Saturday, September 26, 2009

Refugees

Yes, I've neglected this blog for far too long... Surfing around on the net, I came across a blast from the past: Van der Graaf Generator, a band of the early seventies that used to appeal greatly to a very young Twilight Traveler. For starters, here's a very beautiful ballad, Refugees, from their early album The least we can do is wave to each other. If you like it, you might perhaps be ready for the more difficult metaphysical/existential stuff, such the albums Godbluff or Still Life, or (who knows?) for the absolutely weird extremes of The quiet zone / The pleasure dome. But if you start with Refugees, here are the lyrics for you:

N. was somewhere years ago and cold:
ice locked the people's hearts and made them old.
S. was birth to pleasant lands, but dry:
I walked the waters' depths and played my mind.
E. was dawn, coming alive in the golden sun:
the winds came gently, several
heads became one
in the summertime, though august people sneered...
we were at peace, and we cheered
We walked along, sometimes hand in hand,
between the thin lines marking sea and sand;
smiling very peacefully,
we began to notice that we could be free,
and we moved together to the West.
W. is where all days shall someday end;
where the colours turn from grey to gold,
and you can be with the friends.
And light flakes the golden clouds above:
West is Mike and Susie,
West is where I love.
There we shall spend the final days of our lives...
tell the same old stories: well, at least we tried.
So into the West, smiles on our faces, we'll go;
oh! yes, and our apologies to those
who'll never really know the Way....
We're refugees, walking away from the life we've known and loved...
nothing to do nor say, nowhere to stay; now we are alone.
We're refugees, carrying all we own in brown bags, tied up with string...
nothing to think, it doesn't mean a thing, but we'll be happy on our own.
West is Mike and Susie;
West is Mike and Susie;
West is where I love,
West is refugees' home.



Sunday, February 22, 2009

He's not there

I had heard of the movie I'm not there about Bob Dylan, but had no idea how brilliant it was. Today I watched it, and although I couldn't make head or tails of it at the beginning, I was gradually drawn into it, and halfway through I realized that I was watching a masterpiece. Bob Dylan himself does not appear anywhere in the movie, except in the final shot. What we see is fragments about other people, sometimes with well-known names (Woodie Guthrie, Billy the Kid), but they are not those persons either. It's the movie itself that is Bob Dylan, and he is present everywhere precisely because he keeps eluding the viewer. Still, once that elusiveness itself begins to look like a stable identity, it is deconstructed as well (never more painfully than with Dylan the gospel singer). Again and again, Dylan appears by being absent, for example in a scene where a singer with a painted face in a village roadshow sings "Going to Acapulco", and we realize that although it looks nothing like Bob Dylan and The Band, it is they who are present on the podium. Central to the film is the stunning impersonation of Dylan by Cate Blanchett (see photo), in black-and-white. His conversations with "Mr Jones" have the effect of a continuous series of démasqués where the joke is always on the viewer, who will find that not Dylan's but his own identity is on the line. Perhaps the whole movie is summed up in the 7th "simple rule for a life in hiding", recited by Dylan's impersonation as Arthur Rimbaud: "Never create anything, it will be misinterpreted, it will chain you and follow you the rest of your life, it will never change".

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Yes we can

I hadn't expected I would ever be talking about politics on this blog, much less American politics. But then again, there are many things I hadn't expected. About two years ago I read Morris Berman's Dark Ages America, and just couldn't help agreeing with his chilling analysis of the decline of even the USA's most fundamental values under the Bush administration, and his dark predictions about the future. As Berman argued, the Roman empire fell ultimately not because of contingent external factors: its fall became inevitable, because the Romans had forgotten what Rome was supposed to be all about. Likewise, the USA seemed to have forgotten what America was supposed to be all about. Berman saw no light at the end of the tunnel of paranoia, fear, arrogance and cynicism that the USA and much of the Western world seem to have entered after 9/11, and neither did I. Every time I went to the USA during the last years I came home more depressed by the mentality of blind chauvinism and egocentrism - my country, right or wrong - that I saw and felt everywhere around me. How could one do anything but give up faith in a country that had (re-)elected a president of such monumental incompetence surrounded by a bunch of obvious crooks, a people that seemed capable of confusing democracy and freedom with the "smart totalitarianism" of neocon-plus-fundamentalist ideologies, gave new legitimacy to torture, felt free to ignore international law and basic human values, or seriously considered the option of "preventive" nuclear strikes?
What made it all even much worse was the fact that - again, as rightly emphasize by Berman - the USA had no excuse, because its population should know better. A memory I will never forget is that of october 8 to 9, one day after the invasion of Afghanistan, when I was on my way back from Los Angeles to Europe, but got stuck in Washington. An official at the airport warned me not to go downtown (she seemed to think there were terrorists everywhere), and when I did anyway, I found that one could stay in the most expensive hotels for 1/3 of the price. I got one a few blocks from the white house, and made a long walk the next day. The weather was beautiful, and although I'm told it's usually crowded, that extraordinary day I seemed to have the Mall all for myself. I began at the Lincoln Memorial and spent a long time there, reading the fragments of his speeches on the walls. I've been told that every American schoolkid is raised with this heritage, but I hadn't been, and I was deeply impressed by the profound ideals, the wisdom, the hope, and the humanity expressed in those texts.
During the years that followed, as the USA and much of the rest of the Western world (including my own country) entered their steep descent into blind irrationality, fear and hatred, I was often reminded of that visit. Thinking about the tragic distance between America's core values and its actual behaviour, in my head I used to hear those enigmatic lines from American Pie (in my case, as sung by Madonna):

I met a girl who sang the blues
and I asked her for some happy news.
But she just smiled and turned away.
I went down to the sacred store
where I'd heard the music years before,
but the man there said the music wouldn't play.


That was the mood, and it lasted eight years.

And now, this evening the music was playing again. I was watching the concert organized, at the steps of that very same Lincoln Memorial, in celebration of Barack Obama's inauguration this tuesday. I saw Bruce Springsteen, U2, Stevie Wonder, Beyoncé and many others singing about hope and optimism, and I saw so many expressions of deep, genuine emotion and sheer excitement at the very thought that this open and intelligent, young and dynamic african-american president has been elected as President of the USA. And I realized, not without a feeling of shame, that I had allowed myself (along with Morris Berman and many others) to give up hope: "no we can't, forget it, this country and its mentality is beyond cure or recovery". It had simply been beyond my imagination that the same people that elected Bush in 2004 would be capable of electing a black man four years later.
What I should have realized, or rather, should not have forgotten, is the real power that resides in the ideals written on the walls of the Lincoln memorial, or in similar ones as expressed by Martin Luther King on its steps: a power that is in no way inferior to those of hatred, despair and negativity, and does not grow any less because its opposite grows stronger. And I should have remembered how many people, during these past eight years, must have felt like me, and must have been thirsting for an opportunity to believe in the future again.
Of course I know that the concert was a perfectly staged event, designed to manipulate my emotions; of course I know that the myth of Obama will soon enough catch up with reality; of course I know how difficult it is for ideals to survive in the presence of power and political realities; of course I understand that no human being can live up to these expectations, and I realize that Obama was not born on Krypton.
But for now, for the first time after eight years, I'm going to allow myself to be hopeful and optimistic, not cynical and "realistic". And whatever disappointments Obama's presidency might have in store for me, I'm grateful to him for having reminded me that, yes, we can.

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Aegypt

Just like happened with The Secret Life of Puppets, several friends and acquaintances began mentioning to me a novel by a contemporary writer, John Crowley (see photo). Or rather, a series of four novels called the Aegypt cycle. I just finished the first of them, The Solitudes, amazed not only at how Giordano Bruno keeps turning up (we've seen him before in this blog), but mostly at the depth, beauty and subtlety with which Crowley speaks about history.
His main character is a historian, Pierce Moffett, who begins to suspect that perhaps "there is more than one history of the world":

Why must I live in two worlds, Pierce asked, why. Do we all, or is it only some few, living always in two worlds, a world outside of us that is real but strange, a world within that makes sense, and draws tears of assent from us when we enter there.

Contrary to common assumptions, it is not rationality and science that have caused the "disenchantment of the world", but historical consciousness. But history is a strange thing, with a double face. On the one hand, in the wake of 19th century historicism
it seeks to describe "what really happened": "one damn thing after the other", as Moffett observes elswhere in the novel, all of which is as true as it is meaningless. But on the other hand, the mark of a good historian is his ability to imagine the past: to enter it imaginatively, like a story, and somehow imbue it with meaning and significance. There is a deep paradoxality here: although historiograpy leads to demythologization, good historiography requires the powers of the imagination.
I do not yet know how Crowley is going to resolve the paradox (if he is going to resolve it at all), but I'm reminded of a famous quotation from Gershom Scholem, the great scholar of Jewish mysticism:

For the mountain, the body of things, needs no key; it is only the nebulous wall of history, which hangs around it, that must be traversed.
... True, history may at bottom be an illusion, but an illusion without which no perception of the essence is possible in time. The wondrous concave mirror of philological criticism makes it possible for the people of today first and most purely to receive a glimpse, in the legitimate orders of commentary, of that mystical totality of the system, whose existence, however, vanishes in the very act of being projected onto historical time.


In a very different way, John Crowley's novel seems to be about the same problem, which is ultimately that of nihilism.
One of Scholem's close colleagues, Mircea Eliade, juxtaposed myth and history as the domains of the sacred and the profane, and hoped that a revival of archaic mythological consciousness could be an antidote to a meaningless world ruled by the "terror of history". Scholem was grappling with the same problem, but his answer is much more subtle: it is not by escaping from history but by confronting its challenge that, like Moses, we might receive a "revelation from the mountain". Is the illusion of history the only reality by means of which we can glimpse a mystery to which our emotions assent intuitively, even though (or perhaps: precisely because) our reason denies it?
I'm very curious how Crowley's answer will be. In The Solitudes he sets the stage, brilliantly and in powerful prose. But there are three more volumes to follow: Love and Sleep, Daemonomania, and Endless Things. I can't wait...

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Nostalgia

I was looking through my old collection of LP records and found an album by Nana Mouskouri that my parents used to play when I was a kid. Putting it up again, I was deeply touched by this superb chanson, "Le jour où la colombe", the memory of which has been lying dormant in my mind for so many years (and which, strangely enough, has never been covered by others, as far as I can see). Listen to it here.

Je ne sais pas où sont partis ces hommes
que d'autres sont venus chercher.
Ils ont disparus par un matin de Pâques,
des châines à leurs poignets.
Combien d'entre eux vivront encore
le jour où la colombe reviendra sur l'olivier?

Je ne sais pas comment tiendront les pierres
dont j'ai réparé la maison.
Quand je suis devant ces murs qui se délabrent
je pense à la maison
où dort celui que je verrai
le jour où la colombe reviendra sur l'olivier.

Je ne sais pas comment vivent les arbres
que les orages ont crucifiés,
et j'ai peine à croire que sous les champs de neige
dorment des champs de blés.
Que restera-t-il de mon coeur
le jour où la colombe reviendra sur l'olivier?

Je ne sais pas quoi dire à mon enfant
lorsque bientôt il parlera:
des contes de fées ou des histoires de grands
qu'il ne comprendrait pas.
Mais quel âge aura mon enfant
le jour où la colombe reviendra sur l'olivier?

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Solar Music



I knew that the Spanish-Mexican artist Remedios Varo (1908-1963) was one of Leonora Carrington's closest friends, but only today did I realize what a great artist she was. In a bookshop in Mexico City I found a brandnew book (in Spanish) about Varo, beautifully and very richly illustrated and with large essays on her work, influences and so on: Cinco llaves del mundo secreto de Remedios Varo (Artes de México 2008). Leafing through it I fell from one rapture into another: so much beauty, all in one single book...
Here is just one picture from it, Solar Music. I've scanned it from my book, so you'll get a good high-resolution picture if you click on it. If you want to see more of her work, here's a portal.

Sunday, June 8, 2008

Behold, the rivers are running backward...

I'm sitting on the beach of Tulum, Mexico, reading Gore Vidal´s historical novel Julian, and I find it hard to put the book out of my hands. What a story. Vidal describes the life of the emperor Julian, who ruled the Roman empire for a brief period in the later part of the 4th century, and tried to reverse the tide of history by returning from Christianity back to the "pagan" polytheism of Hellenistic culture. It's one of the most fascinating and dramatic life stories known to me, and if it has not been turned into a blockbuster movie yet, the only possible explanation I can think of is that it would raise storms of protest among the Christian right in the U.S.
When he was still a small child, Julian's father had been murdered by his older cousin Constantius, the Emperor of the East. The very Christian Constantius had systematically killed all family members who might threaten his claim to absolute dominion over the empire; and Julian and his half-brother Gallus were spared only because they were too young to pose a threat. But they grew up knowing that the Damocles' sword was always hanging above their head: at any moment, and particularly as the two approached adulthood, the Emperor might decide it would be safer to have them killed after all: for what would be more logical than that Julian would want to take revenge for his father's murder? What probably saved them was the fact that Constantius wife did not get pregnant, and unless she were to produce a heir to the Emperor, Julian and his brother would be the only ones left to continue the bloodline.
Julian and Gallus could not have been more different: Gallus was an empty-headed, cruel brute, hungry only for power, but so handsome and charming that many people were taken in by him. Julian was the opposite: far from handsome, and a typical bookish intellectual, he showed no interest in political power and only wanted to devote his life to philosophy. He was in love with Greek classical and Hellenistic culture, and although nominally raised as a Christian, in his heart he embraced the worship of the "true gods" of paganism. He despised the "Galileans", with their intolerant exclusivism, their cult of dead martyrs, their irrational trinitarian theologies, their heresy-hunting (the Arian and the Athanasian party were fighting like cats and dogs over the question whether Christ was of the same substance as God, or only similar in substance...), and their implacable hate against everyone who did not share the "true faith". Gore Vidal describes beautifully how finally, in secret, Julian was initiated by the theurgist Maximus into the mysteries of Mithras, and later into those of Eleusis as well. This seems to have made an enormous impression on his, and henceforth his true mission was to restore the worship of the "true gods". His was a mystical religion that worshipped God as the one source of light from which all things had emerged and to which all would return. As Maximus tells Julian:

... each god has many aspects and many names, for there is as much variety in heaven as there is among men. Some have asked: did we create these gods or did they create us? That is an old debate. Are we a dream in the mind of deity, or is each of us a separate dreamer, evoking his own reality? Though one may not know for certain, all our senses tell us that a single creation does exist and we are contained by it forever. Now the Christians would impose one final rigid myth on what we know to be various and strange. No not even myth, for the Nazarene existed as flesh while the gods we worship were never men; rather they are qualities and powers become poetry for our instruction. With the worship of the dead Jew, the poetry ceased.

Constantius finally decided to raise the opportunist Gallus to the rank of Caesar (just one step below that of Emperor), but later ended up having him murdered after all, leaving only Julian as a potential competitor. Again and again his life hung by a thread, but Constantius finally decided to make him Caesar and send him on a mission to pacify Gaul. He must have believed that this unworldly philosopher would easily be kept in check by the hardened military commanders with whom he had to work; and if he were killed during the campaign, which was more than likely given the weak state of his armies, well, so much the better. But things turned out quite differently: to the amazement of everybody, including himself, Julian proved to be a brilliant military commander and strategist, and he was so successful in fighting the "barbarians" that his own soldiers finally forced him, literally, to accept the title of Augustus (emperor) and challenge his cousin. Having brought the entire Western part of the empire under his command, he marched East to confront Constantius in battle; but before they could meet, Constantius had died of a fever, leaving Julian as the legitimate Emperor.
During his short reign as Emperor, Julian waged a systematical campaign to restore pagan polytheism. Although the Galileans fully expected him to smother Christian worship in blood, he was surprisingly mild; he declared that although the Galileans had an irrational and inferior religion, they were free to practice it if they liked, as long as they respected the laws of the empire and left other religions and their worshipers alone. In other words: Julian preached religious tolerance, whereas the Galileans saw it as their mission to destroy anything "pagan" and convert all the world to their beliefs.
For a while, it looked like Julian would be successful. He was fully aware that he was in the process of reversing the tide of history: meditating on his reforms, one day he is supposed to have said "behold, the rivers are running backward". But in the end, the reversal proved only an interlude. On a grand military campaign against the Persian empire, one day Julian had to rush from his tent and did not take the time to fix his breastplate properly (according to Vidal's fictional account, he wore no breastplate at all because it was being fixed; the whole thing turned out to be a setup, and he was murdered by one of his own confidants). He was hit by a spear, and died. Legend has it that his last words were "you have won, Galilean..."; undoubtedly he never said this, but it is true that his successor restored Christianity right away, and the rivers started running forward again, finally leading to the suppression of Hellenistic paganism.
Reading about the life of Julian, one if forced to contemplate the mystery of historical contingency, for it is impossible not to ask oneself "what if...?" If Julian had waited a few more seconds to fix his breastplate that morning... or if he had borrowed another one..., or if the spear had missed him..., he could have survived. He might have lived and reigned for decades; and if he had, it is absolutely certain that the very world in which we are living today would look very different. Conceivably, we would now live in a world dominated by "pagan" religion, and Christianity would be merely a chapter in the history books, describing a strange intolerant sect that was surprisingly successful for a time, but did not make it in the end. Or Christianity might have survived, but it would have developed differently, in ways that are now impossible to imagine.
In any case, Julian's life is captivating, and I can only have sympathy for his character and personality. Of course he did make mistakes (for example, towards the very end of his reign his enthusiasm for ritual sacrifices got rather out of hand) but all in all, he was a voice of tolerance and reason in a period ravaged by murder and bloodshed, hate and religious fanaticism.
PS. I wrote that before I had finished the book completely. Generally I still stand by it, and Julian does compare very favourably with contemporary rulers, but if one reads Vidal's final chapters (consisting of Julian's fictional field notes during his fatal campaign to conquer Persia and beyond), the picture changes. Not only do we get a grueling view of what the military realities of the times must have been like, but we also clearly see how Julian began to be corrupted in a rather alarming manner by the absolute power he wielded, how his megalomaniac dream of outdoing Alexander the Great and conquer the whole of Asia got the better of him and undermined his sense of sound judgment (leading to a huge strategic blunder that destroyed the credit he had with his army), and how his sincere faith in the gods degenerated ever more into blind superstition that made him a toy in the hands of Maximus. Most generally, it is quite disturbing how the philosopher did turn into a military commander, and how well that role turned out to fit him. There is no way of telling how his personality would have developed if his military ambitions had been successful, and if he had returned from Asia as the Emperor whose victories proved that the gods protected him. Would it have made him mild, or have turned him into a tyrant? We will never know. What happened was, of course, the opposite: the Christians saw his death as divine punishment, and later generations called him "Julian the Apostate"