February 11, 2008
The Hope of Audacity
Many years of research have convinced me of the usefulness of the following rule of thumb: if the title of a book or article makes as much (or as little) sense when you randomly permute the words in it, then that book/article is not worth reading. Examples: ‘The Silence of the Lambs’; ‘The Lambs of the Silence’ would work just as well. Or: ‘Profiles in Courage’ could easily have been ‘Courage in Profiles’.
The time-saving value of this rule came back to me as I thumbed once again recently through two books written by Barack Obama, the front runner in the race for the nomination as Democratic Party candidate in the forthcoming US presidential elections.
His first book’s title is (subtitles are too difficult): ‘Dreams from my Father’. Clearly, ‘Father from my Dreams’ makes as much sense. The second book’s title is: ‘The Audacity of Hope’. Once again, ‘The Hope of Audacity’ makes as much sense. The vacuousness of these titles is exceeded only by their pretentiousness. I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
Rocks from the Lesson
One Archbishop for the cheer
Rehabilitate, educate, legalize and regulate
Peddling beef, change and hope but no dreams
No! Stop me before Buiter, entrapping me in a Cretan paradox, convinces me Buiter isn’t worth reading.
Tony
Posted by: tony curzon price (openDemocracy, London) | February 11th, 2008 at 4:33 pm | Report this commentWhat about “Faith of my Fathers” by John McCain then?
Posted by: JMQ | February 11th, 2008 at 4:36 pm | Report this commentTo JMQ: You are quite right. I have not read ‘Fathers of my Faith’, but it is a perfect example. Politicians should only write books when they are retired, and even then they should limit themselves to historical themes not involving themselves.
Posted by: Willem H. Buiter | February 11th, 2008 at 6:25 pm | Report this commentTo your conclusion that the vacuousness of these titles is exceeded only by their pretentiousness, I would add one thing: their pretentiousness is exceeded only by yours.
Posted by: John B. | February 11th, 2008 at 7:15 pm | Report this commentIn order to be comprehended, the books have to be read in sequel:
First permutation:
The Audacity of Dreams
Hope from my Father
Second permutation, after which it’s perfect:
Dreams of Hope
The Audacity of my Father.
Father, hope from my audacity. Dreams!
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | February 11th, 2008 at 7:28 pm | Report this commentOh Stop it Buiter! What the odds are of someone with Mr. Obama’s history getting to where he has in progressive Europe. He didn’t write the book for everybody but there’s very little that’s pretentious about the story of his life and search for identity.
If you’re married to a woman, turn to her and say something that assumes male superiority as a fact and if she sits there and fumes, tell her she’s being pretentious. People who didn’t win the ovarian lottery struggle against many invisible barriers to achieve equal status in life. I’d hazard a guess that you’re obviously too old, too male, too white, too educated and elitist European to know otherwise.
Posted by: dandi | February 11th, 2008 at 8:34 pm | Report this commentBy that logic, the title of your article when permuted to ‘audacity of hope’ makes as much (or as little) “sense”. I guess your article is gibberish as well.
PS: I don’t know what your definition of ‘making sense’ is however. If you ask me honestly then hope of audacity does not make any sense compared to audacity of hope, but well, you yourself disagree!.
Posted by: Vivek Gupta | February 11th, 2008 at 11:13 pm | Report this commentWell lets see.
1) War and Peace — Peace and War
2) A hundred years of solitude– Solitude of a hundred years
3) A tale of two cities– Two cities of a tale
There may be quite a few classics slipping through the cracks of your ‘Rule of Thumb’.
Posted by: Vivek Gupta | February 11th, 2008 at 11:30 pm | Report this commentIf you wanted to say that Obama’s books are empty of ideas and pretentious you should have just stated that and give specific examples that would support your argument. In that case we would could understand how you reached your conclusions, and we would also have a chance to judge for ourselves. However, by writing these really strange comments you only weaken your arguments (if you have any). I hope your next commentary will be more constructive.
Posted by: Achilleas | February 11th, 2008 at 11:41 pm | Report this commentThere is a market for pretentiousness, look at a Murdoch newspaper and see that when writers’ block strikes, making the reader feel like a high-minded lord attempting to understand the failings of the underclass is an obviously successful formula. My own crapometer allows for some failings by an author while appreciating an idea that otherwise would not have got out. I find that technical proficiency is often at the expense of elegant writing and vice versa.
Posted by: Tom | February 12th, 2008 at 12:10 am | Report this commentAnd consider yourself lucky that people care enough about your writings to whack you when you write rubbish!
Posted by: Domi | February 12th, 2008 at 12:46 am | Report this comment>>>The vacuousness of these titles is exceeded only by their pretentiousness.<<<
Thank you kind sir, for putting into such precise words exactly how I feel. About your article.
What a silly, pointless, piece of mindless fluff.
Posted by: SG | February 12th, 2008 at 1:32 am | Report this commentOf course it makes no sense to you, you corporate hack. How about some analysis of his ideas? Duh.com
Posted by: Matt | February 12th, 2008 at 3:07 am | Report this commentWhat is by far more important on Mr. Barack Hussein Obama’s titles of books and his cammpaign topics and above all the shear strength of support (not only how many people get involved and how many go vote but in $$$ raised) is how apparently DESPERATE with business as usual many middle calss and educated folks in the US are.
Therefore they bet on Mr Obama and his message of change. Actually, he looks like instopable as Hillary looks to many rather “reasonable” in her ability …. to continue in business as usual.
As Mr. McCain is deeply linked to continuation of war in Iraq and it is clearly Democrats turn to get the White House, Mr. McCain will inevitably crack up and more then once in the general election. He will not be able to stay on par with his Democratic oponent. And the real money - not the one which went to Obama’s campaign - are starting to think (hard) what to do when “THAT” happened:
i.e. to have half African-American the Commander in Chief.
All that settled, the only question is if Bill and Hillary will settle for the VP’s post and residence. Actually, learning a lesson or two, they might. After all “first female VP” also makes history.
Posted by: Sidney Rosenblum | February 12th, 2008 at 3:29 am | Report this commentA common tactic of the academic bully about to release pithy and worthless statements is the utterance of the phrase “many years of research..”. This phrase is usually followed by hogwash that is meant to pass as pearls of wisdom.
You are entitled to your opinion of Mr. Obama but to base that on child’s play such as transposing words from book titles shows the dearth of knowledge your many years of research have produced.
Posted by: Ogunseitan | February 12th, 2008 at 4:37 am | Report this commentThe nature of the title seems to suggest that it came from a consulting firm. “Hope” of course is a feel good word that any potential president would want to convey in their campaign, while “Audacity” is a word that embodies part of Obama’s strategy; not in literal meaning, but by the mere that fact that a slight majority of Americans would be sent scrambling for a dictionary were they pressed to define it. Part of his strategy is to portray himself as articulate and intelligent, qualities that are beaten out of any other presidential candidate by advisors who cringe at the mention of any word beyond remedial the high school English level or discussion of an issue with meaningful depth for fear of alienating most Americans. Despite the lack of sincerity, I can at least appreciate Obama for bringing a marginally higher level of discourse to the American presidential election.
Posted by: iustus | February 12th, 2008 at 5:47 am | Report this commentI like the book “Policy of Principles and Financial Budgetary” myself.
http://www.nber.org/%7Ewbuiter/public.htm
Posted by: otto | February 12th, 2008 at 9:46 am | Report this commentLighten up, people! Give the prof a break; it’s tiring to keep on producing insightful comments day in day out, so once in a while, a fluff of a rant is cheap relief.
Posted by: Pierre | February 12th, 2008 at 10:52 am | Report this commentIn any case, Buiter’s rule of thumb is quite funny, and reminds me of a French one, where you introduce ‘entre les bras’ after the first word (or clause) and ‘entre les jambes’ after the second (’…between the arms,…between the legs’ for the non-francophone). ‘Audacity of hope’ gets a pretty funny treatment there, too. War and Peace, too, for that matter…
well done. you’ve just won the award for Moronic Blog Post of the Week. ‘Peace and War’ indeed.
Posted by: abcdarian | February 12th, 2008 at 11:28 am | Report this commentI guess Butler “Judges a book by its title”. That such a piece of nonsense can appear in the Financial Times is food for thought. John Maynard Keynes books would make Butler’s list of moronic books. Oops what about “Alchemy of Finance” … “Finance of Alchemy” or Gregory Bateson’s “Angels Fear” could be called “Fear Angels”.
Posted by: Shawn Andrew | February 12th, 2008 at 12:42 pm | Report this commentIt is such fluff that it raises emotive responses from me. I hope this was just something he conjured up while on a journey through solipsism. It is not worthy of the high esteem we place on the Financial Times.
Definitely, the Prof is not colour blind or maybe these days even fools have something to say.
Posted by: Prof Tanya Jafah | February 12th, 2008 at 2:57 pm | Report this commentI second Pierre. When did John Bolton and Gordon Brown start posting here? Go get some sun folks before it is too late. If you are desperately in need of a penetrating blog to read this morning check out Larry Politic$ Money Kudlow.
Posted by: Thomas | February 12th, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Report this commentMr. Buiter, you’re an academic and intellectual bully (I agree with Mr. S. Rosenbaum above) who has used your position to write the piece of drivel above, which attempts to inject additional cynicism into American political culture. We have quite enough of it already and it is precisely that cynicism that Sen. Obama is attempting to – and succeeding at - overcoming. The book was not addressed to you and your ilk - to cynical, elitist, European (or American, for that matter) functionaries - but to beaten down, near desperate Americans battling deprivation, the likes of which you may not be familiar with, but which require not just technocratic solutions, but spiritual ones as well. So we will ignore your ‘pearls of wisdom’ spooned out so generously to the masses from your perch in society and choose to allow ourselves to be inspired by a man wise beyond his years trying change people’s circumstances and not just commentate on them.
Posted by: Peter Cook | February 12th, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this commentThe comment Willem himself raises is vacuous and devoid of content. You’re judging several hundred pages by the title? By what standard, apart from self-aggrandisement, is that a good analysis? Would you make your investments based on how much the company name tells you about a company’s function?
Congratulations, Willem, you Maverecon you… you have produced a commentary worthy of Paris Hilton with slightly better grammar.
Posted by: eric filson | February 12th, 2008 at 5:17 pm | Report this commentPeter Cook: “not just technocratic solutions, but spiritual ones as well…and choose to allow ourselves to be inspired by a man wise beyond his years…”
Behold the Kingdom is near! We’re the ones we’ve been waiting for!
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | February 12th, 2008 at 6:51 pm | Report this commentWoah, people took this amusing piece far too seriously. Mr. Buiter can correct me if I’m wrong, but when I read “if the title of a book or article makes as much (or as little) sense when you randomly permute the words”, I assumed the rule of thumb is designed to deal with dubious or apparently meaningless titles. One explanation for this phenomenon could be that, given that the publishers wanted certain words in the title (e.g. “hope”, “audacity”…), they found that no matter how they used them, they always ended up with a meaningless phrase, so they just chose one at random. ‘Dreams from my Father’ is just as hopeless (hoho…) a title as ‘The Audacity of Hope’, and I thank Mr. Buiter for saying what needs to be said about these abominations.
Posted by: Robert Byrne | February 12th, 2008 at 8:13 pm | Report this commentMr. Cohen-Seban, you can choose to read more into the word spirtual as you wish, but no one is advocating Sen. Obama for Savior. His clear-eyed supporters are simply aware that hope is required for people to overcome the fear and loathing that we have been force-fed for 7 years, which, if let to rule our decisions, will take our country far from its core values. And Mr. Byrne, the only abomination under discussion here is how lightly Mr. Buiter takes Sen. Obama and other Americans’ aspirations to escape the crippling cyncism that infects us that he would pass off snarky rules of thumb as meaningful.
Posted by: Peter Cook | February 12th, 2008 at 8:52 pm | Report this commentWillem,
I recommend you concentrate on slagging off central-bankers in the future. Bernanke, King and Trichet don’t have as many fanatical supporters, and little to do with hope or audacity.
Posted by: Frank | February 12th, 2008 at 10:57 pm | Report this comment‘Lambs of the Silence’ would not make sense given the movie. “The Silence of the Lambs” is implied by an important scene in the movie.
The title importantly summarizes a scene where Clarice, female agent in charge of investigating a serial killer, reveals to the genius-cannibal psychologist Dr. Quinn (who happens to be important because he understands the psychology of serial killers because he is one himself) that as a young girl she lived on a farm that slaughtered sheep. The lambs always screamed when their necks were being slit and Clarice revealed that her only peace was when they stopped. At some point she ran away with a lamb to try to save it.
Dr Quinn:
Your lambs are still for now, Clarice,
but not forever… You’ll have to earn
it again and again, this blessed silence.
Because it’s the plight that drives you,
and the plight will never end.
The final line in this important scene spoken by Dr. Quinn (who at this point is on the lam..har har pun intended) has double meaning. “Your lambs are still now..but not forever” meaning all the people Clarice is trying to save by catching the serial killer and Dr. Quinn are not currently being murdered, yet there will come a time when more murdered bodies will turn up. “You’ll have to earn it again and again this blessed silence” meaning that the silence will be continually disrupted by people being killed. “It’s the plight that drives you and the plight will never end.” Again, people will always be killed and there’s no avoiding it.
Dr. Quinn cleverly analyzes Clarice’s psyche and realizes that the reason she became an agent in charge of hunting serial killers stems from her childhood trauma of hearing and watching lambs get slaughtered. Her lambs now are people and for her peace she wants them to be silent.
So again, “Lambs of the Silence” would most definitely not make sense. I am not sure about those other ones.
Posted by: Mark Bulmer | February 13th, 2008 at 3:59 pm | Report this commentTo Mark Bulmer: thank you very much for this most helpful exegesis. Let me try to defend “Lambs of the silence” as an equally if not more appropriate title for Harris’s book. Clarice’s only peace was when the lambs stopped screaming and became silent. But that happened only when they were dead. So there is no hope for her. The screaming lambs scream in fear. The lambs of the silence are dead. All is vain & futile. Rather existentialist/Camus/Ecclesiastes.
Posted by: Willem Buiter | February 13th, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this commentTo Willem Buiter: I think you should use energy in more useful discuss.
Posted by: Prof Tanya Jafah | February 13th, 2008 at 8:10 pm | Report this commentI said they were screaming because they’re getting their necks slit…you said they’re screaming because they’re scared…it’s all the same because they end up being killed which is what Clarice is trying to prevent…like I said in my “exegesis” (rich vocabulary but I’d prefer to call it a “literary analysis” since I actually read the text of the play) the lambs are representative of people Clarice is trying to save by being an FBI agent…and I agree it is futile like I said earlier:
You’ll have to earn it again and again, this blessed silence.
My beef is with the following quip you put in: “if the title of a book or article makes as much (or as little) sense when you randomly permute the words in it, then that book/article is not worth reading.”
As little sense?? Willem really I thought you would have known what the title was about…or perhaps you were referring to the other books…You should qualify your earlier statement by: “If the title makes as much sense, as little, or PERFECT sense.”
Posted by: mark.bulmer@mail.mcgill.ca | February 13th, 2008 at 8:41 pm | Report this commentLambs of the Silence…is a stretch because it’s a mouthful…I think Lambs of Silence would fly.
Posted by: mark.bulmer@mail.mcgill.ca | February 13th, 2008 at 8:53 pm | Report this commentThis is a recording…(sorry about the double-post)…Are you sure it’s not worth reading? The movie with Anthony Hopkins at least was decent…Just from what we talked about two valuable lessons were learned:
1) killing never stops…we are all potential lambs
Posted by: Mark Bulmer | February 13th, 2008 at 9:07 pm | Report this comment2) people’s lives can be shaped dramatically by early influences.
I can see we are trying hard to exchange contacts, ass-licking? I should be laughing my ass out, as they would say.So lame, is that what they teach in Mcgill these days? But the point is that a “supposed to be knowledgeable” “prof” would attempt to feed the public with such despicable “thumb rule”.
If he does not like Obama he should simply say so.
Posted by: Prof Tanya Jafah | February 13th, 2008 at 9:41 pm | Report this commentCoincidentally (or not so coincidentally) I came across the list of Time Magazine’s top 100 novels of all time. This is the list of books just in the A-B whose titles can be permuted and still make sense.
Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret–It’s me Margaret, Are you there god?
Blood Meridian–Meridian Blood
Brideshead Revisited–Revisited Brideshead
The Confessions of Nat Turner–The Nat Turner Confessions
Animal Farm–Farm Animal
….
Posted by: mark bulmer | February 14th, 2008 at 12:40 pm | Report this comment