Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Cenacle - In hidden crypts and dark vaults, cenacles of secret religion meet to keep their flame alive.

Before quoting you a text from Mahabharatha, I would like to give you some context. According to the traditional Hindu mythology, there are four yugas or ages and Mahabharatha is set in the third yuga called Krita. The follwoing passage describes the onset of the Krita yuga:

And, O bull of the Bharata race, when such was the blessed state of the terrestrial world, the Asuras, O lord of men, began to be born in kingly lines. And the sons of Diti (Daityas) being repeatedly defeated in war by the sons of Aditi (celestials) and deprived also of sovereignty and heaven, began to be incarnated on the earth. And, O king, the Asuras being possessed of great powers, and desirous of sovereignty began to be born on earth amongst various creatures, such as kine, horses, asses, camels, buffaloes, among creatures such as Rakshasas and others, and among elephants and deer. And, O protector of the earth, owing to those already born and to those that were being born, the earth became incapable of supporting herself. And amongst the sons of Diti and of Danu, cast out of heaven, some were born on the earth as kings of great pride and insolence. Possessed of great energy, they covered the earth in various shapes. Capable of oppressing all foes, they filled the earth having the ocean for its boundaries. And by their strength they began to oppress Brahmanas and Kshatriyas and Vaisyas and Sudras and all other creatures also. Terrifying and killing all creatures, they traversed the earth, O king, in bands of hundreds and thousands. Devoid of truth and virtue, proud of their strength, and intoxicated with (the wine of) insolence, they even insulted the great Rishis in their hermitages.


And the earth, thus oppressed by the mighty Asuras endued with great strength and energy and possessed of abundant means, began to think of waiting on Brahman. The united strength of the creatures (such as Sesha, the Tortoise, and the huge Elephant), and of many Seshas too, became capable of supporting the earth with her mountains, burdened as she was with the weight of the Danavas. And then, O king, the earth, oppressed with weight and afflicted with fear, sought the protection of the Grandsire of all creatures.



Most religious mythologies have this division of time into various ages. It is reflection of time when there was no bronze and there was no iron. The Iron Age in many is particularly evil. What is interesting for us today is that the passage of one age into another should be greeted with fear. At the start of Krita age, the earth was burdened. This is a standard term for overpopulation. Remember, when this epic was written there was very little civilisation. Cultivable land was very hard to salavage; forests had to be cleared, rivers had to be drained and if these events were bonze age or pre-bronze age, it would have been even worse. What I am saying is that a large part of the known world was simply inhabitable to man. The land where man could flourish was very small and this could be seized by strangers.

We do not know who exactly Asuras were. There is more than a likely chance that the term refered to a real people who were later metastatized to a myth. But, whoever they were they were overbreeding and a hero was required to set the record straight.

This fear of overbreeding of the enemy is palpable in many other epics and other religions too. It is also curiously a big issue of our time. It is palpable, for instance, in increasingly gloomy predictions of Europe and the rise of Eurabia; in the dying out of the West in general and the rise of Asia; in the ageing of Industrial world in general; I think it also lies at the heart of much of animosity toward Islamic world.

And this is not the exclusive preserve of religion. Last week, America surpassed its 300 million mark and many on the Left were openly aghast that such a thing has come to happen. Not to mention the environamentalists for whom the very advancement of human population is an anathema. I am not condemning this attitude; the fears maybe genuine.Since I have been writing on how similar modern world is to the ancient and how some of man's concerns have never changed, it is only apt to point out this fear. Looks like we haven't come far from the Stone Age.


88
Vote
   


Following up on my post about capitalism in ancient world.

I was asked how power shifted from one kingdom to another in the
ancient world and how superpowers developed when they had no nukes
back then. I am not a historian or a scholar but I will explain from
what I know. They didn't have nukes but every bit of technology made a
huge difference.The appearance of iron drastically changed the way war
was fought, so did the appearance of horses and chariots and the
invention of wheel.

Assyria had developed battering ram by which it could smash walls of
the cities and take them and not just plant a long siege outside the
walls. It is probably because of this that Assyria had to deport huge,
captive populations, something that was repeated by the Babylonians.
This made Assyria and its national god Ashur much feared around the
known world then. It is my hunch and I am not sure but that's why the
world assur stands for powerful gods or demons in most of the
Indo-European mythologies (aesir in Norse mythology, asuras in
Hinduism and Budhism, ahura in Persian).

Horses and chariots too made a huge difference; Hyksos in Egypt had
toppled the existing regime and Mitanni in Near East established a
huge empire because of their skill with horses. The Hittites became a
superpower when they stole a master horse- trainer from Mitanni and
developed their own horses. They were also the first to use the navy
in a battle.

The Parthians were known for their skill of shooting arrows backward
while riding on horses. This skill had given them such an advantage
that they became a feared opponent of the Romans. We still preserve
the term Parthian Shot. Some say even the Scythians had mastered this
skill a few centuries before.

Stirrups brought another revolution. Huns, I think, were the first to
master their use and with them had crossed from Asian steppe to
European heartland, a feat repeated by Mongols a thousand years later.
Mastering the navy made Athens into a superpower, a feat replicated by
the British. Building vast roads and inventing the corvus helped the
Romans.

Logistics too play a huge part in warfare. It is not enough to raise
huge armies; you need to have a lot of planning to move them across
difficult terrains. And world's greatest leaders from Alexander the
Great to Napolean were known for exactly this skill. Those who did not
possess this skill, those who had large armies but not enough skill to deploy them properly, figures like Darius, became known for their
hubris.

Whether it be a wheel or a battering ram, a stirrup or a corvus, each
of these inventions had made as much difference to the ancient world
as nuclear weapons and long range missile do to ours.

78
Vote
   


Ziggurat of Assur Source: Dearquologia.com


I found this suprebly fascinating account of capitalism in ancient world in Gwendolyn Leick's Mesopotamia: The Invention of the CIty which I reviewed before. Read on:

By giving the south Mesopotamian merchants an incentive to buy their tin at Ashur and to sell their wares, particularly fine textiles as well as perhaps copper imported from the Gulf via Ur, Ilshuma made Ashur into the hub of commercial connections. His successor, Erishum, claims to have made ‘silver, gold, copper, tin, barley and wool exempt from taxes’, thereby extending the favourable conditions for trade even further.

The copper and cloth that the Akkadians brought to Ashur were sold for silver and tin…….. It is likely that they took silver and cloth with them, and the Assyrians themselves set up their own trade representations in Anatolia, then a provincial country divided into many small principalities, rich in minerals and metals, and eager to acquire the latest fashion garments and cloth from Mesopotamia. Tin and Babylonian textiles, in several qualities, were transported from Ashur to central Anatolia, where the trading post (Assyrian karum) near Kanesh served as the main entrepot. Although, the government for Ashur seems to have levied some taxes, this was not a state but a private enterprise.

The merchants were entrepreneurs ‘driven by the desire to make profit’. Merchants worked in teams, usually composed of family members. The tin and cloth were transported to Kanesh by donkey caravan. They could either be sold there for silver and gold, which were sent back to Ashur, sealed, with a letter advising the recipient of the exact sum to expect, or else converted into other commodities, such as wool and copper, which were taken to other Anatolian towns, as far afield as the Black Sea, and exchanged there for silver and gold. The selling price for both tin and textiles was double the purchase price. ……….



A typical caravan from Ashur to Kanesh karum would consist of a team of five or six donkeys, in which each beast could carry a weight of 60 to 90 kilograms(2 to 3 talents)…………. It seems actual transport was handed over to specialist haulers who acted as representatives of the company.
Security does not seem to have been a great problem……………..Merchants across the Near East at that time had diplomatic immunity……..As the texts show, the merchants were well aware that ethical practice was essential to inspire confidence and secure repeat business. Weight stones were carefully checked and precise accounts were demanded by the partners of the company.

………………………………………................................................................

The merchant accounts have nothing to say about relations between the city and the local population, or about the role of the temples. This produces an impression that Ashur in the twentieth century BC was primarily a capitalist trading state whose wealth depended exclusively on mercantile enterprise, rather like Abbasid Baghdad of The Thousand and One Nights.

...........................................................................................................................

We are talking about 1800-1900 BC or thereabouts here. Ashur since then went to become the preeminent religious centre of Assyria and also, its political capital for many years. Assyria, remember was a world superpower in ancient times whose effect in religion, art and culture may be discerned even today.The site may be under water now. A dam was to be built close by. Normally, I woudln't have cared so much but I felt so sad after reading this. Ashur itself ahs not been excavated properly. The information above comes from the karum in Kanesh in Anatolia.


109
Vote
   


David Aaronovitch’s documentary No Excuses for Terror is doing the rounds of blogs around the world. It is a fairly damning indictment of the Left’s capitulation or worse, co-option of terrorism everywhere in the world. You can find the documentary here.

The movie however notes the facts but carefully stops from remarking on them. It doesn’t give even a single reason as to why Left has become an accessory to modern terrorism. It looks like some sections of Left apologising for the other sections of Left, saying in effect, we’re not all nuts here. Playing good cop, bad cop.

While at it, the movie also looks at the single, monolithic, no-dissent-allowed demonising of Israel. I am not a supporter of Israel, nor of Palestine. I have never been able to understand the centrality of Palestine issue in the world affairs. Millions are wiped out in ten days in Rwanda and the world barely registers. Thousands are killed in Darfur and the world hardly blinks an eye. There is a small gunshot or a riot in Palestine , it’s a front page news everywhere, Why? The documentary notes this too but without asking the question that should asked of the Left: Why?

Palestine is routinely presented as the biggest obstacle to world peace. Why? When somebody like Mr.Bush prosecutes his war on terror and rightly gives the “issue” the cold shoulder, he is advised by all and sundry to solve the Palestinian issue first and well, everything else will be solved automatically. How? Why should lives of people the world over be made hostage to what happens in this small dinky corner of the planet? I am not a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim or a Liberal and I assume there are at least a billion people like me and well, we’re not interested in what happens there.

The Jews built their temple here and thought that the restoration of the temple will be their restoration to an angry God. The Christians in turn made this their holy land and the Muslims followed suit. Not to be outdone, the leftists came next and thought well, if they can only erect a secular state in this piece of land, they can conquer the world imagination. A secular state on the holy land of Jerusalem. Just imagine. Followed by secular states everywhere.

This gives us a clue to Left as a social group. Yeah, of course like any other socio-political entity it posits itself by some principles. But, it’s existence owes not to the careful application of these so-called principles but like any gang it depends on just one thing: muscle. What it wants is a direct access to a collective imagination. Hence, whatever holds the imagination of a collective, thither go our friends. Principles? What principles?
89
Vote
   


We are all cowboys now ( and ever)

October 2nd 2006 03:41
The Divine Procreation Source:agnet.org


Cow-breeding is the basis of all civilizations. It is the very impulse of civilization. Until, we started breeding cows, we didn’t even feel the need to invent a civilization.

The Vedas which form the oldest religious literature extant are all about cattle-herding nomads who were moving across vast tracts of land and fighting cattle-stealing Panis and the dark raiders called Dasyus. Their god Indra was the ultimate cowboy, having retrieved the stolen cattle from a cave where they were hidden by the cattle-thieving dragon called Vala which was slain by our hero. Cattle-rustling, therefore, is the germ of all evil.

Not to be outdone, Egyptians worshipped a cow-goddess called Hathor. She was one of their oldest deities they had and one of the chiefest. Crete of course had a passionate love-affair with cows. The Cretan princess Pasiphae fell in passionate love with a cow and out of their union came the Minotaur. If this myth were read euhemeristically, one can imagine a cow boy past for Cretans at least on one side of the family.



And those snotty Europeans who sniff at the American cowboys with scorn should do well to remember that their eponymous ancestor from whom they derived their very name was a cow. Papa Zeus used his bull-sized bullocks to empty into the bovine beauty Europa, the union which produced the continent of Europe. The illustrious ancestry explains the rather bovine intelligence of present day Europeans. Cows, you see, are gormless creatures that are always driving themselves into trouble. That is why they need some hot men to shepherd them to safety.

The one people who were definitely not cowboys were Jews and that is why they don’t exactly fit in this cow-herding world because they were herding sheep (wandering Jews and all that). Yahweh is a jealous god because he was a sheep god and the one god he was most jealous of all, Baal of the Canaanites, is a cow god! But poor Jews were always being attracted to cow-worship. It is this incessant attraction that nagged Yahweh so much that he thought to buy them off with a piece of choice real estate.

But Yahweh’s doppelganger Allah wags a threatening finger at all the cow-herders. His idea of victory is not that his own sheep people should follow him and leave the idolatry of cow people but that there should not be any cow people at all. He tries to buy off sheep people who obliterate cow-herders with a prime real estate with seventy juicy bonuses, only on the other side. The clash of civilizations rightly is between the people of the cow and the people of the sheep.

This brings us to Americans. Cowboys are the greatest emblem of American culture apart from cheerleaders and air guitarists. There is something blessed about this young nation reminding us all about our immigrant, cow herding past, the cow-blood that we have in all of us. We need reminding. No matter how many decadent rags we piled up on our outer selves, our inner life, our myths, our religions and hence the very stuff of our ideas have been shaped at one point of time by tending to cows.

When the world is coming to nuts by the inherent jealousies of those sheep-herding tower-collapsers, it is entirely fitting that the civilised cow-breeding world should be marshalled by a cowboy president.
65
Vote
   


The religiosity of the secular world

September 27th 2006 02:25
Hell and Secular World : The Religiosity of the Moderns


I am plodding through Dante's Inferno translated by Robert Pinsky,“widely-admired American poet” . So far, the verse is wooden and there is little inspiration or lyricism to be found here.

However, the edition comes with a nice foreword by one John Freccero. I will borrow a few words of his for today.

Commenting on the Comedy’s relation to the Augustinian tradition, Freccero writes, “The City of God and The City of Man were thought to be spiritual states, the antithetical allegiances of those who actually live together in the real city.” Heaven and Hell were cities for sinners and saints and “the earthly city was therefore an encampment in which saints and sinners meet and mingle as pilgrims en route to opposite directions.”

Beautiful as they are, we will not dwell on those remarks today. My point is different. Surveying how Dante has been received in modern times, Freccero writes, “The sense in which Hell stands for the real world has never been lost on Dante’s readers.”

Inferno is a “City of Man in the afterlife, which is why it contains no glimmer of forgiveness. At the same time, it may also be thought of as a radical representation of the world in which we live, stripped of all temporizing and all hope.”

Pray, why is the world in which we live stripped of all hope? These remarks, remember, do not tell you what Dante is but how he is taken or should be taken today. Do not bother about that medieval theology, the series of punishments, the moderns are saying here, read Dante because his hell is our reality.

The foreword continues--“Over the centuries, according to Auerbach, the sheer forces of Dante’s verses actually came to subvert his moralizing intention, transforming a medieval system of punishments and rewards into an autonomous, secular world, much like this one, in which human characters no longer signify anything, as Dante may have wished, but simply are in all of their tragic humanity.”

Dante's Inferno Source : art.gothic.ru



A distinguishing feature of any religion is not what it says what afterlife will be but what it says about life here. And all religions agree that life here is not an end in itself. The gloomy glasses through which many religions look at this world is not dependant on any historical accident; it is the nature of the world to be profoundly unsatisfying. It is because this world is so unsatisfying, religions can even putate an afterlife.

Now, turn a thought to our secular modernists and you will find they share this quality with all the religions; they too are not satisfied with the world we live in. The religious would say that the world is sinful, evil or corrupt and the modern would point out that it simply has no meaning. In the world according to Auerbach, human characters no longer signify anything, but simply are. Take the usually recommended classics of our literature--Flaubert’s Madame Bovary or Joyce’s Ulysses or Eliot’s Wasteland or Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for the Godot. None of them is a celebration. Each one of them is a mournful dirge that plaintively sings, something is wrong with this world.

That something usually turns out to be capitalism in the hands of vulgar theoreticians, or in the shrinking conceptual boundaries of today, American “hegemony.” But the individual prescriptions of what is wrong are not my main point. Even I would agree that there are many things wrong with the world. But, what I am talking about is this belief that it is the nature of the world to be so unsatisfactory.

Dante was an exile when writing the Comedy; a real exile, not a figurative one. His inferno therefore, “is also the state of the world as seen by an exile whose experience has taught him no longer to trust the world’s values.”

This state of exile is the one vantage point where the modern literature feels comfortable enough to see things. It wants to be an exile. Camus’s Mersault, Kafka’s K or Nabokov’s Humbert Humbert, exiles in one way or the other. Paradise is the natural home of the soul and banished from it, the soul is in exile.

The moderns feel they are torn away from their paradise which they have just transposed from beyond death to before. And banished from this interiorized paradise, they are in an exile and no longer trust the world’s values. Like the souls bearing the punishments in Inferno, they signify nothing but simply are. Think Freud’s man who lives in constant state of anxiety because he has been torn away from the security of the mother’s breast or Foucault’s panopticism.

This is what tells us that our modern auteurs are not so different from the medieval theologians whom they profess to have surpassed. Modernism has lost heaven, has lost hell, it has lost afterlife, has lost gods, good and evil but what it has retained is this belief that the world we live is by its very nature unsatisfactory and they are nothing but exiles in it torn from some unclear natural abode. In that aspect, the so called moderns are still at one with the hoariest of the theologians.

No matter how agnostic, atheistic, secular and modern they profess to be, they have not lost religion yet.

[ Letters in bold represent my emphasis. Italics mean emphasis in the original]
115
Vote
   


Does War on Terror increase terrorism?

September 25th 2006 03:27
The Grey Lady swings its grim reaper again. In case you don’t know yet, that’s a nice and suitable moniker for The New York Times which leaked an “intelligence memo”, purportedly saying that the war in terror increased the numbers of terrorists by radicalising Islamists further. As if they needed any more radicalising.

The report if it existed is pure political gold and one can expect a lot of use will be made of it. But how serious is it? On the one hand the conclusion is so blasé, one wonders why it was made at all. After all the radicals are going to seize every available excuse to further their cause. The fundamental dynamic of any cause is to demonise the factor that resists it and use this portrayal for its furtherance. So, if the war has radicalised more people, that was the risk taken and an expected one at that. What the war is supposed to do was to dismember the networks and infrastructure and on this the same report says that the war has done that rather well. It was not supposed to prevent morbid fantasising of idle people.

Many people today try to discredit the war on terror by saying that it produces more terrorists than before and therefore is self-defeating. Let’s see. Would we raise the same moral objection, let us say, when a young kid is sexually assaulted? Most rapists would allege that their victims invited it upon themselves and therefore deserved it. After all that’s their line of defence. Without it they wouldn’t have any protection to hide behind.

The same goes for terrorists. Without the ready excuse of the war, they wouldn’t have an excuse to hide behind, to blur moral parameters.

But for the rest of us a question remains. Would we accuse a young victim who might speak against an aggressor for provoking all those would-be child molesters and whetting their appetite? Curiously enough, I have seen this done in traditional societies to suppress knowledge of rape, and not that of children alone. Well, we’re doing the same thing when we say that the War on Terror or the Iraq War enable terrorism to flourish.

Sure, there are parties who will make political buck out of such reports. That’s their living. But should we let terrorists to make a moral buck out of it?

128
Vote
   


Torture and Moral Equivalence

September 23rd 2006 09:47
After my catfight at Damo’s blog, perhaps I should make my stance clear. The points I made should not be even taken seriously only if because my typing was so atrocious. But yes, I think I need to make my stance on torture clear.

Can I torture somebody? Yes. I regularly torture any unfortunate creature who just happens to talk to me. Would that be helpful in eliciting info from terror suspects? Probably not. Would sleep deprivation, cold floors, belly slapping and waterboarding help? Probably yes. Most people say that information extracted after torture is useless because the victim will assent to whatever you say or give you bogus information. As I have said before, my kind of torture has not been even successful in eliciting the name of my brother’s girlfriend. So, I am not an expert. But under a theoretical chance of in formation that could save lives, would such techniques be useful? I’ll take that chance.

The Abu Gharib Torture Picture


If the contention that information under torture is often useless, then why would CIA agents want to do it? Because they are sadists? Because American government itself is one giant torture machine? I am not impressed by such arguments. They are after information and their value and survival, both that of CIA and the Bush administration, would depend on the validity of that information. So why would they jeopardise their positions if that axiom about torture is inviolate?

The question is not about torture then. They would of course pursue other means of persuasion if and when they are available. When they are not and this is the only recourse they have, well they have to do that. What they have done in the recent weeks is ask that they be not placed in some limbo. Either provide enough legal backup for their interrogation techniques or else they will stop the program altogether.

Does that make America similar to Stalin as according to Damo or no better than Osama, as according to Ahmed? For all such questions, there is just one answer. In Roman Empire, Caesar’s wife Octavia was alleged to be adulterous. Caesar had her executed on the contention that a Caesar’s wife should be above reproach.

I have never visited America and I am not an American. But in the argument for moral superiority, I will only say this: America doesn’t have to follow a Caesar’s wife code of ethics. Either when it comes to “torturing” for information or aggressively prosecuting a war on terror.

America needs only to ask one question: is it really necessary going to all this bother? And would it really save lives? If yes, by all means do it.

Just because you are an “advanced country” or a “superpower”, doesn’t mean you have to follow ethereal standards which no one else is even willing to adopt or manifest in behaviour. There is an element of irony in having this issue back on agenda only when America is involved and is conveniently off the agenda when others are.

If the rest of the free societies whether they are in Europe or here in Australia do not do this sort of thing that’s only because they flourish under the umbrella of security you provide which means in effect, they have delegated these unpleasant duties to you; and the rest of the world which is not free, well you don’t have to explain apologise about the defence of your freedom to them.

As Ayn Rand once said “adherence to a principle is shown by the defence of its least attractive practitioners.” (Quoting from memory. I hate to quote people because that would be appropriating their words and use them in contexts they might not approve of.)

The principle here is simply, the defence of freedom. So would I be willing to torture people for freedom? You betcha. Will I do it myself? I’d do it if I could. Because I can’t, I am typing in defence of those who’d have to do it for me.










96
Vote
   


Harry Potter must die

September 18th 2006 12:39
I have never done this before but everyone has a first time. I am going throw my hat into the ring and start speculating how and when Harry Potter will die. It’s plain Rowling has decided to kill Harry. I had my suspicions when I read The Half-Blood Prince.

It’s this song by Horace Slughorn that made the alarm bells ring:

And Odo the hero, they bore him back home
To the place that he’d known as a lad,
They laid him to rest with his hat inside out
And his wand snapped in two, which was sad.’


Why include this song if not to give us a hint that Harry might be Odo? Well, I didn’t think much about it after ward until I read the recent updates JKR made to website. This is what she had to say:

Now that I'm back from New York, the only real news is that I'm continuing to work hard on the book. I've done quite a lot, and I'm really enjoying it, though every now and then I look up and realise that it's THE LAST ONE. You might think I'd have got used to that idea during the sixteen years I've been planning seven books, but it still keeps hitting me... no more Harry after this... and then I bury myself in book seven again and tell myself I've still got plenty to write.

Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter


The heightened security restrictions on the airlines in August made the journey back from New York interesting, as I refused to be parted from the manuscript of book seven (a large part of it is handwritten, and there was no copy of anything I had done while in the US). They let me take it on, thankfully, bound up in elastic bands. I don't know what I would have done if they hadn't; sailed home, probably.

I am currently trying to decide between two possible titles. I was quite happy with one of them until the other one struck me while I was taking a shower in New York. They would both be appropriate, so I think I'll have to wait until I'm further into the book to decide which one works best.


No more Harry...Can it be any plainer? There Harry, you’re a goner, mate.

Most people assume that it is Voldemort who is going to kill Harry. And if Harry has to die, then Voldemort has to live, according to the prediction. Even JKR won’t be that bad to let evil triumph right? Wrong. Because Voldemort is not the only one who is after Harry. There is Snape, there is Draco, there is Bella and not to mention a bunch of death eaters waiting for Harry. I think Harry will vanquish Voldie but die by some other means.

192
Vote
   


The Dan Brown Secret

September 4th 2006 01:42
Dan Brown Source: The Age


The enormous success of Dan Brown and the subsequent rise of the cottage industry of literate thrillers raises an interesting question. Why this kind of thriller and why now? Writing a review of Matthew Pearl’s The Poe Shadow, Chritopher Benfrey says that increasingly fiction is being invaded by fact and this means that “imagination” and “serious fiction” are in decline. He also is not impressed by Ingrid Rowland’s claims that the success of these thrillers could be “a longing to take Western heritage seriously.”

It is very dubious to claim that novels which are based on fact are not works of imagination. Novelists like Matthew Pearl are serious researchers and instead of writing a thesis on their new findings, they incorporate the new material in their fiction. Does that make their efforts less imaginative? “Serious fiction” might as well be in decline and there may be other reasons for it. But, Benfrey’s assessment conforms to the standard formula of dismissing popular culture by the elitocrats.

Nevertheless, what do Dan Brown and Matthew Pearl portend to the world? That the western civilization is under siege and this popular outburst of Western culture is the last gasp of the West before it sinks into nothingness? Or does it represent the continuous debasement of the aristocracy of wisdom in the age of internet? After all, Da Vinci and Caravaggio and Dante were once province of high culture and university arm chairs, names to be reverently whispered in art galleries. Imagine the discomfort of the aesthetically privileged class seeing those names packed into paperbacks and read on trains!

Matthew Pearl Source: Random House



But, I personally think that the answer is much simpler than that. As I noted earlier, material like this was is in use much earlier than Dan Brown. What Dan Brown did was to use this material in a conventional thriller which was in decline after the Cold War. Dan Brown himself wrote two conventional thrillers which didn’t do that well before he wrote Angels and Demons, the first of Richard Langdon series. He explicitly states that Robert Ludlum was a great inspiration for him to write the Da Vinci Code.

So, the extraordinary success of these novels might be indicative of the fact that we are out of Cold War and farther and farther from it. No longer under threat of nuclear destruction, we want our heroes not to stop bombs in the hands of rogue nations but find a missing Caravaggio painting or the Holy Grail and increase our aesthetic education or make us immortal .

And yes, I haven’t forgotten the terrorists. The latest novel by Frederic Forsyth, master of the cold war era thrillers like the Odessa File or The Day of the Jackal, is called The Afghan. The more the things change, the more they remain the same.

65
Vote
   


If you peel an onion, you find a nazi

August 23rd 2006 03:20
The controversy in the literary world last week was about one of its most famous stars, Gunter Grass admitting that he had been an SS agent in the past. Grass is famous for using Germany as his punching bag, for its collective amnesia for German past excesses. He is also famous for taking those extraordinary positions that only pundits of his kind are able to do: glorifying the prison house that was East Germany, opposing German reunification because it meant that East Germany would become like the West and not the other way round, trashing Ronald Reagan for his visit to a war cemetery that housed SS agents, his former comrades as it turns out. Grass is coming out with a new biography and has decided to use the occasion of its release to issue the obligatory late life mea culpa. The biography is called Peeling The Onion.

It offers a couple of interesting vignettes. He crawled under a Soviet rocket launcher when his unit was fighting the Russians and wet his pants. “I see myself, as I had learned, crawl under the tank…For three minutes, an eternity, the organ played. Beset by fear, I wet myself. Then silence…" Those who are familiar with his The Tin Drum know his fondness for this particular body fluid. It may not have been a sign of fear; you feel the micturating pressure when you are terribly excited too.

When the war ended he was picked up by Americans and released by them after he confessed his SS role. Nobody had bothered to look for the document in the military archives, in itself a symbol of the collective amnesia of Germans that Grass was so found of excoriating. The surrender to the Yankees, the confession—humiliation enough to warrant a lifetime of bitterness.

Who knows? And who can judge? "Anyone who wants to pass judgment can pass judgment," the author says at one place. He lived with this shame for years, he says elsewhere. His greatest fear is that he will be made a persona non grata. Can you detect any shame in these fruit-cakey confessions, in that title of his biography? I can’t. It almost looks like he enjoys this.

The press is suitably apologetic and the big papers like The New York Times have already sounded the bugle of the defensive. The criticism is from the conservatives, The New York Times notes, which probably makes it automatically discredited. But Grass’s past, his long non-disclosure of the facts do not or should not affect how we read his work which is beautiful in itself. I don’t know. If anything, this incident proves that we need a fight against another kind of amnesia. The one against the complicity of the Left with every kind of fundamentalism, whether in the past or the present.

Source : The Times of London
92
Vote
   


Moderated by nagster
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]