What People Really Mean When They Criticize a "Woke" Agenda
PLUS: A review of "Poker Face" starring Natasha Lyonne
So this is curious:
The context of this interview is the looming debt ceiling “showdown,” an artificial crisis generated by House Republicans in lieu of a legislative agenda. But never mind that: I’ve written about the debt ceiling before, and given the way things are going, I’ll probably write about it again.
What I want to focus on instead is that line Elise “Crossroads” Stefanik drops in there about “going after” the Pentagon’s “woke agenda,” which is a weird thing to bring up when you’re wrestling with an $82 billion deficit. Honestly, I have no idea how much the Pentagon is spending on its “woke agenda,” but it’s probably a tiny fraction of the annual cost of operating one aircraft carrier (around $2 billion) and we’ve got eleven of those. Add on the rest of the defense budget (that is, everything else we spend on the Navy, plus the other five branches of the military) and yeah, recouping that cost is like finding a missing chip from someone’s beat-up lucky penny. (And all this is before we even get to the rest of the federal budget.) Trying to save money by cutting the Pentagon’s woke agenda definitely doesn’t make Crossroads a sensible accountant. It does make her a culture warrior, though.
Republicans love going after liberals’ “woke agenda.” As an issue voters take with them to the polls, I really don’t think it has that much traction, but that’s not the purpose it serves. What bringing it up as an issue does do is drive a wedge into the Democratic Party, sour the liberal brand with voters in general, and rile up the Republican base. It’s potent enough for Florida Governor and potential 2024 presidential candidate Ron DeSantis to make the issue his calling card. Last year, DeSantis signed into law the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, which prohibits businesses and schools in Florida from teaching students and employees they are personally responsible for historic wrongs based on their race, national origin, or gender; inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive; or oppressed or privileged based on their race, gender, or national origin. (The law is currently entangled in litigation.) In his 2022 victory speech, DeSantis declared “Florida is where woke goes to die,” which is actually kind of a cringey thing to say about a state known as a destination for retirees.
But what does it really mean when Stefanik, DeSantis, and others criticize a “woke agenda”? It’s a pretty common line of critique, and it doesn’t just come from those on the right. If it’s a Friday, that means moderate conservative Andrew Sullivan and the liberal-to-libertarian Bill Maher are raging against it. Even Barack Obama has cautioned against the excesses of “woke” culture. Someone who stands up for wokeness is almost immediately playing defense. It’s become an easy epithet, almost interchangeable with critiques of political correctness, cancel culture, and critical race theory.
But those critiques of a woke agenda are often serving different purposes and at times paint the idea of wokeness with a pretty broad brush. Sometimes the critiques misrepresent the idea of wokeness or are offered in bad faith. So let’s take a moment to critique the critiques to try to ascertain what people really mean when they criticize a woke agenda.
1.) Some of the critiques are valid. I think the thing that scares a lot of people about the so-called woke agenda is that they’ll end up on the wrong side of it and face serious professional or social consequences as a result. Many of these individuals don’t mean to do anything offensive and in some cases may even be acting in ways they believe are genuinely thoughtful or socially appropriate. They worry if they somehow mess up that they’ll be branded ignorant, insensitive, or racist, which in mainstream American society can inflict serious reputational damage.
There is also a concern the woke agenda is enforced by a kind of thought police who stifle independent thinking and demand their fellow citizens adopt their points of view. This is said to make it harder for academics, public speakers, entertainers, and public officials to voice controversial or unpopular thoughts even when those ideas may have merit. Others worry this woke thought police isn’t just imposing an intellectual order onto the world but a new moral order as well, one that marginalizes those who adhere to more traditional belief systems that few questioned in the recent past. Again, the concern for a lot of people is that this agenda will trickle down into their everyday lives and reshape their world in ways they don’t really like.
I think those are valid concerns. Maybe its my own background speaking here, but I am concerned about the effect the woke agenda can have on intellectual and artistic freedom and the so-called marketplace of ideas. I also worry about how the excesses of this agenda can potentially ruin people’s careers and reputations. But I can see the other side as well in the sense that institutions and society as a whole ought to be moving past outmoded ways of thinking and that the only way to bring about that change is by challenging those institutions. Live and let live is sometimes an inadequate answer.
I wish I knew how to draw a distinction between an acceptable and an excessive application of the woke agenda. If that answer was out there, I suspect we’d know it already and this wouldn’t be an issue. But this is how I’ve tried to work through the issue myself.
Let’s just begin with what it means to be “woke.” My general understanding of the idea is that it means someone is aware of or alert to the ways racial prejudice does or may shape American life. The term originated in the Black community before moving to the broader culture, where it began to be used in reference to other identity-based social justice issues. I would hope all Americans would strive to be woke, as I think it’s just as important to know how the concept of race has shaped and continues to shape American history and society as it is to know how concepts like liberty, equality, democracy, and capitalism have done the same. The reason we don’t associate the idea of liberty with “being woke,” though, is that our eyes as Americans are pretty wide open when it comes to matters of freedom. When it comes to issues of race, however, a lot of Americans—specifically those who can—tend to close their eyes or look the other way when it comes up. This is especially true when those conversations become uncomfortable or challenge the preeminence of ideas like liberty, equality, democracy, and capitalism.
There are two big consequences that follow from the idea of being woke to the way racism and other forms of discrimination have shaped American society. First, it suggests the idea of being “colorblind”—of not taking race into account when assessing a situation—does not adequately address the problem of racism in the United States. Being woke requires one to be alert to the ways race has potentially shaped outcomes. To deliberately ignore race is to potentially overlook a key factor affecting a situation. Second, once someone acknowledges that race has played a major role in shaping American society, it’s hard to claim the negative effects of racism are only generated by a few bigoted “bad apples.” Instead, one has to acknowledge that centuries of racism have left their mark on American society. We see this not only in the distribution of wealth, property, and political power in this country but also in the attitudes and assumptions many people harbor about Black Americans, which affects their educational opportunities, job prospects, and interactions with the legal system. Again, being woke requires someone to be aware of how race has shaped the systems that structure this country.
I could write endlessly about that, but there are others like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Heather McGee who explain those ideas much more eloquently than I ever could. But since this is a critique of the woke agenda, I’ll stick to that train of thought. While such ideas are powerful and convincing in their own right (and, I would add, necessary to take to heart if we are to improve race relations in this country) they are not necessarily logically coherent, which often makes them difficult to implement. For example:
It sometimes penalizes people for not being conscious of unconscious biases.
It too easily suggests the present moment is a continuation of the past rather than a potential break with the past.
It struggles to reconcile systemic effects with individual agency. Similarly, it isn’t clear whether or not people should assume a particular individual has been shaped by the system or fits the expectations of someone who has been affected by the system.
It often enforces its ideal of toleration or inclusion through intolerant or exclusive means.
I’ve read enough woke literature to know its adherents have ways to address these paradoxes, some more successfully than others. As an intellectual undertaking, I don’t mind wrestling with these contradictions. Acknowledging their existence even allows for growth, even if at the end of the day these issues aren’t completely resolved. As a practical matter, though, they can be very difficult to realize. That’s not to say people shouldn’t try, but that it might be wise to do so with less certainty and righteousness and more humility.
What the United States is going through at the moment is a transition in norms. A mass of citizens have come to the realization that the residue of racism still shapes American life even after the passage of laws in the mid-20th century that ended legal discrimination in this country. The work of correcting this problem is urgent but also difficult, as it is sometimes at odds with the liberal values that undermined racism to begin with. That’s what accounts for the awkwardness of the moment we’re in. It will take time—potentially a long time—to work this out. But just as I hope those who do not yet realize how deeply racism has shaped American society will eventually awaken to that idea, I also hope those who have experienced that moment of epiphany will not allow their sense of righteousness to carry them away.
2.) Some of the critiques are actually trying to excuse bad behavior. Some people will try to use a critique of woke culture as a kind of get-out-of-jail-for-free card. The poster boy for this is Donald Trump, who, after saying something genuinely offensive, might either preemptively say the woke/p.c. police won’t be happy with what he’s just said or attack his critics for condemning him. Trump might claim woke culture is either keeping him from speaking an unvarnished truth or trying to marginalize people like him who don’t meet their normative standards. Here’s the classic instance of Trump lashing out at political correctness to defend himself, from a Republican presidential debate in 2016:
The move accomplishes three things: 1.) It implies that whatever he’s just said should be considered a legitimate part of political discourse. Suddenly, rather than acknowledging that Trump has crossed a line, the line is found to have been erased, and presidential candidates can now hold those views about women; 2.) It rallies those who adhere to those unacceptable beliefs to his side; and 3.) It gives Trump, who either believes those things or hasn’t taken the time to reflect on why those beliefs are wrong, additional room for error.
It’s now a standard move after someone says or does something dumb or offensive for that person to claim the “woke mob” or the “p.c. police” are trying to silence them for their views. That’s what Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers did after it was revealed in 2021 he was not vaccinated against COVID after coming down with the virus.
I realize I’m in the crosshairs of the woke mob right now. So, before my final nail gets put in my cancel culture casket, I think I would like to set the record straight on so many of the blatant lies that are out there about myself….I believe strongly in bodily autonomy and ability to make choices for your body: Not have to acquiesce to some woke culture or crazed group of individuals who say you have to do something. Health is not a one-size-fits-all for everybody….I consulted with a now good friend of mine Joe Rogan, after he got Covid and I’ve been doing a lot of stuff that he recommended.
What Rogan recommended was taking a horse dewormer that did nothing to improve one’s symptoms. Rodgers’ example is instructive because it really has nothing to do with a “woke mob” but rather Rodgers disregarding the proven consensus of the medical community while putting greater faith in the unproven conspiratorial beliefs of the online anti-vaxxer crowd. That’s like trusting an athletic trainer who is convinced the best way to treat a concussion is by taping an aspirin to one’s forehead. Following that athletic trainer’s advice wouldn’t legitimize that trainer’s approach. It’s just dumb. And getting called out for doing that dumb thing wouldn’t make that doer of dumb things a bold truth teller or the victim of cancel culture. Sometimes it’s just a lot of people calling someone out for being in the wrong.
3.) Some of the critiques amount to a false equivalency. This one applies particularly to the media and liberals. The media would like to treat both political parties in the United States as equals. There’s always been the claim the media has a liberal bias, but the media accept both parties have equally valid policy objectives and have equally valid claims to public power in this country. They are inclined to allow both parties to air their views, and, as a matter of fairness, are careful not to question or critique one party without also subjecting the other party to the same scrutiny.
But this has become harder for the media over the past ten years. For instance, the media have identified global warming as a problem, but while there are liberal and conservative solutions to that problem, many conservative politicians deny the existence of global warming. A similar story has played out recently with vaccines (with some conservatives erroneously claiming the shots are ineffective or dangerous) and the validity of American elections (with some conservatives claiming the results of the 2020 election were fraudulent despite a complete lack of evidence.) Also, as most of society has come to accept homosexuality, so has the media, yet (an admittedly dwindling) number of conservatives still regard homosexuality as deviant behavior. This is not to say every conservative political position is baseless, but the media is understandably cautious about giving airtime to climate change/vaccine/election deniers or homophobes just for the sake of parity.
This problem has gotten worse since Trump became a presidential candidate in 2015. Putting him on TV risks propagating his falsehoods, which we have seen can jeopardize public health and safety and the stability of American democracy. If the media is supposed to serve as a check on political power, then they have a responsibility to not only call out Trump when he acts as an autocrat or a demagogue, but the Republican Party when it enables Trump as well. Doing so when the Democratic Party is not engaged in similar behavior, however, means critiquing one party more than the other, which can create the appearance of unequal treatment. (For the record, the media do not need to treat two parties who are behaving very differently the same.)
So how does the media create the appearance of equal treatment of the parties when one of the parties (the GOP) is behaving as an illiberal party? They highlight the illiberal tendencies of the Left, which are connected to the broadly-defined woke agenda. Even some otherwise liberal commentators will criticize the Left in this fashion so the commentators can plausibly claim they are fair-minded. Consequently, you’ll often see commentators speak out about the sins of the Right (i.e., denying the validity of elections, fomenting insurrection) in the same breath as the sins of the woke Left.
But that’s a false equivalency. Again, while there are certainly excesses on the woke Left, the threat they pose to American democracy does not come close to the threat posed by the illiberal Right. Additionally, while many on the Left have expressed concern about the overreach of the woke agenda (consider the pushback even within the Democratic Party against the idea of defunding the police) and are uncomfortable with some of its implications, the illiberal Right occupies a dominant position in the Republican Party. Politicians who stoked the insurrection still serve in public office, and Trump is running for president again. Furthermore, Republican politicians who dared to hold Trump accountable for his role in the insurrection have been ostracized by the party. So yes, while concerns about the woke Left are legitimate, they do not rise to the same level as concerns about the illiberal Right. Treating them as the same and casting a pox on both parties as a result risks glossing over the severity of the most serious political problems facing this country. (For more on this, see Jonathan Rauch and Peter Wehner’s January 2022 article “What’s Happening on the Left Is No Excuse for What’s Happening on the Right” in the New York Times.)
4.) Some critiques are simply coded critiques of multiculturalism. This brings me back to Stefanik’s remark. As I pointed out earlier, if Stefanik was really serious about addressing the nation’s budget deficit, she wouldn’t focus on the amount of money one cabinet department spends on the woke agenda. That expenditure is so small it wouldn’t make a difference whether it was included in a final debt ceiling deal or not. Stefanik only brings it up because going after the woke agenda is red meat to the Republican base.
But what do most Republicans—or even most voters—think of when they think about the woke agenda? I’m not sure run of the mill voters have a very deep understanding of ideas that are central to a woke ideology (i.e., systemic racism, white supremacy, unconscious bias, etc.) which means they’re probably not engaging with the debate over the woke agenda at the same level as the intelligentsia. Instead, I think for many people, much of this argument over wokeism just gets layered onto their zero-sum understanding of the nation’s racial politics. It doesn’t really matter if there are aspects of a woke ideology that have merit; what matters is that a woke agenda, if implemented, would benefit and even empower traditionally marginalized Americans. For voters who share Trump’s belief that politics is a zero-sum game—that is, if one side wins then the other side loses—a woke agenda wouldn’t simply address problems facing Blacks, women, and LGBTQ in this country. It would also according to their logic disadvantage those who benefit from the status quo. For a lot of voters, this isn’t a matter of fairness or a fight over principles; it’s simply about which groups win and which groups lose.
In this way, I worry condemnations of the woke agenda tend to become broad condemnations of a diverse and just society. For instance, a critique of critical race theory, no matter how nuanced or sincere, is easily hijacked, turned into a talking point, and transformed in the minds of many into a critique of multicultural education, which is very different from CRT. Similarly, principled stands against the censorious nature of the woke agenda quickly become censorious themselves. Celebrating Black History Month is now fraught with legal peril in some states.
Given this country’s history, I am far more worried about the backlash to a woke agenda than I am the excesses of a woke agenda. Despite the racial progress we’ve made since the 1960s, contemporary America seems more primed to reject wokeism than it is to accept it. All it takes is a nudge to trigger that reaction. That’s why when Elise Stefanik goes on FOX News to slam the woke agenda, your dog starts howling. Stefanik may actually appreciate the complexity of the issue, but she also knows most Americans—and especially her base—have only a “Black and White” understanding of what it means to be woke, and she seems more than happy to leverage that to her political advantage.
Signals and Noise
By Sue Rahr, former sheriff of King County, Washington, for The Atlantic: “The Myth Propelling America’s Violent Police Culture” (“This past weekend, as I watched the videos of Tyre Nichols being beaten to death, I asked myself, Why does this keep happening? But I know the answer: It’s police culture—rooted in a tribal mentality, built on a false myth of a war between good and evil, fed by political indifference to the real drivers of violence in our communities. We continue to use police to maintain order as a substitute for equality and adequate social services. It will take a generation of courageous leaders to change this culture, to reject this myth, and to truly promote a mission of service—a mission that won’t drive officers to lose their humanity.”
Dan Pfeiffer has an article on Substack about why Joe Biden is right not to negotiate with Republicans over the debt ceiling.
Rich Lowry notes in Politico that Republicans only seem concerned about the deficit during times of divided government. When they have total control of government, they tend to increase the deficit.
Insurgent House Republicans have floated a national sales tax to replace the national income tax, and it isn’t going over well with anyone.
A grand jury in Manhattan has started hearing evidence in the case concerning Don Trump’s role in paying hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Meanwhile, it appears charges against Trump in Georgia in an election subversion case are “imminent.”
Trump isn’t just going after transgender kids or transgender athletes competing in women’s sports anymore; he’s going after transgender people, full stop.
McKay Coppins writes for The Atlantic that Republicans just can’t say publicly what they tell everyone in private: That they’re tired of Trump and want him gone. Instead, they keep hoping this problem will just take care of itself.
Sarah Longwell breaks down a Bulwark poll to find a.) GOP voters are moving on from Trump because they don’t consider him electable; b.) But most GOP voters would still vote for Trump if he was the 2024 nominee; and c.) Yet there are about 28% of GOP voters who are “Always Trumpers” and would support him if he ran as an independent. That would doom the GOP’s presidential chances in 2024. The caveat though: I would guess there’s a chunk of that 28% that is persuadable. But even if only 10% of GOP voters followed Trump or sat out, that would likely shave 2-3% off GOP totals in swing states. This will be a key trend to follow.
Election denialism is alive and well following the 2022 midterms. The RNC wants each state to create an “election integrity” unit that can monitor and investigate claims of election fraud.
A man who sprayed at least fifteen police officers with pepper spray on 1/6 has been sentenced to over five years in prison.
Some 1/6 rioters are very apologetic for their actions in court but change their tune after sentencing.
After a GOP House member sent colleagues disarmed grenades as paperweights and a number of Republican members admitted to carrying a gun during a committee hearing, Democrats are voicing concerns about the safety of members on Capitol Hill. Republican Representative Andrew Clyde has taken to handing out AR-15 pins to members, who have been spotted wearing them on their lapels.
George Santos’ own relatives are now confirming they did not donate to his campaign despite campaign reports stating they did.
Santos also apparently claimed two years ago while running for office that he was a producer of the Broadway musical Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. Maybe it’s cool to be associated with Spider-Man, but that production was also a major flop.
BREAKING: And now Santos has been accused of sexual harassment. The alleged incident took place less than two weeks ago.
No, Don, that’s not who he reminded me of.
Margaret Sullivan writes in The Guardian the media are blowing the Biden classified documents scandal out of proportion and drawing a false equivalency with Trump’s classified documents scandal.
Chuck Todd!
I knew virtually nothing of James Comer before this year, but every time he speaks he comes across as a complete idiot.
A new CBS News poll about the classified documents scandal may surprise people: Most Americans think Biden is handling it properly and cooperating with authorities. Meanwhile, Biden’s approval rating has remained unchanged as a result, and Americans continue to like him personally.
Kate Zernike of the New York Times notes that the status of abortion in the states is increasingly being decided by state supreme courts rather than “the people” themselves or their representatives.
Minnesota has become the first state since the midterms to codify legal protections for women seeking abortions.
Nick Miroff of the Washington Post reports illegal border crossings fell significantly in January, with the number of Cubans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Venezuelans entering the country illegally falling by 95%.
West Virginia may soon require schools to display the official U.S. motto—“In God We Trust”—in a prominent place in schools alongside images of the American and state flags.
Similar laws have been passed by other states, including Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia.
The IMF has changed its economic outlook and now believes a previously forecast global recession in 2023 will be avoided.
Automakers are racing to take advantage of electric vehicle tax credits, which could spur the transition from gas- to electric-powered cars.
Overseas manufacturing plants are relocating to northern Mexico.
CIA Director William Burns told Congress this week that China plans on invading Taiwan as early as 2027.
Julia Ioffe writes in Puck about how Putin sees the war in Ukraine as a war against the “collective West.”
By Ali Vaez, for Foreign Affairs: “The Long Twilight of the Islamic Republic” (“[Iran] is now where the Soviet Union was in the early 1980s. The system is ideologically bankrupt, at a political dead end, and incapable of addressing its structural economic and societal troubles. It still has the will to fight, as evidenced by its brutal response to the uprisings. But no amount of force will end the standoff with its people, which is primarily the result of the regime’s failures across the board. There is little left of the promises made during the 1979 revolution to build a shining, pious city on a hill. In practice, the regime has created a militarized republic of fear in which mediocrity is glorified and mendacity institutionalized. The Islamic Republic’s architects vowed there would be egalitarian prosperity for all, but instead, they delivered affluence for a few and ruined what was once a booming economy. They promised paradise on earth and then dried out the land and polluted the air, imperiling a civilization that has survived for 7,000 years.”)
ChatGPT, the new AI essay writer that has everyone on edge, will for some inexplicable reason excuse itself from writing a poem about the positive attributes of Don Trump but has no problem writing such a poem for Joe Biden. So Skynet could actually turn out good?
Zeynep Tufecki writes in the New York Times about the dangers of H5N1, a type of bird flu that is difficult for humans to catch but has killed 56% of those humans who have caught it. So far, H5N1 has struggled to spread in mammalian populations, but it appears to be spreading among minks in Spain. Even more troubling: Minks are well-suited to spreading the illness to humans. (Also recall how an outbreak of COVID among minks in the Netherlands generated new variants that spread to humans and required the destruction of that country’s mink stock.) The good news is we already have a vaccine for H5N1, but it would take months to rev up production.
Here’s something you may have never thought about before: What time is it on the Moon?
Vincent’s Picks: Poker Face
“Just one more thing…” That’s Columbo’s catchphrase. When you heard him utter those words, that’s when you knew he’d cracked the case. Charlie Cale (Natasha Lyonne), the main character in Peacock’s new murder mystery series Poker Face, has a catchphrase too: “Bullshit.” Charlie has the innate ability to tell when someone is lying, and whenever she catches someone not telling the truth, like a reflex, her catchphrase comes tumbling out of her mouth. Hear those words and you know a murderer’s airtight scheme is about to fall apart.
Poker Face, which was created by Rian Johnson (Knives Out, Glass Onion) is a throwback to Columbo. From its old school opening credits to the Plymouth Barracuda Charlie traverses the country in, the show definitely has a 70s vibe to it. It’s also a sort of murder-of-the-week series, with a new cast of recognizable actors (i.e., Adrien Brody, Hong Chau, Lil Rel Howery, Chloë Sevigny, Judith Light, S. Epatha Merkerson) rotating into each episode to star alongside Lyonne. But most significantly, like Columbo, Poker Face is a howcatchem rather than a whodunit. Over the first 15-20 minutes of each 50-60 minute episode, we witness the murderer commit the crime. Then we travel back in time to find Charlie has been in the company of the murderer and victim all along. Soon enough she detects something is amiss, then she catches someone in a lie—usually an odd little one—and then, piece by piece, she starts putting it all together.
Like Peter Falk’s Lt. Columbo, Lyonne’s Charlie is a scruffy working-class type, but rather than work for law enforcement (as she explains in one episode, she doesn’t like working for the man) she’s instead scraping by as a casino worker in Vegas when we first meet her. We all know a Charlie: A woman it seems who has lived a million lives, a bit worn down but tough, quick with a wisecrack, gruff on the outside but harboring a heart of gold on the inside. She’s a survivor just trying to get by, somewhat unkempt but sharp as a tack. She has every reason to mind her own business, but when she senses a lie, she just can’t leave well enough alone. And when Charlie knows the truth but can’t prove it—this seems to be a recurring theme on the show—she’s resourceful enough to find a way to deliver justice regardless.
This isn’t much of a spoiler, but Charlie’s best friend ends up dead in the first episode and by its end she’s on the run from fixer Cliff LeGrand (Benjamin Bratt) who pops up every now and then to keep Charlie moving. Whenever Charlie stops somewhere—to get her car fixed at a truck stop in New Mexico, to make some cash selling merch for a bar band in Indiana, to work off the damage wrought by a MAGA-loving dog she didn’t mean to adopt (long story) in Texas—foul play is right around the corner. Don’t get hung up calculating the likelihood of so many murders occurring in her proximity, though. Jessica Fletcher, after all, had the same problem and nobody seemed to care. Instead, just enjoy the company of Lyonne, whose work here and in Russian Doll has turned her into a national treasure.
So far, five episodes of Poker Face have been made available with five more slated to be released on Peacock over the next few Thursdays. I don’t expect every episode will work. A lot will depend not only on the guest stars, setting, and backdrop of each installment, but how well each individual story comes together as well. Like Johnson’s work on Knives Out and Glass Onion, the best episodes so far have been structured as carefully-crafted puzzle boxes, with all sorts of clues lurking in the background, buried in throwaway lines of dialogue, or hidden in plain sight. It’s a treat watching those plots unfold, and you’ll come to admire the skill it takes to assemble such a story. Some might say it’s all too contrived. My response? Bullshit.
Exit Music: “See No Evil” by Television (1977, Marquee Moon)
Tom Verlaine, who passed away last week at the age of 73, stood with one foot inside the New York CBGBs punk scene and the other foot in its future. His guitar work could be as abrasive as the Ramones but it was also much more sophisticated than the garage rock punks emulated. In Verlaine’s hands, a guitar solo didn’t slide into a song; it came at it from an angle, challenging the song’s structure, tone, and tempo. His inspiration seemed to come from free jazz as much as it did the Rolling Stones or Lou Reed. If punk shattered rock and roll and reduced it to its bare essentials, Verlaine took the debris and began reassembling it in unexpected ways in true post-punk fashion. As Jayson Greene wrote in his tribute to Verlaine for Pitchfork, “whenever you hear a guitar solo that sounds like a thought bubble over the player’s head—you are hearing the sound of Tom Verlaine.”