Saturday, September 26, 2026

The Tenth Muse: A Bit More

 What does it mean, this tale we are about to read? How shall we understand it, ladies and gentlemen? Soon the music will begin, a movie will unfold. Where is the screen? Within? Without? It tells of matters both bitter and sweet. It tells of the world's conflicts and the soul's mysteries. Who knows where this tale came from? We can only read... and wonder.  


 Music sounds, the film begins. 

You may applaud when it's over, ladies and gentlemen. An old castle, an old story.  

 Read now... 

 ------------------ 

 This, with a few changes, was the prelude I wrote for the libretto of Bluebeard's Castle. Isn't it just perfectly awful? Perfectly cliche? I have never written a more exquisite bit of poetry or prose in my life, but the exquisiteness of this passage is agony: of a banality entirely worthy of Bela Balasz's place in world culture.  Sadly it was saved by Bartok's magnificent score, the other Bela, the real Bela who never used more than seven words a day. He was the one with inspiration, I just lifted the deliberately functional words I wrote to describe the plot in the outline and put it into the libretto.  It is truly amazing how opera can be so compelling while having no literary merit whatsoever.

Here is the most humiliating part: it was entirely deliberate. I wanted to write bad drama and I completely succeeded. The more insipid the script, the more flights permitted the composer of imaginative leaps that defy all rational consideration. One chord can provide a thousand implications where a mere sentence provides five.  

And if music is liberated by bad writing, how much more liberated by it is film? We had thought there to be no art work more total than opera--a combination of all nine muses. But cinema is the tenth muse: all nine muses work together in opera, but cinema provides the portal through which we may encounter the muses themselves.  
  
 And what better subject is there to inspire ten muses to sing than the women themselves who inspire such flights? Opera is the realm of Violetta, Aida, Isolde, Mimi, Susanna, Pamina: operas through which heterosexual composers pour their longings--whether requited, unrequited, seduction or lament, it never matters. What matters is the longing, the pedestal, the sehnsucht, the desire to memorialize an ineffable longing forever in a sculpture of stone and ice. Until the emergence of this new composer, Britten, there has not been an unquestionably great homosexual operatist. The rest is all female heroines to whom the men fall in love, onstage and in the audience, even when the soprano needs to lose 50 kilograms. Yet homosexuals too identify with these heroines as though themselves. 

Given the ability to see women in closeup, I thought movies would be entirely straight. Then I saw The Blue Angel, and the homosexuals were as in love with Marlene Dietrich as we were. I met Lena back in '24, noticing her on a movie set when no one else seemed to. She was magnetic even when she was an extra and knew just who she was. Within five minutes of introducing myself I said I would write her a script. The exchange was implied, but even then she was determined. She announced to me that one day she would be a star and we'd work together, 'I would hate to ruin the sexual tension between us.' We did not work together, the tension was as one-sided as what she shared with a hundred million men. 

And yet it was a mystery to me how one day I would become Professor Unrat. 

We all know the woman who gave me horns by a different name, but her first name was Helene, and this Helene so bewitched that the Fuhrer himself went to war with her image in his mind. 

There were the almond eyes of a mesmerist, narrowing at the slightest hint of a joke and lids melting at the slightest erotic attention. What's in the eyes is pure adventure: mischief upheld by utter control and self-assertion. What's behind the eyes is a Neuchatel clock: look closely and within a second of anything explained to her one sees the eyes dart and the head jolt. Behind the laughs and wit is a person whom the very eyes told you would do everything, go everywhere, and master it all with determination of iron and concrete. Whatever the world is for other women, the world was built for her willpower. The world is built for those who master all to which they take upon themselves and do so so agreeably that no one is aware of her mastery's extent until the work is done; and therefore, look closely. You know that one day the world will stand at her attention. 

 I have always been fascinated by the rare such woman, that woman who climbs from the pits of Tartarus to which the fairer sex is always hurled: women like Bluebeard's Judit with the determination to fight with Bluebeard's entire armory. Some are moral giants like that Scholl girl; others, like Marlene Dietrich, become the toast of the earth. Others? Others are like Leni.

Like any great work of art, Leni is a work of a thousand interpretations. There is the story of her evil, there is the story of her ambition, there is the story of her spite and seduction. None of these are true. 

I do not know the truth behind Leni, I doubt even Leni truly knew the person in herself, but as I choose to tell this story: I tell you my Leni. My Leni was the nicest, most generous, gemutlicher woman in Germany. She was oh so generous with time, money, favors, sociability, and beneath it all, I had the sense she would send it all to hell had she a democrat's choice. This relentlessly ambitious mind took upon herself every task she was offered: every task offered everyone else too, and she so hated the extent of it that she took on herself responsibilities precisely so she could destroy herself. 

It was neither ambition nor evil that seduced Leni, it was danger. So preoccupied was she with mastering the world's newest, greatest art that she grew to hate the very thing she mastered. This mistress of cinema deliberately lodged herself into history as its greatest villain. On the surface she was Lola Lola from The Blue Angel, but there was no killer from M beneath the surface, beneath the surface was a Brunnhilde driven to ride herself into Siegfried's funeral pyre, a Faust (Fausta) who made a deal with Mephistopheles to inherit a world she never wanted. 

The name is Balazs Bela: international socialist, Hungarian exile, editor of fairy tales, Bluebeard's librettist, film theorist who puts readers to sleep; but film reviewer of renown who strikes fear in producer's hearts, and therefore bribed into being a film writer of mediocre distinction. These are all my hobbies: my profession, my calling, my place in history, is seduction. As an artist I'm no candidate for greatness, as a critic I am cliche, but as a seducer, I am the Magyar Byron without a pfennig of his dashing looks. No, my seduction is entirely through words, listening, wit, persistence and good taste in wine. I pity the era when women achieve their long delayed liberation and an ugly Jew must seduce women purely by virtue of his merit. 

Great artists like Bartok and Kodaly, Pabst and Korda; life doesn't matter to them. All that is their lives, they put into art. To me, only life matters. Always give me more life, and more, and more. Art is there so crafty men like me may live better. Who is the greater artist: the art-maker who sacrifices everything so he may create, or the aesthete who hears their opera, looks at their art, eats their meal, walks through their garden with women so charming they are artworks unto themselves? Art is a gift to us, a blessing from the Gods. As the man who takes joy in the result, am I not the greater artist than the artist who suffers for it? 

But I knew better than consider myself an active candidate for Leni. Most beautiful women are lonely, housebound creatures of intelligence who might as well be spinsters. Leni is a man deposited in the body of a wonderbeauty, and because she speaks their language, forty men of intellect were in love with her at any given time and so were their forty wives. Every city of Europe must have these great women imprisoned by the salon whom but for accident of birth would be great men. Rather, the great men in their midst achieve greatness by the muses they play. Vienna has Alma Schindler, Paris had Georges Sand, but Berlin is Europe's greatest city of all because it teems with these creative women: Marlene Dietrich, Lotte Lenya, Lou Salome and Leni Riefenstahl. But Leni alone escaped the confines of salon, sex and submission to become the maestra herself who sets the tempo, balances the harmonies and calibrates the dynamics. 

I had no reason to believe she would choose me, and having no end of occupations I happily resigned myself to a gentleman's friendship of exemplary company: exhibiting patience and pleasantness as she took home men of twice my brawn and artists of twice my brain. But knowing that I must be magnanimous to gain entree to her good grace, I offered to write my mediocre dialogue for her directorial debut, free of charge. This hits on the great unmentioned secret of film: only the Jews are willing to pay real money so they may combat their reputations; everyone else is cheap. 

Once I got onto her filmset, I happened on the idea of seducing her co-star, Martha Mair. Every night, a new club, every day, a new bottle of champagne. All of cultural Berlin saw us together within a week, yet I never took her home: never much more than a kiss between us. The next week, Leni barged into my office genially with a brilliant idea. Let's scrap Martha's part, write her out of the script and make her part into a man's. She set those almond eyes on me and what could I possibly do but accede?

When Martha found out she barged into my office ferociously first thing in the morning. She told me I sold her out to a more powerful woman who wasn't as beautiful as her: "it's because Leni's a goi! Isn't it?!" 

I assured her Leni was no Aryan goddess and Jews like us have to stand up for each other in this business of vampires. What was shameful was that I believed it. She told me I was just another Jewish film executive using his power to get forbidden women and sell out his own landsleit. I told her this wasn't true and she was the only one for which I had eyes, and I would write her a movie that made her a star as big as Leni or Lena. Suddenly her eyes turned into the smoldering bonfire of Theda Bara's Salome. She pulled down my trousers and revived me in the office with the door half ajar. What could I do but promise that Leni and I would restore her part?

That day, the rest of us had to fly to the Italian Dolomites. I threw up on the fight. It was Leni who insisted on cleaning me up herself and ordered me a change of clothes from the costumes. And from 12:30 we spoke for 17 1/2 hours without a stop, until 5 the next morning before a 6 AM call. She offered me Scottish whiskey and Cuban cigars, which I accepted happily. She poured and lit for herself too, but I never did I see her put the drink or cigar to her mouth. I have only vague memories of what we discussed, but when we finally arrived at her cottage her face became obscured by darkness I felt as though for the first time I appreciated her crainioscopy in action: a mind moving with the speed of lighting, synthesizing all concepts of the world into order tightly enough for Kant: I don't remember her theories, but I remember things mentioned: Max Reinhardt and ballet, classical sculpture and Wagner, silent film and dance: especially dance. She enacted all the movements she wished to put in a musical film like Love Me Tonight or One Hour With You, only taking place in the days before the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the songs set to the music of Tchaikovsky: and as moonlight bathed her silhouette, she acted a whole ballet from her mind with the grace of Pavlova and the voice of Lilli Lehmann. And then she demonstrated the end: the hero marched off to the Great War, and you saw our hero disappear among a cadre of a thousand marchers: and in the moonlight she stepped in time with the ending march of Sleeping Beauty. 

That morning Martha was officially reinstated. She never revived me again. 

But 130 minutes later, at 7:10, Leni showed me a perfect sketch of a waterfall shot. A shot we needed by eight in the morning to get the proper sunlight with a 7.5 focal lens, R-stock filmstock with a red filter so that the palette comes out a darkest blue. No one else was there and we couldn't wait for the production team. I asked our driver where might be a good waterfall facing east and he drove us to the waterfall like the madman. When I saw the shot, I told her it couldn't be done, so did the driver. The mountains were much too steep and neither of us were willing to climb all that way to man equipment we thought ourselves sure to drop or fall. She threw her hands up, climbed one of the mountains alone with the camera and placed it herself. She lodged it in the dirt at an angle that could have destroyed the camera if it so much as dropped let alone fell. Then, production cost be damned, she kept the film rolling, descended the mountain, then climbed a second mountain so she could film herself next to the waterfall. With no one even to watch the camera, she got that shot in one take. 

--------------------------

Martha was right about one thing: movies are a business that only works by someone looking out for you. We call it a capitalist enterprise, but it's a business determined by an aristocracy for which every creator requires a Medici. My patron was Harry Sokal; as it turned out he was Leni's patron too. I only had chance to work with her because he recommended his lover to me as an actress, a soon to be bankable starlet, and a piece of arsch: but I knew what it was--offering a chance at his mistress as yet another bribe. But I had nothing like Harry Sokal's power, and by 1931 long knew better than think I had enough influence to win a starlet soon to fill a movie house. I contented myself with Sokal's wife, with his full knowledge of course, a woman whose ideas for films were better than Sokal's but left alone in a giant Charlottenburg villa. 

This is the moment I should probably concede I'm married too. We have an open marriage and she understands that beneath these foppish cravats lurks a primitive animal whose Magyar heart she cannot satisfy any more than I hers. In those days of my forties I spent days I should have written plays smoking in the beds of their producers, served a late lunch fixed by their wives as I read their newspapers while smoking in their bathrobes: those wives were usually actresses themselves, withdrawn from the stage when they hit thirty like milk feared spoiled before its smelled. The stupidest of these actresses married other actors: actors who could bestride the floorboards as leading men into their sixties and in ten years would leave their wives of ever so slight wrinkles for a younger actress. The smartest actresses married producers: a specimen smart enough themselves to know that sex is disposable but reputation is not. The producers would come to parties with their wives, striking and ageless in form fitting gowns like velvet wrapped ivory, but so preoccupied are the producers with the newest models that they don't realize that beneath their ivory statues lurk wolverinas who have not been fed properly in years. 

Leni would seem to be properly fed every day since she was twenty: men, women, men who thought they were women, women who thought themselves men; stars, directors, producers, stuntmen, cameramen, athletes, military men. Weimar Berlin was a place of sex without precedent or succession. Yet I believe there was one place she was not fed. 

As a screenwriter, there is very little to do in post-production. I had yet to receive a new assignment, and tried to read Narcissus und Goldmund: the latest Hesse. I did not get more than five pages before I heard sobbing from a few offices over: I would not recognize the weeping had I not heard the same voice sing: it was Leni. 

I seized my chance and went to attempt consolation. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Leni: (between sobs) The film's no good.

Bela: It isn't? 

Leni: It's furchtbar. 

Bela: How can it be furchtbar?

Leni: You didn't see it!

Bela: I saw the rushes, what I saw was everything we hoped it would be. 

Leni: Then I ruined it (starts crying again).

Bela: You didn't ruin anything. 

Leni: How could this film turn out this way? 

Bela: How did it turn out? 

Leni: The studio hates it! The test audiences hate it! I watched the movie on my own, now I hate it! 

Bela: They don't see what I see. 

Leni: What do you see?

Bela: A beautiful woman who's also a genius. 

Leni: GET OUT! 

Bela: I'm sorry? 

Leni: LEAVE MY SET! 

And she threw the movie cannister at me. 

Bela: What did I say?

No member of the fairer sex ever dared speak to me like this.

Leni: I am not one of your schlampes who falls for easy praise! 

Bela: I think you misunderstood me. 

Leni: All Berlin knows the great Bela Balazs! The mediocrity who writes Hungarian chicanery in German newspapers that derides the achievements of German artists and technicians who work seventeen hours a day to create the films you so deride then gets to sleep producers' wives so their films get good reviews! 

Bela: Well you certainly misunderstand my job. 

Leni: Critics are parasites! We have no need for you! 

Bela: I'm not a critic. I'm a man of film: reviewer, theorist, screenwriter, and friend to talent. If I thought I had any talent myself I would direct. 

Leni: What friend? 

Bela: In the beginning of my career I was friend to the talent of composers: Bartok, Kodaly, they needed a man who would listen to their ideas, occasionally provide a piece of commentary, then promote their work to the intelligentsia and even the masses should the occasion arise. It's true, I'm Hungarian. Think for a moment how many poor gypsy musicians might have been great composers if they had the education or the money. 

Leni: Why did you go to film then? 

Bela: Beacuse film is democratic. Film is art for the age of the worker. A great artist of film needn't be an aristocrat or bourgeois, they just need to show up to work with a camera. A great artist of film may even be a Jew, or even, God beware it, a woman. 

Leni: There are enough great Jewish directors. 

Bela: We had no way of knowing that twenty years ago. How do you think the Wiene brothers became as great as they are? They had their talent but they needed opportunities, and they needed writers to champion them. Without writers like me, Robert Wiene would have been done after Dr. Caligari and we wouldn't have Raskalnikow or IMRI or Hands of Orloc. 

Leni: So you came to film to promote talented Jews in the press?

Bela: I promote talented people, not Jews. I championed Metropolis when people hated it. I wrote about Pandora's Box and Faust when no one saw them. I was one of the first critics to tell people to see Nosferatu. I wrote about why Conrad Veidt and Werner Krauss were actors as great as anyone acting in Brecht. I wrote about Lena Dietrich when she was a bit player and I certainly never slept with her! 

Leni: Then why did you never write about me?

Bela: Because we had the same patron: Harry Sokal, and even a corrupt lusting like me has some ethics. 

Leni: But you'll write for me? 

Bela: I made a point of writing for you, even for free. I got to all these men when they were already artists, but I wanted to see the birth of a genius at its inception and watch as it mastered film in embryo. 

Leni: This is quatsch! 

Bela: This is genius! But it needs help! 

Leni; Genius doesn't need help. 

Bela: This is what I've tried to tell you. Nothing needs more help than genius! Genius is fragile, genius blows away at the slightest setback. But an artist becomes a genius because he disregards the setback and keeps working until the work of genius appears!

Leni: This is not a work of genius. 

Bela: You don't know that yet! Why don't we recut the movie together. 

Leni: But I...

Bela: Let's watch the movie...

Leni: It's terrible. 

Bela: It's not terrible. Even if it's terrible, it's not terrible. 

Leni: I can't bare to let you watch it. 

Bela: You will let me watch it! After seeing your temper I'm convinced you're the strongest woman in Germany and you can survive letting someone see a movie that isn't up to the standards of a genius. 

Leni: Do you promise not to tell people about the cut you saw here? 

Bela: I swear. 

Leni: You'd never go behind my back like that? 

Bela: Your secret is safe here. You're safe here. I promise. 

She embraced me and did not leave my arms. 

Leni: A great artist would make a great film. 

Bela: You HAVE made a great film. But a film is born three times, once in script, once in filming, once in editing. 

Leni: This film is still born. 

Bela: Such a thing does not exist.

Leni: I have no idea how to make it better.  

Bela: Do you know why I offered to work for you free of charge? 

Leni: You came to me because you wanted to sleep with me. 

Bela: Yes, but I heard you were the most talented, intelligent young artist in Germany, and the reports were true.

Leni: I'd only be the most talented if Lang and Sternberg leave. 

Bela: You're the most talented now! What would Sternberg be without Lena Dietrich? What would Lang be without Thea von Harbou? 

Leni: They are geniuses!

Bela: They are geniuses because women inspire them to be geniuses! Without the muse there is nothing! 

Leni: Then I'm just a muse. 

Bela: No you're not. You're the rare muse who has stepped out from stone to become the poetess herself! You are your own muse and need no man. 

Leni: (looks at me) I need men very badly. 

Bela: You're right. People only call me Berlin's best scriptwriter because they're afraid how I might review them otherwise. But since people call me that, I can offer my services to anyone I want. I could go to Sternberg or Lang or Wiene or Pabst, get a lot of money and try to bed their stars: it would be a lot easier. But here was a beautiful woman kissed by genius. I chose you. Germany's chosen you.

And she kissed me. 

For the first time in my life, I was faithful. 

---------------------------

We cut the movie. It was good. Not as good as the dailies, but I knew it would be a hit. 

But then when it was time to show the movie to Harry, she'd recut the movie completely and it was the movie of a genius. 

And then we retired to the waterways of Spreewald, and we were happy. 

----------------------------

We came in the spring, we stayed until winter. There was no money in film for the sorts of films she wanted to make. 

Leni didn't care much about politics, but she was a good socialist like us all. Just like Brecht made plays, she wanted to make films that exposed the injustices of the world so we could not look away. Her heart was set on a project filmed on location in Africa to expose the modern day slave trade. While the plot would be filmed in studio, it would be surrounded by a full half-hour's footage of the slaves themselves in all their appalling conditions. Every day I'd hear her on the phone explaining her vision to another producer: all of whom told her the same mantra--there isn't the money for it. 

It was true. This was the Great Depression. There was barely money for a trip to Africa, let alone a movie on location, where lives of entire crews would be endangered in attempts to get the proper footage. But Leni was a woman of implacable resolve. This was the movie she wanted to make, and she waited all too patiently. When there was no money in Germany, she tried producers in France, Italy, Great Britain, all of whom told her the same. She would not be deterred, and attempted to find the numbers of adventurous Hollywood producers like Irving Thalberg and David O. Selznick: known for taking at least mild risks. 

Yet you would never know: you never saw her upset. Every day, she simply hung up the phone after speaking with yet another producer, went back to her drawings, her mountains, her rivers, passed the days in perfect harmony with the surroundings, and then we went to bed. 

She canoed. We canoed. I finished a screenplay, called The Visions of Hildegard. She photographed our property every day then moved onto photographing the property of neighbors. I read my books. She climbed the Krausnicks, and when she reached the mountain's peak, drew everything she saw. We played tennis. She taught me to dance. We played four-hand piano duets. We swam in the waterways together. She was happier than she'd ever been; or so she claimed. I was happier than I'd ever been, but I knew better than to say it out loud. We planned on returning to Berlin in the winter, ready to sell the movie to whomever held pursestrings at that moment with a pitch I helped plan for her as though it were a screenplay itself. 

But we loved the country so much that we decided to stay through the winter, play in the snow and keep each other warm. 

And we discussed what happens in the unlikely event a certain Uncle Wolfie takes power. We didn't want to think about it, but she forced me to. I had contacts in Russian film, I'd visited the Soviet Union just last year. I'd previously corresponded with Dziga Vertov at length for years, met Alexander Dovzhenko a number of times in the studio. Post filming he'd lock the door to his studio and next to the camera we'd discuss film and art over copious vodka. Vertov even arranged dinner with Czar of Cinema himself: Sergei Eisenstein. 

Such an enlightened country was surely looking for a woman of genius, and would crow to the west about giving her the chance to make her masterpieces while the West was still caught in the chauvinism of old. 

But even Leni tabled that discussion whenever she could. 

Then Uncle Wolfie was elected. We didn't even vote. 

When she heard the news, Leni was utterly firm in her instant decision. 

Leni: We're not going back to Berlin. We'll never go back if we have to. 

Bela: You have contracts. 

Leni: Everything changes now. Contracts mean nothing. 

Bela: But what about your career?

Leni: NOTHING GOOD CAN COME FROM RETURNING! You will not return to Berlin! I'm staying with you until we go to Moscow and I will tie you to the bed if I have to! 

Bela: But what about your artworks, your cameras, your 

Leni: NOTHING GOOD WILL COME FROM BERLIN! 

Three weeks later, she off-handedly brought up the idea of having a child after the move to Moscow. 

The day before she brought it up, we had the most unlikely visit I'd ever had in my life. Fritz Lang: film's Kaiser himself, there in our cottage with his monocle and pursed lips: maker of Metropolis, the most expensive movie ever made and possibly the best. Nobody saw it, no friend saw it no matter how often I mentioned it. And just when everyone was ready to declare this Kaiser deposed, he'd made M: a movie that perfectly reflected of the Fatherland itself--poor, bruised, deacdent, awash in crime and murdering the future of its children. Of course, he wasn't there to visit me, he was there for Leni, and asked to speak to her alone. 

My crest fell to the floor. I knew he was there to take Leni away from this paradise. I could never have known what he offered her: abscond with him to Hollywood. Goebbels had just offered him to run the German film industry, and he was taking the next train out of Germany for as long as the Nazis were in power, knowing that saying no to Hitler may forfeit his life and Thea's.  

He wanted Leni to come with him: run away with him practically. I have no idea if Lang had any erotic designs on Leni: he looked as though he'd never even heard of eros and his ultra-violent movies always looked similar. But Sternberg had Lena Dietrich, and even if Lang had his wife Thea to write his screenplays, he needed a German star to work with him and tap the European markets where German movies were the brand of the highest quality. 'You are Marlene's exact opposite" He told her. "Apollo to her Dionysus." Dancing where Lena sang. Naive where Lena was sophisticated. There would be plenty of young starlets to compete with, but a beautiful woman with a foreign accent who learns good English would go everywhere in that town. And if she wanted to direct, Hollywood may not allow it but Broadway would, the Metropolitan Opera would, and a Ballet Russe choreographer named Balanchine is trying to found a national ballet company for America and would require a second choreographer. 

Leni left the meeting. Lang boarded the train for Switzerland. Leni threw up. 

-----------------------------------------------

Happiness is a woman's arms, happiness is the bracelet and frills touching your back and chest, happiness is a night at the theater with a hand in yours, happiness is sneaking about with secrets to keep, the thrill of the chase and the thrill of breaking expectations, the thrill of hiding and the thrill of inventing explanations when caught, happiness is the hotel room assignation and the walk across the street to and from whomever you meet. Happiness is a luxury in 1933. 

I found a copy of the book: 'the book.' Not in 1933, but '32. Still three months into our new life: every fifth sentence underlined and notes in the margins everywhere. And as I struggled with the presence of Mein Kampf I put it out of mind for Leni. I am in love with a new woman every fourth day, but for all 1932, I was in love, and love is forgiveness. You forgive the object all flaws, all annoyances, all dangers. All that remains when you're in love is love, love that you strive for eternal prolongment even as to be in love is not to be in life. Was Leni capable of love? Was I? Am I?

She said I love you every day, but what is 'I love you' to a woman of craft and genius? The greatest love, the greatest geschlechtsvehrker, is not to be compared next to greatness of creative compulsion, and the creative height of a genius must be the view from Olympus, making love to gods in manners that feel almost physical. What is the physical world next to this conceptual thing in itself that brings non-being into being? 

And what are the heights of one dwarf-like Jewish man next to the heights of tens of thousands upon camera, all of whom represent strength?  

Chapter 3 so far

 

  My students will miss the Great Books culture when it's over. I'm sure of that; they'll be wrong to, but the ignorance of their children will stun them after they take a hatchet to the common core ideas of Lionel and Jacques. 

But all one has to do is look at the students, only ten years my junior, to see a future when rock music is thought equal to Beethoven, science fiction equal to Shakespeare, while movies and television are what pass for great literature, past civilizations forgotten, history a structural chimera. In fifty years they will look at their children who view the world as an eternity of present and have nothing to talk with them about. 

Such is the way of progress: there is no progress without regress, without trial and error, without millions dying for it and no progress if we keep going with this common core of Western books that refuses to include any writers east of Athens and Petersburg. 

I look at my students, I see the coming terrible crisis, and I feel the only teacher in America who welcomes it. I don't just welcome it, I relish it. This Western-centric core deserves to die and it is precisely the populism of these students that will kill it: the long hair, the lack of hygiene, the long discursions on The Beatles and Who, the drugs, the willingness to be intoxicated in class, the resolute refusal to self-improve, the desire to see authoritarianism in every standard, this is the generation of nihilism the world desperately needs. It is a generation that will destroy the West for all time and endow the rest of the world a chance to become the elite class from which they're eternally excluded. 

I teach the way I think any great teacher would: what else can I do? It is neither my job nor my ability to start the revolution for which I long, yet it will come, the readiness is all. 

In a mere ten years I see the difference between my peers' quality and my students: my peers all seemed slum raised Jews or Jews' friends and neighbors, terrified of poverty, terrified of debt, terrified of return to the conditions of their parents, committed to achievement, committed to social mobility, committed to self-improvement and Bildung and Wissenschaft, seizing what was always theirs by right as whites, and their character was formidable enough to stretch to zenith any country shrewd enough to assimilate them. Today's students, Jew and gentile alike, are products of their parents GI bill and the suburbs, inevitably middle class at least, unaware of poverty's terrors, indolent, spoiled and rebellious yet completely unaware of that against which they rebel. What can this be but a trajectory that will continue my entire lifetime and long else besides?

Whispers are afoot that students are planning protests for something they've termed 'Gym Crow.' Columbia is building the gym that displaces... how many? A hundred? A thousand? Morningside Heights becomes yet another neighborhood to displace the indigenous of New York to margins so that whites can live unimpeded: the irony being that no whites will want to move in. Why distance yourself one mile from the urban element when you can put forty miles between you? Construction continues apace for neighborhoods nobody wants. Manhattan will eventually become a ghost city: a fourth house for the superclass: its skyscrapers occupied merely by corporations, Chinese food, black box theaters, highways and urban renewal projects that remain pristine because nobody lives in them. 

Meanwhile the students: I know I should treat them as individuals, each with their own soul and journey, but who can look at these hundreds against hundreds and not see two undifferentiated masses. At least the pro-war demonstrators are open about their narcissism, the anti-war demonstrators clothe their carnal desire and quest for fame in a performance of care that shifts no attention to any but themselves. The anti-Vietnam demonstrations put not a single eye upon Vietnam, only upon the demonstrators. It ought go without saying that not a single one would show up to protest were there no danger of the draft. These great revolutionaries are the same spoiled American generation as any other: akin perhaps to the post-Napoleon romantics of Germany and England but with worse music and poetry. All the romantics did was provoke the reactionaries of 1848, all this generation will do is provoke Repub... need I really say it? 

It will be a turbulent few years, but I simply can't imagine the edifice of civilization crumbling from the rocks of these gag revolutionaries. It can't crumble from them, it can simply atrophy as they lazily dismantle what their parents built, careless brick by brick until the edifice unintentionally falls in their dotage. Say what you will about Stalin and Lenin, they were committed to their praxis. These revolutionaries are the epitome of the white shelter, and after college they will return home to it: secure as or more than their parents that their cup in life runneth over. 

Nevertheless, I fall somewhere between amused and delighted when one of the few students who deigns to notice me on the quads tells me that my kind is obsolete, that they will dispense with me, that I am r 'the establishment', proverbially called 'the man' to to be overthrown. Sadly, if they overthrow me it won't be until spring, when the gold-barred prison that is university grows uninterruptedly passionate from a schoolyear's momentum. 

September 11, 1967:

Professor S: I bid you a formal and friendly welcome to Humanities A. The Columbia class in which a fortunate professor introduces you to the glories of Western Literature. My name is Professor Said, that is Sah-yeed, and I will be your guide. Many of you, I'm sure, need no further acquaintance to know how glorious it is but

(It used to be many of you) 

Steven Goldenberg: Professor Suheed, I'm really sorry to interrupt but my girlfriend and I, we have to miss class on Thursday October 5th for Rosh Hashana. Is that OK? 

Professor S: Of course! Why would you even need to ask such a thing?

Steve: Professor Bell doesn't allow it.

(Mr. Potato Head doesn't allow them to miss class. I suppose he won't allow babies to attend their own bris either) 

Robert Silverstein: My friend in the other class will have to miss Friday the 6th too. 

Professor S: Why would I object? Obligations are obligations. 

(remember to fail them on a paper)

Bob: Thank you, Professor. 

Professor S: You're welcome. Now I must warn you: there will be no quarter given for the syllabus we have. You see the intimidating reading list here: it is meant to be intimidating. You are students of Columbia University and were selected for your ability to become people of erudition. Any professor worth his cultivation can tell if you do the reading and tell if your writing is from any source other than yourself. 

Linda Bronstein: Professor, can we ever get extensions? 

Professor S: I will of course allow extensions for family and religious obligations, anyone who wouldn't is impractical, but no extensions given for any other reason. You are here to learn and you are here to read. 

(She won't do the reading anyway)

You will have a new text for every class and will have a paper to write for each of them. We will introduce you to the entirety of literary civilisation from Homer to Goethe: 3000 years ago until the founding generation of the 19th century. You will also be expected to read relevant passages of literary criticism and critical texts of economics, philosophy and sociology to contemplate the conditions under which the books are written and under which you read them. 

William Cavett: Excuse me Professor Sayood, but why do we need to contemplate the conditions under which the book was written? 

(There's the problem kid) 

Professor S: Because it affects how we read the book. 

Bill: Why would it affect how we read the book?

Professor S: Because the book is not just a book, it's a text that was formed by history. 

Bill: Why would we read a text formed by history? Why don't we just read history instead?

Professor S: Because this is a great way of understanding history. 

Bill: I thought we were here to appreciate literature. 

Professor S: Indeed, we are. 

Bill: Then why are we learning about history?

Professor S: Because the two are not mutually exclusive. History makes the text, the text makes history. 

Bill: I thought we were here to read great books because they're good, not because they make history. 

Professor S: And that is an ongoing discussion we will have for the duration of the class. 

(no it isn't you goyisher shit)

Bill: It just sounds like we're being force-fed a political agenda. 

Professor S: I assure you, I did not make this curriculum, it is pre-determined by Professors Trilling and Barzun. 

Bill: Even the sociology texts?

Professor S: This is not a political agenda. It's my specialty. 

Bill: Is there any reason you made this your specialty?

(And Mariam wonders why I tape record everything at Columbia...) 

Professor S: If you're going to be taught by people, you should let them teach you about the things they know. 

Bill: Then why do you have to teach an assigned curriculum?

Judith Ginsberg: Just let the man talk! 

(the man...)

Professor S: Many of you will go on to take classes with Professor Trilling, and he will tell you that the point of texts is not themselves but to elucidate the entire world of culture: a world that branches not only to places pre-approved by the orthodoxies of professors a half-century ago, but a mental journey to every place, time and field of endeavor the world yet contains: literature is just the beginning, the world of erudition is a world of intersection, it connects to paths in every other field of human endeavor: economics, sociology, history, science, even athletics and mathematics. The point of this class is a beginning, not an end. By the time you finish this class, it is my hope that you will be able to begin a mental journey that lasts your entire life and takes you each on a different, distinct path that provides a roadmap that increases the quality and meaningfulness of your lives. 

(Fortunately it won't. God is great.) 

Michael Kupferman: Professor Sahyuhd, does that mean that literature connects to current events too?

(Oh fuck.)

Professor S: Yes, it does, but I make it a strict policy to keep politics out of the classroom. 

Mike: I don't think that's wise given the way things are today. 

(a few students clap) 

Professor S: Wisdom is exactly we are here to find, and the only way we can hear the wisdom of the past is if the concerns of the present are not honored at the past's expense. 

Mike: But why read economics and sociology to understand what enabled these works' creation unless we apply their lessons to problems happening right now? 

(more students clap, why indeed?) 

Professor S: The problems of right now are not going anywhere anytime soon.

Barbara Melamed: But what if they are? 

(These kids are even much bolder than the last few years'.) 

Professor S: Well, I can answer that in two ways. The first is to say that even if current events subsume our lives, there are still the mundanities of everyday concerns: life and death, affairs of the heart,  jealousy, guilt, shame, pride, 

Daniel Kaufmann: But people are dying over there!

Professor S: Maybe so, but sir, you don't look like someone who ignores affairs of the heart. 

(students laugh) 

Professor S: So I would like to start this class by talking just a bit about Plato's Apology. 

Carol Levy: Excuse me, Professor Sa-hed? I thought we were supposed to go in chronological order. 

Professor S: Yes, and we will. 

Jeffrey Rosenberg: So why are we starting with Plato?

Professor S: Because there's a Plato lesson I want to impart. 

David Teitleman: I thought we were supposed to start to do Homer, Aeschylus and the books of the Torah first. 

Professor S: We will get to them, but first we have to go through the class introduction. 

Jeff: I'm sorry Professor Saw-heed but that's unfair. I read The Iliad already to prepare for this class. 

Professor S: I'm very sorry to disappoint you, you didn't have to read anything before the first class.  Today is just the introduction and I'm going to talk about the lessons in The Apology about commitment, devotion, ideals, martyrdom and political process. You see? We're not avoiding politics. 

Susan Rabinowitz: I'm also sorry Professor Saw-yud, but I can't help noticing, to get to Plato you skipped over Homer, the Torah, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes and Herodotus. 

Professor S: I suppose I have. 

Sue: This is the first text on our syllabus that doesn't mention war. 

(There's your star student. Ordinarily this one would be your friend, but this girl could be my worst nightmare.) 

Richard Friedman: We have to talk about the war! It's the only thing that matters right now! 

(everybody claps) 

Sue: Please, Professor Said, can we start with the Iliad?

(you need this girl on your side, keep ignoring that she's pretty) 

Professor S: Alright, yes, we'll start with The Iliad. 

(nearly the whole class applauded) 

Friday, September 25, 2026

Beginning of part 2 of Chapter 3:


September 11: 1967

Professor S: I bid you a formal and friendly welcome to Humanities A. The Columbia class in which a fortunate professor introduces you to the glories of Western Literature. My name is Professor Said, that is Sah-yeed, and I will be your guide. Many of you, I'm sure, need no further acquaintance to know how glorious it is but

(It used to be many of you) 

Steven Goldenberg: Professor Suheed, I'm really sorry to interrupt but my girlfriend and I, we have to miss class on Thursday October 5th for Rosh Hashana. Is that OK? 

Professor S: Of course! Why would you even need to ask such a thing?

Steve: Professor Bell doesn't allow it.

(Mr. Potato Head doesn't allow them to miss class. I suppose he won't allow babies to attend their own bris either) 

Robert Silverstein: My friend in the other class will have to miss Friday the 6th too. 

Professor S: Why would I object? Obligations are obligations. 

(remember to fail them on a paper)

Bob: Thank you, Professor. 

Professor S: You're welcome. Now I must warn you: there will be no quarter given for the syllabus we have. You see the intimidating reading list here: it is meant to be intimidating. You are students of Columbia University and were selected for your ability to become people of erudition. Any professor worth his cultivation can tell if you do the reading and tell if your writing is from any source other than yourself. If you think this is intimidating you should see the reading lists from thirty years ago. 

Nancy Bronstein: Professor, can we ever get extensions? 

Professor S: I will of course allow extensions for family and religious obligations, anyone who wouldn't is impractical, but no extensions given for any other reason. You are here to learn and you are here to read. 

(She won't do the reading anyway)

You will have a new text for every class and will have a paper to write for each of them. We will introduce you to the entirety of literary civilisation from Homer to Goethe: 3000 years ago until the turn of the 19th century. You will also be expected to read relevant passages of literary criticism and critical texts of economics and sociology to contemplate the conditions under which the books are written and under which you read them. 

William Cavett: Excuse me Professor Sayood, but why do we need to contemplate the conditions under which the book was written? 

(There's the problem kid) 

Professor S: Because it affects how we read the book. 

Bill: Why would it affect how we read the book?

Professor S: Because the book is not just a book, it's a text that was formed by history. 

Bill: Why would we read a text formed by history? Why don't we just read history instead?

Professor S: Because this is a great way of understanding history. 

Bill: I thought we were here to appreciate literature. 

Professor S: Indeed, we are. 

Bill: Then why are we learning about history?

Professor S: Because the two are not mutually exclusive. History makes the text, the text makes history. 

Bill: I thought we were here to read great books because they're good, not because they make history. 

Professor S: And that is an ongoing discussion we will have for the duration of the class. 

(no it isn't you goyisher shit)

Bill: It just sounds like we're being force-fed a political agenda. 

Professor S: I assure you, I did not make this curriculum, it is pre-determined by Professors Trilling and Barzun. 

Bill: Even the sociology texts?

Professor S: This is not a political agenda. It's my specialty. 

Bill: Is there any reason you made this your specialty?

(And Mariam wonders why I tape record everything at Columbia...) 

Professor S: If you're going to be taught by people, you should let them teach you about the things they know. 

Bill: Then why do you have to teach an assigned curriculum?

Rachel Ginsberg: Just let the man talk! 

(the man...)




The point of this class is a beginning, not an end. You are to 


Whole Thing So Far: Needs Better Name

  Columbia is not a pretty campus. With the gothic spires of Yale and the Georgian red brick of Harvard, it's as though two Ivy Leagues schools had a child whom they wanted to attend an Ivy League school.

 Another way of looking at Columbia is that it is a New Yorker's impersonation of an Ivy League: combining what it thinks to be the best parts of each school into a perverse neoclassical bouillabaisse of aesthetic identities which creates a perfect advertisement that it doesn't belong among its colleagues: like American intellectuals among the cosmopolitan. 

Every day I step onto campus and teach European literature to Jewish students. I then go to meetings among Jewish teachers. I'm then supervised by Jewish administrators. I publish in journals with Jewish editors. Then I go to dinners where everyone speaks of one topic and only one: Israel. 

They all seem to operate under a de facto assumption I'm one of them until I inform them otherwise: I don't know how I give the impression but they're always eager to let me into their club. I remind them my name is Said and they always protest they thought it was Sephardic. I point to my accent and they say that Professor Trilling sounds like a transatlantic Brahmin, why can't a Jew of our generation too? What they're really saying is "you speak pretentiously" because I don't round my r's and aw's.

Once they realize I'm an Arab, the racism comes later. First class resentment plays its part. They hear the boarding school in me and naturally assume they're dealing with the privilege of an Arab prince. My father was a successful merchant of the upper-middle class, much like the fathers of German Jews. Only their fathers had all of New York to ply their wears. My father had to travel the Middle East so he had to present the appearance of aristocracy he did not possess.

And that's when they hear that I grew up in Jerusalem before my family was thrown out, and I hear the  inevitable next sentence: 

'You weren't thrown out.'   

Exile takes on many, many forms. There is the forced exile of displacement, there is the internal exile of the discriminated, then there's the internal exile of the assistant professor, who bars his dignity from a series of classrooms, meetings and dinner parties to which no one there has desire to go. Other exiles are forced, this one is entirely self-generated. 

I suppose one should be grateful one is not over there. Being Protestant one is born in station over Palestinian Muslims who have suffered endlessly: before the Jews there were the Ottomans, the Syrians, the British, the French, even the Arabians. If anyone here knew the details of my biography, they would tell me I'm Egyptian and American, not Palestinian. They would call our family home in Jerusalem a mere vacation home and call it entirely typical of Palestinians to claim this land from the river to the sea as their inherent right when they're nothing but tourists. How dare they do so, I am Palestinian if I'm anything at all, but to be perfectly frank, I'm not even certain I'm Palestinian. I've always felt out of place among Palestinians, Egyptians, Americans, English and continentals. I am a nationality of one, possessing an internal passport shared not even by my sisters. One cannot deny it is an exile of extreme material comfort, but it is an exile of the self in perpetuum. 

But my reality is a world of un-reality--shared not even by other Saids, let alone by all the Awads, Al-Najars, El-Masrys and Odehs of the Gaza camps. I am merely marginalized, they are forgotten. It is far more convenient to forget them: to the world and to me; to the professional life I want, to the social life I loathe, to the life of an assistant professor people predict will be one of the great thinkers of our time, but care not at all for the person beneath the thought. 

I go to class and all the Jewish students mispronounce my name: Sed, Sayd, Sa-yed, Sa-yaad, Sah-eed, Saud, Soud, Sa-oood, Sa-geed, Si-geed, Say-geed, in four years I think I've heard every malapropism on my name only for a student to find a new way of disfiguring it. Even the smart ones do it: especially the smart ones. I've tried to figure out whether this is a passive aggressive trait: unconscious hostility toward me lain beneath a person whose performance I have to judge. Or perhaps the students are smart enough to sense what faculty members never do: and their mispronunciation is a conscious code of reminding me that I'm not one of them. Or having their own names mispronounced so often by gentiles they unconsciously mispronounce mine as a kind of initiation ritual to make me feel at home among them. Or perhaps it's my own unconscious hostility toward them that I take it so personally. 

Nevertheless, they're generally very friendly, cooperative, good students, sometimes even solicitous of my welfare to a point that I find intrusive. Some even show signs of romantic interest: a number of whom display features prized by the more debased among my colleagues. I, however, try not to indulge that time-honored tradition of dating my students as a matter of policy, though a few graduate students have made their interest in me quite plain. One even was male: I've been mistaken for a homosexual since Northfield Mount Hermon. One cannot simply be a dandy in the twentieth century. Instead I'm going with a business school Lebanese girl named Mariam whom I refer to as "Wall Street Friends of SDS," but that is so paltry next to the ribbings she gets when in class. She is an extraordinary woman: bright and brave, a rare woman in Columbia's Business School, and an Arab woman no less. Allah and Christ only know the fortitude of character such burdens demand. 

Here at Columbia, they treat me as a new literary luminary, perhaps THE new literary luminary. They treat me as their child, their successor, the talking head of immaculate coif who pontificates complexity on television shows America's women have on in the background while they're vacuuming to remind themselves they once were allowed to use a brain rather than a body. They treat me as a curious melange of friend and son when all I want is to send them to hell, gahennim and jahannam as it were. Maybe I truly am the child of these obnoxiously combative semites, but if I am, I'm an Oedipal child and all I ever feel toward them is murder. 

I sit there, at yet another party not even they want to go to, glass of wine in hand that's expensive but not too expensive, as they pontificate to each other and particularly to me as the young man to whom they pass their great pearls of wisdom: Boswell to a series of Johnsons. They all seem to view me as the epilogue to their golden era that will make a career of remembering them to a public that never truly cared what they had to say any more than these men care what I have to say. 

I suppose I will always recall that first meeting with Professor Trilling. I don't remember what he said, only that I was in the presence of a walking talking manifestation of combover with cigarette lined wrinkles: holder ever present in his yellow mouth, Brahmin affectations interrupted by spontaneous combustions of nervous excitement. He looks ever the same when he's excited and when he's agitated. The great Lionel Trilling: this purveyor of the academic perversion that is 'the world is too complex to not excuse the American imperium'.  With him comes that dual act with Diana, the supposed model of a progressive marriage for all America, but a double act in which Lionel begins a sentence and Diana interrupts, inevitably sauced in too much wine as Lionel copes with his terror of his wife by chain-smoking another Sobranie. Diana worships Lionel's high polish, but underneath hers lies the sort of middle class Emily Post sensibility that reviews books by the virtues of their propriety. Her reviews feel like nothing so much as a nun slapping with a ruler on the wrist. 

It wasn't a day before this writer of The Liberal Imagination introduced me to Daniel Bell: writer of The End of Ideology who quite literally looks like that American toy, Mr. Potato Head; with a mustache that announces 'please don't take me seriously.' He plays the avuncular jocularity and kindness of a Flatbush cousin, but dryly advocates policies through statistical analysis that dehouse tens of thousands. He would of course exonerate himself for collaborating on that magazine of infamy, Public Interest, with those human pustules Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Irving Kristol, inevitably claiming his colleagues' ideology is not his own; a trait which, of course, he claims to not have. And yet the magazine somehow finds a way to clothe the repugnant ministrations of men like Robert Moses in high minded civil necessity. Yet another explosion of Jewish genius that looks for their own and ignores those they climb over. 

And then we move over to Jacques Barzun's office: the 'court goy', for a Claret and Armagnac. That ridiculously mummified ultraroyaliste of the 19th century for whom the world stopped the year he was born. He says nothing but every move poses for an invisible mental photograph of a statue frozen in disdainful hauteur. He simply sits there as Trilling provides the speciously high-minded verbiage and Bell provides the amusing anecdotes, to which I have to provide the laughter and Barzun inevitably responds with a mere chortle. A man of culture so impeccable he cannot bear to embrace the validity of any idea at all. 

To all too many men like them of too many affectations and too few commitments, their scholarship is without value or values. To what end is all this genius? To sit with men like them is like to sit at a gathering of the Second Continental Congress, yet they seem ever like the new slaveholders. There is no one in all the world for whose approval I'd plead more, yet for all their silent protests to the contrary, they never ever would give it. In me they see a blessing for their ignorance of who the rest of us are: an  'hechsher' perhaps they'd call it, but their exoneration comes at the price of everyone upon whose backs my success was made. 

Soon I meet other collaborators: Hofstadter, Lipset, Howe, Glazer, occasionally Hannah Arendt deigns to grace them with her ashy, mouth-ticing presence, apparently Nabokov used to join this club when he visited from Ithaca or Switzerland until he and Edmund Wilson had their famous fight two or three years ago (they got the bad parent in the divorce settlement). We get graced with other ill-mannered presences: Kazin, Fiedler, MacDonald, Mailer... once Saul Bellow dropped by when he was in town, two other times he was supposed to but had other commitments--everyone looked at each other in that way which understands 'other commitments' means another woman. Not that these men are strangers to adultery. Upper middle class New York is full of bored late thirties housewives going to lectures, looking for a man who can explain what's been going on in the world since they disappeared behind their now teenaged children. And yet by far the most famous for his affairs is Edmund Wilson, who is my mind's-eye opposite of an Apollo, and the hollow-eyed Mary McCarthy who frankly looks as though cigarettes have barbecued whatever diminutive Irish-faced appeal she may have once had. It would seem that even in this epoch of Jewish supremacy, the true Don Juans are still the gentiles.  

Everyone says there is complete freedom to disagree at these soirees, but the dangers of an unforgivable fight feel ever present as the voices grow raised and these alleged lions of intellectual composure stand up in alarm and pace the room rather than look their antagonists in the face. Apparently these gatherings grew so rancorous that a few years ago the group 'moving right' stopped attending: as though nobody could tell what cerebral kamikaze pilots like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz would become from the moment they walked into the room for their first days of kindergarten. 

In our era of university unrest for which the status quo of these liberals was the cause, they play their parts as the cold water on the hot coffee of the new radicalism inflaming the world after a generation of the self-satisfied complacency which they enabled. These Jews play court historians and philosophers to WASPS who want nothing more than to solidify their position for an eternity of descendants. And in exchange for their blessing of the establishment, these Jews are solidified as the very next social class down: bankers to the superclass, their academic foreign policy advisors, doctors and lawyers to the rich, serving the elite at the price that this government of Anglo-Saxon Protestants provides a secure Israel amid a sea of Arab enemies. Enemies they inevitably allege as barbarian hordes who loathe democracy, loathe equality, and want nothing but declare holy war so as to impose sharia upon the entire world. And so talented and shrewd are they that they succeed in the invisible imposition of their will upon America in every regard. 
 
These rough men in suits bloviate complexity and nuance, liberal internationalism, peace and understanding between nations and peoples, but these geniuses are Jewish nationalists to the blood, rams clothed in the wool of brainy lambs. And for their mortared position amid the establishment, they throw Muslims to lions and pretend the lion will lie down amid the lamb. 

It is September 1967, Israel conquered the Middle East three months ago, tripled its size, took over the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza, and I have been counting the days to my return in dread. I stay in bed until after noon, I don't go to concerts or shows for fear of whom I run into, I don't go to the Columbia practice rooms to play the piano, I don't even walk the parks. Instead I ride the subway to places like Flatbush and Midwood, watching anonymous Jews walk the streets, orthodox and assimilated alike. I look into the brownstone windows to watch families sitting at Friday night dinner, watch the children leave their schools and go in groups to the soda fountains. I go to the restaurants and sit at the bar to eavesdrop the Yiddish peppered conversation: more often than they'd allege I hear the word 'schvartes' and once or twice I could even pick out the compound word: 'sand-schvartzes.' I can pick out lots of talk about 'the Arabs', 'Sinai', 'Nasser', 'Kibbutzes' and 'Kibbutzim', but never have I heard the term 'The Palestinians.'   

I typed up a resignation letter seven times and unplugged my phone all summer. I had no real intention of resigning, nor have I any intention of discussing Palestine at Columbia. I realized very quickly that any dread of the question is an irrational dread, yet the dread remains every night as sleep in my too hot apartment is disturbed by carhorns and rock music and the occasional screaming homeless man. I thought of returning to my family in Cairo, at least for a visit or sabbatical, I fantasize of moving to Palestine so I might stir up agitation against Israel, I fantasize about the Jewish girls sitting in the front of my classes, and I fantasize both of telling Lionel and his mafia'd minions to go to hell, and also fantasize of making them understand the plight of a young man they think has no plight. 

-----------------------------------

(The half-shell oysters are collected, everyone is seated at their placards, the vichysoisse is served. You can hear the clink of the spoons against the crystal bowls and Dwight MacDonald has a slurping noise that would make a mild misophone lose his appetite.) 

Dwight MacDonald: As I was starting to say, I'm reading this new anti-colonialist who's the rage among my students: an Arab Algerian named Fanon.  

Daniel Bell: Ochen vey. 

Lionel Trilling: He's not Algerian, he's Caribbean.

Dwight: You know him? 

Jacques Barzun: Another fashionablist who thinks building a civilization will be as easy as destroying it. 

Diana Trilling: He has some interesting things to say about Algeria. 

Lionel: They all have interesting things to say! 

Seymour Martin Lipset: All of them?

Lionel: Of course! 

Danny: So you, Lionel Trilling, who made America think Princess Cassamassima is a readable book, think Peanuts has interesting things to say? 

(This is simply the way they talk. They think Trilling writing about Princess Cassamassima will make America read it, but even if they try to read The Liberal Imagination they'll just drop it after page 30 and remember 'Trilling hates Dreiser and Sherwood Anderson'.)

Diana: Careful Danny, you'll have to explain to him what Peanuts comics are. 

 (Everyone laughed. I suppose it's relieving: any laugh at a dinner hosted by Jacques Barzun is as unlikely as a mention of The Rolling Stones. The food is inevitably delectable, but Allah forbid any of us use the wrong salad fork or Barzun may remind us of it in eighteen months. Lionel told me that my presence at this dinner would be much appreciated, Arendt would be there and wants to talk to me about my new Conrad book. Of course, this means 'your presence is mandatory.' It seemed fairly innocuous, Arendt wrote about Conrad in Origins of Totalitarianism, but I have a feeling of dread that something more purposeful is afoot.) 

Lionel: I've read the Peanuts. 

Marty: If Lionel's read them he probably has them memorized from the first column to last week. 

(everyone laughed again) 

Lionel: They're not without entertainment value either! 

Jacques: I agree. 

Danny: My god, the Columbia common core is praising Peanuts!

Dwight: Next Jacques will be telling us The Beatles are a cultural achievement to place next to Wagner. 

Lionel: I've come to realize that there isn't a single cultural artifact from which one can't gain insight. 

(And that's the most he'll think of us. Cultural artifacts to be discovered by an archeologist: an unevolved society no different in the present than it was ten thousand years ago.) 

Jacques: I would not go so far Lionel. 

Dwight: What sort of insight? 

Lionel: Human, cultural...

Dwight: I hope you don't mean aesthetic. 

Lionel: Of course there's aesthetic insight! 

Danny: This is the most shocking historical moment since Molotov-Ribbentrop. 

Diana: Then you don't know Lionel. 

Lionel: Popular mediums are completely new mediums. We can't dismiss them simply because they have no precedent. 

(We have precedents in the East. Many.) 

Danny: No precedent? Newspaper cartoons have been around for three generations!

Lionel: All I'm saying is that there are all sorts of mediums our generation will never be able to understand and we'll have to leave them for new generations to sort out. 

Marty: Suit yourself. But I'm twenty years younger than you and I don't understand them. 

Diana: Edward, you're the strapping youngling here, what do you think of newspaper cartoons. 

(all eyes turned towards me)

Edward Said: I never had much use for them. 

Marty: You see? 

Lionel: There are so many sources from which one can gain enlightenment, more and more I believe we vastly underestimate it. 

(And this is what is supposed to satisfy the rest of us.)

Jacques: So what do we do about the transcendent sources? Do we just file them away under no better than Family Circus? 

Lionel:  Not at all, there is still aesthetic/intellectual hierarchy, but one should not dismiss the value of popular sources. 

Dwight: Alright, well Lionel, since until Peanuts I was under the impression that you thought nothing transcendent's been done since 1930, whom do you think is writing actual transcendent work in our time? 

Lionel: Isaiah Berlin? 

Marty: Isaiah Berlin? 

Lionel: You object? 

Marty: Who would know? 

Diana: Everyone knows about Isaiah!

Marty: He doesn't publish! 

Dwight: He's published! 

Marty: His whole reputation is based on how good he is at dinners like this! 

Lionel: Nonsense! Have you read his Marx biography? 

Marty: It's a small one volume thing from the thirties! What's he done since then?

Lionel: He wrote those briefs about America for the British foreign office during World War II. They amount to a new Federalist Papers! 

Danny: Lionel I think Berlin's as good as it gets but that's pushing it...

Lionel: And he wrote that book on 18th century thinkers. 

Marty: Come on, Lionel, those are obviously lecture transcriptions from some graduate student. And at the speed he talks who knows if that's actually what he said?  

Diana: Then he must be even better than his lectures if not everything was taken down. 

Marty: Who would know? 

Danny: So you think Isaiah Berlin's overrated? The greatest liberal philosopher of our time save Hannah?

Hannah Arendt: I think he's the most overrated philosopher of our time. 

Jacques Barzun: He thinks the same of you. 

(again everyone laughed, including Arendt) 

Marty: My point is just that his reputation is as much based on word of mouth and how well he talks, not on anything he's written. Who knows if we even remember correctly what he has to say? 

Lionel: Fair. Well, whom do you all think is doing transcendent work today?  

Dwight: Well I'd say Saul.

Danny: Let's put some guidelines here. I think he means who's doing intellectual work with political implications. Saul is not a political writer, and I think if you talked to Saul about politics these days you'd be appalled. 

Marty: He's gone back to Trotsky?

Diana: Quite the opposite. He makes Irving Kristol sound like Stalin. 

Marty: Oy...

Dwight: Alright, who's a transcendent figure who affects political discourse? Lionel says Isaiah Berlin, I'll say Marshall McLuhan. 

Marty: Raymond Aron. 

Danny: Can I say Orwell or Camus?

Diana: Unfortunately not, we're in a different era now. 

Danny: Alright, I'll say Gershom Scholem. 

Marty: Not political enough. 

Lionel: I think we ought to allow it. Hannah?

Hannah: You know I'll say myself. 

(again, everyone laughed) 

Hannah: Very well. Heidegger. 

Dwight: Hannah, no, you have a conflict of interest here. 

Hannah: Na gut, Karl Popper. 

Marty: Diana?

Diana: ...I'm going to go with Arthur Koestler. 

Danny: How unenlightened of you...

(everyone laughed again) 

Marty: Jacques?

Jacques: No one. 

Hannah: Quelle surprise...

(everyone laughed again) 

 Lionel: Please don't forget Edward. I'm sorry my boy...

Edward...: Frantz Fanon? 

(everyone went quiet.) 

Danny: Well that was a much bigger surprise than Jacques.

(everyone laughed again)

Diana: Well, it makes perfect sense that Edward would find resonance in him. 

(Oh really? Of course it does. It doesn't matter that I think he's greatness, it matters that their little monkey from the east would respond to him... and pray tell... what do they think I respond to?) 

Marty: I agree, but that doesn't make him the greatest thinker of our time. 

Dwight: I was saying, his work has some fascinating insights. He says that racism forces the colonized and men of color to adapt the thoughts and manners of the colonizer. 

Jacques: That's hardly an original insight. The idea that people rebel using the language of people against whom they rebel goes back through Nietzsche, goes back to Hegel and Marx in the dialectic, 

Diana: It goes back to Shakespeare in Caliban. 

Danny: It goes back to the Talmud! 

Jacques: It goes back to Heraclitus. 

(And I suppose an anti-Western thinker ought be satisfied by being subsumed by the Western tradition?)

Edward: But there is no guarantee that the oppressed can ever rebel. 

Dwight: Can you elaborate Edward? 

Edward: There is always a chance that the oppressed will remain oppressed in perpetuity. 

(everyone stopped eating in that moment) 

Jacques: That's very bleak, and a little unfair I believe, but sound. There is not a single achievement in early man that could have been achieved without slave labor. 

(Of course, all that matters is the achievements, not the people who make them possible.) 

Edward: It's not just about achievements. The condition of mankind has doubtless been slave and master for literal thousands of years before there was any achievement of which to speak, and continued for thousands of years after there were. 

Diana: Well if you're going to bring Hegel into this we should concede that he was a bit more optimistic than you're portraying him. 

(I'm speaking of thousands of years of oppression and she thinks I talk of Hegel) 

Edward: It's not necessarily Hegel that I mean. 

Diana: Well Hannah is obviously the expert here but if I understand Hegel correctly, he believes that in spite of the master-slave dialectic, history is a means toward a well-defined end, and the end is self-understanding and freedom. 

(Jacques's valet collected the soup bowls, they were followed by the fish course: quenelles de brochet with Sauce Nantua. Sole veronique with grapes for Diana since she never liked Nantua sauce.  The sauce flavor was fascinating and must have taken hours: god only knows where you can find crayfish butter in New York but if anyone would spend days trying to find it it's Jacques. His valet probably put together a taste test for each butter in a hundred different recipes for Nantua sauce.) 

Edward: Well as I said, I mostly wasn't speaking of Hegel, but Hegel believes the Oriental is the primitive condition of man that only one master is free and everyone else is his slave. 

Diana: Well Edward, surely you have to concede that with the exceptions of certain centuries conditions in the West were just a little bit freer than they were in the East. 

Edward: Why should we generalize in that way? 

Danny: Generalizing is all there is. You do the best you can to collect a sample set but the conditions are always incomplete. 

Edward: I don't accept that. 

Marty: Why not? 

Edward: We can aspire to better.

Marty: Edward, please, show your work. 

Edward: (I grew a bit flustered) I have no work of which to show on this matter, but it is only when people aspire to better that there is any chance for improvement of conditions. 

(Why should I show my work when they don't?)

Jacques: I utterly disagree with that. Respectfully, of course. 

(...of course)

Edward: Is it so objectionable to ask for higher ethical standards? 

Jacques: I completely agree with you that generalizations are to be avoided in all situations and possibilities, but if one looks at the trajectory of history: to say there is paltry evidence that higher standards are effective would be an understatement. 

(the paltry evidence sits right here) 

Edward: What about the line from Martin Luther King? 'The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.' 

Marty: You don't really believe that, do you?

(not anymore...)

Edward: Why not? 

Marty: You just said the oppressed remain oppressed in perpetuity! Why would you then think the moral arc bends toward justice? 

Edward: It only bends when we choose to bend it. 

Danny: Edward I think you're getting a bit sentimental about human capacities. 

Edward: Why? 

Danny: Because if people have been slaves for thousands of years without a change in their circumstances, why would the future be any different than the past? 

(And they expect me to just sit here?...)

Edward: Because we can choose to create better circumstances. 

Hannah: He's right. 

(everyone froze for a split-second, much shorter than when they froze for me but still noticeable) 

Hannah: The entire point of political life is to change circumstances. 

Lionel: Elaborate Hannah please. 

Hannah: One cannot change circumstances without political engagement, and it is in the interests of citizens to use politics to improve their circumstances. 

Danny: But don't people disagree savagely on what the circumstances are?

Dwight: You're the one who wrote ideology was over Danny. 

Marty: I'll agree with Danny here. Bad actors fight all the time to change circumstances for the worse. 

Hannah: That is why change happens at such a slow pace.

Danny: I'm sorry, I can't accept those circumstances. 

Marty: I agree. 

Diana: I'm with Hannah and Edward. 

Danny: Change does not happen because powerless actors insist on it, it happens when unpredictable circumstances allow for it. 

Hannah: One more thought about Hegel. Yes, he specifies a master/slave dialectic, but (and she turned to me), it is the slave who comes to understanding first and thereby attains freedom. Not the master. 

(there was another pause, I was shocked and for the first time that night, I breathed.) 

Dwight: Can we get back to Fanon?

Danny: You were saying he's an Arab...

Marty: Seriously Dwight? All that stuff about the West being anti-Black didn't clue you in that he isn't Arab? 

(I'm right here.) 

Lionel: He's from Martinique. 

Dwight: I'm sorry, I was too focused on the substance of his arguments.  

Marty: What substance? 

(I'm right here!) 

Diana: I don't think there is anything served by continuing this Fanon discussion. Edward, we understand the delicate position you're in. Don't worry, we will support you, we will protect you, we will make sure you don't have to answer any awkward questions. We will make sure Palestine doesn't come up for you. 

Edward Said: Well thank you so much Diana. I am moved by your solicitude. Let me assure you thus far Palestine has not come up for me, nor do I expect it to come up so often that it requires the protection of anyone. 

Diana: These are wolves, Edward. You haven't seen how brutal they can be yet but at some point you will find them breathtaking. 

(It can't get much worse, can it?) 

Lionel: Now now, Diana, nobody here is a true Diogenes. Surely there are moments of discomfort, but 

Danny: (interrupting) We're not a pack of boars looking for kosher meat. 

(Everyone laughed of course. They always do at Jewish jokes...) 

Edward: I should think you'd be searching for Hallal in my case but nevertheless I suppose some small pang of anxiety stands. 

Lionel: We've invited you to this dinner to alleviate that anxiety. You're one of us now. (raises a glass) To Edward, the future of American letters! 

Jacques: L'chaim I suppose. 

(everyone laughed again) 

Jacques: I suppose this would be the proper moment, though I had thought we agreed to make the announcement after dinner. One moment though, before we truly drink this toast I'd temporarily forgotten that I have a special Romanee-Conti '45 which I've saved for just such an occasion after Edward said that he was curious about it. 

Edward: I can't even remember saying it but that's absolutely true. 

Lionel: So you understand, Edward, the reason we wanted you here is to let you know that we're pre-empting your tenure track by two years. You will be a tenured professor in all but official title for the next three months, and will officially have tenure before the semester is complete. 

Danny: MAZEL TOV! 

(everyone applauded while Jacques's valet brought new glasses in, popped the cork and filled them) 

Lionel: It's true, we have sped the process up so that there is no doubt about our position with regard to our Arab colleagues, but I want to impress how important it is that you understand this Edward, I should think this needs not even be mentioned, but in case there's any doubt at all, even without this war for which everyone in this room feels no little ambivalence except Seymour, no instructor in my nearly fifty years at Columbia has earned tenure more justly and more decisively: by the impactfulness of your teaching, the profundity of your insight, the nuance of your research, the eloquence of your oratory and the substance of your person. Bravo. 

(everyone applauded again)  

Jacques: Dinner is served! 

Hannah Arendt: Nevertheless Edward, it would be edifying to get your sense of the current condition in the Middle East. 

(Trilling and Barzun exchanged a look. One could feel a bit of a pause.) 

Lionel: Hannah, the whole point of this dinner is to ensure he doesn't have to talk about it. 

(I was grateful for the Romanee Conti but I'd already forgotten what it tasted like.) 

Hannah: He is a man of deep substance like any of us, he deserves to have his views heard and respected. Doesn't he? 

(If you only knew...)

Lionel: Well he certainly deserves our respect. Jacques, would you object? 

Jacques: If this is the way we best pay tribute to Edward, please let him be heard. 

Lionel: Edward? Would you object?

(I did my best and gave a long-winded cultural explanation that turned the subject back to literature: how Adonis portrays exile and Mahfouz internal exile, how the exciting young poet Darwish dramatizes war, it wasn't a very convincing explanation, and Arendt wasn't having it.)  

Hannah: Dr. Said, if I wanted a lecture on literature, I would sit in your class, which I'm sure would be very compelling. Please answer the question: what do you think of the Six Day War?

(and there it came)

"That is an evasion, Doctor Said. You have still not given your opinion." 

(My answers to her doctoral-like examination aren't important, but even without this record I remember every question which followed like a rubber bullet to the sternum.) 

"You are not answering the question. You are speaking of the Suez Crisis which was eleven years ago. This Six Day War happened three months ago. Please tell me your opinion on that." 

"Why do you think Israel should not answer the PLO activity with activity of its own? Please answer the question directly."

(I began sipping the Romanee-Conti just to interrupt my anxiety. The Romanee-Conti began to taste like a Ruffino-Chianti with the bottle straw-wrapped)

"But the reports from the Soviet Union to Nasser were false." 

"Why would Nasser trust the Soviet Union's reports when Khrushchev lied to Nasser ten years before?" 

"Khrushchev was repeatedly shown to be more trustworthy than Brezhnev. Why would Nasser trust Brezhnev who's already been shown to be unreliable with regard to Vietnam, China, Nigeria and Ghana?" 

(The Romanee-Conti now tasted like a table wine) 

"Even if he trusted the intelligence, Nasser did not have to close the straits. Israel made clear the consequences years ago." 

"But Nasser knew that even if all six allies invaded simultaneously, they would be no match for the Israeli army. If the Israeli army could defeat these countries twenty years before when they were hardly a country, how much more easily could they now?"

(I'd finished my glass. I pretended to take Diana's next to me, everyone laughed and Jacques poured me whatever little was left of the bottle. We still have to get through the main course, the salad, the cheese and the dessert.)

"The IDF's training is so much famously better than nearly any country on earth: surely the heads of state realized that even an army of a million could not overwhelm Israeli soldiery."

"Soviet weaponry is notoriously unreliable. Israel's weaponry was French, most of their weapons scientists trained in Germany, whose munitions are famously effective. And they surely realized Israel may drop a nuclear weapon." 

(It now tasted like Carlo Rossi) 

"Yes but if it's true that French munitions were unreliable you still have not accounted for the difference in training between Israeli soldier and Arab." 

"The pre-emption of the Israeli army can be accounted for by the massive presence on all their borders. There is no justification for not acknowledging the unusualness of Arab activity." 

(Hannah, please inform, what is 'usual Arab activity?') 

"Egypt killed their own unarmed soldiers too rather than risk them telling Egyptians of the extent of their defeat." 

"There is little means by which the West could assist when the Soviets were patrolling the entrances to Middle Eastern waters." 

"So you are accusing Israel of destroying USS Liberty at the same time that you allege covert American support of Israel?" 

(It now tasted like next year's Gallo) 

"Many of the Palestinians could have gone to Jordan where they knew they would be better received, they chose to go to the refugee camps." 

"Even if it's true about Jordanian mistreatment of Palestinians, many Jews were mistreated in Arab countries and had to immigrate to Israel rather than suffer at their hands." 

"Why is the burden upon upon Israel when they are surrounded by 22 Arab countries?" 

(Because I was thrown out of my house you hausdrachener bitch.)

"Israel was the victor and they sued for peace and the Arab countries refused: when else has that happened in human history." 

(This is the last time I sue for peace...)

"Dr. Said, you are complaining about the unfairness of your treatment but you agreed to let us hear what you think. You complain of being singled out yet here you are, drinking wine with us and being toasted as America's intellectual future." 

"You claim you are singled out and classified for being an Arab, yet this answer displays a profoundly monolithic view of Jews." 

"This determination, as you say, to simplify Arabs to a monolithic force is reciprocated by a view of Jews that seems profoundly simplifying as well of Jewish opinions." 

"Yes, we may be disproportionately powerful for the moment, but the power and privilege did not assist us when it was time to prevent Hitler's annihilation." 

To which I replied, and I remember this very clearly:

"Perhaps it is that very power and privilege that invites revolt against Jews."  

This was the moment Diana finally stepped in: 

Hannah Arendt: You do realize that this might be construed as an a...

Diana Trilling: I don't think anything is served by this discussion. Edward, I'm sorry we let this go on as long as we have without stopping it. 

(I had to fight back tears, which I'm sure they saw. The rubber bullet was my panic, not the questions themselves, but I spent a week reading periodicals in the Columbia library to answer them)

Lionel Trilling: We should have stepped in earlier. 

Hannah Arendt: Not at all, he acquitted himself well. Most Jews would have retreated to victimhood five questions earlier.

Daniel Bell: Jacques, let's pour the boy a stronger drink.

Diana Trilling: That was nothing compared to how personal things can get from some of the others. I'll call off Irving and Philip and Nathan, but not even we can call off Edmund. Thank god Mary lives in Paris now...

(I have this transcript because I hid a tape recorder in my pocket square. I repeatedly asked Diana over the years and she vehemently denied that the Trillings set up this dinner to make me questioned by Arendt. I don't believe her.)


  My students will miss the Great Books culture when it's over. I'm sure of that; they'll be wrong to, but the ignorance of their children will stun them after they take a hatchet to the common core ideas of Lionel and Jacques. 

But all one has to do is look at the students, only ten years my junior, to see a future when rock music is thought equal to Beethoven, science fiction equal to Shakespeare, while movies and television are what pass for great literature, past civilizations forgotten, history a structural chimera. In fifty years they will look at their children who view the world as an eternity of present and have nothing to talk with them about. 

Such is the way of progress: there is no progress without regress, without trial and error, without millions dying for it and no progress if we keep going with this common core of Western books that refuses to include any writers east of Athens and Petersburg. 

I look at my students, I see the coming terrible crisis, and I feel the only teacher in America who welcomes it. I don't just welcome it, I relish it. This Western-centric core deserves to die and it is precisely the populism of these students that will kill it: the long hair, the lack of hygiene, the long discursions on The Beatles and Who, the drugs, the willingness to be intoxicated in class, the resolute refusal to self-improve, the desire to see authoritarianism in every standard, this is the generation of nihilism the world desperately needs. It is a generation that will destroy the West for all time and endow the rest of the world a chance to become the elite class from which they're eternally excluded. 

I teach the way I think any great teacher would: what else can I do? It is neither my job nor my ability to start the revolution for which I long, yet it will come, the readiness is all. 

In a mere ten years I see the difference between my peers' quality and my students: my peers all seemed slum raised Jews or Jews' friends and neighbors, terrified of poverty, terrified of debt, terrified of return to the conditions of their parents, committed to achievement, committed to social mobility, committed to self-improvement and Bildung and Wissenschaft, seizing what was always theirs by right as whites, and their character was formidable enough to stretch to zenith any country shrewd enough to assimilate them. Today's students, Jew and gentile alike, are products of their parents GI bill and the suburbs, inevitably middle class at least, unaware of poverty's terrors, indolent, spoiled and rebellious yet completely unaware of that against which they rebel. What can this be but a trajectory that will continue my entire lifetime and long else besides?

Whispers are afoot that students are planning protests for something they've termed 'Gym Crow.' Columbia is building the gym that displaces... how many? A hundred? A thousand? Morningside Heights becomes yet another neighborhood to displace the indigenous of New York to margins so that whites can live unimpeded: the irony being that no whites will want to move in. Why distance yourself one mile from the urban element when you can put forty miles between you? Construction continues apace for neighborhoods nobody wants. Manhattan will eventually become a ghost city: a fourth house for the superclass: its skyscrapers occupied merely by corporations, Chinese food, black box theaters, highways and urban renewal projects that remain pristine because nobody lives in them. 

Meanwhile the students: I know I should treat them as individuals, each with their own soul and journey, but who can look at these hundreds against hundreds and not see two undifferentiated masses. At least the pro-war demonstrators are open about their narcissism, the anti-war demonstrators clothe their carnal desire and quest for fame in a performance of care that shifts no attention to any but themselves. The anti-Vietnam demonstrations put not a single eye upon Vietnam, only upon the demonstrators. It ought go without saying that not a single one would show up to protest were there no danger of the draft. These great revolutionaries are the same spoiled American generation as any other: akin perhaps to the post-Napoleon romantics of Germany and England but with worse music and poetry. All the romantics did was provoke the reactionaries of 1848, all this generation will do is provoke Repub... need I really say it? 

It will be a turbulent few years, but I simply can't imagine the edifice of civilization crumbling from the rocks of these gag revolutionaries. It can't crumble from them, it can simply atrophy as they lazily dismantle what their parents built, careless brick by brick until the edifice unintentionally falls in their dotage. Say what you will about Stalin and Lenin, they were committed to their praxis. These revolutionaries are the epitome of the white shelter, and after college they will return home to it: secure as or more than their parents that their cup in life runneth over. 

Nevertheless, I fall somewhere between amused and delighted when one of the few students who deigns to notice me on the quads tells me that my kind is obsolete, that they will dispense with me, that I am r 'the establishment', proverbially called 'the man' to to be overthrown. Sadly, if they overthrow me it won't be until spring, when the gold-barred prison that is university grows uninterruptedly passionate from a schoolyear's momentum.