84, Charing Cross Road by Helene Hanff

Our book club chose 84, Charing Cross Road by Helene Hanff to read for January. I'd never heard of it. 

Unfortunately, I think I got the wrong version. The one I picked up from the library was a play version, "Adapted for the Stage."I think, however, I got the gist of it.

One thing I didn't understand initially is that it is based on actual letters between the author, Helene Hanff, and a bookstore in London. The play opens with Frank Doel, the procurer of books for the "antiquarian bookseller" reading a letter from Hanff, a poor struggling writer living in New York. The first letter is dated October 5, 1949. She is requesting "three Hazlitt essays" as well as a Latin Bible. He promises to do his best to fulfill her order and ship them out.

What follows is the slow, and all-too-real, development of a transatlantic friendship centered on the appreciation of fine, largely out-of-print, books. Not realizing the letters were real, I expected the story to go in certain directions. Surely a love story would develop or some major crisis would erupt, or each book requested by Helene would either foreshadow or relate to some circumstance in her life. None of that happened. Real life simply doesn't happen that way.

Throughout the book, Helene expresses a desire to cross the ocean and meet those who share her love for fine literature. Alas, it is not to be. As Helene journeys through life, becoming increasingly successful, she is also thrown expensive curveballs, which constantly frustrate her ability to visit. As the years pass, she remains single, moves and changes jobs, various clerks at the bookshop marry and move on, some die, and finally, Frank Doel passes away. The last letter is from his wife, dated January 8, 1969. The twenty-year correspondence is ended. The final moments of the play depict Helene on a plane to London. 

It is certainly a charming book, told in a lovely manner. My only criticism is that I wish it had a bit more of a story. I would love someone to write a similar book, but include a plot. However, watching two people develop a long-term, platonic friendship over a shared love of beautiful literature is also a worthy endeavor. 

 

Liberty or Lockdown by Jeffrey Tucker

I was reading an article recently that recommended this book, Liberty or Lockdown by Jeffrey Tucker, as the best thing on our current Covid response. So I ordered it right away. It's a collection of essay published throughout 2020 at the American Institute of Economic Research. Some have not aged well, as most were written before September. The principles, however, hold. 

Lockdowns do not deter a virus. Trading liberty for the promise of safety nets us neither. 

Although I wouldn't say the book is a top ten or anything like that, it's worth the read. It's short and eminently readable. The first few essays alone are worth the price of the book.

The American Institute of Economic Research is free-market think tank, and as such subscribes to the theory of diffused knowledge being the best way to gather all the relevant information. Therefore, when the Covid virus hit our shores, the best thing would have to been to diffuse knowledge and let the aggregate determine the best course forward. Of course we know that is the opposite of what happened. The original sin in the Covid response was limiting knowledge and therefore seeking to avoid a panic. To this end, testing was only to be done at the CDC/FDA direction. Private companies were not allowed to develop and administer their own tests. Knowledge became a premium commodity available only to a select few if at all. Lack of knowledge coupled with the call to, "Do something" led to the hysterical and irrational initial responses. 

Ironically the knowledge we needed actually existed. Humans have been dealing with pandemics for all of history. "Somehow in the 21st century, we find ourselves in the awkward position of having to relearn the basics of immunology that everyone from 1920 to 2000 or so seemed to understand." (p. 20) There are only two ways to defeat a virus: to develop immunity through contracting the disease or through a vaccine. Somehow, the decision-makers in our society decided that they alone could pioneer a new way forward, which involved lockdowns and quarantining healthy people. We forgot what we knew. In thinking we were so much smarter than those of the past, we made ourselves stupid. "It was pure speculation that lockdowns would suppress this virus, and that speculation was based on a hubristic presumption of the awesome power and intelligence of government managers." (p. 24)

As one country after another copied whatever the previous leader did, the arrogance metastasized. Now all efforts went toward propping up a policy based on nothing and accomplishing nothing. To intentionally hurt people by destroying their businesses, throwing them out of work, decimating their mental health, stealing educational opportunities, and shredding the fragile social fabric that holds societies together takes a special kind of callousness. "The more pain you inflict on people, the worse of a person you become. Power is dangerous even when not used, but deploying it brutally and pointlessly rots the soul." (p. 33) Therefore the big lie becomes necessary. The leaders must double-down to justify their policies. 

Other than the obvious damage the Covid response has had on the world, Tucker makes an even more compelling point, "Once you lock down a population by executive fiat, based on obvious ignorance and fear, you send a signal that nothing much matters anymore. Nothing is true, permanent, right, wrong. Might as well tear it all down. You literally unleash Hell." (p. 34) Therefore the riots and rage seen all over the country is the predictable, and actually rational, response. "If we stay on the present course of hiding and futilely trying to suppress the virus, wee will end up making all of society poorer both materially and spiritually and also delivery a dangerous blow to our biological health." (p. 127)

The response to the Covid pandemic has not only failed to mitigate the effects of the disease, it has made it far worse. We now suffer not only the effects of the virus, but the effects of the cure. "From early in the lockdown days, it became clear that this crisis would not make us 'come together' and be 'better people.' It would not be like 9-11. Instead, it would shatter our lives and make us worse people. We would turn on each other, engage in dramatic deeds that would hurt and harm people we like and love, and push our political agendas ahead of basic humane values." (p. 176)

It's a good, yet depressing, read.