(by request.)
As all actual, practicing literary critics know, few sentences in critical works scream tendentiousness louder than:
What should be transparent to any literary critic is that . . .
Literary matters are only “transparent” when they’re not properly literary. If something is transparent, you don’t need a literary critic to ponder the depths it doesn’t have—any old idiot will suffice. And that’s exactly why Jack Cashill, author of the above and an idiot of long-standing, is just the man to prove that Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s autobiography, Dreams From My Father. For Cashill and his mysterious contributors (“[t]he media punishment that Joe the Plumber received” requires they remain anonymous), the case against Obama is a compelling one:
What Mr. Midwest noticed recently is that both Ayers in [A Kind and Just Parent] and Obama in [Dreams From My Father] make reference to the poet Carl Sandburg. In itself, this is not a grand revelation. Let us call it a C-level match. Obama and Ayers seem to have shared the same library in any case . . . Ayers and Obama, however, go beyond citing Sandburg. Each quotes the opening line of his poem “Chicago” . . . This I would call a B-level match. What raises it up a notch to an A-level match is the fact that both misquote “Chicago,” and they do so in exactly the same way.
So both Ayers and Obama misquote the opening line of Carl Sandburg’s “Chicago,” substituting “hog butcher to the world” for “hog butcher for the world.” This mutual error would be significant (an “A-level match”) if Ayers and Obama were the only two people who ever made it, but according to Google Book Search—a secret search engine to which only I have access—the same mistake has been made by Nelson Algren, Alan Lomax, Andrei Codrescu, H.L. Mencken, Paul Krugman, Perry Miller, Donald Hall, Ed McBain, Saul Bellow, S.J. Perelman, Nathanaël West, Ezra Pound, Wright Morris, Allen Ginsberg, Langston Hughes, and the 1967 Illinois Commission on Automation and Technological Progress. (To name but a few.) According to Cashill, I have now proven that Dreams From My Father was written by many a dead man of American letters, a living mystery writer, a New York Times columnist and the 1967 Illinois Commission on Automation and Technological Progress. That bears repeating:
I have an “A-level match” that proves that Obama’s autobiography was written by a “study of the economic and social effects of automation and other technological changes on industry, commerce, agriculture, education, manpower, and society in Illinois” when Obama was only six years old. If that somehow fails to convey to the dubious merits of Cashill’s argument, perhaps this will:
Returning to the exotic, in his Indonesian backyard Obama discovered two “birds of paradise” running wild as well as chickens, ducks, and a “yellow dog with a baleful howl.” In [Ayers’] Fugitive Days, there is even more “howling” than there is in Dreams . . . In [A Kind and Just Parent], he talks specifically about a “yellow dog.” And he uses the word “baleful” to describe an “eye” in Fugitive Days. For the record, “baleful” means “threatening harm.” I had to look it up.
You did read that right. Cashill did cite as “A-level” evidence the fact that Ayers and Obama used a word he didn’t know, despite his being the Executive Editor of Kansas City’s premier business publication, Ingram’s Magazine; despite his having written for Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and The Weekly Standard; despite his having authored five books of non-fiction; and despite the word “baleful” having appeared in print 342 times in the past six months alone. Granted, all those appearances were in high-minded literary publications like Newsday (“[w]ith his baleful countenance, wild hair, sonorous baritone and sage pronouncements”) or leftist rags like The Washington Times (“warn them in baleful tones if they’ve forgotten, say, the Constitution”), so it would be unreasonable to expect Cashill to have been familiar with the word . . . or would be, were it not for the fact that it also appears 19 times in the pages of the American Thinker, the publication for which Cashill penned this tripe. (Seems he can begin his careful literary analysis of the other 848,000 potential ghost writers closer to home.)
Fortunately for Cashill, his argument is not entirely based on demonstrations of ignorance and popular misquotations (which, when you think about it, is more along the lines of literary detection than literary criticism anyway), as when he claims that Ayers and Obama are unique among memoirists in their fascination with eyes: “Ayers is fixated with faces, especially eyes [and] Obama is also fixated with faces, especially eyes.” Having performed an extensive study of autobiographical writing, Cashill knows how unique this fixation with eyes is. Consider this passage from Dreams From My Father:
Peter said Peter said eyes are always and eyes are always. Peter said Peter said, eyes are always and Peter said eyes are always. Peter said eyes are always. Peter said eyes are always.
Sorry—that was Gertrude Stein. Here’s the passage from Dreams From My Father:
Whenever I looked in her direction she had her eyes on me. The face she had! The eyes! She lay streched out on the floorboards with her hands under her head and her eyes closed. Sun blazing down, bit of a breeze, water nice and lively. I noticed a scratch on her thigh and asked her how she came by it. Picking gooseberries, she said. I said again I thought it was hopeless and no good going on, and she agreed, without opening her eyes. I asked her to look at me and after a few moments—after a few moments she did, but the eyes just slits, because of the glare. I bent over her to get them in the shadow and they opened. Let me in. We drifted in among the flags and stuck. The way they went down, sighing, before the stem! The eyes she had!
Sorry—that was Samuel Beckett. If I didn’t know better, I’d be inclinced to argue that works that are overtly concerned with the act of remembering and the limitations of memory tend to obsess over the eye and its punned hononym (“I”). Actually, I do know better, so I will: be they modernist experimentations about subjectivity or humble autobiographies, works that concern themselves with the act of remembering and the limitations of memory tend to obsess over the eye and its punned homonym (“I”).
Perhaps it’s unfair of a professional literary critic to expect Cashill to have intimate knowledge of literary modernism. I should cut him some slack and let him perform the kind of close stylistic analysis that I teach my students. Maybe he can handle something simple, like diction:
To this point, I have just skimmed the 759 items in the bill of particulars in my case against Obama’s literary genius. Not familiar with the term “bill of particulars?” Uncertain myself, I looked that one up too. It means a list of written statements made by a party to a court proceeding. Ayers and Obama each refer knowingly to a “bill of particulars.” Doesn’t everyone?
The answer, of course, is no.
Cashill is on to something here. The phrase “bill of particulars” is an uncommon construction, and its repeated use indicates that the speaker has a specialized vocabulary in which this construction regularly appears. According to LexisNexis, this is exactly the case: in the past six months, that exact phrase has been written 509 times and every single one of them looks like this:
United States v. Clark, NO. 05-6507, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, 09a0422n.06;, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12940; 2009 FED App. 0422N (6th Cir.), June 15, 2009, Filed, NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
The only people who regularly use the phrase “bill of particulars,” then, are lawyers, and since Bill Ayers isn’t a lawyer, I think we can all agree that Cashill is right: Obama is the author of Bill Ayers’ Fugitive D—wait a minute!
UPDATE. I added links to pictures of the LexisNexis searches after a few people complained they couldn’t access the results themselves.
(x-posted.)
21 comments
June 28, 2009 at 4:34 pm
blueollie
Actually, I’ve written many of the top papers in topology. How can I prove this? Many (if not most) papers contain my line: “let X be a topological space…”
:)
June 28, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Charlieford
To do:
1. Stop world.
2. Get off.
June 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm
TF Smith
Nice work, Professor K…
One question I have for the various “Obama is the BLANK” theorists is don’t they have something better to do?
I mean, seriously, the party of Lincoln (you know, the guy who saved the union, got the land grant college and homestead bills passed, and, oh yeah, guaranteed a new birth of freedom) and Eisenhower (you know, fiscal conservative, warned against thje MIC, bolstered the Atlantic Alliance, yadda yadda) is melting into the Dixiecrats Redux – shouldn’t they all be running for their local county or state party committee to try and turn things around?
June 28, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Roger Albin
For a further rebuttal of this bizarre idea, see:
http://www.philocomp.net/humanities/dreams
the author is Peter Millican, a philosopher at Oxford with a professional interest in textual analysis and the developer of one of the standard programs for examining authorship. Millican was apparently approached on the eve of the election by someone with Republican party connections and offered a substantial sum if he could provide evidence that Ayers was Obama’s ghostwriter. For the details see:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5063279.ece
June 28, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Izabella
Blueollie – Sure, but what about the Poincare conjecture? No claim on that?
June 28, 2009 at 8:35 pm
kathy a.
i have it on good authority that obama studied both american literature and law. is it possible that anyone else in the nation studied the same two subjects, besides ayers? and, um, me. and a few dozen or hundred people i could personally identify with prompts. and, well, i hate to bring this up, but there do seem to be quite a lot of colleges teaching literature, not to mention an abundance of law schools scattered around.
great post!
June 28, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Jackmormon
“hog butcher to the world” is a better line.
June 28, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Walt
Until this post, I thought the line was “hog butcher to the world”.
June 28, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Vance
So Walt, are you Obama or Ayers?
June 28, 2009 at 9:46 pm
ari
I still think that’s the right line. And I call Ayers. Because I’m no Muslim.
June 28, 2009 at 10:08 pm
stevenattewell
Jackmormon – I agree. “Hog butcher for the world” doesn’t scan right, because it doesn’t fit the normal parlance of “purveyor of finest X to the gentry/masses/all of London.”
June 29, 2009 at 1:29 am
andrew
I had no idea Obama wrote a report for the Illinois Commission on Automation and Technological Progress when he was in grade school. Audacious.
June 29, 2009 at 7:51 am
Russell Belding
I thought it was Carl Sandberg. It seems strange that Obama and Ayers would both know the correct spelling.
June 29, 2009 at 8:42 am
Chris
Ayers and Obama each refer knowingly to a “bill of particulars.” Doesn’t everyone?
The answer, of course, is no.
No, not everyone, but I would bet that most presidents of the Harvard Law Review would be able to refer knowingly to a bill of particulars. A solid majority, even.
Where Ayers learned the term, I don’t know, but come on, if Cashill was looking up the term, he might as well have looked up where it came from, and compared the result to the CVs of the two men he was studying. That kind of thing is pretty high on the Top 100 Ways To Avoid Embarrassing Yourself On The Internet.
Tracing manuscripts by comparing the errors in them is an actual scholarly discipline, which may have given Cashill the idea for this column. But it’s clearly a discipline Cashill knows nothing about – his error is way too common, and is therefore an F-level match (and even a semi-aware layperson can recognize that, which relegates Cashill to whatever is below semi-awareness). If they had both referred to Chicago as “dog butcher to the world”, or claimed that *that* was what Sandburg said, that might be worth something – although, by itself, still not much.
June 29, 2009 at 9:02 am
adamhenne
It actually appears to me that what you’ve proved with this Sandburg misquote is that Ayers also ghostwrote for Algers, Lomax, Mencken, et al. The scope of this conspiracy clearly exceeds anything the GOP is willing to discuss out loud, but the truth will out.
June 29, 2009 at 9:28 am
Anderson
As the saying goes, Cashill’s article is a signed confession of his own stupidity.
June 29, 2009 at 9:46 am
SEK
Tracing manuscripts by comparing the errors in them is an actual scholarly discipline
That it is, says the guy who’s married to someone who does paleographical studies. Maybe that’s why I find this sort of error-culling so galling: I’ve seen what’s required to trace medieval manuscripts across Europe over centuries, so this sort of piss-ant “analysis” strikes me as both stupid and lazy.
June 29, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Charlieford
I have no law training and by many accounts am only half-educated–or educated beyond my intelligence–actually, no reason it can’t be both is there?–and I’ve been familiar with the phrase “bill of particulars” since time out of mind. I think it’s got a certain amount of pop-culture purchase. I wouldn’t have thought of it as jargon or technical language. So, I think what we have here is, stated simply, a real dope. He sees the world through his dopey eyes, and he comes to dopey conclusions. This is why these people–think Horowitz et al–are so chary about higher education. They rightly perceive it as a form of cultural aggression, a threat to their tribe. The more people who are effectively educated, the more their tribe of paranoid, parochial dopes will dwindle.
June 29, 2009 at 2:18 pm
kth
That he doesn’t know from ‘baleful’, I can’t really believe. Must be another explanation, like a failed attempt at faux-populist self-deprecation.
June 29, 2009 at 9:19 pm
The Tragically Flip
This is some Sadly No! level stuff. And that is a compliment.
June 30, 2009 at 1:57 pm
touhy
Any one who has even spent any time in the presence of Bill Ayers must know that he would never ghost write for anyone.