fbpx

January 25, 2007

Literary Paprika (Mark Sarvas and ‘The Elegant Variation’)

What better way to start the New Year than by sprinkling a little literary paprika?

Consider this: Mark Sarvas, a New York-born son of Hungarian parents, a voracious reader, a Francophile and a foodie, comes to Los Angeles to be a writer, sells some screenplays and starts an acclaimed literary blog, The Elegant Variation (marksarvas.blogs.com/elegvar ).

To top it all off, Sarvas has just completed his first novel, as yet untitled and currently being submitted to publishers. “Yoy Ishtenem!” If ever there was a ready-made subject for Tommywood, this is it.

Let’s begin with some background.

Sarvas’ father was born in Budapest, his mother in Vienna, and both grew up in Budapest. On his mother’s side, much of her maternal family was murdered at Auschwitz, and her father spent much of the war in forced labor, arriving eventually at Mauthausen, where he was liberated at war’s end. Sarvas’ father’s family lived under false papers in the country during the war, and it was Sarvas’ father’s task to smuggle food for them.

His parents married in 1955 and divorced a year later. Sarvas’ father left Hungary the next year, following the 1956 revolution. Sarvas’ mother came to the United States in the 1960s. They reunited in New York and remarried. Mark Sarvas was born soon thereafter. As he told me, that tale, in of itself, could make for a novel.

Sarvas’ own story is rich with foreshadowing of his literary interests. He was born in Manhattan at a hospital on East 30th Street that no longer exists, The French Hospital. His mother tells an apocryphal story that as a 1-year-old, he ate the frontispiece page of “The Complete Works of Shakespeare,” predestining him for life as a littérateur.

Sarvas, however, credits a high school creative writing teacher with steering him to writing (and away from the rock band that was consuming his energies). That, and reading F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” as a sophomore at New York University, which “set a fire” within Sarvas to become a writer. (As noted in his blog, Sarvas re-reads “Gatsby” every January to begin the New Year — more on that later). He began writing short stories and went on to become managing editor of the NYU paper, The Washington Square News.

Upon graduating in the fall of 1986, Sarvas came to Los Angeles with the promise of co-writing a script for the TV show, “Moonlighting.” Although, as they say in California, that didn’t pan out, Sarvas did begin to write scripts.

Aided and abetted by his agent (now manager) Steve White, he joined the league of screenwriters who make a living, but whose work rarely gets made or read by more than a cadre of industry folk. He was writing, but was he expressing himself?

Someone famously said that Los Angeles is a pool where you dive in at one end and come out the other to find 20 years have gone by. As the 21st century dawned, Sarvas found that he had become a fan of literary blogs, online personal diaries that refer to, quote from and comment on writers — the blogger reviews and writes while often narrating his or her own travails and adventures in the writing world. Sarvas admired Maud Newton’s www.maudnewton.com/blog and Laila Lalami’s Moorish Girl blog, www.lailalalami.com/blog/.

One day — Oct. 14, 2003, to be precise — feeling that he had something to add to the literary conversation, Sarvas launched The Elegant Variation blog. The rest, as they say in the blogosphere, are entries.

“I had no idea what I was getting into,” Sarvas now says.

The Elegant Variation, according to Fowler’s and as cited on Sarvas’ blog, refers to prose that calls attention to itself. Sarvas’ interest is in fiction that does the opposite, so I can only assume that he is being self-deprecating about his talents, ambitions and the inherent potential pretension of being a literary blogger. Sarvas’ blog appears over pleasing shades of green background.

The center features his daily digest of news (i.e., Salman Rushdie’s next work will be a historical novel), comments about reviews, literary prize winners, obits, new books, events, all featuring links to the those texts. On the left side of the Web page are books Sarvas is currently recommending, such as a new collection of Paris Review interviews, “The Mystery Guest” by Gregoire Bouillier and “Ticknor” by Sheila Heti.

As blog entry followed blog entry, Sarvas realized that he had a unique perspective: “I could provide coverage of L.A authors and L.A. events,” he said.

For a while, he ran a Monday morning critique of the Sunday L.A. Times Book Review, but he stopped to give the section’s new editor, David Ulin, time to find his footing. Now that more than a year has passed, Sarvas is considering starting up again.

He also tries to highlight authors and items of literary interest that are, “further afield.” He championed the British author John Banville long before the Booker Award committee anointed him.

Sarvas’ blog is in the process of running an in-depth interview with Banville and in the past has featured interviews with authors such as Andrew Sean Greer (“The Confessions of Max Tivoli”). A recent interview with Jonathan Lethem broke the news that Lethem is introducing a Philip K. Dick anthology.

Sarvas feels that “he’s at the right place and at the right time,” he said. He believes “there’s an evolving sense of a literary community,” both in Los Angeles and in cyberspace. In that regard, he was also instrumental in founding the Litblog Coop (lbc.typepad.com), a blog that recommends contemporary fiction.

Part of what Sarvas most enjoys about his blog is the friends he has made and the correspondences he has had with readers from all over the world. He has even engendered a literary dust-up with another blogger — not quite Mailer vs. Vidal or a Trump vs. Rosie fracas but still evidence of the growing pains of an ever-expanding community.

The Elegant Variation has no commercial dimension — no ads or banners. Sarvas makes “not a dime,” from the blog, he says. It is “a labor of love.”

For this writer, at a time when literary books no longer hold the general culture in thrall and in a city where many sit alone in rooms wondering, in the words of E.M. Forster, “how to connect,” it is reassuring to read a blog where someone cares about literature and those novels that may never make the best-seller lists.

Beyond that, I feel a certain kinship with Sarvas, based on our shared backgrounds. Reading his blog makes me want to call out, much as Baudelaire addressed his reader, “Hypocrite lecteur, mon semblable, mon fr?re” — not only because I want to amortize my expensive education, but also because I am confident that Sarvas would get the reference.

It is easy for me to imagine the two of us in Budapest 100 years ago, scribbling our feuilletons in the corner of a café, rather than in Los Angeles, each in our own corners of the increasingly wide world Web. If any of the Hungarian Jews who came to Hollywood in the 1930s and 1940s were young men today, wouldn’t they be writing literary blogs? In this way, I look at the whole notion of creating The Elegant Variation as an essentially Hungarian enterprise.

At the same time, it is also very L.A.

This is the City of Dreams in the State of Self-Invention (Just consider our governor, for starts). It is also a place where one person can still stand out and stake a claim. In that sense, The Elegant Variation is very much of California and of L.A.

But to really understand why people still come to Hollywood, and why they continue to pitch and write on spec, or still write literary novels and/or start blogs — and continue to do so in the face of the changing industry — you have but to turn to Sarvas’s favorite novel, “Gatsby” (and let’s not forget that Fitzgerald himself ended his days here). Is there a better explanation for the essential optimism that animates our lives and that inspires Sarvas and “The Elegant Variation” than how Fitzgerald concludes his great novel?

“Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter — tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther…. And one fine morning —
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Tom Teicholz is a film producer in Los Angeles. Everywhere else, he’s an author and journalist who has written for The New York Times Sunday Magazine, Interview and The Forward. His column appears every other week.

Literary Paprika (Mark Sarvas and ‘The Elegant Variation’) Read More »

Donors’ love of the stars shines on at Griffith Observatory

The late Samuel Oschin loved adventure travel.

Some of his best-known and most exotic expeditions included retracing Robert Peary’s voyage to the North Pole, paddling up the Amazon in a dugout canoe and crossing the Alps atop an elephant (à la Hannibal).

Less well known is the central role his romance with the night sky played in his adventures.

“He navigated by the stars when he traveled to these remote places,” his widow, Lynda Oschin said. “That experience was as important to him as the trips themselves.”

Through the generosity of the Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Oschin Family Foundation, visitors to the Samuel Oschin Planetarium at the newly renovated Griffith Observatory will also have a chance to orient themselves in the universe.

The Griffith Observatory’s reopening on Nov. 3 after a five-year, $93 million renovation showcased the Samuel Oschin Planetarium, which joins the Leonard Nimoy Event Horizon theatre, contributed by Leonard Nimoy and Susan Bay-Nimoy, as well as the Richard and Lois Gunther Depths of Space Exhibit as expanded offerings from Jewish philanthropic families.

This gift of cosmic knowledge from the Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Oschin Family Foundation is one of the fruits of a successful business career with very earthly roots.

“My husband started off selling shoelaces and potato chips when he was a kid in Detroit,” Lynda Oschin said.

That early entrepreneurial spirit eventually led Samuel Oschin into building, banking, investment and commercial real estate. It also allowed him in his later years to make several significant contributions to astronomy, his “second love.”

“One year he took me to the desert near Lake Mead so we could watch the Perseid Meteor Shower in dry air with no light pollution,” Lynda Oschin said. “Even before we saw the first meteor streak across the sky, I was dazzled just looking up at the night sky under those perfect conditions.

When my husband told me there were more stars in the sky than there were grains of sand on the earth, I really understood how deep this passion for astronomy was in him.”

In addition to the planetarium at Griffith Observatory, the telescope at Mount Palomar Observatory — which Cal Tech astronomer Michael Brown has recently used to discover new worlds in the dim reaches of the solar system beyond Pluto — also bears Oschin’s name.

A childhood visit to another major telescope in Southern California inspired the imagination of Richard Gunther, a venture capitalist, securities investor and philanthropist who funded another key element of the Griffith Observatory renovation, the Richard and Lois Gunther Depths of Space Exhibit.

“When I was 12, I went to the Mount Wilson Observatory, which was then the largest telescope open for public viewing,” Gunther said. “I was stunned to look through the telescope and see that the Orion Nebula, which to the naked eye looks just like a single star in the constellation Orion, is really a huge, dense cloud of gas where hundreds of stars are being born.”

His lifelong fascination with astronomy and that early lesson in the trickiness of perspective in astronomical observation inspired Gunther to become involved in the renovation of Griffith Observatory — on one condition.

“I wanted to serve on the Depths of Space Committee,” he said.

For more than two years, Gunther worked with astronomers and astrophysicists from UCLA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to develop an exhibit that would convey the vast distances between objects in space — and the dramatic shifts in scale between huge objects like the Orion Nebula and relatively tiny objects like asteroids — in a way that would be both comprehensible and engaging to millions of visitors.

“My task was to keep the excitement for kid viewers,” Gunther said.

The result of Gunther’s enthusiasm and the work of the other committee members is a dazzling exhibit that illustrates the relationship between the earth and its neighbors both near and far — the moon, the sun, other planets in the solar system, the stars in the Milky Way and objects beyond our home galaxy.

“It’s a marvelous educational tool,” Gunther said. “I hope it will turn thousands of kids on to astronomy.”

Gunther has had good luck transmitting his love of space science to the kids in his own family. He said all of his children are sci-fi fans, and he was thrilled when his grandson asked to go to a space shuttle launch.
“My son went to Prince Edward Island to watch a total solar eclipse a few years ago,” Gunther said. “He was awed as all the birds grew quiet and the shadow of the moon swept toward him across the Atlantic.”

In his grandson’s sense of awe Gunther sees a hint of what he calls the “healing quality” of astronomy.

“Ten years from now, with the next generation of space telescopes, they’ll have found 100,000 planets beyond our solar system,” he said.

“That’s not just a curiosity. Painting a much bigger picture of the universe can change the way people view one another. I believe astronomy can help us develop a broader vision of what it means to be alive.”

Donors’ love of the stars shines on at Griffith Observatory Read More »

Daniel Pearl “I Am Jewish” Tribute Videos

Paula Kirman’s original video:



Tribute video from blogger Jewlicious:



Message from Judea and Ruth Pearl:



Rabbi Yonah Bookstein:



Want to join in?

If you don’t have a YouTube account and want to support the campaign and share your own tribute, email us your video and we’ll upload it to YouTube for you. If you upload your own video tribute, let us knowWhat do Daniel’s last words mean to you?
Talk about him in The Jewish Journal Reader Forums!

Daniel Pearl “I Am Jewish” Tribute Videos Read More »

Holidays <B>not</b> on the calendar; Rockin’ with Himmelman

Holidays NOT on the Calendar

Feb. 13: Get a Different Name Day — If your name is Jennifer and you’d rather be called Waterfall Gumdrop, today is your chance. Although the next day you have to go back to your real name. Sorry.

Feb. 26: Tell a Fairy Tale Da — Why not get together with your family or friends and share a story from a book or make up a new one? Just make sure it starts with “Once upon a time…” and ends with “…they lived happily ever after.”

Rockin’ with Himmelman

Do you ever get into the car and start arguing about what music to listen to? Your little sister wants her princess songs; your brother likes the Jewish group, The Chevra; you want to listen to KIIS-FM, and your mother says all of it gives her a headache.

This happens in my car a lot, but when we listened to “My Green Kite,” Peter Himmelman’s new album, after just a few rounds everyone was snapping and singing along. Himmelman writes music for TV shows such as “Judging Amy” and “Bones” and has a bunch of rock albums.

In this kids’ collection, he combines his rocker cool voice with a great sense of humor and sings about all the little details that kids like to think about — like red rubber boots in the rain, the properties of an egg and mom’s awesome dinner-making skills.

Neima, my 5-year-old, just loves the title song about a kite that goes so high that it gets in the way of airplanes. The song about the schmendrick who loves his feet — especially the part about how they go “twinkle winkle winkle” under the covers — just cracks her up.

Yair, who is 10, thinks the rap style of “I Got Nothing to Say,” with its steady beat and many rhymes, is a pretty cool song, and he’s also amused by the interview with a professor (also a kid) about how fast a chicken or a fish can throw a baseball. And Ezra, the 8-year-old, seems to really like to quote back to me the idea that “maybe is a bad word,” from a song about that annoying habit of parents not to give a real answer. And all of us love the slow ballad about a kid’s tribute to his father, “My Father Is an Accountant.”

So overall, we’re big fans, just like we are of his other children’s CDs, “My Best Friend Is a Salamander” and “My Fabulous Plum.” That one has the fantastic song about a world where you only eat candy. Just think about that. Only candy.

— Julie Gruenbaum Fax, Education Editor

YeLAdim will be mixing it up this year with more reviews of movies, books, music and TV shows than ever before. If you have a review you've written (or want to write) or have heard of something that you want us to know about, e-mail kids@jewishjournal.com. You'll be famous, and your parents and grandparents will have something to hang on their fridge.

R.E.A.D. Goes to the Dogs

Mark your calendars, grab a bookmark and get ready to relax and have fun. On Feb. 4, some very special visitors will be coming back to the Jewish Community Library of Los Angeles.

On Jan. 14, a group of kids had the chance to come to the library and read books to dogs. Yup, that’s right, dogs. But not just any dogs, these dogs were Reading Education Assistance Dogs (R.E.A.D.) who, with their owners/handlers, help make kids become better readers. Might sound strange, but remember: Dogs are great listeners, and they won’t howl if you want to read “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” out loud for the 15th time.

The R.E.A.D. dogs will be returning to JCLLA, 6006 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, on Sunday, Feb. 4, 1:15-2:30 p.m. Call (323) 761-8648 to reserve your 15-minute time slot.

Holidays <B>not</b> on the calendar; Rockin’ with Himmelman Read More »

Missionaries impossible

When I walk into the Santa Monica restaurant, it’s easy to spot the Sisters, as they are young, fresh-faced, sitting straight backed, looking expectantly at the door.

They’re not nuns, but missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which means Mormon by the way, although I know as little about their religion as they know about mine.

I promised a Mormon friend I would meet with them. They had met with some Orthodox rabbis, but my friend thought I could give them a broader, nondenominational perspective on Judaism.

“We wanted to understand your religion,” says one of the sisters in a lilting South African accent. Incongruously, she works Beverly Hills and Bel Air.

“There are a lot of Jews there,” she says ruefully implying that it’s not easy for a black, South African Mormon missionary to go cold-calling there.

“We want to know about all religions,” says the other, a blonde-haired, rosy-cheeked 22-year-old straight from Central Casting (Salt Lake City).

What they want from me is a basic understanding of Judaism.

“Why?” I ask.

“We don’t want to say the wrong things, come at the wrong times. We want to know who we are talking to.”

“Talking to about what?” I ask.

“The message of Jesus,” they say.

Duh. They’re missionaries.

It’s at this point of the lunch that many others would walk away, or maybe start a covert disinformation campaign (“Jews have horns and worship the grass and they eat shoes”) just to thwart them.

But I don’t. Hasn’t Borat done enough?

Besides, aren’t Jews meant to be a light onto other nations?

They pull out their questionnaire.

“What are the fundamentals of the Jewish faith?” they ask.

Hmm. Good question.

“What’s a fundamental?” I ask.

“What do Jews think about the afterlife? Do they believe in reincarnation? What do they think about the Messiah?”

“Did you ever hear the phrase, ‘Two Jews, Three Shuls?'” I say.

They shake their heads keenly, as if I am about to pass on a most important tenet of my faith. I consider telling them the joke about the Jews stranded on the desert island (the one with the punch line: “that’s the synagogue I don’t pray in.”) but I could tell from their earnestness they aren’t ready for the subject of Jewish humor, cynicism and a long tradition of apostasy, Jesus being the prime example.

Even though I can readily explain the concept of the World to Come (“Did you hear the one about the rabbi in heaven posted next to the blonde in the bikini?”), eschatology isn’t my really my strong point, and I’m not sure it’s the point of Judaism.

“The point of being Jewish is here on this earth: To follow God’s commandments, create a Jewish family, contribute to the Jewish community, make the world a better place,” I say.

God help me, I’m beginning to sound like them, I think. On the other hand, my rabbis would be proud.

“There’s so much to learn,” Sister Salt Lake City gushes.

Oh, you don’t know the half of it, sister.

Sister South Africa looks slightly overwhelmed, like she didn’t know how to use any of the information I’d given her in the tony neighborhood of Beverly Hills.

“Are there any times I shouldn’t go into a Jewish house?” she asks.

I decide to be honest with her, poor girl. First apartheid, now this. Why didn’t they send her to an easier neighborhood, like South L.A. or Watts?

“Look, it doesn’t matter when you knock on someone’s door, because if they’re Jewish they’re probably not going to talk to you no matter what,” I say. “They see your name tag, and the words ‘Church’ and ‘Jesus’ and the door will slam.”

She nodded miserably. The past week she’d spent four hours in a Jewish neighborhood and didn’t get invited into one home.

“Jews don’t like missionaries,” I explain. “We’ve had centuries of being persecuted, corralled and decimated — often by the Catholic Church or its adherents — and so we’re not about to convert to Christianity.” (Mormonism is a sect of Christianity, apparently. Who knew?)

“But I don’t want to convert them — I can’t hardly convert Christians. I just want to get the message across,” she says. “And I want to get to know them.”

Hmm. Get to know them. Why would a Jew want to get to know a missionary?

“Well, maybe you could tell them that,” I say. “That you know they’re Jewish, and they don’t like missionaries, but you wanted to have a discussion on the tenets of your faiths,” I offer this though I doubt it will work. But if they only need to say their message, not convert anyone, then who knows? It’s like taking a flyer from an underpaid temp on the street. Even if you’re going to toss it, it helps them.

She looks cheered at the prospect of a new tactic. She recalls some successes: a group of teenagers in Beverly Hills, an old Jewish man who said he didn’t believe in any religion. Nothing to get into heaven with, if you ask me.

As we walk down Colorado Boulevard, they with copious notes they plan to hand out to other missionaries, Sister South Africa wonders aloud why she hasn’t been sent to some place easier, to Kenya, for example, where “my own people are.”

But, “Los Angeles is a strange place,” she says. “There are a lot of lost souls here.”

I don’t know whether I’ve helped her or hindered her, helped my own people or set myself on a path straight to our version of hell, but on this one point, if no other, I have to agree.

Missionaries impossible Read More »

Jews get short shrift at Oscar nominations

If, as they say, a “Jewish cabal” runs Hollywood, it sure did a lousy job in promoting its own Jewish-themed films during Tuesday’s Academy Award nominations.

Whereas in past years one could at least count on Steven Spielberg or a Holocaust documentary to provide a snappy lead for a story in the Jewish media, this year the pickings were slim, indeed.

Alan (middle name Wolf) Arkin got an Oscar nomination for his role as Grandpa, the heroin-snorting, womanizing family patriarch in “Little Miss Sunshine.”

The 72-year-old actor, director, author and musician holds the distinction of having been nominated for an Oscar in his very first screen appearance in 1966 in “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming.”

Two years later he was nominated again for his role in “The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter.”

In a past interview, Arkin observed, “Well, I’ve always been a character actor, I’ve never been a leading man. It gave me an opportunity not to have to take my clothes off all the time.”

Jewish filmmakers dominated the feature-length documentary category, with fare that often tackled controversial social and political issues. The five docs nominated include Davis Guggenheim’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” about global warming, produced by activist Laurie David (wife of Larry); Amy Berg’s “Deliver Us From Evil” about pedophilia charges against the Catholic Church; and “Jesus Camp,” co-directed by Rachel Grady.

Despite a flood of shrewd publicity, “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” won only one nomination for the faux journalist’s creator Sacha Baron Cohen.

The British comedian was named in the Adapted Screenplay category (who knew there even was a screenplay?), along with his co-writers Anthony Hines, Peter Baynham and Dan Mazer. The largely improvised film had previously qualified as an adapted screenplay for the Writer’s Guild Awards since it was based on the character Cohen featured on HBO’s “Da Ali G Show,” Variety reported.

And finally, there’s the real dark horse nomination of “West Bank Story” in the Short Film-Live Action category.

Director Ari Sandel tags his work as “A little singing, a little dancing, a lot of hummus.”

A review in The Journal two years ago lauded “the very funny film featuring an all-singing, all-dancing cast. In it, the Israeli boy and the Palestinian girl join hands and hearts to settle a bitter rivalry between their families’ competing West Bank falafel stands.”

The 79th annual Academy Awards airs Feb. 25 on ABC.

Jews get short shrift at Oscar nominations Read More »

Majority Rules

Let me state for the record: I am a trendsetter.

This just in, according to no less an authority than The New York Times. Based on their most
recent census analysis, more American women are living without a husband than with one.

Yes, that’s right: 51 percent of women in 2005 said they were living without a spouse, compared to 35 percent in 1950. Living without a spouse doesn’t exactly mean single in the traditional sense of the word, if there is a traditional sense of the word. Some are living with partners (“in sin”), some have been married and are now widowed or divorced, and some, like me, just haven’t married yet because women are marrying later in life.

Incidentally, in 2005, married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time.


advertisement

Jewish Singles Cruises

It’s comforting to know that at least I’m part of a majority.

So here’s what I’m wondering: If this trend continues, and, say, in a couple of decades the numbers shift so they’re the opposite of those in the 1950s, and only 35 percent of adults are married, what would the world be like? I mean, what would it be like for a nonmarried person?

You’d be at a meal with a group of people and everyone would be mingling with each other and having fun, and all of a sudden one man says, “We’re married.”

A silence would fall on the table, like in the old days, when someone confessed to being … single.

Finally someone would break the silence: “How long have you been married?”

“Ten years,” the “wife” would say.

Again the silence, and you are the one to ask what no one else could say. “But you’re so young! How old are you anyway?”

When it dawns on the crowd that the two are both 35 and have been married since they were 25, shock turns to disbelief, and the ice breaks. Everyone has questions. They’ve all forgotten their fun, single, happy life for a moment and turn to talk to this anomaly.
“Why do you think you’re still married?”

“I mean, are you even trying? Do you just stay home with each other?”
“Do you think maybe you’re too un-picky? I mean, maybe if you were more selective you wouldn’t be married.”

“God, it must be so hard for you to be married at your age,” someone would say, sort of sympathetically, but mostly inordinately relieved for herself that she’s not in that position.

“I think I may know someone else who’s married,” one man would add, trying to be helpful. Then he’d remember: “No, forget it, they split up.”

Soon, of course, the conversation would turn to fertility, as it always does in these situations.

“Aren’t you worried about your biological clock? I mean, you’re not getting any younger, and there still might be time to have children with other people. I guess you could always freeze your eggs — lots of married people are doing that these days, I hear. Why, this one friend of mine paid $100,000 in fertility treatments and got three viable eggs!”

And then everyone would be off, talking animatedly about doctors and sperm banks and adoption and how children these days are much better off than they were when we were growing up because there are so many parental units and families are so fluid and there’s so much less pressure to marry and to stay married and no stigma on divorce so kids can just focus on finding themselves and being good, productive people in good, healthy relationships.

Then some socially clueless person, who didn’t realize the conversation had finally taken its spotlight off the uncomfortable, lone, married couple, would pipe in, “I hear married people die younger than unmarried people.”

At that point you’d be able to hear the forks clatter to the plates, and everyone would be looking down, because even if that much-bandied about statistic were true — who researched those things anyway? It was like that urban legend in the 1980s, about a single woman over 35 being more likely to get killed by a terrorist than find a mate — was it really necessary to point it out?

Immediately everyone would start talking again — about the latest art opening, real estate prices, the upcoming ski trip to the Alps — anything to change the subject, because everyone would suddenly start to feel bad for the married couple, because really, it wasn’t their fault, exactly; it could happen to anyone if they weren’t careful.

And then they’d think back to an earlier, bygone era, back in the beginning of the millennium, say, in 2000, when married people were still the majority, and they’d thank their lucky stars for being born in such enlightened times.

Majority Rules Read More »

Islam in the Hood

Is Islam a religion of war or of peace? Is it both? How did it start? What are its connections to Judaism?

These and other questions lit upmy house the other night as part of an unusual Torah salon that has been gracing the Pico-Robertson neighborhood for the past 10 years.

It was started by writer and film producer David Brandes and has been informally called the Avi Chai group, after the Avi Chai Foundation (which until recently supplied the funding).

What’s unusual is that this is a group of 20-25 mostly unobservant Jews, many of them writers and filmmakers, who like to go very deeply into Jewish texts. For many years, the class was led by a scholarly Orthodox rabbi and author, Rabbi Levi Meir, whose approach was to dissect the many layers of an original Torah text by delving into Rashi and other classic commentators.

In other words, it was your basic hard-core yeshiva class for Hollywood hipsters.

I participated in several of these salons over the years, and I can tell you it is a sight to behold bright, hip Jews who haven’t spent a minute in a yeshiva take on a Torah scholar on the microscopic difference between two interpretations of a text. Put a black hat on the men and make the whole thing in Yiddish and you wouldn’t be too far from Mea Shearim.

What I also find remarkable is that many of the same people have been coming back, month after month, year after year. I find this remarkable because their deep attachment to Judaism has little to do with their level of observance. They have not chosen a religious lifestyle, which would obligate them to learn regularly. They are learning about their religion, rather than learning how to become more religious.

And as you’ll see, they are very adventurous in their learning.

Lately, under the tutelage of Rabbi Abner Weiss, the class has expressed a greater interest in history and theology, including how Judaism compares to other religions. The class the other night was the first in a three-part series on Islam.

After it was over, there was a strange silence among many of the participants. It wasn’t just that they didn’t want to wake up my kids, or that my mother’s desserts had sucked up their attention.

There was a sense that we’ve all been cheated. Not by the class — which was electrifying — but by the lack of serious reporting in the general news media about history and theology.

People were wondering: Why do we rarely hear about the history of Islam, about the role that wars and coercion played in its conception, about how the prophet Muhammad felt slighted by the Jews of Arabia, and about the many similarities between Islam and Judaism?

In an hour and a half, we gained more knowledge on Islam than in 1,000 reports of any major newspaper or news broadcast.

Did you know that according to the late professor Louis Ginzberg, the eminent authority on Talmud, Arabian Jews at one point actually prayed five times a day, and that the five daily prayers of Islam “were undoubtedly ordained by Muhammad as a result of this early Jewish practice”?

We also learned through the scholarship of professor Abraham Katsh (“Judaism and the Koran”) that the Islamic concepts of “ethical monotheism, the unity of God; prayer; consideration for the underprivileged; reverence for parents; fasting; penitence; the belief in angels; the stories about Abraham, the Patriarchs, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon; the injunction of a pilgrimage to Mecca; waging war against the enemy; the status of women; and the position of prophets, all have their antecedents in Jewish tradition.”

Of course, we also learned that Islam refashioned many of the original teachings and stories of the Jewish Bible, that military conquest and coercion played a huge role in the birth of Islam and that many Arabs and pagans in pre-Islam Arabia (particularly in what is now Yemen) had a real admiration for Jews and even converted to Judaism.

In short, our minds were provoked and our curiosity aroused. Many of us have tracked down the books quoted by Rabbi Weiss to learn more, and there is a great sense of anticipation for the next class.

Why is all this historical and theological learning so important?Because it gives us a context by which to understand current events. The information we routinely get from the media on a complicated and delicate subject like the religion of Islam seems so limited to the newsy, the violent and the politically correct that it is limiting a much needed debate.

One reason attempts at Jewish and Muslim dialogue fail is they’re too schmaltzy, like some innocuous therapy session that is overly focused on process, at the expense of knowledge.

What we need is less bridge-building and more knowledge-building; fewer dialogue sessions and more learning salons.

I’d love to see Jewish and Muslim groups engage in civilized debate on some of the hard, divisive questions of theology and history that are too often suppressed, or left to be debated in the obscure halls of academia. It may be unpleasant for both sides, but in the long run, the relationship stands a better chance.

Maybe the bridge builders can come to our next Torah salon on Islam, right here in the hood. If the subject becomes too painful, at least there’ll be my mother’s Moroccan cookies.

David Suissa, an advertising executive, is the founder of OLAM magazine and Meals4Israel.com. He can be reached at dsuissa@olam.org.

Islam in the Hood Read More »

Gangs of N.Y. — and L.A.

The gang violence that has recently wracked parts of Los Angeles compels me to ask this question: Where are all the Jewish gangs?

I’m not being cute.

There was a time in history when America’s worst gangs were Jewish. From 1880 through the dawn of Prohibition, New York’s Lower East Side was synonymous with thugs, thieves, gambling and prostitution. That part of our collective memory we’ve understandably underemphasized: Just what did Tevye the Milkman’s daughters have to do to survive in the Golden Land?

“Along with upright unionists like David Dubinsky and his ILGWU [International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union], there were shlammers [goons], like Gyp “The Blood” Horowitz, Kid Twist and “Dopey” Benny Fine, armed with lead pipes, chains, knucks and guns, who constituted the vast and bloody mercenary army of the labor wars,” Mike Bookman, the author of a 2000 novel of the period, “God’s Rat,” told me.

Indeed, as Albert Fried documents in “The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Gangster in America” (Columbia, 1993), the Lower East Side of Yiddish theater, warm bialys, firebrand politics and hard-working immigrants was also rife with pimps, addicts and thugs — all Jewish.

The “demonically cruel” Dutch Schultz? His mother knew him as Arthur Flegenheimer.

And it wasn’t just New York. Jewish gangs were the terror of turn-of-the-century Cleveland, Minneapolis, Chicago and Detroit, where Hastings Street, wrote Fried, “spawned a farrago of teenage Jewish street gangs.” The cops called it “Little Jerusalem.”

These days, to point out the obvious, Jewish gangs are not such a problem. Sure there’s an Israeli Ecstasy ring here and a Russian prostitution ring there, but you can walk the mean streets of Brentwood, Sherman Oaks or Pico-Robertson and not have to worry about crossing paths with some turf-protecting boychiks sporting blue-and-white do-rags and Hebrew bling.

Jewish kids who want to go gangsta have only one outlet: rap parodies on YouTube.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the case with other boys their age. Over the past month, gang violence between Latinos and blacks in the Harbor Gateway area resulted in the murder of 14-year-old Cheryl Green. Last Saturday, Latino gang members shot a 34-year-old black man in front of his daughters as he waited for them to meet a friend for a birthday sleepover.

“This is part of a tit-for-tat killing spree that has been going on for a decade,” said Joe Hicks, who, when he was executive director of the City of Los Angeles Human Relations Commission, spent a good part of his time in Harbor Gateway. “But something has definitely shifted into another gear that has gotten people pretty alarmed.”

Across the city, some 269 lives were cut short by gang-related violence in 2006.

The Green murder prompted an outpouring of community grief and outrage and a good amount of political posturing. It also focused attention on a report, prepared by Los Angeles civil rights attorney Connie Rice, that calls for a $1 billion “Marshall Plan” to improve the lives of kids vulnerable to gangs.

A billion may not seem like a lot — in Iraq, we’ve spent $323 billion and only succeeded in starting gang wars — but many observers want to, wisely, take a step back before rushing in with the checks.

“Harbor Gateway is a 2-mile area as desolate as you can find,” said Hicks, who is now co-director of Community Advocates. “You do need to bring additional services to the community. But if you build a basketball court or a Boys & Girls Club, the gang would immediately claim that. It would decide who’s able to play checkers or shoot hoops.”

Hicks’ experience, backed up by police, is that there are a limited number of really bad apples in any gang. When these “shot callers” were arrested and locked up in the mid-1990s, the situation improved, Hicks said.

“First, law enforcement has to get tough,” he said. “Lock up people for doing bad stuff. Second, convert peripheral gang members. Third, work on the younger generation with community development and activities.”

This struck me as sensible and straightforward, with this caveat: It’s not just gang culture that’s sick, it’s our culture.

When the L.A. Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez spent time with members of the 204th Street Gang, he found older men with steady jobs who commuted to gang bang.

“If it was about race, why are they killing each other?” he asked me. “Their primary identity is not their ethnicity, it is ‘us against the outsiders.’ It’s all about posturing and pride.” And their music and entertainment reaffirms their choice. “Mainstream culture glorifies criminality,” Rodriguez said.

Any solution or set of solutions is bound to fail if we as a society don’t consistently send a very simple message: gang behavior is bad.The era of Jewish gangs faded as most of the original gangsters aged and a new generation of Jewish youth found better outlets for their testosterone.

One crucial brake on their behavior? According to Fried, it was good old-fashioned shame. In 1912, as violence among Jewish gangs reached its peak, the Jewish community reacted with almost unanimous disgust.

“The Jewish community turned in on itself, confronting itself as never before,” Fried writes. He quotes the editor of a Yiddish newspaper, expressing the common outrage of the day: “The divine word, ‘I choose you among the people of the earth,’ ends up this way.”

Jewish gangsters who sought to elevate themselves by accruing wealth and inspiring fear found themselves objects of communal derision and disgust. Compare that reaction with today’s popular entertainment that too often idealizes and romanticizes gangsters.

“We have to find ways to erode the culture at root of urban America, the gangster hip-hop ethos,” Hicks said.

How to pay for Hicks’ beefed-up police and Rice’s “Marshall Plan”?What about a sin tax on black and Latino artists who partake in that glorification, and Jewish and non-Jewish agents, marketers, record labels and corporations who profit from their artistry?

OK, maybe a tax isn’t realistic. Then again, shame doesn’t seem to be working either.

Gangs of N.Y. — and L.A. Read More »

New ‘big idea’ for Mideast could be big trouble

U.S. policy over the last decade has been very much influenced by big ideas designed to transform the Middle East. None of these ideas has worked, which is why Washington is
being bombarded with new, alternative big ideas.

I have watched one of these ideas evolve over the past year, getting bigger and bigger, and I would go so far as to call it the enemy from within.

But before I tell you what the enemy is, let us briefly look back at what has already gone wrong. We have to look back, because the debate today is the result of a decade of American failure in the Middle East. Three big American ideas or grand strategies for transforming the Middle East have failed over the last 10 years: peace, globalization and democracy.

Grand Failures

First, peace. That is the generic name, but you also know it under its brand name, the “new Middle East.” In the 1990s, some observers began to argue that the conflicts in the Middle East had been put out of business by the end of the Cold War. The Soviets were not around anymore to back up their Arab clients, such as the PLO and Syria. Their weakness supposedly left them more amenable to joining the “peace process.”

If peace agreements between Israel and its remaining enemies could be nailed down in a diplomatic push, the Middle East could become a cooperative zone, like the European Union. Animosities would wane; borders would melt.

The brand name, “new Middle East.” came from the title of a book published by Shimon Peres in 1993. Peres wrote: “I have earned the right to dream. So much that I dreamed in the past was dismissed as fantasy, but has now become thriving reality.”

But not every dream comes true, and the failed pursuit of fantasies is not without cost. In reality, it turned out that Syria and the PLO, even without the Soviets behind them, were not going to be pushed or pulled into any “new Middle East.”

Syria never came in, and the PLO stepped in at Oslo and then out again at Camp David. Yasser Arafat’s intifada then turned the “new Middle East” into an object of ridicule, and the peace process went down with it.

Second big idea: globalization. Where diplomacy couldn’t do the job, so the globalists said, economic forces would do it. Tom Friedman became the champion of this notion in his 1999 book, “The Lexus and the Olive Tree.” There he wrote about the “silent invasion going on in the Middle East — the invasion of information and private capital through the new system of globalization.”

The Arabs and Iranians would eventually have to put on what he called the “Golden Straitjacket.” “As your country puts on the Golden Straitjacket,” he wrote,” two things tend to happen: Your economy grows, and your politics shrink.”

Friedman filled his book with anecdotes about another Middle East, full of wired, business-focused Arabs and Persians. His book became a bestseller, because it made Americans feel good: Market forces would fix the world.

The United States tried to accelerate the process by organizing Middle East economic summits. And the United States punished bad guys with economic sanctions, which became the all-purpose jackknife of U.S. Middle East policy.

Even by the late 1990s, it was obvious that economic sanctions were not taming the radicals. But the globalization idea finally came crashing down with the Twin Towers on Sept. 11. Globalization, it turned out, could also empower the wrong Arabs — most obviously, Osama bin Laden and the global jihad.

They were using e-mail to plot terror acts, the banking system to transfer money and Web sites to post their videos, which were carried by Al-Jazeera via satellite to millions of viewers. Globalization in the Middle East, we now know, has not made politics shrink; it is making them expand, politicizing every corner of society, often against us.

If globalization wasn’t going to cure the Middle East, what would? Obvious, said the neoconservatives: democracy. The root cause of the problems in Middle East, they said, is the absence of democracy and the continued rule of dictators.

The way to cure the Middle East was to shake it up by promoting democracy — first by forced “regime change” in Iraq and then by encouraging liberals across the Middle East. The president launched what he described as a “forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.” It became known as the “Bush Doctrine.”

Now that big idea has crashed, too. It has crashed, first, as a result of the maelstrom in Iraq, and second, as a result of the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and the fact that free elections everywhere end in victory for Islamist zealots.

The “forward strategy of freedom” is ending in a quest for an exit strategy from chaos. Poll after poll now shows that the majority of Americans think there is no chance of making Iraq into a model democracy, and that is understating it. Promoting democracy to Arabs is coming to be regarded in this country as the ultimate fool’s errand.

So the three big ideas for transforming the Middle East — peace, globalization, democracy — all have been repulsed or hijacked by forces opposed to America’s vision.

The Next Big Thing

This has left us at one of those rare moments in Washington, when the playing field is suddenly made level for the competition of new big ideas. It happened after Sept. 11, and it is happening now because of Iraq.

In this environment, everyone gets a hearing. Jimmy Carter has a book on Palestine, and former Sen. George McGovern has one on Iraq. Ideas are ricocheting around town, some of them old, some of them recycled and some of them brand new.

We are seeing the beginning of a true battle of ideas. And there is a big idea out there that is moving toward the center of the battlefield and that I have no hesitation in describing as the enemy from within. This big idea calls itself “engagement.”

New ‘big idea’ for Mideast could be big trouble Read More »