« November 2006 | Main | January 2007 »

December 31, 2006

New Year in Sydney

I'm back in Sydney. Yesterday we drove here from Melbourne, taking in Canberra, and a massive rainstorm, on the way. A long, long drive. We weren't long in Canberra, but even so I can't remember ever having seen a place with so few pedestrians. For the record I also saw road signs for both Cootamundra and Bowral. Tonight, we're going with Jim Nolan to see the New Year's Eve celebrations in Sydney Harbour. Then on 2 January the fifth Test begins at the SCG.

What I'm trying to say to you is that I'm not getting much time for blogging lately, and that's not going to change for the better during the next week.

So please bear with me till I get home.

And a very happy new year to you!

Moderate sanity

If you're tired of sterile screaming in the wilderness, tired of the comfortably ensconced "hindsighters" poring over every American error in Iraq, tired of facile anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism, try the Euston road in 2007. It might actually lead somewhere.
That's Roger Cohen in the International Herald Tribune, by way of Jeff Weintraub. Read the whole thing.

Talking about the execution

Saddam should not have been hanged. He should not have been, because judicial execution is not a morally defensible practice. Apart from other reasons, it brutalizes the community that inflicts it.

And Saddam should not have been hanged now, before having to come before a court to answer for his greatest crimes.

It would be nice, though, if those who wrote as if his execution was on all fours with his crimes displayed a better sense of proportion.

One:

Ending his life with a variant of the inhuman punishment he once meted out so lavishly was just another kick against human rights.
Two:
Mainstream middle-class sentiment in Europe now regards the death penalty as being as ethically tainted as the crimes that produced that sentence.
Here, for contrast, is Jason Burke:
In 2003, back in Sulaymaniyah, I sat down in a prison cell with a captured Baath party torturer. 'How old was the youngest person you ever tortured?' I asked him. 'Oh, about two or three,' he said unapologetically. 'We didn't torture the kids themselves obviously, but holding a toddler over a boiling saucepan is a very good way of getting their parents to talk.' Why do I return to all this? Because I can't help but be happy that Saddam has been executed.
.....
The fact that Saddam is now dead, whatever the manner of his passing, is a rare bit of positive news. Given the nightmare that is Iraq today, I'll save my sympathy for those who suffered under his bloody reign and those who still suffer today.

December 29, 2006

Triumph in Australia

Twenty years ago, this was the title of the account Mike Gatting published on the series victory his England side had achieved. Other times, other results. But the title is entirely apt to what has taken place in Australia these past weeks: a triumph is what it has been for the home team, and an utter drubbing for the victors of 2005. It's not just me - enjoying every ball of it - who is talking of England's defeat in such terms. This report from Mike Selvey uses some forthright language in a breakdown Test by Test:

A hammering by an innings and 99, on a pitch that demanded a close-fought, low-scoring, industrial sort of match is as abject as it gets and follows on from the 277-run shafting in Brisbane, the six-wicket walloping against the head in Adelaide and a 206-run hammering in Perth. Sydney could be the pits for a side totally shot to pieces.
Having watched the series from close-up, I'm only surprised that Selvey found it necessary to repeat himself by using 'hammering' twice: he also had 'pasting', 'thumping', 'crushing', 'thrashing' and 'humiliation' to choose from.

I've been struck by how many people have suggested to me that, even as an Australian supporter, I might have preferred to see a more closely fought series. Yeah, right. Like the time I was at Old Trafford in February 2001 and we're beating Arsenal 5-0 at half time. Wasn't I just thinking, 'Oh damn, I wish it was 1-1, so that there was still a fight on to win the game'? Actually no, I wasn't thinking that.

Cricket, all by its wonderful self, produces a whole variety of situations, and I find myself able to take pleasure in that variety. The close fought contest does have its appeal; and so, too, does the decisive triumph against a long-standing adversary. (And if there are England supporters who wouldn't absolutely love to be 4-0 up against Australia with only one left to play, I'd like to meet them.)

Anyway - and at the risk of repeating myself - there is one quite special reason I'm relishing England's current misfortunes, and that reason is the main public face of the England support here. I refer, of course, to the Barmy Army. In the first three Tests I had the good fortune not to be sitting too near them, and they seemed in any case to be fewer and more dispersed in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth than they have been at the MCG. In this latest Test, the more abject England became the noisier the Barmy Army were, with the endless chanting which is more about being heard - and being the centre of attention - than it is about events on the field of play. Of course, the Barmy Army are not the England cricket team, but they are embraced by that team. Here in Melbourne, as at Perth, they fell into their 'We are the Army' chant most vociferously and for the longest spell after the Test was over and as the presentations got under way. Shane Warne was being interviewed for the man-of-the-match award, and except by getting some distance away from the Barmy Army and close to a TV monitor you couldn't hear what he was saying. Thus did these folk choose to mark the farewell from his home arena of possibly the greatest bowler who has ever played the game: without courtesy, without grace, without even a simple recognition of the cricketing moment. Just doing the the thing they know best, making a noise.

So, some extra satisfaction on that account. Back to Selvey:

Some simple statistics from the match tell their own story. Effectively, England were beaten by two batsmen, who made 309 runs between them in their only innings - England managed 320 in the match - and four bowlers. To compile their runs England batted 140 overs while Australia required 32 overs fewer to make 99 runs more, this after being 84 for five. England managed just 17 boundaries in the match, while in their only innings, Australia, Matthew Hayden and Andrew Symonds for the most part, hit 34 fours and three sixes, all on a pitch that should have yielded runs grudgingly.
(In case I should be taxed with holding views about supporter behaviour that I don't in fact hold see these two earlier posts.)

'Old' books of the year

Clive Davis has been guest blogging at Andrew Sullivan. As part of that he's asked a number of bloggers for their 'old' books of the year - 'titles from the past that people have either just discovered or re-read'. Scroll down here and here for entries in the series - and see here for my contribution.

Festive criminality

In Ohio's Hamilton County, a pair of 18-year-olds were arrested for using screwdrivers to stab an inflatable 12-foot-tall Frosty the Snowman. "Why me?" asked Frosty's owner, Matt Williquette. "And why Frosty?"

The snowman had survived two previous stabbing attacks.

At this time of year, one should perhaps not lose sight of the complexities of human nature. Why would anyone steal a plastic baby Jesus doll from a nativity scene in someone else's front yard? A collection of seasonal crimes here. (Thanks: MK.)

The normblog profile 171: Dave Hill

Dave Hill was born in small town Somerset in 1958. His father was a plasterer, his mother a housewife. After wasting his time at university he moved to London to waste his time writing. First he was a pop music critic then moved on to social issues, sport, politics and gender and family themes. He has written for many publications but his home patch is The Guardian and, recently, Comment Is Free. He also writes novels, his latest being The Adoption. Dave is very, very married, has six children and lives in Hackney, East London. His personal blog is Temperama.


Why do you blog? > Three main reasons: to clarify my confusions about all sorts of things in a public forum, this having the effect of concentrating my mind; to address in a more personal way people who may have found my writing elsewhere to be interesting or attractive; and to be sociable, something I don't always excel at in other settings.

What has been your best blogging experience? > Seeing the thread beneath the first post I ever wrote anywhere grow and grow into something funny, passionate, intelligent and, at points, quite mad. It was for Comment Is Free and its title was I Wish My Cats Were Dead.

What would be your main blogging advice to a novice blogger? > Be yourself, even if you do it in disguise. And if you don't know what 'yourself' is, blogging can be a good way to find out.

What are you reading at the moment? > I'm re-reading Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man And the Sea. (All that, for a fish...?)

Who are your cultural heroes? > Collectively, the maestros of Sixties and Seventies soul music, a genre whose appeal has never waned. Raymond Chandler, for all his faults. Robert Altman, of whom one of his obituarists wrote: 'Few of his films were hits, but - and this is something few major filmmakers can say - they were all his.'

What is your favourite movie? > Altman's The Long Goodbye, starring Elliott Gould.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to disseminate? > Socialist feminism and its intellectual descendants.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to combat? > Essentialism, be it of the biological or the cultural kind.

What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world? > The cultural introversion of the United States of America - and I write this as an opponent of anti-Americanism.

What would be your most important piece of advice about life? > Don't worry, it'll probably never happen. (Not that I'm the best at following such advice myself.)

Do you think you could ever be married to, or in a long-term relationship with, someone with radically different political views from your own? > No!

What do you consider the most important personal quality? > Generosity.

What personal fault do you most dislike? > Snobbery and its companion vices, elitism, pomposity, arrogance, self-importance, condescension and so on.

In what circumstances would you be willing to lie? > To get myself out of the shit and to spare others unnecessary humiliation.

What is your favourite proverb? > 'He who laughs last, laughs longest.'

What commonly enjoyed activities do you regard as a waste of time? > Quizzes and being preoccupied with coffee.

What, if anything, do you worry about? > My wife and children being hurt or unhappy.

If you were to relive your life to this point, is there anything you'd do differently? > Cut out the angry purism of my early adulthood.

What would you call your autobiography? > Could Have Done Better.

Where would you most like to live (other than where you do)? > By the sea.

What do you like doing in your spare time? > Thinking about what to do with my time next.

What is your most treasured possession? > Whichever notebook I'm scribbling rubbish in at the time.

If you had to change your first name, what would you change it to? > John. But I'd also change my second name to Sidewinder, or Bond or LeBeau.

What talent would you most like to have? > To be able to sing like the late Luther Vandross and play the piano really well at the same time.

What would be your ideal choice of alternative profession or job? > Academic researcher.

Who are your sporting heroes? > At the moment, Alan Ball, Nobby Stiles, Amelie Mauresmo and Monty Panesar.

If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true, what would you wish for? > That the millions of family photographs gathering dust in my loft were organized into beautifully bound and annotated albums. Oh, and world peace, obviously.

How, if at all, would you change your life were you suddenly to win or inherit an enormously large sum of money? > It would get busier: I'd found an alternative publishing house or something and run myself ragged trying to make it a success.

If you could have any three guests, past or present, to dinner who would they be? > Luther Vandross, George Orwell, Amelie Mauresmo.

What animal would you most like to be? > A panther.


[The normblog profile is a weekly Friday morning feature. A list of all the profiles to date, and the links to them, can be found here.]

December 27, 2006

Atheists caught behind?

Commenting on the stigma attached to atheists, Sam Harris goes out to bat for us - he sets out to deflate some myths about atheism. He doesn't do too bad a job. Atheists do not believe that life is meaningless; we impart our own meanings to our lives in the way that we live them. And atheists aren't closed to spiritual experience, being perfectly open to 'experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe'. And so on.

In two of his answers, however, Harris is merely waving his bat airily outside the off-stump.

Thus, in response to the charge that 'atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history', he says that fascism and communism were 'too much like religions', when all he needs to say is that atheists as well as religious people are capable of fanatical and dogmatic belief - but that they don't have to be, and not all of them are. The claim that communism and fascism were really religions is a way of evading the issue, since they weren't religions in the specific meaning of religion that atheists reject. Then, in response to the suggestion that religion has had some good effects, Harris uselessly disputes this fact, though it is manifestly true. He says that 'religion gives people bad reasons to behave well'. It may give them some bad reasons; but it also gives them some good ones: like the teaching that you should do what you can to alleviate suffering.

By indulging in these weak argumentative moves, Harris helps to feed the myth that atheists are dogmatically impervious to the merits of belief systems other than their own. Some atheists are; but others aren't.

December 26, 2006

Old Trafford at the Melbourne Test

I'm back in Test-watching mode. Ah, Boxing Day at the MCG. Finding myself walking alongside David Boon for... ooh... twenty or more paces (yes, it's true); seeing Shane Warne take his 700th wicket and yet another five-fer; watching England post another not very impressive total; visiting the Melbourne Cricket Club library, which by contrast is very impressive - and holds copies, I was pleased to discover, of both Ashes '97 and Men of Waugh; and, of course, sweltering in the summer heat.

Except that that last bit isn't true. It was just like some days at Old Trafford. Overcast skies, interruptions for rain, and late in the day a keen breeze to keep a person on the edge of discomfort. By this time I'd met up with Tony T (who indulged in no form of extreme triumphalist behaviour), and while we sat there discussing points of cricket history, we both felt distinctly chilly. It took a good meal after close of play to put us right.

Some things about Australia I expected. Others I didn't. But I must say this was the biggest surprise I've had so far: Old Trafford weather conditions at the MCG.

Writer's choice 82: Robert Westfield

Robert Westfield is the author of Suspension, his debut novel published this summer by HarperCollins. As a playwright, he was writer-in-residence for The Working Group (A Wedding Album, The Pennington Plot, A Tulip Economy) and the dramaturge for Marc Wolf's award-winning interview-based solo show, Another American: Asking and Telling. Robert lives in Manhattan where he's at work on the first page of several new projects. He blogs about NYC on his website, which will feature virtual tours of the city starting in January 2007. Below he writes about Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground.


Robert Westfield on Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky

For reasons I still can't explain, one of the only writers I was able to read in the months following September 11 was Dostoevsky. Perhaps it was owing to the absence of skyscrapers and airplanes in his fiction. Maybe I found comfort inside his decrepit nineteenth century buildings with their squalid yellow rooms just like the ones I was inhabiting in Hell's Kitchen. Looking back now, I realize I must have been fascinated by the cast of characters in Crime and Punishment and his motifs of doors and walls, because all of these made their way into my own novel. But there was something else.

During that fall of 2001, I found myself drawn to the characters in literature who made a clean break with the outside world, stepped into their homes and turned the locks, protagonists who ended their stories by venting their disgust with the society around them and retreating to a place where that society did not exist. These are works that form a kind of literature of repudiation. Gulliver ends his story in a stable, Timon in a cave outside Athens, Moliere's Misanthrope simply away, to 'some spot unpeopled'. And if the characters don't consciously reject society, the author does it for them: think of Holden Caulfield in his asylum, too sensitive to live in a world of phonies.

This escape works especially well with novels. The character, in order to justify the retreat, tends to reduce humanity to fit into a category easy to reject, generalizing everyone as dishonest or greedy or violent or corrupt. And the reader, momentarily closed off in the solitary act of sitting with a book, can be readily persuaded to agree or at least to sympathize with the character's reasoning.

Notes from Underground is a prime example of this renunciation with one of the most alienated narrators of all time, but it's also a book that functions very differently. The Underground Man does spend some paragraphs classifying all happy people as 'stupid and shallow', but Dostoevsky is up to much more, mining many levels of alienation and employing methods different from the usual 'reduce humanity, reject humanity, retreat from humanity'. The Underground Man's reasons for withdrawal have as much to do with self-loathing as they do with a contempt for others, and his means of leaving is less of an escape than an inevitable self-imprisonment, walled in against his will by his own hyperconsciousness.

When the Underground Man writes this confession, he has been living apart from society for 20 years and is still in the process of closing himself off. As he scribbles, rages, and connives, you can almost hear him applying the mortar and stacking up the bricks, enclosing himself in words, words and more words. On the final page when the Underground Man has enough and tells us he doesn't want to write any more, the author points out that the notes don't end here, that 'the paradoxalist... couldn't resist and kept on writing'.

The novella is divided into two parts. The first is the Underground Man's introduction of himself, a polemic consisting of 11 chapters. This part is extraordinarily referential, packed with allusions to literary journals very few of us have ever read or will ever read, so it is usually accompanied with editorial footnotes that illuminate but also pull us even further into the swirl of the logic, make us dizzy, depending on how much attention we pay them, these notes that imply that we really won't understand this book unless we fully grasp that this is a satire of Nikolai Chernyshevsky's theory of rational egoism and doctrine of human advantage and that it would behove us to be familiar with Burke, Kant and Diderot as well as with Rousseau's 'l'homme de la nature et de la verita', and Saltykov-Shchedrin's review of N.N. Ge's painting of 'The Last Supper' which caused quite the stir in St. Petersburg in the spring of 1863.

In the midst of this, the essay spins on its own, because sometimes Dostoevsky plays the satirist with the narrator as the object; other times he utilizes the narrator to make a legitimate point. It's difficult to be sure what he's up to and then, in the penultimate chapter, we learn that one of the most crucial passages of the entire work - a section that dealt with 'salvation in Christ' - was gutted by the censors to Dostoevsky's great dissatisfaction.

But all of this contributes to the delirium of experiencing the book - the more esoteric the references the better. Part of the point is that this is a man overwhelmed, overqualified, who's read 'too much' and is overly influenced by all these modern abstract ideas, an intellectual product of nineteenth century Europe. He often speaks of coming up against the wall of natural laws (why must 2x2 = 4?), feels defeated by predeterminism and is desperate to demonstrate free will.

But I repeat for the one-hundredth time, there is one case, only one, when a man may intentionally, consciously desire even something harmful to himself, something stupid, even very stupid, namely: in order to have the right to desire something even very stupid and not be bound by an obligation to desire only what's smart.

How about it gentlemen, what if we knock over all this rationalism with one swift kick for the sole purpose of sending all these logarithms to hell, so that once again we can live according to our own stupid will!

Here is the central characteristic of the Underground Man: the constant urge to thwart, to defy with contempt; the embodiment of the emotion repeated most frequently throughout the text and stated in the opening line - spite. One of the main reasons for this introduction is to set up how odious (and also incredibly funny) he's going to be when he tells his story. By having the narrator explain himself and present his rationale, Dostoevsky is preparing the reader for a brilliant comedy of spite.

The second part is a flashback to 1848 - that year of revolutionary idealism - when the narrator was 24. It chronicles a series of absurd battles with opponents who aren't aware they're at war. The Underground Man spends months walking along Nevsky Prospect working up the nerve to barge into an officer who once slighted him; he invites himself to a dinner party he doesn't want to attend with former classmates who don't want him to be there; and he refuses to pay his servant until his servant apologizes for not asking for his wages (a perfect illustration of his twisted logic). All of this culminates in a game he plays with Liza, a prostitute he meets after pursuing his classmates to a brothel.

The Underground Man torments Liza, encouraging her to leave the brothel, promising to help her if she comes to his home, then ridiculing and raging against her when she does later in the week. At the end of this, he breaks down in sobs in front of her, but instead of spitting on him or slapping him or at the very least turning her back on him - reactions he fully expects and understands - she embraces him, cries for him, sits by his bed until he's better. Afterwards, he can't stop himself and degrades her by shoving a five-ruble note into her hand to remind her that she's still a whore. He scurries out of the room, unable to bear her response, and she in turn leaves the house, but only after dropping the money on the table. When he comes back in and sees the crumpled bill, he rushes out after her but loses her in the snow. He falls back into his rhetorical flourishes, using an abstract argument to prove that it's best not to follow, to let Liza savor her deep pain and sorrow, and he, so justified, returns home.

The Underground Man is, however, troubled by this and we understand the scene to mark his final break from the world. This conflict becomes a recurring theme - a simple character, from the earth of Mother Russia, uncorrupted by European literary journals, who, with a genuine act of love, mercy, pity, forgiveness, trumps the academic philosophizing. We see it in Sonia, another prostitute, who talks Raskolnikov through his Nietzschean delusions; we see it in the Christ figure who surprises the Grand Inquisitor with a kiss; and in Alyosha, the young Karamazov, doing the same to his brother at the end of Ivan's contentious diatribe.

Notes from Underground received scant critical attention and was considered cynical and nonsensical by most of those who did read it, which was frustrating and discouraging for the author, but this gem of a book was a turning point for Dostoevsky. Many of his subsequent characters would be walled up by abstraction, committing heinous acts based on theory, coming up against characters who love and pity, who above all feel empathy and view their fellow humans as flesh and blood individuals like themselves. Dostoevsky knew that even the glorified social philosophy of the day could be extremely anti-social in its disregard of human nature, and he observed a world where people didn't need to literally lock themselves up or move into a stable or cave outside Athens - they were alienated from their fellow citizens while living and working among them, even as they strolled side by side along Nevsky Prospect.


[All the pieces that have appeared to date in this series, with the links to them, are listed here and here.]

Links