Dear Mr Cummings. Some years ago I read your 'Some Thoughts on Education and Political Priorities'. I thought it was one of the quite most brilliant things I had ever read. Since then I have followed much of your writing and continue to marvel at not only the range of your reading and insight, but also the way you are able to synthesise it into a plan of action (or outline of action). In other words, I like to think I get it. (Indeed, i did but wonder if i was one of those mavericks you were seeking out when you were at Number 10). But I do wonder whether or not your personalisation of issues - as per the above post - is not being count-productive not only to you as an individual, but also in terms of preventing your ideas from getting traction. Revenge is a dish best served cold. Do what you have to do, but perhaps it is better if you are not seen to be doing it.
Thanks - but there was no attempt at a Boris/Boris analogy! They're actually extremely different characters! One is controlled, disciplined, careful, adapting, strategic... The other... not so much!
Fair enough. But I stand by this quote: "I've carved the puppet, and I manipulate the strings, but while its on stage, the show belongs to the puppet." And the puppeteer is nowhere to be seen.
I recommend CS Lewis's brilliant essay on "The Inner Ring", which takes as its starting-point the Tolstoy passage about the "hidden code". Lewis develops his insights about how power is deployed in institutions in his sci-fi novel "That Hideous Strength". Something Lewis is particularly good at identifying is the way that devotion to the "hidden code" drives out, not just competence, but friendship.
Hi Dom -- great post; glad to see some appreciation of Russian lit. "Occasionally there is someone in politics who is also a brilliant artist" made me think of Disraeli. Have you read any of his stuff -- and if so, what are your thoughts
Some fiction arises from an abreaction to the world and serves as an absorption, a distraction. Other writing attempts and, rarely, succeeds in drawing some understanding from the world into fictional form. A form that can have a power greater than an average reader can extract from mere absorption in the original field of discourse, with all its lack of bounds, and its necessary entailment in a world that continues to arise volcanically from its unspent energies.
The trick is to distinguish between the two kinds of fiction, I think. And that is an art, or at least a skill, in itself.
Because fiction although a “story” as opposed to factual, has much to tell us about people, behaviours, expectations and the culture at that time, some of which can be mirrored today. Authors cannot but bring to their narratives their own understanding and experiences of the world around them at the time they write. Where facts are of course of paramount importance, to gain a rounded understanding of any historical fact requires empathy; understanding why people behaved the way they did, what factors, personal and cultural influenced those decisions. In much the same way we frequently talk about common sense as though it is universal and static, but it is frequently only true for where you live and the era you live in. What was common sense to Jane Austin would in most instances be vastly different to perceived common sense today. In many ways reading a Jane Austin novel offers more understanding of that era than any factual history book. Events change, ideas change, common sense changes, but people, their characters and their motivations seldom do.
Well said. Cross-cultural understanding is significantly enhanced by reading their fiction. 'The Outlaws of the Marsh' offers a window to the Chinese you'd struggle to find in textbooks. Similarly so for understanding that Japanese via 'The tale of Genji'. The books that sell well with women reveal much about feminine nature. Fiction is a side-channel to truth.
Furthermore, if you can gain insights as to what drives or has driven events, you are then empowered with a greater understanding of how to change or improve ongoing events. With an open mind and a flexible and empathetic brain we can learn much from facts and fiction.
There's a subset of fiction that is non-fiction with the names changed to avoid non-disclosure agreements and secrecy laws. There's a lot of information that can be gleaned if you have enough pieces of the puzzle.
Great! Would love to hear your thoughts on Dostoyevsky too... (though he doesn't do politics quite so explicitly so maybe not your thing). They wrote so much great stuff between them that I think it would be possible not to read any other fiction ever and still not be bored.
Bare in mind... When I met someone in a pub who was doing this they looked so utterly despondent I could barely speak to them. Times may have changed. I guess the book has not.
"It’s amazing that the Tsarist regime allowed War and Peace to be published. Does anybody know if there were discussions about banning it? " - He did not have problems to publish its pieces in a respectable journal and then pay for and publish 5000 copies of the book. In the 1860s the attention of the censors in Russia was directed to less neutral/more radical journals such as Sovremennik and novels such as What to do? by Chernyshevsky.
Joking aside, I think I like posts like these more than the quotidian political ones. It's like the Jeremy Clarkson meme where he pats the car: "This is brilliant - but I *like* this." While I find the political posts interesting, I never quite know what to ask.
The book posts feel more universal. Everyone is walking the same road from birth to death. The classics are a kind of shared stop along the way, like an extremely slow paced and personal internet message board avant la lettre ("Did you feel this?" "Yes! I did -" "No, that's not it at all -"). I recognise the moments and the situations you talk about.
That shock of recognition is not very common. I'm always on the look out for it, or clues to where it can be found. I have felt it in Thucydides, in the Eyrbyggja saga, in Beowulf, in Pushkin, in Shakespeare. And (although this involves saying something a bit 'déclassé' by the norms of English intellectual culture) I have found it in films and in video games too.
I'm going to want to come back to this post once I have read a bit more Tolstoy. He was friends (sort of) with Ilya Repin, and Repin was an incredible painter, so it feels a bit remiss not to have read anything by him.
One final thing - do you think the fellow who bowed to you elaborately was taking the piss? Or was he inviting you to play?
a part joke that is repeated so often it's sorta real, and can be turned into a joke if someone comments - in what sort of environment is that normal?!
Yes.. when I was in the Home Office in 2005 (I think) and one Civil Servant (I assume) would stride in actually wearing a bowler hat and carrying a slim elegant umbrella. Hmm.. yes, seriously?!
Marsham St had just opened to a lot of fanfare. Charles Clarke was famously too rotund to fit through the revolting door entrance. It was fun to smile with the Security Guards who evidently got a kick out of the design. An.y.how it’s nice to see it is still standing (just).
Fascinating stuff. Admittedly I've never read it - only watched the BBC adaptation, which I adored as a Tolstoy novice. I was cross-referencing the names you mentioned with the characters from that. Did you rate that as a faithful adaptation, out if interest?
I have some travelling to do, so I'll certainly be adding W&P to the reading list for that.
In an absolute monarchy the favour of the Monarch is the obvious favour to seek. In modern Britain who/what is the source of these favours? From whom does Tony Blair seek favour from , for example ?
Dominic, I've only recently started to read your pieces here, and I must apologise for having misjudged you, fwiw. I had simply thought you were a brilliant technocrat's technocrat, focussed entirely on excellence but with little evidence of a moral compass. Sorry, but I'm prone to making snap judgements on little evidence in a world where I feel compelled to spend much of my time reading myself into a vast universe of potentially valid, but also possibly 'bad' resources - up to the point of lunacy in some cases.
I see now that you are not at all untouched by morality, even though you evidently prefer to use its weasel subsidiary, 'ethics', in your usual discourse. You have a broader claim to leadership than I had thought. Thank you for this piece - Tolstoy it is, then..
I am very new to trying to understand history in a deeper way to help me gain perspective in 2022 now that Plagues and Wars seem like a repeating pattern rather than the stuff of exam revision. There is zero false modesty here, I am from a genuinely challenging background that led to my life from the age of 14 or so being driven by chasing financial security then binging on all the excesses that numb the gaps between being stretched to the very limit. I am genuinely none the wiser yet as to whether a successful political leadership, in real meaningful terms, is about evolving the most constructive story for a nation to aim to make true, or simply coming up with the story most voters would go along with, whether it is likely to take us forward in meaningful terms. There is something about Orwell’s messaging, or at least as far as I perceive it at roughly O Level standard, that human nature will ultimately deliver all the story designs to outcomes that prove we are a flawed species in conclusion, no matter whether the intentions were idealistic or pragmatic at the start? It still very much seems like our nation likes Boris if he tells lies that suit us but less so if he tells lies that do not? I am early with Tolstoy having started with the Redemption one but so far in the translation reads more like Wodehouse indulging a tease about posh folks, or is that really the only therapy any of us really get ie the only way to avoid spontaneous combustion is to take the piss out of the toffs? X
Hi Dominic, I think you should read “The responsibility of intellectuals” by Chomsky...no provocation intended. Another one that may be interesting is “The beginning of the end” by Tolstoy
Crickey.. does anyone actually need to read Chomsky IN THE ORIGINAL? Don’t we just hear about LAD and thing yeah, that’s accurate. The politics can be put to one side.
Dear Mr Cummings. Some years ago I read your 'Some Thoughts on Education and Political Priorities'. I thought it was one of the quite most brilliant things I had ever read. Since then I have followed much of your writing and continue to marvel at not only the range of your reading and insight, but also the way you are able to synthesise it into a plan of action (or outline of action). In other words, I like to think I get it. (Indeed, i did but wonder if i was one of those mavericks you were seeking out when you were at Number 10). But I do wonder whether or not your personalisation of issues - as per the above post - is not being count-productive not only to you as an individual, but also in terms of preventing your ideas from getting traction. Revenge is a dish best served cold. Do what you have to do, but perhaps it is better if you are not seen to be doing it.
Thanks - but there was no attempt at a Boris/Boris analogy! They're actually extremely different characters! One is controlled, disciplined, careful, adapting, strategic... The other... not so much!
Fair enough. But I stand by this quote: "I've carved the puppet, and I manipulate the strings, but while its on stage, the show belongs to the puppet." And the puppeteer is nowhere to be seen.
I recommend CS Lewis's brilliant essay on "The Inner Ring", which takes as its starting-point the Tolstoy passage about the "hidden code". Lewis develops his insights about how power is deployed in institutions in his sci-fi novel "That Hideous Strength". Something Lewis is particularly good at identifying is the way that devotion to the "hidden code" drives out, not just competence, but friendship.
thanks will read
https://www.lewissociety.org/innerring/
I just read it. Thank you. I have only ever read his Mere Christianity before. Great to receive recommendations in these posts.
Message received loud and clear.
I think I recognised a lot of that behaviour in PMQ today. Once you see Boris’ and all those who play along with his deception, you can’t un see it.
Hi Dom -- great post; glad to see some appreciation of Russian lit. "Occasionally there is someone in politics who is also a brilliant artist" made me think of Disraeli. Have you read any of his stuff -- and if so, what are your thoughts
i studied him a bit but never read his novels
I am a person who just dismisses reading fiction.
Why am I wrong?
Because I am the true embodiment of wisdom on this earth Eugene.
This may be the Cummings substack but make no mistake, I am the silverback Gorilla around here
Maybe you are dismissing fiction as fantasy with no relevance to the real world?
Some fiction arises from an abreaction to the world and serves as an absorption, a distraction. Other writing attempts and, rarely, succeeds in drawing some understanding from the world into fictional form. A form that can have a power greater than an average reader can extract from mere absorption in the original field of discourse, with all its lack of bounds, and its necessary entailment in a world that continues to arise volcanically from its unspent energies.
The trick is to distinguish between the two kinds of fiction, I think. And that is an art, or at least a skill, in itself.
Have u read the bible ? :)
Fiction can be good, beautiful and true. A literary diet lacking in such is a poor one.
Because fiction although a “story” as opposed to factual, has much to tell us about people, behaviours, expectations and the culture at that time, some of which can be mirrored today. Authors cannot but bring to their narratives their own understanding and experiences of the world around them at the time they write. Where facts are of course of paramount importance, to gain a rounded understanding of any historical fact requires empathy; understanding why people behaved the way they did, what factors, personal and cultural influenced those decisions. In much the same way we frequently talk about common sense as though it is universal and static, but it is frequently only true for where you live and the era you live in. What was common sense to Jane Austin would in most instances be vastly different to perceived common sense today. In many ways reading a Jane Austin novel offers more understanding of that era than any factual history book. Events change, ideas change, common sense changes, but people, their characters and their motivations seldom do.
Well said. Cross-cultural understanding is significantly enhanced by reading their fiction. 'The Outlaws of the Marsh' offers a window to the Chinese you'd struggle to find in textbooks. Similarly so for understanding that Japanese via 'The tale of Genji'. The books that sell well with women reveal much about feminine nature. Fiction is a side-channel to truth.
Agreed!
Furthermore, if you can gain insights as to what drives or has driven events, you are then empowered with a greater understanding of how to change or improve ongoing events. With an open mind and a flexible and empathetic brain we can learn much from facts and fiction.
There's a subset of fiction that is non-fiction with the names changed to avoid non-disclosure agreements and secrecy laws. There's a lot of information that can be gleaned if you have enough pieces of the puzzle.
Why do you dismiss reading fiction?
If you are reading non-fiction, don’t assume it isn’t fiction 🤣
Wonderful. Thank you.
Great! Would love to hear your thoughts on Dostoyevsky too... (though he doesn't do politics quite so explicitly so maybe not your thing). They wrote so much great stuff between them that I think it would be possible not to read any other fiction ever and still not be bored.
after anna k im rereading Brothers K...
agree that my novels for rest of my life are prob 90% - handful of russians, repeat
Please see my comment somewhere below.
Bare in mind... When I met someone in a pub who was doing this they looked so utterly despondent I could barely speak to them. Times may have changed. I guess the book has not.
"It’s amazing that the Tsarist regime allowed War and Peace to be published. Does anybody know if there were discussions about banning it? " - He did not have problems to publish its pieces in a respectable journal and then pay for and publish 5000 copies of the book. In the 1860s the attention of the censors in Russia was directed to less neutral/more radical journals such as Sovremennik and novels such as What to do? by Chernyshevsky.
What a wonderful intro. Resurrection is amazing too. A 'whole of life' writer is Tolstoy.
Thank you Dominic you have inspired me to re read Tolstoy .You write so eloquently too.I really enjoyed this posting 👏🏻👍🏻
Same ..
Couldn’t have put it better myself. I agree with every word.
Fine, I guess I have to read Tolstoy now.
Joking aside, I think I like posts like these more than the quotidian political ones. It's like the Jeremy Clarkson meme where he pats the car: "This is brilliant - but I *like* this." While I find the political posts interesting, I never quite know what to ask.
The book posts feel more universal. Everyone is walking the same road from birth to death. The classics are a kind of shared stop along the way, like an extremely slow paced and personal internet message board avant la lettre ("Did you feel this?" "Yes! I did -" "No, that's not it at all -"). I recognise the moments and the situations you talk about.
That shock of recognition is not very common. I'm always on the look out for it, or clues to where it can be found. I have felt it in Thucydides, in the Eyrbyggja saga, in Beowulf, in Pushkin, in Shakespeare. And (although this involves saying something a bit 'déclassé' by the norms of English intellectual culture) I have found it in films and in video games too.
I'm going to want to come back to this post once I have read a bit more Tolstoy. He was friends (sort of) with Ilya Repin, and Repin was an incredible painter, so it feels a bit remiss not to have read anything by him.
One final thing - do you think the fellow who bowed to you elaborately was taking the piss? Or was he inviting you to play?
a part joke that is repeated so often it's sorta real, and can be turned into a joke if someone comments - in what sort of environment is that normal?!
Ok, I can’t believe I put off reading this, this is amazing.
Also: I'm reading the Anthony Briggs translation. Do you have any opinion on it (esp as compared to eg the Rosemary Edmonds translation)?
Also: any good biographies of Tolstoy? He seems to have led quite an interesting life!
Yes.. when I was in the Home Office in 2005 (I think) and one Civil Servant (I assume) would stride in actually wearing a bowler hat and carrying a slim elegant umbrella. Hmm.. yes, seriously?!
Marsham St had just opened to a lot of fanfare. Charles Clarke was famously too rotund to fit through the revolting door entrance. It was fun to smile with the Security Guards who evidently got a kick out of the design. An.y.how it’s nice to see it is still standing (just).
Fascinating stuff. Admittedly I've never read it - only watched the BBC adaptation, which I adored as a Tolstoy novice. I was cross-referencing the names you mentioned with the characters from that. Did you rate that as a faithful adaptation, out if interest?
I have some travelling to do, so I'll certainly be adding W&P to the reading list for that.
didn't see it im afraid. there's a v famous russian multi-hour tv version done in 60s or 70s
In an absolute monarchy the favour of the Monarch is the obvious favour to seek. In modern Britain who/what is the source of these favours? From whom does Tony Blair seek favour from , for example ?
The media init?
Dominic, I've only recently started to read your pieces here, and I must apologise for having misjudged you, fwiw. I had simply thought you were a brilliant technocrat's technocrat, focussed entirely on excellence but with little evidence of a moral compass. Sorry, but I'm prone to making snap judgements on little evidence in a world where I feel compelled to spend much of my time reading myself into a vast universe of potentially valid, but also possibly 'bad' resources - up to the point of lunacy in some cases.
I see now that you are not at all untouched by morality, even though you evidently prefer to use its weasel subsidiary, 'ethics', in your usual discourse. You have a broader claim to leadership than I had thought. Thank you for this piece - Tolstoy it is, then..
glad you enjoyed it!
I am very new to trying to understand history in a deeper way to help me gain perspective in 2022 now that Plagues and Wars seem like a repeating pattern rather than the stuff of exam revision. There is zero false modesty here, I am from a genuinely challenging background that led to my life from the age of 14 or so being driven by chasing financial security then binging on all the excesses that numb the gaps between being stretched to the very limit. I am genuinely none the wiser yet as to whether a successful political leadership, in real meaningful terms, is about evolving the most constructive story for a nation to aim to make true, or simply coming up with the story most voters would go along with, whether it is likely to take us forward in meaningful terms. There is something about Orwell’s messaging, or at least as far as I perceive it at roughly O Level standard, that human nature will ultimately deliver all the story designs to outcomes that prove we are a flawed species in conclusion, no matter whether the intentions were idealistic or pragmatic at the start? It still very much seems like our nation likes Boris if he tells lies that suit us but less so if he tells lies that do not? I am early with Tolstoy having started with the Redemption one but so far in the translation reads more like Wodehouse indulging a tease about posh folks, or is that really the only therapy any of us really get ie the only way to avoid spontaneous combustion is to take the piss out of the toffs? X
read War and Peace. or ease into it with Sevastopol Sketches. Forget Boris he's a gonner
Hi Dominic, I think you should read “The responsibility of intellectuals” by Chomsky...no provocation intended. Another one that may be interesting is “The beginning of the end” by Tolstoy
thx
Crickey.. does anyone actually need to read Chomsky IN THE ORIGINAL? Don’t we just hear about LAD and thing yeah, that’s accurate. The politics can be put to one side.