I read somewhere that the words to the Soviet anthem were written by Roger Doucet, the Montreal Canadiens anthem singer (the best anthem singer ever, I say even as a Leafs fan). There were no lyrics, and he wanted something to sing.
It's actually Sergei Mikhalkov: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Mikhalkov (also the father of the filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov). For that effort, he is affectionately called "gimnyuk" by Russian people, which is the combination of words "gimn" (anthem) and "govnyuk" (shithead).
It's weird that while Putin is "offpage," he's set up as some kind of menacing supervillain, but in all his "onpage" appearances, at least the ones excerpted for this review, he comes across as perfectly reasonable, even likable: in the story of how he proposed to his wife from the main review, the vignette here of how he took the news of his dog dying, and how he handled Gessen's petty defiance in refusing to cooperate with his Siberian crane photo-op.
Regarding the last passage, I mean, Putin is a tyrant and a mass murderer, but why would it be strange and sign of his shallowness and non-perceptivness that he isn’t well informed about something which is obviously of very low importance to a head of a huge empire? I don't presume that, like, Obama (or Eisenhower, to keep it non-partisan) would be better informed in that situation.
Imho this speaks more to a vanity and exaggerated sense of self-importance on the part of the author than about Putin. As I wrote previously below the review itself, based on Scott’s writing, I am not impressed by this book and don't think it is a good source.
I don't know if this is something I'm "not supposed to talk about" (appropriately for the Putin context) but...is anyone else bothered by Scott's persistent use of "they"? It actually makes it difficult to follow some of these paragraphs, which I had to read several times to work out that he was just talking about Gessen herself rather than the magazine staff as a whole.
I'm surprised enough that Scott is bending over backwards to be ultra-woke on this issue, after getting so much attention and respect for criticising other parts of wokeness (including things much less absurd than this). But when it extends to interfering with readability and clarity, I really think it's crossing a line.
(Not trying to start a fight, just perplexed and a little disappointed that ACX is not standing up for the "no, logic and objective reality do not subordinate to ideology" position as much as I hoped.)
I wonder if Gessen is as important as they think they are; while it's possible nobody told Putin they were editor of the magazine because they didn't want to admit a slip-up about appointing a critic of Putin, it's also possible nobody cared because they were too small potatoes. Yeah yeah you wrote some book that sold in America, who the hell cares about that shit?
The description of the meeting between Gessen and Putin doesn't line up with what they said elsewhere about how he handled people who dissented or refused him; there were no threats, veiled or otherwise, no shouting or demands; he was polite but puzzled (and I can see that - he just wants to do a photo-op, why are they refusing, why are they saying it's his fault they got fired?)
I can also see why the magazine would fire her if she's going to make a point of getting into fights with the regime. What it reminds me of, more than anything, is the cancel culture examples we've seen of people getting bounced for having the wrong opinions, or their employers are afraid they might have the wrong opinions.
Other things - like the dog death - make me wonder (semi-seriously) if maybe Vlad is on the spectrum (One Of Us! One Of Us!). That would explain a lot of things - his obsession with the KGB as a kid, his seeming inability to read expressions or get on with people, lack of emotion (I hate to be expected to put on a performance of emotion when people tell me things, when I prefer to process the news in my own time and react in private, so I could well do the same if someone came in and told me 'your dog's dead - oh why aren't you crying about it?'), the "seeming lack of perceptiveness" and why he rose by being a diligent nobody who just did his job and wasn't labelled as being 'this guy' or 'that guy' so he was bland and compromise enough not to be objectionable.
Honestly, the descriptions of cutting off resources for the opposition remind me of the same attitudes as in the XKCD strip about "free speech": 'it doesn't mean anyone has to host you while you share it'
You're free to talk about setting up a different political party, but nobody has to rent you a hotel room or conference space, there's the door, bigots!
There's a lot of would-be 'Nazi punchers' out there who want the same kind of 'don't give them any room in the public space, disrupt them if they try to meet, don't sell them anything or rent them anything, shut them down by any means possible'.
Does the rule against misgendering (from https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/02/be-nice-at-least-until-you-can-coordinate-meanness/) not apply to non-commenters, or was it just dropped entirely at some point? I'm trying to figure out how much I want to engage with Scott's posts in the future, and constant misgendering gives me the impression that this would be a hostile environment for me.
- first, the most obvious reason for Putin to meet Gessen was to recruit one more useful idiot to whitewash his image in the West. Putin isn't interested in professional work per se, he's trading influence and misinformation with whoever fit. Good for them they weren't recruited; bad they were seen as material. Putin wouldn't try it with Ann Applebaum or Timothy Snyder.
- second, Gessen themselves. They aren't really an investigative reporter, there's no any original piece produced by them. Their Russian is poor and social competence low to make any productive research. All they did is compiling material on miscellaneous hot topics like Perelman, Putin, Pussy Riot etc, in none of which they're an expert, hence the silly discrepancies mentioned by other commenters. "Vokrug Sveta" was some mix of tabloid and Discovery Channel. Gessen's short tenure at Radio Svoboda was a public scandal and disaster.
And by the way, Gessen's positioning as the only queer and last investigative journalist alive is pathetic, given how many queers, activists and journalists in Russia have been jailed, murdered or pushed to exile and keep reporting and investigating despite all risks.
I -with some minor skepticism- of his writing and videos think Ritter's reporting on the news from Ukraine and elsewhere is pretty spot on and convincing. Gessen's portrayal of Putin is as she sees things. I'm very skeptical... Will probably not read her book but probably should. The reviewer of her book may be equally biased. The truth is so foggy
I read somewhere that the words to the Soviet anthem were written by Roger Doucet, the Montreal Canadiens anthem singer (the best anthem singer ever, I say even as a Leafs fan). There were no lyrics, and he wanted something to sing.
Hang on, let me Google ... here's a link.
http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com/2010/04/how-roger-doucet-wrote-soviet-national.html
I learned of the lemon thing from Tom & Jerry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU663WqWcpg
> Sergei Mikhailov
It's actually Sergei Mikhalkov: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Mikhalkov (also the father of the filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov). For that effort, he is affectionately called "gimnyuk" by Russian people, which is the combination of words "gimn" (anthem) and "govnyuk" (shithead).
As elaborate methods for suicide go, handing Vladimir Putin a critical biography you wrote is certainly up there.
It's weird that while Putin is "offpage," he's set up as some kind of menacing supervillain, but in all his "onpage" appearances, at least the ones excerpted for this review, he comes across as perfectly reasonable, even likable: in the story of how he proposed to his wife from the main review, the vignette here of how he took the news of his dog dying, and how he handled Gessen's petty defiance in refusing to cooperate with his Siberian crane photo-op.
In the sentence, "Putin wanted a photo op with rare Siberian cranes and told Volkrug Sveta they would be providing it.," who is "they"?
Regarding the last passage, I mean, Putin is a tyrant and a mass murderer, but why would it be strange and sign of his shallowness and non-perceptivness that he isn’t well informed about something which is obviously of very low importance to a head of a huge empire? I don't presume that, like, Obama (or Eisenhower, to keep it non-partisan) would be better informed in that situation.
Imho this speaks more to a vanity and exaggerated sense of self-importance on the part of the author than about Putin. As I wrote previously below the review itself, based on Scott’s writing, I am not impressed by this book and don't think it is a good source.
I don't know if this is something I'm "not supposed to talk about" (appropriately for the Putin context) but...is anyone else bothered by Scott's persistent use of "they"? It actually makes it difficult to follow some of these paragraphs, which I had to read several times to work out that he was just talking about Gessen herself rather than the magazine staff as a whole.
I'm surprised enough that Scott is bending over backwards to be ultra-woke on this issue, after getting so much attention and respect for criticising other parts of wokeness (including things much less absurd than this). But when it extends to interfering with readability and clarity, I really think it's crossing a line.
(Not trying to start a fight, just perplexed and a little disappointed that ACX is not standing up for the "no, logic and objective reality do not subordinate to ideology" position as much as I hoped.)
This is a super fascinating set of anecdotes. Thanks for it.
I wonder if Gessen is as important as they think they are; while it's possible nobody told Putin they were editor of the magazine because they didn't want to admit a slip-up about appointing a critic of Putin, it's also possible nobody cared because they were too small potatoes. Yeah yeah you wrote some book that sold in America, who the hell cares about that shit?
The description of the meeting between Gessen and Putin doesn't line up with what they said elsewhere about how he handled people who dissented or refused him; there were no threats, veiled or otherwise, no shouting or demands; he was polite but puzzled (and I can see that - he just wants to do a photo-op, why are they refusing, why are they saying it's his fault they got fired?)
I can also see why the magazine would fire her if she's going to make a point of getting into fights with the regime. What it reminds me of, more than anything, is the cancel culture examples we've seen of people getting bounced for having the wrong opinions, or their employers are afraid they might have the wrong opinions.
Other things - like the dog death - make me wonder (semi-seriously) if maybe Vlad is on the spectrum (One Of Us! One Of Us!). That would explain a lot of things - his obsession with the KGB as a kid, his seeming inability to read expressions or get on with people, lack of emotion (I hate to be expected to put on a performance of emotion when people tell me things, when I prefer to process the news in my own time and react in private, so I could well do the same if someone came in and told me 'your dog's dead - oh why aren't you crying about it?'), the "seeming lack of perceptiveness" and why he rose by being a diligent nobody who just did his job and wasn't labelled as being 'this guy' or 'that guy' so he was bland and compromise enough not to be objectionable.
Honestly, the descriptions of cutting off resources for the opposition remind me of the same attitudes as in the XKCD strip about "free speech": 'it doesn't mean anyone has to host you while you share it'
https://xkcd.com/1357/
You're free to talk about setting up a different political party, but nobody has to rent you a hotel room or conference space, there's the door, bigots!
There's a lot of would-be 'Nazi punchers' out there who want the same kind of 'don't give them any room in the public space, disrupt them if they try to meet, don't sell them anything or rent them anything, shut them down by any means possible'.
Wonderous post. thank you
Does the rule against misgendering (from https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/02/be-nice-at-least-until-you-can-coordinate-meanness/) not apply to non-commenters, or was it just dropped entirely at some point? I'm trying to figure out how much I want to engage with Scott's posts in the future, and constant misgendering gives me the impression that this would be a hostile environment for me.
couple of things:
- first, the most obvious reason for Putin to meet Gessen was to recruit one more useful idiot to whitewash his image in the West. Putin isn't interested in professional work per se, he's trading influence and misinformation with whoever fit. Good for them they weren't recruited; bad they were seen as material. Putin wouldn't try it with Ann Applebaum or Timothy Snyder.
- second, Gessen themselves. They aren't really an investigative reporter, there's no any original piece produced by them. Their Russian is poor and social competence low to make any productive research. All they did is compiling material on miscellaneous hot topics like Perelman, Putin, Pussy Riot etc, in none of which they're an expert, hence the silly discrepancies mentioned by other commenters. "Vokrug Sveta" was some mix of tabloid and Discovery Channel. Gessen's short tenure at Radio Svoboda was a public scandal and disaster.
And by the way, Gessen's positioning as the only queer and last investigative journalist alive is pathetic, given how many queers, activists and journalists in Russia have been jailed, murdered or pushed to exile and keep reporting and investigating despite all risks.
typo: "define the issue>"
">" should be a piece of punctuation
I -with some minor skepticism- of his writing and videos think Ritter's reporting on the news from Ukraine and elsewhere is pretty spot on and convincing. Gessen's portrayal of Putin is as she sees things. I'm very skeptical... Will probably not read her book but probably should. The reviewer of her book may be equally biased. The truth is so foggy
And being Russian. There is a reason that alcohol abuse is so prevalent there.