The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins

I highly recommend this novel as a great "summer read." I began by thinking of it strictly as a plot-driven "who done it" about a lost diamond (complete with detectives, quick sand, thieves, opium users, etc.) - the narrative of which is told, re-told and sometimes re-constructed and re-directed by various interlocutors. But it is these shifting narrators, these eccentric and memorable voices whose personas have a way of resonating throughout the entire book. I refer of course to the inimitable: Gabriel Betteredge (the dutiful butler), Franklin Blake (the endearing chap and suitor), Sergeant Cuff (the logical, methodical detective),  Miss Drusilla Clack (the prim, pious and hilariously obtuse relative), Matthew Bruff (the no-nonsense lawyer),  Ezra Jennings (the hapless fellow with a far-fetched remedy), Doctor Candy (the forgetful one), Rosanna Spearman (the doomed servant), Limping Lucy (the woe-begotten misfit ) and last but not least, Rachel Verinder (the refreshingly self-assertive young lady).

Gadflies among us... Are there any left?

Henri Matisse - King of Color

Follow Matisse through the open window...

Pocatello, Idaho

Edmund Burke - Prose Stylist

"When all the frauds, impostures, violences, rapines, burnings, murders, confiscations, compulsory paper currencies, and every description of tyranny and cruelty employed to bring about and to uphold this Revolution, have their natural effect, that is, to shock the moral sentiments of all virtuous and sober minds, the abettors of this philosophic system immediately strain their throats in a declamation against the old monarchical government of France. When they have rendered that deposed power sufficiently black, they then proceed in argument, as if all those who disapprove of their new abuses must of course be partisans of the old; that those who reprobate their crude and violent schemes of liberty ought do be treated as advocates for servitude. I admit that their necessities to compel them to this base and contemptible fraud. Nothing can reconcile men to their proceedings and projects, but the supposition that there is no third option between them and some tyranny as odious as can be furnished by the records of history, or by the invention of poets. This prattling of theirs hardly deserves the name of sophistry. It is nothing but plain impudence. Have these gentlemen never heard, in the whole circle of the worlds of theory and practice, of anything between the despotism the monarch and the despotism of the multitude? Have they never heard of a monarchy directed by laws, controlled and balanced by the great hereditary wealth and hereditary dignity of a nation; and both again controlled by a judicious check from the reason and feeling of the people at large, acting by a suitable and permanent organ? Is it then impossible that a man may be found, who, without criminal ill intention, or pitiable absurdity, shall prefer such a mixed and tempered government to either of the extremes; and who may repute that nation to be destitute of all wisdom and of all virtue, which, having in its choice to obtain such a government with ease, or rather to confirm it when actually possessed, thought proper to commit a thousand crimes, and to subject their country to a thousand evils, in order to avoid it? Is it then a truth so universally acknowledged, that a pure democracy is the only tolerable form into which human society can be thrown, that a man is not permitted to hesitate about its merits, without the suspicion of being a friend to tyranny, that is, of being a foe to mankind?" - from Reflections on the Revolution in France

Analytical Introverts

You're methodical and systematic in the way you think. You look for meaning in data and are able to break down complex problems into manageable pieces. You see things in terms of recommendations and conclusions and then seek data, concepts and rules to support them. You have a preference for focused, straightforward communication with few digressions. Although you may have learned to work successfully with others, you believe you do your best thinking by yourself. (...sort of intended as a footnote to my prior post on Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney - both analytical introverts.)

President Obama and Candidate Romney - Similar Personality Types?

Candidates Have College, Spicy Chicken and ‘Star Trek’ in Common

By MARK LEIBOVICH

Published: June 2, 2012

WASHINGTON — Points of unity: Mitt Romney and President Obama both like process-driven decisions, iPads, ABC’s “Modern Family” and chicken.

Grilled chicken, not fried, in keeping with the shared body-mindedness of the combatants (Mr. Obama does treadmill and hoops, Mr. Romney elliptical and bike). Spicy, too, as Mr. Romney (who often peels the skin off) has demonstrated with his endorsement of the jalapeño chicken sandwich at Carl’s Jr. and Mr. Obama has praised the grilled chicken tacos made by the White House chef.

While a few shared tastes do not erase the general distaste of this campaign, the candidates do have a surprising amount in common. Granted, little of it concerns how to fix the economy, shrink the deficit or deal with Russia.

But interviews with people from the candidates’ overlapping realms — at Harvard, in the health care policy arena and in politics — yield similar observations about their personalities and their leadership and decision-making styles. Both are analytical introverts operating in a province of extroverts.

“Neither is the epitome of the backslapping pol,” said Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat and former governor of Pennsylvania who knew Mr. Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. “Both of them are almost shy, which is amazing in this business,” said Mr. Rendell, who is a supporter of Mr. Obama.

Neither candidate has much stomach for small talk or idle chatter. They have both been called difficult to know and even aloof at times. But if they were to convene for, say, a chicken barbecue — not likely, but whatever — they could explore some shared affinities and experiences. After-dinner, for instance, maybe over plates of pie (enjoyed by both), Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney could play the “did you know” game from their Harvard days or name-check the policy experts they consulted during their respective health care overhauls.

They could compare counties visited in Iowa, activists fawned over in New Hampshire and the irritations of dealing with blowhard colleagues in state government.

They could exchange trivia about “Star Trek” (liked by both) or complaints about the press (disliked).

Supporters admire them as confident and disciplined leaders. They are described as cautious and deliberative decision makers who distrust gut instinct and the emotional tenor of the modern political debate. In previous jobs, as governor of Massachusetts (Mr. Romney) and senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), both were viewed as short-timers passing through to headier stations. Each served one term in those posts, or less (in Mr. Obama’s case), and spent much of it plotting or actively running for the next.

Mr. Romney “struck me as someone who was more interested in having the job as governor than doing the job,” said Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, a Democrat and close friend of Mr. Obama who succeeded Mr. Romney. Mr. Patrick said his predecessor, whom he describes as “a gentleman,” seemed to be someone who said to himself, “O.K., I won that, now I’m going to move onto something else.” Former Senate colleagues of Mr. Obama said the same about the future president.

There is a restless quality to both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney, people close to them say. They spent formative periods living abroad and attended several colleges before carving out political careers as above-it-all outsiders. They had their convictions questioned by ideological purists in their parties (and their religions, too, by others).

Each suffered tough losses in early campaigns that might have, in retrospect, been ill-advised: Mr. Romney lost a 1994 Senate race in Massachusetts against the incumbent, Edward M. Kennedy; Mr. Obama was crushed in a 2000 Democratic Congressional primary in Illinois by the incumbent, Bobby L. Rush.

While each was the product of a doting and strong mother, the candidates forged their identities in part through the specters of their fathers - or the absence of one, in the case of Mr. Obama.

- Excerpt from a recent New York Times article (6-2-12)