From The Truth About Shylock by Shakespeare authority Bernard Grebanier:
"Shakespeare was later, in Measure for Measure, to write a play in which one of the wickedest men he ever created, Angelo, postures to himself as a model of rectitude-- and convinces almost everyone else that he is too-- only because he has never done anything in his life which is against the law. When his betrothed was left dowerless he jilted her and wrecked the girl's life. But there is no law against doing that, and hence he feels beyond blame for it. He has refrained from doing any act that might have landed him in jail: according to his lights, therefore, he is a good man.
This conception of virtue has always been far from uncommon. Yet a man might commit dreadful crimes every day of his life and still keep safely within the limits of the law. The greatest crimes are those against the souls of other human beings; for many of these crimes there are no possible legal punishments. This purely negative idea of goodness-- that one is good as long as he does nothing illegal-- enables many a scoundrel to look down his nose at his neighbor."
When reading this quote I'm reminded not only of the Roger D. Hodge letter, but of the actions of Rick Moody in corrupting the grants process so that philanthropic funds are awarded to very wealthy people. Strictly legal, maybe, but actions against the memory of those folks (like the Guggenheims) who set aside the money for the doing of good in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This is Tom Bissell.
I'm not afraid of you.
You're afraid of me.
Stop picking on Harpers or you're really gonna be sorry.
We'll run an article on you and your organization, and Harpers is far more repected than the Believer.
--TB
An interesting little drama has been enacted within the lit world since the ULA arrived on the scene. I find many of the demi-puppets analogous to the Muscadins and "Gilded Youth" of Thermidor, who look with instinctive disdain at the sansculottes of the ULA. They react against historical change. Choire Sicha and others fit this description very readily.
"Stop picking on Harpers or you're really gonna be sorry.
"We'll run an article on you and your organization, and Harpers is far more repected than the Believer."
Well, if the above actually was written by Tom Bissell, it's an interesting threat: "Stop picking on me for my dishonest attack against you in the Believer, or I'll use the far more influential Harper's as a soapbox to make another dishonest attack against you."
Bissell should stick to writing cribbed pieces about places remote enough that nobody can fact-check his ass; but then, does Harper's even use factcheckers any more?
Post a Comment