Roberto Bolaño's Secret of Evil

Robert Bolaño writes as though describing a parallel world. If Stendhal walked the streets with a mirror on his back, Bolaño dropped the mirror from an aeroplane over a faraway place that only he could understand.

Anyone who has ever turned to writing will know the feeling of invalidity that comes from penning even a single sentence of fiction. Bolaño’s best short stories and greatest novels were composed with such utter simplicity they achieve nothing and everything.

Ignacio Echevarría, in his introduction to the latest collection of translations, The Secret of Evil, calls this phenomenon Bolaño’s “poetics of inconclusiveness”.

The second story in this collection is brief and describes a journalist meeting an anonymous source in the streets of Paris in the middle of the night. Bolaño addresses the reader directly, like he would a future self.

This story is very simple, although it would have been very complicated. Also, it’s incomplete, because stories like this don’t have an ending.

It opens thus, with structural awareness, apparently confronting the reality of his impending death. What the reader should take away is unclear, inconclusive. The remainder of the story offers little explanation.

The Parisian journalist was “a watcher with no one to watch him in turn” and had something “sad about his smile”. Paradox and cyclicality, so often traits of Bolaño’s stories, cavort with implosion and oxymoron whether through character or metaphor.

The Old Man of the Mountain reflects on the author’s lifelong friendship with Ulises Lima. Expressed vicariously through Bolaño’s alter-ego, Arturo Belano, the reader learns of “two young men sentenced to life”, somehow cursed to exist. In response they “both try in vain to find happiness or get themselves killed”; life propels them onward, yet their relationship has the circularity of a Beckett play.

In Scholars of Sodom Bolaño walks the tiles of Buenos Aires in the shoes of V.S. Naipul, who finds the practice of anal sex exasperating. In Argentina sodomy has become a byword for ownership.

If you haven’t fucked your lover or your girlfriend up the ass, you haven’t really taken possession of her.

Cultural insecurities are manifest in the act of violation thinly veiled by this superficial display of machismo. The author beats the drum of paradox to end the story by describing a lover as “queen and slave” to perfectly diagnose the problem in three words.

As the volume draws into its second half the stories are less complete. Besides contradiction and circularity, Bolaño introduces themes typical to his canon: sex, violence, and identity.

Perhaps his most autobiographical story, I Can’t Read portrays the author’s children and their dreams. His son, Lautoro is a dreamer who has developed a method of approaching automatic doors undetected. Bolaño, perpetually battling the loss of youthful idealism, tries in vain to mimic the boy by crawling up to doors only to be recognized, identified, exposed.

Sevilla Kills Me, the penultimate story of the collection continues Bolaño’s exploration of literature as an entity in itself. He once wrote that “poetry is braver than anyone”, and here he claims that “writing that plumbs the depths with open eyes doesn’t sell” while lamenting the readiness of young writers to sell and sell themselves.

No other has ever shown such determined commitment to the power of words. From his works we may conclude almost nothing, only that one’s idealism must never falter, nor the war for literature be ever lost.

Can It

In an unusual display of humour, the Millwall supporters sang "We can see you holding hands" to the presumably unimpressed Brighton faithful during Saturday's league fixture at the Den. One assumes they weren't directing their chants at the Lib Dem conference-goers, who seem wildly various in their non-support for Nick Clegg and the party lines.

BBC Radio 5 Live provided unstimulating coverage all day today, culminating in the Deputy Prime Minister's keynote address. One can always gauge the mood of a party not by how much or how often it applauds its leader, but rather by how abruptly the applause starts and stops. In the same way that the Football League show regularly overdubs furious cheering whenever a lower-league side scores to make it seem as though the game was well attended, Clegg was interrupted by what sounded like canned applause.

Clegg spoke as if narrating a children's book. Not only does he sounds more like David Cameron with every passing day, but he also seems to have adopted that management-speak PR guff that proves so popular with no one. And clapping in unison is not fooling anyone. The likelihood that this country faces the prospect of another coalition government, in one form or another, after the next general election is rather disheartening.

Taxi Driver

Martin Scorsese's 1976 classic, Taxi Driver explores the depths of delusion and degradation to which a man will descend before committing himself to the abyss. The script spreads thick a sub-story of political nuance, juxtaposed against the workingman's realities of sorrow and forgotten ambition.

During a catalytic scene, friend and fellow cabbie, Wizard, played by Peter Boyle, describes for Robert DeNiro's character how "a man takes a job, you know, and that job [...] becomes what he is".

The closing scenes, as they draw towards the movie's bloody conclusion, slice through Wizard's straightforward notion of identity. In the same way a politician goes home to a wife and family, a young girl pimped for sex isn't altogether a prostitute, and a taxi driver doesn't sit all day in a yellow box on wheels. Yet somehow we're left with this image. A man becomes his job.

I've struggled with this scene for a long time. How does it drive Travis under, into the void, into violence and psychological furor? Do we watch as he shoots his way through the walls of Wizard's theory? I can't help but feel that, for all his intent, Travis fires into the air. Maybe literature has the answer; a writer, after all, is a writer.

Insult

Today Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf said the following:

If denying the Holocaust is a crime, then is it not fair and legitimate for a Muslim to demand that denigrating and demeaning Islam's holiest personality is no less than a crime?

It would be an insult to you if I were to waste time by pulling that statement apart.

Confrontation and Contradiction

Over the course of the past week I've written about the protests as a phenomenon that used the 'Innocence of Muslims' trailer merely as a launchpad. Simultaneously, however, I've written about the need to defend freedom of expression, including the video, at all costs. Arguing that the riots and protests are about more than a clip on YouTube while defending the clip itself is not a contradiction.

In contrast, CNN asked the question on Wednesday, following the French magazine, Charlie Hebdo's publication of a cartoon satirizing the prophet Muhammad, whether it represented free speech or incitement.

Equally, but perhaps even more annoyingly (read the comments section if you really want to get wound up), the Guardian polls its readers about the Hebdo cartoon: "an important assertion of free speech or a senseless and dangerous provocation?" Failure to realize that the two are mutually exclusive needs to be addressed.

Likewise, the United States administration's attempt to cajole its way into Pakistani hearts with this rather frustrating advertisement spews up problems that go beyond oxymoron. The ad replays footage of President Obama's speech in which he condemned the violent attackers. The message runs:

Since our founding the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

At the time I noted how irritating and unnecessary that second sentence was and is. What's more, on this occassion, the all-important corollary has been left on the cutting-room floor:

But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Instead, the ad cuts to a shot of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and we watch as the marbles fall out of her mouth. Speaking of the video, she states:

The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. American's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. [Italics mine]

Of course, drawing distance between the filmmakers and the government is important, but to say they "absolutely reject its content", like a jury condemning a suspect on account not only of his actions but also for his dress-sense, is besides the point. This is not a foray into film criticism.

It's unknown how much or how little influence Obama and Clinton had in piecing together the advertisement; it was edited and distributed by the US embassy in Islamabad. I suspect, as a PR exercise, it may have a marginal impact, but the shameful redaction of key statements pertaining to the egregious overreaction of many protestors, far outweighs any short-term gain.

Confrontations of this nature, whether we like it or not, take place in our own backyard, because it attacks our society at the core. And it's personal.

On Monday in Beirut Hezbollah's secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah said, "the U.S. should understand that if it broadcasts the film in full it will face very dangerous repercussions around the world." Hezbollah repeatedly stirs unrest in Lebanon and elsewhere. They are exactly the sort of organization intent on manipulating anger towards the west for their own ends. They should not be taken lightly. As Michael Totten writes:

Nasrallah knows perfectly well that when an individual uploads a video to YouTube, it doesn’t count as 'the United States broadcasting a film.' That’s actually his point. He’s not threatening the United States in the abstract. He’s threatening you. If you insult Hassan Nasrallah’s religion on the Internet, terrorists may come after you.

Stand Together

After my stab yesterday at reconciling freedom of speech with Muslim reprisal, I realize there's a hole in my propositions. In some instances, stating the obvious carries a long way.

Confronting the enemy on the battleground of religious censorship is essential, especially when the lines are drawn on pages of scripture than oftentimes themselves deserve our contempt. Besides refusing to capitulate, and furnishing ourselves with a greater understanding not necessarily of what our aggressors thinks, but rather how they think, it is also imperative that we unite behind those accused.

Having kept abreast of this issue since the first riot outside the US embassy in Cairo last week, not once in online reports have I seen a hyperlink to the clip, 'The Innocence of Muslims', from any of the major news outlets such as the BBC, the Guardian, or CNN. This is shameful and a stark display of capitulation and cowardice. There is no legal conflict. I have linked to the video three times from this blog. Given the western media's utter reliance upon the tenets of free speech, one would expect a greater show of solidarity.

The internet has revolutionized the ways we access information, and that information frequently becomes news in itself. Regardless of the sensitivity or nature of the subject matter, reporters and newsgroups have a responsibility, if only for their audience, to reproduce that information.

I experienced this problem myself in 2008 when the campus newspaper in Arizona, the Daily Wildcat printed a cartoon satirizing American perceptions in the run-in to the presidential elections that depicted a man telling a neighbor: "We're voting for the nigger". The letters department in the newsroom was inundated with messages of disgust from students seemingly ignorant to the nuances of the piece. Despite my letter of complaint, the paper never reprinted the cartoons.

Similarly, in 2005 when a Danish magazine published 9 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, the only magazine to print the images in the United States was Free Inquiry. Borders bookstores summarily removed the magazine from its shelves.

A day or two ago I was directed to this piece in The Onion that, in their words, features "cherished figures from multiple religious faiths [...] depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity." That's a start, but I can't remove from my mind the image of a man laughing at his own joke, showing-off a toothless grin in an ecstasy of bravado and self-congratulation. You'll note the inclusion of all figureheads of all the major religions with one telling omission.

Now is the time to reprint the cartoons, broadcast the films and documentaries on television, buy a Salman Rushdie novel, and keep reprinting and rebroadcasting until the Islamic militants and murderers lose count of targets to avenge.

Comments

I've somehow managed to integrate comments on blog posts with Facebook. I have no idea how this works or how reciprocal the system is, but feel free to try it. Who knows, it may bring a wider audience.

Solving the Problem

In the comments to my last post JP asks, "how do we solve the problem?". It's a good question, a very good question. As I've thought about a possible answer I've found myself reaching for the language of parenthood, as though telling a teenager not to stay out too late or drive too fast. You're in with a bad crowd.

First, we've learned throughout this past week that appeasement is not the solution. In the interests of those involved, including the United States' administration, every effort should be made to recall how Salman Rushdie issued a full and candid apology in 1989 for any offense he may have caused in publishing The Satanic Verses, which did nothing to curtail the rioters and assassins from spiraling into a rage. There are those to whom one cannot appeal in this way.

Likewise, are we still foolish enough to consider these current acts of aggression a direct response to a video on YouTube? Leaders of Islamist sects rely on aggression and bitterness, however deluded, to stir their supporters into a frenzy lest they see their power come to naught. This is evidenced by the burning of the Israeli and British flags, the protests at the German, British, and Dutch embassies, and not least of all the attacks on the American embassies, wherein those responsible for the video itself have never stepped.

There is little to which one can turn besides fixing the onus firmly on the side of Muslims worldwide. Without wishing to seem frivolous, they have a lot of growing up to do. William Saletan writes in Slate: "Dear Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Jews, you’re living in the age of the Internet. Your religion will be mocked, and the mockery will find its way to you. Get over it." Sadly, just as the US embassy workers in Libya, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Susan Rice, and some dissenters in the media fail to realize how their statements align all too well with the views of the violent mobs, the violent mobs similarly don't realize how perfectly their actions fit the narrative intended by those they seek to revenge.

As I noted on Wednesday, Milton's speech on religious censorship in 1644 highlighted a paradox; those seeking to silence others often appeal to texts that themselves warrant censoring. The sooner Muslim demonstrators recognize that they are unwittingly playing out a huge false antithesis, the sooner they can start exercising their minds without one hand strapped behind their backs.

If we are to solve the problem it is absolutely imperative we furnish ourselves with a better understanding of the forces we defy. Tarek Masoud, an associate professor of public policy at Harvard, notes that the protests, as is frequently the case, are "organizedby political actors with agendas to advance". Successive to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the military junta was replaced by an elected government, an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Masoud writes:

Though it’s not clear yet who choreographed the current moment of excitement, there are lots of people who stand to benefit from it. First, and most obviously, are other Islamists who wish to usurp the Brotherhood’s throne as the principal defender of Islam. Staging protests against the United States isn’t just a way of casting stones at the Great Satan, it’s also a way of showing up the Brotherhood, of saying that the group is too weak or corrupted by power to do anything to protect Islam’s honor.

The Brotherhood in Egypt, alongside many of its neighboring nations, have a constitutionally Islamic regime. On the one hand, were their leaders to condemn the protests, they appear to undercut their values and court western favor, whereas on the other, by damning the US they invite the strongest opposition.

Lastly, those of us intent on maintaining our freedoms, faced with confronting this problem, ought to stick up for ourselves. No, we won't rewrite our founding principles because you've killed our representatives abroad, terrorized our civilians, and burned our flags. To the contrary, we will stand by them, and we won't relinquish them to our dying breath.

A Note in Time

People who are utterly secure in their God should be above taking physical revenge when offended.

~ Ian McEwan writing for the Guardian, reflecting on Salman Rushdie's fatwa, 14.9.2012.

The Violence, Delusion and Denial of Muslims

Every now and then, whether they appear to realize it or not, the BBC throws up a phrase or sentence that invites redistribution. Yesterday an anonymous staff reporter for the World News page, in response to the film, The Innocence of Muslims, wrote: "The film depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a womaniser and leader of a group of men who enjoy killing." Hilarious.

Not so funny however, were the comments of Egypt's current Prime Minister Hisham Qandil, who claimed it is "unacceptable to insult our prophet". Here, his use of the possessive pronoun, 'our', is rather jarring as it suggests he acknowledges that the prophet Muhammad is not everyone's prophet.

His statement also comes after President Obama, on Egypt, declared: "I don't think we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy." This is significant. Although one would be hard-pressed to think of Egypt in its present manifestation as an ally, for the President of the United States to say so is telling.

Qandil goes on, grinding his teeth, squirming in his suit, walking the PR line when he should have stayed silent:

Egyptians, Arabs, Muslims - we need to reflect the true identity of Muslims, how peaceful they are, and talk to the Western media about the true heart of the Muslims, that they condemn violence. At the same time we need to reach a balance between freedom of expression and to maintain respect for other peoples' beliefs.

He would do well to turn the volume up with regard to condemning the violence. There is a direct, linear relationship between Islam and the mobs who have killed civilians, marines, embassy workers and an ambassador. For Qandil to label Muslims "peaceful" is laughable at best, and deluded at worst. I'm in danger of repeating myself, but again, this is unacceptable.

Dissatisfied with a bullet in one foot, Qandil shoots himself in the other when asked about the First Amendment. He says:

I think we need to work out something around this because we cannot wait and see this happen again. [The United States should] take the necessary measures to ensure insulting billions of people, one-and-a-half billion people and their beliefs, does not happen.

Never has the pack mentality been better illustrated than during Muslim protests. Appealing in such a way to the supposed representation of Muslims across the world is sinister, threatening, and pathetic. Whether I insult one person or a billion persons, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are both non-negotiable foundations to our principles.

Lastly, supporting my thesis that it's not about a movie, Lee Smith writes in the Weekly Standard:

To debate the right of an American to criticize religion does not indicate sophisticated sensitivity to the feelings of others but a willingness to turn tail and abandon our principles at the first sign of a fight. And to take seriously the notion that all those riots and attacks are about a video, not about American principles and power and policy, is silly

I strongly recommend reading his whole piece, here.