National Observer, Australia, No. 81 (Dec. 2009 - Feb. 2010)
BOOK REVIEW: DIGITAL BARBARISM:
A Writer's Manifesto
by Mark Helprin
(New York: HarperCollins, 2009)
Hardcover: 232 pages and index
ISBN: 9780061733116
RRP: AUD$49.99
Reviewed by R.J. Stove
This is a weird, unclassifiable, periodically annoying, and
yet important production which will irritate many by its extreme
digressiveness, yet, paradoxically, which contains valuable
insights on one of the greatest cultural threats of our time: the
threat to intellectual, and above all to literary, property. The
cover design is singularly appropriate: an omnivorous,
computer-generated blob, redolent of the early 1980s' PacMan,
about to gobble up a copyright symbol.
Digital Barbarism's subtitle is A Writer's
Manifesto, with the emphasis being on the writer part rather
than the manifesto part. Mark Helprin, a much-published novelist
who seems never to have produced any full-length non-fiction
before, has served in the Israeli armed forces and in the British
Merchant Navy. So diverse a background has, at any rate, given
him a certain detachment from those American academic commissars
and their computer-nerd camp-followers who have supplied the
loudest voices and most destructive weapons in the great
anti-copyright campaign.
Like many recent efforts of its general type, Digital
Barbarism grew from an article. In this case, the article was
a 20 May 2007 op-ed in The New York Times (still
occasionally capable of disseminating legitimate thought, despite
its notoriety as a cash-cow for psychopathic conmen from Walter
Duranty to Jayson Blair), suggesting that copyright, instead of
being abolished, could beneficially be strengthened. Few op-ed
items — as anyone who has ever written them knows — generate more
than half a dozen responses, whether pro or con, from even the
most articulate readers. Helprin fully expected that his own
piece would either inspire a similarly restricted discussion, or
else be altogether overlooked. Not so with Helprin's essay:
"Because I look at a computer screen as little as possible,
I was unaware of the tempest as it mounted." But mount it
did.
Inside ten days, the essay had elicited 750,000 (no, that is
not a misprint: three-quarters of a million) abusive online
comments, running the gamut of emotions from mere vindictive
lunacy to imperious demands in lavatory-wall patois that Helprin
go and commit sexual intercourse. The complainant in such fora
is, need one say, "sheltered by anonymity, his acts
multiplied by an almost inconceivable multiplication and
instantaneousness of transmission ... [resulting in] a certain
sinister, angry, off-the-rails quality (think the Unabomber)
which is perhaps to be expected from the kind of person who has
spent forty thousand hours reflexively committing video-game mass
murder and then encounters an argument with which he finds
himself in disagreement. ... I had touched upon a mysterious nerve,
and although the style of the response can be explained, who,
exactly, would react in such a way to a plea for the extension of
the term of copyright?"
The present volume aims to answer this last question.
Unfortunately, in doing so, it lacks the crucial virtues of
directness and coolness. Helprin comes to resemble nobody so much
as a prosecution lawyer of eloquence and talent, blessed with a
legally and morally watertight case, who yet is so flustered by
the impudent smirking of the defendants in the dock as to be
goaded into wholly irrelevant autobiographical ruminations.
Inside this fairly thin book is an even thinner book screaming to
get out. The author loses no chance for tangential brooding about
how he was bullied at school, how he likes life in Virginia, how
he hates socialising at parties, and other matters totally
unrelated to his actual theme.
There are far too many paragraphs burdened with beginnings
like: "At age fourteen, on a cheap three-speed Robin Hood
bicycle that my father inexplicably (to me) provided as a
replacement for a magnificent English touring cycle, the colour
of a Weimaraner, that I had left to rust in the rain. ..." As
Garfield the Cat used to say: "And your point is ...?"
After more than a small amount of this stuff, its audience must
be tempted to conclude that the villains at whose punishment
Helprin (rightly) aims have scored an acquittal by default. It is
hard luck on Helprin that the present reviewer was only recently
examining a true model of the polemicist's art: Hilaire Belloc's
The Free Press (1918), where not a syllable is wasted,
where not a single side-issue is permitted to distract the author
from his task, where no suggestion of ad hominem mars the
whole, where the causal relationship between A and B is as
lucidly demonstrated as it would now be in a good PowerPoint
presentation, and where the prose is no more clotted with
extraneous sentiment than is any proposition of Aquinas.
At least Helprin names the leading malefactors involved, of
whom the chief is Lawrence "Larry" Lessig: law
professor at Stanford, anti-copyright obsessive, "sexual
abuse" litigant (this role being pretty much de
rigueur these days among the politically ambitious), and a
founder of the "Creative Commons" movement which is
supposed to be a more ethical alternative to existing copyright
statutes. A clever and unscrupulous public intellectual, Lessig
has crusaded against the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension
Act (named after the late pop star and congressman whose
initiatives increased existing copyright terms in the USA by
twenty years, to bring them into line with international
rulings). Lessig also has a preoccupation with the joys of the
"remix": in other words, with (Helprin's words)
"taking a work that someone else has made, chopping it up,
and rearranging it, perhaps adding or subtracting elements
according to whim, [which] is a favoured 'art' form of a
generation weaned on push-button alternate endings ... he is what
old-fashioned people might call careless about aesthetic
standards and the integrity of a work."
This, and much else, raises the issue of What Makes Larry (and
his more feral apologists) Run. No doubt Lessig's attitude
derives partly from a certain amount of démodé
baby-Marxism sloshing around inside the brain. A powerful
constituent of Marxism, and especially baby-Marxism, from its
very birth was always euphoric canting about how "everyone's
an artist". But Lessig has never been a Marxist in the
conventional sense, and while he has declared his admiration for
Obama he appears not to have any burning party-machine
commitments. Far more important than Marxism per se — as
Helprin admits — is the whole culture of collectivism, which
poisons the very air that the typical modern academic breathes,
and which would continue to poison it even if Marxists, by some
miracle, had never existed. A culture of collectivism means a
culture of entitlement, and entitlement is the transmission-belt
(to use Lenin's characteristically scientistic metaphor) which
gets the anti-copyright movement out of the senior common room
and into the public square.
Those old enough to possess fond memories of the Li'l
Abner comic strip will recall the nightmarish Lower
Slobbovia, where the national motto exemplified with rare
precision the collectivism-entitlement nexus: "If you got
it, I deserve it." This motto epitomised, in plain English,
envy. Iago did not need Marxian claptrap about economic
determinism or the labour theory of value to propel his malice.
All he needed was for envy to consume him. Envy not just of the
good, like Desdemona, but of the foolishly harmless, like Cassio.
No-one with the smallest first-hand knowledge of the campuses
where Lessig and his followers flourish will fail to recognise
that Iago is alive and well and living on them. The puzzle is
where, and how, anyone else is. To the bizarre and self-serving
notion, propounded by the likes of Lessig, that violations of
"so-called" intellectual property (Lessig loves that
"so-called") harm no-one, Helprin sharply responds in
the simplest possible language:
"Let us say someone opens a golf course. Some people pay
to use it. Others sneak on to it without paying. What these
solons are saying is that because the non-payers don't spoil the
enjoyment of those who do pay, no harm results. But even if the
non-payers don't tear up the fairways, and play at night so as
not to crowd them, if the general rule is to sneak on and only a
few people pay, very soon there will be no golf course for lack
of revenue. Therein would lie the harm, both to the bankrupt golf
course owners and to the general public with no more golf
course."
Is this an abstract example, far removed from reality? Would
that it were so. As Helprin notes, the anti-copyright brigade
first tasted blood in its successful warfare against the recorded
music industry, which is now, thanks largely to illegal online
downloading, more or less in ruins. The recorded music industry
was a veritable behemoth compared with the book publishing and
serious magazine publishing industries. If the former can be
finished off, there is nothing to stop the latter being, for all
practical purposes, finished off also. This naturally alarms
Helprin: "I am indignant that a movement begun by people who
wanted to avoid paying for music that to me is worse than North
Korean water torture, now mortally threatens the stability of a
craft and art that was ancient at the time of Jesus, that
encompasses the world, and that has evolved by the love and
labour of the greatest souls ever to have graced the
earth."
That the anti-copyright activists are mostly as illogical as
they are hypocritical is almost the least objectionable thing
about them. (Lessig's book-length denunciations of copyright are
themselves in copyright. Shades of Marshall McLuhan, who in 1967
predicted the imminent death of the book — and who did so within
the pages of, you guessed it, a book.) Worse is the way
"they are capable of elevating a theory, notion, idea, or
dogma above reason, fact, practicality, and experience. Given
that they are able to do this even at the cost of their own
destruction, when their own interests are unaffected or advanced
it becomes especially easy." Furthermore:
"[A]s evidenced by their own testimony in their blogs and
plaints, many of these people have tried their hand at writing
and are perfectly content to be paid a pittance or nothing at
all, and think therefore that this should be a universal
condition. Were it the universal condition, everyone who wrote
would be supported, like them, by a salary from some other
source. The art of letters would exit even further the realm of
professionalism."
Just what the world needs: yet more drivelling, incompetent
authorial amateurs. Preferably funded — as in Australia, at
least, they would indubitably be funded — by the Servile State.
And preferably plagiarising like mad, since in practice
opposition to copyright and zest for plagiarism go together like
the proverbial horse and carriage. (Surprisingly, Helprin makes
all too little of this self-evident truth.) Once plagiarism was
defended mostly by hard-core Bolsheviks such as Bertolt Brecht.
Now it is defended by the likes of Keith Windschuttle, who in
Quadrant's May 2008 number allowed the following
remarkable observation to appear under his name:
"There are very few cases where plagiarism should be a
sacking offence for a university teacher. ... Such charges [of
plagiarism] are increasingly used today as the continuation of
academic politics by other means. In fact, there would be few
members of the academic or media commentariat who have not at
some stage in their careers been carelessly guilty of this
offence, which their opponents could potentially use against
them."
It is regrettable that Helprin seeks to project Lessig-type
attitudes upon Lord Macaulay, who, after all, differed from
Lessig in that he did favour copyright during the author's
lifetime, although he opposed copyright after the author's death.
Macaulay said some foolish things — not only about copyright of
course — but to call him, as Helprin does, "spiteful,
duplicitous, vengeful, cruel" ill accords with the verdicts
on Macaulay's character passed by his biographers G.O. Trevelyan
and Sir Arthur Bryant. What Macaulay too often exhibited was a
formidable bent for self-deception; and that bent (implicit when
he depicted William III as an angel and James II as His Satanic
Majesty) is quite enough to explain his silliness on the
copyright issue, without any need to fit him out with horns, a
trident and a tail.
Helprin's diversions into nineteenth- and twentieth-century
history are further impaired by odd factual and orthographic
slips. The celebrated historian of the French Revolution was
Carlyle, not (as Helprin would have it) "Carlisle" —
did no proof-reader at HarperCollins have enough familiarity with
English literature to spot this mistake? — while the taunt
"Why should I speak to the organ-grinder's monkey when I can
speak to the organ-grinder?" was not, pace Helprin,
uttered by Churchill about Mussolini's son-in-law Galeazzo Ciano,
but by Aneurin Bevan about former British Foreign Secretary
Selwyn Lloyd.
So Digital Barbarism is not a work to be read without
severe reservations. It nevertheless names (to quote the old
pamphlets from wartime England) Guilty Men; it proclaims its
creator's high ethical sense; and it is the only treatise of its
kind. On these grounds it can, and should, be cautiously
recommended. Certainly every aspiring magazine writer needs to
peruse it, though perhaps all Helprin's best points were made
more tersely by American Conservative film critic Steve
Sailer when, in April 2004, he upbraided Lessig:
"As a pixel-stained wretch who would like to someday make
at least a lower-middle-class living writing books for pay, I
say, 'Forget you, Larry. I want every penny that's coming to me,
my kids, grandkids, great-grandkids and on, unto the seventh
generation.' It makes no sense that web libertarians are for
cutting down intellectual property rights. Libertarians are
supposed to be for property rights. The reason Lessig's
obsession is so popular with web libertarians is because they are
greedy people who want something for nothing."
R.J. Stove is a writer and commentator on public affairs and
has had numerous articles published in Quadrant,
National Observer, Chronicles and The American
Conservative. He is also the author of A Student's Guide
to Music History (ISI Books, 2008). He lives in
Melbourne.
National Observer, Australia, No. 81 (Dec. 2009 - Feb. 2010)