Monthly Archives: December 2010

A Man of Letters: Denis Dutton, R.I.P.

Many of you probably know that Denis Dutton passed away two days ago. Dutton founded the spectacular website Arts and Letters Daily, wrote the much-lauded book The Art Instinct, and edited the journal Philosophy and Literature, where he provided common-sense intellectuals with much mirth by launching the Bad Writing Contest. He also once wrote: “The brutal, penetrating honesty of his thinking and the vividness of his prose make Dalrymple the Orwell of our time.”

Now, Dalrymple returns the praise on the City Journal website:


…to know him was immediately to form a strong and lasting affection for him. Dutton had a profound and beneficial effect on political and cultural debate in the entire English-speaking world.

…A man, however, is not to be measured wholly by the quality of his achievements. I wish only that I were able to turn as fine a compliment of Denis Dutton as Doctor Johnson turned of Sir Joshua Reynolds: that he was the most invulnerable man that he knew, for if he should quarrel with him, he should find the most difficulty how to abuse him. Denis Dutton was of that ilk.

A doctor’s dramatic diary

Dalrymple’s most recent column in the British Medical Journal (subscription required) offers praise for the 1832 book Passages from the Diary of a Late Physician, by Samuel Warren:


It is very well written; and if the stories are dramatic it is because reality was dramatic. Indeed you might say that one of the stories, “Cancer,” is understated rather than the reverse, and indeed it is very moving.

The wife of a naval captain is discovered to have breast cancer while her husband is at sea…The story ends: “I shall not easily forget an observation she made at the last visit I paid her. She was alluding, one morning, distantly and delicately, to the personal disfigurement she had suffered [during the operation]. I, of course, said all that was soothing. ‘But, Doctor, my husband’—she said, suddenly, while a faint crimson mantled on her cheek—adding, falteringly after a pause,—‘I think [he] will love me yet!”

How Dalrymple became a doctor

In 1987 Anthony Daniels published his memoirs at the age of 38, a brief span of life he had nevertheless already managed to fill with wide-ranging and provocative experience. The book, “Fool or Physician: The Memoirs of a Sceptical Doctor“, is by turns funny, poignant and fascinating – a must-read for every Dalrymple admirer.

In the opening pages, which we present to you here, he describes the process by which he became a doctor:



PREFACE

Twenty years ago, while I was still at school, I went to Battersea Funfair. There was a small booth with the following notice attached:


MADAME GYPSY ROSE LEE
As Patronised by the Gentry and seen on TV


I entered. Across a small round table with a floral tablecloth and a water-filled glass that substituted for a crystal ball sat a somewhat bored-looking lady with large copper earrings and a scarf over her head to match the tablecloth.

‘One ‘and or two?’ she said.

‘What’s the difference?’ I asked.

‘Five bob one ‘and, ten bob two. Or a pound the tealeaves.’

I chose one hand.

She took it with a slight curl of her lip as if to say, I thought as much, and followed a few of my palmar creases with her long crimson nail.

‘You’ll be educated’, she said. ‘It’ll take a long time.’

I did not demur.

‘A lawyer…or a doctor perhaps. Yes, a doctor.’

I was taken aback.

‘You’ll travel a lot. And you’ll live to be eighty-four.’

My five shillings’ worth of prophecy was over. I did become a doctor and I have travelled a lot. Whether I live to be eighty-four remains to be seen.

ONE

England

‘And why do you want to be a doctor?’

I, a somewhat callow youth of seventeen, faced the men of the medical school interview board across the shining table.

It was not an unexpected or an unreasonable question to ask. Indeed, I had rehearsed my answer on the train. I had vowed against replying with any clichés about wishing to help humanity, relieve suffering, etc.

‘I would like to help people,’ I said.

‘Have you ever helped people before?’ asked a rather stern member of the board.

I did not know what to answer. I wondered whether relinquishing my seat on buses for old ladies counted.

‘You say you want to help people. Have you joined the St John’s Ambulance Brigade? Have you attended first aid courses?’

‘No,’ I said, shamefacedly.

‘Why not?’

Having scored a small dialectical triumph, the member of the board wanted to pursue the point.

‘I haven’t had time.’

‘Haven’t had time to help people? You can’t want to help them very much.’

He was right, of course. I didn’t wish humanity any harm, but on the other hand I wasn’t excessively anxious about its welfare either.

I had, in a manner of speaking, been found out. My looks of dismay must have revealed more to the board than my answers, but not quite the depths of my discomfort. For the question ‘Why do you want to be a doctor?’ contained a premise that, in my case, was completely unjustified, namely that I did actually want to be a doctor. ‘Why have you applied to medical school?’ would have been a less tendentious question.

And the true answer would scarcely have secured me a place. I applied to medical school because I was middle class; because I had to do something; but more than anything else, because my father had pushed me into it. There had been a time, it is true, when I was ten or eleven, when I and a close friend of mine dreamed jointly of becoming doctors; of scientific fame and glory, of winning the Nobel Prize at the unprecedented age of fourteen by discovering the secret of cancer, which we felt must lie in the ugly, knobbly growths that affected all the apple trees in my garden. But those dreams had long since faded and my ambitions lay elsewhere. I wanted to be an historian or a philosopher rather than a doctor, but my father insisted – not unreasonably, perhaps – that it was unlikely I should ever be able to earn a decent living that way. Science, he said, and science alone, was the passport now to worldly success. He was not the kind of man lightly to be contradicted, and since biology was to me the most congenial of the sciences I chose medicine as a career, though I knew even then that I should never be wholeheartedly devoted to it.

Thus I entered medical school with reservations from the first. My career as a student was undistinguished, quite unlike those of doctors who achieve an obituary in The Lancet. I specialized in doing and knowing the least necessary to pass the examinations. Only occasionally did I exert myself beyond the minimum, to assure myself that I could, if I so desired, achieve excellent marks. I found that I could get by (or ‘satisfy the examiners’, as they put it) with very little effort, leaving myself free to study matters that then, but not now, seemed to me more important.

The course of study I prescribed for myself consisted largely of philosophy, with the result that while I can discourse with fluency on the ontological argument of St Anselm, my knowledge of the anatomy of the inner ear is a little hazy (not that it matters greatly: most doctors, other than specialists, treat ears with antibiotics and then, if they fail to improve, with referrals to specialists). I can also provide my patients with a satisfactory refutation of Marxian epistemology, but not, alas, a convincing explanation of how some of the drugs I prescribe achieve their effects. I now bitterly regret my inattention to my medical studies, for the fundamentals of a subject are never satisfactorily acquired later; but I was young and chose not to believe that anything I did then, or failed to do, would affect me for the rest of my life. I imagined that by taxing my brain with Descartes and Hume I was treating of questions larger than why Mrs Smith’s leg had swelled up. Now I should reverse my priorities; for, as Hume would have been the first to admit, toothache is quite sufficient to destroy any philosophy.


Copyright 1987 Anthony Daniels. Reprinted with permission.

The Vandals in Retreat

“It was a nightmare, but we have almost woken up.”

With some qualification, Dalrymple celebrates what seems to be the end of Britain’s postwar architectural pogrom, in which many Victorian buildings and entire town centers were destroyed and replaced by modern concrete eye-sores. He says the destructive urge arose from “a deep sense of humiliation, an awareness that, in an age of the most startling technical progress” Britain’s architects “were not equal to the most jobbing of jobbing provincial builders of two and a half centuries earlier”.

Many British cities are beginning to re-discover their architectural heritage, town centers are becoming liveable residential areas, and cultural institutions are benefitting.

Read it here

Dalrymple’s Book of the Year

If you like Dalrymple’s work, you might be interested to hear what was his own favorite book of 2010. In the Globe and Mail, he participates in a symposium on this topic, and offers the following:


It’s Mao’s Great Famine (Bloomsbury), by Frank Dikotter. As subject matter for books, historical events that cause 45 million deaths tend to put others rather in the shade. Mao’s Great Leap Forward was such an event. Dikotter weaves together the high politics and individual suffering of these terrible years. Mao emerges as every bit the equal of Lenin and Hitler in his indifference to the deaths of millions. A party that claims apostolic succession to Mao has much to fear from the study of history.

 

Are Opioids the New Religion of the Masses?

Having written so much about British opiate use, Dalrymple now points, in Pajamas Media, to increasing overdoses in America, including in Steve’s and my home state:


In Oklahoma, for example, methadone…was implicated in the deaths of 21 people between 1994 and 1996; but between 2004 and 2006 it was implicated in the deaths of 377 people….The figures in the same state in the same years for hydrocodone were 9 and 220, for oxycodone 1 and 220, and for fentanyl 2 and 78, respectively. It seems that abuse of such drugs on a large scale is now happening, and diversion on to the black market also.

He argues that an increased rate of chronic pain among the population is not the cause of this rise, but rather the effect:


The nearest analogy I can think of is with the increase in sickness benefits paid out by the British state. As the population became healthier and healthier in the 1990s, as demonstrated by objective measures, so it included more and more people allegedly incapable of work for health reasons. The British welfare state thus achieved the miracle of producing more invalids than the First World War: millions of them in fact.

Could it be that one of the largest causes of chronic pain among 35- to 54-year-old Americans is access to opioid drugs?

Dalrymple at the Gladstone Club

Apparently Dalrymple spoke to the Gladstone Club, at the National Liberal Club, in London a week ago. Author and Liberal Democrat politician Jonathan Fryer had kind words for him and his presentation on his blog (the first link above). It’s good to see our man receiving praise from people one wouldn’t generally expect to offer it, and it’s always nice to see this kind of comity between the various sides of the public debate.

There seems to have been no recording of the event.

UPDATE: Peter Fennell, the Secretary of the Gladstone Club, has helpfully provided a summary of Dalrymple’s remarks. His speech compares the state of civilization in Britain and France and concludes that France is doing better. You may view it here.

One interesting quote:

Daniels offers no statistics on ugliness but muses that its prevalence here is less innate than cultivated. Young men go to considerable lengths to achieve a look of brutality with shaven heads, piercings and tattoos. To which might be added the fashion for sub-hipster, drop crotch jeans which literally is ‘prison chic’ from the American gaols where dangerous criminals are denied belts. Some adopt the look perhaps because they are dangerous criminals. Some who are not say they do so to deter attack by those who are.

CLASSIC DALRYMPLE: Why religion is good for us (2003)

Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair conducted a debate on religion last month in Toronto. In a discussion on this debate in, of all places, the Huffington Post, someone posted this old Dalrymple piece from the New Statesman. It’s probably the best, most concise summation of Dalrymple’s religious views that he has written:

Over the years, my attitude to religion has changed, without my having recovered any kind of belief in God. The best and most devoted people I have ever met were Catholic nuns. Religious belief is seldom accompanied by the inflamed egotism that is so marked and deeply unattractive a phenomenon in our post-religious society. Although the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are said to have given man a more accurate appreciation of his true place in nature, in fact they have rendered him not so much anthropocentric as individually self-centred.