Jul. 6th, 2004

avanta7: (Default)
As Robins' novel begins, a near-future New York is essentially under armed guard. Citizens are subject to ID checks as they traverse from neighborhood to neighborhood. Gangs roam the night freely and without consequence; law enforcement is minimal and ineffective. Central Park is no man's land. The homeless population has exploded -- although Robins never gives an explanation, she leaves the impression that middle-class families have been priced completely out of adequate housing. Those with sufficient means often barricade themselves into fortresses they call apartment buildings in certain "safe" sections of the city.

John Tietjen, a divorced father of two, has an uneasy relationship with his ex-wife and children, but a passionate relationship with New York. He frequently roams the streets at night without care, trusting that "his city" will not let anything happen to him.

He reluctantly accepts a construction contract out of the city, and while he is gone, devastation strikes. In desperation, Tietjen rushes back to New York, only to find it in ruins and virtually depopulated. After a number of strange encounters, he rescues a woman, Barbara McGrath, from a madman and together they begin establishing a safehouse for other survivors.

But there are many oddities, most of them dangerous, in this new New York. As Tietjen's and McGrath's sanctuary becomes more populated, it becomes a target for other survivors, malevolent and strangely changed.

Robins writes of New York with a gift for description. The city comes alive, and dies, and comes alive again under her pen. Her characters, particularly Tietjen, are well-drawn with satisfying inner lives.

Although I enjoyed the novel overall, I have a couple of quibbles. I wanted to know how New York became an armed camp nearly overrun with the homeless and the lawless -- even a hint or a throwaway reference would have sufficed. And I was dissatisfied with the final revelation of how the city was destroyed. Perhaps I missed the foreshadowing that would have made the denouemént more sensible. The chief quibble, however, isn't the author's fault. A post-9/11 world robs this story of some of its power, particularly when Robins discusses buildings that no longer exist. It's a jarring note, and a sad one.
avanta7: (Default)
Stanley Greenberg has written a deeply researched, extensively footnoted, highly readable indictment of our current political state, and we should be humbly grateful for it.

From the preface, where he observes the press "...prefers the politics of character...." to reporting anything of substance, to the afterword, in which he presents the two scenarios he developed in the previous 300 pages to his focus groups, Greenberg holds very few cows sacred and presents a relatively even-handed treatment of the current political deadlock.

However, I give you fair warning: If you, the reader, are not of the liberal persuasion, this book may irritate the starch out of you. Remember, I said "relatively even-handed." Also remember, I'm a liberal.

Greenberg starts out with a short review of the last 200 years of political history, showing us that one-party domination is the rule rather than the exception. He devotes much attention to the last fifty years, in which no party has dominated, and even greater attention to the last 25, from the Reagan Revolution in 1980 to the bitterly contested and still controversial 2000 brouhaha, and on to the beginnings of the 2004 campaign. (Incidentally, I was reading the section on President Reagan when he died and for the first few days of our national mourning period. I was struck by irony: the facts in Greenberg's work versus the hyperbole issuing from every talking head on television.) Greenberg's liberal bias is highly evident in this section: he is far too easy on President Clinton. I laughed out loud at "...[he] advanced his proposals for gays to serve in the military, thus dramatically illustrating the breadth of the principle for America's ever-expanding rights." Oh, puh-leeze. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was hardly a milestone in civil rights.

The author goes on to discuss the makeup of each party's core voters, or base; to present hypothetical, occasionally foul-mouthed, and often amusing "secret planning sessions" in which potential party strategies are plotted; and in the final sections, to propose a plan for each party to break the deadlock and pull the majority of voters in line with its political views. Footnotes and graphs and "chalk talk" illustrations abound throughout.

Greenberg writes in clear lucid prose, plainly setting out his premise while using minimal political jargon. While the book is meaty and dense with facts, the only dry thing about it is Greenberg's somewhat sardonic wit. It is a surprisingly funny book which should be read by every voter, regardless of political party.

August 2013

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25 262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 5th, 2025 03:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios