Right after Ronald Reagan died, I began reading Joseph J. Ellis’s fascinating biography American Sphinx, which attempts to log the duplicities and conflicting character of Thomas Jefferson. I had long been interested in the book, but when I saw the endless column-inches painting Reagan as a grand hero, as a man no less holier than the Messiah himself, I grew despondent over how the role of the President has remained decidedly unpresidential in recent years. I became ired over two ideas: (1) that the current editorial clime remains so fundamentally immature and dishonest that it cannot offer a portrayal that shows Reagan’s strengths and weaknesses (if only Lytton Strachey or H.L. Mencken were around to weigh in) and (2) that we now have a President as comparatively active on the culture front as a rotting rowboat tied to a quay leading up to some marvelous museum. As if in answer to these issues, Ellis’s bio fit the bill. American Sphinx profiles a man who was, without a doubt, presidential material, but it has (so far) done so in a way that has allowed me to keep my hero worship in check while presenting additional mysteries.

I won’t offer yet another tired dirge that either celebrates or condemns Reagan. There’s enough of that floating around on the blogosphere and elsewhere. I’ll only say that for as long as I can remember, I’ve admired Thomas Jefferson. When I was a boy first learning about this lanky Virginian, the fact that the two of us shared a dark reddish head of hair was always a plus. The fact that he was an intense reader and a man of many interests also attracted me. And when I heard that this was the guy responsible for the swivel chair, which I had always thought was one of the handiest pieces of furniture ever created, I knew that this was the horse I should bet on.

And when I learned as a teenager that this slaveowner had simultaneously written against slavery while keeping the issue on the q.t. during his political career, I was more intrigued than ever.

But I think Ellis pointed me closer to the answer when he recalled Jefferson’s infamous 1786 relationship with Maria Cosway. Jefferson was in Paris at the time and Cosway was married. Jefferson had promised his wife Martha at her deathbed that he would never marry another woman. (He didn’t.) But that didn’t stop him from becoming completely smitten with Cosway. During their six weeks together, Jefferson injured his wrist — for what reasons, we do not know. To this very day, on the romping front, scholars have been unable to determine precisely why, how, or if it happened. (Jefferson was very scrupulous with his private affairs, which makes Ellis’s job considerably tougher.) But what we do know is that from that affair, Jefferson wrote what had to be the most passionate letter of his career. For a brief moment, the assiduous Jefferson let down his guard and authored a 4,000 word letter in which he carried on a dialogue with his Head and his Heart.

Read (or reread) it. This, and not the ability to woo over everybody on television (a mere parlor trick), is the stuff of great men. And in light of the November race, it seems a pity to me that this year, we have two candidates who, like the last race four years ago, who can’t come nearly as close.

It’s also worth noting that Jefferson was a lousy orator.

USA Today has spoiled the ending to the next Dark Tower installment. I won’t even bother to link to the article, but, needless to say, seeing as how I was five books into the Dark Tower saga, I was planning on reading the other two as comfort reads. And, of course, I accidentally read the piece of information. But this throws a new monkey wrench in the grand book coverage debate. What kind of evil bastard kills a book by revealing the ending?

Jonathan Heawood has attempted to take advantage of Penguin’s recent findings. Apparently, Penguin Books has determined that men seen to be reading a book are more attractive to the opposite sex. I find this conclusion problematic on multiple levels. For example, how does the power of reading transcend offset teeth, bad body odor, unruly hair, and an adenoidal laugh? Does this rule apply to Tom Clancy novels? And if the book is really good, is the man capable of shifting his short attention span to notice the hypothetical lady who is staring at him? And if the woman is initially attracted to the man reading the book, how will she react when he opens his mouth and she realizes that he’s more capable talking about how some stirring streetcar advertisement that has caught his eye? Or is it best for the attractive male reader to simply remain silent and thus momentarily intellectual before the grand journey to the lady’s flat?

Turning the issue to more private millieus, if clandestine copulative activity is going badly, can the man redeem himself by putting Jennifer Weiner between he and his lover? Is holding the book a new way to resolve relationship issues? Can the man can now simply hold up the book, receiving a Charisma +2 mod while rolling the ten-sided die in the grand RPG of life, instead of listening? Will men be seduced into laying down their money for books instead of beer? More importantly, how does this translate into actual sales?

• The play is progressing. Early feedback has produced some very thoughtful conversations in email and in person, one of which went down today with close members of the crew at a Chinese dive. The fact that folks have been both honest and enthusiastic about the play has seriously overwhelmed me. I’m astonished by the passion and the generosity. People have been open, forthright and very constructive, responding in ways that demonstrate that theatre is far from dead, that rewriting is far from over, and that this thing will mesh together in ways that leave me convinced that we’re tapping into something that people really want to talk about, and that, even with a few misplaced over-the-top moments that will be honed this week, people from all walks of life have very valuable thoughts on how the business world has influenced and transformed human behavior.
• Jonathan Safran Foer has responded to the PEN imbroglio previously reported here. He writes, “Hi. A friend made me aware of this discussion. Just wanted to let you guys know that I completely agree with most everything you said about monetary awards and whom they should go to. That’s why I gave the money—every cent of it—back to PEN, which is as deserving as groups get. I didn’t make a big deal about it, because it didn’t seem fair to any other winners, who might have needed the money at the moment. But on the other hand, I’d had to take flack for something I didn’t do.” If this is indeed the case, then I am in full support of Mr. Foer’s gesture, particularly after the post-deal bonanza missteps of Jonathan Franzen and Rick Moody. I hope to draw upon the subject of meritocracy and the obligations of authors with pre-award windfalls in a future post.
• Dan Green responds to Sarah’s post about the publishing industry. The Literary Saloon also weighs in. Dan notes that the publishing business has been the least business-like of businesses and, quite rightly, points out that the pulps were a beneficial component of staying power, and the Literary Saloon points out that countless “literary” authors could have been marketed for the price of the Ronald Reagan memoir flop. My own quick take on this is that we won’t have an answer until authors and publishers fully understand the human impulse to read, and actively work to encourage it, responding to this desire in ways that transcend both popular and literary trappings. For example, if the previous magazine conduits are, for the most part, dead and the average bookstore browser makes his decision by flipping through the first few pages, instead of book excerpts, why not offer a free buckram-bound, promotional sampling of emerging authors in lieu of a book tour? Furthermore, I don’t believe that a bridge between popular and literary is possible without getting the word out to both camps that both can be acceptable on their own terms, while maintaining a certain standard. But such a position presumes idealism, an editorial team passionate about literature, and an openness to new choices on behalf of the reading public;. However, word of mouth often gets an otherwise obscure author read. I don’t believe that publishers have taken full advantage of this. But then again, who has the resources to take a chance?
• On Saturday, I went to an open studio exhibit run by Marisa Williams in Oakland. If you’re into photography and calligraphy, check Marisa’s stuff out. Beyond being an exceptionally nice person, Marisa has a good photographic eye for still life and architecture and offers lovely handmade cards for purchase. She even offers some nify thank you cards.
• It is possible to play Taboo with sixteen or so people at one time. However, the more people you have, the greater the possibility that communications will be more harried. Factor caffeine into the equation and you have a fait accompli involving destroyed egg timers and nearly every card used up within a matter of three hours. I urge the folks at Milton Bradley to pay more care to how they construct their game components. Able board gamers have more adrenaline than the R&D boys have accounted for.
• Ronald Reagan’s passing. To paraphrase the Gipper himself, if you’ve seen one dead President, you’ve seen them all.

The Chicago Tribune considers the case of David George Holt, a seemingly quiet man who used various aliases to swindle countless rare-book dealers to the tune of $95,000. Despite serving in jail for steailng his grandmother’s bonds, Holt has yet to be convicted for his tome-related offenses.