Friday, November 09, 2018

The Overstory


 In tree-top terms, the canopy is also called the "overstory."  As the title of Richard Powers' novel, it can also be taken metaphorically as the meta-story, the story over all others, that makes the others possible (or impossible), including news stories.

As Ursula Le Guin memorably expressed in a title,  The Word for the World is Forest.  Imaginatively traveling to Endor is to glimpse our past, as the only planet in the universe so far known to nourish life of such immense variety.  This is the forest planet, or it was.

That the forest--and certainly the natural world--is the overstory, would be obvious for most of human life on this planet--so obvious that someone making this point would be stared at, and pitied.

Today of course, someone making this point is stared at and pitied because, although acknowledged as a truism, this mighty fact seems to no longer pertain.  Human civilization has conquered nature.  We banished threatening animals and destroyed their habitats.  We grow food with chemical magic that defies natural limitations.  We invented indoor plumbing and bug spray.  And so on.

But human civilization grew by destroying, on an ever-increasing scale. The time between the destruction and the consequences seemed endless, but it wasn't.  It isn't.

Now the most obvious consequence, the climate crisis, elicits about the same response as did cancer in the 1950s, when I was growing up.  People got cancer, but nobody talked about it.  People did not use the word out loud.  They could not speak what they most feared.

 Everyone knows that the climate crisis is created by fossil fuel pollution spewing too much carbon into the atmosphere.  But of contributing factors, the destruction of the planet's forests almost entirely now, ranks the highest, and reforestation is probably the most potent remedy.  But the truistic fact we really can't face is that in cutting down the forests we cut our own throats.


In an interview about The Overstory, Richard Powers explained: “It’s a book about taking the non-human seriously.” It is an assertion that for much of human history, and even today in many parts of the world, would seem ridiculously unnecessary. What could be more serious than the “non-human”—everything from the weather and plants that provided food and medicine, to the animals that people hunted, or fell prey to?

 It’s true that our literature missed much of this unwritten but not unstoried history, but even in the 19th century there were still wolves at the gate in Europe (and in Tolstoy), and into the 20th century in North America the struggles of pioneers were central to the novels of Cather and others.

 But the deep sense of interrelationship with the specific environment of a place, its embedded animals and plants, escaped much literary treatment. (It can be found however in contemporary accounts of some surviving indigenous cultures, such as Richard Nelson’s books on the Koyukon.)

Literature missed it, while science and the economic system governing culture ignored and denied it. Nature became a controlled resource, and science joined in a simplistic analysis that conformed to ideologically-driven theories of nature as uniformly rapacious, violent and individualistic, mirroring the structure of dominant capitalism that mandated that other life had no value except as it served humans, and especially certain humans’ profits.

Meanwhile the urbanized segment of humanity with pest control, running water, flush toilets and printing presses turned inward, and human culture became increasingly arrogant, ego-driven and delusional.

Like Naomi Klein to the climate crisis and Michael Pollan to expanded consciousness, Richard Powers is something of a Johnny-come-lately to forest issues and what forests represent in the non-human web of life that, among other things, supports humanity. But like them he brings fresh passion and perspective, as well as a contemporary voice with some power and moment, so that people—including those in the lit biz—may actually pay some attention.

The 502 pages of The Overstory are structured in four sections: Roots, Trunk, Crown and Seeds.  This structure is a visually accessible metaphor, as the various strands of roots nourish a common trunk before branching out again in separate (if often interrelated) fates.

 "Roots" presents the backstory of the nine major characters, in some cases including several previous generations. In the next section, several characters participate in the protests here in Humboldt County in the 1990s, when a rapacious Texas company was clear-cutting as many of the last old growth groves as they could. The fates of these characters become especially intertwined. The actual history is somewhat fictionalized but given a depth and specificity that brings the experience alive. Especially the experience of being up a tree.

 Their transformations, at least as radical as those experienced by characters in other Powers’ books, move toward new relationships with the reality of the world, rather than only within a temporary human enclave.

Along with the stories of people over time and over generations, there are stories and histories of trees: of the American Chestnut, the eastern pine forests, and Johnny Appleseed. The scientist character commits temporary career suicide by showing that trees communicate with each other through the air, warning of predators and diseases, and that through their roots they nourish and protect each other.

 But what constitutes the figure and what constitutes the ground of the narrative is a very close thing. So the book is about people, some of whom are passionately involved with trees and forest, and others who stumble to their own recognitions.  “Our brains evolved to solve the forest,” says the one character who is a tree expert. “We’ve shaped and been shaped by forests for longer than we’ve been homo sapiens.”

But it is also about trees, and how people relate to them. “This is not our world with trees in it,” says that same expert. “It’s a world of trees, where humans have just arrived.” The figure and ground shift back and forth, when they aren’t essentially simultaneous.

 Powers provides some hope for the relationship. But humanity can no longer just affirm life—it must commit “unsuicide,” by radically changing the terms, before its own slow murderous suicide is accomplished.

The novel depicts the context of our American society and world civilization in which obsessive and dogmatic human self-centeredness destroys forests and the natural context that supports all life, enslaved by a suicidal geopolitical and geoeconomic system which mandates continuous growth on a planet of finite resources.

That vision of the world has previously been expressed mostly by ecologists, poets and science fiction writers like Ursula Le Guin and Kim Stanley Robinson. Powers becomes one of the few so-categorized mainstream literary novelists (Barbara Kingsolver and Jim Harrison come to mind) to marshal considerable literary skills to explore it.

“Life has a way of talking to the future,”a couple of characters observe. “It’s called memory.”

The extreme self-centeredness of contemporary civilization is likely to become a bitter joke in the near future. Today’s news that is most likely to be ignored or unabsorbed--like the melting polar ice, or the depletion of wildlife in the world (by 60% in the past couple of human generations, according to the World Wildlife Fund today, mostly due to climate and the obliteration of tropical forests, practically the last on the planet)—will have consequences that are destined to dominate the news not more than a few decades hence.

But that self-centeredness, that absorption in social media passions within the nuclear grip of global capitalism, also extends to readers. Powers obviously anticipated this, and puckishly embedded an anticipatory review: “She remembers now why she never had the patience for nature. No drama, no development, no colliding hopes and fears. And she could never keep the characters straight.”

 There are colliding hopes and fears in this novel, though it is hard at times to keep the characters straight. Still, the theme is a challenge to readers in much the same way that climate news gets ignored in favor of the outrage of the moment. The familiar emotions and presence of the strictly human world obliterates perception of the rest of reality.

But as one character will say to another (while both are swaying on the branches of a redwood) “The best argument in the world won’t change a person’s mind. The only thing that can do that is a good story.” (I’m not sure that’s universally true, but maybe true enough.)

Apart from the usual suspects of likely readers, I suspect Powers’ time at Stanford, his understanding of the tech world and a direct pitch to its conscience and potential to make a difference will pay dividends.

Beyond that it remains to be seen. The first big literary prize since publication was the Man Booker in the UK, for which The Overstory was shortlisted, and was said to be the odds-on favorite to win.

Yet an article in the Guardian quotes booksellers complaining that the Man Booker is not much help to sales these days. They opine on the marketable book they hope will win. “ But the book I think will win is The Overstory by Richard Powers.” one unnamed bookseller is quoted as saying. It’s not clear whose voice it is but the paragraph continues: “In case you don’t know – I’ve yet to meet anyone who’s read it – The Overstory is an idiosyncratic and, in the words of one plucky critic, “valiant” 500-page epic that is supposed to do for trees what Moby-Dick did for whales. Perhaps this is why my contact is laughing.”

The Man Booker was also beset with criticism because it’s traditionally been a UK prize but American authors have won the last two. Also there was anticipatory nervousness that with a majority of women writers on the shortlist, giving the prize to another male writer would be unseemly. That Powers is an American male author may have contributed to why The Overstory did not win, though the subject that had a Guardian reporter rolling her eyes may also have played a conscious or unconscious part.

 The prize went to Northern Irish author Anna Burns for her “Troubles-era” novel “Milkman.” The jury seemed to stress that the selection was unanimous. Burns has a compelling personal story, and the novel is widely praised (and now, a best-seller.) But worthy but often repeated topics such as the Troubles, the slave trade, child abuse and various human relationship have such a visceral hold on readers and writers that reviving that crucial, vital deep connection with non-human life and its peril remains a hard sell.

Still, there are the National Book Award and the Pulitzers to come. Regardless of its upcoming prizes fates, the literary reach of The Overstory suggests it can have that longer, more persistent life of study: formal study in the groves of academe, informal study everywhere.

The Overstory may not live as long as a redwood but the lifespan of a paper birch could still imbue a generation with its ideas and emotions. For that process, the impressive body of interviews given by its formerly reclusive author should help. And I suspect this is not the last we've heard on this subject from this author. In the meantime, this novel repays reading and re-reading, and it a possible gateway to other relevant books, some of which Powers mentions in interviews.

Tuesday, November 06, 2018

A Blue Wave in One Ocean?

What happened to the Blue Wave?  If you look at the raw vote total, the Democrats had one: an 8.7 congressional ballot advantage, which is at least a point better than past elections dubbed Waves.  Numbers guy Ezra Klein tweeted: Unemployment is 3.7% right now. America isn't at war. A margin this big is nuts — a pure repudiation of Trump."

But in some respects this is like fixating on Hillary winning three million more votes than the White House incumbent.  In many federal and state races Democrats (most spectacularly in the Texas Senate race) cut deeply into R dominance--just not enough to change the outcome.

 If it is a wave, it might be what Josh Marshall calls a Wave in one ocean.  That would be the House of Representatives, where the Democrats fairly easily won back the majority, even before the western state returns were counted.

But it was a very dismal night for the US Senate, as the most contested seats fell to the Rs, including D incumbents.  Now the Rs have a Senate majority it will be almost impossible for them to lose before 2022.  And there are fewer purple states.

The House majority means Russian interference and administration corruption will be investigated, but given the complete hold that Homegrown Hitler has on the Republican Party, that may not mean much because this Senate will never vote to convict on impeachment, and this demagogue in chief will never resign.

The Dem majority will certainly prevent terrible legislation from becoming law, and may at least challenge damaging executive decisions.  But the Senate has real power over the appointment of judges to federal courts, and to administration posts.  Moreover the Senate is now more Trumpian than ever, so those appointments will sail through.

The House majority was settled before California polls closed, which turned out to be a good thing.  Analysts had once suggested that it might come down to flipping several California districts--and so far, only one or two of these seems about to oust a Republican incumbent--possibly including the infamous Dana Rohrabacher--but that isn't even certain yet.  The repulsive Nunes retained his seat, as did other veteran Rs, though they are now relegated to ranking members of the minority.  Nunes in particular will no longer chair the House intelligence committee.  But as a whole, California remained proportionately the same.  And that is a metaphor for the entire outcome.  Things are the same, only more so.

It's true that the Dems did well in governorships--flipping at least six, including finally ousting Wisconsin's notorious Scott Walker--but they failed to win Florida and Ohio, where the governor can instigate and hide voter suppression and other hanky-panky in traditionally close states.  If Dems gained majorities in key state legislatures they may prevent Rs from using the 2020 census to gerrymander even more.

 And it is also true that early indications are that record numbers of people voted.  Whether the lack of visible change will dampen their spirits for next time is yet to be seen.

The changes may be important--not only in the House majority but the specific new members elected (including the first Native American women.)  The House got smarter, but with the arrival of Rick Scott, Josh Hawley and the rest of the new Rs, the Senate got stupider.

So it's possible to look at this election as did Aaron Blake at the Washington Post: "Republicans will pitch this as a split decision, because they held the Senate. It’s not; the Senate map was highly favorable to them. Democrats just took over a chamber of Congress, and that’s a big night for them, period."

And with the Guardian's Richard Wolffe: "Donald Trump's unchecked hold on power has come to an end...Republicans should have sailed to victory at a time of relative peace and prosperity, with unemployment at historic lows and wages rising. But in the House – a truly national contest, unlike the US Senate – voters showed there were clear electoral limits to Trump’s rabidly anti-immigrant racism and stunningly shameless sexism."  And he has the demographic numbers to show where the power shifts are.

Or with the Post's Marc Fisher: "Energized by two years of the most divisive rhetoric in modern American history, voters shared the conviction that their country was at the precipice of a democratic implosion and that their vote mattered."  Or with Dana Milbank that "America steps back from the abyss," or Jennifer Rubin that "Voters give Trump a big thumbs down."

Or perhaps with Ed Rogers: By most measures, Republicans beat the odds of history and nearly everyone’s expectations, while Democrats were left disappointed as the fantasy of Beto O’Rourke, Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams and others winning fizzled. Not one new progressive Democrat was successful bursting onto the scene. It will take a few days to process the meaning of this year’s election returns, but the instant analysis is clear: Democrats may have won the House, but Trump won the election."

I'll probably go with Chuck Todd who said that the American electorate is clearly in transition (he cites Dems taking suburbia for instance) but that we haven't turned the corner yet.  Maybe I'm biased because I'd hoped that the 2008 election was the corner we turned, but it wasn't.  History may say otherwise about the 2018 election, but at this moment, it didn't seem to be this one either.

History may show that the people elected this year began the change.  History might even show that changes in the states meant more momentum to dealing with the ultimate threat of the climate crisis.  But that's not obvious now, either.

 In immediate terms, the House majority means that a lot is going to be different in Washington. Nancy Pelosi is right about that-- and by the way, she is the most effective national Democratic leader there is, and it would be really stupid to get rid of her. Whether it's a difference only in the noise also remains to be seen, or heard.

So today the 2020 presidential campaign starts.  This election may have helped the Dems in creating community and state level infrastructure, but it didn't seem to spotlight a presidential candidate possibility.  Rogers is right about that: it made no new progressive Democratic stars, or even hopes (although some early talk about Beto O'Rourke.)

It seems like a dangerous situation.  There is no outstanding Democratic choice, and most of the candidate possibilities are old and familiar, and with enemies.  My instincts tell me only a fresh voice will work.  Homemade Hitler has proven to be stunningly resilient--just the scandals of this year, of the past month--suggest he can withstand anything.  He has only one real skill, and that is as a demagogue.  But he's very effective at that.  And as his Nazi predecessor proved, that can be fateful.

In my remaining years it would be nice to see this country rally, and fight the good fight as it struggles against the catastrophes coalescing in the near future as a result of our destruction of the planet's ability to sustain the life it has. It probably will rally, just not real soon. In the end, though, it may not make much difference, except to the people involved (which is a big difference to them.)  That's what passes for solace these days.


The Washington state ballot measure to enact a carbon fee on polluters failed, about 57% to 44%.  In Iowa, J.D. Scholten came closer than anyone thought possible to unseating the infamous Steve King, but didn't win.  The remote chance of bipartisan climate crisis action took a hit when one of the leading R proponents (who supported a carbon tax), congressman Carlos Curbelo, lost to a D.  Meanwhile, a number of Ds who support strong climate action won.

And my candidates in PA 10 and Delaware 21 also lost.  Condolences all. You fought the good fight.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programs, which are already in progress.

More Stuff To Watch For in 2018 Election Results

In addition to the party totals, here are a couple of more things I'll be watching in the 2018 election results.

It's the future versus the big oil companies' big bucks in Washington state, in a fight over a ballot measure that would be the first in the country to enact fees on carbon pollution emitters.

 The Union of Concerned Scientists and some big contributors--like Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg--are for it.  But almost all of the $29 million spent to defeat it comes from fossil fuel corporations.

According to the Atlantic: "Tuesday, residents of Washington State will vote on whether to adopt a carbon fee, an ambitious policy that aims to combat climate change by charging oil companies and other polluters for the right to emit greenhouse-gas pollution.

If the measure passes, Washington would immediately have one of the most aggressive climate policies in the country. The proposal—known as Ballot Initiative 1631—takes something of a “Green New Deal” approach, using the money raised by the new fee to build new infrastructure to prepare the state for climate change. It would generate millions to fund new public transit, solar and wind farms, and forest-conservation projects in the state; it would also direct money to a working-class coal community and a coastal indigenous tribe."

  According to Inside Climate News:"Washington's Initiative 1631 could begin a movement in the U.S. to make the price of fossil fuels reflect their cost to the planet—a step economists believe would be the most effective market mechanism to reduce greenhouse gases."


Also interesting in this regard are three races in Iowa, in which Democrats are actually raising the issue of the climate crisis, even in deep red districts. These include J.D. Scholten, who is running to unseat the infamous--and infamously entrenched-- Steve King.

Inside Climate News: Key in all three of the contested Iowa congressional races are farmers, who have been battered by Trump's trade and energy policies as surely as they've been pummeled by the weather. 

Climate change may not be the leading issue being raised by the Democratic challengers—for Scholten, it's just part of his larger message that King is out of touch—but it is looming in the background, like the wind turbines turning in the horizon in Scholten's campaign ads. This election will test how long a state with 88,000 farms—and more than 20 percent of employment linked directly or indirectly to agriculture—is willing to tolerate elected leaders who deny one of the greatest risks to the farming industry."

"One thing about climate change—farmers care about that," said Timothy Hagle, a political science professor at the University of Iowa. "Maybe not in the same sort of way you hear in a lot of other areas. But what happens with the weather—if it's wetter or drier—that's going to affect farmers' ability to harvest. They care about this."

Also, alternative energy is tied deeply to the farm economy in Iowa. In a state that is second only to Texas in wind power, farmers and other rural landowners earn an estimated $20 million a year from lease payments for hosting turbines on their land."



Meanwhile of course I'll be watching a couple of races in particular: the Democratic congressional candidate George Scott in PA 10, and the 21st district Delaware state Senate Democratic candidate Bob Wheatley.  I wish them well on Tuesday.