The Week The Week
flag of US
US
flag of UK
UK
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Less than $3 per week

Sign in
  • View Profile
  • Sign out
  • The Explainer
  • Talking Points
  • The Week Recommends
  • Newsletters
  • Cartoons
  • From the Magazine
  • The Week Junior
  • More
    • Politics
    • World News
    • Business
    • Health
    • Science
    • Food & Drink
    • Travel
    • Culture
    • History
    • Personal Finance
    • Puzzles
    • Photos
    • The Blend
    • All Categories
  • Newsletter sign up Newsletter
  • Saturday Wrap, from The Week
    A national scandal, F. Scott Fitzgerald's greatest novel, and from creationist to evolutionary biologist

     
    controversy of the week

    State secrets

    If the story of the Afghan leak teaches us anything, said Theo Burges in The Guardian, it's how easy it is "for a government to avoid proper scrutiny when 'national security' is invoked". For almost two years, Conservative and Labour governments were able to hide behind an unprecedented court order blocking the disclosure that a soldier had accidentally leaked the names of 18,714 Afghans hoping to escape the Taliban following the fall of Kabul in 2021. The injunction was initially imposed to protect vulnerable Afghans' lives. But it was extended under the guise of national security to cover up a secret resettlement programme for affected Afghans – in total, up to 7,900 people are expected to come to the UK. Most worrying of all, the superinjunction was only lifted last week at the behest of the Government; if ministers hadn't had an attack of conscience, it could have remained in place "indefinitely" – leaving the public none the wiser about a hugely damaging "national scandal". Clearly, "secrecy is addictive", said Juliet Samuel in The Times. It might start with good intentions, but "once under the cover of injunction", the temptation for the state to wriggle out of scrutiny "becomes irresistible".

    The "omnishambles" at the Ministry of Defence reflects an even more fundamental problem, said Sherelle Jacobs in The Daily Telegraph: the incompetence of the British state. This isn't even the MoD's first major Afghan-related leak. We've had laptop thefts; "unclassified documents being left at bus stops". Yet even now, it shows nothing but "contempt" for public accountability. No one – not the soldier responsible, nor his superiors – has lost their job for this "extraordinary error". This saga is bound to cause deep distrust of government, said Gaby Hinsliff in The Guardian. It wasn't unreasonable to seek a temporary news blackout to protect lives, while organising an evacuation. But hiding it for almost two years has given turbo-fuel to right-wing agitators. "A secret back door into Britain through which thousands of immigrants were brought, under cover of a draconian legal gagging order that helpfully also concealed an act of gross incompetence by the British state?" What better way to convince anti-migrant conspiracy theorists – already paranoid about alleged grooming gang cover-ups and plots to flood the country with refugees – that they were "right all along".

    Lost in all of this, said Simon Jenkins, also in The Guardian, is the main lesson: that the invasion in 2001 was a terrible mistake. This attempt at "nation building" was bound to fail, but we ploughed on – at a cost to Britain of £23 billion; and 457 British soldiers were killed, as well as about 200,000 Afghans. Thousands of Afghan administrators were hired to work for the Western powers. Then we cut and ran, putting the Taliban in charge and these people in mortal danger. That was the real fiasco. Politicians thought they'd washed their hands of it. But decades later, the costs keep piling up.

     
     
    BRIEFINg

    The Great Gatsby at 100

    The centenary of F. Scott Fitzgerald's tale, hailed by many as the Great American Novel, is being celebrated this year

    Why all the fuss?
    "The poor son of a bitch," Dorothy Parker remarked at F. Scott Fitzgerald's funeral in 1940. Fitzgerald had died at just 44 in relative obscurity, and few of the mourners would have known that Parker was quoting "The Great Gatsby", a commercial flop that derailed its author's career when it was published in 1925. A century later, "Gatsby" is selling around half a million copies a year. Admired and referenced by everyone from John Updike to Taylor Swift, and adapted countless times for screen and stage, it is both one of the most securely classic novels in the American canon and a fixture of popular culture. But there's still lively discussion about what it means, and it still has some detractors; Gore Vidal called it the work of a writer who was "barely literate".

    Who was Fitzgerald?
    Born in St Paul, Minnesota, in 1896, Francis Scott Fitzgerald was a middle-class boy who failed the entrance exam for Princeton University twice but somehow talked his way in. He resolved to become "one of the greatest writers who have ever lived", but he was more interested in girls and parties than studying, and Princeton was about to throw him out when he dropped out to join the army during the First World War. At an officers' training school in Alabama, he fell in love with Zelda Sayre, a moneyed southern belle who broke off their engagement in 1919 over his lack of prospects. Fitzgerald responded by writing "This Side of Paradise", which made him a national celebrity in 1920. He and Zelda married just over a week after the novel was published.

    How did it make him a celebrity?
    Detailing racy goings-on among rich Princeton students, his first novel made its 23-year-old author the face of "youth in revolt". He was in demand as an expert on Prohibition-era partying and newly liberated young women who smoked cigarettes and kissed boys: in short, all the scandalous phenomena of the "Jazz Age" (a term he popularised). Slick magazines such as Collier's paid him a fortune – in the 1920s he could get around $75,000 (£55,800) in today's money for a single short story – and his and Zelda's extravagant, hard-drinking, hard-partying lifestyle made them newsworthy. But he was also a hardworking craftsman, and in his third novel, he told his editor in 1924, he wasn't aiming for "trashy imaginings as in my stories", but for something more artistic. The result, after several false starts, was "Gatsby".

    Where did he get the idea for it?
    At its heart the novel is the story of Jimmy Gatz, a poor boy from the Midwest who reinvents himself as the murky and mysterious millionaire Jay Gatsby, in an obsessive effort to win back Daisy Buchanan, the wealthy socialite he'd loved as a penniless army officer. The Scott-Zelda romance influenced this plot, but the principal model for Daisy was Ginevra King, a Chicago heiress who threw Fitzgerald over in 1917. Various of his neighbours in Great Neck, Long Island – among them a gentleman bootlegger and a newspaper editor who constantly threw parties – went into "Gatsby", but, as Fitzgerald acknowledged, the character blurred "into myself". As he turned his simple story into a study of memory and desire, Fitzgerald had an eerie feeling that he was writing "something better than I am capable of".

    Why did it flop, then?
    Great writers such as Edith Wharton and T.S. Eliot immediately recognised "Gatsby" as a masterpiece, but professional reviewers were either downright hostile or found the book nicely written but rather tawdry and pointless. It sold less than half as many copies as his previous novels. Four years later the Wall Street Crash put paid to the Jazz Age, and Fitzgerald fell completely out of fashion. In 1936, his royalties on all his books amounted to $81 (£60). Consumed by alcoholism and weighed down by responsibility for Zelda, whose mental health broke down in 1929, Fitzgerald scraped a living as a Hollywood script doctor and died believing himself a failure. When a Hollywood colleague praised his old novels, he replied: "I'm surprised that you know who I am."

    So how come we've heard of him?
    After Fitzgerald's death, his Princeton friend Edmund Wilson, who had become America's leading literary critic, put together posthumous editions of his writing, and championed it tirelessly. More importantly, from 1942 a government programme distributed 155,000 copies of "Gatsby" to US servicemen fighting overseas, perhaps thinking they'd like a novel about a soldier who dreamed about a girl back home. By the late 1940s, a full-scale Fitzgerald revival was under way. A bestselling 1951 biography by Arthur Mizener burnished the legend of Scott and Zelda, and "Gatsby" became a staple of high-school reading lists. It has also been filmed four times, most recently by Baz Luhrmann in 2013.

    Where does it stand now?
    The novel is near unassailable: the leading, and certainly the most widely read, contender for the title of "Great American Novel". It impresses on many levels. At first glance it's a charming story about one golden summer before the Great Depression, full of memorable party scenes, lyrical phrases and unforgettable images, such as Gatsby looking out towards the green light on Daisy's dock across the bay at night. But it has also been seen since Mizener's time as a critique of the American Dream and US capitalism: the critic Lionel Trilling saw Gatsby, with his quest for reinvention and his hunger for riches, as embodying "America itself", torn between ideals and power. To celebrate the centenary there have been public readings, celebrations and "Gatsby"-themed parties; musical versions are showing on Broadway and in the West End. On 11 April, the exact centenary of publication, the Empire State Building was lit up in green in the book's honour.

     
     

    Spirit of the age

    Gen Z have been accused of being workshy. Now, they are apparently discomfiting older people by using a "stare", in place of small talk. The New York Times is credited with describing the Gen Z stare as a "blank, emotionally unreadable expression often seen in social or work settings". According to social media users, you notice it when you greet the staff in a shop or cafe, and they look at you, saying nothing.

    Although the stare can seem hostile, in a vague, "unbothered" way, it is not clear that it actually is. Some think that it reflects a new reluctance to engage with stupid questions or in pointless chit-chat; but others say it's symptomatic of a generation that grew up on screens in lockdown, and is puzzled or alarmed by real-world interaction.

     
     
    Viewpoint

    The baby bust

    "Why is it so hard to accept that people don't want many children, if any? The UN published a report last month that blamed a 'toxic' mix of economic and gender rigidities for low global birth rates. Practical barriers such as lack of childcare, we are told, are the problem. So, Chad has a birth rate of 6.1 per woman because of subsidised crèches, does it? Shared child-rearing duties and free IVF explain Afghanistan's 4.8? Finland (1.3) should send a research delegation to Mali (5.6)? Why kid ourselves like this? The evidence is clear. True, people tell surveys they want more kids. They really do want them. But not as much as they want leisure and surplus cash."

    Janan Ganesh in the Financial Times

     
     
    talking point

    Votes for 16-year-olds: a boost for Labour?

    It "must be one of the most short-sighted and desperate measures ever to be brought before Parliament", said The Daily Telegraph. Keir Starmer's Government, lagging badly in the polls, has suddenly decided that it will lower the voting age to 16 in time for the next general election – presumably hoping that many of those 1.5 million newly eligible teen voters will cast their ballots for Labour. Starmer claimed the move was about fairness, citing the fact that 16- and 17-year-olds pay taxes and can serve in the military. But that's "downright misleading", said Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail. You can't be deployed on combat operations until you're 18, and a "vanishingly small" proportion of 16- and 17-year-olds pay income tax. Most are still in education. In fact, there are all sorts of things 16-year-olds aren't allowed to do because the state "rightly" regards them as children – from buying a pint to driving a car and donating blood. Yet these minors will be allowed to vote in an election they're too young to stand in? This is "cynical" gerrymandering, plain and simple.

    The funniest part about this "naked" act of opportunism, said Dan Hodges in The Mail on Sunday, is that it will probably backfire. Labour thinks it has the teen vote locked up, based on the received wisdom that young people trend leftwards. That was certainly the case when Jeremy Corbyn was leader: a "staggering" 62% of 18- to 24-year-olds backed Labour then. But the "sticky iPad kids", as the new demographic are known, are far harder to pin down, said Sebastian Page in The New Statesman. Raised on "Fortnite" and MrBeast, they get their news from TikTok – where far-right populism abounds, and Nigel Farage has "more followers than all other MPs combined". If some are drifting to the far-right, others have gone to the far-left, inspired by issues such as the environment and Gaza. Reform UK, the Greens and Corbyn's new party are likely to be the main beneficiaries.

    If they are at least voting, that is something to celebrate, said Lucy Dunn in The Spectator. With trust in politicians at "an all-time low" and people increasingly turning off from democracy (barely half of eligible voters took part in the last general election), we should be doing everything possible to boost electoral engagement. Allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote is a great way to do it. Studies have indicated that if you give people the right to vote at 16, they are more likely to keep voting in their 20s and beyond. Lowering the voting age is not a panacea, but should ensure that "more people are actively invested in the country's future. That cannot be a bad thing."

     
     

    It wasn't all bad

    When Nicholas McCarthy set his sights on becoming a pianist, he faced several obstacles. His parents were not musical; he was already 14 – and he was born with no right hand. The local music school declined to help him, but he didn't give up. He found a teacher, and in 2012 he became the first one-handed pianist to graduate from the Royal College of Music. Now, aged 36, he has fulfilled "every musician's dream" by performing at the Proms. In the 19th century, pianists would show off by playing one-handed, which led to a repertoire; but at the Proms, he played a concerto by Ravel that was commissioned by Paul Wittgenstein, a concert pianist whose right arm was amputated during the First World War.

     
     
    people

    From creationist to evolutionary biologist

    Ella Al-Shamahi is a leading evolutionary biologist, who now presents science shows for the BBC. Yet, growing up, she told Ben Spencer in The Sunday Times, she was "a creationist". Born to a Muslim family in Birmingham, she wore a headscarf from the age of seven and believed that God created the universe, and all within it. In fact, she decided, aged 18, to go to University College London to study biology with the aim of disproving evolution. "I literally thought I could destroy the theory of evolution," she says.

    Instead, her worldview was turned upside down. By the age of 27, after postgraduate study, her faith had been rocked. She divorced her husband – a marriage arranged by her imam – and removed her headscarf. Now 41, she vividly recalls the first time she went out with her head uncovered. "I'd always been taught that if I went out without my hijab my sheer beauty would cause fitna – which translates as something like 'mayhem on Earth'. But there was no mayhem," she says. On the contrary, men "didn't even notice" her. "Nobody collapsed. Nobody cared." Today, she calls herself a non-practising Muslim; but the experience of changing her mind about her faith taught her to value all beliefs and points of view – even those she disagrees with. "We can criticise them. We can say we don't like their ideas. But we should let them voice those ideas."

     
     

    Image credits, from top: Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times; Paramount / Getty Images; Jane Campbell/Alamy Live News;  Joe Maher / WireImage
     

    Recent editions

    • Morning Report

      Cracking down on homelessness

    • Evening Review

      Zelenskyy's anti-corruption challenge

    • Morning Report

      More Epstein trouble for Trump

    VIEW ALL
    TheWeek
    • About Us
    • Contact Future's experts
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Cookie Policy
    • Advertise With Us

    The Week is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.

    © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.