[HN Gopher] Lewis Lapham has died
___________________________________________________________________
Lewis Lapham has died
Author : benbreen
Score : 183 points
Date : 2024-07-30 04:26 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| mrmetanoia wrote:
| Loved his writing and curation. 89's a good run, but I'll miss
| him being around.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| RIP. His opening essays in Laphams Quarterly were forming for me.
| I have quite a few of them on my bookshelf. Thank you for your
| contributions to our world.
| bublyboi wrote:
| Thanks for mentioning Lapham's Quarterly, I'm reading past
| issues now. Any other reading recommendations?
| ineptech wrote:
| He wrote the "Notebook" column in Harper's magazine regularly
| for many years, and one of the very admirable things about
| Harper's is that the entire history of the magazine is (for
| subscribers) available in PDF. Here's everything Lapham
| published there: https://harpers.org/author/lewishlapham/
|
| And when I say entire history, I mean back to 1850 something.
| It's also indexed, subject tagged and searchable. If you
| search the archive for "Dickens" you'll see that several of
| his novels were published there originally in serial form,
| but you'll also find random non-fiction essays he published,
| as well as his contemporaries writing about him. It's kind of
| an extraordinary resource.
| agarren wrote:
| https://archive.is/gE4dW
| ccwu9999 wrote:
| I first encountered Lapham in the Notebook column of Harper's
| while avoiding studying in the magazine room at Uris Library.
| often Learned more about understanding the world from his
| missives than my coursework. He will be missed, the cliche of
| understanding the past is key to understanding the future was
| never more true.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| A couple people (myself included) vouched for your comment. You
| should email the mods (contact link at the bottom) since you
| seem to be shadowbanned. This was probably because your first
| actions after creating your account was to submit a link to
| (your own) substack. You probably got caught by the spam
| filter.
| muggermuch wrote:
| As a Harper's and Lapham's Quarterly subscriber, I have been a
| huge fan of his quirky editorial style.
|
| Specifically, I'd like to call out his podcast ("The World In
| Time"). Its past episodes remain treasure troves of wisdom, with
| LL's resonant voice asking the kind of engaging questions that
| are a rarity these days. Highly recommended.
| keiferski wrote:
| Lapham, along with Gore Vidal (who died in 2012) were really some
| of the last public intellectuals that were intelligent and
| qualified enough to have nuanced, insightful takes on 90% of
| issues. Lapham in particular is relevant to HN because he was
| from the old money of San Francisco, long before tech happened.
| The SF he grew up in doesn't exist anymore.
|
| Unfortunately one of the consequences of the ad and attention-
| based technocratic economy is that people like them aren't valued
| anymore. Making silly memes or offensive jokes gets you about 10x
| the attention, and as far as I can tell, every platform is
| optimized for this. Even the better ones like Substack end up
| being dominated by loud people with narrow viewpoints.
| anovikov wrote:
| I worked around it by moving the focus from online to printed
| press. Highly recommend. There's very little left online worth
| reading apart from niche indie websites that simply don't have
| enough audience to make them worthy of ensittifying.
| hyperbolablabla wrote:
| What printed publications do you recommend?
| anovikov wrote:
| Of course, that's individual, they have to fit one's
| worldview to be palatable. We are long past the time when a
| singular "objective truth" existed at all. For me for
| example, The Economist feels legit.
| RandomThoughts3 wrote:
| That's a weird take.
|
| A singular "objective truth" never existed. That's the
| basis of historiography.
|
| Publications can be "palatable" while not fitting one's
| "worldview". The goal of reading should be to be
| challenged. You can find interesting things anchored in
| many theoretical frameworks and I encourage people to
| read editorials spanning different political leanings.
|
| To answer the original comment, I personally read and
| enjoy The New Yorker and grab the LRB and the Economist
| from time to time on top of what I read in my native
| language.
| infecto wrote:
| There has never been an "objective truth". I suspect most
| people look back and think the news was cleaner when it
| reality it was not. There are still many publications
| worthy of a read.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| And of course the _Economist_ was literally created to
| promote free-market ideology:
|
| _PROSPECTUS of a weekly paper, to be published every
| Saturday, and to be called THE ECONOMIST, which will
| contain -- First.--ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which
| free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all
| the important questions of the day ..._
|
| <https://web.archive.org/web/20181105190846/https://www.e
| cono...>
| anovikov wrote:
| That's what i mean. Read something that aligns with your
| personal world. TIME feels too left-wing vs my own views,
| after reading half an issue i usually start feeling
| irritated. The Economist has same bias as myself so i
| find stuff there very logical and fitting my world.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Fair enough, though it wasn't clear to me on first read
| (and still isn't even after reading your clarification)
| on your initial comment.
|
| I'll also note that I find the _Economist_ to be among
| the _better_ sources I read, and its (broadly-advertised)
| advocacy isn 't as obnoxious as in some other pubs or
| institutions which come to mind.
| pillefitz wrote:
| I recently found https://thebaffler.com/ after watching an
| interview with its publisher, Thomas Frank, which resonated
| with me (left-leaning but anti-woke). I haven't read much
| of it to evaluate yet, though.
| disposition2 wrote:
| Harpers
| walthamstow wrote:
| If you live in the UK, Private Eye
|
| If you like soccer, The Blizzard
| cageface wrote:
| New York Review of Books is excellent.
|
| https://www.nybooks.com
| WalterBright wrote:
| I'm losing my faith in online documents. There seems to be
| entirely too much editing of the past to fit shifting
| narratives, filtered search results, and tweaked AI output.
|
| How long will it be before we can't believe any of it?
|
| And with books going obsolete, then what?
| keiferski wrote:
| Personally I've started collecting old encyclopedias.
| Especially ones from the early 20th century or so, before
| public relations/propaganda really developed into a
| dominant field.
| FredPret wrote:
| Paper encyclopedias are a joy of discovery. It was
| important to have a set on the shelf so as a kid I had a
| playing field where I could randomly open one up and find
| nothing but good content.
|
| The internet has slop, distractions, and pernicious
| falsehoods.
| Bluestein wrote:
| We are going "full-circle" back to printing press-
| discovery days, and then, further backwards, beyond.-
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Wikipedia is miles above the 80s encyclopedia collection
| my family had. There was only a single volume out of
| about 24, on things like science and mechanisms and STEM
| in general. The description of how heat pumps work, which
| included an entire page of diagrams that were straight up
| nonsensical, was so bad it took me until after college to
| undo the damage enough to actually understand the physics
| behind it.
|
| If you remember encyclopedias from before computers, 99%
| of the time you attempted to look something up, you found
| a singular paragraph, with no sources, barely introducing
| you to a topic. Even Microsoft Encarta on a bunch of CDs
| was that barren.
|
| Wikipedia has expanded the expected content and coverage
| of encyclopedias 10x, and has not significantly reduced
| accuracy despite a supposed "anyone can contribute"
| model.
|
| It's no coincidence in my life that I was constantly
| starving for knowledge until Wikipedia was created. Not
| that stumbling down wikipedia rabbit holes for hours on
| end made me a brilliant person or whatever, but it did
| give me a love for computing history and enough surface
| level knowledge to hang out around TheDailyWTF since I
| was 12, and that led to learning that I liked programming
| and a career in it that I definitely would not have found
| without wikipedia.
| fsckboy wrote:
| early 20th century dictionary: useful, enriching.
|
| early 20th century encyclopedia: useless, source of
| confusion.
| bookaway wrote:
| > Making silly memes or offensive jokes gets you about 10x the
| attention
|
| Ironically, the front section of Harper's featuring short
| tidbits and excerpts from random sources had a social-media-
| esque ADD vibe to it that made it feel edgy to aspiring and
| enlightened 20 year-olds. E.g. post 9-11 there was a list of
| songs banned from the radio ("it's raining men" etc.) sharing a
| page with a court transcript of a wiretapped conversation
| between a Mafia don to one of his stooges that wouldn't be out
| of place in an episode of the Sopranos.
|
| Lapham Quarterly also had that vibe -- I seem to remember a
| tongue-in-cheek visual on how many people Rambo killed in every
| Rambo movie.
|
| Now and then I see some people with thousands of followers on
| twitter mimic that style to great effect.
|
| The main difference is obviously how far down the rabbit hole
| they went with connecting two bits of random information, e.g
| being able to juxtapose a Don't Play list for the radio during
| modern times to a Don't Eat list from an edict in the Roman
| Empire during some plague.
| OtherwiseAddled wrote:
| You make a great point. Harper's own website acknowledges
| Lapham's contributions were done to add some breezier reads
| to the magazine:
|
| In 1984, Harper's Magazine was completely redesigned by
| editor Lewis H. Lapham and MacArthur...Recognizing the time
| constraints of the modern reader, the revived magazine
| introduced such original journalistic forms as the Harper's
| Index, Readings, and the Annotation to complement its
| acclaimed fiction, essays, and reporting.
| karlgkk wrote:
| One of the editors who worked with him has started a
| Bookstore/Bar called Clio's in Oakland. If you're interested in
| picking up a copy of the quarterly in person, check it out.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Lapham's Quarterly is great. Sad to hear about his passing. I
| also recall hearing that the publication would stop several
| months back but it seems like they're still going?
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Looks as if LQ _in print_ is on indefinite hiatus as of October
| 2023, though the online version continues to be updated AFAICT:
|
| <https://web.archive.org/web/20231129142353/https://www.lapha..
| .>
| AJRF wrote:
| Very sad to hear.
|
| Does anyone know where I could get issues of Laphams Quarterly in
| person in London?
|
| Anytime I look online the price is extortionate because it is
| coming from the US.
| keiferski wrote:
| Try MagCulture, although LQ might actually be too mainstream
| for them to carry.
|
| (They have an awesome podcast too, if you're interested in
| indie publishing: https://magculture.com/blogs/podcast)
| xenocratus wrote:
| Strangely (or maybe not?), we stumbled across Lapham's
| Quarterly in MAKEMAKECOFFEE next to Surrey Quays station. Also
| their coffee is amazing, so two reasons to go out of your way
| :)
|
| Edit: that was more than a year ago, though, so I'm not sure if
| they still carry it, but I'd hope so.
| AJRF wrote:
| Oh thanks - I will try that and report back!
| 5- wrote:
| https://www.mayhewnews.co.uk/ in belgravia at least used to
| stock the last issue or two. in fact it's where i've learned of
| lq!
| waciki wrote:
| It seems it's out of print:
|
| "Lapham's Quarterly was placed on an indefinite hiatus on
| November 3, 2023, citing "a combination of financial
| challenges". The most recent issue, titled "Energy", was
| released digitally."
| allturtles wrote:
| I was a Lapham's subscriber July 2021-July 2022, but found
| they were unable to actually put out an issue quarterly. In
| July 2022 when they had delivered only two issues of the four
| I subscribed for, they came back and tried to charge me a
| renewal for another year's subscription.
|
| I don't know what was happening internally, but it was just
| impossible for me to support them after that, and I imagine
| it was the beginning of the end for them.
| papa-whisky wrote:
| The same thing happened to me, unfortunately.
| tigerlily wrote:
| Next time I'm asked for an example of someone who was _prolific_
| , I'll say Lewis Lapham!
| afroisalreadyin wrote:
| I read Harper's Magazine for years without knowing who was behind
| it. The mixture of literary criticism, political analysis and in-
| depth reporting Lapham shaped was hard to top in terms of
| informativeness and calm inquisitiveness, something sorely
| missing from online media. The one piece of writing by Lapham
| that is etched into my mind is his introduction to McLuhan's
| Understanding Media [1], which helped me at last grasp how
| fundamental and unavoidable the "medium is the message" dictum
| is. RIP.
|
| [1]
| https://worrydream.com/refs/Lapham_1994_-_The_Eternal_Now.pd...
| pixelmonkey wrote:
| I am glad his "documentary film" got a mention.
|
| "In 2005, Mr. Lapham wrote and appeared in 'The American Ruling
| Class,' a documentary-style film featuring fictional characters
| as well as interviews with real celebrities, including Bill
| Bradley, Walter Cronkite, Pete Seeger, Robert Altman and Barbara
| Ehrenreich."
|
| Unfortunately as described it doesn't capture quite how unusual,
| innovative, and special this film is.
|
| It's a "dramatic-documentary-musical." A mixture of dramatic
| filmmaking, documentary filmmaking, and even some elements of
| musical.
|
| Its main topic/idea is to show two promising college students on
| graduation day, one pursuing a career of money and power (in high
| finance) and the other pursuing art (via writing). Lapham uses
| this lens to analyze all aspects of American society from a class
| and power direction. Mainly to show the draw of power and
| conformity for the college-educated elite, and the way a
| struggling working class subsidizes their ambitions with their
| labor.
|
| In the film, Lapham himself is both a narrator and a principal,
| acting as a mentor to one of the two "characters," who are played
| by actors, but thrown into conversation with real people,
| including some people holding powerful positions, and some
| intellectual celebrities.
|
| Ehrenreich, who had recently completed the book "Nickel and
| Dimed" (2001), in which she goes "undercover" as the working
| poor, has a role in the film, too. She "plays" the role of a
| worker at a restaurant, and she and the other workers, at one
| point, break out in song, a song titled "Nickel and Dimed." I
| read a review of this movie that called this scene "divine
| madness," and I agree.
|
| This is one of a small collection of movies I have on DVD,
| because it's so small and interesting as a film, that I rewatch
| it from time to time. I sometimes struggle to find it on
| streaming networks or online. It acts as a little bit of a life
| decoder for me, since I grew up as a public school educated child
| of immigrants with not-that-much class awareness, graduated from
| a top college around the time the film was made, got recruited to
| work on Wall Street (much as the film portrays in its opening
| scenes), then left a Wall Street job after 3 years to co-found
| and work on a tech startup for many years.
|
| Anyway, I was influenced by a lot of Lapham's work, especially
| his moral clarity in anti-war writing during the Iraq War years.
| But this one little film really stuck with me. RIP, Lewis Lapham.
| js2 wrote:
| > I sometimes struggle to find it on streaming networks or
| online.
|
| It's currently on the Internet Archive:
|
| https://archive.org/details/the-american-ruling-class
| pixelmonkey wrote:
| Interesting. Uploaded on: 2023-11-27. I wonder if that's
| actually a legal upload, though. Also seems to currently be
| available as a $3 rental on YouTube US in SD quality:
|
| https://youtu.be/4uGSmnRYe48
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| That is sad. I really feel the world needs curmudgeons like this.
| Especially, now.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| LQ's own LL obit:
| <https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/lewis-h-lapham-1...>
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_H._Lapham
| feedforward wrote:
| Lapham: "America in 1957, I sought enlistment in the CIA and sat
| for an interview with a credentials committee...prepared for
| nothing less, I had spent the days prior to the interview reading
| about Lenin's train...the width of the Fulda Gap, the depth of
| the Black Sea. None of the study was called for. Instead of being
| asked about the treaties of Brest-Litovsk or the October
| Revolution, I was asked...questions bearing on my social
| qualifications for admission into what the young men at the far
| end of the table clearly regarded as the best fraternity on the
| campus of the free world:
|
| 'When standing on the thirteenth tee at the National Golf Links
| in Southampton, which club does one take from the bag? On final
| approach under sail into Hay Harbor on Fishers Island, what is
| the direction (at dusk in late August) of the prevailing wind?'"
| mtalantikite wrote:
| Wow, I had no idea his great-grandfather was one of the founders
| of Texaco. I guess that's how you get the money and time to start
| a publication! I subscribed to Harpers and the first few years of
| LQ when I was in college/early-20s. I wonder how I'd like it
| these days, but I appreciate what it did for me in those earlier
| years of development.
| ghaff wrote:
| There are probably a fair number of these smaller premium
| publications that have existed in no small part because they're
| being bankrolled by some wealthy person as, if not quite a
| hobby, certainly adjacent to it.
| mtalantikite wrote:
| Oh, for sure. The first that comes to mind is the lit
| magazine and publisher Catapult, which was founded by a Koch
| heir. There are lots of others.
| fotta wrote:
| Another is Quanta magazine, funded by the Simons
| Foundation, funded by Jim Simons (RIP)
| velcrovan wrote:
| Always loved this story about Lewis Lapham getting a bit of
| revenge: https://thelocalyarn.com/article/mr-lapham-gets-his-way
| nrh wrote:
| Listen to his charming and deeply entertaining story of his early
| years at SF Examiner, told at The Moth in 1999:
| https://themoth.org/stories/rookie-reporter
|
| 15 minutes you won't regret!
| csours wrote:
| I wonder if there's going to be a social cycle where every 80
| years we have to FAFO why authoritarianism is not such a good
| idea after all.
|
| It's easy to say something like 'War am Bad", but are you willing
| to be civil to sh*theads?
| complianceowl wrote:
| I think a big problem we're facing is that there are competing
| definitions of what authoritarianism means. The Left says it's
| one thing, the Right says it's another. Even when politicians
| are confronted with the most concrete, indisputable facts on
| live television, they simply respond, "That's not true", and
| their "side", drowning in truth-averting ideology, responds
| with thunderous applause.
|
| I do believe that FAFO moment is coming, but it's going to come
| as a surprise to the folks that distorted the definition of
| authoritarianism and employed it as a dishonest attack against
| everyone who simply disagreed with their opinion.
| ebiester wrote:
| "Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the
| rejection of democracy and political plurality. It involves
| the use of strong central power to preserve the political
| status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of
| powers, and democratic voting." - Wikipedia is probably good
| enough here.
|
| Both-sidesism doesn't work here. Only one side is trying to
| make democratic voting more difficult, and it isn't the
| American liberals. Only one side is arguing that the rule of
| law should not apply to politicians in power, and it isn't
| the American liberals.
|
| You can make an argument that liberals are weaponizing social
| opinion, and you can completely critique liberals for a lot
| of things, but authoritarianism is disingenuous.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-30 23:01 UTC)