politicians actually duest more good when they are not so ready to their principles and ials and he says the parliamentarian, or the legislature is elected to serve this elector is not to serve himself. we have valorize this notion of e visionary political party that low right wrongs or lten to the future. i have never heard of conservatism that pledged itself to the future whether it was the american and i will make one last point which is to say before we arrived too quickly the absence of democrac participation in engel and let's remember who participated in american democracy. it was a slave nation, so when we say that embedded in our historic values are human

freedom let's remember it took quite some time before they became widely disseminated. one last point and then i would like to hear from the audience, there is a great political scientist i believe a colleague walter burns may be here tonight he was identified a remarkable arguments and identified to equally imptant strands in the foundatio of america that are actually completing strands. there is no single set of american ideals. what candle said was there to strands. what is the egalitarian argument put forth in the declaration of independence. the other is a conservative argument put forth in the constitution, a system designed to slgw and inhibithange. in my book i mentioned that candle was the mos incisive

analysts' of the civil-rights controversies of the '60s the analysis was the most subtle and interesting but these two ideas of a nation or a state that will use its powers to ex@and opportunity is one that according to canville laingen made manifest with another document t gettyurg address and the constitution some sense stands in oppition to it so at the risk of sounding myself like sthey would say there isarxist a dialectic in our politics. it is the competition between two equally opposed principles not a set of clearcut mao westmore principles that we

follow. simply society including societies are much more complicated. ours is the government of competing interests and its accommodations among them that enable us function so that is the end of my rant here and we will take some questions now, is that what we will do? >> we will now take some rans from the audience. we have plenty of time and i would like tosk you before we start to follow a couple of principles. one is to wait for the microphone and the mic reaches you identify yourself and as i call on the questionnaires i invite sam to exercise veto power if he sees someone who wants to favor that i have not called on, so should we start rit here? >> thank you. i am rodger with the cato initute. sam you have given us an interesting new your view of the conservative movement. there is anothern the shores

of lake michigan far outside the rridor that has a great university of which a lot of individual activity was taking place during that period in which you coveredspecially among the economists there and also political philosopheras well, and the new york crowds surrounding bi buckley at the national review drew heavily upon the writings of hayek, friedman, stigler and so forth. >> strauts t. >> i wonder why do you did n in these in your talk include that very imrtant foundation aspect of modern conservatism? >> a great question and in a longer book i probably would have. i was looking specifically at the politics and history that i

have been immersed in in these past 20 years and it is important though they are i think friedman's book capitalism and eedom and hayek the road to serfdom in some ways initiated t intellectual conservatism and the economics. it is always worth remembering that a great admirer of that book was john maynard keynes and strauss's thinking essentially formed along wit lionel trilling irving kristol's philosophy. it is a great in writs subject one i am not as immersed in as i have been and the oths. also in part, because i wanted to deal with-- it is what i do my preoccupation is e inteelation, and these guys by the way did a great job of

hitting this question, the interrelation between ideas and practicing politics. it is true that friedman in particular and later thetrauts ians became important, had a wold but maybe i do have a new york bias. it is a very good book though and i am glad you brought it up. >> we will move over to this side. >> zachary davis, the carnegie endowment for international peace. >> this is an old organization that we won't hold that ainst you. >> first of ali would like to thank you for pointing out that vagueness of the conservative tendency to point to freedoms, america individual freedom but i have argued a lot or discussed a lot with friends who dislike of,

because it threatens freedoms that they never point to which freedoms they are so one question i would like to a everyone is what is it that conservatives tend to feel is threatened by some liberal ideology and my second question is, you mentioned the need to to delink the conservative movement wi the conservative political necessities. how doou you imagine that? how do you imagine that to be and what kind of institutions and mechanisms do you feel are needed to view conservatism now? >> why don't you guys go first to answer obama question and then i will way and. >> o gosh. well, one reason defining freedom, it is not simple to do especially when you were trying to be brief and respond to sam's prentation. i would say the understanding of

the natal rights of people on jeffersonian is the theoretical basis, long footnotes to follow. i tnk modern liberalism is right on onemportant point. what do you think liberals are right on the broad scale? i think what the progressives or write about in abstract sense was that the enjoyment or fulfillment of individual freedom in modern industrial capitalism. we use that term, may require or often does require state intervention. that will mark me out now as a defender on behalf of individual liberty or individual fulfilment of people's freedoms so by the way wilson plus qwest. this whole individual lerty

of the founders. now want to speak about mature freedom so the conservative critique of that very valid point of view from the way i put it is tt it does not need and simple and there are lots of exceptions that require deep thought but to the extent the state requires to expand individual liberties will be constricted. he may take, they may take away my freedom to choose a health insurer i might like to have an open marketplace. there is a specific to me and that not it seems to me a frivolous argument. >> i think steve pots as actively stated both what conservatives fear and what conservatives need to recognize more readily. u.n. sam minch and irving kristol posing the challenge the conservatives need to envision what a conservative welfare state would entail which is the practical implementation of steve's inside that in the mode age and i would say

postindustrial age that one needs to have some degree of government intervention, precisely to maximize human freedom within circumstances and that is a challenge that conservative policians have yet to meet and conservative intellectuals remain in a quandary about how to do that across the broad measure of policies and objectives that the liberal and progressive states have implemented over the years. what i think conservatives the year about obama is that much like the french revolution, it was said they remembered nothing and have forgotten nothing. there is a brand of liberalism that cou donrate that it s learned from liberalism's failures in difficulties that incorporate conservative, neoconservative and neoliberal

can tehriks. to the conservative mind the current obama admistration and its allies on the hill seem to have learned nothing and to have forgotten nothing and consequently make this e year perhaps the problems we saw will comeack again at the new in a stronger power than ever. >> these are both really interesting points and what henry just sai reminded me why it was the statement i made in the book about eisenhower and clinton have been the true burkean presidents of the modern era brings to md exactly what you said you perceive the and perhaps accurately as a failure of obama's liberalism. remember, clinton rose to the floor as a candidate by essentially appropriating the

rhetoric and also the argument first of bry goldwater and then of richard nixon and then of ronalreagan is essentially plagiarize the vocabulary of the forgotten american, the one who plays by theules. this com right out o1964 olds to the forgoen american and the moral majority, the silent majority under nixon and the moral majority under reagan. that is why he seemed like a conservative present. i described early in the book how when clinton took office some will remember he actually had a stimulus package of his own. remember this? 19-- $19.5 million seemed like so much money that and bob dole stopped him fo times in a filibuer which was a precedent

breaking maneuvered of another kind, but in the end clinton wated down bill, i think it was 4 billion in unemployment insurance and the republicans were right. the economy recoved in clinton quite amazingly and we will see this and robert samuelson's book the eight years he was president unemployment decreased every single year and you will note, and i should've put this in my bookin the agenda bob woodward described clinton as being the president to more than any other was obsess with the wall street ticker-tape. in other words he adjusted to the conservative period. he saw that the forces unleashed by reagan were powerful and strong and it was not his place to resist the

so fourears early to dwight eisenhower who also takes office following the period this time of the democratic agenda and it is remarkable to think republicans did not win a single presidential election in the entire 1930's or 1940's. five elections in a row from 1932 to 1948 or some of the massive landslides we will ever see. one of the problems of politics now that has affected president obama and much o the media is that his election wasind of average, averaged/close. it was not a landslide. we call anything a landslide these days that back in the days when landslides were landslides schaechter would win 56, 57% of the votes. at a rate eisenhor came in

following these 20 years very powerful democratic new deal leadership and decided it could not be undone. it could be trimmed, it cou be minimized, it could be slowed, it could be checked, it could not be rolled back. why? because the public had gotten used to it. that doesn't mean the public is right to have gotten used to it but it had and thats where the argument comes in, that you have to look to the electives. richard hofstadter in 1952 argued the case for adlai stevenson because he was a true conservative. you can spend that infinitely. you can call any one a conservative who follows policies you like but the point is that the politics of accommodation and a flexibility is something that has fallen

very much into disrepute in our time. i think obama's strengtsane to parnes on a fight and his weaknesses, when he doesn't end the i thank and i don't want to seem as though i have jumped t much into your camp if i say one thing th struck me as teresting about obama and davidemnick of all people told me he is writing aut this is if you actually look t the intellectual genealogy of obama there is very little we would call liberalism. there really is a kind of leftism and if it is true that he and his administration have not learned the lesson that i think clinton actuay did, he teamed up with gingrich to end welfare as we know it. george will objective at the time and so did patrick moynihan but there you have it. it could be a problem. to answer the question abou

what should be don h will tell you one place where i differ with most observers in all of this and this may have-- i am actually not one of those who think the republican party went wrong when it ceased to be conservative. i actuay think it got in trouble when the conservative ideologues took over. i think we would be better off with at least one republican legislator from the northeast and a representative in congress. back in the days of the late '50s and early '60s there was talk of there not been to parties in america but for. there were presidential party zen legislative parties and that is partly by the way white eisenhower and fdr also wanted to form a new party because they saw everything deadlock in stymied in congress often by conservatives with their own

party so they wanted to drake realignmts. we now not only don't have the four party system any more, we have an imbalance with the republicans are very disciplined and unified and agree on most things legislatively. the democratseem somewhat split and that this de deal martialed the majorities. and i which the republicans were a little more geographically and audiologically diverse in that way but maybe those are the dreams of the liberal. it is kind to fun to come he, the only place i've ever called a liberal. in new york time denounced by all matter of names and liberal is not one of them. any other? >> jonah goldberg. wait for the microphone please. >> if i out this was all very interesting. i've only just started the book

and i have read the new public as a. i hear you have nhing but lavish praise for my book in your book. >> i have mentioned it once. >> is fine but i've got to say as something of a student of conservative-- conservatism myself, "los angeles times" and i used to be a policy known around here for quite a time. >> the author of a hugely bestselling book, don't be so modest. >> that as it may, i think stepn many ways put his finger on it, there is a world the nature to some of this conversation that im heang. ilyse that is the feel like it. your discussn reminds me of know what more than peter booras to ensure you guys remember was in many ways the other main conservative for a brief period of time alongside william f. buley was the very literary. guy to even one that pulitzer.

>> he won it twice for history and for poetry. >> so there youo and here he, richard hofstadter's interesting, he said we should suppt adlai stevenson as well and so the other worldly sense i get the of your description of things, let me just present the visitor om mars view i have very, very quickly. you look at this present moment where you see dmatic conservativeon willing to engage in vital center project for stabilitand what not with liberalism. we look at some unlike richard nixon and you call yourself a anian and to me first of all it is interesting nixon himself thought william f. buckley, that the bucky eyes were a greater threat to e republican party than the birches were a and i look at george bush and i see

someone who is far more nixon's, a far more representave of an accommodionist approach to government that you say conservative should folw then reagan is. here george bush who ran on a humble foreign policy, his signature domestic problem-- program other than tax cuts was in education bill that he worked with ted knedy to get across. we saw an increase in education spending in this country of over 100 intent-- 27%. richard nixon when he debates jfk in 1960, he opposes at all costs the idea federalizing education which was the backbone position of all conservatives for almost 50 years which george bushid. george bush increase in terms of the prescription drug benefits the first expansion of entitlement, the biggest expansion of entitlement

spending since t gat society. george bush runs as a compassionateonservative, which is said here worked as a human being is measured by your i.t. here in steve largent fishin and ultimately counterproductive government programs. you can go down this list. meanwhile you talk about h consvatives find extending their hands. national riew supported bill clinton, supported bill clinton when he bombed the sudan. we are dogmatic and refusing to criticize our roane site as lynnlle buckley said those things about the primary slossburg of the national reew of posey george bush's oppose no child left behind( opposed his immigration plan and that may be a separate issue, opposeuch of bush's domestic agenda and so meanwhile usaid that a sure sign of dogmatism and curt

cultural is when people believe in secret cadres. this afternoon the new republic ran a piece@ by john mcwhirter saying who cares if their people and the administration who believe in truth, who cares if they believe their own government cspired to kill 3,000 of their own citizens in the greatest domestic attack in american history because that is trivial, and that, this is the same magazine that ran in 2002. so it seems to me when you look of the actual landscape out there it is far easier to find examples of conrvatives extending an olive branch. you can see examples of conservatives extending an olive brch and because they see themselves as the movement they will not accept it ands a

strategi for pitical or philosophical or other kinds of success to say that conservatives should abandon their enemy of movents in the spirit of accommodation, isn't that essentially in a device to conservatives should surrender? [applause] >> who wants to go first? is that for me? [laughter] >> i think that was for you, m. >> i said early on i was not here to defend liberals. and much of what you say is true. i think the complication with george bush is a little different and so i will get into that and try to get to some of the other points as well. i know-- is here somewre but in the book ross wrote the grand new party, is that the title? you will see some of the more

interestindefenses early on bush's first years in government. a kind of new deal republicanism in what did david brooks describes well so thi notion of bush as accommodating, a democratic or liberal ideas is absolutely sound early on. i think what happened with george bush and with the iraq war and you know i quote benjamin disraeli on the danger of exploiting democracy. he was alarmingly d infuriatingly young about the dangers ofupporting democracies to lands run by despotic praise only demint catholics. i think the problem came with

george bush who was by the way as easily as often and as on fairly demonized by liberals as president obama is by the conservatives, no question about that and i would not defend any of those attacks on him. is that's-- there is a great piece in the new yorker that said that e bush adminiration treated journalists as if they were a special-interest group. easy chrissie, the lack of candor shall we say about the lead up to the war in iraq. these are consequential things, and they seem rooted in what i call the revanchist view of how to govern and how to deduct

politics. that is to say that you know best. your ideals are purists and anyone who is in your way be damage. i think it is very damaging to our politics that people also. by the way and i quote this in the book, that a great champion of reagan, martin anderson helm i am sure steve knows very well said in 2002 or 2003 that bush's policies on all the major issues, hisositions were identical to ronald reagan's and in 2003 we were hearing much about bush from the right to as a president who would complete the reagan revolution, so that important to remember as well. as far as the czars eneille

obama administration i am with you. it was jfk came into office, fearful of the government wanted to sir clemsen-- circumvent roosevelt because you couldn't get these done if those government bubeaucrats got in the way and one of the interesting sort of reversals in our potics is that coervatives once recognized the value of having bureaucrats running mh of government because they would slow things down. it is not in the nature of bureacrats to speed change along but quite the opposite, to volve iall in red tape. that is when we go back and look at herbert hoover d.c. his defense. herbert hoover was a progressive as we rember. is defense of efficient government, he didn't understand why coolidge wasn't regating wall street more.

these we ideas that one's head their bases i conservatism. one other point that wilmake about that is there has been some discussion in the progressive, the original progressive movent that lasted from 1900 to 1915, a movement that permeated both movements anfirst the repubcan party and i guess there's not tremendous admation particularly from. >> but i feel that is the way out to answer the earlier question, i think thais the solution for republicans. jonah makes a very brilliant point about peter feerick. you are right, that was the other argument. whitaker chambers who is very whti because of all the languages he knewith the foursquare conservatism, the four corners. varitek lost that battle, no question about it for an interesting bit archive loyalism for those who care. it was actlly he who reviewed

ckley's plug in began corrponded with him. they were friendly adversaries but jonah is right, the conservatism i'm talking about is very much like that and there's no question it loss. i don't pretend, i think john is-- somody else said that too. yes, he did. i think the economis, somebody else said that in the review of the book. i plead guilty. i think we could us a little otherworldly-- worldwide now because that is what debate in thinking about politics is partly about i the other worldliness. .. 

>> one moreshort question which will come fr walter burns.

[inaudible] >> strau had absolutely nothing to do with russell kirk he is neoconservatism because many of hisstudents onthe conservatives. as to his own position i would say incidently he did communicate. he repute. >> 1952. at the local precinct. register to vote. >>hat is right. and voted for him twice. no, i think what i said, and

maybe mistaken, irving kristol is a great admirer of strauss. you see that very clearly spelled out. yes. but absolutely right. it is one reason i did not want to go down that path. it is an extraordinary exchange between the two. at that time when kendall who was a remarkable figure people should acquaint themselves. if you can get passed to the throat clearing pros he was really marginalized as a political scientists. and it was strauss who really gate and support.

minute screening. one of candles ongreat followers, who i happen to think i am alone in this -- release and on because he doesn't agree. he is the one great conservative intellectual. even though he didn't love my book very much. but strauss's will is of very much more complicated one and you are absolutely right and has to deal with ideas about democracy and how it works. strauses notion. when compared with burnham or crystals they seemed to be almost a vulgarizing. strauss was oa much more complicated novel. i actually don't even feel

adequate. thank you very much for that. is that going to do it for us? >> it doest for this portion of the program. our conversatisill spill over into. i think -- my thanks to all of you for coming this evening and please join me ihanking all of o speakers this eving. [applauding] >> can i thank eveone in turn because for better or worse -- may be worse, i could not have written the book with my very good friend wanot asking me to speak here a couple of years ago, a year-and-a-half ago. made a huge impression on me. there may be an opening. ye, no more.

[applauding] >> new york times book review editor sam tanenhaus is the author of "literature unbound", auide to the common reader, and louis armstrong. currently working on a biography of william f. buckley, the american enterprise institute hosted this event. for more information visit aei dot org. >> in the beginning of the book you dedicate the first part of the book to the people of your country. the other part of the book you dedicate to your mom, martha. tell me about rtha johnson. >> i think that was of real force that shaped my life and the life of my siblings. my mother was one to talk as the

basic things about endurance and commitment and honesty and hard work. she demonstrated her courage when our father, her husband, had a stre very early and she had to make ends meet to give us an education. she was a ptor. it deeply rooted in faith. and so we grew up in a family home based on prayer and faith and hard work. i think everything that represents the character in me really has come from her and we are bringing that to in our family. >> this was up portion of the book tv program. you can view the entire program and many others on line. coats said booktv.org. type the name of the author were

booked into the search area in the upper left-hand corner of the page. select the watch link. now you can view the entire program. you might so explore the recently bookedv box or the feated video box to find featured and recent programs. >> a lot of this book is abou culture and our culture matters. by that i mean how does where we are from and to ourncestors were make a difference in how we do our job and how could we are? what we choose to do for a take that idea. it is the very, i think, a difficult thing to wrestle with. so one of the examples i used to

illustrate this point of how much closer matters is plane crashes. a whole chapter on plan crashes. and so i thought i would tell a story from that cpter. i will warn you that i'm not going to tell the whole chapter. the whole chapter -- i'm taking an excerpt out. it makes a good deal less sense than the version you will be in the book. it'slso a good deals. to will be flying on a plane and the xt month or so? i am sorry to you that. but it is scary. the most important thing that i want to talk about is that it is scary, not because it is unusual, it is scary because it is difficult. a very important thing to keep

in mind. the crash i'm going to talk about is avianca 052 which takes off from columbia bound for jfk airport. as most of you know, columbia is not that far from the unites states. to get up to new york from columbia you across the caribbean sea and the gulf. you go up the east coast. as it happens this was january. there was a nor'easter. an all kinds of plane were delayed that night. among them avianca 052. so here they were on the ability of the routine flight from columbia to new york. the captain of the plane and co-pilot. flying this plane, and they start to get held up by air

traffic control. they are held up because the weather is so bad. very thick fog and high wind. held up in norfolc, virginia pit and then above the atlantic city for 30 minutes and then again outside of jfk for an additional 40 minutes. so after about an hour and a quarter of delay they are cleared for landing. th come down, and they encounter of release of the wind shear when they talk about 500 feet above the ground. now wind shear is the situation where the wind is in very heavy so you add power to maintain constant speed. d then at a certain point the wind just drops out. all of a sudden you are going to fast. normally in that situation what happens on the plan is that the autopilot with the just and you will be able to land safely anyway. as it happens the autopilot was turned off on avianca 052, possibly because it was not

functioning. and so the pilot executed what is called the bill around. simply you come in to land and realize you can't make the run when. people up and circle around. to a big circle and three approach. and as they were flying toward jfk to come in to this second landing the engineer, the flight engineer says flame out on engine number four. and then find out on engine number two. one by one the engines were just blowing. and the captain says, show me the runway. he thinks it's close enough that i can guide this arippled plane in for a landing and it won't matter that we are losing all of our engines. they can't see the runway and they are nowhere near jfk. still 14 miles away from the airpt. and so the crash. they come down and actually crash in the backyard of john mcenroe is father's estate on

august survey in long island. seventy-three people died. it's one o the worst accidents in the new york area. the next day flight investigators com and comb rough the wreckage and retrieve the black box and start their investigation. and so this can take weeks to uncover the cause of the crash. in this case it doesn't take weeks. in fact, they know by the next morning. it has nothing to do with the plan. the plan was in perfect working order. it had nothing to do with the pilots. they weren't drunk or high arsenic. nothing to do, in fact, with the weather, although it was suddenly back that night. nothing to do with air trfic control. the cause of the crash was actually realy simple. it w fuel exhaust. they ran out of gas. now when i said in the beginning that ts was a typical crashed it did not mean that plants run out of fuel all the time.

they don't. what i meant was that it took the form of not a catastrophic polls. we often think that accidents are catastrophes in the sense that something blows u in the cockpit and the captain is john back against his seat and says, dear god. the flight attendant comes rushing in and replace its action. that is our mental image. that is what we seein hollywood. nothing could be further from the truth. plane crashes rarely take that one. wh they tend to be far more often is a subtle process that begins very slowly and gradually overtakes the pilot until the plan ends up in some kindf irredeemable crisis. >> this was añr portion of a ata book tv program to beat you can view the entire program and many other book tv programs

on line. go to booktv.org. type the nam of the author were booked into the search area in the upper left-hand corne of the page. select the watch link. now you can view the entire program. you might also explore the recently on book tv box are the featured video suay the role of a conspiracy theories in american history and politics with the thor of real enemies, catherine olmsted on after words on the c-span's book tvs. >> michael dirdalong time book critic. author of the books classics or pleasure. >> i think it is a book that

people keep going back to and does not have tbe one of these obvious classics that we think of, shakespeare and dante. the premise of this book is that a lot of the popular fiction of the 19th century, the classic johnna of fiction. obvious great books. this collection of essays on people who are obviously important. the great science fiction writer. arthur conan doyle. the master of the english coast story. i try to talk about books that shape our imagination and that peopleeep going back to throughout their lives and as i y, generation afr generation. >> let's go back to the genre of fiction. >> well, that is really a marketing device when you come right to it.

back in the 19th century, the late 19th centuries, the great age of storytelling, the same people would ride all kinds of books. arthur conan doyle, historical, mysteries, gss stories. he wrote every sort of book and a story that he thought he could sell. it was only later that we start assigning genrec. so really one of the things i have worked out in my years of wha paul and as the critic is to encourage people to kind of ignore the genre and go beyond them. there are great books and books that really speak to them in the areas that they tend to dismiss and say, i don't read romance. but george o'hare's books are as with the it is a shame to dismiss such books without really having tra them. so the pointf this book,

"classics for pleasure," is to encourage peopleo try dierent kinds of classics. thr is a lot of pleasure to be had. >> the "washington post." nearly 30 years. you have for prior books about reading. when did you -- what were your reing habits as a kid? >> well, my mother taught me to read before i started kindergarten. i came from my very working-class steel town. my parents were not readers. my father was a steelworker. as i grew older i've read more and more. he would did occasiolly annoyed by this and orred me down to the basement to build something. heas not quite sure he liked his only sun becoming such a bookish sort. he had mixed feelings about it. the more he was critical the more you want do it.

so i did more and more of it. and at 1. i actually found a copy of a book called the lifetime reading plan, which is partial inspiration for "classics for pleasure." and i usethat as a guide during my teenage years. how much i got out of it is another question. my eyes with across the pages. fifteen years old. what i got out of it i don't know. i like to read. another life. i wanted to move around the world. comfortable with all kinds of people. but for a way of introducing. a lot of culture shock. a horrible story. >> you are compiling this compilation. wi their books from your childhood that y included?

>> let me think. obviously sherlock holmes. i talk about arthur conan doyle. and the father brown mysteries were among the first mysteries. in ft, i started off with sherlock holmes. i read agatha christie. somebody told me that crime and punishment was kind of a mystery murder story. that sounded it. i got it ready in three day that sort of wante to read and new series of grown-up books from that point on. it was really get. it really is a terrific mystery. >> in 2009 the book industry was going through some great changes. and your entire career is in books. how to you -- what do you see in the future for books as we begin the digital age? >> mixed feelings. i have grown up in the print

culture. the coming from a working-class background, as for many generations before, books, be educated through books, it was the way up and out. whereas now computers seem to have replaced that and a lot of waste as a kind of key to success in multiple careers. but i love books andhe fie of them and the fact that there are different sizes. one of my objections to a candle is it kind of homogenizes everything. they all look alike. this electronic reathat is available. you can download taxed and it does not give you a sense of how far you are in a book. when y read a book he done you have to and pages left. because i really value ou literature i know it is going to survive. the way we access themá

back to a thousand years a people probably said, you know, when the codex but cannot. what was wrong with school. schools were grea might you have to at -- we can get along without it. they wilbe a round for a while. we like them. we are drawn to them. everybody who is committed to the internet's seemingly, they all want to have a book. havhng a published book, that is when you have. >> as a book reviewer your entire career and just recently unfolding in to the rest, i believe the only book review. >> that's true. >> where will people discus books in the future? where will people few books?

is it in the blogs? >> that is really a good question. because newspaper book sections and magazine book sections give a kind of common media place for people who were interested in the life and culture of art and books in general. everybody read the same book sections whereas with the internet everybody goes to different blocks, different sites. there is on lotess of a common ground. less worrisome. i imagine that gradually over me newspapers and magazines will establish such strong on-le presence is that people just go them to read in the wathat they now read the print versions, the paper versions of the paper and a magazine. or som of the web sites and bos sides wll merge as key ones that more and more people will go to.

>> their is a great pleasure of reading the sunday paper or picking up the paper oe way to work. having all of this culture together. ending it and disposable form. books and newspapers are just cool thanks. it would be a shamfor them not to be a round. >> everyone at one time reading the same book review. reading the same block. you have hermary shelley's frankenstein. this to literary figures. aside from harry potter do we have that common dialog anymore? >> we do to some degree. oks will become popular. obviously i'm the only person in america who has never read the

da vinci code. certain writers will become popular. a kind of conversation. david foster. such a a great outpouring when he committed suicide because he had so mandevoted readers and people were fascinated by his work. sure to pieces and looking forward to his next novel. there was someone who bought a lot of people together. the appreciation. i was astonished at how immediate he felt. i thought h wasummoned more of mike generation. he seems to have lasted and touched a lot of lives. so there are writers like that. a lot of reflection. so there will be writers who are maaningful to us. one of my goals is whenever possible not to review any book

that will be on the best sellers list. i tried to encourage people to be beyond the best-seller list. the really good bks are the more specialized readers. i worry. those are books that people make part of their lives when they were members of the book-of-the-month club. the domination of trade names, as you might say, on the best-seller list is, i think, a kind of restraint of trade for readers. not that stephen king or james patterson or any number of other people don't write cookbooks, but i don't want people st reading their books. of what and to read all kin of books. that is why books like "classics for pure" encourage people. read a round.

don't just follow the bookshat are on the front of the store. look athe shelves. go to the library. talk to your friends. what do they like? explore the books of the past. >> you are a bookseller. recommend three books. what a new selling? >> all right. i probably want to know of ttle about you. i might recommend my favorite. jack vance. one of the ornate pros. a great influence.

it might be someone i recommend. among the people who say i don't li science fiction. read the lefhand of darkness. there were all sorts of interesting. autifully wri. >> this is why i have had to right by. less and titles and things. so not be sf removed, but i do think these books are useful which is the reason you describe. they will tell people about books that might want to try. >> wt dn you learn from reading literature? a lot of theooks of the jury in nature.

>> where dreary. whato we learn? wie nine to enrich our lives. our lives become greater. the aestheticleasure of a work of art. simply get one, the same pleasured from listening to music. but ou lives are narrow in some ways. we can only go down certain paths. it is a real tragedy of life. we would like to be many things. of would ike to be a mississippi riverboat gambler. i would like to be an opera singer. i would like to be a month. i can't be all of those things. but i can get some sense of what it is like. i canxperience sothing of those lives. i can enrich my own and see what it's like. i can live