Pinter's Nobel Lecture
posted by Hal Duncan | 10:23 am
Notes from New Sodom
... rantings, ravings and ramblings of strange fiction writer, THE.... Sodomite Hal Duncan!!
So the hatemail dubbed me THE.... Sodomite Hal Duncan!! (sic) So I will wear that with pride, cuntfuckers. It's like The Outlaw Josie Wales only better, right? I mean, did he have a fully capitalised THE, an extra-long dramatic pause, and two exclamation marks? No, he did not. Chickenshit.
Find me on:
Follow @Hal_Duncan Become a Patron!
The Book of All Hours
Recent Releases
Also in Print
Ebooks Available
5 Comments:
Ah, Pinter’s over-thinking it. Most of what’s wrong with America can be explained by the fact that the place is so damned big that to most people living in it, what goes on in the world outside its borders really does have no apparent relevance to daily life.
Pinter is bang on target: I`ve come to the conclusion recently that Hollywood, far from being a hindrance to America`s campaign to run the world, is essential to it. Y`know, if Nazi Germany had had a Hollywood, Hitler (or indeed Hitler`s clonechilddemon) would still be in charge. Hollywood pours a river of darkside mindtricks out across the globe, and we`re too busy buying up the boxed set of this, or the action figure of that to bother with the torture and bombing of civilians in Iraq.
All hail the American night!
David: I think that ignorance of world affairs is probably a large part of why the US administrations can pretty much enact whatever foreign policy suits them; but are the policymakers acting from a similar indifference to the outside world?
It's the bit of Pinter's lecture I quote there which seems to me the most perceptive. If a politician used the phrase "the British people" in the UK it would have little of the affective weight that "the American people" seems to carry in the US. That this sort of emotional button-pushing is so deeply powerful in the US points to a Romantic idealisation of the "homeland" and the "folks"; and I think he's right that this is essentially about denying thought, snuggling under the big security blankie, slumbering in that warm fuzzy feeling of loyalty and pride.
I think that Americanism does have its darker-than-dark side too, which is where the foreign policy comes from. As soon as you have to justify your right to voice an opinion by explicitly restating your allegiance -- "I love my country (but...)" or "I am *not* anti-American (but...)" -- man, they've got your balls in a vice. You've accepted the moral authority of nationalism, as much as admitted that their fist is in your face, that the onus is on *you* to defend yourself from the old "unAmerican!" accusation... and before it's even been voiced. In that sort of situation you're talking about a nationalism that's not longer about warm fuzzy feelings.
...but are the policymakers acting from a similar indifference to the outside world?
This crop? Yeah, actually.
Usually it’s just capitalism and Kissingerian realpolitik, though. No number of dead Guatemalan nuns is too high to prevent nationalization of American-owned banana plantations.
The thing with America is: What is America? Is it the government? Is it the people? Is it the people in the so-called heartland and not the people in the liberal cities?
Somehow, we have found a way to have a democratic government while completely believing that we are somehow divorced from the government's existence. So, all of us can say, "That wasn't me (or maybe not even the real America), it was all George (or Bill, or whomever)."
Mike: I think you're right, but the right-winger on the street doesn't seem to get it. It's an easy way to get votes from the Right: bash Hollywood. In spite of the fact that Hollywood is at least partly responsible for keeping the world from interfering with us. I saw a bumper sticker the other day on the back of some hick's truck:
(check) Afghanistan
(check) Iraq
(question mark) Hollywood
Post a Comment
<< Home