What do you think?
Rate this book
Fixed Ideas: America Since 9.11
In Fixed Ideas Joan Didion describes how, since September 11, 2001, there has been a determined effort by the administration to promote an imperial America--a "New Unilateralism"--and how, in many parts of America, there is now a "disconnect" between the government and citizens.
"[Americans] recognized even then [immediately after 9/11], with flames still visible in lower Manhattan, that the words 'bipartisanship' and 'national unity' had come to mean acquiescence to the administration's preexisting agenda--for example the imperative for further tax cuts, the necessity for Arctic drilling, the systematic elimination of regulatory and union protections, even the funding for the missile shield."
Frank Rich in his preface notes: "The reassuring point of the fixed ideas was to suppress other ideas that might prompt questions or fears about either the logic or hidden political agendas of those conducting what CNN branded as 'America's New War.'"
He adds, "This White House is famously secretive and on-message, but its skills go beyond that. It knows the power of narrative, especially a single narrative with clear-cut heroes and evildoers, and it knows how to drown out any distracting subplots before they undermine the main story."
Book and cover design by Milton Glaser, Inc.
"[Americans] recognized even then [immediately after 9/11], with flames still visible in lower Manhattan, that the words 'bipartisanship' and 'national unity' had come to mean acquiescence to the administration's preexisting agenda--for example the imperative for further tax cuts, the necessity for Arctic drilling, the systematic elimination of regulatory and union protections, even the funding for the missile shield."
Frank Rich in his preface notes: "The reassuring point of the fixed ideas was to suppress other ideas that might prompt questions or fears about either the logic or hidden political agendas of those conducting what CNN branded as 'America's New War.'"
He adds, "This White House is famously secretive and on-message, but its skills go beyond that. It knows the power of narrative, especially a single narrative with clear-cut heroes and evildoers, and it knows how to drown out any distracting subplots before they undermine the main story."
Book and cover design by Milton Glaser, Inc.
44 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2003
14 people are currently reading
1216 people want to read
About the author
Joan Didion
101 books17.1k followersJoan Didion was an American writer and journalist. She is considered one of the pioneers of New Journalism along with Gay Talese, Hunter S. Thompson, and Tom Wolfe.
Didion's career began in the 1950s after she won an essay contest sponsored by Vogue magazine. Over the course of her career, Didion wrote essays for many magazines, including The Saturday Evening Post, Life, Esquire, The New York Review of Books and The New Yorker. Her writing during the 1960s through the late 1970s engaged audiences in the realities of the counterculture of the 1960s, the Hollywood lifestyle, and the history and culture of California. Didion's political writing in the 1980s and 1990s often concentrated on the subtext of political rhetoric and the United States's foreign policy in Latin America. In 1991, she wrote the earliest mainstream media article to suggest the Central Park Five had been wrongfully convicted. In 2005, Didion won the National Book Award for Nonfiction and was a finalist for both the National Book Critics Circle Award and the Pulitzer Prize for The Year of Magical Thinking, a memoir of the year following the death of her husband, writer John Gregory Dunne. She later adapted the book into a play that premiered on Broadway in 2007. In 2013, she was awarded the National Humanities Medal by president Barack Obama. Didion was profiled in the Netflix documentary The Center Will Not Hold, directed by her nephew Griffin Dunne, in 2017.
Didion's career began in the 1950s after she won an essay contest sponsored by Vogue magazine. Over the course of her career, Didion wrote essays for many magazines, including The Saturday Evening Post, Life, Esquire, The New York Review of Books and The New Yorker. Her writing during the 1960s through the late 1970s engaged audiences in the realities of the counterculture of the 1960s, the Hollywood lifestyle, and the history and culture of California. Didion's political writing in the 1980s and 1990s often concentrated on the subtext of political rhetoric and the United States's foreign policy in Latin America. In 1991, she wrote the earliest mainstream media article to suggest the Central Park Five had been wrongfully convicted. In 2005, Didion won the National Book Award for Nonfiction and was a finalist for both the National Book Critics Circle Award and the Pulitzer Prize for The Year of Magical Thinking, a memoir of the year following the death of her husband, writer John Gregory Dunne. She later adapted the book into a play that premiered on Broadway in 2007. In 2013, she was awarded the National Humanities Medal by president Barack Obama. Didion was profiled in the Netflix documentary The Center Will Not Hold, directed by her nephew Griffin Dunne, in 2017.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews
August 4, 2025
NATIONAL SECURITY
Un librino pubblicato dalla New York Review of Books nel 2003, ora tradotto in italiano per approfittare del ventennale dell’attacco alle Torri Gemelle. E cioè, vent’anni dall’11 settembre 2001.
Peccato, perché allora, nel 2003, le riflessioni della Didion, e quelle di Frank Rich nella prefazione, avevano sicuramente un altro peso e valore: diciotto anni dopo molto è stato detto nella stessa direzione, con comune sentire, quelle stesse parole suonano meno nuove, risplendono di luce più blanda.
Un evento raccapricciante e orribile costato la vita a tremila persone.
E quei morti furono usati per giustificare una nuova guerra, furono l’occasione propizia per lanciare la cosiddetta “guerra al terrorismo”. Che come tutte (la maggior parte?) delle guerre generò rigurgiti di retorica patriottica e nazionalista (dio patria famiglia – America First).
E si portò dietro la retorica politica che mandò in pensione il pensiero razionale, qualsiasi forma di pensiero illuminista: ma non solo, perfino il benedetto (maledetto) buonsenso, diventò ostaggio di quei rigurgiti.
Razionalità, e buonsenso, diventarono in automatico oltraggio alla memoria delle vittime, e per estensione, affronto a tutti gli americani (almeno a quelli con fede e patria stampati ben visibili in fronte).
Didion nota come andò in cantina il pensiero post-moderno a vantaggio di un pensiero che lei definisce pre-moderno. E nota come tanti (tanti tanti) in nome della sicurezza nazionale fossero pronti a rinunciare ad alcune libertà fondamentali (ma soprattutto quelle altrui). Il fascismo si nasconde dietro la patria, la sovranità nazionale, la sicurezza del paese. Il fascismo non muore mai.
La madre di tutte le “idee fisse” è la seguente:
La fine dell’Unione Sovietica aveva aperto la via all’inevitabilità della supremazia americana, un mantello di potere benefico che tutte le nazioni eccetto quelle canaglia desideravano che noi indossassimo.
E fu così che vecchi alleati, talebani e Saddam Hussein, divennero ex alleati e poi nemici pubblici numero 1. Le armi chimiche, le armi di distruzione di massa in Iraq non sono mai state trovate: ma la guerra per andare a impedire al cattivone col baffone di usarle è stata fatta.
E bisognerebbe ringraziare, e forse anche pregare, che è stata fatta senza uso di bombe atomiche: perché il rischio c’è stato eccome. Didion docet.
Un librino pubblicato dalla New York Review of Books nel 2003, ora tradotto in italiano per approfittare del ventennale dell’attacco alle Torri Gemelle. E cioè, vent’anni dall’11 settembre 2001.
Peccato, perché allora, nel 2003, le riflessioni della Didion, e quelle di Frank Rich nella prefazione, avevano sicuramente un altro peso e valore: diciotto anni dopo molto è stato detto nella stessa direzione, con comune sentire, quelle stesse parole suonano meno nuove, risplendono di luce più blanda.
Un evento raccapricciante e orribile costato la vita a tremila persone.
E quei morti furono usati per giustificare una nuova guerra, furono l’occasione propizia per lanciare la cosiddetta “guerra al terrorismo”. Che come tutte (la maggior parte?) delle guerre generò rigurgiti di retorica patriottica e nazionalista (dio patria famiglia – America First).
E si portò dietro la retorica politica che mandò in pensione il pensiero razionale, qualsiasi forma di pensiero illuminista: ma non solo, perfino il benedetto (maledetto) buonsenso, diventò ostaggio di quei rigurgiti.
Razionalità, e buonsenso, diventarono in automatico oltraggio alla memoria delle vittime, e per estensione, affronto a tutti gli americani (almeno a quelli con fede e patria stampati ben visibili in fronte).
Didion nota come andò in cantina il pensiero post-moderno a vantaggio di un pensiero che lei definisce pre-moderno. E nota come tanti (tanti tanti) in nome della sicurezza nazionale fossero pronti a rinunciare ad alcune libertà fondamentali (ma soprattutto quelle altrui). Il fascismo si nasconde dietro la patria, la sovranità nazionale, la sicurezza del paese. Il fascismo non muore mai.
La madre di tutte le “idee fisse” è la seguente:
La fine dell’Unione Sovietica aveva aperto la via all’inevitabilità della supremazia americana, un mantello di potere benefico che tutte le nazioni eccetto quelle canaglia desideravano che noi indossassimo.
E fu così che vecchi alleati, talebani e Saddam Hussein, divennero ex alleati e poi nemici pubblici numero 1. Le armi chimiche, le armi di distruzione di massa in Iraq non sono mai state trovate: ma la guerra per andare a impedire al cattivone col baffone di usarle è stata fatta.
E bisognerebbe ringraziare, e forse anche pregare, che è stata fatta senza uso di bombe atomiche: perché il rischio c’è stato eccome. Didion docet.
September 7, 2021
9/11
[Young people relax during their lunch break along the East River while a huge plume of smoke rises from Lower Manhattan after the attack on the World Trade Center. Brooklyn, New York, USA. September 11, 2001. © Thomas Hoepker / Magnum Photos
Sempre interessante da leggere, ma che vergognosa operazione commerciale quella del Saggiatore, che ad hoc, viste le imminenti celebrazioni per i vent'anni dagli attacchi terroristici alle Twin Towers, rispolvera tre articoli scritti da Joan Didion nel 2003, li impagina a colonne di quotidiano, ne riesce a ricavare una cinquantina di striminzite pagine, e li vende sotto forma di esile (molto esile) libro.
Sarebbe stato bello leggere le considerazioni sui vent'anni da allora e su come in questi venti anni gli USA abbiano affrontato ed elaborato il trauma collettivo - soprattutto visti i tempi, che ci portano nuovamente ad affrontarne uno - ma queste sono considerazioni ed elaborazioni ferme a poco meno di vent'anni fa.
[Young people relax during their lunch break along the East River while a huge plume of smoke rises from Lower Manhattan after the attack on the World Trade Center. Brooklyn, New York, USA. September 11, 2001. © Thomas Hoepker / Magnum Photos
Sempre interessante da leggere, ma che vergognosa operazione commerciale quella del Saggiatore, che ad hoc, viste le imminenti celebrazioni per i vent'anni dagli attacchi terroristici alle Twin Towers, rispolvera tre articoli scritti da Joan Didion nel 2003, li impagina a colonne di quotidiano, ne riesce a ricavare una cinquantina di striminzite pagine, e li vende sotto forma di esile (molto esile) libro.
Sarebbe stato bello leggere le considerazioni sui vent'anni da allora e su come in questi venti anni gli USA abbiano affrontato ed elaborato il trauma collettivo - soprattutto visti i tempi, che ci portano nuovamente ad affrontarne uno - ma queste sono considerazioni ed elaborazioni ferme a poco meno di vent'anni fa.
September 7, 2021
A pochi giorni dai vent'anni da quella fatidica data che segna il prima e il dopo lo stravolgimento della storia moderna, ecco tre articoli scritti da Joan Didion nel 2003.
Ciascuno dei due uno che danno vita al numero 11, sembra una delle due torri gemelli colpite dall'attacco inferto dai terroristi islamici agli Stati Uniti.
Quell'attacco non fu frutto del caso, ma fu la conseguenza di una politica internazionale sbagliata.
Però non si può giungere a questa conclusione se sono radicate nella propria mente tante idee fisse che immobilizzano il pensiero e conducono la persona verso la riva opposta a quella su cui risiede la verità.
Idee fisse, come muri, come un campo nel quale vengono issati tantissimi numeri 1 che restano lì, inermi, isolati, completamente scollati dalla realtà delle cose, privi di alcuna correlazione tra di loro.
Ma non andarono così le cose.
"Un anno dopo stavamo ancora cercando presagi, portenti, manifestazioni sovrannaturali di bene e male. Ovunque si era diffusa una patetica falsa credenza. Il fatto che piovesse a una commemorazione per i pompieri caduti veniva solennemente riferito come prova che «anche il cielo piangeva». Il fatto che ci fosse vento durante una commemorazione sul luogo veniva interpretato come un altro segno di questo tipo, lo spirito dei morti che si leva dalla polvere."
Già dopo un paio d'anni da quell'undici settembre, c'erano dubbi che le cose non fossero andate così come la Casa Bianca ha voluto far credere a tutti: "Sì, c’erano dubbi sul fatto che il cattivo in questione [Saddam Hussein] avesse le armi che temevamo che avesse, e sì, c’erano dubbi sul fatto che le avrebbe usate nel caso in cui davvero le avesse avute, e sì, c’erano dubbi sul fatto che attaccare l’Iraq in realtà avrebbe potuto comportare che lui le usasse."
Lo sconvolgimento dei delicati equilibri in Medio Oriente ha avuto poi delle nefaste conseguenze in Occidente: e questo non solo all'inizio del nuovo millennio, ma anche adesso, a vent'anni da quell'undici settembre 2001.
Le analisi lucide di Joan Didion scritte nel 2003 sono attuali anche oggi.
Questo è quello che mi ha colpito di più.
Quanti di voi leggendo il seguente periodo può dire con precisione quando sia stato davvero scritto, se nel 2003 o nel 2021?
"All’inizio degli anni ottanta mi è capitato di prendere parte, durante un convegno di Conservative Political Action a Washington, a una sessione intitolata «Ridimensionare l’impero sovietico». Uno dei conferenzieri della giornata era una sorta di avventuriero-ideologo di nome Jack Wheeler, che era sulla cresta dell’onda perché era appena tornato da un periodo di permanenza presso i nostri freedom fighters in Afghanistan, anche noti come mujahiddin. Ricordo che ebbe una standing ovation dopo aver incitato a introdurre di nascosto copie del Corano in Unione Sovietica per «favorire un revival islamico» e la conseguente «lenta morte». Abbiamo visto tutti come quell’idea ci si sia ritorta contro."
La Storia è una fragile concatenazione di cause ed effetti che hanno conseguenze a breve, medio e lungo termine.
Cosa può dire oggi Joan Didion a vent'anni da quel doloroso attentato e a diciotto dai suoi tre articoli?
Ecco, questo sì che mi piacerebbe saperlo.
Ciascuno dei due uno che danno vita al numero 11, sembra una delle due torri gemelli colpite dall'attacco inferto dai terroristi islamici agli Stati Uniti.
Quell'attacco non fu frutto del caso, ma fu la conseguenza di una politica internazionale sbagliata.
Però non si può giungere a questa conclusione se sono radicate nella propria mente tante idee fisse che immobilizzano il pensiero e conducono la persona verso la riva opposta a quella su cui risiede la verità.
Idee fisse, come muri, come un campo nel quale vengono issati tantissimi numeri 1 che restano lì, inermi, isolati, completamente scollati dalla realtà delle cose, privi di alcuna correlazione tra di loro.
Ma non andarono così le cose.
"Un anno dopo stavamo ancora cercando presagi, portenti, manifestazioni sovrannaturali di bene e male. Ovunque si era diffusa una patetica falsa credenza. Il fatto che piovesse a una commemorazione per i pompieri caduti veniva solennemente riferito come prova che «anche il cielo piangeva». Il fatto che ci fosse vento durante una commemorazione sul luogo veniva interpretato come un altro segno di questo tipo, lo spirito dei morti che si leva dalla polvere."
Già dopo un paio d'anni da quell'undici settembre, c'erano dubbi che le cose non fossero andate così come la Casa Bianca ha voluto far credere a tutti: "Sì, c’erano dubbi sul fatto che il cattivo in questione [Saddam Hussein] avesse le armi che temevamo che avesse, e sì, c’erano dubbi sul fatto che le avrebbe usate nel caso in cui davvero le avesse avute, e sì, c’erano dubbi sul fatto che attaccare l’Iraq in realtà avrebbe potuto comportare che lui le usasse."
Lo sconvolgimento dei delicati equilibri in Medio Oriente ha avuto poi delle nefaste conseguenze in Occidente: e questo non solo all'inizio del nuovo millennio, ma anche adesso, a vent'anni da quell'undici settembre 2001.
Le analisi lucide di Joan Didion scritte nel 2003 sono attuali anche oggi.
Questo è quello che mi ha colpito di più.
Quanti di voi leggendo il seguente periodo può dire con precisione quando sia stato davvero scritto, se nel 2003 o nel 2021?
"All’inizio degli anni ottanta mi è capitato di prendere parte, durante un convegno di Conservative Political Action a Washington, a una sessione intitolata «Ridimensionare l’impero sovietico». Uno dei conferenzieri della giornata era una sorta di avventuriero-ideologo di nome Jack Wheeler, che era sulla cresta dell’onda perché era appena tornato da un periodo di permanenza presso i nostri freedom fighters in Afghanistan, anche noti come mujahiddin. Ricordo che ebbe una standing ovation dopo aver incitato a introdurre di nascosto copie del Corano in Unione Sovietica per «favorire un revival islamico» e la conseguente «lenta morte». Abbiamo visto tutti come quell’idea ci si sia ritorta contro."
La Storia è una fragile concatenazione di cause ed effetti che hanno conseguenze a breve, medio e lungo termine.
Cosa può dire oggi Joan Didion a vent'anni da quel doloroso attentato e a diciotto dai suoi tre articoli?
Ecco, questo sì che mi piacerebbe saperlo.
September 8, 2021
La mia videorecensione: https://youtu.be/3UjYA1dY98c
June 13, 2025
A brave and insightful essay on what this country was becoming in the wake of 11 September 2001, the terminal stage of which we are now enjoying.
September 2, 2024
In dieser Sammlung von Reportagen gibt Joan Didion einen tiefen Einblick in die amerikanische Gesellschaft und ihre politischen Entwicklungen zwischen 1988 und 2000. Die Texte sind von Didions scharfem Blick und ihrer präzisen Sprache geprägt, die es ihr ermöglicht, die komplexen Verstrickungen von Politik, Religion und Macht in den USA offenzulegen. Besonders spannend fand ich das Vorwort von Antje Rávik Strubel, das eine hilfreiche Einführung für Leser*innen bietet, die vielleicht noch nicht mit Didions Werk vertraut sind. Es machte mir Lust, tiefer in Didions Analysen einzutauchen.
Allerdings empfand ich die Zusammenstellung der Texte als etwas unstrukturiert und wenig aktuell im Hinblick auf die bevorstehende US-Wahl 2024 (konträr zur Beschreibung im Klappentext) . Die Themen reichen von den Anschlägen am 11. September über die Affäre von Bill Clinton mit Monica Lewinsky bis hin zu Nancy Reagans Beziehung zu Raissa Gorbatschow, was manchmal den Eindruck erweckte, als seien die Reportagen willkürlich angeordnet. Auch wenn die Texte stilistisch brillant und inhaltlich tiefgründig sind, fehlte mir an manchen Stellen ein klarer roter Faden, der die Texte in einen Zusammenhang mit der heutigen politischen Landschaft setzt.
Für deutsche Leser*innen könnten die Reportagen teilweise schwer zugänglich sein, da sie stark auf den amerikanischen Kontext und spezifische historische Ereignisse und Persönlichkeiten eingehen. Hier hätte ich mir Fußnoten oder zusätzliche Erklärungen gewünscht, um den historischen und kulturellen Hintergrund besser verstehen zu können. Trotz dieser kleinen Hürden sind Didions Beobachtungen messerscharf und ihre Texte so geschrieben, dass man schnell durch die Seiten fliegt. Wer sich für die Entwicklung der US-amerikanischen Demokratie interessiert und bereit ist, sich auf die Feinheiten der amerikanischen Gesellschaft einzulassen, wird hier sicherlich einiges mitnehmen können.
Allerdings empfand ich die Zusammenstellung der Texte als etwas unstrukturiert und wenig aktuell im Hinblick auf die bevorstehende US-Wahl 2024 (konträr zur Beschreibung im Klappentext) . Die Themen reichen von den Anschlägen am 11. September über die Affäre von Bill Clinton mit Monica Lewinsky bis hin zu Nancy Reagans Beziehung zu Raissa Gorbatschow, was manchmal den Eindruck erweckte, als seien die Reportagen willkürlich angeordnet. Auch wenn die Texte stilistisch brillant und inhaltlich tiefgründig sind, fehlte mir an manchen Stellen ein klarer roter Faden, der die Texte in einen Zusammenhang mit der heutigen politischen Landschaft setzt.
Für deutsche Leser*innen könnten die Reportagen teilweise schwer zugänglich sein, da sie stark auf den amerikanischen Kontext und spezifische historische Ereignisse und Persönlichkeiten eingehen. Hier hätte ich mir Fußnoten oder zusätzliche Erklärungen gewünscht, um den historischen und kulturellen Hintergrund besser verstehen zu können. Trotz dieser kleinen Hürden sind Didions Beobachtungen messerscharf und ihre Texte so geschrieben, dass man schnell durch die Seiten fliegt. Wer sich für die Entwicklung der US-amerikanischen Demokratie interessiert und bereit ist, sich auf die Feinheiten der amerikanischen Gesellschaft einzulassen, wird hier sicherlich einiges mitnehmen können.
October 21, 2024
Have I read this essay before? Yes.
Did I need to buy this slim physical copy of the essay when I saw it at the paper hound? No.
BUT I did buy it because this is one of Didion’s most chilling and prescient essays; one that feels as urgent today as it did when it was published in 2003, and one that deserves the attention and close-read only a physical book can demand from a reader. Anyone who fancies themselves engaged with politics (especially the politics of the Middle East) should probably read this multiple times. Anyone who fancies themselves engaged with literature, culture, and dissent should probably do so too. The poison of fixed ideas aren’t fixed to a single political ideology - their parasitic rhetorical reach is part of our larger cultural incapacity to dwell in disagreement. If only Fascinated to Presume was a cute little book I could lend to my friends as well… it would be a nice pairing with this stunner.
But to finish my series of rhetorical questions:
Was this purchase worth it? Absolutely.
Will I be urging people to borrow and read this essay like it is my gospel? Consider this my first attempt.
Did I need to buy this slim physical copy of the essay when I saw it at the paper hound? No.
BUT I did buy it because this is one of Didion’s most chilling and prescient essays; one that feels as urgent today as it did when it was published in 2003, and one that deserves the attention and close-read only a physical book can demand from a reader. Anyone who fancies themselves engaged with politics (especially the politics of the Middle East) should probably read this multiple times. Anyone who fancies themselves engaged with literature, culture, and dissent should probably do so too. The poison of fixed ideas aren’t fixed to a single political ideology - their parasitic rhetorical reach is part of our larger cultural incapacity to dwell in disagreement. If only Fascinated to Presume was a cute little book I could lend to my friends as well… it would be a nice pairing with this stunner.
But to finish my series of rhetorical questions:
Was this purchase worth it? Absolutely.
Will I be urging people to borrow and read this essay like it is my gospel? Consider this my first attempt.
September 5, 2021
Le “Idee fisse” sono quelle murate nella testa delle persone, quelle che non si cambiano per nulla al mondo. Quelle preconcette, che partono da un punto fingendo di avere un obiettivo è magari ne nascondono altri mille sotto sotto, segreti, indicibili, subdoli.
Sono quelle che hanno fatto sì che un singolo evento (che ha concentrato in una singola immagine un secolo di complicati accordi e disaccordi) invece di esser preso come momento necessario per rileggere, esplorare e approfondire la storia e le decisioni politiche prese di un paese intero, sia stato invece ridotto al sentimentale, reso meno leggibile, polarizzato nei possibili punti di vista e quindi, alla fine, svuotato del suo significato.
Sono idee a volte studiate a tavolino, a volte che nascono spontaneamente nella mente di una nazione sconvolta da un fatto e da immagini così atroci (quelle di due torri gemelle che si accasciano su se stesse con migliaia di persone all’interno).
Nessuno nega la barbarie di questi fatti, tantomeno Didion. Ma non si tira neanche indietro dal porre l’accento sul potere incredibile della narrazione che all’epoca ha saputo coprire ad arte tutti i ragionamenti e le riflessioni complesse sulla questione, imponendo un focus incredibile sulla distinzione tra buoni e cattivi, tra eroi patrioti e terroristi. Perché se metti in dubbio la guerra al terrorismo, vuol per forza dire che stai dalla parte dei terroristi. Punto. Così funzionava, ha funzionato e continua tutt’oggi in parte a funzionare il ragionamento di una grandissima parte della classe politica americana di fronte a qualsiasi argomento tocchi le varie crisi mediorientali e la celebre “lotta al terrorismo” internazionale.
Un libro di “pensieri sparsi” che, seppur breve, risulta alla fine decisamente complesso (per non dire difficile).
Da rileggere più e più volte, possibilmente con altri libri/risorse alla mano.
Sono quelle che hanno fatto sì che un singolo evento (che ha concentrato in una singola immagine un secolo di complicati accordi e disaccordi) invece di esser preso come momento necessario per rileggere, esplorare e approfondire la storia e le decisioni politiche prese di un paese intero, sia stato invece ridotto al sentimentale, reso meno leggibile, polarizzato nei possibili punti di vista e quindi, alla fine, svuotato del suo significato.
Sono idee a volte studiate a tavolino, a volte che nascono spontaneamente nella mente di una nazione sconvolta da un fatto e da immagini così atroci (quelle di due torri gemelle che si accasciano su se stesse con migliaia di persone all’interno).
Nessuno nega la barbarie di questi fatti, tantomeno Didion. Ma non si tira neanche indietro dal porre l’accento sul potere incredibile della narrazione che all’epoca ha saputo coprire ad arte tutti i ragionamenti e le riflessioni complesse sulla questione, imponendo un focus incredibile sulla distinzione tra buoni e cattivi, tra eroi patrioti e terroristi. Perché se metti in dubbio la guerra al terrorismo, vuol per forza dire che stai dalla parte dei terroristi. Punto. Così funzionava, ha funzionato e continua tutt’oggi in parte a funzionare il ragionamento di una grandissima parte della classe politica americana di fronte a qualsiasi argomento tocchi le varie crisi mediorientali e la celebre “lotta al terrorismo” internazionale.
Un libro di “pensieri sparsi” che, seppur breve, risulta alla fine decisamente complesso (per non dire difficile).
Da rileggere più e più volte, possibilmente con altri libri/risorse alla mano.
July 22, 2019
Beautiful essay, but does it deserve a whole book?
I'm not sure why this essay from The New York Review of Books of January 16, 2003 was made into a book. It's more like a pamphlet, and a short one at that. Of course Joan Didion is an icon of the American left and a prose stylist deluxe as well as a trenchant social and political critic. Perhaps what Didion has to say is of great importance and perhaps she says it very well. Clearly the unstated assumption of the essay--that we would in fact bring about a regime change in Iraq (that is, we would invade Iraq) has proven prescient.
Didion's essay is in three parts. The first part is mostly an observation on how the Bush administration is attempting to preempt criticism of its policies by labeling critics as somehow unpatriotic or worse. One of the nice points she makes is that the "war on terror" is a misnomer since terror is not a state but a technique. (p. 8)
In the second part she identifies the first "fixed idea." She is talking about the government of Israel. She writes, "Whether the actions taken by that government constitute self-defense or a particularly inclusive form of self-immolation remains an open question." She goes on to say that almost no one in the US dare challenge the fixed idea that we must support the actions of the Israeli government. She says that the question is seldom discussed rationally or at all (in her circle, it would seem) because "few of us are willing to see our evenings turn toxic." ( p. 23) That she herself has to bury this assertion into the very middle of her essay and to express it so obliquely reinforces her point perhaps more strongly than she might have imagined.
In the third part she reveals the second fixed idea, which she identifies as the "theory" behind the "regime change in Iraq" pronouncements made in 2002 by President Bush. "I made up my mind [the President had said in April] that Saddam needs to go." (p. 36) The "theory" that Didion is talking about is sometimes called "The Bush Doctrine" or "The New American Unilateralism" or more bluntly, "The American Empire." The second fixed idea then is that "with the collapse of the Soviet Union" we have an opportunity and an obligation to move unilaterally and preemptively against our enemies as an imperial power might.
I'm not going to evaluate Didion's argument here--that is something you will want to do yourself--except to say that:
1) In reference to the rather high-handed attempt at managing the press and public opinion by the Bush administration, had the Democrats been in the White House post 9/11 they would have done something similar. Indeed all administrations in my lifetime have tried to manage the press.
2) The actions of Hamas and the other Palestinian suicide/murder organizations make it difficult to take any side other than Israel's. If the Palestinian people had better leadership that would pursue their goals in the spirit and manner of, say, Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., they would find widespread (although not majority) support in the US; indeed, I believe, given world opinion, they would be successful.
3) Yes, we are indeed seeing the emergence of an American Empire. Whether we will have the wisdom to use our power so that we do not go the way of Rome in a relatively quick manner will depend on our ability to work with other nations for the betterment of the entire planet. This is something the Bush administration is not doing very well, but there is hope that the next administration will be wiser.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
I'm not sure why this essay from The New York Review of Books of January 16, 2003 was made into a book. It's more like a pamphlet, and a short one at that. Of course Joan Didion is an icon of the American left and a prose stylist deluxe as well as a trenchant social and political critic. Perhaps what Didion has to say is of great importance and perhaps she says it very well. Clearly the unstated assumption of the essay--that we would in fact bring about a regime change in Iraq (that is, we would invade Iraq) has proven prescient.
Didion's essay is in three parts. The first part is mostly an observation on how the Bush administration is attempting to preempt criticism of its policies by labeling critics as somehow unpatriotic or worse. One of the nice points she makes is that the "war on terror" is a misnomer since terror is not a state but a technique. (p. 8)
In the second part she identifies the first "fixed idea." She is talking about the government of Israel. She writes, "Whether the actions taken by that government constitute self-defense or a particularly inclusive form of self-immolation remains an open question." She goes on to say that almost no one in the US dare challenge the fixed idea that we must support the actions of the Israeli government. She says that the question is seldom discussed rationally or at all (in her circle, it would seem) because "few of us are willing to see our evenings turn toxic." ( p. 23) That she herself has to bury this assertion into the very middle of her essay and to express it so obliquely reinforces her point perhaps more strongly than she might have imagined.
In the third part she reveals the second fixed idea, which she identifies as the "theory" behind the "regime change in Iraq" pronouncements made in 2002 by President Bush. "I made up my mind [the President had said in April] that Saddam needs to go." (p. 36) The "theory" that Didion is talking about is sometimes called "The Bush Doctrine" or "The New American Unilateralism" or more bluntly, "The American Empire." The second fixed idea then is that "with the collapse of the Soviet Union" we have an opportunity and an obligation to move unilaterally and preemptively against our enemies as an imperial power might.
I'm not going to evaluate Didion's argument here--that is something you will want to do yourself--except to say that:
1) In reference to the rather high-handed attempt at managing the press and public opinion by the Bush administration, had the Democrats been in the White House post 9/11 they would have done something similar. Indeed all administrations in my lifetime have tried to manage the press.
2) The actions of Hamas and the other Palestinian suicide/murder organizations make it difficult to take any side other than Israel's. If the Palestinian people had better leadership that would pursue their goals in the spirit and manner of, say, Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., they would find widespread (although not majority) support in the US; indeed, I believe, given world opinion, they would be successful.
3) Yes, we are indeed seeing the emergence of an American Empire. Whether we will have the wisdom to use our power so that we do not go the way of Rome in a relatively quick manner will depend on our ability to work with other nations for the betterment of the entire planet. This is something the Bush administration is not doing very well, but there is hope that the next administration will be wiser.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
September 21, 2017
'We had seen, most importantly, the insistent use of September 11 to justify the reconception of America's correct role in the world as one of initiating and waging perpetual war.'
Joan Didion's 2003 essay makes the compelling case that the 9/11 tragedy was and has been used by the US government to neutralise resistance to a pre-existing right-wing agenda of 'further tax cuts, the necessity for Artic drilling, the systematic elimination of regulatory and union protections, even the funding for the missile shield.'
In support of this, the official narrative became one of 'moral clarity', rejecting any notion of post-modern relativism. Thus, at the same time as claiming that the attack on the US and her allies was provoked by a hatred of the West's freedoms (of speech, thought, democracy etc.), the official narrative also encouraged the curtailing of those freedoms in unequivocal support for a united, patriotic position, where any criticism of US culture and policy is derided as unpatriotic.
This essay was written in 2003, two years or so after the 9/11 attacks. It's relevance today in September 2017 is stark.
In the last day or so President Trump made his maiden speech to the annual UN General Assembly. “We meet at a time of immense promise and great peril,” Trump said in his address to the more than 150 international delegations. “It is up to us whether we will lift the world to new heights or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.”
Making direct reference to North Korea's nuclear ambitions Trump stated that “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” Trump said, before calling Kim Jong Un by a nickname he gave the dictator on Twitter over the weekend. “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself.” (Quotes taken from the Washington Post).
Didion's essay reminds us that Trump's chilling rhetoric echoes that following 9/11 when 'the Department of Defense was talking as early as June about unloosing, for the first time since 1945, high-yield nuclear weapons.'
In the final analysis Didion exposes the fundamental flaw in the 'moral clarity' argument. At times of greatest risk true morality is located in an open and inclusive exploration of the issues in a way that welcomes challenge and dissent.
Fixed ideas are the problem, not the solution.
Joan Didion's 2003 essay makes the compelling case that the 9/11 tragedy was and has been used by the US government to neutralise resistance to a pre-existing right-wing agenda of 'further tax cuts, the necessity for Artic drilling, the systematic elimination of regulatory and union protections, even the funding for the missile shield.'
In support of this, the official narrative became one of 'moral clarity', rejecting any notion of post-modern relativism. Thus, at the same time as claiming that the attack on the US and her allies was provoked by a hatred of the West's freedoms (of speech, thought, democracy etc.), the official narrative also encouraged the curtailing of those freedoms in unequivocal support for a united, patriotic position, where any criticism of US culture and policy is derided as unpatriotic.
This essay was written in 2003, two years or so after the 9/11 attacks. It's relevance today in September 2017 is stark.
In the last day or so President Trump made his maiden speech to the annual UN General Assembly. “We meet at a time of immense promise and great peril,” Trump said in his address to the more than 150 international delegations. “It is up to us whether we will lift the world to new heights or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.”
Making direct reference to North Korea's nuclear ambitions Trump stated that “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” Trump said, before calling Kim Jong Un by a nickname he gave the dictator on Twitter over the weekend. “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself.” (Quotes taken from the Washington Post).
Didion's essay reminds us that Trump's chilling rhetoric echoes that following 9/11 when 'the Department of Defense was talking as early as June about unloosing, for the first time since 1945, high-yield nuclear weapons.'
In the final analysis Didion exposes the fundamental flaw in the 'moral clarity' argument. At times of greatest risk true morality is located in an open and inclusive exploration of the issues in a way that welcomes challenge and dissent.
Fixed ideas are the problem, not the solution.
September 4, 2017
Subtitled ‘America Since 9.11’ this volume seems a continuation in the tradition of pamphlets going back to Thomas Paine. It did not take me two months to read this book – under 30 minutes, but I’ve been reading more magazine articles from the Progressive and other publications. This is not the first book by Didion I’ve read, I finished ‘Salvador’ years ago, but it was a struggle to finish as I recall. I’m reading as much contemporary political news as I can in preparation for the next election. As for this treatise penned by Didion, well I actually think the forward by Frank Rich was stronger and clearer in its message. I’m not saying that Didion did not make some very good points, but her piece was going all over the place. Her personal recollections of the days following 9.11 seemed distant, her points about where the country has been directed since 9.11 seemed aimless especially since there are so many issues where the current administration are so clearly defiling our constitution. Almost as disappointing as this administration.
March 10, 2024
Didion introduce la sua riflessione sugli Stati Uniti post 11 settembre dalla propria esperienza personale. Ricorda come lei abbia vissuto i giorni dell’attentato, per poi ampliare lo sguardo verso la popolazione americana.
L’autrice nota una generale rielaborazione dell’evento, spesso distorto e semplificato, reso più “gestibile”. La celebrazione livellante delle vittime, l’aggressiva idealizzazione dell'ignoranza storica, la manicheizzazione degli schieramenti (il nemico è cattivo, l’America detiene un potere benigno) impediscono di esaminare in maniera approfondita ciò che è accaduto.
Il libro è ricchissimo di informazioni, nomi, eventi, con una precisione e un’accuratezza storica notevoli. La critica al governo è chiara: ha diffuso pubblicamente una narrazione distorta, mentre in segreto prendeva accordi pericolosi e contraddittori.
Ma, per fortuna, molte delle “idee fisse” prima così popolari oggi non convincono più. Forse anche grazie a figure di spicco come Didion, che hanno cercato, attraverso riflessioni approfondite, di diffondere maggiore consapevolezza.
L’autrice nota una generale rielaborazione dell’evento, spesso distorto e semplificato, reso più “gestibile”. La celebrazione livellante delle vittime, l’aggressiva idealizzazione dell'ignoranza storica, la manicheizzazione degli schieramenti (il nemico è cattivo, l’America detiene un potere benigno) impediscono di esaminare in maniera approfondita ciò che è accaduto.
Il libro è ricchissimo di informazioni, nomi, eventi, con una precisione e un’accuratezza storica notevoli. La critica al governo è chiara: ha diffuso pubblicamente una narrazione distorta, mentre in segreto prendeva accordi pericolosi e contraddittori.
Ma, per fortuna, molte delle “idee fisse” prima così popolari oggi non convincono più. Forse anche grazie a figure di spicco come Didion, che hanno cercato, attraverso riflessioni approfondite, di diffondere maggiore consapevolezza.
March 23, 2025
This article-length (44 pp) booklet displays Didion's analytical and reportorial skills at their best. In sharp detail she describes the beginnings of the so-called War on Terror after 9/11. Within weeks after the Twin Towers destruction, the lies began flowing and the nation's political and media leaders did their best to repress any public awareness of the deep historical background of the attack and even accurate identification of the nationalities of the attackers, shifting attention to a combination of "patriotism" and preparation for the subsequent U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Didion stands out as one of a small minority of voices trying to expose these misguided tendencies.
September 17, 2021
Joan Didion sarà presto una delle mie autrici garanzia, già lo sento. Questo libricino è breve, sì, ma immenso. L'analisi dell'America post 11/09 è così brillante che non può far altro che illuminare. Attraverso 3 brevi saggi, Didion si afferma come giornalista in tutta la sua lucidità mentale, destreggiandosi abilmente in un tentativo necessario di razionalizzare un evento spartiacque su cui la politica americana ha gettato solo fango lasciando sprofondare il popolo a stelle e strisce nelle paludi emotive di un terrore mai veramente analizzato nella sua interezza. Da leggere, senza dubbio!
September 19, 2021
Sempre lucida, sempre intelligente - da leggere
December 22, 2021
It was refreshing to read this essay with words of four syllables and more. No tweets here. It was also good to be reminded that Bush and company were already bent on “regime change” and the natural crowning of America as liberator of the Iraqis, even before the tragedy of 9/11 came along as an excuse. Of course, Dideon couldn’t know of the subsequent tragedies: the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the displacement of millions of refugees, and the rise of ISIS that resulted from Bush’s war.
Read
August 2, 2023É muito engraçado que ela viu vindo exatamente desde a Baia dos Porcos e vem avisando (tudo descrito em Miami é exatamente o cenário político ocidental hj) e isso aqui é uma sequência não oficial a Miami e como as táticas de lá são mais velhas que andar pra frente e continuam sendo usadas (nesse caso após o 11 de setembro, mais futuramente com o Trump)
October 11, 2015
A slight book - a magazine article, really - published in a money grab, or more charitably, because responsible America needed any voicing and any platform allowed it in the face of the ubiquitous hate and paranoiac fantasy of the post-9/11 era.
Didion effectively paints the peculiarities of the administration's tactics for quelling dissent, or even thought, really, and the contradictions inherent in their "they hate us for our freedoms" rhetoric.
Was this period as scarring for everyone else as it was for me? The absolute capitulation of the Democrats in congress and the nation's "respectable" press - NYT, et al - seems to be an episode few feel to have real bearing on our current political situation; like trauma, America's body politic has either blacked-it out, or wishes to ceaselessly relive it, without conscious knowledge of doing so.
Even the literature of the left on 9/11 - Zizek's Desert of the Real, Chomsky's 9/11, Spiegelman's Shadow of No Towers - it's all sort of confused; haphazard, or just iterations of margins around an absent center. Didion's essay suffers from the same lack of mattering, of understanding, or of conviction in some way. Even the critics of the post-9/11 stultification of the political process seemed to have been in its capture.
Didion effectively paints the peculiarities of the administration's tactics for quelling dissent, or even thought, really, and the contradictions inherent in their "they hate us for our freedoms" rhetoric.
Was this period as scarring for everyone else as it was for me? The absolute capitulation of the Democrats in congress and the nation's "respectable" press - NYT, et al - seems to be an episode few feel to have real bearing on our current political situation; like trauma, America's body politic has either blacked-it out, or wishes to ceaselessly relive it, without conscious knowledge of doing so.
Even the literature of the left on 9/11 - Zizek's Desert of the Real, Chomsky's 9/11, Spiegelman's Shadow of No Towers - it's all sort of confused; haphazard, or just iterations of margins around an absent center. Didion's essay suffers from the same lack of mattering, of understanding, or of conviction in some way. Even the critics of the post-9/11 stultification of the political process seemed to have been in its capture.
May 31, 2018
A unique entry in the "why do they hate us?" file of post-9/11 literature, this very brief volume (44 pages! with the fattest margins you've ever seen!) is focused inward. Instead of reflecting on foreign policy leading up to 9/11, this essay is a meditation on how the tragedy was used to build new rhetorical boundaries to help those in power achieve the same old goals. Didion describes how, at a moment in history when all past assumptions were up for grabs, the establishment - led by Bush/Cheney - took advantage, in the classic shock therapy style, so they could neutralize criticism and carry out the agenda they had before 9/11 happened.
March 29, 2022
This was an essay written by Joan Didion as published by the New York Review of Books on January 16, 2003, several weeks before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Fixed Ideas: America Since 9.11 sees America's response to the events of 9/11/2001 as a blindered perpetuation of old ideas indicating that the U.S. government and media's response to the terrorism was divorced from (a) reality and (b) the views of most Americans outside Washington and New York.
April 25, 2020
I rarely read anything that has to do with politics, but I'll read anything Joan Didion writes ... Between books, I picked up this essay, published in book form, which originally appeared in the New York Review of Books in 2003. If you want to know how we got here ... this is it.
February 6, 2022
Un punto di vista sicuramente interessante e anticonformista che sarebbe potuto essere a mio avviso ampliato e arricchito. Un'idea di partenza molto buona che però avrebbe dovuta essere "studiata" un po' di più.
July 11, 2024
I like small books. And I cannot lie.
Whenever I hold a small book—one-hundred pages or so, fits snug in your hands, almost feels non-existent—I wonder about the writing. Someone was able to convince a publishing company to print and distribute a tiny book, a book outweighed and hidden by its larger contemporaries. This object must contain something that begged for release into the world. On the other hand, whenever I hold a large book, I wonder how any one person could have so much to say. And I wonder if all of it is worthwhile. Not many big books—think beyond 600 pages—have convinced me of the journey’s import. Don DeLillo’s Underworld and Peter Matthiessen’s Shadow Country come to mind as does another whose author and title escape me. Not only did DeLillo and Matthiessen imagine intricate stories, they transformed reading, for me, into a savory, decadent event, even if the novels themselves were anything but.
Back to the small books though: I found Joan Didion’s minuscule book, Fixed Ideas, buried on the bookshelf in my school's teacher’s lounge. Compared to its other discarded neighbors, Didion’s work stood out because of its smallness and its lack of flashy imagery and pizzazz. The selling point was one thing: Joan Didion. Celebrated for her collection of essays, Slouching Towards Bethlehem, whose titular essay is one of the great uppercuts to 1960s American “hippie” counterculture (and I say this as a fan of the Grateful Dead and an even bigger fan of Phish), Didion’s writing crunches down upon its subject matter while never sounding holier-than-thou. Didion is a realist and the best realists recognize when their being sold faulty narratives.
Published in 2003 and holding a mere forty-four pages, Fixed Ideas pulls apart American political, social, and cultural narratives in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. Works that come out so soon after a major geopolitical event don’t always hold much weight decades later. But Didion’s work, as noted with Slouching Towards Bethlehem, speaks to the immediate events and to the histories of American society. Didion connects the American geopolitical narratives of 9/11 with her notion of a “fixed idea,” which at one point she associates with the word “theory,” or a way of perceiving and constructing the world, and the ease with which the American government practiced, experimented with, and implemented narratives that the American public bought and reproduced. Didion doesn’t apply critical literary theory to her argument; rather, like the journalist she was (and will continue to be) she provides evidence from speeches, published opinion pieces, and actual events that occurred (removing specific songs from the radio that contained war and/or apocalyptic imagery; removing plays from the stage because they discussed violence or terrorism; and so forth) where the American publish self-censored itself, removed “freedoms” while simultaneously excoriating the “evildoers” who President George W. Bush, nine days after the attacks, declared to be the “enemies of freedom.” Just as in Slouching Towards Bethlehem, Didion allows others’ words to exist in history. Separating 9/11 and its aftermath from history allowed for its dehistoricization, its removal from history, thereby elevating “official” narratives into “the” narrative, the "fixed idea" of contemporary American life. And the fixed idea is simple: good versus evil. And, twenty-three years later, the fixed idea remains in tact but with new players.
Fixed Ideas is a small book. Nevertheless, Didion, as she did all her life, centralizes narratives as formations of human life. Fixed Ideas is a small book, but it is a book that supports Didion’s lifelong literary artistry and reinforces her sharp nose when sniffing out narrative b.s., especially from those who hold some form of power. Fixed Ideas is a small book, but it contains sentences that force me to rethink my 10th grade experiences of 9/11, how I felt when hearing the never-ending rhetoric of war in Iraq (I remember being afraid, especially when discussions of weapons of mass destruction became a throwaway phrase), and how my myopic experiences remain my narrative but require significant fleshing out. Didion writes about her experiences returning to New York City soon after the attacks:
I came in from Kennedy to find American flags flying all over the Upper East Side, at least as far north as 96th Street, flags that had not been there in the first week after the fact. I say “at least as far north as 96th Street” because a few days later, driving down from Washington Heights past the big projects that would provide at least some of the manpower for the “war on terror” that the President had declared—as if terror were a state and not a technique—I saw very few flags: at most, between 168th Street and 96th Street, perhaps a half-dozen. There were that many flags on my building alone. Three at each of the two entrances. I did not interpret this as an absence of feeling for the country above 96th Street. I interpreted it as an absence of trust in the efficacy of rhetorical gestures. (7-8)
Whenever I hold a small book—one-hundred pages or so, fits snug in your hands, almost feels non-existent—I wonder about the writing. Someone was able to convince a publishing company to print and distribute a tiny book, a book outweighed and hidden by its larger contemporaries. This object must contain something that begged for release into the world. On the other hand, whenever I hold a large book, I wonder how any one person could have so much to say. And I wonder if all of it is worthwhile. Not many big books—think beyond 600 pages—have convinced me of the journey’s import. Don DeLillo’s Underworld and Peter Matthiessen’s Shadow Country come to mind as does another whose author and title escape me. Not only did DeLillo and Matthiessen imagine intricate stories, they transformed reading, for me, into a savory, decadent event, even if the novels themselves were anything but.
Back to the small books though: I found Joan Didion’s minuscule book, Fixed Ideas, buried on the bookshelf in my school's teacher’s lounge. Compared to its other discarded neighbors, Didion’s work stood out because of its smallness and its lack of flashy imagery and pizzazz. The selling point was one thing: Joan Didion. Celebrated for her collection of essays, Slouching Towards Bethlehem, whose titular essay is one of the great uppercuts to 1960s American “hippie” counterculture (and I say this as a fan of the Grateful Dead and an even bigger fan of Phish), Didion’s writing crunches down upon its subject matter while never sounding holier-than-thou. Didion is a realist and the best realists recognize when their being sold faulty narratives.
Published in 2003 and holding a mere forty-four pages, Fixed Ideas pulls apart American political, social, and cultural narratives in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. Works that come out so soon after a major geopolitical event don’t always hold much weight decades later. But Didion’s work, as noted with Slouching Towards Bethlehem, speaks to the immediate events and to the histories of American society. Didion connects the American geopolitical narratives of 9/11 with her notion of a “fixed idea,” which at one point she associates with the word “theory,” or a way of perceiving and constructing the world, and the ease with which the American government practiced, experimented with, and implemented narratives that the American public bought and reproduced. Didion doesn’t apply critical literary theory to her argument; rather, like the journalist she was (and will continue to be) she provides evidence from speeches, published opinion pieces, and actual events that occurred (removing specific songs from the radio that contained war and/or apocalyptic imagery; removing plays from the stage because they discussed violence or terrorism; and so forth) where the American publish self-censored itself, removed “freedoms” while simultaneously excoriating the “evildoers” who President George W. Bush, nine days after the attacks, declared to be the “enemies of freedom.” Just as in Slouching Towards Bethlehem, Didion allows others’ words to exist in history. Separating 9/11 and its aftermath from history allowed for its dehistoricization, its removal from history, thereby elevating “official” narratives into “the” narrative, the "fixed idea" of contemporary American life. And the fixed idea is simple: good versus evil. And, twenty-three years later, the fixed idea remains in tact but with new players.
Fixed Ideas is a small book. Nevertheless, Didion, as she did all her life, centralizes narratives as formations of human life. Fixed Ideas is a small book, but it is a book that supports Didion’s lifelong literary artistry and reinforces her sharp nose when sniffing out narrative b.s., especially from those who hold some form of power. Fixed Ideas is a small book, but it contains sentences that force me to rethink my 10th grade experiences of 9/11, how I felt when hearing the never-ending rhetoric of war in Iraq (I remember being afraid, especially when discussions of weapons of mass destruction became a throwaway phrase), and how my myopic experiences remain my narrative but require significant fleshing out. Didion writes about her experiences returning to New York City soon after the attacks:
I came in from Kennedy to find American flags flying all over the Upper East Side, at least as far north as 96th Street, flags that had not been there in the first week after the fact. I say “at least as far north as 96th Street” because a few days later, driving down from Washington Heights past the big projects that would provide at least some of the manpower for the “war on terror” that the President had declared—as if terror were a state and not a technique—I saw very few flags: at most, between 168th Street and 96th Street, perhaps a half-dozen. There were that many flags on my building alone. Three at each of the two entrances. I did not interpret this as an absence of feeling for the country above 96th Street. I interpreted it as an absence of trust in the efficacy of rhetorical gestures. (7-8)
July 16, 2013
The urgent and timely version of Joan Didion, as she weighs in on pressing issues after 9/11.
June 2, 2025
🤯 blew me away. Almost forgot what she was made of. Her voice is as clear and informed as ever.
Pg 9. “As if over-night, the irreconcilable event had been made manageable, reduced to the sentimental, to protective talismans, totems, garlands of garlic, repeated pieries that would come to seem in some ways as destructive as the event itself. We now had "the loved ones," we had "the families," we had "the heroes." In fact it was in the reflexive repetition of the word "hero" that we began to hear what would become in the year that followed an entrenched preference for ignoring the meaning of the event in favor of an impenetrably fattening celebration of its victims, and a troublingly belligerent idealization of historical ignorance. “Taste" and "sensitivity," it was repeatedly suggested, demanded that we not examine what happened. Images of the intact towers were already being removed from advertising, as if we might conveniently forget they had been there.”
Pg 23. On the topic of Israel
“Whether the actions taken by that government constitute self-defense or a particularly inclusive form of self-immolation remains an open question. The question of course has a history, a background involving many complicit state and non-state actors and going back most recently to, but by no means beginning with, the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. This open question, and its history, are discussed rationally and with considerable intellectual subtlety in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, as anyone who reads Amos Elon or Avishai Margalit in The New York Review or even occasionally sees Ha'aretz online is well aware. Where the question is not discussed rationally-where in fact the question is rarely discussed at all, since so few of us are willing to see our evenings turn toxic in New York and Washington and in those academic venues where the attitudes and apprehensions of New York and Washington have taken hold. The president of Harvard recently warned that criticisms of the current government of Israel could be construed as "anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent." The very question of the US relationship with Israel, in other words, has come to be seen—at Harvard as well as in New York and Washington—as unraisable, potentially lethal, the conversational equivalent of an unclaimed bag on a bus. We take cover. We wait for the entire subject to be defused, safely insulated behind baffles of invective and counterinvective. Many opinions are expressed. Few are allowed to develop. Even fewer change.”
And lastly, in the third and final act of her argument, she opens with this on pg32.
“IN 1988, A FEW WEEKS AFTER GEORGE W. BUSH'S FATHER was elected president, I wrote a post-election note for The New York Review about a trip the senior Bush had made to Israel and Jordan in 1986, when he was still vice-president. He had his own camera crew with him in Israel, but not in Jordan, since, as an official explained to the Los Angeles Times, there was "nothing to be gained from showing him schmoozing with Arabs." Still, the Bush advance team in Amman had devoted considerable attention to crafting visuals for the traveling press. Members of the advance team had requested, for example, that the Jordanian army marching band change its uniforms from white to red. They had requested that the Jordanians, who did not have enough helicopters to transport Bush's traveling press corps, borrow the necessary helicopters to do so from the Israeli air force. In an effort to assure the color of live military action as a backdrop for the vice-president, they had asked the Jordanians to stage maneuvers at a sensitive location overlooking Israel and the Golan Heights. They had asked the Jordanians to raise, over the Jordanian base there, the American flag. They had asked that Bush be photographed studying, through binoculars, "enemy terri-tory," a shot ultimately vetoed by the State Department, since the "enemy territory" at hand was Israel. They had also asked, possibly the most arresting detail, that, at every stop on the itinerary, camels be present.”
Pg 9. “As if over-night, the irreconcilable event had been made manageable, reduced to the sentimental, to protective talismans, totems, garlands of garlic, repeated pieries that would come to seem in some ways as destructive as the event itself. We now had "the loved ones," we had "the families," we had "the heroes." In fact it was in the reflexive repetition of the word "hero" that we began to hear what would become in the year that followed an entrenched preference for ignoring the meaning of the event in favor of an impenetrably fattening celebration of its victims, and a troublingly belligerent idealization of historical ignorance. “Taste" and "sensitivity," it was repeatedly suggested, demanded that we not examine what happened. Images of the intact towers were already being removed from advertising, as if we might conveniently forget they had been there.”
Pg 23. On the topic of Israel
“Whether the actions taken by that government constitute self-defense or a particularly inclusive form of self-immolation remains an open question. The question of course has a history, a background involving many complicit state and non-state actors and going back most recently to, but by no means beginning with, the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. This open question, and its history, are discussed rationally and with considerable intellectual subtlety in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, as anyone who reads Amos Elon or Avishai Margalit in The New York Review or even occasionally sees Ha'aretz online is well aware. Where the question is not discussed rationally-where in fact the question is rarely discussed at all, since so few of us are willing to see our evenings turn toxic in New York and Washington and in those academic venues where the attitudes and apprehensions of New York and Washington have taken hold. The president of Harvard recently warned that criticisms of the current government of Israel could be construed as "anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent." The very question of the US relationship with Israel, in other words, has come to be seen—at Harvard as well as in New York and Washington—as unraisable, potentially lethal, the conversational equivalent of an unclaimed bag on a bus. We take cover. We wait for the entire subject to be defused, safely insulated behind baffles of invective and counterinvective. Many opinions are expressed. Few are allowed to develop. Even fewer change.”
And lastly, in the third and final act of her argument, she opens with this on pg32.
“IN 1988, A FEW WEEKS AFTER GEORGE W. BUSH'S FATHER was elected president, I wrote a post-election note for The New York Review about a trip the senior Bush had made to Israel and Jordan in 1986, when he was still vice-president. He had his own camera crew with him in Israel, but not in Jordan, since, as an official explained to the Los Angeles Times, there was "nothing to be gained from showing him schmoozing with Arabs." Still, the Bush advance team in Amman had devoted considerable attention to crafting visuals for the traveling press. Members of the advance team had requested, for example, that the Jordanian army marching band change its uniforms from white to red. They had requested that the Jordanians, who did not have enough helicopters to transport Bush's traveling press corps, borrow the necessary helicopters to do so from the Israeli air force. In an effort to assure the color of live military action as a backdrop for the vice-president, they had asked the Jordanians to stage maneuvers at a sensitive location overlooking Israel and the Golan Heights. They had asked the Jordanians to raise, over the Jordanian base there, the American flag. They had asked that Bush be photographed studying, through binoculars, "enemy terri-tory," a shot ultimately vetoed by the State Department, since the "enemy territory" at hand was Israel. They had also asked, possibly the most arresting detail, that, at every stop on the itinerary, camels be present.”
September 11, 2023
Sinossi editoriale
L’11 settembre 2001 Joan Didion vide, come tutti in tutto il mondo, un video che non avrebbe mai creduto di vedere. Passò la giornata in stato di shock, poi decise di andare a casa di amici. L’invito era per una festa, ma si trasformò in una scusa per non stare da sola, per assorbire insieme agli altri la tragedia delle due torri del World Trade Center di New York – agili e verticali come i due 1 dell’11, simmetriche come le colonne che si specchiano nelle pagine di un libro – distrutte dagli aerei in picchiata. In Idee fisse Joan Didion racconta la sua reazione personale al trauma collettivo e analizza la risposta dell’America, la narrazione monolitica che ne è scaturita – le «idee fisse» della guerra al terrorismo – e che a ben guardare propugnava una precisa agenda politica: nazionalismo, imperialismo, interesse economico. Attraverso gli occhi di Joan Didion vediamo i minuti in cui il futuro si è materializzato davanti a noi. Attraverso la sua voce viviamo l’evento storico che più ha segnato il nostro tempo. Attraverso la sua penna sgretoliamo le certezze che ci hanno spacciato da vent’anni a questa parte. Joan Didion ancora una volta frantuma monoliti, ovvero compie il gesto che ogni scrittore dovrebbe, che tutti noi dovremmo compiere ogni giorno della nostra vita.
L’11 settembre 2001 Joan Didion vide, come tutti in tutto il mondo, un video che non avrebbe mai creduto di vedere. Passò la giornata in stato di shock, poi decise di andare a casa di amici. L’invito era per una festa, ma si trasformò in una scusa per non stare da sola, per assorbire insieme agli altri la tragedia delle due torri del World Trade Center di New York – agili e verticali come i due 1 dell’11, simmetriche come le colonne che si specchiano nelle pagine di un libro – distrutte dagli aerei in picchiata. In Idee fisse Joan Didion racconta la sua reazione personale al trauma collettivo e analizza la risposta dell’America, la narrazione monolitica che ne è scaturita – le «idee fisse» della guerra al terrorismo – e che a ben guardare propugnava una precisa agenda politica: nazionalismo, imperialismo, interesse economico. Attraverso gli occhi di Joan Didion vediamo i minuti in cui il futuro si è materializzato davanti a noi. Attraverso la sua voce viviamo l’evento storico che più ha segnato il nostro tempo. Attraverso la sua penna sgretoliamo le certezze che ci hanno spacciato da vent’anni a questa parte. Joan Didion ancora una volta frantuma monoliti, ovvero compie il gesto che ogni scrittore dovrebbe, che tutti noi dovremmo compiere ogni giorno della nostra vita.
November 2, 2024
Klappentext:
„Zur US-Wahl 2024: Amerikanische Gesellschaftsgeschichte erzählt von einer wichtigsten Stimme der USA.
Im Wahljahr 2024 richtet sich der Blick der Weltöffentlichkeit auf die USA. Wie ist die Supermacht zu dem geworden, was sie heute ist? In sieben brillanten Reportagen entwirft Joan Didion ein präzises Bild der Entwicklung der amerikanischen Demokratie zwischen 1988 und 2000. Ausgehend von ihren persönlichen Beobachtungen unmittelbar nach den Anschlägen auf das World Trade Center, dringt ihr messerscharfer Blick durch die Fassade der US-Demokratie, bis zum inneren Terror der Siebzigerjahre. Faktenreich berichtete sie aus den Zentren der Macht und erforscht die Verquickung von Religion und Politik innerhalb der konservativen Eliten.“
Der Inhalt des Buches ist einfach nur perfekt für Interessierte der anstehende US-Wahl. Joan Didions Werke verehre ich sehr und gerade dieses Werk ist einfach nur brillant und zeigt ihren durchdringenden Blick auf die amerikanische Gesellschaft. Ihre Analyse, ihre Gedankengänge, ihren Thesen sind wohl durchdacht und wertfrei. Sie beschreibt lediglich die Entwicklung der Gesellschaft und dies mit perfekter Auffassungsgabe, wie man es von Didion gewohnt war.
Das Buch ist ein echtes Highlight. Schnell zu lesen, sehr tiefgründig ohne langweilig zu werden und reich an Wissen! 5 Sterne!
„Zur US-Wahl 2024: Amerikanische Gesellschaftsgeschichte erzählt von einer wichtigsten Stimme der USA.
Im Wahljahr 2024 richtet sich der Blick der Weltöffentlichkeit auf die USA. Wie ist die Supermacht zu dem geworden, was sie heute ist? In sieben brillanten Reportagen entwirft Joan Didion ein präzises Bild der Entwicklung der amerikanischen Demokratie zwischen 1988 und 2000. Ausgehend von ihren persönlichen Beobachtungen unmittelbar nach den Anschlägen auf das World Trade Center, dringt ihr messerscharfer Blick durch die Fassade der US-Demokratie, bis zum inneren Terror der Siebzigerjahre. Faktenreich berichtete sie aus den Zentren der Macht und erforscht die Verquickung von Religion und Politik innerhalb der konservativen Eliten.“
Der Inhalt des Buches ist einfach nur perfekt für Interessierte der anstehende US-Wahl. Joan Didions Werke verehre ich sehr und gerade dieses Werk ist einfach nur brillant und zeigt ihren durchdringenden Blick auf die amerikanische Gesellschaft. Ihre Analyse, ihre Gedankengänge, ihren Thesen sind wohl durchdacht und wertfrei. Sie beschreibt lediglich die Entwicklung der Gesellschaft und dies mit perfekter Auffassungsgabe, wie man es von Didion gewohnt war.
Das Buch ist ein echtes Highlight. Schnell zu lesen, sehr tiefgründig ohne langweilig zu werden und reich an Wissen! 5 Sterne!
February 18, 2019
In this tiny essay, Didion argues for the vital importance of not letting pain be used an excuse to mobilize historical ignorance, especially right after a tragedy:
I had expected to find the annihilating economy of the event—the way in which it had concentrated the complicated arrangements and misarrangements of the last century into a single irreducible image—being explored, made legible. On the contrary, I found that what had happened was being processed, obscured, systematically leached of history and so of meaning, finally rendered less readable than it had seemed on the morning it happened. As if overnight, the irreconcilable event had been made manageable, reduced to the sentimental, to protective talismans, totems, garlands of garlic, repeated pieties that would come to seem in some ways as destructive as the event itself. We now had "the loved ones, " we had "the families," we had "the heroes."
In fact it was in the reflexive repetition of the word "hero" that we began to hear what would become in the year that followed an entrenched preference for ignoring the meaning of the event in favour of an impenetrably flattening celebration of its victims, and a troublingly belligerent idealisation of historical ignorance.
December 18, 2025
“This would in fact be a year when it was to become increasingly harder to know who was infantilizing who.” In Fixed Ideas: America Since 9.11, Joan Didion casts her typical incisiveness over the US political and rhetorical landscape in post-911 media discourse, and finds much to concern her there. Her warnings, as with many others’ warnings, seem so prophetic now down the line, not least in how she invokes the “unraisable” nature of Israel’s relationship with the US, and the ways dissenting from political violence is weaponised as treacherous: “you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists”. She is quick to see this unfold on the ground: “I found in New York, in other words, that the entire event had been seized — even as the less nimble among us were still trying to assimilate it — to stake new ground in old domestic wars.” Didion argues swiftly and effectively that a certain fixed idea, that “the collapse of the Soviet Union had opened the door to the inevitability of American preeminence”, bolstered much of Bush’s post-911 discourse and the American wound at large: that the attack was a sort of attack on the assumed natural hierarchy of nations. To see it any other way, of course, must be suspect at best, unAmerican at worst.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews