Saturday, January 15, 2011

Sweet Poeticizing


Reading Hart Crane

Call the emperor of ice cream, your love
intoned, but you tongued at the infinite
apostrophe of height, your genitive
O's not birthing for all that sound. And that

rhythm of his play, all its comedy
concealed, the laughter eluding the frame
you held your subjects into by force--Be
serious!--you were a child, and no rhyme

could bear the sulking syllable you
bent with the weight of white buildings, with all
the humor of him, loosing that through
which you sought high water. Who saw you fall,

or heard the long vowel in the words that veiled
the reasons why his laughter made you wail?
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Monday, January 10, 2011

PC Culture and the Destruction of Difference

The upcoming NewSouth version of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn will excise controversial language, specifically replacing the word "nigger" with "slave."  And the furor over this news has cast Mark Twain's work, which raised the collective bloodpressure even in his day, back into the center of the public buzz, revealing that the United States still stumbles over history and has not yet found a way to deal soberly with what it has done and been.  Indeed, movie critic Roger Ebert has dramatized this unresolved tension in recent days--reacting initially against the edition and later retracting his comments.  As a southern, white Christian, lifelong student of history, and man of letters, I have not been surprised by the indigestion revealed in Ebert's comments and their aftermath.  I must confess that, much like Ebert, I am not likely to be called either nigger or slave in my lifetime.  I am therefore completely unaware of the pain this causes in those who hear it.  It is common these days to pretend that race is no longer sensitive business.  But I cannot act as if I haven't received certain privileges wholly on the basis of my race.  That is quite simply how it is, and pretending otherwise actually would disqualify whatever I might say about this issue a priori.  I hope, having admitted this, I can offer my voice honestly in a conversation that must happen if we are not to be controlled by a past we cannot change and cannot, thus far, reconcile.  About all this, therefore, I posit the following:  contemporary American culture, obsessed as it is by political correctness, has actually dispossessed itself of the tools it might use to effectively process its history and make peace.

Ironically, the processing of difference is exactly the theme of Huck Finn that will be destroyed by the edition soon to be released in February.  Huck Finn is as unpretentious as he is memorable, and probably his most defining trait is an openness to the education of experience, coupled with a distrust of theory as a means of knowledge.  His disinterest in either school or religion comes in favor of a hands-on practicality that makes him far more malleable than most of his readers would wish him.  Critics, much like Huck's own aunt, have wanted to civilize Huck, to force him to be an emblem of something; to stand still and bear the meaning they themselves would ascribe to him.  Huck, as both character and novel, resists pigeonholing; as with the river he rambles, one never steps into the same Huck twice.  But this new edition will rob Huck of the stakes of change.  Indeed, it is hard not to see how the book will not merely appear ridiculous if published as NewSouth plans to do. 


Ridiculous!--Take the famous King and Duke fraud in chapter 24, for example.  Huck's disgust at the way the King and Duke pretend to be brothers of the dead Peter Wilks would be totally meaningless if written thus:

Well, if I ever struck anything like it, I'm a slave.  It was enough to make a body ashamed of the human race.

The word "slave" is utterly meaningless in that context, even as a veiled insult.  The sentence after it makes reference to the human race, written in contrast with the original's nigger.  Thus, the one and the other are put on opposite poles of reality.  Twain does it masterly--Huck's unconscious formulation of these poles reveals that these categories are beneath his conscious organizing of the world.   They are self-evident to him, and they must be.  The word nigger places an entire race of people, regardless of status, into one docket.  The word "slave," denoting an institution (and excluding freed blacks) would be less painful, only because it would have no meaning.  But stripping Huck's implicit racism away from him lobotomizes the entire relationship he develops with Jim.  And then what is to be made of Huck's summation of Jim:

I do believe he cared just as much for his people as white folks does for their'n.
If race is not allowed its full divisory power in this story, this statement is robbed of all its force.  And Huck is robbed of his goodness; and the story of its polemic; and history of its educative potential; and humanity of its....

It is a credit to Twain that Huck never ceases to be of his own time.  From beginning to end, he never stops either saying nigger or making racially-based assumptions.  The categories that exist in his subconscious remain that way, even as his conscious mind begins to process new data.  This is the crucial interpretive fact of the story.  The categories by which humans understand the world are formulated based on enormous amounts of information digested before it is even articulable.  The process of unlearning that information is a lifelong endeavor, requiring nearly innumerable conscious admissions like that of Huck in the quote about Jim's caring for his own people.  That Twain respects the almost unbearable slowness of the process is part of why Huck Finn is an immortal novel and Remember the Titans is an already-forgotten piece of kitsch cinema.

The ironic turnabout of this is that Huck, refusing to stand still, endures forever as a character even so.  The vividness of the currents of opinion concerning the NewSouth release testify to this.  Huck is still speaking, and his words still cut the veins of the culture, whether we like it or not.  His insistence on being his own man, on adapting to his experience, on fluidity, means that he faces every era the same.  His timelessness is absolutely a product of his profound rootedness in his own culture.  And the ways he adapts are robbed of their power to address and teach, let alone to entertain, if we divorce him from his world. 

The intent of those who have aimed to release the book this way is not despicable in the least--they are merely advocating for a book whose language has kept it out of schools.  But if this is what needs to happen for Huck to get in, it is better to keep the book out.  Huck himself would agree, given the indigestion he caused his own teachers.  And the dirty secret is that despite his refusal of his teachers, Huck learns if only by his own humility.  His education leaves us with a word on its way to redemption.  Huck never stops calling Jim nigger; rather, the word changes its meaning.  And it is this change that the politically correct elimination of difference prevents from ever happening.  It is by facing the past that we move beyond it:  by letting our experience teach us, redefine us, and become part of us.  The healing of human trama consists not of changing what the past is, but what it means, and we cannot learn from what is not acknowledged.  If that seems unbearable, it is likely because a secular culture has grown unaccustomed to confession.  Experience will teach that it is confession (read acknowledgment) that heals the wounds we have inflicted, but a culture obsessed with pretending it is healthy stands in great need of someone to open the wound occasionally.  And dulling the sharp edges of the past will do nothing to help with the wounds they have already caused. The removal of differences prevents all possibility of change, and no growth will come of denial.  A sterilized Huckleberry learns nothing and teaches nothing, a perfect emblem of those who would rob him of maybe his most important word.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Political Potshots and the Erosion of Dialogue

I am furious.   

...for two reasons, both of which I will elaborate over the next couple of days in a three-part series concerning signs by which a breakdown of our social engines is recognizable.  In the first two, I will discuss two symptoms, both tragic in varying degrees, and in the third will attempt to delve into ways forward if our society is to continue and heal.  For healing is what this madness needs.  Thus, as before, I'm furious. There is no other way to say what I felt when I heard this:  an Arizona congresswoman shot (perhaps fatally) in her own state.  Along with the rest of the nation, I think I am in a state of civic shock.  I would like to go ahead, in the strongest possible terms, and ask those who do not respect the democratic process by which our country is governed to go ahead and leave it--don't let the TSA agent hit you on the way out!

Our country was founded on the idea (which I confess I doubt sometimes) that the collective voice of the people would nearly always make the best of possible decisions at critical junctures.   It is not a perfect way to govern; it is still better than most other ways I know about.  The popular voice delivered a drubbing to the democratic party this past November, in a country whose political climate was in such flux that, for a democrat to win, it would have to have been pretty clearly the vox populi that did it.  It does not matter whether I like it, although from what I can see I wouldn't have minded the Arizona congresswoman much at all.  Rather, it matters whether I believe in this country's founding principles enough to endorse the rule of those I did not vote for, simply because I believe in the instruments of this country's governance.

Not that I believe politics is much more than a blanket full of holes:  I don't.  I confess to doubting approx. 95% of what I am told by politicians, because the nature of their profession makes it advantageous to lie to such a degree that I tremble to think of how I'd respond to such temptation.  Corruption is almost always the human response to power.  And yet we in the US have been protected for the most part from the worst abuses of power by a Constitution that results, albeit imperfectly, in the balance of corrupting interests against each other.  I am not naive; I am merely savvy enough to see that things are not as bad as they could be (note:  see Venezuela, Afghanistan, and Iran for as bad as it can be).  Our republic has led a charmed life, but we are mistaken if we believe that the fact of privilege ensures or implies its continuation; all societies can break. 

Politics is what happens when human relationships are forced beyond communities of which individual humans can be an active part.  It is therefore necessarily generalizing and diminutive.  And although our ability to harness seemingly infinite amounts of information has given us the appearance of greater connectedness, the vital signs of human community have grown not stronger but weaker in the advent of network.  The human mind simply is not as capable of processing information as a computer is of receiving it.  This has had the strange effect that we are now insufficiently knowledgable about even more stuff.  And let us call this like it is:  there is a very good possibility (in fact I predict it will prove to be true) that the motive of this shooting will turn on some point of political discussion about which this shooter was ill-informed.  It is clear that he was unstable, yes; but it is also clear that the pitch of rhetoric in the state of Arizona during the last year has produced a pressure cooker of ignorant rage.  Indeed, for some time ignorance and rage have seemed to be all the two parties shared.  Both sides of the immigration debate have concentrated far more on talking past each other than on defining their terms and trying to reason in those of the other.

This abortion of communication roots most profoundly in the narcissism of which people are all in some measure possessed.  People who are successful in relationship have learned to mistrust that narcissism and criticize themselves with others.  The inability to do that is the quintessence of childishness.  We recognize the beginnings of adulthood in young people who are learning empathy, concern, compassion, and responsibility.  We naturally do not trust anyone in a dispute who assumes none of the responsibility for it.  For reasons I will discuss in part three of this series, life in the public sphere has divorced itself from these basic expectations, and it has become common to treat political discourse as a simple game of us vs. them, such that parties have been able to assign a perfect blame for every societal ill to their opponents.  This has the appearance of critical thought, and those who engage in it often claim they are merely being reasonable.  Yet critical thinking is that which helps us see that in most human conflict, blame is not unilateral.  Contemporary politics is just not done this way.  And we must all own our part of this problem, if we are to engage it correctly.

I pray this congresswoman will survive all this.  I know my anger at it is justified; I also know that whether or not I have learned from this will be displayed not in how I declaim the taking of political shots but in how I participate in and assist the creation of a more mature conversation in the future.  Lord, make it so--and my anger will have served a worthy purpose.

For a blanket with holes is better than none at all.

Friday, January 7, 2011

Poeticizing

Scene from Jeff's Deli
           ~for Chelsea Glass

I’ll taste the soup, her laugh
    explains. But where’s the spoon?
        No matter where

if not here, I stress. For soon, I know
    she will leave, a glance from over
        her coffee convinces me,

and the sip of soup is the tenor
    or will be, of her remembrance. Her
        without spoon, slurping the curve

of a need, to live outside
    the dish she thinks me
        unwilling to break, whatever

the spoon on purpose left out
           of the stir.
     Not of soup, but her,

not stirring me, though I would wish
    to swirl in the broth of how
        she quickens,

she, the necessary silver,
    the tone of her taking always
        parts of something left whole

only when she is
        heard
    hastening within it.

(c) William Glass