7/29/2019 TDR 2.1.13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tdr-2113 1/12
Page 1 The Dartmouth Review February 4, 2013
Dartmouth’s Only Independent Newspaper
Volume 32, Issue 10
February 4, 2013
The Hanover Review, Inc.P.O. Box 343
Hanover, NH 03755
of Books
Also inside:
What we need from
President Hanlon
An appeal
from the
writers and
editors of
The
Dartmouth
Review
The Dartmouth Review
7/29/2019 TDR 2.1.13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tdr-2113 2/12
Page 2 The Dartmouth Review February 4, 2013
What We Need from President HanlonBy The Dartmouth Review Staff
I. Focus on Students
Restore Pre-Matriculation AP Credits
Pre-matriculation credits allow some students graduate
early, save roughly $15,000 in tuition and fees. The fac-
ulty can explore other avenues towards the aim of raising
academic standards.
Introduce Coherent DDS Pricing
The “revamping” of DDS last year was a bitter pill
for the student body to swallow. It replaced the popular
declining-balance account with a convoluted combination
of DBA and meal swipes. Problems persist with the meal
plan despite tinkering by the College. The school should
allow students to opt out of the meal plan altogether and
also introduce a rollover system to conserve the often
hundreds of dollars in unused meals and DBA at the end
of a term.
Value Student Input
When Blitzmail finally shuffled off
the mortal coil last year, the student body
expressed a clear preference for Gmail as
the new email provider. The administration
had promised to consider student opinion,
but Microsof t Outlook was chosen for
undisclosed reasons. As far as students are
considered, the meal plan redesign was a
disaster. Those few students who are even
aware of the recent AP/IB credit changes
are livid.
The issues affecting student life at
Dartmouth today are the result of an ad-
ministration that prioritizes its bottom line
over the happiness (and financial stability)
of its students and families. The College hasdemonstrated that it sees student opinion as
an obstacle and not than a guide.
Student input should be sought for every
import decision affecting student life at the
College.
II. Prioritize Safety
Protect Students From Hanover Police
The Hanover Police Department has a
relationship with the College campus that
is plainly harmful to students. Dartmouth
has pushed back before, and it needs to do
so now.
Over the last three years 231 Dartmouthstudents have been arrested on campus
property for drinking-related charges, with 118 arrested in
their dormitories. Only 66 arrests occurred on non-College
property. In the same time period, the College undertook
132 drinking-related disciplinary actions, about half the
number of arrests.
By contrast, Middlebury College has seen only two
drinking-related arrests; Harvard University has seen
four. In the same time period, Middlebury has undertaken
171 drinking-related disciplinary actions, while Harvard
has undertaken 113. Clearly, drinking is still happening
at these schools, but it is being moderated and punished
by the school administration
and not by the city gov-
ernment. This is the safer
course: students who areafraid of legal repercussions
are less likely to seek help
when it is needed.
Even at other schools
with high rates of drinking-
related arrest, like Yale, the
police are much less active
on campus. Of the 224 total
arrests at Yale in the last three years, only 81 of them occurred
on campus property, compared to 231 of Dartmouth’s 297.
In recent years at Dartmouth, arrests are up and disciplin-
ary actions are down. This is incomprehensible. The College
needs to do its job of protecting students from the ever eager
Hanover Police.
End the Ill-Advised Keg Ban
Why did the College ban kegs in the first place? The
decision seems senseless. An easily regulated, centralized
form of alcohol distribution was replaced with chaos:
underage students can much more easily snatch a can
than surreptitiously pump a cup from a keg. Cans are
distributed faster, pose a significant problem to oversight
of consumption, and make for an incredible amount of
waste. Frankly, the current policy is indefensible.
We’re still waiting for an answer on this one.
Bring Back Green Team
Starting in February of 2011, a promising new student-
led initiative called Green Team assigned sober monitors
to fraternity parties. The monitors assisted in checking IDs
and passing out wristbands and conducted a walkthrough of
the house every twenty minute. Green Team also provided
“party packs” – food and water – to ensure that students
weren’t drinking on an empty stomach.
Last May, Brian Bowden, the coordinator of the Col-
lege’s drug and alcohol education program, praised the Green
Team initiative for it success. Speaking for a Dartmouth
article, Mr. Bowden pointed out Green Team’s access to
unregistered parties as its biggest asset. “The College is
aware that these types of unregistered parties take place,
and if they are going to be taking place, then we’re bet-
ter off having people with training in those settings,” Mr.
Bowden argued. Unregistered parties play host to the riskiest
drinking but are the most difficult to regulate; Green Team
helped solve this problem. This is particularly important in
the summer term, when few of the parties on campus are
registered because fraternities
do not have enough 21-year-old
members on campus.
The College had finallycreated an initiative that im-
proved student safety across the
board: parties with Green Team
involvement generated only one
call to Safety and Security for
intoxication over the course of
the entire program.
However, this past July
the administration changed the way Green Team is funded,
limiting its access only to registered parties. Using student
safety as a bargaining chip with fraternities to force them to
register their parties is irresponsible and dangerous. Green
Team was a well-received and successful harm reduction
initiative. It should be restored to full efficacy.
Stop Harmful Drinking Initiatives
Despite the administration’s attempts to demonize
fraternities and sororities, Greek membership has grown by
31% in the last decade. Almost 70% of eligible Dartmouth
students are now affiliated.
The more the administration antagonizes the Greek
system, the more reluctant fraternities will be to host social
events where drinking, if inherently dangerous, is observ-
able and regulated. Harsh and mercurial penalties, random
walkthroughs, and other such regulations will only serve to
push drinking into less visible and more dangerous situations.
III. Get the House in Order
Show Leadership through Action
In recent years, the College administration has picked
up a habit of deferring to “task forces” and “committees”
when addressing campus issues. The former President Kim
(whose seven-figure salary was a disaster in itself) was in-
famous for his belated reaction to the Andrew
Lohse scandal. He responded not through the
existing offices of GLOS or Student Life but
with the creation of the Committee on Student
Safety and Accountability (COSSA). Despite
its 12-person staff and high media profile,
COSSA (chaired by Dean Charlotte Johnson)
has failed to meet once since May of last year.
We need real leadership and less bureaucratic
nonsense.
Prioritize Efficiency and Affordability
Dartmouth should show leadership on
the issues facing American higher education
today. The system is caught in a bubble, with
tuition increases rapidly outpacing inflation
and distorting the nature of college education.
The liberal arts tradition cannot survive in aworld where a college degree becomes a luxury
few can afford. Tuition inflation is a national
problem with many underlying causes, and
Dartmouth should acknowledge it as such.
Streamline Offices and Departments
Pushed and pulled by an increasingly
antagonistic progressivism, the College has
followed trends in higher education to danger-
ous extremes, adding departments and offices
for an array of non-essential functions. As a
result, Dartmouth currently has 98 distinct,
non-academic offices that it funds each year,
and redundancy abounds.
Few students must realize, for example, that between the enormous office of the Dean of
the College, the Office of Institutional Diversity and Equity,
the Office for Student Accessibility, and the Office of Plural-
ism and Leadership, there exist four separate departments or
committees for Asian-American advising and outreach. The
same is true for most other campus groups and initiatives,
each served by a number of umbrella and group-specific
initiatives.
This overlap not only wastes money but also makes the
system more complicated for everyone, students included.
We would be better served by a sensible reorganization of
resources.
Reduce Non-Student Liabilities
Each year, Dartmouth spends tuition dollars fundingnearly a dozen offices and facilities with little relevance to
students. These include the Institute for Lifelong Education
at Dartmouth, the Center for the Advancement of Learning,
and the Office of President Emeritus James Wright (all of
which possess websites even less instructive than their titles).
Given Dartmouth’s stated focus on the education of
undergraduates, one wonders what we as an institution gain
from funding these liabilities year after year. n
F
ew students must realize, for example,
that between the enormous office of
the Dean of the College, the Office of In-stitutional Diversity and Equity, the Office
for Student Accessibility, and the Office of
Pluralism and Leadership, there exist four
separate departments or committees for
Asian-American advising and outreach.
7/29/2019 TDR 2.1.13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tdr-2113 3/12
February 4, 2013 The Dartmouth Review Page 3
Friday, January 11th marked the rst public appearance
of Dr. Phil Hanlon ’77 as President-Elect of Dartmouth
College. After brief introductions by Interim President Folt
and Trustee Board Chairman Steve Mandel ’78, Dr. Hanlon
spoke of his experiences at the College, drawing comparisons between present-day Dartmouth and the school presided
over by President Kemeny in the 1970s.
It makes sense that Dr. Hanlon would invoke President
Kemeny, who presided over both coeducation and the insti-
tution of the D-plan. Kemeny was president throughout Dr.
Hanlon’s undergraduate years. Similarities exist between
the two beyond their penchant for numbers and fashionable
facial hair.
For instance, Dr. Hanlon’s speech highlighted the
importance of undergraduate research, a sentiment that led
Kemeny (who was himself a research
assistant to Albert Einstein at Princ-
eton) to pioneer the eld of computing
on the Dartmouth campus.
John Kemeny’s connection to
computing was perhaps the mostinteresting aspect of his long rela-
tionship with Dartmouth College.
When he joined the faculty in 1953,
the closest computer was at MIT.
Kemeny made the 135-mile commute
frequently until Dartmouth got its own
computer six years later. He oversaw
use of the LGP-30 by undergraduate
students, encouraging their exposure
to the new technology.
Kemeney’s enthusiasm was
matched by Thomas Kurtz, also of
the Dartmouth math department.
The two partnered not only in their
personal research, but also in the promotion of computing
as a research tool for undergraduates. “We at Dartmouthenvisaged the possibility of millions of people writing their
own computer programs,” Kemeny wrote. To that effect,
Kemeny and Kurtz invented the Dartmouth Time Sharing
System, which greatly improved computer efciency and
allowed for multiple users access to
a CPU from individual terminals.
They also invented BASIC in 1964
as an effective, but accessible coding
language.
When Kemeny assumed the
presidency of Dartmouth in 1971,
his perspective evolved. Computers
were more than academic tools, they
were fast becoming an integral part
of society and a subject worth under-
standing by virtue of itself. Kemenywrote, “While computers alone cannot solve the problems of
society, these problems are too complex to be solved without
highly sophisticated use of computers.” It was crucial, he
held, to promote a computer-literate society. President
Kemeny not only identied the crucial role computers
would play in all aspects of society, but took that intuition
and co-opted it into a part of the Dartmouth education.
That point brings us at last to Dr. Hanlon’s speech onJanuary 11th, in which he identied globalization as the
newest trend Dartmouth College must address. As he told
the audience in Spaulding Auditorium, “our graduates are
entering a workplace that is itself undergoing profound
changes, a work environment that is characterized by
increasing levels of volatility, complexity, workplace
diversity, and global reach.” Dr. Hanlon has only begun
to step into his role as head of the College, but already
his mindset resembles that of President Kemeny, identi-
fying the larger trends that will in all likelihood come to
characterize the professional ex-
perience of Dartmouth graduates.
Dr. Hanlon has already embraced
the presidency, and while it may
be too early to draw substantive
conclusions about his leadership, itis clear that he is already thinking
like a college president.
Dr. Hanlon further stated that
Dartmouth’s primary task is to
develop students into leaders that
understand and shape the global
conversation. His speech did not
describe the Dartmouth™ envi-
sioned by Dr. Kim, but the school
that provides the best education to
its students. To that end, his stated
intention to teach undergraduates
courses in the math department
is signicant, as it bolsters the
strength of his commitment to the fundamentals of the
Dartmouth education.The importance Dr. Hanlon places on leadership in
also denotes an appreciation for the education gleaned
both inside and out of the classroom. Given that he is
inheriting a role with an impetus to address student life
concerns—which, to wit, encom-
pass not only the Greek system but
all campus organizations including
athletics—such appreciation could
prove meaningful when Dr. Hanlon
inevitably addresses the College’s
insufferable current policies.
Ultimately, speculation con-
cerning Dr. Hanlon’s agenda based
solely on his initial remarks proves
a limited exercise. More construc-
tive, perhaps, is the agenda offeredhere by the writers and editors of The Dartmouth Review,
who assert that such changes will go a long way toward
improving the College and her vital organs. n
George A. Mendoza • Taylor Cathcart Features Editors
Editorial
Subscribe: $40The Dartmouth Review
P.O. Box 343Hanover, N.H. 03755
603-643-4370
Contributions are
tax-deductible.
www.dartreview.com
Benjamin M. Riley President
TheDarTmouTh r eview is produced bi-weekly by Dart-
mouth College undergraduates for Dartmouth students
and alumni. It is published by the Hanover Review, Inc.,a non-prot tax-deductible organization. Please send all
inquiries to:
The Dartmouth Review
P.O. Box 343
Hanover, N.H. 03755
FoundersGreg Fossedal, Gordon Haff,
Benjamin Hart, Keeney Jones“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win great tri-umphs, even though checkered by failure, than to takerank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor
suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.” —Theodore Roosevelt
Special Thanks to William F. Buckley, Jr.
Adam I.W. Schwartzman Editor-in-Chief
The Review Advisory Board
Contributors
Mean-Spirited, Cruel and Ugly Legal Counsel
The Editors of The DarTmouTh r eview welcome cor-
respondence from readers concerning any subject, but
prefer to publish letters that comment directly on mate-
rial published previously inTher eview. We reserve the
right to edit all letters for clarity and length.
Submit letters by mail or e-mail: [email protected]
Ke DingSports Editor
Al Johnson, Blake S. Neff, Jay M. Keating III, Michael T.
Haughey, Stuart A. Allan, J.P. Harrington, John Melvin,
Melanie Wilcox, Paul Trethaway, Charles Jang
“I don’t know much by way of book learnin’.”
Thomas L. Hauch • Rebecca Hecht •
Nicholas P. Desatnick
Managing Editors
Elizabeth A. ReynoldsVice President
Coleman E. Shear Executive Editor
Nick Duva • Caroline Sohr News Editors
Martin Anderson, Patrick Buchanan, Theodore Cooper-
stein, Dinesh D’Souza, Michael Ellis, Robert Flanigan,
John Fund, Kevin Robbins, Gordon Haff, Jeffrey Hart,
Laura Ingraham, Mildred Fay Jefferson, William Lind,
Steven Menashi, James Panero, Hugo Restall, Roland
Reynolds, Weston Sager, Emily Esfahani Smith,
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Charles Dameron
TheDartmouth Review
What We Need from President Hanlon Page 2Making a Deal in D.C. Page 4What’s Wrong with Liberalism? & A War Novel for the New Generation Page 5Winston During Wartime Page 6Islam and Extremism in America & [Expletive deleted]: A Theory Page 7“Cloud Atlas” On Paper and Screen Page 8Goodbye, Texas & Notes on The Boss Page 9Lincoln the Uniter & “Back to Blood” A Return to Form Page 10Front and Center Page 11Last Word & Mixology Page 12
Adam I.W. Schwartzman
Dr. Hanlon has only begun to
consider his role as head of
the College, but already his mindset
resembles that of President Kemeny,
identifying the larger trends that will
in all likelihood come to character-
ize the professional experience of
Dartmouth graduates.
Chloe M. Teeter Media Editor
Hilary Hamm • Kirk Jing Associate Editors
Kemeny, Computers, Hanlon & the World
7/29/2019 TDR 2.1.13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tdr-2113 4/12
Page 4 The Dartmouth Review February 4, 2013
Making A Deal in D.C.
Mr. Harrington is a junior at the College and a
contributor The Dartmouth Review.
By Thomas J. P. Harrington
Fortunately, The Price of Politics is not a story told by
an idiot, but instead a catalogue of idiotic mishaps, miscom-
munications and mistakes from both sides of the political
aisle. Woodward’s newest DC tell-all swamped the nation’s
discussions in the lead-up to the election. The tortuous and
twisted story took outsiders deep into the insides of Wash-
ington, to where the sausage was made. Or in the case of
the debt negotiations in 2010, not made. Yet, given that its
strong condemnation of both Republican Speaker of the
House Boehner and Democratic President Obama resulted in
neither political figures’ unseating, does this tome still have
any relevance?
Yes, yes it does. In fact, it may be one of the most significant
books to be released in the past four years. Why? Because it
actually manages to depict one of the most mysterious and
convoluted political figures of our time in an odd, but hon-
est way. I’m speaking of course, of our recently re-elected
President.
In The Price of Politics, Woodward attempts to present
the first four years of the Obama Administration and thus
demonstrate how the debt ceiling fiasco was born, debated
and finally lost by both sides. By the end, it becomes clear
that President Obama has been anything but consistent or constant. Rather, his character appears to vacillate and change
with the environment surrounding him. As a result, I’ve tried
to divide Woodward’s narrative into the three stages that the
Obama Administration travelled through from 2008 to 2012.
Part I: The Candidate Triumphant
Woodward’s book begins with his first introduction to
then-Senator Barack Obama at the Gridiron dinner. He was
dazzled by Obama’s charm, his elegance and his articula-
tion. But, Woodward tempers his praise and the ebullience
surrounding Obama’s self-deprecating, but insubstantial
palaver with a comparison to another Senator’s speech. In
one brilliant passage, Woodward manages to present the dif-
ference between the charming future President Obama and
the serious Senator Moynihan.Moynihan, then 53, made some good jokes, but his theme
was serious: what it means to be a Democrat. The soul of
the party was to fight for equality and the little guy, he said.
The party cared for the underdogs in America, the voiceless,
powerless and those who got stepped on. It was a defining
speech, and the buzz afterward was that Moynihan was go-
ing to be president. He wasn’t, of course. That was then, this
was now. Obama had not once mentioned the party or high
purpose. His speech, instead, was about Obama, his inexpe-
rience, and, in the full paradox of the moment, what he had
not done. Two and a half years later, he was president-elect
of the United States.
After that far-from-complimentary introduction to the Presi-
dent, Woodward skips ahead to the halcyon days of the end
of 2008 to the beginning of 2009. Well, halcyon at least for President Obama and the Democrats. Not so much for the
rest of the country – and even the world. The stock market
was collapsing, Europe was feeling the first tremors of what
would become a years-long debacle, and of course nearly
everyone was running around like a headless chicken. But
the charming, articulate and self-deprecatory candidate was
now President. At least Bush was gone, everyone reassured
themselves. The real question was, however, how would
Obama govern?
The answer lay in one of the first meetings between
the newly elected President and the congressional leaders
of both parties. At the first meeting, Obama had touted his
willingness to compromise and find a bipartisan path. As a
result, then-House Minority Whip Eric Cantor went to the
drawing board with conservative members of the Republican
caucus to write up a set of principles regarding the upcom-
ing stimulus. President Obama glanced at the document and
then after a brief sentence or two of trite bipartisan pablum,
he laid down the law. “I can go it alone…Look at the polls.
The polls are pretty good for me right now. Elections have
consequences, and Eric, I won. So on that, I think I trump
you.” A few months later as the debate over the stimulus bill
raged, it became clear that bipartisanship was off the table. As
Republicans attempted to alter the Democratic bill, Emanuel
responded: “We have the votes. [expletive deleted] ‘em.” And
so began the first two years of the Obama Administration.
Part II: The Not-So-Great Negotiator
Unfortunately for the Obama administration, Mr. Emanuel
turned out to be quite wrong indeed. After the debacle of the
2010 midterm elections where the GOP took back the House
(thanks to a 9 point swing in the vote) and gained six seats
in the Senate, President Obama just didn’t have the votes
anymore. Pivoting, Obama began his attempts to charm
his political opposition, but it was an empty and obviously
calculated gesture. The President called the new Speaker of
the House, John Boehner, on his birthday to wish him well –
and then dropped an invitation to a major summit with every
congressional leader the next day. Insulted by the extremely
late notice for a meeting that couldn’t fit into his already-
packed schedule, Boehner had to refuse the offer along with
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. This miniscule
miscommunication resulting in a political misfire may seem
silly and unusual, but sadly it was only the first of many such
occasions throughout the debt ceiling negotiations.
As the countdown began, Obama deployed former Sena-
tor (and renowned smooth talker) Joe Biden to discuss the
issues and identify spending cuts with a bevy of congressional
leaders including the new House Majority Whip Cantor. The
divide between the two parties quickly grew. Not only did the
Republicans want spending cuts, but they needed entitlementcuts. Meanwhile, Democrats wanted to protect their beloved
entitlement programs while cutting defense programs and rais-
ing more revenue. The Bush tax cuts for the top two percent
were a favorite target of the left while the right pointed at the
waste and growth in Medicare, food stamps and Medicaid.
Biden attempted to find common
ground, to find those cuts that could be
made. But these efforts were stymied by
disagreement on both sides. Repeatedly,
everyone made comparisons to the budget
deals of Gingrich, Clinton, O’Neill and
Reagan. But no one was ready to make
the first leap. Not while the negotiations
were still on. Democrats became frustrated
with Biden’s continual attempts to com-
promise…but never with an end goal insight. Representative Chris Van Hollen, a
Democrat stalwart who later would be ap-
pointed to the bipartisan Supercommittee
designed to force Congress to make cuts,
quickly grew frustrated with the White
House. Woodward notes: “A growing feel-
ing of incredulity came over Van Hollen.
The administration didn’t seem to have a
strategy. It was unbelievable. There didn’t
seem to be any core principles.” As always,
the White House remained a mystery.
Divisions were not an exclusively
Democratic problem. Woodward
depicts the struggle between the
newly elected Tea Party caucus
and the Republican moderates. Boehner knew that he waswalking a tightrope, balancing the different sides of his cau-
cus. Tensions grew as Cantor became the new spokesman
for the hard-line conservatives and rumors spread that he
was seeking Boehner’s position. All of this division, distrust
and turmoil loomed beneath the surface of the negotiations.
Unfortunately, it took the White House to exacerbate the
situation until it exploded.
As those negotiations festered, President Obama unwit-
tingly contributed to their demise by opening a secret back-
door set of negotiations with Speaker of the House Boehner.
Unfortunately, Biden revealed the existence of the talks to
Cantor in one of his patented gaffes. Fearing a political coup
or a double cross by the White House, the Democrats, or
even his own party, Cantor exited the stagnating talks. Now,
all of the nation’s hopes landed squarely on the shoulders of
Boehner and Obama.
The problem was that the big deal was just out of their
reach. After their aides had spent months squabbling over
minor details, the President and the Speaker had still not
managed to nail down the major sticking points. Entitlements
and revenue…it all came down to that. For months, the two
leaders had left the basic framework up to their minions, but
it had failed. They had to make the final decisions. But then,
at the last moment, President Obama called Boehner and
asked for more tax revenue. $400 billion more – not exactly
chump change.
That was 50% higher than Boehner’s final offer, his so-
called ceiling. And although three moderate GOP Senators had
recently come out in favor of a similar revenue deal, Boehner
knew that would never pass the House. So, the talks fell apart
as Boehner switched to negotiations with the congressional
Democrats. The President was furious. And his anger began
the third phase in the White House.
Part III: The Campaigner-in-Chief
Out went old good Bill Daley and in came Jack Lew,
former head of Office of Management and Budget. The
Republicans had hated Lew. He was a hard-line negotiator
and even worse, obnoxiously arrogant and combative. Was
it any surprise how the President suddenly changed to the
Campaigner-in-Chief?
Bipartisanship was out the window. Now, it was all about
getting back the votes, getting the American people to hate
Republicans. Why? Negotiating was clearly not President
Obama’s strong point, so it was time to try a different tactic.
Thus, out of the ashes of the debt ceiling negotiations, there
rose the Obama re-election campaign platform. Simply put,
it was anti-Congress and virulently anti-Republican.
The President took to using the upcoming expiration of
the payroll tax cut as a bludgeon. Repeatedly, he damned the
Republicans in the House and Senate while pronouncing, “Pass
this bill.” Cantor, to his credit, saw the maelstrom approaching
and urged the leadership to pass the bill and stop the pain.
Unfortunately, they weren’t swift enough. As Congressionalapproval ratings plummeted, Obama surrounded himself with
working men and women, embracing Main Street. How odd
that Jack Lew, a former Citigroup executive who had short-
sold during the housing collapse, would bring this profoundly
populist message to the Obama Administration.
At the end of the day,
Woodward’s book is just that:
a collection of odd stories sur-
rounding the mercurial man in
the Oval Office. But this tome
is less the story of a President,
than it is of his handlers. It
seems that President Obama
changes to match his environ-
ment rather than the other way
around. When Rahm Emanuelwas Chief-of-Staff, the White
House was a steamroller. The
opposition either got out of
the way or found themselves
as thin as pancakes. After the
2010 elections and the depar-
ture of the foul-mouthed and
short-tempered Rahm Emanuel
and Larry Summers, President
Obama transitioned into a calm,
technocratic negotiator. Not too
dissimilar from good-old-boy
William Daley, the
recently arrived Chief
of Staff.
Except Obama just isn’t that person. He just couldn’tseal the deal. So he transitioned to a full-scale broadside
against the Republicans for 18 months in order to ensure his
re-election. He intentionally fought tooth-and-nail to crush
the opponent – tossing any hope of negotiation or bipartisan-
ship to the wind. But now, we have a second term to look
forward to. This time, though, President Obama has even
fewer friends in Washington.
Going forward, the worrying thought is who will Barack
Obama be for the next four years? Unfortunately, Woodward
leaves the reader with no answers, only more questions. In
that, his terse prose reflects the reality of our current situa-
tion. Still looming overhead, just as it did four years ago is
the ultimate question: who did we just elect President? The
campaigner, the negotiator, or the candidate? n
The Price of Politics
Bob WoodwardSimon & Schuster, 2012
Book Review
— In his latest work, veteran journalist Bob Woodward traces
the many facets of professional politician Barack Obama.—
7/29/2019 TDR 2.1.13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tdr-2113 5/12
February 4, 2013 The Dartmouth Review Page 5
was no longer an entity entrusted by the people to protect one
man from another; it was a benevolent parent with a duty to
demonstrate “compassion” and improve quality of life. After
Wilson, Kesler goes on to discuss FDR and LBJ in similar
veins, covering FDR’s New Deal and the re-denition of
the word “liberal” as well as LBJ’s doomed Great Society.
For all the strength of the book’s early parts, the author
seems to run out of steam when he nally gets to Obama.
The former senator from Illinois, Kesler writes, is the “mostleft-wing liberal to be elected to national executive ofce
since Henry Wallace.” Mr. Obama, Kesler claims, “sees
himself engaged in an epic struggle” for the “Swedenization
of America.”
Or perhaps most ridiculously: our president is executing
a “Marxist” plan to hasten the collapse of our government
with massive decits “in order to bring about a crisis of the
American welfare state that would be solved by its engorging
another 10 percent or 20 percent of the American economy.”
Despite the extreme nature of Kesler’s claims, he is noticeably
thin here on details, choosing to mostly ignore Obama’s record
in ofce in favor of the president’s memoirs, the Jeremiah
Wright controversy, and Obamacare.
By Rebecca G. Hecht
In the canon of war novels, the titles All Quiet on the
Western Front , A Farewell to Arms, and The Red Badge of
Courage are among the rst to come to most minds. Shani
Boianjiu’s The People of Forever are Not Afraid is nothing
like any of those, though it may very well prove to be one of
the most notable war novels of our generation. There is no
sympathetic hero, no harrowing scenes of combat, no insight
into what makes heroism versus cowardice. But if it lacks simi-
larities to former war novels, it is due to the fact that the war in
Israel lacks similarities to any war before it. Boianjiu’s work about
three Israeli soldiers—all female—performing their mandatory
service in the Israeli Army explains what it is like to come of age
in Israel, and gives insight into what it is like to live in a country
that is constantly threatened with war. The messages in her book
are made all the more important by the sad fact that they cannot
be found in almost any form of Western media.
An Israeli citizen herself, Boianjiu performed her man-
datory two-year army service after nishing high school in
Jerusalem. She then went on to attend Harvard University
for her undergraduate degree. After graduation she wrote this
book (entirely in English), which won her the National Book
Foundation’s 5 Under 35 award (At age 25 she is the award’s
youngest recipient), and was just named by the Wall Street
Journal’s book editors one of the best novels of 2012.
From chapter to chapter, Boianjiu rotates the perspective
of her novel from her three main characters, Yael, Avishag,
and Lea. All three grow up together on the Lebanese boarder
in an underdeveloped town and attend school in the inside of
a caravan. Yael is boyish and imaginative and is sent to train
marksmen in the army. Avishag is posted at a guard tower near the Egyptian boarder, which seems to provide the only
relief from her endless depression. Lea, dreaming of being
close to the combat, is put in the military police, where she
is stationed at a checkpoint through which Palestinian day
workers come each morning.
Boianjiu has divided the book into three parts: life be-
fore the military, life in the military, and post-military life.
Though these sections prove to be less distinct than one might
automatically believe, as it is seen that having a mandatory
military service requirement affects Israelis at all stages of
their lives. For instance, in the nal section, the characters are
constantly drawn back—both physically and mentally—into
their military life. As if every Israeli, having nished his military
service, can never really escape the effect it had on him.
And meanwhile, throughout the course of the novel,
Boianjiu’s language and realism, her tools used to create
her characters’ perspective on and understanding of their
surroundings, begin to breakdown, and her book becomes
progressively more impressionistic—and quite surreal—as
life itself becomes less clear for Yael, Avishag, and Lea. The
stream-of-consciousness narrative, which starts off simple
becomes increasingly more abstract, makes this book a slower,
more challenging read. But it is a necessary challenge, one
that enhances the experience of the book, as Boianjiu pushes
her readers to fully grasp just how unusual and unfamiliar
life in Israel is from our own.
Though sent to different parts of the country and to differ-
ent types of service, each character experiences the common
hardships of military life. The twelve-hour-long shifts each must
work leave too much time for reection on both the seemingly
pointless task at hand and also their larger purpose in the war.
But the monotony of the long shifts merely reinforces
the endlessness and the wearisomeness of the war itself. And
how, in reality, living in a country ridden with terrorism and
the nearby threat of attack is all these girls have ever known.
The fact that the war is being fought in the place where they
live means that it is forever inescapable. Since home front is
the only front, the war came to them before they came to it.
Though their time in the army gives them a closeness to the
physical dangers (Yael handles automatic grenade launchers
with a physical and mental ease that is hard to fully conceive)
and political conicts of the war, it does not introduce life in
war to any of the girls; they have known that forever.
Boianjiu’s commentary on Israeli life is one of the most
fascinating and gives an insight that those interested in the
Middle East would be wise to learn. Her characters remember
terrorist attacks in their hometown when they were young.
They see how their siblings and friends come back different
people after their army service. They hold the stories of their
parents’ experience in the army. And they live with death al-
ways so nearby. Death has always been a part of their lives,
since they were young, and will always be there, even after
their time in the army is long over. And nothing provides
more eye-opening insight into living in a constant state of
war than the bluntness with which these three girls—and we
reader—nd out about death of their friends’ brothers, their
boyfriends, their fellow soldiers, their countrymen.
Not once is there even a murmur of an end to the war.
But in between the monotony and the death there are mo-
ments of life. Moments when the girls date, play pranks, drink,
gossip at night with the other soldiers—act like the teenagers
they are. If not for these moments, Boianjiu’s characters would
seem completely foreign. But because of them, we realize how
close these characters actually are to ourselves, and how much
more incredible their stories seem because of it.
Boianjiu’s novel is valuable to those want to gain an
honest and accurate understanding about what it is like to
grow up in Israel. If one trusts Boianjiu’s pessimism toward
Israel’s situation ever changing, her novel may prove to have
a lasting relevance she neither imagined—nor hoped for. n
By Taylor Cathcart
George W. Bush turned a surplus into a decit almost
immediately. Clinton’s health care initiative failed more spec-
tacularly than his marriage. So why should we be so scared
of Obama? Charles Kesler sets out to answer this question
in his recent book, I Am the Change: Barack Obama and the
Crisis of Liberalism. Harvard-educated Kesler is a govern-
ment professor at Claremont McKenna College and editor
of the Claremont Review of Books.
I Am The Changeopens on an encouraging note, dismiss-ing those who paint Mr. Obama as “a third-world daddy’s
boy, Alinskyist agitator, deep-cover Muslim, or
undocumented alien.” “Conservatives, of all people,” Kesler
writes, “should know to beware instant gratication, especially
when it comes wrapped in a conspiracy theory.” Instead,
Kesler sets out to outline a history of the left, from Wilson’s
progressivism to FDR’s liberalism to Lyndon B. Johnson’s
Great Society. Kesler tells his history well, recounting the rise
of the modern research university in America, importation
of German philosophies, the conception of an “expert class”
of academics to administer the State, and the reinvention of
the role of government.
The highlight of the book is Kesler’s excellent tracing
of the philosophical underpinnings of 20th century liberal
ideologies, starting with a surprisingly good summary of
the German philosopher Hegel’s work. Hegel, Kesler writes,
believed that:
Each culture or folk mind (e.g., clas sical Greece)
passed from youth to maturity to decline, but handed
the torch to a successor just in time. The essence of
the fading culture was preserved in the transfer, so
that nothing important was lost and the subsequent
folk mind could begin where the last left off. Andso the world mind (Weltgeist) progressed, from the
consciousness, as Hegel put it, that One is free (the
principle of oriental despotism) to the understanding
that Some are free (the Greeks and Romans), to the
knowledge, nally, that All human beings are free
(the Christian insight, perfected in the Germanic mind)...
Progress in the Hegelian sense bred the lofty assurance that
history had a meaning and direction, that it pointed inevitably
to human liberty and human ourishing.
Hegel argued that history was a process of evolution
toward an absolute ideal. Our founders, on the other hand, had
designed the government like an expensive watch, solid and
well-balanced, to ensure it would not break or be tampered
with. Woodrow Wilson, armed with an understanding of the
Hegelian dialectic, proposed that the old idea of a limited
Constitution was merely a reection of the Founders’ anti-quated worldview. He instead supported a living Constitution
which could adapt to contemporary needs and evolve along
with society. The early progressivists’ fundamental innova-
tion was their belief that, as MLK Jr. once said, “the arc of
the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
Kesler goes on to consider the logical results of Wilson’s
reimagining of politics. Presidents, once stewards charged
with protecting the nation, were now leaders expected to lead
the people into a dark and ambiguous - but always slightly
better! - future (indeed, Lincoln and Douglas debated for over
twenty-four hours without once mentioning “leadership”, a
feat almost unimaginable today). Leaders now needed “vi-
sions” for the future, a personal idea of what Hegel’s absolute
ideal would look like. Additionally, Kesler writes, Wilson
rejected the “social compact” theory of government in favor
of a family model: “the State of today may be regarded as in
an important sense only an enlarged Family.” The government
Ms. Hecht is a senior at the College and Managing Edi-
tor of The Dartmouth Review.
Mr. Cathcart is a sophomore at the College and Features Editor of The Dartmouth Review.
A War Novel for the New Generation
What’s Wrong With Liberalism?
I Am The Change: Barack Obama
and the Crisis of Liberalism
Charles R: Kesler
Broadside Books, 2012
Book Review
The most impressive aspect of Kesler’s book is its objec-
tive and intellectually honest treatment of early liberalism.
Kesler refrains from paraphrase, preferring to let his subjects
do the talking for themselves. The result is an extremely in-
teresting account of proto-liberalism and liberal philosophy.
The closer Kesler gets to the modern day, however, the less
articulate he becomes, content instead with talk of “liberal
magicians” and extensive close readings of The Audacity of
Hope.
I Am the Change teaches a lot about liberalism and its
philosophy. The book did not, however, teach me much about
President Obama, except that he can make even Harvard-
educated political scientists reach for conspiracy theory. Allthings considered, a worthwhile read. n
For all the strength of the book’s early
parts, the author seems to run out of
steam when he nally gets to Obama.
The People of Forever
are Not Afraid
Shani BoianjiuHogarth, 2012
Book Review
7/29/2019 TDR 2.1.13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tdr-2113 6/12
Page 6 The Dartmouth Review February 4, 2013
Winston During Wartime
Mr. Neff is a senior at the College and a contributor to
The Dartmouth Review.
By Blake S. Neff
Defender of the Realm’s journey to print is a fascinat-
ing tale befitting of its subject. The book bears the names of
two authors, the first that of William Manchester, once one
of Americans most popular biographers for works such as
American Caesar (about Douglas Macarthur) and The Death
of a President (about Kennedy). Manchester’s magnum opus
was a monumental work on Winston Churchill, The Last
Lion, to be published in three doorstoppers of over 800 pages
apiece. The first volume, Visions of Glory, covering his early
life up to 1932, was published in 1983, and the second, Alone,
appeared five years later. After that, however, Manchester’s
suffered from a severe case of writer’s block, a surprise for a
man who routinely produced enormous books and was known
to have writing sessions lasting up to 50 consecutive hours.
Before the gears could start turning again, his health declined
from a series of strokes, and when he died in 2004 less than
200 pages of the mammoth third volume were complete.
While several notable authors and professional historians
were considered as Manchester’s successor, and Pulitzer-
winner Diane McWhorter came very close to being selected,Manchester turned them all down, seeking a successor who
shared not only writing ability but also a complete awe for
Churchill himself. Ultimately, the role of playing Joshua to
Manchester’s Moses fell on Paul Reid, a journalist at the Palm
Beach Post who became a personal friend of Manchester’s
late in the latter’s life. Originally slated to co-write with
Manchester, Reid was on his own eight months later when
Manchester finally succumbed to stomach cancer.
He only barely proved up
to the task. Although a journal-
ist, Reid had never written a
book in his life, and he was
woefully unprepared for the
brutal task of producing a
highly anticipated 1000-page
biography. Even worse, he hadto bear expectations that he faithfully carry on the legacy of
his successor, knowing that any failures would fall on him
while Manchester would receive the lion’s share of credit
for success. To his immense credit, though, Reid treated the
project as a solemn obligation to his departed friend and
committed nearly a decade of his life to seeing it through
successfully. While Manchester bequeathed hundreds of
pages of notes, he relied on a personal coding system that
was nearly impenetrable and took Reid years to decipher.
Reid himself first struggled to imitate Manchester’s style,
and after tat proved impossible he still had to spend years
learning to write at a high level, coached along by his editor.
What was hoped to be a two-year project ended up taking
nine, while Reid himself was forced to sell his house and
burn through all his savings to keep writing after using up
his $200,000 advance.That the book managed to finally come out at all is a
major personal triumph for Reid, but it’s less clear that it
can truly be considered a completion of Manchester’s work.
Manchester favored complex, grandiose sentences imbued
with the same larger-than-life vigor that animated Churchill.
Reid, befitting his journalist background, favors a more
utilitarian prose that is serviceable but hardly distinctive,
and often reads like a very, very long news story (fittingly,
Reid always calls his subject “Churchill,” while he was
“Winston” to Manchester). Additionally, Reid’s personal
research led him to construct a significantly different image
of Churchill himself. Manchester’s Churchill was moder-
ate with his alcohol and suffered from severe depression,
while Reid’s Churchill is a borderline alcoholic who simply
handles it spectacularly well, and has no signs of mental
illness at all. Though both revere Churchill, such signif icant
differences make Defender of the Realm its own indepen-
dent biography, which in turn
makes one wonder if going
through with a third volume
made sense in the first place.
Whatever its shortcom-
ings as a sequel and fulfill-
ment of Manchester’s work,
“Defender” is still a powerful,
immensely detailed look at
one of the most titanic figures
of the 20th Century. Though
Reid clearly adores Churchill,
the book is anything but an
idealized portrait. In fact, it
is very plain while reading
that had history gone a little
differently, it would be easy
to remember him as one of
history’s great bunglers rather
than as a national savior. An
amateur’s amateur, Churchill
routinely dabbled in areas
outside his expertise if they
grabbed his attention, a habit
which would not have been
harmful had his interests not
included nearly every ac-
tion of His Majesty’s armed
forces. Like a boy playing
with toy soldiers, Churchill
tinkered with every part of
the war effort, from grand
strategy to battlefield logistics and
fleet dispositions. Often, his plans
seem driven by mere whimsy: One general remarked thata bizarre plan to invade Norway during the war was driven
by nothing more than a remark that Hitler had unfolded his
map of Europe from the top down and Churchill would roll
it up in the same manner.
Churchill’s ideas were not harmless fancies but in fact
severely endangered the war effort. In 1941, he compelled
his North African generals to send half their available forces
to support a doomed effort in Greece, which only led to se-
vere defeats in both regions
and the near-capture of the
Suez Canal. Later, his boy-
like fascination with large
battleships and failure to
see their obsolescence with
the advent of carrier-borne
aircraft would get nearly athousand British sailors killed when he sent the ships without
air cover against the forward-thinking Japanese navy. For
the amount of meddling he did, it is remarkably hard to find
any examples where Churchill’s involvement produced a
positive effect, and the book frequently notes the frustration
and dread felt by Britain’s professional soldiers at dealing
with the harebrained schemes of
the eager, very powerful novice
who commanded them.
In addition to his general
shortcomings, conservatives who
read the book may be surprised
that Churchill does not precisely
match the image of him they may
have in their minds. Unsurpris-
ingly given his accomplishmentsand party identification, Churchill
is a popular figure for American
conservatives; Steven Hayward
at National Review even promoted
Newt Gingrich by suggesting he could be an American
Churchill. The comparison is an apt one, though this mainly
means that Churchill would probably annoy modern American
conservatives much as Gingrich does. Although a Conserva-
tive, Churchill switched parties more than once, and prior
to becoming prime minister he was tolerated at best by the
Conservative establishment. He was a routine opportunist,
changing his mind on almost every great issue of the day. He
accepted the Beveridge Report that led to the creation of the
postwar British welfare state, yet later tried to brand Labour
as totalitarian for embracing the same policies in 1945. He
claimed to be such an ardent free-trader that it drove his de-
fection to the Liberal Party mid-career, yet by the 30’s (when
the Depression made free trade unpopular) he abandoned
this position almost entirely. On top of his inconsistencies,
Churchill had a spectacular ability to deflect and evade
blame for mistakes
that were manifestly
his fault, an ability
he put to frequent
use in 1940 and ‘41
when almost ev-
ery military venture
by the British went
dreadfully wrong,
often after extensive
Churchillian input.
C h u r c h i l l
would displease
most modern con-
servatives in plenty
of other ways as
well. He was almost
totally irreligious,
bordering on blas-
phemous at times,
though he had no
trouble utilizing
Christianity when it
was useful for aiding
his political goals.
Instead of God, he
put his faith in the
British Empire,
whose preservation
he invested with
an almost sacred
character. This made
him a dinosaur even in his own
era, and aside from Pat Buchanan
types who wax nostalgic for the days when Britannia held aquarter of the world’s population in subservience, it is likely
not an ideology that would appeal to the modern Tea Party
crowd.
For all Churchill’s shortcomings as a leader, conser-
vative, and human being, though, the astute reader will
still almost certainly come away from the Defender of the
Realm with an enormous regard for him, because as the
book makes clear Churchill is not a leader who can be
evaluated properly by simply surveying his life and tal-
lying its successes and failures. Rather, Churchill endures
as perhaps the greatest statesmen of the century for one
simple, straightforward deed in the summer of 1940. The
highlight of the book is Reid’s deft portrait of that period,
where defeat seemed certain and Churchill braced a nation
for the greatest test in its long history. France had been
crushed utterly, and the dismemberment of the BritishEmpire seemed imminent if it fought on. Hitler dangled
the promise of a lenient peace before Britain, and with
its allies defeated and no immediate prospects for victory
such an offer was sorely tempting.
Had any other leader held the office of Prime Minister,
Britain likely would have cut a deal. Adamant in his hatred
of Hitlerism and prescient in
his belief that it was among the
blackest philosophies ever seen
on Earth, Churchill refused to
even consider peace, and never
wavered from this position, no
matter how certain annihilation
seemed.
Given the enormous and
seemingly avoidable risk Britainchose to fight to the bitter end,
Churchill’s stand must be seen
as a moral one, taken without
regard for the immediate national
interest, and that he was able to marshal every segment of
British society to fight on no matter what the cost is an almost
unparalleled accomplishment. “Time Magazine” spoke truly
when it remarked in 1941, that were the Allies to prevail,
Churchill would prove not merely man of the year or of the
century, but a man of all time. For all his failures and foibles
and shortcomings, Churchill passed the one immense test put
before him by the God he only half believed in. If reading
Defender of the Realm can help one be ready to pass a similar
test, then it is easily worth its 1000 pages. n
The Last Lion:
Winston Spencer Churchill,
Defender of the Realm (1940-1965)
William Manchester and Paul Reid
Little, Brown and Company, 2012
Book Review
—The two authors paints different pictures of
Britain’s iconic prime minister.—
Manchester’s Churchill was moderate with
his alcohol and suffered from severe de-
pression, while Reid’s Churchill is a borderline
alcoholic who simply handles it spectacularly
well, and has no signs of mental illness at all.
Given the enormous and seemingly
avoidable risk Britain chose to
fight to the bitter end, Churchill’s stand
must be seen as a moral one, taken with-
out regard for the immediate national
interest, and that he was able to marshal
every segment of British society tofight on no matter what the cost is an
almost unparalleled accomplishment.
7/29/2019 TDR 2.1.13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tdr-2113 7/12
February 4, 2013 The Dartmouth Review Page 7
By Caroline Sohr
What was it like to be a Muslim growing up in America
before 9/11? In his debut novel, American Dervish, Ayad
Akhtar aims to answer this question. Akhtar largely suc-
ceeds in conveying a cultural experience that had previ-
ously been unexplored. While there is an abundance of
literature analyzing the challenges facing young Muslim
Americans today, very few authors have dealt with the
struggles of those coming of age before September 11th
and the widespread fear of Islamic extremism. During this
time, Muslim immigrants still faced challenges adjustingand becoming accepted to mainstream America, a place
far different from their previous homes in the Middle East.
American Dervish tells the story of Hayat Shah, the
son of Pakistani immigrants growing up in a suburb of Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, Akhtar’s hometown, in the early 1980s.
The story opens in 1990, with Hayat, who is by this time
a college student, learning that Mina, his mother’s closest
friend, has just died. Hayat is distraught, and his grief is
coupled by guilt; while Mina was on her deathbed, he con-
fessed to having done a horrible thing to her as a young boy.
We then move back about a decade. At age eleven,
Hayat is observant, curious and wholly aware of his
parents’ marital problems. His life is comfortable until
Mina Ali, eeing an abusive husband and oppressive
divorce laws, arrives from Pakistan with her young son
Imran. Hayat immediately makes a connection with the
capitvating Mina, one stronger than that which he hadhad with any other person, including his own parents.
Mina loves Hayat unconditionally, though sexual un-
dercurrents strain their relationship as Hayat develops.
Mina begins Hayat’s religious experience by intro-
ducing Hayat to Islam and the Quran, and they bond
during nightly reading sessions. Mina inspires Hayatto become a haz, someone who can recite the entire
Quran from memory, and encourages him to not just read
the printed words, but to truly understand their mean-
ing and use them in order to become closer to Allah.
Although Hayat’s parents are Muslim, his father regu-larly speaks out against the leaders of the local religious
community while his mother
blames her husband’s indel-
ity on Islam, believing that
Muslim men do not know
how to properly treat and
respect their wives. Thus, it
is primarily Mina who gives
Hayat spiritual guidance.
As he continues his
religious journey, Mina be-
gins dating Nathan Wolfson,
Naveed’s Jewish coworker
and best friend. Hayat, an-
gered by the lack of attention
Mina has been giving him, becomes jealous of Nathan
and conicted over the pros-
pect of his beloved “aunt”
marrying a non-Muslim.
After both Mina’s relation-
ship and Hayat’s devotion to
Islam become increasingly
serious, Hayat commits the
ultimate act of betrayal.
Sparked by deepening anti-
Semitist feelings, he sends a telegram to Mina’s parents in
Pakistan, alerting them of Mina’s plans to marry Nathan.
While living with a guilty conscience, Hayat begins to
understand the complexities of spirituality. He ultimately
feels abandoned by his faith, causing both Hayat and the
reader to question what it means to be a good Muslim.
Besides being an easy-to-read and enjoyable story, American Dervish is serious and insightful. It depicts not just
Islamic fundamentalism but blind devotion to any religious
doctrine as bigoted and hypocritical. Mina’s spirituality is
inspiring. Her faith is grounded and her beliefs refreshing,
especially when considered against those of the dogmatic
Muslim leaders, atheist Naveed, and wavering Muneer. American Dervish honestly presents both anti-Islamic
and anti-Semitic sentiments that were common through-
out our country at that time. Though both Hayat and his
Jewish friend Jason are teased at school, Hayat ultimately
develops extremely negative feelings towards Jews, even
telling Imran, Mina’s son, that Allah hates Jews more than
he hates pigs. Furthermore, Hayat and his family struggle
to adapt to mainstream American life. Early in the novel,Muneer does not allow Hayat to attend an ice cream social
at a local church, believ-
ing that, although the
event was free, in doing
so she would be support-
ing Christianity. Though
Naveed and Muneer con-
demn a radical Muslim for
forcing his wife to wear a
burqa , they nonetheless
face challenges adapting
to a secular culture. Mina,
however, smoothly adjusts
to her newfound freedom
of expression, getting an
attractive new haircut anddiscarding the conserva-
tive and loose clothes
typically worn by Paki-
stani American women
very soon after arriving in
America. The characters’
cultural experience adds
another layer of conict to
the novel beyond spiritual
and religious struggles.
American Dervish is not just another coming of
age story. Akhtar’s experience as a screenwriter and
playwright is immediate ly evident. His skillfu lly crafted
novel is very well written. The plot moves along at a
sensible pace, with universal themes and relatable char-
acters. By the end of the novel, Mina and Nathan become
tragic gures, their experiences showing that religion
and love do not always overlap. Hayat’s father, despitehis alcoholism and indelity, is ultimately admirable. His
refusal to accept Islamic extremism undoubtedly affects
Hayat, who at 20 continues to question his own faith.
Ms. Sohr is a ‘16 at the College and a News Editor at
The Dartmouth Review.
[Expletive Deleted]: A Theory
Islam and Extremism in America
American Dervish: A Novel
Ayad Akhtar
Back Bay Books, 2012
Book Review
— Ayad Akhtar—
Ms. Reynolds is a senior at the College and Vice President
of The Dartmouth Review.
By Elizabeth Reynolds
With a title that cannot be printed in most publications
(we scoundrels at The Review will let it slide, be advised),
Aaron James’ Assholes: A Theory surely catches one’s at-
tention when strolling through a bookstore. The book could
easily be a diatribe against today’s politicians, CEOs, andcelebrities, extended over two hundred pages –at times it
resort to just this–but James also attempts to create a theory
of the asshole that is practically useful and that sheds light
on deeper moral questions.
Dealing with assholes is a universal part of the human
condition, making James’ theory relevant to anyone participat-
ing in social life. When someone cuts in line at the dining hall
or changes lanes recklessly on the highway, we get pissed off
and often times use an indecent word to describe said person
– but what does it actually mean when we call someone an
asshole? James, an associate professor of philosophy at the
University of California, Irvine, elucidates that the asshole
allows himself to enjoy special advantages and does so sys-
tematically. James explains that the asshole does this out of
Assholes: A Theory
Aaron James
Doubleday, 2012
Book Review
an entrenched sense of entitlement and is immunized by his
sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people.
In other words, the asshole challenges the idea that all
humans are to be treated as moral equals. This is why we get
so angry when we are confronted with the asshole – he thinks
his life is more important than everyone else’s, and walls out
anybody who objects to his alternate reality. Notice that the author’s definition uses the masculine
pronoun. James dedicates a chapter of his book to analyz-
ing a pattern in the gender of assholes: they tend to be men.
Perhaps this discrepancy is simply due to the fact that we
have created other profane words to describe females we find
morally repugnant. James ultimately decides, “Deep gender
culture, not maleness, is primarily to blame for the fact that
assholes are mainly men.”
This launches James into a discussion of how the culture
of the United States is particularly good at breeding assholes,
as if they magically do not exist in other countries. With
this, and throughout the book, James makes no effort to
conceal his (far-left) political leanings and is upfront about
his biases. For example, he proposes that the United States
has comparatively more assholes than Japan does due to the
fact that more of its young people read Ayn Rand.Furthermore, in his chapter “Naming Names,” James
makes a game of identifying modern assholes and classify-
ing them. This brought a smile to my face as I tried to sort
assholes I’ve crossed paths with into his distinct categories
– the boorish asshole, the smug asshole, the asshole boss;
but, alas, he chooses to exploit people like Newt Gingrich,
Lloyd Blankfein, and Steve Jobs, namely, those who stand in
the way of his ideals as a wave-surfing hippie. He then calls
President Barack Obama the “anti-asshole.”
Conservatives beware – it will be painful to get through
some of these illustrations (his blog, On Assholes, is even
more explicit, practically dedicated to outing Mitt Romney
and other Republicans as assholes), but it is possible to agree
with James’ fundamental definition of the asshole regardless
of your political leanings.
After thoroughly describing the essence of the modern
asshole, James shifts his focus to “personal asshole manage-
ment.” It would have been quite depressing if the author’s
lengthy discourse on how bothersome these people can be did
not have some sort of solution or silver lining. While his book
does not fit into the self-help genre, he aids us understandingour guttural reaction to being demeaned by an asshole, and
offers a productive way of handling this situation.
James assures us that retributive feelings towards assholes
are natural. They reflect one’s healthy dose of self-respect,
and the longing to be viewed as a moral equal. However, it
seems pointless to stand up against the asshole when he will
not consider, let alone hear, our protests – he is immunized
against our complaints. James validates the action of resist-
ing assholes by means of swearing out loud, though. It is a
therapeutic way of, “reassuring ourselves that we do deserve
better treatment and that is something that any reasonable
onlooker, were one present, would agree with.”
Therefore, swearing is not meant for the listener, but the
speaker. It is a fight for public status.
This would be an appropriate conclusion to the book,
but James follows with a chapter on “asshole capitalism.”He challenges the “get rich without worrying about the cost
to others” mentality of capitalism and presents himself as the
second coming of John Rawls. James’ assertion that institutions
like the family and religion fail to curb asshole production
in a capitalist society, and his cry for “fairness” are weak at
best.
Despite his far-fetched deduction that assholes are an
obstacle to social justice and threaten to end humanity, Aaron
James’ book is worth reading for entertainment. I cannot help
but think, though, in a world where humans are intrinsically
selfish and greatly disagree about what entitlements people
have, maybe we are all assholes by his definition. It is even
more likely that a man claiming to be an authority on assholes
is one himself.
7/29/2019 TDR 2.1.13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tdr-2113 8/12
Page 8 The Dartmouth Review February 4, 2013
“Cloud Atlas” on Paper and Screen
Mr. Ding is a senior at the College and Sports Editor of
The Dartmouth Review.
By Ke Ding
I suspect that many other readers were first moved to
read Cloud Atlas the book by “Cloud Atlas” the movie, as
I was. When the trailers first came out for the movie (star-
ring such A-List luminaries like Tom Hanks, Halle Berry,
and Hugo Weaving), it seemed like a film that was going
to be both entertaining and profound. Regarding the latter,
I imagined the “Cloud Atlas” film would be kind of like
“Tree of Life” but with more explosions, spaceships, and
well-choreographed chase scenes.
Amid the backdrop of a somber, haunting, and quite
beautiful melody, the camera cuts to characters in various
reflective poses offering vaguely profound sentiments. “A
half finished book is, after all, a half finished love affair…”
says a listless voice with an English accent. “Why do we
keep making the same mistakes…over and over again?”
asks Halle Berry softly, while languidly holding a cigarette.
So the question beckons: did “Cloud Atlas” live up to
its amazing trailer?
Well, the movie sure didn’t. There simply wasn’t any
chance that it would. The trailer was a promise, and an
absolutely audacious one at that. You were going to be
entertained, you were going to be amazed, and you were
going to come away a better person. The rottentomatoes.com spiel says it best when it con-
cludes: “Its sprawling, ambitious
blend of narrative and eye-catching
visuals will prove too unwieldy for
some, but the sheer size and scope of
“Cloud Atlas” are all but impossible
to ignore.” It’s a movie that’s fun
to watch, but one that didn’t fully
measure up in terms of “making
you think”. This makes sense, as if I were a studio head
I would much rather err on the side of fun and mindless
than dull and smart—though these never have to be the
only options.
But what of the book? I will not waste my readers’
time and will say here that sadly, it did not live up to the
trailer either. The book certainly got much, much closer
than the trailer, but it was never quite that intellectually
“meaty” of a novel. Cloud Atlas will be remembered as
a great book, but, its characters and its ideas never had
emotional impact of a “Gatsby” or “Harry Potter” or, to
use some of its “Science Fiction” peers, Ender ’s Game or
Necromancer .
In all honesty, it’s rather hard to even categorize Cloud
Atlas as a science fiction book, though that’s where I found
it in the library. There are science fiction themes to be sure,
but between its covers you can find romance, action/adven-
ture, mystery, and a smattering of philosophy.
The most notable thing about Cloud Atlas is its con-
tribution as a well-written example of the “puzzle novel.”
Puzzle novels include Flaubert’s Parrot by Julian Barnes,
Vineland by Thomas Pynchon, and One Hundred Years of
Solitude by Gabriel García Marquez. The puzzle refers not
to the content of the book itself—though a disproportion-
ately high number of puzzle novels contain some degree of
mystery—but to the structure of the novel. Puzzle novels
have non-linear structures, frequently
switching between different points in
time and different perspectives.
In the case of Cloud Atlas, David
Mitchell nests 6 characters (and their
corresponding stories) within one
another like a set of Matryoshka dolls.
We start by reading the diary of Adam Ewing, a notary
who finds himself in the Chatham Islands (in the Pacific
Ocean) having all sorts of adventures. The diary cuts out
halfway through, and we jump to the letters of Robert
Frobisher to his friend and lover Rufus Sixsmith. This is
the second story. Frobisher is a promiscuous and talented
composer-apprentice who mentions in his letters the frustra-
tion of finding only half of Ewing’s diary.
The third story is from the point of view of a third-
person narrator, and we learn about the ordeals of a journal-
ist named Luisa Rey trying to uncover seedy practices at a
nuclear facility in Southern California. Key to her efforts is
Rufus Sixsmith, an aging renowned physicist, who leaves
her his prized letters from Frobisher after he is mysteriouslymurdered. The fourth story is
told from the point of view of
Timothy Cavendish, a vanity
publisher who stumbles upon
the first half of Luisa Rey’s
autobiography.
The fifth story is told
from the point of view of Son-
mi-451, a clone who becomes
sentient. In the course of her adventures, she watches an old
film called “The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish.”
The sixth takes place in a post-apocalyptic earth in Hawaii,
where Sonmi-451 is remembered by the primitive survivors
as a sort of Goddess. When this story ends, we go back to
the fifth story, where Sonmi has begun to lead a rebellion
seeking to liberate the clones. She is caught, and beforeshe is executed, she asks to finish watching “The Ghastly
Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish.”
With this we circle back to the fourth story. Then using
similar transitional devices, David Mitchell brings us back
to the third, then the second, and finally, the first. A great
part of the pleasure of Cloud Atlas, once the book’s structure
becomes clear, is reading and discovering how the author
brings us from story to story. It’s an aesthetic kind of joy.
However, the writing itself had the tendency to become a
little bit dull.
The novel also has a difficult time balancing the somber
and the comical. At the end of Cloud Atlas, Adam Ewing,
the notary stuck in the middle of the Pacific, reflects that
his life is no more than “…one drop in a limitless ocean.”
But then he realizes “…what is any ocean but a multitude
of drops?” Adam Ewing is a drop in the ocean, as are the
rest of the characters in the novel, and my impression is that
the author wants us to see this book as an ocean, something
emblematic if not encompassing of a big idea like the human
experience. This is a laudable goal.
But to continue the metaphor, too often throughout
Cloud Atlas it feels as if David Mitchell focuses on taking
us from drop to drop rather than
developing each individual drop
themselves.
Certainly we know what these
drops contain. There’s happiness,
sadness. There’s hope, there’s fear,
there’s ambition, goodness, evil,
and all sorts of in between. There’s also somberness, and
comedy.
David Mitchell knows this as well, but because he
attempts to show us the elements of his character’s lives
by switching the perspectives rather than explicating each
character, the characters feel flat and the changes in the
narrative’s voice and tone become jarring.
To the first point, there were numerous instances when
the reader got the impression that the characters acted the way
they did only to drive the plot forward. This makes for some
boring sequences where the writing feels mechanical and dull,
rather than organic. Some characters were worse than others:
Sonmi-451, though kind-hearted, brave, and inspirational, did
not feel quite “real” or human. The entertainingly narcissisticAdam Frobisher, on the other hand, felt like someone who
might be living and breathing out there in the real world. But
he is a rare example.
To the second point, quoting Theo Tait of The Daily Tele-
graph, “…Cloud Atlas spends half its time wanting to be the
Simpsons and the other half the Bible.” Though it might be
possible for two vastly different tones in a book to harmonize,
I have yet to read one where this happens. In Cloud Atlas, the
narrative is interrupted when the serious, somber, and inspira-
tional tone of Luisa Rey is juxtaposed with the comedic, almost
cartoon-like tone of Timothy Cavendish’s tale.
Though the criticism in this review far outweighs the
praise otherwise, I still thought Cloud Atlas was a very
good book and would recommend it. The novelty of the
structure and the fairly entertaining plot make for a fun
read. There are also some truly thoughtful moments. Butdon’t expect to return time and again to it: one time should
prove sufficient . n
Hungry?
Check out The Dartmouth Review.
Meetings every Monday,6:30 at Phi Delta Alpha.
Come for the free pizza, stay for the
provocative, yet tasteful discourse.
Cloud Atlas: A Novel
David Mitchell
Random House, 2004
Book Review
C loud Atlaswill be remembered as
a great book, but, its characters
and its ideas never had emotional im-
pact of a “Gatsby” or “Harry Potter”
or, to use some of its “Science Fiction”
peers, Ender’s Gameor Necromancer .
The most notable thing about
Cloud Atlas is its contribution
as a well-written example of the
“puzzle novel.”
7/29/2019 TDR 2.1.13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tdr-2113 9/12
February 4, 2013 The Dartmouth Review Page 9
By Nicholas S. Duva
Peter Ames Carlin has twice tried his hand with biogra-
phies of famous musicians. He released unauthorized books
on Brian Wilson and Paul McCartney in 2007 and 2010, but
for the rst time has written with the full collaboration of the
artist himself – in this case, the New Jersey-bred rock legendBruce Springsteen.
Such unfettered access, which had not been given by
Springsteen in 25 years, gives the book a tight, coherent
narrative that would not otherwise have been possible. An
unauthorized biography, reliant upon a piecemeal of secondary
sources, would have failed to catalogue the exact trajectory of
his rise to stardom. This is because Springsteen, as the book
shows, is a singular gure. Every band that he has ever played
in has been less headlined than dominated by the rocker. The
prologue acknowledges this, explaining the origin of “The
Boss,” Springsteen’s enduring nickname.
Carlin then moves to the origins of Springsteen himself.
The book does not get to the 1975 release of “Born to Run,”
Springsteen’s breakout album, until after 200 pages. While the
rst few chapters detail the rocker’s childhood, most of that
space is devoted to his rise up through the Jersey Shore music
scene. The portrait of the Jersey Shore in the late 1960s and
early 1970s is a vivid, exciting one. Generational conict, thedeterioration of Asbury Park and Long Branch, and rampant
drug use (by everyone except Springsteen, it seems) serve
as exciting backdrops to the story of Springsteen’s rise.
I write “Springsteen’s rise” and not “Springsteen” because
the book functions more as a musical history of the rocker
than a personal one. Most friendships are described in the
context of his music. The most notable thing said about Diane
Lozito, one of Springsteen’s girlfriends, is that she inspired
“Rosalita.” If anything, more is said about Springsteen’s musi-
cal inuences, including Van Morrison, than his girlfriends.
This approach works because his musical develop-
ment is exceptionally interesting; Springsteen starts out in
a Beatlemania-era teenage band, moving onto soulful hard
rock before releasing “Greetings From Asbury Park, NJ” and
embarking upon a career just as musically unpredictable as
his rise. The book is best read near an open YouTube tab,in order to intersperse chapters with clips of Springsteen
throughout the years. Videos of his time with Steel Mill are
a particularly glorious shock.
But the early years of Springsteen
are already engrained in the minds of
fans. The story behind the years since
the release of Born in the U.S.A., when
he hit his commercial, if not artistic
height, is not quite as well-known. In
1989, he dissolved the E Street Band
and spent most of the following decade
living in California. Carlin focuses on this time with the help
of interviews with Springsteen, framing it as an attempt by
the musician to get out from under his own shadow. After
multiple number one hits and worldwide fame, he had become
sick of himself.
Though Springsteen produced some great solo albums in
the 1990s, they are not presented as a happy time. His years
of psychotherapy are mentioned, as is his frustration at his
relative lack of critical and commercial acclaim. Neverthe-
less, the book never really goes past surface level here. The portrait of Springsteen as a person – not as an artist – has
very little depth just where it needs it most. His forays into
acoustic music are explained well, but his mindset is not.
Carlin is a former writer for “People” magazine, and it
shows. The prose is highly readable and accessible, if a bit
corny at times. Although clocking in at 463 pages, the book
is a quick, easy read. It regretfully functions as a detailed
timeline of his musical career instead of an intricate look at
his life.
I remember watching the episode of “The Daily Show”
where Jon Stewart had the opportunity to interview Springsteen
himself. Stewart lavished praise on the rocker, calling him
one of the most important inuences in his life. Springsteen
himself didn’t quite know how to respond. He came across
as sheepish and inarticulate, if anything. The man has always
spoken through his lyrics, his art: rarely through any other medium.
Springsteen therefore is still an enigmatic gure. The
world knows full well about Bruce the artist, but not enough
about Bruce the person. This biogra-
phy does not change that. It serves as
an excellent examination of the man’s
career, but not his life. It is by all
accounts a good book. But although
it was written with the cooperation
of Springsteen himself, it is not and
will never be his denitive biography.
Eventually, a book will come out that really does delve deeply
into the actual life of Springsteen, his relationships, his inner
and outer demons. Unfortunately, this book is not it. n
By George Mendoza
Don’t Mess With Travis by Bob Smiley hit shelves in the
middle of last year but has gained more relevance since its
release. It is rstly a story of a rogue, unpolished governor of
the great State of Texas running a campaign to secede from the
Union, but underlining that is a story of today’s underhanded
Washington politics. The protagonist, Governor Ben Travis,
is a naïve man whom some would call simple-minded. He is
a character relatable to most southerners—easy-going, practi-cal—an everyman with a ranch who speaks in proverbs and
unconventional southern sayings. Beyond that, he is grounded
in practicality, a blue-collar man of the people.
The story’s villain is a progressive and politically cunning
billionaire, Anatole Metzos, who runs non-prots and inu-
ences politicians who support the progressive cause. After the
recent scal cliff debacle and the few-month-old petition for
Texas to secede from the rest of the United States, Smiley’s
book is keenly felt.
Bob Smiley was a research assistant to William Buck-
ley, Jr., whose inuence is not mistaken in Smiley’s work.
In fact, the novel reads much like William Buckley’s son
Christopher’s novel Thank You For Smoking , which waslater made into the critically-acclaimed movie by Jason
Reitman. Smiley writes with political wit and an awareness
of the troubling inuence few men can have in our political
system that satises readers with any ideology. But don’t
be mistaken: it is a conservative novel and a very funny
one. Smiley pokes fun at “ctional” politicians that have
no prescribed ideology or principles but can be bought for
a vote on this or that, politicians that are to ready to please
the other side for the sake of being bi-partisan.
The novel begins with the Texas governor and his number
two, the Lieutenant Governor driving off “the only cliff in
Texas” and perishing in the subsequent crash and re. BenTravis is a Texas State Senator who is elected head of the
branch and is next in line to take the oath. A conspiracy-
friendly radio host tips Travis off about a pipeline running
under interstate highways—which is federal property—con-
necting Texas water resources and potentially her natural gas
and oil reserves to the rest of the country. Travis recognizes
the signicance of nationalized water and energy for Texas
and attempts to confront President Leary, but is denied access
without an appointment. Travis, after a tip, visits a young
Baylor University student who came across a document signed
by Abraham Lincoln granting Texas the authority to secede
from the Union. Travis then hatches a plan to try for secession
to draw a compromise from Washington, but he gives such a
ery and convincing speech to the Texas Legislature that it
votes overwhelmingly in favor of secession. The story really
begins here with the role of Anatole Metzos revealed as Travis
takes on Washington and the liberal elites attempting to take
private industry from Texas and nationalizing it in the name
of the progressive cause.
Part of the fun of the book are Smiley’s thinly veiled
references to real-life characters or types of people. The
President of the United States Michael Leary is handsome,
extremely Irish-looking New Englander who uses charm to
his political advantage. He’s sort of a Bill Clinton and Barack
Obama hybrid: good-looking, suave, racially signicant, and
politically shrewd. Leary began a smart, nice enough guy
with little real political experience, but could be the face for
progressive causes. He is a bit sleazy, but ultimately principled
and not a bad guy.
Anatole Metzos is this universe’s George Soros. He is
extremely rich, and inuential, almost dangerously well con-
nected. He is described as Greek-looking with a heavy German
accent and a short temper. He puts into motion the pipeline
project and controls the president’s staff. Every progressive
political mood begins and ends with him
Ben Travis is named after William Barrett Travis, a
man worshipped in Texas history perhaps as much as Davy
Crockett. William Travis wrote a letter from the Alamo as
Mexican reinforcements approached asking for supplies. He
wrote: “I shall never surrender or retreat…[I will] die like
a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor &
that of his country—Victory or Death!” Our hero Ben Travis
certainly carries that principle when conict comes. But his
demeanor is that more of the Governor George Walker Bush
than of Rick Perry . His daughter Paige is a liberal young
adult, in the same vein as Ronald Reagan’s daughter PattiDavis was during his presidency.
Travis’ friend Damon Cole is a tenured professor at
Princeton, described as a black Conservative that was tenured
because it would look bad for the Administration to deny what
would be only their third black tenured professor, simply
because he was unabashedly conservative. Cole embodies
Clarence Thomas’ argument that afrmative action does not
need to be so overtly enforced. There are many other reality-
inuenced characters, including a colorful Rush Limbaugh/
Glenn Beck-esque radio host.
While the characters are very reminiscent of real life,
so too are the facts surrounding the Texas secession. Smi-
ley has a great understanding of the Texas Legislature and
mindset of Texas citizens. He mentions many ways it could
possibly work including: Texas having one-quarter of the
United States’ oil reserves and one-third of the natural gas
reserves—ninety-ve percent of the United States gets oil
and gas from pipelines originating in Texas; Texas having
the thirteenth largest economy in the world; her impressive
growth during the Great Recession; the fact that Texas gets
back eighty cents of the dollar in taxes she sends to Washing-
ton, allowing for a twenty percent tax break post-secession;
Texas having her own power grid; the Texas National State
Guard and Texas Rangers (though it has nothing on the
United States’ military might, ten percent of our nation’s
military is Texan). But most importantly, Texas has the
right, as stated in her Constitution and agreed upon by the
Union when the Republic of Texas joined the United States,
to split into ve separate states, giving Texas at least eight
and up to ten Republican United States Senators—a scary
and wonderful thought.
Smiley presents a provocative reason for secession, a
mandate nationalizing Texas oil and water. For the sake of
Texas and the principles Conservative Texans and Americans
have, secession was a legitimate action and even, as Travis
argues, a patriotic one. n
Mr. Duva is a freshman at the College and News Editor
of The Dartmouth Review.
Mr. Mendoza is a sophomore at the College and Features
Edutior of The Dartmouth Review.
Notes on The Boss
Goodbye, Texas
Bruce
By Peter Ames Carlin
Touchstone, 2012
Book Review
S pringsteen starts out in a
Beatlemania-era teenage
band, moving onto soulful hard
rock before releasing “Greetings
From Asbury Park, NJ.”
Don’t Mess With Travis:
A Novel
By Bob Smiley
Thomas Dunne Books, 2012
Book Review
7/29/2019 TDR 2.1.13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tdr-2113 10/12
Page 10 The Dartmouth Review February 4, 2013
By Thomas L. Hauch
In his newest novel, Tom Wolfe heads south to take
on the city of Miami. Back to Blood is a return to form for
Wolfe, and a long-awaited comeback from one of America’s
nest literary stylists. Wolfe has been out of the mainstream
for nearly a decade. His last novel I Am Charlotte Simmons,
which poked fun at campus culture and academia, drew a
tepid response from readers. And it raised serious questions
about Wolfe and his relevance. For all his pomp and air, did
he really have anything new to say?
It’s no small task for a writer pushing 82 years, even
one as savvy as Wolfe, to navigate our opaque, perplexing,
internet-infused society. But notwithstanding a few minor
tics, Wolfe is more than up for the challenge. Back to Blood
is lled with the same excruciating details that have become
a hallmark of his ction. Every social context is observed,
dissected, and laid bare. Wolfe’s range is on full display, as he
takes us from art shows to regattas, gives us viral videos and
Facebook updates, and introduces us to celebrity doctors and
Russian oligarchs. It feels as fresh as any journalism today,
just as he intended.
Of course, Back to Blood is not going to win any accolades
for originality. The author sticks to the same winning formula
he introduced 25 years ago in The Bonre of the Vanities.
Despite all the changes on the surface, fans of Wolfe will
nd themselves right at home. The tried-and-true Wolfeian
themes are all still here: class, race, status, vanity, pretension,
and opportunism. In fact, the title itself is a phrase Wolfe
coined long ago, and which appeared in the rst few pages of
Bonre. In a world where “religion is dying,” says Wolfe,
our bloodlines are all that we have left to unite us.
It’s the one theme at the heart of Back to Blood , which,
in fact, was conceived as a novel about immigration. Wolfe
began writing about the Vietnamese in California, before
realizing that no one seemed interested
by the premise. So he turned to the
red-hot excitement of Miami, the only
city in the world, as more than a few
characters explain, where foreigners
with a different language and culture
have been able to displace the locals
in just a single generation.
“Red-hot” might even be an
understatement. Back to Blood is
loud and in your face. He writeswith a fervent, bubbling enthusiasm
that borders on obnoxious. The
pr os e al l- too- of te n sp il ls ov er
in the form of exclamations!!!!,
CAPITALIZATIONS, bizarre
punctuation (particularly colons, which
appear in bunches of ten or twenty),
and all sorts…of halt…ing sentence
structures. It’s not exactly detracting
from the novel, just distracting, and
knowing Wolfe, the effect is probably
intended.
As in his earlier novels, Wolfe’s
goal is to characterize not just
individuals, but society itself. What
New York City was for The Bonre of the Vanities, andAtlanta for A Man in Full, Miami is for Back to Blood .
It is not just a setting; it’s really the subject. There is a
protagonist of sorts, the muscle-bound rookie cop Nestor
Comacho. Despite good intentions, he manages to offend
his parents, Cubans, Haitians, and seemingly every other
cross-section of society. His string of bad luck, as well as
the events of Back to Blood , kicks off when he “rescues”
a would-be Cuban immigrant who nds himself between
a rock and a hard place in Miami’s Biscayne Bay. The
Cuban man had somehow climbed aboard a sailboat,
and, to escape capture, clambered to the very top of the
foremast.
As Nestor well knows, Cuban refugees enjoy a special
privilege in America. “If you [a Cuban] touched anything that
is connected to the U.S., like a bridge, then you were considered
a ‘dry foot,’ but if you came in by water and you didn’t make
it all the way in, you could be sent back.” Though he manages,
through a nigh-impossible feat of physical prowess, to drag
the refugee down, Nestor simultaneously commits the man
to the fate of certain deportation.
It’s the kind of noble, conicted,
and polarizing event that can
propel along a string of events
for another 700 pages.
And through those
events, Wolfe takes us on a grand
tour of Miami: it is clear that
he has donehis homework. The
city comes to life. But unlike
in Bonre or Man in Full, thecharacters in Back to Blood
just don’t s tand out against the
backdrop of Miami.
Nest or Comacho is
never more than a likable
stereotype. Neither is his love-
interest, the beautiful nurse
Magdalena, who dumps him only
to struggle through one ill-fated
romance to the next. The aptly
named journalist John Smith,
who sticks around from one
page to the next, is perhaps even
self-consciously stereotypical.
It’s not that Wolfe does a poor
job at characterization – he never makes the effort. It’s asif he intended Smith to be a stand-in for every 28-year-old
over-achieving college graduate. And Nestor and Magdalena
are stand-ins for the entire population of second-generation
Cuban immigrants.
In Bonre, Wolfe gave us a cast of unforgettable
characters: the Wall Street bond-trader, the relentless
prosecutor, the opportunistic community organizer, and the
shameless journalist. Two decades form now, we won’t be
talking about anyone from Back to Blood in the same way,
if at all. But Wolfe’s newest is still worth the read, if only
because no one else has given Miami its due and proper
treatment. And, as always, Wolfe keeps it fast and loose.
For all his tics, there is simply no other writer quite like the
white-suited Wolfe. n
By John Melvin
Doris Kearns Goodwin strikes gold with her book Team
of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, which
investigates the lives of President Abraham Lincoln and his
cabinet members as the country crashed into its most devastat-
ing war to this day. Goodwin’s book concerns the masterful
political manipulation of Lincoln to turn his political rivals
into the country’s greatest assets during the Civil War. The
book earned New York Times’ Bestseller distinction after its
release in 2005 and became the basis for Steven Spielberg’s
2012 hit lm “Lincoln.”
Goodwin’s book is a two thumbs up winner because it
appeals to a wide variety of readers. Her fourth biographical
rendition of an American President certainly displays her pen-
chant for analyzing the most powerful men in the world so that
any reader can come to learn and understand history. As a
relatively easy read, the book charms every reader from the
most fanatical history buff to the high school student with
only basic knowledge of the Civil War. No event is mentioned
without a perfect description to put it into context for the
reader. No contention is put forth without the crucial evidence
from which it was drawn. Goodwin’s detailed descriptions
are enough to sate the curiosity of the informed reader while
not straying into irrelevance to turn off the casual reader.
She begins her piece with a detailed analysis of the personal lives of each Republican Party nominees in the
1860 Presidential election. What initially strikes the reader
as an unnecessarily long introduction (over 200 pages) to
Lincoln’s nomination, Goodwin’s individual biographies of
Salmon Chase, Edward Bates, and William Henry Seward
becomes essential to understanding how difcult it was for
Lincoln to persuade these men to join him in his ght to end
slavery and reunite the North and the South. She shows how
each man was born and raised, accounting for the major
events that shaped their political ideologies against slavery
that would give birth to the edgling Republican Party.
Most striking is Goodwin’s account of Lincoln’s early
life and struggles. She displays Lincoln in a way that en-
courages the reader to relate to our 16 th president. He is
depicted as a man who knew unbearable sadness, suffered
crippling depression, and was acquainted with harsh failure
early in his life. The reader comes to understand Lincoln
and later to fully appreciate the masterful manipulation
that deed opposing political factions, heated rivalries,
and seemingly irreconcilable differences. Goodwin leaves
no stone unturned, delving into Lincoln’s philosophies on
justice, morality, marriage, and even the possibility of an
after-life. Her portrayal overcomes the mythical aura of
political fame that surrounds Lincoln, and displays him as
an everyday American who suffers no differently than the
average American today.
Goodwin’s focus and powerful writing is not limited to
Lincoln. She dedicates the same effort to each of Seward,
Bates, and Chase. She writes passionately about Salmon
Chase’s passionate defense of escaped slaves in the face of
mobs demanding their return to the South. She thoroughly
analyzes Seward’s rise as the favorite for 1860 presidential
nomination, and gives thoughtful and strong reasoning for
his unexpected loss to the big underdog Lincoln. The reader
subsequently comes to appreciate how unlikely it was that
Lincoln forged these men together into the staunch leadership
the country needed for the upcoming years of war.
The current reader cannot help but juxtapose today’s political
climate to that of 1860. Lincoln’s presidency, where members
of the Democratic Party and Republican Party united under
one banner to push forward their president’s goals, creates a
stark contrast to today’s climate, where bipartisanship support
for almost any issue is extremely rare. One particular case
that sticks out is Lincoln’s nomination of Democrat Edwin
Stanton as Secretary of War. Stanton, who had known Lincoln
after forcing him out of a defendant’s case in which Lincoln
was originally retained, was well known to personally affront
the President and criticize him among the social circles of
Washington D.C. Lincoln ignored the personal slights and
replaced his sputtering Secretary of War choice with Stanton.
Stanton shined with his new responsibility, and forged one of
the closest relationships that Lincoln had in his entire tenure
as President.
Goodwin lays out a strong argument as to how Lincoln man-
aged to unite these many political players who had rivalries
both with him and among themselves. The book stands as a
remarkable study of the leadership required and hardships to
be overcome by one of the greatest presidents in American
history. This piece has the capability of inspiring its readers
and instilling pride in America’s ability to overcome one its
worst curses since its founding. Goodwin’s piece truly is one
that is hard to put down until the end. n
Mr. Hauch is a senior at the College and Managing
Editor of The Dartmouth Review.
Mr. Melvin is a junior at the College and a contributor
to The Dartmouth Review.
“Back To Blood” A Return to Form
Lincoln the Uniter
Team of Rivals: The Political
Genius of Abraham Lincoln
Doris Kearns Goodwin
Simon & Schuster, 2006
Book Review
Back to Blood: A Novel
Tom Wolfe
Little, Brown and Company, 2012
Book Review
—Wolfe gets in your face with Back to Blood.—
7/29/2019 TDR 2.1.13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tdr-2113 11/12
February 4, 2013 The Dartmouth Review Page 11
Front and Center
Mr. Duncan is a sophomore at the College and a con-
tributor to The Dartmouth Review.
By William R. F. Duncan
We all remember anxiously waiting for the announcement.
President Obama had hurriedly organized a press conference:
on May 2, 2011, the news that American troops had killed
Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden excited and captivated
the world. Crowds rallied outside the White House, “USA”
chants swept across the country, and millions were relieved to
know that the world’s most wanted man and most infamous
terrorist had finally been killed. In the media blitz that fol-
lowed, reports revealed the identity of the team that carried
out the operation and SEAL Team Six quickly became national
heroes. The team’s mystery captured a national intrigue.
When he returned home from Pakistan, one Navy SEAL
who took part in the operation was disconcerted by the me-
dia coverage and decided to take action. He saw national
confusion and ignorance on television and decided to “set
the record straight about one of the most important missions
in U.S. military history.” Using the penname “Mark Owen”
to protect his identity, the former SEAL sheds light on the
nature of the mysterious brotherhood of the Navy SEALs.
Owen, whose real name was revealed as Matt Bisonnette, provides a rare glimpse into the secretive world of elite Ameri-
can soldiers in his book No Easy Day. Bisonnette delivers an
action packed account of his time with the SEALs, from his
decision to join, through his training, to his service in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and finally to killing Osama Bin Laden.
Bisonnette’s controversial book helps the regular Ameri-
can understand what goes on behind the scenes to protect
our freedom. SEALs work anonymously and never receive
public credit for their heroic deeds, so Bisonnete provides a
narrative to tell the truth. Although his need for strict confi-
dentiality ultimately prevents the text from gaining a deep,
personal perspective, it still exposes the reader to an integral,
if mysterious, facet of American military might.
The title comes from the Navy SEAL saying, “the only
easy day was yesterday,” and Bisonnette gives credence to
this mantra with his description of SEAL operations. SEALselection and training picks out the strongest, smartest, and
most resilient men our country has to offer. Each member is
driven to endless perfection in all areas of his training. “Every
exercise had to be perfect,” Bissonette says, describing his
physical fitness test during his SEAL selection at BUD/S, or
Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL. His performance could
not just be acceptable, it had to be superior. “Just because
I passed the minimum scores”
remembers Bisonnette, “didn’t
mean anything in the big scheme of
things.” During BUD/S, Bisonnette
had to be the best of the best.
The rigorous training prepares
the SEALs for severe tests of will
and competence in real life opera-
tions. Bisonnette himself turns outto be quite the physical specimen,
enduring grueling feats of strength
and endurance to complete his training and carry out mis-
sions. He shows how tough someone must be in order to join
the prestigious ranks of the SEALs. “One of the key lessons
learned early on in a SEAL’s career,” Bisonnette explains,
“was the ability to be comfortable being uncomfortable.”
While the brutal training may seem excessive, we realize
how necessary it is as the SEALs traverse miles of impos-
sibly steep Afghan mountains to reach their objectives. The
SEAL pursuit of excellence means that they take no short
cuts in pursuit of their goals. Reading this book gives you
a tremendous amount of respect for these fine soldiers and
makes you glad they fight for the good guys.
Training for the bin Laden mission, codenamed Opera-
tion Neptune Spear, reflected the imperative for success. The
SEALs trained for months in a secure location in Mississippi,
isolated from the outside world and focused entirely on the
task at hand. They meticulously refined their strategy and
tactics to ensure they would be prepared. Every conceivable
contingency was accounted for, notably including the eventual
Black Hawk crash. The professionals left no stone unturned
and no detail unaccounted for. Bisonnette describes how the
planners built a replica of the Abbottabad compound to precise
specifications from intelligence reports, but since the interior
was a mystery, the SEALs saw countless configurations of the
inside during their preparation. Each soldier knew what was
at stake and took no chances; the team’s methodical approach
turned the mission into beautiful, deadly theater. Bisonnette
shows how precise the SEALs are, running dozens of dress
rehearsals and simulations. They are not just brutes trained
for killing. These men are sharp, decisive, and efficient. They
achieve the pinnacle of their craft; the SEALs are the finest
warriors in the world.
The book shines when Bisonnette relives his account of
the hours leading up to the start of Operation Neptune Spear.
He takes you into the mind of someone about to embark on
one of the American military’s most daring, dangerous, and
high profile missions. The stakes could not get any higher.
A few days leading into the mission, the SEALs poke fun at
each other while casting “the Bin Laden movie.” “We’d al-
ready decided that Elijah Wood had Walt’s role in the movie,”
recalls Bisonnette “since he was no taller than a hobbit.” But
this nervous laughter quickly turns into solemnity. Even with
Ambien, no one can sleep. Some kill time obsessively making
batches of coffee. It is not until Bisonnette laces up his boots
that he fully realizes the full gravity of the mission he is soon
to undertake. He fights to put that pressure aside and focus on
the task at hand, but “there was no escaping the significance,
and I wanted to make sure the
laces didn’t come undone.”
When the Black Hawk pilots issue the signal that
they are ten minutes out from
the Abbottobad compound,
Bisonnette snaps to atten-
tion. It is amazing how the
SEAL can suddenly gain full
focus on his mission; he has
rehearsed it so many times, studied the plans so intently, and
been in situations like it many times before. Bisonnette takes
the reader through Operation Neptune Spear step by step. The
mission unfolds, from his helicopter crashing and disturbing
the initial plan all the way to killing Bin Laden and retriev-
ing his body. Though we may know the end of the story, it is
enthralling reading. The SEALs perform flawlessly. When
something goes awry, like the helicopter crash, they swiftly
address the problem and continue advancing the mission toits final goal. When a SEAL finally shoots Bin Laden, it is
almost anti-climactic; so much has gone into a fleeting mo-
ment. Bin Laden is not even able to fire a shot before he is
gunned down. The millions of man-hours spent tracking the
terrorist, training for the mission, and ultimately executing
the operation come to an abrupt conclusion.
Bisonnette illustrates a SEAL force that is f iercely inde-
pendent and resistant to
influence or interference
from anyone. At times he
overdoes this description
to a near ridiculous level.
According to Bison-
nette, SEALs are over-
whelmingly resentful
of President Obama andthe credit that politicians
take for their missions.
“I can see him now,” says one SEAL about Obama, “talk-
ing about how he killed Bin Laden.” While the soldier’s
prediction had some merit, and Obama certainly did not
give enough credit to the men and women who made the
mission possible, Bisonnette seems to believe that soldiers
occupy some space entirely removed from politics. He feels
that his actions have no political consequences, when in
fact they are a direct extension of politics. While mentally
removing greater implications of a mission could help make
a soldier focused and successful, it is misguided to believe
that fighting does not carry broader repercussions. On this
topic, Bisonnette seems too gung-ho, even condescending
to the reader. While it is impossible for a civilian to fully
grasp the perspective of a seasoned veteran like Bisonnette,
he could have done a better job to illustrate this point and
present his perspective.
The book also describes poor policies undertaken with-
out respect to input from soldiers on the ground. Bisonnette
laments time after time when his team would capture an
insurgent just to see him released and fighting again only
weeks later. For all of the ability of the SEALs, government
protocols limit their effectiveness. Bisonnette talks about
the “good idea fairy” – bureaucrats imposing their will over
SEALs who are in a much better position to make decisions.
While current policy was born from good intentions to win
over the will of the Afghani people, it has nonetheless made
the SEAL’s work much more difficult and less fruitful.
While Bisonnette loathes President Obama, he thinks that the
Vice President is just weird. When the SEALs met Obama
and Biden after killing Bin Laden, Bisonnette recalls how
“Biden kept cracking lame jokes that no one got. He seemed
like a nice guy, but he reminded me of someone’s drunken
uncle at Christmas dinner.”
Even before Bisonnette published No Easy Day, the De-
partment of Defense met the bok with fierce opposition. The
Pentagon sent Bisonnette a letter demanding that the author
submit the book for vetting by the Department of Defensedue to the highly classified nature of its contents. Bisonnette
refused, claiming that his writing was general enough as to
avoid revealing any military secrets.
He makes this point several times throughout the book,
and his effort to do so is very evident. It is understandable
that he could not have included these details, but this inher-
ent problem bleeds much of the spirit from the book. The
fine, rich details about people and experiences are gone and
there is nothing to really fill that void. The background and
character of individual SEALs would give another layer to a
book which at times feels more like a summary than a story.
Still, beggars can’t be choosers.
It is for the SEAL’s tradition of secrecy that the book is
so surprising. SEALs are
at home in the shadows
not only in their stealthymissions, but also in their
everyday lives. Their iden-
tities are never revealed
and a SEAL
must speak vaguely to his
family about his where-
abouts and general activity.
In a community that “always prided [themselves] for being
quiet professionals,” Bisonnette breaks the code of silence
(and some Department of Defense regulations) in order to
“tell the true story.” His writing has drawn the ire of many
in that elite community. At the end of the book Bisonnette
offers a list of SEAL related charities that he hopes the reader
will donate to, but the Navy SEAL Foundation refused to ac-
cept any donations in relation with the book. Bisonnette was
shunned by this organization for speaking out.Bisonnette also came under fire for his aggressive tactics
to beat a similar book written by bestselling author Mark
Bowden. Bisonnette took the penname “Mark Owen,” which
is conspicuously close to “Mark Bowden,” possibly in an
attempt to lure readers to his book through name associa-
tion. Likewise, when Bowden interviewed Bisonnette for
his book, Bisonnette insistently asked when Bowden’s book
would go on sale, all the while never revealing to Bowden that
he was writing a book at the same time. Bowden described
Bisonnette’s tactics as “cheesy”, but Bowden was nonethe-
less supportive of the American hero: “To be honest, I hope
he sells a million copies. I honestly think he is an American
hero. Here’s a guy who spent ten years fighting these wars,
and if anybody deserves to sell a lot of books, it’s him. I
wish him well. I’m glad to have had the input [of his book].
I would rather have had it directly myself, but I completelyunderstand why he did it the way he did.” Such secrecy and
aggressive tactics should not being surprising after reading
No Easy Day. SEALs are exceedingly competitive and will
do whatever it takes to be successful.
No Easy Day is a worthwhile read. Gaining and under-
standing of the SEALs is important to know for American
military and foreign policy at large. The organization is so
shrouded in secrecy that the majority of people greatly mis-
understand them. To know the real story of how Bin Laden
died and learn more about his personal life also helps the
reader gain a greater insight into how he ran the world’s most
notorious terrorist organization. Bisonnette is an American
hero and deserves to be recognized for the sacrifices and duty
he gave for this country. n
No Easy Day:
The Firsthand Account of the Mission
That Killed Osama Bin Laden
Mark Owen with Kevin Maurer
Dutton Adult, 2012
Book Review
Bisonnette describes how the planners
built a replica of the Abbottabad com- pound to precise specifications from intel-
ligence reports, but since the interior was a
mystery, the SEALs saw countless configura-
tions of the inside during their preparation.
Even before Bisonnette published No Easy
Day, the Department of Defense met the
bok with erce opposition. The Pentagon sent
Bisonnette a letter demanding that the author
submit the book for vetting by the Depart-
ment of Defense due to the highly classiednature of its contents. Bisonnette refused.
7/29/2019 TDR 2.1.13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tdr-2113 12/12
February 4, 2013 The Dartmouth Review Page 12
EBAS.com
EBAS (proper noun):
Everything ButAnchovies, a Hanover
culinary institution whichdelivers pizza, chickensandwiches and otherlocal delicacies until
2:10 A.M. every night.The ultimate in
performance fuel.
603-643-6135
Barrett’s Mixology By Adam I. W. Schwartzman
You order a small coffee from a shop just off the Royal Mile. Excuse me,
you order a “Cafe Americano.”
The nice lady behind the counter, we’ll call her “Megan,” prepares it for you while you stare mindlessly at photographs of local ora & fauna on thebare stone walls.
Two minutes later she serves it up and move away from the counter to nd some milk and sugar. Bad decision: both are behind the counter.
So you get back in line and explain your error to Megan, who apologizes profusely, although with that Glaswegian accent she’s nearly impossible tounderstand. After another two minutes she serves you up a steaming Cafe Americano with milk and sugar.
But you forgot to tell her you wanted take away, you numbskull.
So once more you get in line and after one more circuitous explanation, she shoves a Cafe Americano across the counter, milk and sugar, for take away. Now here’s my question: is that the same small coffee you ordered at the
start?And now the answer: it doesn’t matter. You don’t even like Cafe Americano.The truth is, you need a hot drink if you’re going to make it all the way
across the Meadows without freezing to death. You’ve tried tea but you can-not stomach it, not without developing a nearly uncontrollable urge to tossbarrels of the stuff off a boat, anyway.
Coffee works, but it needs a bit of tinkering. Just a few minutes away is theliquor store on Thistle Street--you know, the one with the friendly shopkeep. He’ll sort you out with a good drinking scotch whisky. If you’re polite, he’ll even let you try a few extra on the house.
He’ll sort you out, all right.
gordon haff’s
the last word.
Compiled by Adam I. W. Schwartzman
One cup of coffee
A healthy pour of scotch whisky, preferably single malt
Milk & sugar to taste
Scottish Coffee
From the moment I picked up your book until I laid
it down I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I
intend to read it.
—Groucho Marx
The more that you read, the more things you will know.
The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.
—Dr. Seuss
You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a
book long enough to suit me.
—C.S. Lewis
What really knocks me out is a book that, when you’re
all done reading it, you wish the author that wrote
it was a terric friend of yours and you could call
him up on the phone whenever you felt like it. That
doesn’t happen much, though.
—J.D. Salinger
Readers may be divided into four classes:
1.) Sponges, who absorb all that they read and return
it in nearly the same state, only a little dirtied.
2.) Sand-glasses, who retain nothing and are content
to get through a book for the sake of getting through
the time.3.) Strain-bags, who retain merely the dregs of what
they read.
4.) Mogul diamonds, equally rare and valuable, who
prot by what they read, and enable others to prot
by it also.
—Samuel Taylor Coleridge
The books that the world calls immoral are books
that show the world its own shame.
—Oscar Wilde
Today a reader, tomorrow a leader.
—W. Fusselman
I declare after all there is no enjoyment like read-
ing! How much sooner one tires of any thing than of
a book! —When I have a house of my own, I shall be
miserable if I have not an excellent library.
—Jane Austen
Some books should be tasted, some devoured, but
only a few should be chewed and digested thoroughly.
—Cornelia Funke
You miss one hundred percent of the shots you never
take.
—Wayne Gretsky
Do not read, as children do, to amuse yourself, or like
the ambitious, for the purpose of instruction. No, read
in order to live.
—Gustave Flaubert
You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just
get people to stop reading them.
—Ray Bradbury
Until I feared I would lose it, I never loved to read.
One does not love breathing.
—Harper Lee
Books are a uniquely portable magic
—Stephen King
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends;
they are the most accessible and wisest of counsel-
lors, and the most patient of teachers.
—Charles W. Eliot
In the case of good books, the point is not to see how
many of them you can get through, but rather how
many can get through to you.
—Mortimer J. Adler
Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man,and writing an exact man.
—Francis Bacon
No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader. No
surprise in the writer, no surprise in the reader.
—Robert Frost
You think your pain and your heartbreak are un-
precedented in the history of the world, but then
you read. It was books that tought me that the things
that tormented me most were the very things that
connected me with all the people who were alive,
or who had ever been alive.
—James Baldwin
The world was hers for the reading.
—Betty Smith
Read, read, read. Read everything—trash, classics,
good and bad, and see how they do it. Just like a
carpenter who works as an apprentice and studies
the master. Read! You’ll absorb it. Then write. If
it’s good, you’ll nd out. If it’s not, throw it out of
the window.
—William Faulkner
Come hither, neighbor Seacole. God hath blessed you
with a good name: to be a well-favoured man is the
gift of fortune, but to write and read comes by nature.
—William Shakespeare