone tried the Iowa Electronic Markets? I made a whole $4 in 2008 ($20 on Obama, $5 for the administrative charge. Bought at ~60 cents a contract, paid $1)


Posted by: Klug | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 4:48 PM
horizontal rule
137

There's something in the biography of Edmund ("Pat") Brown about election betting markets in the early 20th century. I can't remember if they specifically tied to predictions, or if (as is more likely) it was just plain gambling.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 4:51 PM
horizontal rule
138

137 -- Before WWII, there was a huge semi-legal market for betting on political elections. Newspapers used to report on the betting odds in the years before good polling. The volume was way way larger than anything on InTrade, and, in some years (I think) roughly similar to the volume invested in major stock markets. Link here. Really interesting and forgotten part of political history.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 5:10 PM
horizontal rule
139

You can scoff at Intrade all you want but I was a cowinner of a contest to predict the 2008 election results thanks to Intrade (I just went with the Intrade predictions). Looking something up on Intrade seems like a quick and simple way of getting a reasonably good idea of the odds.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 7:00 PM
horizontal rule
140

10: There is indeed research on how good prediction markets actually are. Specifically, there's a very nice and well-known paper asking Are Political Markets Really Superior to Polls as Election Predictors?, which can be summed up as follows: No. (This is actually a little surprising, since presumably people playing in the markets can read the polls too, and any relevant non-poll information should help them predict at least a little better than just using polls. So it seems like either there isn't any such information to be had, or the markets actively wash it out.)


Posted by: Cosma Shalizi | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
141

That's a lot of graphs for one paper. Very interesting though.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
142

138: Huh. I didn't realize the markets were that big. I guess I thought it was just a slice of local/state history in the Brown bio. Thanks for the link to that paper.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 10-13-11 9:25 PM
horizontal rule
143

140: which can be summed up as follows: No

Hmm, I think "No" may be glossing a bit that it is actually "an investor with a modest knowledge of how trial-heat polls translate into Election Day outcomes" (emphasis original) where "modest knowledge" means "using the results of our regression model* based on the prior 30 to 50 years of Presidential elections".

*It is a relatively straightforward model, so I will take it as likely that things proceeded strictly in their proper order as to hypothesis, model and results in obtaining the somewhat contrarian result. And for all I know there is a sensitivity analysis lying around somewhere.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10-14-11 1:34 AM
horizontal rule
144

Updike is an ass

Comity.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 10-14-11 4:19 AM
horizontal rule