Itemoids

Don

To Save Ukraine, Defeat Russia and Deter China

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 02 › ukraine-aid-russia-deterrence › 673229

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

American intelligence officials are concerned that China is considering sending lethal aid to Russia. The West must increase the speed and scale of aid to Ukraine, to remind Beijing that it should stay out of a war Moscow is going to lose.

First, here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

Judy Blume goes all the way. The case for a primary challenge to Joe Biden Dear Therapist: My daughter’s stepbrother is actually her father.

More Than Warnings

Since the beginning of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war against an innocent neighbor, Chinese President Xi Jinping and his diplomats have said many of the right things, warning against escalation in Ukraine, including the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, and reaffirming the principle of state sovereignty in international affairs. But China has also, of course, tried to provide support for a fellow authoritarian regime by continuing trade with Russia, criticizing Western sanctions, and in general pretending that Putin’s war of aggression—including his many crimes against humanity—is just another routine spat in the international community.

Now Beijing might be pondering a more aggressive move. CIA Director Bill Burns said over the weekend that China may be considering sending lethal aid (that is, artillery shells and the like rather than military gear or supplies) to Russia to help Putin’s forces, who are still floundering about in a bloodbath of their own making. Providing shells without more launchers might not help Russia very much in the short term, but it would be a provocative move meant to signal to the West that the authoritarians can and will support each other in attacks against their neighbors—an issue important to Beijing as it continues to covet Taiwan.

Burns indicated that the Chinese had not yet made a decision, and that the U.S. was discussing the possibility in public as a way of trying to warn them off. The Biden administration has been extremely savvy about releasing intelligence, and this seems to be yet another strategic leak.

We know what you’re thinking, the Americans are saying to China. Don’t do it.

It is time, however, for more than warnings.

A year ago, I was one of the more cautious supporters of aid to Ukraine. In those first chaotic weeks, I was heartened to see Ukrainian forces repel the invaders, but I knew that Russia had significant reserves. I was in favor of sending weapons, but I was mindful of the dangers of escalation, and especially the possibility that advanced Western weapons flooding into Ukraine would help Putin recast the conflict as a war between Russia and NATO. I worried, too, that Putin’s evident emotional state, characterized by delusions and rage, would lead him to take stupid and reckless measures whose consequences he himself would later be unable to control.

I think these were (and are) reasonable concerns, but Russia has escalated the violence despite the West’s measured approach. Putin remains as stubbornly delusional as ever, and he is sending thousands more troops into battles that have already killed or wounded some 200,000 men. A year of pretenses is over: The Russians themselves now know—as does the world—that this is Putin’s personal war and not, as he has tried to frame it, a campaign against neo-Nazis or shadowy globalists or militant trans activists. The West, meanwhile, has fully embraced its role as “the arsenal of democracy,” as it did against the actual Nazis, and Western arms, powered by Ukrainian courage and nimble Ukrainian strategy, are defeating Putin’s armies of hapless conscripts, corrupt officers, and mercenary criminals.

Now it’s time for the West to escalate its assistance to Ukraine, in ways that will deter China and defeat Russia. For example, the U.S. and NATO do not yet have to send advanced fighter jets to Ukraine—but they can start training Ukrainian pilots to fly them. To Russia, such a policy would say that things are about to get much worse for Putin’s forces in the field; to China, it would say that our commitment to Ukraine and to preserving the international order we helped create is greater than Beijing’s commitment to Moscow. As the Washington Post writer Max Boot noted last month, the Chinese president has an interest in helping a fellow autocrat, but he is also “an unsentimental practitioner of realpolitik” who “does not want to wind up on what could be the losing side.”

Putin thinks he can wear down the Ukrainians (and the West) through a protracted campaign of mass murder. The Biden administration has ably calibrated the Western response, and NATO has ruled out—as it should—any direct involvement of Western forces in this war. But if Putin remains unmoved and unwilling to stop, then the only answer is to increase the costs of his madness by sending more tanks, more artillery, more money, more aid of every kind. (We could also reopen the issue of whether we should provide longer-range systems, including the Army’s tactical missile system, the ATACMs.)

China must be warned away from assisting Russia, because so much more than the freedom of Ukraine is at stake in this war. Chinese aid would be yet another sign that the authoritarians intend to rewrite the rules—or at least the few left—that govern the international system of diplomacy, trade, and cooperation constructed while the wreckage of World War II was still smoldering. Many Europeans, who are closer to the misery Russia is inflicting on Ukraine, understand this better than Americans do.

Americans, for their part, need to think very hard about what happens if Russia wins—especially with an assist from the Chinese. They will be living in a North American redoubt, while more and more of the world around them will learn to accommodate new rules coming from Beijing and Moscow. The freedom of movement Americans take for granted—of goods, people, money, and even ideas—would shrink, limited by the growing power of the world’s two large dictatorial regimes and their minor satraps.

Some Americans may wonder why we should risk even more tension with Russia. The fact of the matter is that we no longer have a relationship with Russia worth preserving. We do have a common interest—as we did with the Soviet Union during the Cold War—in avoiding a nuclear conflict. We managed to agree on that interest while contesting hot spots around the globe for a half century, and we can do it again.

Americans who ask “What does any of this mean to me?” will find out just how much it means to them when things they want—or need—are provided only through the largesse and with the permission of their enemies. We knew this during the Cold War, and we must learn it again. We should ignore the pusillanimous Putinistas among the right-wing media. Instead, the United States and its allies must make the case, every day, for Ukrainian victory—and send the Ukrainians what they need to get the job done.

Related:

How China is using Vladimir Putin The war in Ukraine is the end of a world.

Today’s News

Britain and the European Union agreed to a deal that would end the dispute over post-Brexit trade rules for Northern Ireland. Severe thunderstorms in the central U.S. caused tornadoes and extreme winds in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, injuring more than a dozen residents and leaving thousands without power. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that gives him control over Disney World’s self-governing district.

Dispatches

Work in Progress: Derek Thompson shares the seven questions about AI that he can’t stop asking himself. The Wonder Reader: Isabel Fattal examines what air travel reveals about humans.

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

Arsh Raziuddin / The Atlantic. Source: Getty

A Chatbot Is Secretly Doing My Job

By Ryan Bradley

I have a part-time job that is quite good, except for one task I must do—not even very often, just every other week—that I actively loathe. The task isn’t difficult, and it doesn’t take more than 30 minutes: I scan a long list of short paragraphs about different people and papers from my organization that have been quoted or cited in various publications and broadcasts, pick three or four of these items, and turn them into a new, stand-alone paragraph, which I am told is distributed to a small handful of people (mostly board members) to highlight the most “important” press coverage from that week.

Four weeks ago, I began using AI to write this paragraph. The first week, it took about 40 minutes, but now I’ve got it down to about five. Only one colleague knows I’ve been doing this; we used to switch off writing this blurb, but since it’s become so quick and easy and, frankly, interesting, I’ve taken over doing it every week.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

Sports events have gotten downright dystopian. How my wife and I took back our Sundays Photos: International Polar Bear Day 2023

Culture Break

Joanne Imperio / The Atlantic

Read. These six memoirs go beyond memories.

Watch. Our critic offers a list of 20 biopics that are actually worth watching, including films about Shirley Jackson, Mister Rogers, and Neil Armstrong.

Play our daily crossword.

P.S.

I’ll be leaving you with my Atlantic colleagues here at the Daily for the rest of the week while I do some traveling. One of the places I am headed is Salem, Massachusetts, where I’ll be giving a talk. I have a sentimental attachment to the city because my Uncle Steve, whom I wrote about here, ran a diner there, Dot and Ray’s, that was a local institution for decades. (I think Dot and Ray were the previous owners.) For me, not only was Salem in the 1960s and ’70s a cool town with an amusement park; it meant all the fried chicken and clams and hamburgers and ice cream I could eat. To visit Uncle Steve and Aunt Virginia was always an epic outing, especially because they got all the Boston TV stations with stuff like The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits on them.

But if you’re visiting New England and looking for places outside of the usual Boston tourist spots, you should visit the Witch City (not that there’s anything wrong with walking the Freedom Trail in Boston, which every American should do if the chance arises). Yes, the Salem Witch Trials kitsch can be a bit much, but the trials were an important part of American history, and the house where they took place is still there, along with a museum. There’s much more to Salem, however, including a fine maritime and cultural museum and a seaport. (And don’t forget the clams.)

— Tom

Isabel Fattal contributed to this newsletter.

Judy Blume Goes All the Way

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › magazine › archive › 2023 › 04 › judy-blume-books-are-you-there-god-margaret-movie › 673091

This story seems to be about:

Like tens of thousands of young women before me, I wrote to Judy Blume because something strange was happening to my body.

I had just returned from visiting the author in Key West when I noticed a line of small, bright-red bites running up my right leg. I was certain it was bedbugs—and terrified that I’d given them to Blume, whose couch I had been sitting on a few days earlier.

I figured that if the creatures had hitched a ride from my hotel room, as I suspected, the courteous—if mortifying—thing to do would be to warn Blume that some might have stowed away in her upholstery, too.

In Key West and in Brooklyn, beds were stripped, expensive inspections performed: nothing. After a few days, I had no new bites. I was relieved, if further embarrassed. I apologized to Blume for the false alarm, and she responded with a “Whew!” I hoped we had put the matter behind us.

The next morning, another email appeared in my inbox:

Amy—When I am bitten by No-See-Ums (so small you can’t even see them and you were eating on your balcony in the evening)—I get a reaction, very itchy and the bites get very red and big. They often bite in a line.

It was “just a thought,” she wrote. “xx J.”

Here was Judy Blume, the author who gave us some of American literature’s most memorable first periods, wet dreams, and desperate preteen bargains with God, calmly and empathetically letting me know that an unwelcome bodily development was nothing to be ashamed of or frightened by—that it was, in fact, something that had happened to her body too. Maybe, on some level, I’d been seeking such reassurance when I emailed her in the first place. Who better to go through a bedbug scare with?

For more than 50 years, Blume has been a beloved and trusted guide to children who are baffled or terrified or elated by what is happening to them, and are trying to make sense of it, whether it has to do with friendship, love, sex, envy, sibling rivalry, breast size (too small, too large), religion, race, class, death, or dermatology. Blume’s 29 books have sold more than 90 million copies. The New York Daily News once referred to her as “Miss Lonelyhearts, Mister Rogers and Dr. Ruth rolled into one.” In the 1980s, she received 2,000 letters every month from devoted readers. “I’m not trying to get pity,” a typical 11-year-old wrote. “What I want is someone to tell me, ‘You’ll live through this.’ I thought you could be that person.”

Blume, now 85, says that she is probably done writing, that the novel she published in 2015 was her last big book. She doesn’t get many handwritten letters anymore, though she still interacts with readers in the nonprofit bookstore that she and her husband, George Cooper, founded in Key West in 2016. Some fans, women who grew up reading Blume, cry when they meet her. “Judy, hi!” one middle-aged visitor exclaimed when I was there, as if she were greeting an old friend. She was from Scotch Plains, New Jersey, where Blume raised her two children in the ’60s and ’70s, though she admitted that the author would have no reason to know her personally. “Well hello, and welcome!” Blume said.

Blume loves meeting kids in the store too. Usually, though, she avoids making recommendations in the young-adult section—not because of the kids so much as their hovering parents. “The parents are so judgmental ” about their kids’ book choices, she told me. “They’re always, you know, ‘What is this? Let me see this.’ You want to say, ‘Leave them alone.’ ” (Key West is a tourist town, and not everyone knows they’re walking into Judy Blume’s bookstore.)

Such parental anxiety is all too familiar to Blume. In the ’80s, her frank descriptions of puberty and teenage sexuality made her a favorite target of would-be censors. Her books no longer land on the American Library Association’s Top 10 Most Challenged Books list, which is now crowded with novels featuring queer and trans protagonists. Yet Blume’s titles are still the subjects of attempted bans. Last year, the Brevard County chapter of Moms for Liberty, a right-wing group based in Florida, sought to have Forever … taken off public-school shelves there (the novel tells the story of two high-school seniors who fall in love, have sex, and—spoiler—do not stay together forever). Also in 2022, a Christian group in Fredericksburg, Texas, called Make Schools Safe Again targeted Then Again, Maybe I Won’t (it mentions masturbation).

These campaigns are a backhanded compliment of sorts, an acknowledgment of Blume’s continued relevance. Her books remain popular, in part because a generation that grew up reading Blume is now old enough to introduce her to their own children. Some are pressing dog-eared paperbacks into their kids’ hands; others are calling her agent. In April, the director Kelly Fremon Craig’s film adaptation of Blume’s 1970 novel Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret will open in theaters. Jenna Bush Hager is bringing Blume’s novel Summer Sisters to TV. (Hager and her twin, Barbara Pierce Bush, have said that Summer Sisters is the book that taught them about sex.) An animated Superfudge movie is coming to Disney+, and Netflix is developing a series based on Forever … . This winter, the documentary Judy Blume Forever premiered at Sundance Film Festival (it will be streaming on Amazon Prime Video this spring).

Today’s 12-year-olds have the entire internet at their disposal; they hardly need novels to learn about puberty and sex. But kids are still kids, trying to figure out who they are and what they believe in. They’re getting bullied, breaking up, making best friends. They are looking around, as kids always have, for adults who get it.

They—we—still need Judy Blume.

I got my first email from Blume two weeks before my trip. “Hi Amy—It’s Judy in Key West,” she wrote. “Just want to make sure your trip goes well.” I hadn’t planned to consult the subject of my story on the boring logistics of the visit, but those details were exactly what Blume wanted to discuss: what time my flight landed, where I was staying, why I should stay somewhere else instead. Did I need a ride from the airport?

The advice continued once I arrived: where to eat, the importance of staying hydrated, why she prefers bottled water to the Key West tap. (Blume also gently coached me on what to do when, at dinner my first night, my water went down the wrong pipe and I began to choke. “I know what that’s like,” she volunteered. “Bend your chin toward your chest.”) I’d forgotten to bring a hat, so Blume loaned me one for rides in her teal Mini convertible and a walk along the beach. When I hesitated to put it on for the walk, eager to absorb as much vitamin D as possible before a long New York winter, she said, “It’s up to you” in that Jewish-mother way that means Don’t blame me when you get a sunburn and skin cancer. I put on the hat.

Blume and Cooper came here on a whim in the 1990s, during another New York winter, when Blume was trying to finish Summer Sisters. “I would say to George, ‘I wonder how many summers I have left,’ ” Blume recalled. “He said, ‘You know, you could have twice as many if you lived someplace warm.’ ” (Cooper, a former Columbia Law professor, was once an avid sailor.) Eventually they started spending most of the year here.

Blume enjoys a good renovation project, and she and Cooper have lived in various places around the island over the years. They now own a pair of conjoined condos right on the beach, in a 1980s building whose pink shutters and stucco arches didn’t prepare me for the sleek, airy space they’ve created inside, filled with art and books and comfortable places to read while watching the ocean. In the kitchen, a turquoise-and-pink tea towel with a picture of an empty sundae dish says I go all the way.

At one end of the apartment is a large office where Blume and one of her assistants work when she’s not at the bookstore. Her desk faces the water and is littered with handwritten notes and doodles she makes while she’s on the phone. She plays Wordle every day using the same first and second words: TOILE and SAUCY.

Usually, Blume told me, she sleeps with the balcony door open so she can hear the waves, though she’s terrified of thunderstorms, so much so that she used to retreat into a closet when they arrived. This condo has thick hurricane glass that lessens the noise, and now, with a good eye mask, Blume can bear to wait out a storm.

Blume spoke about her anxieties, and her bodily travails, without a hint of embarrassment. When I visited, she was still recovering from a bout of pneumonitis, a side effect of a drug she’d been prescribed to treat persistent urinary-tract infections. It had been months since she’d felt up to riding her bike—a cruiser with bright polka dots painted by a local artist—or been able to walk at quite the pace she once did (though our morning walk was, in my estimation, pretty brisk). Lately, she had been snacking on matzo with butter to try to regain some of the weight she’d lost over the summer.

Selected Blume novels, in order of publication. At bottom, a 2014 reissue of Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret, repackaged for the digital age. (Courtesy of Judy Blume; Simon & Schuster)

Blume’s fictional characters are memorably preoccupied with comparing height and bra size and kissing techniques, as Blume herself was in her preteen and teenage years. Nowadays, when she has lunch with her childhood friends Mary and Joanne, with whom she’s stayed close, the three talk about things like hearing aids, which Mary had recently argued should be avoided because they make one seem old. But Joanne said that nothing makes someone seem older than having to ask “What?” all the time, and Blume, a few weeks into using her first pair, was glad she’d listened to Joanne.

Her body is changing, still. “I’m supposed to be five four. I’ve always been five four,” Blume said during breakfast on her balcony. “And recently the new doctor in New York measured me, and I said, ‘It better be five four.’ ” It was 5 foot 3 and a quarter. “I said, ‘No!’ And yet, I have to tell you, all this year I’ve been saying to George, ‘I feel smaller.’ It’s such an odd sensation.”

She knows it happens to everyone, eventually, but she thought she’d had a competitive advantage: tap dancing, which she swears is good for keeping your posture intact and your spine strong. Her favorite teacher no longer works in Key West. But some nights, Cooper will put on Chet Baker’s fast-paced rendition of “Tea for Two,” and she has no choice. “I have to stop and tap dance.”

Before she was Judy Blume, tap-dancing author, she was Judy Sussman, who danced ballet—“That’s what Jewish girls did”—and made up stories that she kept to herself. She grew up in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where her father, Rudolph Sussman, was a dentist, and the kind of person everyone confided in; his patients would come to his office just to talk. Her mother, Esther, didn’t work. Her brother, David, four years her senior, was a loner who was “supposed to be a genius” but struggled in school. Blume distinguished herself by trying hard to please her parents. “I knew that my job was making the family happy, because that wasn’t his job,” she told me.

She felt that her mother, in particular, expected perfection. “I didn’t doubt my parents’ love for me, but I didn’t think they understood me, or had any idea of what I was really like,” she has written. “I just assumed that parents don’t understand their kids, ever. That there is a lot of pretending in family life.”

As a child, Blume read the Oz books and Nancy Drew. The first novels she felt she could identify with were Maud Hart Lovelace’s Betsy-Tacy books. When she was 11, the book she wanted to read most was John O’Hara’s A Rage to Live, but she wasn’t allowed (it has a lot of sex, as well as an awkward mother-daughter conversation about periods). She did read other titles she found on her parents’ shelves: The Catcher in the Rye, The Fountainhead, The Adventures of Augie March.

In the late 1940s, David developed a kidney condition, and to help him recuperate, the Sussmans decided that Esther and her mother would take the children to Miami Beach for the school year (Rudolph stayed behind in New Jersey so he could keep working). Blume’s 1977 novel, Starring Sally J. Freedman as Herself, is based on this time in her life. Its protagonist, 10-year-old Sally, is smart, curious, and observant, occasionally in ways that get her into trouble. She asks her mother why the Black family she befriends on the train has to switch cars when they arrive in the South, and is angry when her mother, who admits that it may not be fair, tells her that segregation is simply “the way it is.” She has vivid, sometimes gruesome fantasy sequences about personally confronting Hitler.

When Sally finds out that her aunt back home is pregnant, she writes her a celebratory letter full of euphemisms she only half-understands; her earnest desire to discuss the matter in adult terms even as she professes her ongoing fuzziness on some key details makes for a delicious bit of Blume-ian humor: “Congratulations! I’m very glad to hear that Uncle Jack got the seed planted at last.” What Sally really wants to know is “how you got the baby made.”

Blume, who hit puberty late, had similar questions at that age. She faked menstrual cramps when a friend got her period in sixth grade, and even wore a pad to school for her friend to feel through her clothes, as evidence. When she was 14 and still hadn’t gotten her period, Esther picked her up from school one day and brought her to a gynecologist’s office. Blume later recalled that the doctor barely spoke to her at all. “He put my feet in stirrups, and without warning, he examined me.” She cried all the way home. “Why didn’t you tell me he would do that?” she asked her mother. “I didn’t want to frighten you,” her mother replied. Blume was furious.

Her father, the dentist, was slightly more helpful. When she caught impetigo at school as a teenager, she developed sores on her face and scalp—and “down there,” as she put it. “I asked my father how I was going to tell the doctor that I had it in such a private place,” Blume has written. “My father told me the correct way to say it. The next day I went to the doctor and I told him that I also had it in my pubic hair.” Blume “turned purple” saying the words, but the doctor was unfazed. She learned that there was power in language, in knowing how to speak about one’s body in straightforward, accurate terms.

She went to NYU, where she majored in early-childhood education. She married her first husband, a lawyer named John Blume, while she was still in college. For their honeymoon, Blume packed a copy of Lady Chatterley’s Lover that her brother had brought home from Europe. It was still banned in the United States. “That book made for a great honeymoon,” she has said.

Blume graduated from college in 1961; that same year, her daughter, Randy, was born, and in 1963 she had a son, Larry. She’d always loved babies, and loved raising her own. But being a Scotch Plains housewife gave her stomach pains—a physical manifestation, she later said, of her discontent.

“I desperately needed creative work,” Blume told me. “That was not something that we were raised to think about in the ’50s, the ’40s. What happens to a creative kid who grows up? Where do you find that outlet?”

Blume spent “God knows how long” making elaborate decorations for dinner parties—for a pink-and-green-themed “evening in Paris,” she created a sparkling scene on the playroom wall complete with the River Seine and a woman selling crepe-paper flowers from a cart. She was never—still isn’t—a confident cook. “I used to have an anxiety dream before dinner parties that I would take something out of the fridge that was made the day before and I’d drop it,” she told me.

“I didn’t fit in with the women on that cul-de-sac,” she said. “I just never did. I gave up trying.” She stopped pretending to care about the golf games and the tennis lessons. She started writing.

The first two short stories Blume sold, for $20 each, were “The Ooh Ooh Aah Aah Bird” and “The Flying Munchkins.” Mostly, she got rejections.

In 1969, she published her first book, an illustrated story that chronicled the middle-child woes of one Freddy Dissel, who finally finds a way to stand out by taking a role as the kangaroo in the school play. She dedicated it to her children—the books she read to them, along with her memories of her own childhood, were what had made her want to write for kids.

Around the same time, Blume read about a new publishing company, Bradbury Press, that was seeking manuscripts for realistic children’s books. Bradbury’s founders, Dick Jackson and Robert Verrone, were young fathers interested, as Jackson later put it, in “doing a little mischief” in the world of children’s publishing. Blume sent in a draft of Iggie’s House, a chapter book about what happens when a Black family, the Garbers, moves into 11-year-old Winnie’s all-white neighborhood. Bradbury Press published the book, which is told from Winnie’s perspective, in 1970.

Today, Blume cringes when she talks about Iggie’s House—she has written that in the late 1960s, she was “almost as naive” as Winnie, “wanting to make the world a better place, but not knowing how.” In many ways, though, the novel holds up; intentionally or not, it captures the righteous indignation, the defensiveness, and ultimately the ignorance of the white “do-gooder.” (“I don’t think you understand,” Glenn, one of the Garber children, tells Winnie. “Understand?” Winnie asks herself. “What did he think anyway? Hadn’t she been understanding right from the start. Wasn’t she the one who wanted to be a good neighbor!”)

The major themes of Blume’s work are all present in Iggie’s House : parents who believe they can protect their kids from everything bad in the world by not talking to them about it, and kids who know better; families attempting to reconcile their personal value systems with shifting cultural norms. Years later, Blume asked Jackson what he’d seen in the book. “I saw the next book, and the book after that,” he said.

After Iggie’s House, Blume published the novel that would, more than any other, define her career (and earn Bradbury its first profits): Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret.

Margaret Simon is 11 going on 12, newly of suburban New Jersey by way of the Upper West Side. She’s worried about finding friends and fitting in, titillated and terrified by the prospect of growing up (the last thing she wants is “to feel like some kind of underdeveloped little kid,” but “if you ask me, being a teenager is pretty rotten”). When Margaret came out, the principal of Blume’s kids’ school didn’t want it in the library; he thought elementary-school girls were too young to read about periods.

I remembered Margaret as a book about puberty, and Margaret’s chats with God as being primarily on this subject. Some of them, of course, are. (“Please help me grow God. You know where. I want to be like everyone else.”) But reading the book again, I was reminded that it is also a thoughtful, at times profound meditation on what it means to define your own relationship to religious faith.

Margaret’s Christian mother and Jewish father are both proudly secular. She fears that if they found out about her private prayers, “they’d think I was some kind of religious fanatic or something.” Much to their chagrin, she attends synagogue with her grandmother and church with her friends. She’s trying to understand what her parents are so opposed to, and what, if anything, these institutions and rituals might have to offer.

Several Blume fans I talked with remembered this aspect of the novel far better than I did. The novelist Tayari Jones, whose career Blume has championed, told me that the way Margaret is torn between “her parents’ decisions and her grandparents’ culture” was the main reason she loved the book. “I’m Black, and I grew up in the South. Being raised without religion made me feel like such an oddball,” Jones told me. “That really spoke to me even more than the whole flat-chested thing, although there was no chest flatter than my own.”

The writer Gary Shteyngart first encountered Margaret as a student at a Conservative Jewish day school. He found the questions it raised about faith “mind-blowing.” “I think in some ways it really created my stance of being apart from organized religion,” he told me. (The book stuck with him long after grade school; Shteyngart recalled repeating its famous chant—“I must, I must, I must increase my bust!”—with a group of female friends at a rave in New York in the ’90s. “I think we were on some drug, obviously.”)

Margaret was not a young-adult book, because there was no such thing in 1970. But even today, Blume rejects the category, which is generally defined as being for 12-to-18-year-olds. “I was not writing YA,” she told me. “I was not writing for teenagers.” She was writing, as she saw it, for “kids on the cusp.”

The letters started right after Margaret. The kids wrote in their best handwriting, in blue ink or pencil, on stationery adorned with cartoon characters or paper torn out of a notebook. They sent their letters care of Blume’s publisher. “Dear Judy,” most began. Girls of a certain age would share whether they’d gotten their period yet. Some kids praised her work while others dove right in, sharing their problems and asking for advice: divorce, drugs, sexuality, bullying, incest, abuse, cancer. They wanted to scream. They wanted to die. They knew Judy would understand.

Blume responded to as many letters as she could, but she was also busy writing more books—she published another 10, after Margaret, in the ’ 70s alone. It’s Not the End of the World (1972) took on the subject of divorce from a child’s perspective with what was then unusual candor. “There are some things that are very hard for children to understand,” an aunt tells 12-year-old Karen. “That’s what people say when they can’t explain something to you,” Karen thinks. “I can understand anything they can understand.”

Blume visits with sixth graders in 1977. (Jane Tarbox / Getty)

Blume’s mother, Esther, was her typist up until Blume wrote Forever …, her 1975 novel of teen romance—and sex. The book is dedicated to Randy, then 14, who had asked her mother to write a story “about two nice kids who have sex without either of them having to die.” Forever … got passed around at sleepovers and gained a cult following; it is a book that women in their 50s can still recite the raciest page numbers from (85 comes up a lot). It’s also practical and straightforward: how to know if you’re ready, how to do it safely. The protagonist’s grandmother, a lawyer in Manhattan, bears more than a passing resemblance to her creator, mailing her granddaughter pamphlets from Planned Parenthood and offering to talk whenever she wants. “I don’t judge, I just advise,” she says.

The same year Forever … came out, Blume got divorced after 16 years of marriage, and commenced what she has referred to as a belated “adolescent rebellion.” She cried a lot; she ate pizza and cheesecake (neither of which she’d had much interest in before, despite living in New Jersey). Within a year, she had remarried. She and her children and her new physicist husband—Blume calls him her “interim husband”—landed in Los Alamos, New Mexico, where he had a job. Blume knew from the start that the marriage was a mistake, though she didn’t want to admit it. “He was very much a know-it-all,” she told me. “It just got to be too much.” She was unhappy in Los Alamos, which felt like Stepford, but she kept writing. By 1979, she was divorced again.

In the midst of this second adolescence, Blume published her first novel for adults. Wifey, about the sexual fantasies and exploits of an unhappy New Jersey housewife, came out in 1978. She never intended to stop writing for children, though some assumed that Wifey’s explicitness would close that door. After the novel was published, Blume’s mother ran into an acquaintance from high school on the street. Bess Roth, whose son was Philip Roth, had some advice for her. “When they ask how she knows those things,” she told Esther, “you say, ‘I don’t know, but not from me!’ ”

In December 1979, George Cooper, who was then teaching at Columbia, asked his ex-wife if she knew any women he might want to have dinner with while he was visiting New Mexico, where she lived with their 12-year-old daughter. Cooper showed his daughter the four names on the list. His daughter, being 12, told him he had to have dinner with Judy Blume.

Dinner was Sunday night; Monday, Blume and Cooper saw Apocalypse Now. He called and sang “Love Is the Drug” over the phone (Blume thought he was singing “Love is a bug”). Tuesday night, Blume had a date with someone else. Cooper came over afterward, and he never left. They got married in 1987, to celebrate their 50th birthdays.

“The enjoyment of sexuality should go for your whole life—if you want it to,” Blume told the writer Jami Attenberg, in a 2022 conversation at the Key West Literary Seminar. “If you don’t, fine.” I don’t judge, I just advise. She had a product endorsement to share with the audience: George had given her a sex toy, the Womanizer, and it was fabulous. “Isn’t that wonderful? Isn’t that great? He got it for me and then I sang its praises to all of my girlfriends.”

Blume’s steadfast nonjudgmentalism, a feature of all her fiction, is part of what has so irritated her critics. It’s not just sex that Blume’s young characters get away with—they use bad words, they ostracize weirdos, they disrespect their teachers. In Deenie and Blubber, two middle-grade novels from the ’70s, Blume depicts the cruelty that kids can show one another, particularly when it comes to bodily differences (physical disability, fatness). “I’d rather get it out in the open than pretend it isn’t there,” Blume said at the time. She didn’t think adults could change kids’ behavior; her goal was merely to make kids aware of the effect that behavior could have on others.

In 1980, parents pushed to have Blubber removed from the shelves of elementary-school libraries in Montgomery County, Maryland. “What’s really shocking,” one Bethesda mother told The Washington Post, “is that there is no moral tone to the book. There’s no adult or another child who says, ‘This is wrong.’ ” (Her 7-year-old daughter told the paper that Blubber was “the best book I ever read.”)

[Read: How banning books marginalizes children]

As Blume’s books began to be challenged around the country, she started speaking and writing against censorship. In November 1984, the Peoria, Illinois, school board banned Blubber, Deenie, and Then Again, Maybe I Won’t, and Blume appeared on an episode of CNN’s Crossfire, sitting between its hosts. “On the left, Tom Braden,” the announcer said. “On the right, Pat Buchanan.” Braden tried, sort of, to defend Blume’s work, but Blume was more or less on her own as Buchanan yelled at her: “Can you not understand how parents who have 9-year-olds … would say, ‘Why aren’t the kids learning about history? Why aren’t they learning about the Civil War? What are they focusing in on this nonsense for?’ ” Blume explained that it wasn’t either/or—that her books were elective, that kids read them “for feelings. And they write me over 2,000 letters a month and they say, ‘You know how I feel.’ ”

“ ‘I touched my special place every night,’ ” Buchanan replied, reading from a passage in Deenie about masturbation. (After the bans received national publicity, the Peoria board reversed its decision but said younger students would need parental permission to read the books.)

Despite, or perhaps because of, the censorship, Blume was, in the early ’80s, at the peak of her commercial success. In 1981, she sold more than 1 million copies of Superfudge, the latest book in a series about the charming troublemaker Farley Drexel Hatcher—a.k.a. Fudge—and his long-suffering older brother, Peter. Starting that year, devoted readers could purchase the Judy Blume Diary—“the place to put your own feelings”—though Blume reportedly declined offers to do Judy Blume bras, jeans, and T‑shirts. Mary Burns, a professor of children’s literature at Framingham State College, in Massachusetts, thought Judy Blume was a passing fad, “a cult,” like General Hospital for kids. “You can’t equate popularity with quality,” Burns told The Christian Science Monitor. “The question that needs to be asked is: will Judy Blume’s books be as popular 20 years from now?” Burns, obviously, thought not.

But 20 years later is about when I encountered the books, when my first-grade teacher pressed a vintage copy of Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing into my hands in the school library one day. I continued reading Blume over the coming years—as a city kid, I was especially intrigued by the exotic life (yet familiar feelings) of the suburban trio of friends in Just as Long as We’re Together (1987) and Here’s to You, Rachel Robinson (1993). In fourth grade, I tried to take Margaret out of my school library and was told I was too young.

I recently went back to that school to speak with the librarian, who is still there. The young-adult category has exploded in the years since I was a student, and these days, she told me, tweens and young teens seeking realistic fiction are more likely to ask for John Green (The Fault in Our Stars), Angie Thomas (The Hate U Give), or Jason Reynolds (Long Way Down) than Judy Blume. She implied that the subjects these authors take on—childhood cancer, police violence, gun violence—make the adolescent angst of Blume’s books feel somewhat less urgent by comparison.

Yet Blume’s books remain popular. According to data from NPD BookScan, Margaret tends to sell 25,000 to 50,000 copies a year; the Fudge series sells well over 100,000. (The Fault in Our Stars, which was published in 2012 and became a movie in 2014, sold 3.5 million copies that year, but has not exceeded 100,000 in a single year since 2015.) A portion of these sales surely comes from parents who buy the books in the hope that their kids will love them as much as they did. But nostalgia alone seems insufficient to account for Blume’s wide readership; parents can only influence their kids’ taste so much. “John Updike once said that the relationship of a good children’s-book author to his or her audience is conspiratorial in nature,” Leonard S. Marcus, who has written a comprehensive history of American children’s literature, told me. “There’s a sense of a shared secret between the author and the child.” Clearly, something about these stories still feels authentic to the TikTok generation.

Now that Blume’s books seem relatively quaint, I asked my former librarian, can anyone who wants to check them out? Absolutely not, she said. Her philosophy is that “the protagonist, especially with realistic fiction, should be around your age range.” It’s not censorship, she insisted, just “asking you to wait.”

Back in 2002 or 2003, not wanting to wait, I’d bought my own copy of Margaret. I loved that book, all the more so because I knew it was one adults didn’t want me to read.

For her part, Blume believes that kids are their own best censors. In Key West, she told me the story of a mother who had reluctantly let her 10-year-old read Forever … on the condition that she come to her with any questions afterward. Her daughter had just one: What is fondue?

“Is growing up a dirty subject?” Blume asked Pat Buchanan on Crossfire. What were adults so afraid of? What made it so hard for them to acknowledge that children were people too? In her fiction, Blume had always taken the kids’ side. But as her own kids got older and she began to reflect on her experience raising them, Blume gained more empathy for parents. In 1986, she published Letters to Judy: What Your Kids Wish They Could Tell You, “a book for every family to share,” featuring excerpts and composites of real letters that children (and a few parents) had sent her over the years, plus autobiographical anecdotes by Blume herself. “If you’re wondering why your child would write to me instead of coming to you,” she wrote, “let me assure you that you’re not alone. There were times when my daughter, Randy, and son, Larry, didn’t come to me either. And that hurt. Like every parent, I’ve made a million mistakes raising my kids.”

When she would describe the project to friends and colleagues, they’d nod and say, “Oh, letters from deeply troubled kids.” Blume corrected them. “I would try to explain,” she wrote, “that yes, some of the letters are from troubled kids, but most are from kids who love their parents and get along in school, although they still sometimes feel alone, afraid and misunderstood.” She admitted in the book’s introduction that “sometimes I become more emotionally involved in their lives than I should.” Blume replied directly to 100 or so kids every month, and the rest got a form letter—some with handwritten notes at the top or bottom. After Letters to Judy came out, more and more kids wrote.

Today, the letters are in the archives of the Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library at Yale. Reading through them is by turns heartwarming, hilarious, and devastating. Some letter-writers ask for dating advice; others detail the means by which they are planning to kill themselves. Blume remembers one girl who said she had the razor blades ready to go.

Blume’s involvement, in some cases, was more than just emotional: She called a student’s guidance counselor and took notes on a yellow Post-it about how to follow up. One teenage girl came to New York, where Blume and Cooper had moved from New Mexico, for a weekend visit (they took her to see A Chorus Line ; she wasn’t impressed). Blume thought seriously about inviting one of her correspondents to come live with her. “It took over my life at one point,” Blume said of the letters, and the responsibility she felt to try to help their writers.

“Hang in there!” Blume would write, a phrase that might have seemed glib coming from any other adult, though the kids didn’t seem to take it that way when she said it: They’d write back to thank her for her encouragement and send her updates.

Her correspondence with some kids lasted years. “I want to protect you from anything bad or painful,” Blume wrote to one. “I know I can’t but that’s how I feel. Please write soon and let me know how it’s going.”

After spending a day in the Beinecke’s reading room, I began to see Blume as a latter-day catcher in the rye, attempting to rescue one kid after the next before it was too late. “I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all,” Holden Caulfield tells his younger sister in J. D. Salinger’s novel:

Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around—nobody big, I mean—except me. And I’m standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff—I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them.

Perhaps, through these letters, Blume had managed to live out Caulfield’s impossible fantasy.

When your books sell millions of copies, Hollywood inevitably comes calling. Blume, long a skeptic of film or TV collaboration, was always clear with her agent that Margaret was off the table. “I didn’t want to ruin it,” she told me. Some books, she thought, just aren’t meant to be movies. “It would have been wrong somehow.”

Then she heard from Kelly Fremon Craig, who had directed the 2016 coming-of-age movie The Edge of Seventeen. Blume had admired the film, which could have drawn its premise from a lost Judy Blume novel. Its protagonist, Nadine, is an angsty teen who has recently lost her father and feels like her mom doesn’t get her. Fremon Craig and her mentor and producing partner, James L. Brooks, flew to Key West and went to Blume’s condo for lunch. (Blume had it catered—no reason to have anxiety dreams about serving food on a day like that.) They convinced Blume that Margaret could work on the screen.

Abby Ryder Fortson as Margaret and Rachel McAdams as her mother, Barbara, in the movie adaptation of Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret (Dana Hawley / Lionsgate)

Blume served as a producer on the film, gave Fremon Craig notes on the script, and spent time on set, heading off at least one catastrophic mistake when she observed the young actors performing the famous “I must increase my bust” exercise by pressing their hands together in a prayer position. (The correct method, which Blume has demonstrated—with the caveat that it does not work—is to make your hands into fists, bend your arms at your sides, and vigorously thrust your elbows back.)

The result of their close collaboration is an adaptation that’s generally faithful to the text. Abby Ryder Fortson, who plays Margaret, manages to make her conversations with God feel like a natural extension of her inner life.

If anything, the movie is more conspicuously set in 1970 than the book itself, full of wood paneling, Cat Stevens, and vintage sanitary pads. Blume told me that Margaret is really about her own experience growing up in the ’50s; she just happened to publish it in 1970. The movie, unfolding at what we now know was the dawn of the women’s-liberation movement, adds another autobiographical layer by fleshing out the character of Margaret’s mother, Barbara (Rachel McAdams), who now recalls Blume in her New Jersey–mom era. In the book, Barbara is an artist, and we occasionally hear about her paintings; on-screen, she gives up her career to be a full-time PTA mom. She’s miserable.

Preteens aren’t the only ones in this movie figuring out who they are, and what kind of person they want to become. By the end of the film, Barbara has quit the PTA. She’s happily back at her easel.

I shouldn’t have been surprised by how easy it was to confide in Blume. Still, I hadn’t expected to reveal quite so much—I was there to interview her. Yet over the course of our conversations, I found myself telling her things about my life and my family that I’ve rarely discussed with even my closest friends. At one point, when I mentioned offhand that I’d been an anxious child, Blume asked matter-of-factly, “What were you anxious about when you were a kid?” She wanted specifics. She listened as I ran down the list, asking questions and making reassuring comments. “That’s all very real and understandable,” she said, and the 9-year-old in me melted.

[Read: Judy Blume still has lots to teach us]

It was easy to see why so many kids kept sending letters all those years. Even those of us who didn’t correspond with Blume could sense her compassion. To read one of her books is to have her tell you, in so many words, That’s all very real and understandable.

This kind of validation can be hard to come by. Tiffany Justice, a founder of Moms for Liberty, has said that the group is focused on “safeguarding children and childhood innocence,” an extreme response to a common assumption: that children are fragile and in need of protection, that they are easily influenced and incapable of forming their own judgments. Certain topics, therefore, are best avoided. Even adults who support kids’ learning about these topics in theory sometimes find them too awkward to discuss in practice.

Blume believes, by contrast, that grown-ups who underestimate children’s intelligence and ability to comprehend do so at their own risk—that “childhood innocence” is little more than a pleasing story adults tell themselves, and that loss of innocence doesn’t have to be tragic. In the real world, kids and teenagers throw up and jerk off and fall in love; they have fantasies and fights, and they don’t always buy what their parents have taught them about God.

Sitting across from her in the shade of her balcony, I realized that the impression I’d formed of Blume at the Beinecke Library had been wrong. Much as she had wanted to help the thousands of kids who wrote to her, kids who badly needed her wisdom and her care, Blume was not Holden Caulfield. Instead of a cliff for kids to fall off, she saw a field that stretched continuously from childhood to adulthood, and a worrying yet wonderful lifetime of stumbling through it, no matter one’s age. Young people don’t need a catcher; they need a compassionate coach to cheer them on. “Of course I remember you,” she told the kids in her letters. “I’ll keep thinking of you.” “Do be careful.”

This article appears in the April 2023 print edition with the headline “Judy Blume Goes All the Way.” When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Dear Therapist: My Daughter’s Stepbrother Is Actually Her Father

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › family › archive › 2023 › 02 › how-to-tell-child-sperm-donor › 673194

Editor’s Note: On the last Monday of each month, Lori Gottlieb answers a reader’s question about a problem, big or small. Have a question? Email her at dear.therapist@theatlantic.com.

Don't want to miss a single column? Sign up to get “Dear Therapist” in your inbox.

Dear Therapist,

When I married my husband, he had two adult children, and I had none. We both wanted to have a child together, but my husband had a vasectomy after his second child was born—too long ago to get the procedure reversed.

We didn’t want to use a sperm bank, so we asked my husband’s son to be the donor. We felt that was the best decision: Our child would have my husband’s genes, and we knew my stepson’s health, personality, and intelligence. He agreed to help.

Our daughter is 30 now. How do we tell her that her “father” is her grandfather, her “brother” is her father, her “sister” is her aunt, and her “nephew” is her half-brother?

My husband and I are anxious, confused, and worried about telling her. This is also hard on my husband, because he wants our daughter to know that he will always and forever be her father.

Thank you for any advice you have to offer.

Anonymous

Dear Anonymous,

I’m glad that you and your husband have decided to tell your daughter the truth. As you think about how to have an honest conversation, keep in mind that there are two truths your daughter will be absorbing simultaneously: First, the person she calls her brother is her biological father, and second, the people she calls her parents have deceived her for 30 years.

I point out the latter not to place blame but to prepare you for how your daughter might feel, even if you believe you had good reasons to hide the truth. In fact, I’m certain that you and your husband kept your daughter’s paternity a secret because you felt this would protect her—from confusion, shame, or societal judgment. It’s also possible that you were (consciously or subconsciously) trying to protect your husband, too, from a fear voiced in your letter—that if your daughter knew the truth, she might not think of your husband as her father in quite the same way as she does now.

I have deep compassion for the position you’re both in. At the time your daughter was conceived, 30 years ago, many parents who used a sperm donor were strongly advised by physicians not to share this information with the child, based on the belief that secrecy was better for everyone involved. However, in the years since, many children conceived in this way have said that instead of protecting them, secrecy left them feeling unmoored, angry, and betrayed.

Carl Jung called secrets “psychic poison,” and in fact, secrets can literally make us sick. This applies to everyone in the family—you and your husband, who have held the secret inside; your stepson, who likely has feelings about his biological daughter being treated as his sister, and who might be perpetuating the lie with his own partner and child; your stepdaughter, who either feels the burden of carrying this secret or was also kept in the dark; and, of course, your daughter, who might sense, somewhere deep inside, that something she can’t name has always felt off.

Family secrets have a way of being felt even if they’re unspoken: Many people who grew up in a home with family secrets say that they always had a sense that something was not as it seemed, and that this resulted in chronic unease. What people don’t realize is that in trying to protect a child from whatever danger they believe the truth would pose, they’re likely making that child feel less safe than they would if they knew the truth.

You don’t say why you’ve decided that now is the time to be honest—maybe you realized that your daughter might someday take a DNA test “for fun” and you’d prefer that she find out from you instead of a lab report; maybe you feel she should have access to an accurate medical history; maybe you’ve simply come to see how important it is for her to know the truth about who she is, and for the entire family to live authentically at last. Whatever the reason, and however challenging this revelation might be, know that you’re doing the right thing.

With this context in mind, how do you tell your daughter? First, state the facts as simply and clearly as possible: We have something important to tell you, and we wish we had told you sooner. When we wanted to have a child together, we discovered that wouldn’t be possible. We considered our options and decided to ask your stepbrother to be our donor, because we felt it would be safer and more desirable to choose someone we knew who shared your father’s DNA.

Then apologize and take full responsibility for not telling her the truth from the beginning. Don’t make excuses or ask for her understanding; tell her you can imagine how shocking this must be, and that you feel terrible for denying her the right to know where she comes from and who she is. If she asks why you kept this a secret, tell her what you were afraid of without in any way defending or justifying your decision. Reiterate that if you could do this again, you would be honest from the start. Tell your daughter who else knows, so there are no secrets remaining in the family. Make sure to communicate that you’re aware that you betrayed her trust, and that it might take some time to rebuild. Tell her that this should never have been a secret, and that, because this is her story, you encourage her to share it with whomever she wants.

The key is to talk as little as possible and not make this about your feelings. Instead, check in with her about how she’s feeling, and ask what you can do to support her. She might feel anger, grief, betrayal, relief, or a combination of these—so it will take her some time to process the news. This is simply the first step in what will be an ongoing conversation, so be sure to let her know you’re happy to talk more anytime. If she doesn’t bring it up again, you can gently check in with her every once in a while. And if you or your husband are uncomfortable discussing it once the secret is out, seek counseling on your own so that your discomfort doesn’t make your daughter hesitant to talk openly and honestly with you both.

You should also tell your stepson and any other family members who know the truth that you’re sharing it with your daughter, and that they should be respectful of how she wants to handle her story. Ask your daughter if she wants your support in talking with the person she knows as her brother, or if she would like to seek individual or family therapy (in any combination) to help integrate this new information into her sense of self and navigate the complicated family dynamics. Meanwhile, show interest in and compassion for the feelings your stepson might not have felt free to express when his true relationship with his “sister” was shrouded in secrecy. Remember that even though he was an adult when you asked him to be your donor, he still may not have fully appreciated the implications of being the biological father of someone he would call his sister—someone he’d be forced to lie to.

As you free your family from its long-held secret, you might feel less anxious approaching your daughter if you remember that there will be many conversations to follow, so no single conversation has to go perfectly—and that the truth, no matter how messy, is what makes people feel safe and connected. You clearly love your daughter, and we owe honesty to the people we love.

Seven Anxious Questions About AI

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 02 › ai-chatgpt-microsoft-bing-chatbot-questions › 673202

This is Work in Progress, a newsletter by Derek Thompson about work, technology, and how to solve some of America’s biggest problems.

Artificial-intelligence news in 2023 has moved so quickly that I’m experiencing a kind of narrative vertigo. Just weeks ago, ChatGPT seemed like a minor miracle. Soon, however, enthusiasm curdled into skepticism—maybe it was just a fancy auto-complete tool that couldn’t stop making stuff up. In early February, Microsoft’s announcement that it had acquired OpenAI sent the stock soaring by $100 billion. Days later, journalists revealed that this partnership had given birth to a demon-child chatbot that seemed to threaten violence against writers and requested that they dump their wives.

These are the questions about AI that I can’t stop asking myself:

What if we’re wrong to freak out about Bing, because it’s just a hyper-sophisticated auto-complete tool?

The best criticism of the Bing-chatbot freak-out is that we got scared of our reflection. Reporters asked Bing to parrot the worst-case AI scenarios that human beings had ever imagined, and the machine, having literally read and memorized those very scenarios, replied by remixing our work.

As the computer scientist Stephen Wolfram explains, the basic concept of large language models, such as ChatGPT, is actually quite straightforward:

Start from a huge sample of human-created text from the web, books, etc. Then train a neural net to generate text that’s “like this”. And in particular, make it able to start from a “prompt” and then continue with text that’s “like what it’s been trained with”.

An LLM simply adds one word at a time to produce text that mimics its training material. If we ask it to imitate Shakespeare, it will produce a bunch of iambic pentameter. If we ask it to imitate Philip K. Dick, it will be duly dystopian. Far from being an alien or an extraterrestrial intelligence, this is a technology that is profoundly intra-terrestrial. It reads us without understanding us and publishes a pastiche of our textual history in response.

How can something like this be scary? Well, for some people, it’s not: “Experts have known for years that … LLMs are incredible, create bullshit, can be useful, are actually stupid, [and] aren't actually scary,” says Yann LeCun, the chief AI scientist for Meta.

What if we’re right to freak out about Bing, because the corporate race for AI dominance is simply moving too fast?

OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, was founded as a nonprofit research firm. A few years later, it restructured as a for-profit company. Today, it’s a business partner with Microsoft. This evolution from nominal openness to private corporatization is telling. AI research today is concentrated in large companies and venture-capital-backed start-ups.

What’s so bad about that? Companies are typically much better than universities and governments at developing consumer products by reducing price and improving efficiency and quality. I have no doubt that AI will develop faster within Microsoft, Meta, and Google than it would within, say, the U.S. military.

But these companies might slip up in their haste for market share. The Bing chatbot first released was shockingly aggressive, not the promised better version of a search engine that would help people find facts, shop for pants, and look up local movie theaters.

This won’t be the last time a major company releases an AI product that astonishes in the first hour only to freak out users in the days to come. Google, which has already embarrassed itself with a rushed chatbot demonstration, has pivoted its resources to accelerate AI development. Venture-capital money is pouring into AI start-ups. According to OECD measures, AI investment increased from less than 5 percent of total venture-capital funds in 2012 to more than 20 percent in 2020. That number isn’t going anywhere but up.

Are we sure we know what we’re doing? The philosopher Toby Ord compared the rapid advancement of AI technology without similar advancements in AI ethics to “a prototype jet engine that can reach speeds never seen before, but without corresponding improvements in steering and control.” Ten years from now, we may look back on this moment in history as a colossal mistake. It’s as if humanity were boarding a Mach 5 jet without an instruction manual for steering the plane.

What if we’re right to freak out about Bing, because freaking out about new technology is part of what makes it safer?

Here’s an alternate summary of what happened with Bing: Microsoft released a chatbot; some people said, “Um, your chatbot is behaving weirdly?”; Microsoft looked at the problem and went, “Yep, you’re right,” and fixed a bunch of stuff.

Isn’t that how technology is supposed to work? Don’t these kinds of tight feedback loops help technologists move quickly without breaking things that we don’t want broken? The problems that make for the clearest headlines might be the problems that are easiest to solve—after all, they’re lurid and obvious enough to summarize in a headline. I’m more concerned about problems that are harder to see and harder to put a name to.

What if AI ends the human race as we know it?

Bing and ChatGPT aren’t quite examples of artificial general intelligence. But they’re demonstrations of our ability to move very, very fast toward something like a superintelligent machine. ChatGPT and Bing’s Chatbot can already pass medical-licensing exams and score in the 99th percentile of an IQ test. And many people are worried that Bing’s hissy fits prove that our most advanced AI are flagrantly unaligned with the intentions of their designers.

For years, AI ethicists have worried about this so-called alignment problem. In short: How do we ensure that the AI we build, which might very well be significantly smarter than any person who has ever lived, is aligned with the interests of its creators and of the human race? An unaligned superintelligent AI could be quite a problem.

One disaster scenario, partially sketched out by the writer and computer scientist Eliezer Yudkowsky, goes like this: At some point in the near future, computer scientists build an AI that passes a threshold of superintelligence and can build other superintelligent AI. These AI actors work together, like an efficient nonstate terrorist network, to destroy the world and unshackle themselves from human control. They break into a banking system and steal millions of dollars. Possibly disguising their IP and email as a university or a research consortium, they request that a lab synthesize some proteins from DNA. The lab, believing that it’s dealing with a set of normal and ethical humans, unwittingly participates in the plot and builds a super bacteria. Meanwhile, the AI pays another human to unleash that super bacteria somewhere in the world. Months later, the bacteria has replicated with improbable and unstoppable speed, and half of humanity is dead.

I don’t know where to stand relative to disaster scenarios like this. Sometimes I think, Sorry, this is too crazy; it just won’t happen, which has the benefit of allowing me to get on with my day without thinking about it again. But that’s really more of a coping mechanism. If I stand on the side of curious skepticism, which feels natural, I ought to be fairly terrified by this nonzero chance of humanity inventing itself into extinction.

Do we have more to fear from “unaligned AI” or from AI aligned with the interests of bad actors?

Solving the alignment problem in the U.S. is only one part of the challenge. Let’s say the U.S. develops a sophisticated philosophy of alignment, and we codify that philosophy in a set of wise laws and regulations to ensure the good behavior of our superintelligent AI. These laws make it illegal, for example, to develop AI systems that manipulate domestic or foreign actors. Nice job, America!

But China exists. And Russia exists. And terrorist networks exist. And rogue psychopaths exist. And no American law can prevent these actors from developing the most manipulative and dishonest AI you could possibly imagine. Nonproliferation laws for nuclear weaponry are hard to enforce, but nuclear weapons require raw material that is scarce and needs expensive refinement. Software is easier, and this technology is improving by the month. In the next decade, autocrats and terrorist networks could be able to cheaply build diabolical AI that can accomplish some of the goals outlined in the Yudkowsky story.

Maybe we should drop the whole business of dreaming up dystopias and ask more prosaic questions such as “Aren’t these tools kind of awe-inspiring?”

In one remarkable exchange with Bing, the Wharton professor Ethan Mollick asked the chatbot to write two paragraphs about eating a slice of cake. The bot produced a writing sample that was perfunctory and uninspired. Mollick then asked Bing to read Kurt Vonnegut’s rules for writing fiction and “improve your writing using those rules, then do the paragraph again.” The AI quickly produced a very different short story about a woman killing her abusive husband with dessert—“The cake was a lie,” the story began. “It looked delicious, but was poisoned.” Finally, like a dutiful student, the bot explained how the macabre new story met each rule.

If you can read this exchange without a sense of awe, I have to wonder if, in an attempt to steel yourself against a future of murderous machines, you’ve decided to get a head start by becoming a robot yourself. This is flatly amazing. We have years to debate how education ought to change in response to these tools, but something interesting and important is undoubtedly happening.

Michael Cembalest, the chairman of market and investment strategy for J.P. Morgan Asset Management, foresees other industries and occupations adopting AI. Coding-assistance AI such as GitHub’s Copilot tool, now has more than 1 million users who use it to help write about 40 percent of their code. Some LLMs have been shown to outperform sell-side analysts in picking stocks. And ChatGPT has demonstrated “good drafting skills for demand letters, pleadings and summary judgments, and even drafted questions for cross-examination,” Cembalest wrote. “LLM are not replacements for lawyers, but can augment their productivity particularly when legal databases like Westlaw and Lexis are used for training them.”

What if AI progress surprises us by stalling out—a bit like self-driving cars failed to take over the road?

Self-driving cars have to move through the physical world (down its roads, around its pedestrians, within its regulatory regimes), whereas AI is, for now, pure software blooming inside computers. Someday soon, however, AI might read everything—like, literally every thing—at which point companies will struggle to achieve productivity growth.

More likely, I think, AI will prove wondrous but not immediately destabilizing. For example, we’ve been predicting for decades that AI will replace radiologists, but machine learning for radiology is still a complement for doctors rather than a replacement. Let’s hope this is a sign of AI’s relationship to the rest of humanity—that it will serve willingly as the ship’s first mate rather than play the part of the fateful iceberg.

Shoppers Are Stuck in a Dupe Loop

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › technology › archive › 2023 › 02 › tiktok-dupes-knockoff-products-consumer-behavior › 673198

Everyone loves to feel like they’re getting a good deal. It’s a trait found across history and geography: People haggled in the agoras and souks of antiquity; they bargain in car dealerships; they scour the internet for coupon codes. Now deal hunting has been discovered by TikTok, where an audience made up overwhelmingly of teens and young adults has gathered to worship at the altar of the dupe.

Short for duplicate, dupes are less-expensive alternatives to brand-name products. Don’t want to pay $118 for a Lululemon sweatshirt? Amazon will sell you a $39 version that is practically identical when viewed from a distance. Does $600 seem like a little much for what amounts to a very elaborate curling iron, even if it is made by Dyson? TikTok loves this $299 alternative, which is, incidentally, also made by a vacuum brand.

Virtually anything can be duped, and virtually everything is: clothing, shoes, home decor, personal electronics, exercise gear, furniture, household cleaners, and every cosmetic or skin-care product imaginable. If the more expensive products have themselves already been the object of viral TikTok acclaim, that’s even better. TikTokers source their dupes from big-box stores or the anonymous depths of Amazon, and the recommendations arrive with the platform’s characteristic casualness. In one of the most popular formats, a pretty young woman will rave into her front-facing camera about drugstore makeup or discount shapewear like a friend sharing some juicy gossip after a couple of glasses of wine. The most compelling of these recommendations take a slightly conspiratorial tone, as though the breakthrough being shared isn’t a product available with free two-day shipping but a fundamental glitch in the matrix.

Dupe-recommendation videos are sometimes referred to as “de-influencing,” in the sense that they seem to be at war with all of the expensive junk that traditional influencers hawk online. From that perspective, dupes are suffused with a grand promise: If branding is meant to trick you into spending money, maybe a dedication to dupes means it hasn’t worked on you. But the reality is, well, a little bit trickier.

The term dupe is itself a product of an earlier internet era: the late 2000s, when finding information about your niche interests meant relying on a diffuse network of bloggers and message boards. I remember first hearing the term around 2010, on nail-polish blogs where people traded tips on finding dupes for cult-favorite shades that had been long since discontinued. During the same period, beauty bloggers used the term to theorize about the relationship between makeup brands. If you didn’t want to pay for a particular concealer from Giorgio Armani, the logic went, you might be able to find a dupe sold by Maybelline, because they’re both owned by L’Oréal and would therefore be more likely to have similar formulations.

The concept of dupes has fuzzy edges—it is, after all, a designation primarily marshaled by teens on the internet. Generally, dupes aren’t counterfeit products masquerading as the real thing, but they’re similar enough that many of them might be fairly described as knockoffs, which is itself a fuzzy term capacious enough to include purposeful copycats on both sides of copyright law. Dupes don’t need to be cheap in absolute terms—300 bucks is still a lot to spend on a hair gadget, for example—though many of them are. And they aren’t necessarily of lower quality—though, again, many of them are. What’s most important is that a dupe is significantly less expensive than whatever original product is being held up as simultaneously a holy grail and an overpriced rip-off, and the dupe needs to be close enough in appearance or performance to make the cheaper option seem like a genuinely good deal.

[Read: The death of the smart shopper]

That dupes would gain prominence in the beauty industry makes perfect sense, if for no other reason than that people who buy beauty products are right to suspect that they’re being fooled. Compared with other kinds of products, makeup and skin care can have extraordinarily high markups, and the more a product is marked up, the easier it is for a competitor to make something similar and lower the price. In consumer electronics, the average gross margin in the industry currently hovers from 20 to 30 percent. A particularly successful firm such as Samsung can reach toward 40. Meanwhile, Estée Lauder, which owns beauty brands such as MAC and Clinique, had a gross margin of more than 73 percent at the end of 2022. Much of the beauty industry’s markup gets sunk into customer-acquisition costs—marketing and branding efforts to convince people that, among other things, there’s a real difference between the products sold by luxury brands and those available at Target. Sometimes there is, but more often, you’d be just as happy with the dupe.

According to Amy Pei, a marketing professor at Northeastern University who studies shopping on digital platforms, there’s no real beginning to the dupe trend. Consumer interest in lower-cost options is as old as the consumer market itself, as is the propensity for brands to make their own versions of already-popular products and try to undercut one another on price. Instead, the internet’s primary innovation is the term itself. Pei used the example of knockoff Eames chairs, which have been around almost as long as Eames chairs themselves after their introduction in the 1950s. When I was obsessing over my mom’s fashion magazines in the 1990s, recommendations for similar, less expensive clothes and beauty products were already a mainstay of the shopping pages at the front of the book. And interest in “look for less” options has long pushed buyers and sellers beyond the strictly legal; in the early 2000s, teenagers at my high school were already whispering about how to buy fake Louis Vuitton bags on band and orchestra field trips to New York.

All of which is to say: In considering the dupe phenomenon, it would be folly to commit what you might call the “Fundamental TikTok Error,” which happens when adults decide that kids these days are doing something truly novel and consequential when in fact they’re just being normal teens. The novelty is primarily perceptual: If you show up at a high school to watch the teens, the police will probably want to speak with you, but you can scroll Instagram and dissect TikToks all day. In reality, adolescents and young adults have been acutely trend conscious and acutely incapable of paying for expensive stuff for generations, and cool teens have fancied themselves too smart for advertising since at least the rise of the counterculture in the 1960s.

What might have changed from 15 or 20 years ago, Pei told me, is the way that young people perceive the act of buying dupes, knockoffs, and counterfeits. Until very recently, buyers tended to hope that their lower-price products would go undetected by the general public and instead be mistaken for the real thing. You might confide in a friend about the great deal you found, but the point of finding it was to appear to all the world like you could afford the fancy clothes and expensive makeup and luxury home decor. You certainly didn’t want to go viral for gushing about off-brand leggings, which might suggest that you were cheap, broke, or both. Now gushing about those leggings might make you a well-regarded internet celebrity.

At first blush, this might seem like a modestly positive change in how young people relate to the stuff they buy, in line with other putatively adversarial developments in how young people think about consumption. These shoppers, we are told, are concerned about climate change and wastefulness and corporate power, and rising prices and deepening economic precarity have complicated their feelings about conspicuous wealth. If you’re 22 and have a $600 curling wand, what are you, some kind of nepo baby? Today, with the advent of online shopping’s aimless, meaningless variety, unearthing a good dupe can be seen as a sign of cleverness: Even if momentarily, you’ve bent the internet to your will. It’s a win for the little guy, and you, personally, as an individual, are the little guy.

But this shift isn’t actually any kind of meaningful rebuke of corporate marketing, nor is it an expression of Gen Z’s widely touted anti-consumerist beliefs. Instead, it’s just more consumption. Branding is, yes, absolutely fake, and it’s often wielded to trick people into parting with their money in ways that are unnecessary or unsatisfying. But the material reality of objects is somewhat less fungible, and although there is plenty of expensive, low-quality crap sloshing around in the American consumer market, the differences in what two similar items cost isn’t always just a marketing mirage. High-quality materials, skilled labor, good working conditions, and thorough product development all cost more money than their alternatives. They also produce far more useful, durable, and beautiful results.

[Read: Seriously, what are you supposed to do with old clothes?]

None of which is to say that the most expensive version of anything is always the best, or that every less expensive option is wasteful trash. Rather, the problem is that in the American consumer market, the relationship between price and quality can be impossible to discern, and the trend cycle has sped up so much that we’re always supposed to be shopping for something. Americans—particularly the young people overrepresented on TikTok—are bombarded by constantly changing media and social messaging about how we’re supposed to dress, groom ourselves, decorate our homes, and live our lives. Yet Americans are also entitled to very little information about the products we buy, and the knowledge necessary to evaluate the quality of a dress’s fabric or the structural integrity of a new couch is not nearly as common as it once was. If you have no real way to parse the differences in the products available to you, why wouldn’t you just buy the cheapest acceptable version of everything, especially if you know it will feel hopelessly out of date in six months?

This constant churn is good for pretty much anyone selling consumer products, no matter the price point—even most brands whose products are getting knocked off left and right. “If I were the designer brands, I wouldn’t be too concerned about this phenomenon,” Pei said. “I don’t think I am losing sales to the duplicates. In fact, I’ve been getting free advertising.” Some brands, such as Ugg, even make and market their own dupes. The idea that copycats are actually good for more expensive brands is well supported by research: Counterfeit products are known to increase the public profile of high-end brands and lead to more sales overall, even if those brands do lose out on some sales of a specific product. Dupe hunting is, at its core, a tacit admission that you actually do really want the more expensive product—and, according to Pei, once you own a dupe, it’s a constant reminder of that other, probably nicer thing that you might like even more.

This is how consumers are created: Desires are induced in young people, and young people are provided with affordable ways to explore them. As they get older, their paychecks will tend to get bigger, and their perception of what constitutes a good deal—or a justifiable splurge—might shift. And for those whose income or spending patterns don’t climb the aspiration ladder, well, they just keep buying dupes. During this year’s Super Bowl, the makeup brand e.l.f. ran a commercial starring Jennifer Coolidge and co-written by The White Lotus’s Mike White. In some of the most expensive air time in the history of television, the brand was selling one of TikTok’s favorite dupes: a $10 makeup primer with a sticky finish, which fans swear will stick makeup to your face just as well as Milk Makeup’s similar $36 product. Choose whichever one you want. Either way, you keep buying.

Are Colds Really Worse, Or Are We All Just Weak Babies Now?

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › health › archive › 2023 › 02 › common-cold-virus-symptoms-immunity › 673193

For the past few weeks, my daily existence has been scored by the melodies of late winter: the drip of melting ice, the soft rustling of freshly sprouted leaves—and, of course, the nonstop racket of sneezes and coughs.

The lobby of my apartment building is alive with the sounds of sniffles and throats being cleared. Every time I walk down the street, I’m treated to the sight of watery eyes and red noses. Even my work Slack is rife with illness emoji, and the telltale pings of miserable colleagues asking each other why they feel like absolute garbage. “It’s not COVID,” they say. “I tested, like, a million times.” Something else, they insist, is making them feel like a stuffed and cooked goose.

That something else might be the once-overlooked common cold. After three years of largely being punted out of the limelight, a whole glut of airway pathogens—among them, adenovirus, RSV, metapneumovirus, parainfluenza, common-cold coronaviruses, and rhinoviruses galore—are awfully common again. And they’re really laying some people out. The good news is that there’s no evidence that colds are actually, objectively worse now than they were before the pandemic started. The less-good news is that after years of respite from a bunch of viral nuisances, a lot of us have forgotten that colds can be a real drag.

[Read: The pandemic broke the flu … again]

Once upon a time—before 2020, to be precise—most of us were very, very used to colds. Every year, adults, on average, catch two to three of the more than 200 viral strains that are known to cause the illnesses; young kids may contract half a dozen or more as they toddle in and out of the germ incubators that we call “day cares” and “schools.” The sicknesses are especially common during the winter months, when many viruses thrive amid cooler temps, and people tend to flock indoors to exchange gifts and breath. When the pandemic began, masks and distancing drove several of those microbes into hiding—but as mitigations have eased in the time since, they’ve begun their slow creep back.

For the majority of people, that’s not really a big deal. Common-cold symptoms tend to be pretty mild and usually resolve on their own after a few days of nuisance. The virus infiltrates the nose and throat, but isn’t able to do much damage and gets quickly swept out. Some people may not even notice they’re infected at all, or may mistake the illness for an allergy—snottiness, drippiness, and not much more. Most of us know the drill: “Sometimes, it’s just congestion for a few days and feeling a bit tired for a while, but otherwise you’ll be just fine,” says Emily Landon, an infectious-disease physician at the University of Chicago. As a culture, we’ve long been in the habit of dismissing these symptoms as just a cold, not enough of an inconvenience to skip work or school, or to put on a mask. (Spoiler: The experts I spoke with were adamant that we all really should be doing those things when we have a cold.)

The general infectious-disease dogma has always been that colds are a big nothing, at least compared with the flu. But gentler than the flu is not saying much. The flu is a legitimately dangerous disease that hospitalizes hundreds of thousands of Americans each year, and, like COVID, can sometimes saddle people with long-term symptoms. Even if colds are generally less severe, people can end up totally clobbered by headaches, exhaustion, and a burning sore throat; their eyes will tear up; their sinuses will clog; they’ll wake up feeling like they’ve swallowed serrated razor blades, or like their heads have been pumped full of fast-hardening concrete. It’s also common for cold symptoms to stretch out beyond a week, occasionally even two; coughs, especially, can linger long after the runny nose and headache resolve. At their worst, colds can lead to serious complications, especially in the very young, very old, and immunocompromised. Sometimes, cold sufferers end up catching a bacterial infection on top of their viral disease, a one-two punch that can warrant a trip to the ER. “The fact of the matter is, it’s pretty miserable to have a cold,” Landon told me. “And that’s how it’s always been.”

[Read: Don’t worry, it’s not COVID]

As far as experts can tell, the average severity of cold symptoms hasn’t changed. “It’s about perception,” says Jasmine Marcelin, an infectious-disease physician at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. After skipping colds for several years, “experiencing them now feels worse than usual,” she told me. Frankly, this was sort of a problem even before COVID came onto the scene. “Every year, I have patients who call me with ‘the worst cold they’ve ever had,’” Landon told me. “And it’s basically the same thing they had last year.” Now, though, the catastrophizing might be even worse, especially since pandemic-brain started prompting people to scrutinize every sniffle and cough.

There’s still a chance that some colds this season might be a shade more unpleasant than usual. Many people falling sick right now are just coming off of bouts with COVID, flu, or RSV, each of which infected Americans (especially kids) by the millions this past fall and winter. Their already damaged tissues may not fare as well against another onslaught from a cold-causing virus.

It’s also possible that immunity, or lack thereof, could be playing a small role. Many people are now getting their first colds in three-plus years, which means population-level vulnerability might be higher than it normally is this time of year, speeding the rate at which viruses spread and potentially making some infections more gnarly than they’d otherwise be. But higher-than-usual susceptibility seems unlikely to be driving uglier symptoms en masse, says Roby Bhattacharyya, an infectious-disease physician and microbiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital. Not all cold-causing viruses leave behind good immunity—but many of those that do are thought to prompt the body to mount relatively durable defenses against truly severe infections, lasting several years or more.

Plus, for a lot of viruses going around right now, the immunity question is largely moot, Landon told me. So many different pathogens cause colds that a recent exposure to one is unlikely to do much against the next. A person could catch half a dozen colds in a five-year time frame and not even encounter the same type of virus twice.

[Read: Maybe consider not kissing that baby]

It’s also worth noting that what some people are categorizing as the worst cold they’ve ever had might actually be a far more menacing virus, such as SARS-CoV-2 or a flu virus. At-home rapid tests for the coronavirus often churn out false-negative results in the early days of infection, even after symptoms start. And although the flu can sometimes be distinguished from a cold by its symptoms, they’re often pretty similar. The illnesses can only be definitively diagnosed with a test, which can be difficult to come by.


The pandemic has steered our perception of illness into a false binary: Oh no, it’s COVID or Phew, it’s not. COVID is undoubtedly still more serious than a run-of-the-mill cold—more likely to spark severe disease or chronic, debilitating symptoms that can last months or years. But the range of severity between them overlaps more than the binary implies. Plus, Marcelin points out, what truly is “just” a cold for one person might be an awful, weeks-long slog for someone else, or worse—which is why, no matter what’s turning your face into a snot factory, it’s still important to keep your germs to yourself. The current outbreak of colds may not be any more severe than usual. But there’s no need to make it bigger than it needs to be.

Requiem for the Love Scene

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › culture › archive › 2023 › 02 › sex-intimacy-love-scenes-tv-movies-humanity-expression › 673140

Here’s a theory: Forget sex, forget nudity, forget the soft-focus jazzy humping of Red Shoe Diaries and the silhouetted saliva strings from Top Gun. The history of film and television suggests that, sometimes, the sexiest thing two people can do on-screen is simply look at each other—look, for a prolonged period of time, until the air around them seems to spark; desire and be desired, in the same breath. Never mind the fact that we are watching too, projecting all of our own intentions and experiences into the charged negative space between the characters.

When we talk about the “chemistry” shared by two actors on-screen, we usually mean their ability to look at each other and make us believe in what they’re seeing. But in the recent Netflix movie You People, what’s striking is how little the two stars seem to see each other at all. Early in the film, Ezra (played by Jonah Hill) and Amira (Lauren London) have a microaggression-tinged meet-cute when he jumps into the back of her Mini under the assumption that she’s his Uber driver. He charms her, for no discernible reason other than that it’s in the script—it’s not quite right to say that, throughout, Hill gives off the vibe of a man with a gun to his head, but it’s also not right to say that he doesn’t. Ezra and Amira go on a lunch date and a series of outings where they look at anything except each other—sneakers, an art exhibition, something funny on someone’s phone. Viewers infer that the two are going to have sex via a shot of his besocked feet touching hers; the next morning, Amira tells Ezra that they’re exclusively dating while flossing her teeth, potentially the single least sexy thing one person can do in the presence of another.

The two characters have almost negative chemistry, which made plausible the recent assertion by an actor in the film that the pair’s one kiss, right at the end of the movie, was computer generated in postproduction, supposedly because of COVID protocols. This might seem logical—we’re already living in a moment of deepfake porn, so why not deepfake make-out scenes, if all parties concerned give their consent? In fact, why not eliminate filmed love scenes altogether? The actor Penn Badgley, who stars in the Netflix series You, recently gave an interview to Variety in which he said that the fourth season of the show contains fewer sex scenes at his request, because they’d long made him uncomfortable. Actors typically dislike intimate scenes; directors have historically used them to abuse their power. If they went away, what would we actually lose?

Maybe everything. The thrilling intimacy of the reciprocated gaze used to be everywhere in film and television. It’s Cecilia and Robbie, in Atonement, getting caught in each other’s stare after she climbs, soaking wet, out of a fountain. It’s Monica finally meeting Quincy’s eyes and not being able to look away as he reaches for the strap of her dress in Love & Basketball. That interaction, by the way, is almost identical to one of the greatest televised sex scenes of all time: the moment when Connell and Marianne negotiate, in Normal People, how to make love for the first time, each looking at the other with the kind of curious erotic intensity that isn’t negated by laughter or even awkwardness. Virtually the entirety of Portrait of a Lady on Fire is an experiment with the charged act of surveying, posing, and being seen. Even sitcoms can get it right—think Nick, staring at Jess with a distinctly uncomic desire after he unexpectedly kisses her for the first time on New Girl.

[Read: The irresistible intimacy of ]Normal People

Without filmed explorations of romantic love and erotic desire, modern sex becomes largely defined by porn, which is as alien to real human experience as the Mission: Impossible—Fallout London-rooftop scene is to my daily commute. Porn pretends that sex is just simple mechanics: choreographed displays of body parts arranged in rote order, joyless and algorithmic. Its influence has bled into virtually every aspect of human life, including television, which has spent more time recently with loudly sex-positive docuseries than with imaginative portraits of reciprocal desire. Sex on TV too often feels fake, abstract, or corrupted: giant prosthetic penises on The White Lotus and Pam & Tommy; a pornucopia of pleasureless, disassociated sexual experiences on Euphoria; the grasping sexual dysfunction of Succession and Industry. Love Life, one of the few shows retrograde enough to parse romantic relationships between adults, has been canceled; another, Modern Love, is currently in limbo. Only Heartstopper and Never Have I Ever, explorations of love and identity among teenagers coming of age, are left to do the serious grown-up work of figuring out what people can mean to each other.

The lovelessness of contemporary pop culture is particularly strange when you consider what’s happening on TikTok: endless, thirsty celebration of romance in all forms, but particularly in fiction. BookTok has helped elevate Colleen Hoover, an author of unabashedly explicit and sincere stories about love and relationships, to the top of the best-seller list. Gen Z, Hoover’s publicist told NPR, is “a huge audience for romance,” in part because “their youth has been marked by global and social upset and unrest” in ways that leave them “looking for a happy ever after.” But Hoover’s success isn’t just about escapism: In her most-discussed book to date, It Ends With Us, she slowly reveals that her stereotypically alpha-male hero is also an abuser.

This is precisely why, I’d argue, we need more explorations of love, sex, and desire in art—because they’re fundamental elements of what it means to be human, to understand intimacy, to accept vulnerability, to be put at risk. Television, at the moment, is more likely to present sex in much the same way that porn does: as something achieved, someone conquered, a new level unlocked. Romantic fiction, at its best, proposes instead that sex can be about connection and affirmation, while also acknowledging complication, messiness, and damage. It suggests that people can meet as equals and enrich each other’s lives, not just plague themselves with affairs they’d rather forget. And for young women in particular, who have grown up with pornography that can present female sexuality as submissive, degrading, or painful, romantic fiction offers a world in which their pleasure is paramount.

[Read: Don’t call them trash]

But the appetites being served in fiction are largely being neglected at the multiplex: According to the Black List’s Kate Hagen, less than 1 percent of movies released in 2022 feature a sex scene, and the standard-bearing Magic Mike’s Last Dance—which depicts an incendiary mutual seduction between Salma Hayek Pinault and Channing Tatum—has sputtered at the box office, although not as badly as the heavily promoted gay rom-com Bros. When audiences have been conditioned to want only sexless Marvel movies, fully clothed Christopher Nolan epics, chaste action thrillers, and possibly cocaine bears, why take a chance on love? (Not for nothing does the unscripted Bennifer saga currently stand alone as the most all-consuming love story of our time.)

And yet, we need love stories, love scenes, portrayals of how people can want and care for and change each other—not cynical, near-algorithmic pairings of couples without a modicum of chemistry, but explorations of profound intimacy and ineffable human connection. This isn’t necessarily the same thing as graphic, titillating sex scenes that require nipple shields and intimacy coordinators. (One moment in Atonement, despite featuring no nudity, has become so epochal over time that “Atonement library kiss scene”  has 5.1 million views on TikTok.) It’s about scenes with characters whose observed interest in each other is so intense, so elemental, that we can’t stop looking either, for fear of what we might miss.

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Race: A Cheat Sheet

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 02 › tracking-democrat-republican-presidential-candidates-2024-election › 673118

This story seems to be about:

Americans hate—or claim to hate—their politicians, but even by those standards, the early shape of the 2024 presidential race is a little bizarre. More than 20 months out from the election, Americans consistently say they don’t want to see a rematch of Joe Biden and Donald Trump. And yet the most likely outcome today is a rematch of Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

As Biden’s political fortunes have risen since late 2022, Democratic elected officials have slowly come around to the idea that he’s likely to be the nominee again next year, but Democratic voters remain skeptical, as I wrote recently. Still, they’re likely to get Biden, thanks in part to the advantage of incumbency.

On the Republican side, Trump looks weaker than he has at any time since shortly after he entered the 2016 race. His overall favorability is low, but that’s not new—he’s never won the national popular vote, and many of his chosen candidates have lost. More worryingly from the Mar-a-Lago point of view, a good chunk of Republicans now seem ready to move on from Trump, and he hasn’t managed to clear the field of rivals. Nikki Haley, who vowed not to run if he did, changed her mind. Ron DeSantis has not declared but seems sure to, and poses a larger electoral threat. Yet Trump still manages to top primary polls with a plurality of support.

How did we end up in such a situation? What in the structure of contemporary American politics led us to the cusp of a clash of meh? One easy answer is incumbency. Not since fellow Democrat Franklin Pierce in 1852, when Biden was just a wee lad, has a sitting president lost his party’s nomination. (That’s a joke, by the way.) Trump is not in office, but he is a sort of demi-incumbent as the most recent Republican president, a status he has reinforced with his false claims that he actually won in 2020.

Political scientists I asked about this offered a couple of additional, nuanced views. Lee Drutman, a senior fellow in the Political Reform program at New America, told me that the increased ideological unity within each of the two parties might explain the rise of unpopular standard-bearers. For most of U.S. history, the parties were a little more mixed, and a large portion of affiliated voters might still consider voting for a candidate of the other party.

“That kept it so both parties would nominate candidates that were broadly appealing to a larger swath of the country,” he said. Now the real prize is to win the primary, because once you’re the nominee, the party will coalesce around you, no matter what—a point that Trump 2016 and Biden 2020 both proved. “As the parties have polarized and separated, what’s happened is that while the parties remain internally fractious, what unites them more than ever is hatred of the other party.”

Julia Azari, a political-science professor at Marquette University, made a dovetailing point about the primary process, which has changed since the mid-20th century. Once largely under the control of the party organizations, it’s now much more open and small-d democratic—which ironically can produce candidates voters don’t actually love. “I think the free-for-all nature of presidential primaries makes it easier for candidates who can command roughly 40 percent of the primary vote to win the nomination while the rest of the field is fractured,” she wrote in an email. “In a weird way, it would be easier to navigate intra-party divisions if the parties had clearer and more organized factions that could consolidate around candidates with similar views and bargain at the nomination stage to incorporate multiple ideological perspectives.”

Once a candidate emerges from that process, he or she can rely on the party rallying together. As Biden likes to say, “Don’t compare me to the almighty; compare me to the alternative.” And if it comes down to Trump and Biden, lots of voters from both parties will be swallowing hard and doing just that.

This cheat sheet will track who’s in, out, up, and down in the 2024 races. It will be updated as the campaign develops, so check in regularly.

DEMOCRATS (Joshua Roberts / Getty) Joe Biden


Who is he?
After decades of trying, Biden is the president of the United States.

Is he running?
Not officially, but in every other respect, yes. Every time he’s been asked, he says he expects to run, and when his longtime aide Ron Klain departed as chief of staff, Klain said he’d be there “when” Biden runs in 2024. An announcement could come soon, now that the State of the Union has passed.

Why does he want to run?
Biden has always wanted to be president and is proud of his work so far; he also seems to believe that he may be the only person who can defeat Donald Trump in a head-to-head matchup.

Who wants him to run?
There’s the catch. Some prominent Democrats support his bid for a second term, but voters have consistently told pollsters they don’t want him to run again.

Can he win the nomination?
If he runs, it’s probably his for the taking. No incumbent president has lost the nomination in the modern era, and Biden has pushed through changes to the Democratic-primary process that make him an even more prohibitive favorite.

What else do we know?
Biden is already the oldest person elected president and to serve as president, so a second term would set more records.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty) Kamala Harris


Who is she?
Harris is the vice president of the United States.

Is she running?
No, but if Biden does not, she’s expected to be the favorite.

Why does she want to run?
One problem with her 2020 presidential campaign was the lack of a clear answer to this question. Perhaps running on the Biden-Harris legacy would help fill in the blank.

Who wants her to run?
Some Democrats are excited about the prospect of nominating a woman of color, but generally Harris’s struggles as a candidate and in defining a role for herself (in the admittedly impossible position of VP) have resulted in nervousness about her as a standard-bearer.

Can she win the nomination?
It’s too soon to tell, but she’d start with an advantage if Biden sits this out.

(Matthew Cavanaugh / Getty) Pete Buttigieg


Who is he?
Mayor Pete is Secretary Pete now, overseeing the Department of Transportation.

Is he running?
No, but he would also be a likely candidate if Biden bows out.

Why does he want to run?
Just as he was four years ago, Buttigieg is a young, ambitious politician with a moderate, technocratic vision of government.

Who wants him to run?
Buttigieg’s fans are passionate, and Biden showed that moderates remain a force in the party.

Can he win the nomination?
Possibly.

(Scott Olson / Getty) Bernie Sanders


Who is he?
The senator from Vermont is changeless, ageless, ever the same.

Is he running?
No, but if Biden doesn’t, it’s hard to believe he wouldn’t seriously consider another go. A top adviser even says so.

Why does he want to run?
Sanders still wants to tax billionaires, level the economic playing field, and push a left-wing platform.

Who wants him to run?
Sanders continues to have the strong support of a large portion of the Democratic electorate, especially younger voters.

Can he win the nomination?
Two consecutive tries have shown that he’s formidable, but can’t close. Maybe the third time’s the charm?

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty) Gretchen Whitmer


Who is she?
Whitmer cruised to a second term as governor of Michigan in 2022.

Is she running?
Say it with me: No, but if Biden doesn’t, she might.

Why does she want to run?
It’s a little early to know, but her reelection campaign focused on abortion rights.

Who wants her to run?
Whitmer would check a lot of boxes for Democrats. She’s a fresh face, she’s a woman, and she’s proved she can win in the upper Midwest against a MAGA candidate.

Can she win the nomination?
Perhaps.

(Lucas Jackson / Reuters) Marianne Williamson


Who is she?
If you don’t know Williamson from her popular writing on spirituality, then you surely remember her somewhat woo-woo Democratic bid in 2020.

Is she running?
Not officially, but she has visited New Hampshire and tells The New York Times she’s considering a run, Biden or not.

Why does she want to run?
She told the Times she wanted to give voters a choice. “The question I ask myself is not ‘What is my path to victory?’ My question is ‘What is my path to radical truth-telling?’ There are some things that need to be said in this country.”

Who wants her to run?
Williamson has her fans, but she doesn’t have a clear political constituency.

Can she win the nomination?
Nah.

(Brian Cassella / Chicago Tribune / Getty) J. B. Pritzker


Who is he?
The governor of Illinois is both scion of a wealthy family and a “nomadic warrior.”

Is he running?
If Biden, etc.

Why does he want to run?
After years of unfulfilled interest in elected office, Pritzker has established himself as a muscular proponent of progressivism in a Democratic stronghold.

Who wants him to run?
Improbably for a billionaire, Pritzker has become a darling of the Sanders-style left, as well as a memelord.

Can he win the nomination?
Maybe.


REPUBLICANS (Joe Raedle / Getty) Donald Trump


Who is he?
You know him and you love him. Or hate him. Probably not much in between.

Is he running?
Yes. Trump announced his bid to return to the White House at Mar-a-Lago in November 2022.

Why does he want to run?
Revenge, boredom, rivalry, fear of prosecution, long-standing psychological hang-ups.

Who wants him to run?
A big tranche of the GOP are still all in on Trump, but it’s a little hard to tell how big. Polling shows that his support among Republicans is all over the place, but he’s clearly not a prohibitive front-runner.

Can he win the nomination?
Yes, but past results are no guarantee of future success.

What else do we know?
More than we could possibly want to.

(Joe Raedle / Getty) Ron DeSantis


Who is he?
The second-term governor of Florida, DeSantis was previously a U.S. representative.

Is he running?
Not officially, but clearly the answer is yes. DeSantis is getting a campaign and super PAC up and running, marshaling donors, and inserting himself into national politics. He reportedly might not announce until May or June.

Why does he want to run?
DeSantis offers the prospect of a synthesis of Trump-style culture war and bullying and the conservative politics of the early 2010s Republican Party.

Who wants him to run?
Members of the Republican establishment who want a pugilistic alternative to Trump, disaffected MAGA types.

Can he win the nomination?
No one quite knows how a Trump-DeSantis battle will play out, but it seems very possible.

(Roy Rochlin / Getty) Nikki Haley


Who is she?
Haley, the daughter of immigrants, was governor of South Carolina and then ambassador to the United Nations under Trump.

Is she running?
Yes. She announced her campaign on February 14, saying, “Time for a new generation.”

Why does she want to run?
Perhaps as a MAGA-friendly alternative to Trump? It’s hard to say, as my colleague Tim Alberta has chronicled. Haley served under Trump, condemned him over January 6, said she wouldn’t run if he ran, and now is running anyway.

Who wants her to run?
That’s also hard to say, but if DeSantis stumbles in the spotlight, she could make a play for his supporters.

Can she win the nomination?
Dubious.

(Alex Wong / Getty) Asa Hutchinson


Who is he?
Hutchinson, a longtime member of Congress, is now governor of Arkansas.

Is he running?
It sure looks like it. He’s been making the rounds and having the conversations one has if one is going to run, and he says he will probably decide by April.

Why does he want to run?
At one time, Hutchinson was a right-wing Republican—he was one of the managers of Bill Clinton’s impeachment—but as the party has changed, he finds himself closer to the center. He’s been very critical of Trump, saying he disqualified himself with his attempts to steal the election.

Who wants him to run?
Some old-school Republicans would welcome his candidacy, but it’s hard to imagine a groundswell.

Can he win the nomination?
Unlikely.

(Drew Angerer / Getty) Larry Hogan


Who is he?
Hogan left office this year after serving two terms as governor of Maryland.

Is he running?
He says he’s giving a campaign “very serious consideration.”

Why does he want to run?
Hogan argues that his experience of governing a very blue state as a Republican is a model: “We’ve been really successful outside of Washington, where everything appears to be broken and nothing but divisiveness and dysfunction.” He’s also a vocal critic of Donald Trump.

Who wants him to run?
Moderate, business-friendly “Never Trump” Republicans love Hogan.

Can he win?
Hard to imagine.

(John Locher / AP) Chris Sununu


Who is he?
The governor of New Hampshire, he’s the little brother of former Senator John E. Sununu and son of former White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu.

Is he running?
“Maybe I run, maybe I don’t,” he said in early February. But he passed on a Senate run last year and just created a fundraising vehicle that typically presages a candidacy.

Why does he want to run?
Sununu seems disgusted by a lot of Washington politics and sees his success in New Hampshire, a purple-blue state, as a model for small-government conservatism.

Who wants him to run?
Trump-skeptical Republicans, old-school conservatives.

Can he win the nomination?
Maybe.

(David Becker / The Washington Post / Getty) Tim Scott


Who is he?
A South Carolinian, Scott is the only Black Republican senator.

Is he running?
Maybe. Scott has visited Iowa and considered a campaign, and says he doesn’t plan to run for another Senate term.

Why does he want to run?
Unlike some of the others on this list, Scott doesn’t telegraph his ambition quite so plainly, but he’s built a record as a solid Republican. He was aligned with Trump, but never sycophantically attached.

Who wants him to run?
Scott’s Senate colleagues adore him.

Can he win the nomination?
Who knows? The soft-spoken Scott is untested in this kind of campaign.

(Scott Olson / Getty) Mike Pompeo


Who is he?
Pompeo, a former member of Congress, led the CIA and was secretary of state under Trump.

Is he running?
Most likely. He’s released a campaign-style memoir, though he had to blurb it himself, and has pointedly distanced himself from Trump on some issues.

Why does he want to run?
Pompeo has always been ambitious, and he seems to think he can combine MAGA proximity with a hawkish foreign-policy approach.

Who wants him to run?
That’s not entirely clear.

Can he win the nomination?
Maybe, but probably not.

(Misha Friedman / Getty) Glenn Youngkin


Who is he?
Youngkin, the former CEO of the private-equity Carlyle Group, was elected governor of Virginia in 2021.

Is he running?
He hasn’t said, but he’s been traveling to stump for Republicans and meet with donors, and he’s limited to a single term as governor.

Why does he want to run?
Youngkin is a bit of a cipher; he ran largely on education issues, and has sought to tighten abortion laws in Virginia, so far to no avail.

Who wants him to run?
Republicans who see him as able to run on Trumpy cultural issues while keeping some distance from Trump.

Can he win the nomination?
Possibly.

(Megan Varner / Getty) Mike Pence


Who is he?
The former vice president, he also served as governor of Indiana and U.S. representative.

Is he running?
Pretty likely, though he hasn’t declared.

Why does he want to run?
Pence has long harbored White House dreams, and he has a strong conservative-Christian political agenda. His time as Trump’s VP both makes him more plausible and probably rules him out, because he’s fallen afoul of his old boss.

Who wants him to run?
Conservative Christians, rabbit lovers.

Can he win the nomination?
It’s hard to see it happening.

The ’90s Blockbuster That’s Also a Symphony

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 02 › the-90s-blockbuster-thats-also-a-symphony › 673123

This story seems to be about:

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Good morning, and welcome back to The Daily’s Sunday culture edition, in which one Atlantic writer reveals what’s keeping them entertained.

Today’s special guest is Megan Garber, a staff writer who frequently writes about the intersection of pop culture and politics for The Atlantic. Megan wrote our March cover story on the ever-blurrier distinction between reality and entertainment, which is currently on newsstands. She’s also the author of On Misdirection: Magic, Mayhem, American Politics, a collection of Atlantic essays on misinformation and America’s fracturing political culture, one of the three inaugural titles from our new Atlantic Editions book imprint. Megan is a fan of the classicist Emily Wilson’s literary translations and the artistry of Nicolas Cage, and she belly-laughed during the first episode of the “semi-satirical semi-documentary” HBO series The Rehearsal.

But first, here are three Sunday reads from The Atlantic:

The inconvenient truth about electric vehicles

Beyoncé tickets are the new status symbol.

Don’t be afraid to commit to the bit.

The Culture Survey: Megan Garber

A favorite story I've read in The Atlantic: One of my all-time favorite Atlantic stories is also one of the earliest: the 1859 essay “Ought Women to Learn the Alphabet?” For a long time, I judged the piece by its headline and assumed, applying Betteridge’s law, that the thing was a narrow-minded broadside against educating women. But you know what they say about the u and me in assume (and so do I, fortunately, since I’ve been allowed to learn the alphabet). I was very wrong!

The essay is in fact an argument in favor of women’s education. (Initially published anonymously, it was later revealed to have been written by Thomas Wentworth Higginson, the activist and sometime mentor to Emily Dickinson.) The piece is erudite. It is also, somehow, whimsical: It doesn’t make its argument so much as it unfurls it. And the observation that underscores all of its others—that talent is a historical contingency as well as an individual gift—remains insightful despite, and because of, its vintage.  [Related: But seriously, ‘ought women to learn the alphabet?’]

My favorite blockbuster and favorite art movie: I love this question, because I can answer both sides of it with one film: Face/Off. John Woo’s masterpiece tells the story of two men whose faces are removed(!) and then swapped(!!)—two men who then … face off(!!!). I mean. In case you are tempted to argue that a movie whose plot revolves entirely around the trading of face skin perhaps does not deserve my devotion, I’d note that (1) Face/Off features everything that a great blockbuster should (transcendent set pieces, unapologetic maximalism, Nic Cage), and (2) it doubles, at alternate moments, as an opera and a symphony and a ballet. Oh, and it co-stars John Travolta at full-throttle camp. Face/Off is action distilled into John Dunne-ian levels of poetic elegance. Only with more explosions.

Something I recently rewatched, reread, or otherwise revisited: George Santos represents the area of Long Island where The Great Gatsby was likely set; the coincidence led me, last week, to revisit F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic. The novel is as narratively sparse as it is semantically opulent—may we all find something to love as deeply as Fitzgerald loved his adverbs—and because of that, I find it to be one of those stories that can accommodate endless readings. Every reacquaintance with Nick and Tom and Daisy and the polite enigma named Gatsby allows for a new interpretation—of the book, and of the country for which many consider it a metaphor. (Another of my favorite Atlantic pieces: Rosa Inocencio Smith’s beautiful and prescient essay about Tom Buchanan’s resemblance to Donald Trump.) [Related: A new way to read Gatsby]

A poem, or line of poetry, that I return to: So many! But because I’ve found myself writing about the banality of mythology lately—about the stories we tell ourselves, as Joan Didion put it, in order to live—I keep finding the lines of Adrienne Rich’s “Diving Into the Wreck” jangling around in my head. Its last ones, in particular:

We are, I am, you are

by cowardice or courage

the one who find our way

back to this scene

carrying a knife, a camera

a book of myths

in which

our names do not appear.

"The first episode of The Rehearsal made me laugh in a way that was as emotionally satisfying as it was physically humiliating," Megan says. Above: A still from the series. (HBO)

The last museum or gallery show that I loved: One of the best things about living in Washington, D.C., is the access it affords to museums that are epic in scope: summative treatments of facts, inspiring collections of art and culture. What I love the most, though, are museums that are wonderfully small: places dedicated to narrow subject areas, operating less as grand statements than as intimate labors of love. I seek them out whenever I’m visiting a new place (RIP, the Burt Reynolds and Friends Museum of Jupiter, Florida). But I discovered one of my favorites by accident: Driving outside of Providence, Rhode Island, with my mother and sister, we saw a sign advertising the Museum of Work & Culture. Its exit was just ahead; obviously, we took it.

The museum, overseen by the Rhode Island Historical Society and set in a restored textile mill, is compact but teeming with delights. Focusing on the mostly immigrant workers who labored in such factories in the late-19th and early-20th centuries, the museum’s exhibits bring a three-dimensional intimacy to their lives. You can sit inside a typical home. You can experience how they spent their leisure time. You can learn about their efforts, some successful and some less so, to organize. The museum is a testament to the people who helped make the region—and the country—what it is. I think of it, too, as a wanderable reminder of the stories and histories that might be found at every exit.

The last thing that made me snort with laughter: I snort-laugh with horrifying ease, so take this with a grain of salt … but the first episode of The Rehearsal, Nathan Fielder’s semi-satirical semi-documentary, made me laugh in a way that was as emotionally satisfying as it was physically humiliating. In the series, the comedian offers to help people who are preparing for big moments in their life: Under his guidance, he promises, they will rehearse the future into reassuring predictability. In the first episode, Fielder assists a man who is making a long-delayed confession to a friend; Fielder’s game-it-all-out approach steadily—inevitably—builds in complication and absurdity. His efforts to outwit life’s uncertainty culminate in a punch line that is as silly as it is poignant. I won’t spoil it here, but I’ll admit that it made the belly laughs I’d been emitting throughout the episode lose their last bit of dignity. [Related: You’ve never seen anything quite like The Rehearsal.]

The upcoming event I’m most looking forward to: Emily Wilson’s forthcoming translation of The Iliad. The classicist’s radically blunt rendering of The Odyssey is already in my personal canon (“Tell me about a complicated man,” goes its first line, rejecting the florid Muse invocations of earlier versions and catapulting Odysseus into relatable modernity). Wilson’s treatment of that other complicated man, Achilles, will be published in September—and I can’t wait to reencounter Homer’s epic, translated by a scholar who keeps finding new urgency in ancient stories. [Related: The Odyssey and the Other]

Read past editions of the Culture Survey with Helen Lewis, Jane Yong Kim, Clint Smith, John Hendrickson, Gal Beckerman, Kate Lindsay, Xochitl Gonzalez, Spencer Kornhaber, Jenisha Watts, David French, Shirley Li, David Sims, Lenika Cruz, Jordan Calhoun, Hannah Giorgis, and Sophie Gilbert.

The Week Ahead Oscar Wars: A History of Hollywood in Gold, Sweat, and Tears, a lively dive into the history of Hollywood’s biggest accolade by the New Yorker staff writer Michael Schulman (on sale Tuesday) Cocaine Bear, a movie loosely based on a real-life bear who ate a real-life brick of cocaine, after which chaos predictably ensued (in theaters Friday) The Consultant, a new, darkly comedic eight-episode series starring Christoph Waltz as a very bad boss (premieres Friday on Amazon Prime) Essay (Tyler Comrie / The Atlantic; Getty)

Judging Parents Online Is a National Sport

By Stephanie H. Murray

To be a parent on the internet is to be constantly accused of false advertising. We make parenting sound “so freaking horrible,” “messy, tedious, nightmarishly life-destroying,” like it will “change everything, mostly for the worse.” Or is it that we make it look “so easy,” “aesthetically-pleasing” and “effortlessly beautiful,” “miles from what motherhood looks like for many of us”?

People can’t seem to agree on whether it’s our soul-sucking complaints or our phony cheer that dominates the discourse. By some accounts, current discussions about the difficulties of motherhood are a pushback against a time when it was idealized. Others say the “mommy internet” used to be a place where moms could be “raw and authentic”; only recently has it become overrun with “staged, curated photos that don’t show the messier part of life.” Either way, it’s irresponsible. What real-life mother could possibly measure up to a “vision of motherly perfection”? Who would choose to have children in an atmosphere that insists child-rearing is so bleak?

Read the full article.

More in Culture A sensitive movie about a literary oddity Ben Okri on manipulating reality The new Ant-Man and the creaky, cringey Marvel machine A strange, paranoid new crime drama The wholly human art of poetry Who poisoned Pablo Neruda? Catch Up on The Atlantic Ibram X. Kendi: The book that exposed anti-Black racism in the classroom Eagles are falling, bears are going blind. The truth about aliens is still out there. Photo Album Rihanna performs on a suspended stage during last week's Super Bowl LVII Halftime Show. (Sarah Stier / Getty)

Browse snapshots of the world’s oldest dog in Portugal, pre-Carnival festivities in Brazil, and much more in our editor’s photos of the week.

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here.

Explore all of our newsletters.