#Apparently stated that rhetoric was no longer useful because it was only for 'outdated' democracies not modern feudal monarchies

[the-busy-ghost]

"And the third [subject the Guardians should study] should be astronomy. Or don't you agree?" "Yes, I certainly agree. A degree of perception in telling the seasons, months and years is useful not only to the farmer and sailor but equally to the soldier." "You amuse me," I said, "with your obvious fear that the public will disapprove if the subjects you prescribe don't seem useful. But it is in fact no easy matter, but very difficult for people to believe that there is a faculty in the mind of each of us which these studies purify and rekindle after it has been ruined and blinded by other pursuits, though it is more worth preserving than any eye since it is the only organ by which we perceive the truth. Those who agree with use about this will give your proposals unqualified approval, but those who are quite unaware of it will probably think you are talking nonsense, as they won't see what other benefit is to be expected from such studies. Make up your mind which party you are going to reason with- or will you ignore both and pursue the argument largely for your own satisfaction, though without grudging anyone else any profit he may get from it?" "That's what I'll do," he replied; "I'll go on with the discussion chiefly for my own satisfaction." "Then you must go back a bit," I said, "as we made a wrong choice of subject to put next to geometry." "How was that?" "We proceeded straight from plane geometry to solid bodies in motion without considering solid bodies first on their own. The right thing is to proceed from second dimension to third, which brings us, I suppose, to cubes and other three-dimensional figures." "That's true enough," he agreed, "but the subject is one which doesn't seem to have been explored yet, Socrates." "For two reasons," I replied. "There is not state which sets any value on it, and so, being difficult, it is not pursued with energy; and the pursuit is not likely to be successful without a director, who is difficult to find and, even if found, is unlikely to be obeyed in the present intolerant mood of those who study the subject. But, under the general direction of a state that sets a value on it, their obedience would be assured, and investigations pressed forward continuously and energetically till the problems were cleared up. Even now, with all the neglect and inadequate treatment it has suffered from the public and from students who do not understand its real uses, the subject is so attractive that it makes progress in spite of all handicaps, and it would not be surprising if a solution of its problems were to appear."

"The Republic", Book 8, by Plato (trans. Desmond Lee, Penguin Classics Edition)

[livingcinema-stories-blog]

journal entry from december 2016 (or, literature in the age of trump)

I was thinking of the writer Sergio Pitol today and I found this journal entry completely by accident. It seemed like a sign to shelve off its dust and repost.  The second half feels almost innocent now, and I’m adding a couple footnotes to it:

12/2/16

Just read Sergio Pitol for an hour. It was an essay on a Polish novel about darkness, yelling against the politics of oppression. It was inspiring to read about. The novel apparently is a 150 page long sentence, followed by a five word sentence. The story is of a holy crusade taken by children in the 12th century. It is told through the format of a series of inner monologues. I would like to read it, but honestly, I can't imagine it being as good as Pitol's essay on it. Pitol apparently translated the novel in Spanish, and his love for the novel, his compassion for the novel, shows throughout his essay. There's a tender moment where he re reads it 20 or 30 years later, and is afraid its poetics and form will seem outdated or stale (it was very sylized and 'avant' for the time). He is happily surprised that the language and form hold up -- just as beautiful as he remembered.

I've never read Thomas Mann, or Joseph Conrad -- but they are both writers Pitol admires. Reading Sergio Pitol reminds me of my old teacher Attila, who's grave I would like to visit soon, who did so much for my life, who touched my life and inspired me in a way that will never fade. Attila was also a fan of Thomas Mann; and he was a political prisoner for a time in Hungary. I imagine he might have been aware of this Polish writer -- perhaps was even a fan of his. Attila was imprisoned for composing a minimalist piece of classical music during the communist takeover. There were strict rules on what kind of art one should make. When Attila performed the piece, a small riot ensued in the theater and he was arrested. He later escaped, fled to Italy, and eventually emigrated to Michigan, where he became a private teacher of voice lessons. His final, unfinished work was an opera he was writing based on "The Master and Margarita."

This morning, I am made aware that both the writers Attila loved and that Sergio Pitol loves are those who write in times of, and in reaction against oppression, totalitarianism, or to Power (with a capital P). It is almost a violent style of literature. To use poetry and language to express the strong distaste at the currents of the system. To use “political angst” (for lack of better term) as a lens in which the narratives exist. For my whole life, I've been fortunate not to live under those kinds of regimes. Sure, George W. Bush was terrible -- and he disgusted me -- but he still resembled something like a democracy, no matter how opposed I was to his politics and policies, not to mention his unjust wars. He still hinted at some level of humanity within him, perhaps buried, perhaps misguided. His wars were disgusting. He expanded the powers of the state and surveillance. But the veil of democracy still seemed to exist, if only as a veil. There was room for hope. And though Gore won the popular vote, he won by a small number. (400,000 or something like that). It seemed unbelievable, but it was admittingly, a small number.

Trump has now lost the popular vote by over 2 million (*authors note — the real number increased to 3 million), and he uses fascist language and rhetoric almost daily, and always publicly, without shame.

***

In school, in middle school, or high school, or even elementary school -- I remember reading multiple times a poem about nazis. It was essentially about how no one stopped them. "When they came for Jews, we didn't do anything, because..." and “When they came for the handicaps, we didn’t do anything, because…” and ended with a line similar to "then when they came for me, there was no left to stop them" or something like that. This poem exists solely in memory, although I know its widely read and would be easy enough to find. It was about complacency (a word I didn't know then) and a casual calmness, a cool. We always wondered how people could be silent while others were oppressed, while the secret police would beat people, while the violence eventually escalated from torture and fear into a genocide in the middle of a "civilized" continent. We watched the movie Swing Kids in a class, a watered down Disney film about the same kind of thing. It showed friends betray each other, even each other's families. It was met with the same measure of disbelief in us. How could people let this happen?

When I asked a teacher about it, and I forgot which one, and I forgot how young I was, but I must have been before high school, before I became "rebellious" or whatever -- I remember the teacher telling me this poem was a warning. It was a warning and a way to be aware of the past. Our memory of history would protect us, make us aware that societies fall, that the danger is real. But still, fascism seemed like nothing could enter this country to me. Orwellianism -- no way. Elements of it, sure. Elements of thought control and manipulation and corruption -- of course. But nothing as blatant as what Trump has promised.

If Trump somehow is able to NOT damage our democracy, it will be a testament to how strong our democracy and philosophies are. I know many people who believe it is this strong.

But I tend to not think so. Our democracy is still young, its in its adolescence. Its younger than Europe was with Hitler, with Mussolini or Stalin.

And its not holy -- its not religious -- its not from God. I don't prescribe to that weird right wing idea that it is protected by a sacred power. Our Democracy is human. It was founded on intellectuals, yes. It was founded with clear philosophies and guidelines, yes. But that does not make it immune. It might have checks and balances, but we've already seen these corroded before Trump; when the Senate refused to even vote on a Supreme Court nominee. (Something that is unprecedented, at least for this length of time). This act of defiance corroded two branches of government -- both the court and the Senate.

And its never been tested by the things its being tested with now. That is: globalization and the Internet. (It has been tested with other huge economic shifts, though; so this paragraph probably should not contribute to my argument).

Like most people, I'm not sure how to react to recent news and movements. I'm not sure how to fight back for what I believe in, how to stand up, how to do the right thing, or what to even do or what that thing even is.

But reading Sergio Pitol and thinking about Attila Farkas makes me feel that there should be a new canon of literature -- one that reflects "avant" writers reacting and responding to oppression.

Pitol and Attila share these writers, which should be added to the canon: Thomas Mann (who I've never read). Joseph Conrad

Pitol adds Jerry Andrzejewski in this.

Attila would add J.M. Coetzee (who I love) and Bulgakov (Master and Margarita).

I would like to add to this list the violent, powerful, and wonderful prose of Roberto Bolano. A writer who's often compared to Borges, but adds an intense political anger to the style of "magical realism" -- and who kind of reminds me of the beat poets as well. I'm sure Attila would have loved Bolano, had he been alive to see Bolano’s translations into English.

So again, that list: Thomas Mann Joseph Conrad J.M. Coetzee Mikhail Bugakov Roberto Bolano

I will of course continue reading for fun as well, and won't strictly follow this. I can't imagine putting down works by Javier Marias (who's new book, I am glad to say, confronts fascism and takes place immediately after Franco's regime); or by "non political" magical writers such as Clarice Lispector, Cesar Aira, Haruki Murakami. But their style, their form, does not differ much from Bolano, nor from Coetzee for that matter. (Like I said, I haven't read the others).

When we are without gurus and teachers, we can use the books we read to help teach and guide us. Its not exactly a replacement, but the writers do become gurus. I'm paraphrasing, but Seneca, the Greek philosopher, said that reading philosophy makes life longer, beacuse it adds other writer's experiences to yours in a quick setting.

My generation, and those younger than me, and those older than me, should begin arming ourselves by reading a new canon.

Who would you add? ****

Footnotes (updated August 2018) A few more writers I must add to my personal list. For one, a book which has become one of my all time favorites, Pereira Declares by Antonio Tabucchi (sometimes translated as Pereira Maintains).  Also, I can’t believe I didn’t include Jose Saramago! He should be near the top of this list. In fact, Zizek called Saramago’s Seeing one of the best books to read during this moment.

If I re-did the list, it would mainly be: Pereira Declears by Tabucchi Jose Saramago Roberto Bolano JM Coetzee (I have to make note of Tabucchi again, and point out that his other novels do not seem to have the political activation and ingredient as Pereira, but are equally wonderful. He also has a more dreamy style, and less angst than the others mentioned).

I’m currently experiencing a burnout from the presidency, and almost refuse to say the president’s name. He’s haunted my dreams at moments (where I’ve conversed with him, even swam with him at a public pool). Part of me believes he gains an almost spiritual power through the repetition of his name, and so I’m trying to refer to him as things different than his name. (For now, just the president, though even that seems a lie). I’d also like to quickly point out my disappointment at the nonfiction books written in response to his presidency. Its really weird and almost shocking that the only one I’ve read that has seemed cerebral, academic, and passionate was Hilary Clinton’s What Happened. (I also read Death of Truth, Fantasyland, and one by Naomi Klein). Not sure how to end this post script. I’m thinking of bicycling to a show right now. I have to wake up early in the morning. I experienced a pleasant feeling of cooking today. I had a strange encounter. I woke up at 5am.