Orrin Judd is a coproprietor of the Brothers Judd
Orrin Corson Judd lives in Hanover, NH with his beloved wife Dr. Mrs. Brooke G. Judd, O. Griffin Judd (2/13/97) and blessed daughter, Avery Caroline (5/29/99).
Orrin "works" at Geographic Data
Technology, Inc. He graduated from Colgate
University in 1983
and Vermont Law School in
1991.
Besides being an avid reader, he is a big moviebuff,
increasingly feeble golfer,
baseball
fanatic,
fantasy baseball enthusiast,
Vast
Right Wing Conspiricist, die-hard Conservative,
political
junkie, and
policy wonk.
Brooke is the lowest paid, quadruple board certified doctor in America. She works in the Sleep Lab at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. She is a much honored graduate of Wheaton College and Chicago Medical School where she finished first in her class, despite failing Anatomy. She is a terrific cook.
Griffin does whatever the hell he wants to--with a focus on playing with cars & trucks, reading books, and watching Bob the Builder and Food Network.
Avery is much like her brother, only more stubborn. She's actually started doing some girl stuff--chiefly playing with this frightening Barbie head doll and and developing that odd horse fetish they all come down with.
When Orrin grows up, he dreams of being Rondell White.
ORRIN G. JUDD :
-ESSAY
: Broadcast Reform Revisited: Reverend Everett C. Parker and the "Standing"
Case (Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. Federal
Communications Commission) (Robert Horwitz Professor, Department
of Communication, University of California, San Diego --- published in
The Communication Review, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1997), pp. 311-348)
(Ed Driscoll, Catholic Exchange,
1/16/02)
Want more information on a book youíve heard about? Your opportunities
to
learn about many good books have increased thanks to the Brothers Judd.
The
Brothers Judd use 21st century technology to share information about
a
medium that dates back over 3000 years: books.
Voracious Reader Turns Reviewer
ìI think we develop relationships with certain books,î Orrin Judd says,
ìthat some authors can transport us beyond ourselves (or into ourselves?)
and help us to temporarily forget our cares, or clarify our thoughts,
or let
us enjoy watching someone else fight the battles we face every day
and
hopefully show us how to win them ourselves.î
Anyone stumbling across their sprawling website (www.brothersjudd.com)óand
over 20,000 people have, since it went up in 1998ó will find over a
thousand
reviews on books ranging from Alexander Hamilton, American to North
Dallas
Forty to Slouching Towards Bethlehem to The Winter of Our Discontent.
These
statistics are even more amazing because the site was put up by two
men,
Orrin Judd, age 40 who writes the content, and his brother Stephen,
37, who
does the Web design and Internet heavy lifting.
ìEschewing any false humilityî, Orrin says, ìI think we have the best
book
site on the web. Even someone who disagreed with every word Iíve ever
written could use the links at our site to find out more about a book,
author or topic. Weíre very nearly unique in that regard; most other
sites
donít have links because theyíre afraid you wonít make it back to their
site.î
So who are the Brothers Judd and what makes people make it back to their
site? They are two family men living in New Hampshire. Stephen is a
Local
Area Network Manager at the University of New Hampshire and Orrin works
for
a business geographics company. They each have two kids, and Orrin
has a
third on the way.
In the summer of 1998, Stephen was finishing his doctoral studies at
the
University of New Hampshire, and had room available on a Web server,
so he
put up a home page, featuring content by the two brothers. Prior to
that, he
was stationed in Bosnia, as an officer in the Army Reserves. Orrin
says, ìI
sent him boxes of books to read during his rather considerable down
time.î
The two brothers thought that since Orrin was such a voracious reader,
it
would be fun for him to recommend books as content for the site.
At about the same time The Modern Library had just come out with their
100
Best Novels of the 20th Century, and since Orrin had already read many
of
them, he decided to read them all and then review them. He says he
was
perplexed by some of the Modern Libraryís choices. ìI was particularly
bothered by them putting Ulysses by James Joyce at the top of the list
and
by the inclusion of Finneganís Wake. As I reviewed the books from that
list
I was struck by how many of the books were neither enjoyable nor edifying.
It really seemed to me that to make a list of the Top 100 a book should
be
at least one of those things, preferably both.î
Judd critiques books ìon the basis of whether they contain messages
that
could help us to understand the human condition and hopefully leave
us a
little bit wiser than before we read them.î
As a result of Orrinís critiques, eventually the Brothers Juddís site
began
to take on a definite flavor: a firm grounding in Western Culture,
Judeo-Christian ethics, and American conservative values. ìI donít
necessarily want an author to share my precise viewpoint,î Orrin says,
ìbut
I do expect them to engage issues like good and evil and the struggle
for
freedom and Manís relationship with God in serious ways.î
Adventures with Great Books
To this day, Orrin writes all the reviews on the site, although he
encourages people to respond to them, and posts ìany coherent response
we
receive, including a hilarious one where a young woman wrote a high
school
paper just ripping my negative review of Snow Falling on Cedars.î Judd
says
that many kids use the reviews on the site to help with their schoolwork.
ìIíve earned a number of vicarious Aís and Bís over the past few years.î
How does Judd choose what books to read? Some come from publishers and
publicity firms who send books for review and the resultant publicity.
He
also uses C-Spanís weekly Booknotes series and lists such as Nobel
Laureates, Pulitzer winners, and Oprahís book list, ìand Iíll read
just
about any book that I hear good things about.î
Of course, for many people, choosing what to read isnít all that hard.
Itís
finding the time to read thatís the challenge. How does Judd do it?
ìI read
while the kids are napping. I read on the exercise bike at work, about
a
half-hour a day. And I read when I get home from work at night. I also
listen to audio books at work (unabridged, of course). It probably
averages
out to about 200 pages of actual reading a day (over three or four
hours).î
As a child, Judd devoured comic books and old pulp magazines, such as
Doc
Savage, The Shadow, and Tarzan), as well as the books of C.S. Lewis,
and
Alfred Duggan. J.R.R. Tolkien was a childhood favorite that continues
to
this day. (ìIíve read Lord of the Rings almost every year since I was
a
kidî). Today, Judd says his favorite authors also include Alexander
Dumas,
Henryk Siekiewicz (author of Quo Vadis?), and James Clavell. ìAnd I
think
George Orwell is just amazing.î
Once heís completed a book that he feels is worthy of review (good or
bad),
Judd begins to assemble his review, usually beginning with a summary
of the
plot of a novel or the overall themes from a work of non-fiction, and
some
quotes from the work, so that people can get a sense of an authorís
style.
ìThen I try to write an essay that will spin out at least one idea
from the
book, preferably an unusual idea or one that might not have occurred
to
other readers, maybe not even to the author. I hope to leave anyone
who
reads the review with something to think about, some thought that will
nag
at them as they read the book Iím reviewing or any other book.î
Judd then chooses a collection of relevant links to complement (and
often
dispute) his review. Finally, he assigns each book a letter grade.
(And
sometimes multiple grades, for books such as the controversial Dutch:
A
Memoir of Ronald Reagan by Edmund Morris, which Judd gave an A/F gradeóA
for
excellence as a novel, and F for ineptness as a biography. For Annette
Curtis Klauseís Blood and Chocolate, he gave an ìA to Fî score, depending
upon the age of the reader.)
As the reviews piled up, Judd has increasingly made an effort to demonstrate
the struggle between freedom versus security, two conflicting ideas
that he
thinks ultimately define the human condition.
Orrin says this theme dates back to the story of the Fall of Man. ìAdam
and
Eve had perfect security in the Garden of Eden; their every want was
provided for by God. Yet, they werenít free because this was not an
existence that they had freely chosen. And so they ate from the Tree
of
Knowledge and comprehended Good and Evil and, though utterly unprepared
for
the burden, took upon themselves the necessity for choosing between
the
two.î
Ever since then, Judd says, there has been a struggle within and between
us
over whether we would be better off returning to a secure environment
where
those difficult choices are taken away from us, or whether our destiny
is to
accept freedom and the moral quandaries that it brings, as we struggle
to
make ourselves worthy of God.
A Conservative Who Respects Liberals
Judd believes that much of the animosity between the Left and the Right,
as
well as between Fundamentalists and non-literalist believers comes
from the
failure to see why the other side has chosen one or the other of these
ideals. ìI come down strongly on the side of freedom, but it has helped
me
immeasurably to understand people who insist that the Bible be read
literally or who favor big government to realize that what they really
are
after is the comfort, the security, that will come from surrendering
freedom, from putting all the difficult decisions that freedom brings
into
the hands of another.î
Very heady stuff to filter a book through, yet Judd has a soft spot
for
books that are ìeither totally enjoyable, even if seemingly trivial
(say,
the novels of James Clavell).î Heíll also give a favorable review to
books
that intelligently address some of those big issues, ìeven if theyíre
not
always right (say, Francis Fukuyamaís The End of History). And obviously,
there are many books that combine both.î
Judd says he also makes an effort to read those who continued to celebrate
conservative ideas ìat the very time that statism and relativism were
triumphing. Folks like G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Albert Jay Nock,
the
Agrarians (Alan Tate, Robert Penn Warren & company), Evelyn Waugh,
Orwell,
Russell Kirk, and so on... Itís remarkable to me that these men had
the
fortitude to buck the tide of their times, and gratifying to me to
see that
they have been vindicated.î
Of course, the vindication of those pioneering conservatives and classical
liberals didnít come easy. The Brothers Judd were college students
during
the turning pointówhen voters escaped ìthe malaise daysî of Jimmy Carter
(as
the first President Bush described them) for Ronald Reaganís ìMorning
in
America.î Orrin says, ìIt was like seeing the sun again after weeks
of
rain.î
So with that sort of conservative background, are there liberal authors
Orrin respects? Judd says that one of the best books he read in 2001
was
Rick Perlsteinís Before the Storm, about Barry Goldwaterís presidential
candidacy. Perlstein writes for leftist publications like The Nation
and The
Village Voice, but Judd felt that ìhe brought an openness of mind and
a
generosity of heart to the subject that led to a very fair book. I
think
those qualities are far more important than political affiliation.
I donít
much enjoy reading conservative authors who are blinded by ideology
either.î
Judd also enjoyed Jim Sleeperís Liberal Racism, because ìthe writer
is
trying to come to grips with an aspect of the Left that isnít working.
And
David Denbyís Great Books re-examined the value of the Western Canon.
I
think books like these are very interesting, even if I donít agree
with
everything the authors have to say.î
The Brothers Judd website can be found at www.brothersjudd.com.
Edward B. Driscoll, Jr. is a San Jose-based journalist who writes on
a
variety of topics, especially technology, design, and home electronics
for
numerous magazines. Additionally, he covers technology stocks for National
Review Online's financial section.
The Original Interview :
In the Summer of 1998, my brother, Stephen, was finishing up his doctoral
studies at the University of New Hampshire, and had web access and
room on a
server, so he put up a homepage. We thought that since I read
so much it
might be fun for me to recommend books that folks might like.
(When he was
stationed in Bosnia, as an Army Reserve officer, I had sent him boxes
of
books to read during his rather considerable down time).
Serendipitously, The Modern Library had just come out with their 100
Best
Novels of the 20th Century
(http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100best/novels.html) and,
since
I'd already read many of them, I decided to read and review all 100.
I was
perplexed by some of their choices, so I started doing research online
and
realized that if I added the links I was following at the end of the
review,
it might be helpful for other folks.
That pretty much became the format for the website.
As a reviewed the books from that list I was struck by how many of the
books
were neither enjoyable nor edifying. It really seemed to me that
to make a
list of the Top 100 a book should be at least one of those things,
preferably both. I was particularly bothered by them putting
Ulysses by
James Joyce at the top of the list and by the inclusion of Finnegan's
Wake.
In his terrific book The Music of the Spheres, Jamies James talks about
how
Art was once intended to be beautiful, to communicate universal truths,
and
to reflect the ordered world that God had granted us. He says
that this all
began to change when Science (particle physics and the like) became
so
complex that it was no longer universal accessible. Where once
a
well-educated layman could comprehend the most complex science and
math, it
began to require specialized training and knowledge to grasp certain
fields
of inquiry. Meanwhile, these scientists, who had their own secret
knowledge, could still comment intelligently on Art, because it was
universal. So James says that artists, either consciously or
subconsciously, began to make Art more obscure and to develop complex
and
ridiculous theories about their work, precisely to make it inaccessible
to
anyone but themselves.
This is what so many of us find repellant about modernism and postmodernism,
that it is willfully obscure and intentionally ugly. The paramount
expression of this tendency came with James Joyce who had the insufferable
gall to say that : "The demand I make of my reader is that he should
devote
his whole life to reading my works." I find it hard to imagine
that there
is a worse way to waste your life than reading Finnegan's Wake.
But here
were the critics, the elites, telling us that these were the great
books of
our time. In the first place I doubted that many of them had
even read such
books, which several have admitted they haven't in subsequent interviews,
but even more than that, I wanted to tell other people, the people
like me,
that they were not alone in disliking these books. We immediately
began
getting email from people saying : "Thank you, thank you, thank you,
I
thought there was something wrong with me for not understanding James
Joyce.
It's a relief to hear someone say what I've wanted to say."
So I began to take a more aggressive critical stance towards these books,
and towards the others I was reading, and started critiquing them on
the
basis of whether they contained messages that could help us to understand
the human condition and hopefully leave us a little bit wiser than
before we
read them. Eventually the site took on a definite political cast,
but even
more than that it is very firmly grounded in the universal and universally
accessible themes of Western Culture, Judeo-Christian ethics, and American
values. I don't necessarily want an author to share my precise
viewpoint,
but I do expect them to engage issues like good and evil and the struggle
for freedom and Man's relationship with God in serious ways.
> 3.. How big is the site (in terms of pages, books reviewed, megabytes
of
space, and/or any other stats youÇd care to share)?
> 4.. How many hits do you get per day/month?
Unfortunately, I'm not the greatest record keeper, so even I'm not sure
how
big it is. We think there are about 1000 reviews here right
now (about 750
of them are also posted at Amazon.com), plus all the miscellaneous
stuff.
We don't keep track of total visitors per day, just new visitors, and
that's
worked its way up to an average of about 40 new visitors per day, with
a
total of over 20,000 folks in the past 3.5 years.
> 5.. What do your brother and you do when youÇre not reading or writing?
My brother is now a Local Area Network Manager at UNH and I work for
a
business geographics company. He has two kids and my wife and
I have two,
with a third on the way. I watch our kids during the day and
work evenings
and weekends. I've also helped to start a community group, somewhat
in
response to the events of September 11th, which is trying to promote
a
greater understanding of America's history in values in local schools
and
the community at large. We've begun by putting American flags
in every
local classroom (a shocking number didn't have them).
> 6.. When do you find time to read all the books that you review? Do
you
> write all the reviews, or do other family members or friends ever
contribute
> reviews?
I write all the reviews, though I encourage people to respond to them,
which
a fair number of folks have. I post any coherent response we
receive,
including one hilarious one where a young woman wrote a high school
paper
just ripping my review of Snow Falling on Cedars. I find it immensely
amusing, and more than a little gratifying, that although I was not
the most
dedicated of students, many kids use the site and my reviews to help
with
their own schoolwork. I've earned a number of vicarious As and
Bs over the
past few years.
I've always been a voracious reader. I read while the kids are
napping. I
read on the exercise bike at work, about a half hour a day. And
I read when
I get home from work at night. I also listen to audio books at
work
(unabridged, of course). It probably averages out to about 200
pages of
actual reading a day (over three or four hours).
> 7.. Do you make money on the site? If not, do you intend to at some
> point in the future?
We do not make any money. We get a % of the sales at Amazon that
are
generated by the site, but that doesn't even cover the expense of having
the
site hosted. We'd certainly like to make some money at some point,
maybe
via advertising, but even if we never make a dime, I'll keep doing
it.
Eschewing any false humility, I think we have the best book site on
the web.
Even someone who disagreed with every word I've ever written could
use the
links at our site to find out more about a book, author or topic.
We're
very nearly unique in that regard; most other sites don't have links
because
they're afraid you won't make it back to their site.
> 8.. Do you consider yourself a conservative, libertarian, classical
> liberal (or none of the above?)
I suppose my politics is really classic liberalism, but I consider myself
a
conservative, especially culturally. I believe in minimal government,
other
than law enforcement and civil defense functions, and in capitalism
in its
most unfettered form. But then I believe that we need vigorous
social
institutions (churches, schools, etc.), community groups, and the like,
both
to provide social welfare needs and to help us cohere as a society.
I'm a
firm believer in freedom from government, but I think it's important
that we
realize that our freedom imposes obligations on us, obligations toward
our
family, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens.
> 9.. Who are some of the people who influenced your thinking over the
> years?
The most important influence was probably our grandfather, who was a
Federal
judge and a devout Baptist. He was the most decent and the most
intelligent
person I've ever known, and just by the force of his presence, he required
you to aspire to be both also. We're actually from a long line
of Baptists
and Republicans, so I suppose we didn't fall far from the tree.
Our family
was thrown out of most of the better countries in Europe (Britain,
Germany,
Russia, Scotland, Sweden) for their religious beliefs and our four
grandparents each voted against Franklin D. Roosevelt four times each.
As a kid I devoured comic books; old pulp magazines (Doc Savage, The
Shadow,
Tarzan); the books of Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Alfred Duggan; biographies
of
the American Founders, military men, and the great explorers.
I believed,
and still believe, in their very simple themes : that there is a right
and a
wrong, that good and evil exist, that it is heroic to do good and to
fight
evil, that the strong owe a duty to the weak, that justice ultimately
prevails, but only if we are vigilant.
I suppose I may have clung to these ideas all the more fiercely because
it
was an age in which people were questioning them. I recall being
baffled
that college kids were destroying their campuses and that they supported
the
Viet Cong, instead of American G.I.s. Like any young boy, I wanted
to grow
up and be a soldier and I thought it would be a noble calling to fight
for
the freedom of the South Vietnamese people, to help them fend off communism.
But here was a significant, or at least vocal, segment of the population
saying that we were just there to kill Asians, or whatever. That
didn't
comport with America as I understood it or the Americans I knew.
I recall being horrified that people would set dogs on Civil Rights
marchers
who were just asking to be treated equally. But then I was equally
repelled
by the spectacle of the riots that destroyed inner city America, including
Newark, which was right next door to us. I knew it was wrong
to
discriminate against people because of their skin color, but how could
you
make things better by burning and looting your own neighborhoods?
I just had a strong sense that America was coming apart at the seems,
as
young people and the urban poor, egged on by intellectuals, turned
their
backs on the set of values that had held America together in the past,
instead of trying to make sure that America honored those values.
The
chattering classes were telling us that there was something wrong with
America, with religion, with morality, etc., but it seemed to me that
the
world they were making was a much worse place than the one they were
criticizing.
It's easy to forget now, but by the 70s many people were ready to throw
in
the towel on the Cold War and even supposed foreign policy geniuses
like
Nixon and Kissinger wanted to accommodate the Soviet Union. Meanwhile,
the
economy, burdened by high tax rates to pay for the burgeoning Social
Welfare
State and the Cold War, was tanking. So even the establishment,
which we
depend on to defend our culture, was going through a period of rather
grotesque self doubt. By the time of the Carter presidency we
had a
President who was accusing us of being in a malaise, as if he and other
"leaders": bore no responsibility for it, nor any obligation to snap
us out
of it.
Along came Ronald Reagan, to tell us that such doubts were corrosive
and
that all we really needed was top trust in ourselves and our traditional
values again. It was like seeing the sun again after weeks of
rain. Reagan
reset the terms of the debate in the very simple and clear cut terms
that
I'd grown up believing in : Communism was evil, and in fighting it
we were
on the right side of history; the way to get the economy growing again
was
to return freedom (and a healthy share of taxes) to the American people
and
to turn loose our collective creative genius once again; parents, schools,
and leaders needed to stop teaching that all moral choices were valid,
and
return once again to drawing bright lines between right and wrong;
a culture
that blithely accepted abortion could not then wonder why we had diminishing
respect for human life and for each other; etc.
I don't think most Americans had ever stopped believing these things,
it was
just that the media, political, academic, and entertainment elites
of the
country were dismissive of such beliefs. We had lacked, for quite
some
time, a national voice that we could rally around. Reagan didn't
offer new
ideas nor try to persuade us of new things; he offered old ideas, that
many
of us still adhered to, and told us that we were right all along.
And do
you recall the derision with which his candidacy was greeted by those
elites? He was portrayed as some kind of simpleton. What
kind of man could
belief in such absurdly antiquated notions as God, good and evil, limited
government, capitalism, etc?
But, of course, when he won and freed the American economy from the
burden
of confiscatory taxation and confronted the "Evil Empire", we quickly
saw
that people across the globe did indeed still believe in freedom and
could
indeed tell the difference between right and wrong. It turned
out that
those "simple" ideas upon which we'd based our civilization were, and
are,
still entirely relevant to our modern lives.
So over the past few years I've really made an effort to return to some
of
the writers who enunciated those values most clearly (to Edmund Burke,
James
Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, etc.)
because they turn out to be timeless. To read Marx or Freud today
is to
peer into a deluded mind. But you can pick up Thomas Hobbes or
John Locke
or George Washington and they have things to say that still matter
in our
lives.
I've also made an effort to read the brave souls who continued to celebrate
these ideas at the very time that statism and relativism were triumphing,
folks like G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, Albert Jay Nock, the Agrarians
(Alan Tate, Robert Penn Warren & company), Evelyn Waugh, Orwell,
Russell
Kirk, and so on... It's remarkable to me that these men had the
fortitude
to buck the tide of their times, and gratifying to me to see that they
have
been vindicated.
> 10.. What makes you decide to read a particular book?
at this point we've got some publishers and publicity firms who send
us
books. I also have a few lists I'm working my way through : Nobel
Laureates, Pulitzer winners, Oprah books, etc. And I'll read
just about any
book that I hear good things about.
> 11.. Are you influenced by C-SpanÇs Booknotes, the New York Times
Book
> Reviews, or other sources of book reviews and information?
I'm influenced to the degree that I may try to read a book that they
cover,
but I try not to read other reviews until I've written mine.
I try to make
up my own mind, although with an author like James Joyce or Thomas
Pynchon,
I'll admit I have no idea what they are trying to say, so I may read
what
others think they're saying.
> 12.. What information do you try to convey when you write an
> information?
I may give a plot summary for a novel or the overall themes from a work
of
non-fiction. I try to quote the author so that people can get
a sense of
his style. Then I try to write an essay that will spin out at
least one
idea from the book, preferably an unusual idea or one that might not
have
occurred to other readers, maybe not even to the author. I hope
to leave
anyone who reads the review with something to think about, some thought
that
will nag at them as they read the book I'm reviewing or any other book.
And as I've gone along, I've made an increasing effort to demonstrate
the
struggle between two conflicting ideas that I think really define the
human
condition : Freedom vs. Security. I think that most of the political
disagreements that we have can be traced to this simple dichotomy and
most
of our literature and our beliefs are grounded in the interplay between
the
two.
You can plainly see it at work in the story of the Fall of Man.
Adam and
Eve had perfect security in the Garden of Eden; their every want was
provided for by God. Yet, they weren't free because this was
not an
existence that they had freely chosen. And so they ate from the
Tree of
Knowledge and comprehended Good and Evil and, though utterly unprepared
for
the burden, took upon themselves the necessity for choosing between
the two.
Ever since there has been a struggle within us and between us over whether
we would be better off returning to a secure environment where those
difficult choices are taken away from us, or whether our destiny is
to
accept freedom and the moral quandries that it brings, as we struggle
to
make ourselves worthy of God.
I think much of the animosity between Left and Right or between
Fundamentalists and non-literalist believers comes from the failure
to see
why the other side has chosen one or the other of these ideals.
I come down
strongly on the side of freedom, but it has helped me immeasurably
to
understand people who insist that the Bible be read literally or who
favor
big government to realize that what they really are after is the comfort,
the security, that will come from surrendering freedom, from putting
all the
difficult decisions that freedom brings into the hands of another.
I relish
the struggles that freedom brings, but I'm a reasonably affluent, straight,
white, male in the most prosperous country on Earth; the struggle's
not that
hard for me, other than the constant internal battle to try to be a
good
person. How would I feel if I were native in Somalia, a Jew in
Syria, a
poor black woman in Detroit? It's easy to say I'd still just
want my
freedom, but the reality is that I might well want government to protect
me
and take care of me or want to believe that if only I surrendered completely
to the words of holy books that I'd reap my rewards in the next life.
At any rate, I started filtering literature through the lens of this
understanding of the world and I've found that it not only offers a
consistently interesting perspective on many different books, but that
we
can begin to trace these themes throughout Western (and other) Literature.
Suddenly, when you read Robinson Crusoe or Moby Dick, you aren't reading
it
in a vaccuum, you can see how the issues the author raises still resound
in
our lives today. It really serves to bring you closer to the
author and his
work.
> 13.. What does a book have to have for you to give it a favorable
> review?
The best reviews go to books that are either totally enjoyable, even
if
seemingly trivial (say, the novels of James Clavell), or that intelligently
address some of those big issues that we've talked about, even if not
always
right (say, Francis Fukuyama's The End of History). And obviously,
there
are many books that combine both.
> 14.. Who are your favorite authors, and why?
I've read Tolkien's Lord of the Rings almost every year since I was
a kid; I
love Alexander Dumas, Henryk Siekiewicz, and James Clavell; and I think
George Orwell is just amazing. There are actually quite a few
authors whose
books I read over and over again. I think we develop relationships
with
certain books, that some author's can transport us beyond ourselves
(or into
ourselves?) and help us to temporarily forget our cares, or clarify
our
thoughts, or let us enjoy watching someone else fight the battles we
face
every day and hopefully show us how to win them ourselves.
> 15.. Are there liberal authors that youÇve admired, and if so, why?
One of the best books I read this year was Rick Perlstein's Before the
Storm, about Barry Goldwater's presidential candidacy. Perlstein
writes for
The Nation and the Village Voice but he brought an openness of mind
and a
generosity of heart to the subject that led to a very fair book.
I think
those qualities are far more important than political affiliation.
I don't
much enjoy reading conservative authors who are blinded by ideology
either.
There are also a number of books by liberal authors, like Jim Sleeper's
Liberal Racism, in which the writer is trying to come to grips with
an
aspect of the Left that isn't working. William Henry's Defense
of Elitism
took on declining standards and extreme egalitarianism. David
Denby's Great
Books re-examined the value of the Western Canon. I think books
like these
are very interesting, even if I don't agree with everything the authors
have
to say.
And Christopher Hitchens is a hoot.
> 16.. What are you currently reading, and what are your thoughts on it?
I'm reading Harvey Mansfield's translations of Machiavelli's The Prince
and
de Tocqueville's Democracy in America and a book by one of my former
professors (and a Mansfield disciple), Christian Faith and Modern Democracy
: God and Politics in the Fallen World (Frank M. Covey, Jr. Loyola
Lectures
in Politial Analysis) by Robert P. Kraynak.
I'm particularly interested in de Tocqueville's view of voluntary
associations and the way in which they strengthened the American democracy
of the time. I think we need to reduce government and return
to these types
of non-governmental social institutions. It seems to me that
family,
Church, schools, etc. have been badly damaged by having to compete
with the
Nanny State, but that they can be revitalized if the state gives up
its
social functions.
Professor Kraynak's book is marvelous. He's looking at how our
duties as
Christians may conflict with our duties as members of a democratic
society
and how we reconcile the two.
> 17.. Has September 11th influenced what youÇre reading, and if so, how?
Very much so. Like everyone else I wondered just what it is about
Islam
that is making it so hard for them to democratize their societies and
embrace the kinds of economic freedoms that have fueled the global
economic
boom of the past few decades. So I read Karen Armstrong and V.
S. Naipaul
on Islam and I was struck by just how totalitarian Islam is.
I don't mean
that it is Hitlerian, but that it teaches that state, economy, and
social
life are inseparable and must all be ruled by Koranic teachings.
And in trying to understand the forces that are leading to this
confrontation I read Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations,
Benjamin
Barber's Jihad vs. McWorld, and Robert D. Kaplan's The Coming Anarchy.
These books, along with Thomas Friedman's Lexus and the Olive Tree,
Francis
Fukuyama's End of History, and Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, have
all
helped me to work through some of the issues involved. At this
point I
think there are only three options open to the Islamic world : (1)
they can
try to isolate themselves from the forces of globalization and maintain
insular societies, but I doubt they can succeed; (2) they can confront
the
West militarily and try to stop globalization by defeating us, but
we all
know that won't succeed; (3) so I think they face the prospect of going
through an extremely difficult and transformative period of Reformation.
They are going to need to adjust to the fact that they can only improve
their economic condition by allowing freedom in the economic and political
spheres. This is going to bring cataclysmic change, and will
require great
patience on our part. But we must hope that they can find leaders
with the
courage to undertake the effort.
> 18.. What are your thoughts on the events of September 11th, and
> Operation Enduring Freedom? How do you think the nation will emerge
from it?
I realize that nothing can ever justify or diminish the deaths and the
trauma that were suffered on that day, but I think many people secretly
share a feeling that we are a better country today than we were on
September
10th, that we have a renewed seriousness of purpose and a fresh appreciation
of our country, our civilization, our neighbors, our fellow citizens,
etc.
Affluence benefits far too many people for it to be taken for granted
or
treated lightly, but affluence isn't enough. One of my favorite
quotes
comes from Albert Jay Nock's great autobiography, Memoirs of a Superfluous
Man, where he says :
Burke touches [the] matter of patriotism with a searching
phrase. 'For
us to love our country,' he said, 'our country ought
to be lovely.' I
have sometimes thought that here may be the rock
on which Western
civilization will finally shatter itself.
Economism can build a society
which is rich, prosperous, powerful, even one which
has a reasonably
wide diffusion of material well-being. It
can not build one which is
lovely, one which has savour and depth, and which
exercises the
irresistible attraction that loveliness wields.
Perhaps by the time
economism has run its course the society it has
built may be tired of
itself, bored by its own hideousness, and may despairingly
consent to
annihilation, aware that it is too ugly to be let
live any longer.
I think it is almost inarguable that America has become more lovely
over the
last few months, that it has a depth and savour that it did not have
in the
90s. I'm always generally optimistic about the American future
anyway, but
I'm particularly heartened by the way this crisis has brought us together
as
a nation and returned us to first principles--family, God, freedom,
community, country.
> 19.. What's next for the Web site or yourselves?
Well, I'd really like to write a book, to develop the idea of Freedom
vs.
Security. i think it's an exciting framework through which we
can assess
the world around us.
As for the website, my brother is doing some redesign work to make it
more
manageable for us and more readable for users. I just keep reading
and
writing and hoping that folks will find us a useful resource and an
interesting place to visit on the web.
