Latest news with #UniversityofChicagoPress
Chicago Tribune
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Chicago Tribune
Column: Thar she blows! Chicago artist and writer Dmitry Samarov brings ‘Moby-Dick' back to life
Moby Dick was a whale, a very big whale. It is also a book, a very big book, written by Herman Melville and published in 1851. It was initially a commercial failure, this tale of Captain Ahab on a whaling ship named the Pequod on his mad quest for vengeance on the giant white sperm whale of the title that had chomped off Ahab's leg on a previous encounter. The story's narrator, a seaman along for the journey, opens with what is arguably the most famous first line in English literary history, 'Call me Ishmael.' 'Moby-Dick,' the book, entered the life of artist and writer Dmitry Samarov two decades ago when he was 33. 'I was going through a divorce and came upon a cheap paperback copy of the book,' he says. 'It was a crazy time for me and I was grasping at anything that might help me. This novel was a life raft and I felt lucky to be among the few who had not been assigned to read it in high school, so I wasn't spoiled by having to do it for homework.' And so he was helped and life moved on. But in the days following the bloody events of Nov. 4, 2024, in Gaza that rattled this world, Samarov was particularly affected. He set about trying to 'forget the news.' He canceled his subscriptions to newspapers. Never a tech aficionado, he severed his remaining internet ties so there was 'no headline-blaring app (following) me out the door.' Samarov came to the United States from his native Russia in 1978 when he was 7. He lived first in Boston and then came here. He went to the School of the Art Institute. He started driving a cab. He wrote. He made art. In 2006, he started writing an illustrated blog about his behind-the-wheel experiences. This attracted the folks at the University of Chicago Press, and that led to 'Hack: Stories from a Chicago Cab' (2011) and 'Where To? A Hack Memoir' (2014). His next book arrived in 2019, 'Music to My Eyes,' a gathering of drawings and writing handsomely published by the local Tortoise Books. 'For more than 30 years, I have been bringing my sketchbook to concerts and drawing the performers on stage,' he said. I wrote of it: 'His writing has matured over the years and in wonderfully compelling ways his new book can be read as a memoir, for in it he shares stories that help explain why and how music has, as he put it, 'haunted my entire life.'' He lives in Bridgeport and makes his living by working some fill-in bar shifts at the Rainbo Club and a couple of shifts at Tangible Books, near his apartment. 'My life is all freelance and flexible,' he told me some time ago. 'The goal is total unemployment.' Now, on to the latest book, seeded by an article Samarov read about, as he puts it, 'tech hucksters claiming to make millions publishing new versions of classics from the public domain.' He was not at all interested in 'tricking anyone into paying me $15.99 for a cut-and-paste reprint of some dusty tome.' He discovered Project Gutenberg, the internet site that allows people to download books or read them online at no cost. It offers some of the world's great literature, focused on older works for which U.S. copyright has expired. Near the top of its most-downloaded list, Samarov found his old friend, 'Moby-Dick.' And so he got to work. In his short but lively 'Designers Note' at the book's end, he gives some of the details, and he tells me one of his goals with this project is 'to introduce it to younger people.' He writes that he feels the novel is 'as relevant as any news story.' The book is handsomely published by Samarov's friends at local publisher Maudlin House and is available there and elsewhere for $25, not at all bad for a 650-page book. Melville dedicated 'Moby-Dick' to his great friend, novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne. Samarov dedicates this new edition to Harry Synder, the late manager of a theater in Boston about whom Samarov writes elsewhere, 'Harry and I didn't talk much about art over the 35-plus years of our friendship but he showed me how to carry myself in the world without neurotically making sure anyone who crossed my path knew of my 'true calling.' He was a fully-rounded person first but an artist to the core.' The whale is on the cover of this new edition, striking in black and white, though to me, he appears to be smiling. 'I was inspired by scrimshaw art,' says Samarov, then explaining that art form that is created by engraving or carving on such whale parts as bones and teeth. There are nearly 100 drawings of people, boats, buildings, implements, ropes in knots and other items. There is a Samarov self-portrait and a drawing of Melville, accompanied by Samarov's writing, 'I wonder what (Melville) would make of there now being over 7,000 versions of his masterpiece. … I'd like to believe he'd judge the version you hold in your hands worthwhile and not a cheap cash grab.' Far be it from me to dip into Melville's mind, but I think Samarov's right.
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Marriage is a game. Economics can teach us how to play it.
(Editor's note: Reprinted with permission from "Hate the Game: Economic Cheat Codes for Life, Love, and Work" by Daryl Fairweather, published by the University of Chicago Press. © 2025 by Daryl Rose Fairweather. All rights reserved.) Marriage is a negotiation game. A marriage involves compromises that need to be negotiated. For example, decisions about money, work, chores, children, and aging parents must be agreed upon. If the inside terms of the negotiation are worse than the outside options for either spouse, the negotiation will fall apart, along with the marriage. Marriage is a commitment game. Every day we play commitment games with our future selves. For example, when I buy an elliptical machine for my home, I commit to using it. If I don't follow through on that commitment, the purchase becomes a costly mistake. However, it is much easier to sell an elliptical machine than to get a divorce. If you or your partner cannot predict what you each want one, five, or ten years into the marriage, you may wake up one morning and ask for a divorce. In economics, time inconsistency refers to a situation in which a person's preferences shift over time to the point where they cannot make optimal choices if the consequences come in the future. When I purchase an elliptical machine today, I do so with the intention that my future self will want to exercise on it. Similarly, when people get married today, they do so with the intention that their future selves will also want to be married. However, sometimes our intentions differ from reality. When it comes time to use the elliptical machine, I may not feel motivated to exercise. When intentions don't align with actions, it's easy to make regrettable choices. That applies to the choices of whether to buy the elliptical machine and whether to say 'I do.' It's hard to anticipate what your future self will be like because it is common for a person's objectives to change over time. Believing that your future preferences will be the same as your current preferences is a form of projection bias. Projection bias is the tendency for individuals to overestimate the extent to which their current preferences, attitudes, or beliefs will remain consistent over time. People underappreciate how their choices, experiences, and environment can change themselves. For example, projection bias can cause a hungry shopper to buy too many groceries. When someone is hungry, they tend to underappreciate how their taste might change after going home and having a meal. Likewise, an engaged couple may similarly underappreciate how their relationship objectives might change after the honeymoon phase. To combat projection bias when deciding to get married, make an educated guess about your future self and try to imagine multiple scenarios. This is the same exercise I recommend for deciding to buy a home. But when it comes to marriage — which comes with even more emotions than purchasing a home — it's essential to take a step back and view the relationship objectively. (It may help to pretend your relationship isn't your own but that of a close friend.) Think through the best-case scenarios and the worst-case scenarios for the relationship. Weigh each scenario by its likelihood, and make a decision that makes you the best off in the most likely scenarios while still making plans for less likely scenarios. If the default divorce laws in your state or country don't adequately protect you against the worst-case scenarios, then a prenuptial agreement may be in order. To make matters more complicated, the negotiation and commitment games within a marriage can affect each other. For example, when a couple constantly engages in brinkmanship to win every marital negotiation, that is a sign the couple is not committed to the relationship. The movie "Two Can Play That Game" warns of the dangers of brinkmanship. In the end, Vivica A. Fox's character learns that her constant threats to leave her boyfriend have weakened her chances of having a healthy, committed relationship. In game theory, brinkmanship is when players engage in a high-stakes game of chicken. Players attempt to gain the upper hand by taking increasingly risky actions to force the opposition to retreat. This strategy is often used when players are locked in a dispute and neither side is willing to compromise. For example, during a cold war, a country may threaten to use nuclear weapons to force the other side to agree to their demands. In a relationship, a partner may threaten to go nuclear: threatening a breakup to force the other partner to give in. However, for this tactic to be effective, the threats must be credible. No cheap talk. But who would want to be in a relationship when they are constantly treated like the enemy? Winning a short-term game of brinkmanship can degrade a partner's expectations about the value of the relationship moving forward and increase the likelihood that, eventually, the relationship will end. Making a binding and externally forced commitment, like getting legally married, can help end relationship brinkmanship. That's according to research published in the Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. In the researchers' economic model, commitments with consequences end any brinkmanship. Brinkmanship is an irrational strategy when both sides know they would be worse off breaking the commitment. So getting married can make a relationship more stable, but it doesn't make life easy. It's easier to worry only about personal goals. Being married is like participating in an endless group project. When things are going well, it's easy to recognize your partner's hard work, but when things are going badly, it's tempting to assign blame to your spouse. At 3 a.m., when the baby is crying, there's poop on the crib sheets, and the laundry is sitting wet in the washing machine, it's hard to stay rational. It's hard to remember you're both on the same team. You can't get mad at the baby, so you get mad at each other; you blame each other or yourselves. I've learned that the only way to win a fight like that is to take a deep breath and repeat the mantra 'You're doing the best you can; we both are.' Because that kind of a fight isn't about negotiating terms, it's about accepting adversity as a fact of life. "Two Can Play That Game" has a happy ending: both Fox and Chestnut verbally commit to stop playing games and instead work on creating the type of relationship they want to commit to, in good times and bad. It would be interesting to see a sequel that addresses whether that verbal agreement was a strong enough commitment to keep them together. Half of first marriages end in divorce, and the share is even higher for second and third marriages. Therefore, it is safe to assume that most couples consider divorce at some point. Getting married is like locking yourself in a gated garden and throwing away the key; divorce is like picking the lock. Divorce is costly, but when the outside option of ending the marriage is more valuable than remaining married, the cost can be worth the gain. Some people will never choose to pick the lock. They value the idea of marriage too much; it's too important, for personal, religious, or social reasons. Others see divorce as a viable outside option, especially when the garden is dead, dying, or unhealthy. Even without divorce, all marriages end at some point. If a marriage doesn't end in divorce, it will end in death, so either way, one person is going to have to go on independently for a short or long rest of their life — a reminder to not take options for granted, because options can go away. Daryl Fairweather is the author of "Hate the Game: Economic Cheat Codes for Life, Love, and Work" and the chief economist of Redfin. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: 'Hate the Game': What economics tells us about marriage | Opinion
Chicago Tribune
13-04-2025
- Chicago Tribune
Jens Ludwig: The unforgiving origins of Chicago gun violence
Editor's note: Regular Tribune Opinion contributor Jens Ludwig, Pritzker director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, has a new book, 'Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence,' to be published April 21 by the University of Chicago Press. In this exclusive, lightly edited extract from Chapter One, Ludwig explores what caused three lives of young Chicagoans to change forever. It was at 69th and Calumet at 10 p.m. on Halloween Eve, 1996, when Brian Willis, age 18, was arguing with Alexander Clair, 23, about a used beige two-door Ford LTD parked in front of Little Hobo's restaurant. Clair had sold Willis the car a few days earlier and complained that Willis hadn't paid for it yet. Willis was angry that Clair had reportedly entered the car earlier that night and tried to take it back. Regarding payment, Willis told Clair, 'I'm not going to give you shit.' Regarding adherence to the transaction's terms, Clair replied, 'If I catch you in the car — if I see the car or I catch you in the car — I'm going to burn the car up.' The two argued in the street for another 10 minutes. Eventually, Willis broke off and ran across 69th, past the car and behind the building at 352 E. 69th St. Clair followed. Meanwhile Clair's girlfriend, Jewel Washington, 25, was trailing behind when she heard two loud gunshots. Those would turn out to be the gunshots that killed Clair, fired from a short-handled, 12-gauge pump-action shotgun with one shotgun blast to Clair's stomach and one to his head. … Willis was later convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. In effect, three lives, not just two, were lost that night. The two conventional wisdoms For most Americans, the tragedy at 69th and Calumet in Greater Grand Crossing can be explained in one of two ways. The first is that shootings like this one stem from characterologically bad people. Whether born bad or raised badly, the perpetrators of gun violence in this view have no moral compass or fear of the justice system. 'I cannot say it any clearer — it is the good guys against the bad guys. These bad guys are violent, they carry guns, and the symbol of our public safety, which is that police uniform, they have total disregard for.' That's from the mayor of New York City. These narratives of 'bad guys' or 'wicked people' are usually accompanied by calls for greater vigilance: for the government to deter or incapacitate criminals by putting more police on the streets; for the building and filling of more prisons; for private citizens to protect themselves by arming themselves. A second perspective is that gun violence stems from root causes — that is, from a set of social conditions that fuel gun violence. In this view, violence grows where human flourishing doesn't. 'Violence is an expression of poverty' is how a recent mayor of Chicago put it. This narrative often leads to calls to fundamentally transform American society: to desegregate our cities; to end the social isolation of the most vulnerable; to take greater steps to end poverty; to dismantle the prison-industrial complex; to defund the police and the military and channel those resources back into social programs instead. The data confirms that most Americans believe that crime and violence are due to some version of one of these two conventional wisdoms. In focus groups, Americans say crime is due to 'something inherently wrong within the lawbreaker, such as lack of moral fiber, or due to ecological considerations that influence or force individuals to break the law, such as lack of money.' We see the same thing in surveys. In 1994, around the time President Bill Clinton signed the largest crime bill in U.S. history, seven of 10 Americans were telling Gallup pollsters that crime was due to amoral criminals and the failure of the criminal justice system to stop them. The next, most common explanation was poverty. Of course, these aren't literally the only ideas out there. But they're clearly the ones driving the conversation. It's not just policymakers and members of the general public who believe these conventional wisdoms. They're what I, the person who studies crime for a living, long believed, too. I grew up reading about Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy and the Son of Sam killings in Time and, later, in books like 'In Cold Blood' and 'Helter Skelter' — violence committed by predators and lunatics. Later, as an economics major in college, I read University of Chicago economist Gary Becker's argument that criminals are rational actors responding to incentives — that crime is a kind of market response to other, less good options. I was also reading the biographies of people like Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, which was to read the stories of lives lost to the violence epidemic, the root causes of which these men were trying to stamp out. These two coexisting schools of conventional wisdom about what causes violence aren't just entrenched; they're unavoidable. And there is indeed some truth to both ideas. There are bad people in the world. These are people who lack empathy, are narcissists with a grandiose view of themselves, are pathological liars, have a constant need for stimulation, are manipulative, fail to feel remorse or guilt, and refuse to take responsibility for anything. Many of them show signs of problem behavior in their early years and then engage in antisocial or violent behavior for most of their lives. Some estimates suggest that perhaps 1% of all men in America fall into this group. They can be found in every walk of life: on the street corner, in a police car, teaching in a university classroom, at an investment bank or church, in a Boy Scout troop, or sometimes even in the very highest of political offices. An outsized share of these individuals wind up in prison, although most people who are incarcerated are not in this category. Psychiatrists call them psychopaths. There is also evidence that the threat of punishment can indeed deter some criminal behaviors. We know this from studying what social scientists call natural experiments, changes out in the world that manipulate policies in a nearly random way akin to the sort of randomized controlled trial that provides gold-standard evidence in medicine. Consider the 2006 mass pardon in Italy, in which 40% of all inmates in the country were released from prison all at once. Their release came with a condition: If rearrested, people would have to serve out the remainder of their original sentence. The released prisoners varied greatly in how much time they had left on their original sentence (from one to 36 months), depending on the luck of the draw as to how far into their prison sentence they were when the pardon was issued. Thus, similar 'types' of people were released facing different punishment levels for committing exactly the same crime. The data showed that those who were facing stiffer penalties engaged in less violence. Meanwhile, the people who believe violence is borne of the persistent unfairnesses of American society, including its inequality, discrimination and segregation, are also right. Turn on the news and see where the violence happens; it's rarely in the fancy neighborhoods. This phenomenon is neither recent nor limited to the American context: Wherever groups of people are treated as less-than by a society, crime often follows. … The root causes of violence, in other words, stem from both economic disadvantage and social disadvantage, including racial and ethnic discrimination. What do the consequences of this disadvantage and discrimination look like in modern-day America? They look like the five Chicago neighborhoods that together account for fewer than 1 in 10 city residents but experience fully 1 in 3 of the city's homicides. It's no accident that these neighborhoods are located in the most disadvantaged, socially isolated, racially segregated, predominantly Black areas of Chicago's South and West sides. In the U.S. as a whole, Black Americans are 13% of all residents but 27% of all victims of police shootings, 33% of all prison inmates, 33% of those arrested for violent crimes and 54% of all murder victims. The limits of conventional wisdom The conventional wisdoms that gun violence is caused by either bad people or bad economic opportunities have produced no shortage of policy proposals. The history of these policies illustrates the limits of how we've traditionally characterized the problem and its solutions. 'Get tough' policies (enforcement, imprisonment, public vigilance) have helped improve safety to a degree but only by imposing tremendous harm along the way. For example, the data shows that imprisonment can reduce violence. But the growth in American prisons in the 1970s, and the harms that prisons impose on incarcerated people's health, families and livelihoods, occurred at a rate that had no historical or international precedent. The growth in police spending has helped reduce violent crime, but the frequent gravitation toward 'zero-tolerance' policing has generated substantial human costs as well. The decisions of private citizens to arm themselves has contributed to a flood of gun stores and used guns that make firearms more likely to wind up being used in crimes. All these harms are disproportionately concentrated in the same disadvantaged, segregated communities that suffer the most from gun violence itself. Meanwhile, reforms meant to stem the root causes of violence — attempts at fixing society's most complicated challenges through policy change — typically run aground when their political proponents reach office. Diminishing political and social returns — ideas that start from good intentions only to end in frustration and disillusion — seem to plague most attempts at addressing America's structural problems, which remain and persist. While poverty in America has decreased by some measures, inequality in both income and wealth has increased. In Chicago, the city's challenge with gangs shows few signs of being resolved. Racial segregation in the city has barely changed for 40 years. In the face of such minimal gains from earnest attempts to fix our biggest social problems, the reflexive 'sending thoughts and prayers' approach to U.S. gun violence somehow seems less vapid: Gun violence, like racial prejudice and inequality, often appears to be the kind of problem that only wishes can solve. The hope of many that the gun problem might be solved with a single stroke of a legislative pen — that some U.S. president and U.S. Congress will do what no previous government has done and radically reorient gun laws in America — has in practice led to few legislative victories. Whether that will change anytime soon is far from obvious. As a 2022 New York Times headline put it, 'As shootings continue, prospects for gun control action in Congress remain dim.' What has this collection of policies suggested by conventional wisdom added up to? The answer is: little long-term progress in reducing gun violence. This failure is remarkable in part because of how good the U.S. has been at addressing so many other public health problems. Since 1900, death rates per capita have declined by 38% for heart disease, 84% for strokes, 95% for respiratory diseases like influenza and pneumonia, and around 99% for tuberculosis. Overall life expectancy has nearly doubled. Yet the rate of murders, most of which are committed with guns, is almost exactly the same as it was 125 years ago. Jens Ludwig is the Edwin A. and Betty L. Bergman distinguished service professor at the University of Chicago.
