Politics & Policy

Walk The Talk

A monthly salon is the rent we owe goodness, truth, and liveliness.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This piece appears in the March 27, 2006, issue of National Review.

Tom Wolfe spelled it tawk (rhymes with Noo Yawk). Talk is one of our exports, like oil or terror. From Damon Runyon to Delmore Schwartz to Al Sharpton to Howard Stern, New York is the city of yakkers and jivers. But can we talk in any structured way, or to any purpose? Can we hold salons?

#ad#The salon, or the discussion club, or the dining club, flourished in Boston before it appeared here. Charles Francis Adams belonged to one, as did the late George Apley. I imagine New York caught up with the custom when it surpassed Boston and Philadelphia as the intellectual, as well as commercial, capital of the nation. Running a salon should be the easiest thing in the world: the great ideas, the news of the day, a pinch of malice, twelve tongues, and you’re off. But, having passed through a number of such groups over the years, a few of which fell silent, I can testify that good talk is harder than it looks.

Ideas may be disembodied, shimmering Platonic forms, but we are corporeal, and talk must have a time and place. People have to assemble periodically. In these regimented days, it’s not possible to meet more than once a month, but anything less frequent loses the pleasure of repetition. The monthly meeting is the rent we owe goodness, truth, and liveliness. There also has to be a local habitation. Since we talk with our mouths, eating and drinking are natural accompaniments, which means the location will be someone’s dining room, a club, or a restaurant or bar. The place has to be chosen with some care. I once belonged to a salon which died largely because it met in an inferior Indian restaurant. The food should not be too good, or inflow will become more important than outflow; yet it cannot be emetic.

There must be next to no discussion of business. Salons must be like the old British regime of Hong Kong–a paternalistic free-for-all, with no politics and few laws. The point is to not talk about the group itself; if our own business consumes us, then we fall into the boredom of post-modernity. . . .

YOU CAN READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE IN THE CURRENT ISSUE OF THE DIGITAL VERSION OF NATIONAL REVIEW. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A SUBSCRIPTION TO NR DIGITAL OR NATIONAL REVIEW, YOU CAN SIGN UP FOR A SUBSCRIPTION TO NATIONAL REVIEW here OR NATIONAL REVIEW DIGITAL here (a subscription to NR includes Digital access).

Historian Richard Brookhiser is a senior editor of National Review and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Most Popular

White House

For Democrats, the Party’s Over

If the Democrats are really tempted by impeachment, bring it on. Since the day after the 2016 election they have been threatening this, placing their chips on the Russian-collusion fantasy and then on the phantasmagoric charade of obstruction of justice. The attorney general accurately gave the ingredients of the ... Read More
Elections

The 24 Democrats

Every presidential primary ends with one winner and a lot of losers. Some might argue that one or two once-little-known candidates who overperform low expectations get to enjoy a form of moral victory. (Ben Carson and Rick Perry might be happy how the 2016 cycle ended, with both taking roles in Trump’s cabinet. ... Read More