Brain Pain discussion

Tia wrote: "Can there be love for Borges after Clive James??"

I didn't understand this upon first reading it, nor did I know who Clive James is. But, curious, I searched out this article: Borges' Bad Politics.

My initial reaction to the title was, "irrelevant." But I dared to read about half of the article. My final evaluation was "irrelevant." But maybe I'll read the remainder of the article later.

This is not literary criticism, and the author even admits that he can do nothing to attack Borges aesthetically. But it's clear from the text of Borges' writing that there is nothing but aesthetics--plus ideas that transcend time and place--within the work to which we can address a political criticism.

One way in which I feel an affinity for Borges is that I firmly believe that literature has no obligation to be socially relevant or to comment on or even recognize politics.

Careful. Borges wasn't always cloaked (protected?) by political obscurity. See his joyous, if short-lived optimism in the wake of Peron's downfall (Edwin Williamson's biography Borges: A Life)

I have to ask though... do you hold this position when it comes to the Vichy functionaries? Could you fathom Mayakovsky if he had died a natural death?? (I might add that Mayakovsky's reappraisal is entirely due to the fact that his politics are swept carefully & consciously under the body bags.)

So let me ask... is the difference an ocean blue? The sorrel skin of the Argentine?

To me there's no difference at all. I don't care about the author's politics, or lack of politics, except perhaps to the extent that they become apparent with the text of his work itself. And even then, I may not care much. I certainly won't criticize or condemn an artist for not producing political works, especially since I generally don't like political art.

If a weaver weaves wonderful textiles, or a painter paints beautiful flowers, I don't mind if they continue to do their art even while the world falls down around their ears. Just give me those wonderful textiles and beautiful flower paintings.

Another analogy: If I discovered that the chief engineer and architect of the Brooklyn Bridge was a convicted rapist, that might not change my decision whether to drive across his bridge. I don't think it will collapse simply because he was an awful human being. The work is what the work is. Exterior context is irrelevant.

Zadignose wrote: "One way in which I feel an affinity for Borges is that I firmly believe that literature has no obligation to be socially relevant or to comment on or even recognize politics ..."

You'd think I'd have learned not to be drawn in by one of Z's arguments, but I'm a slow learner so here I go again :-)

I didn't think the article was at all suggesting that his art should have reflected a particular political point of view. Rather, the criticism was directed at him as an Argentinean of prominence remaining silent about, and at times even complicit in, the actions of the regime. The same criticism might have been leveled at an actor, composer, sports figure, or anyone else of renown. Or at any citizen, for that matter.

For another Brain Pain tie-in, see the discussion of "Mephisto" :-)

Okay, fair enough, the article does not demand a change to the way he does his art, but puts demands on him as a person outside of his art, though the article does hold him in contrast to Sábato who is vindicated because he wrote about atrocity. But perhaps my argument could be broken down into a few sub-arguments, each of which may be disputed separately:

1) Judgment of an artist as a person, beyond his/her art, is irrelevant to a judgment or appreciation of the art itself. Criticizing someone as a coward, as blind to his society, or too apathetic, or too conservative, or too whatever, changes nothing about the value of that artist's work.

2) The more controversial point that I think others will disagree more readily with is: An artist is under no greater obligation to take social or political responsibility than any other common citizen. Writers write books. Bakers bake cakes. It's a perfectly valid decision for the artist to refuse participation in social controversy--to refuse to be a representative, spokesperson, advocate, or activist for any cause whatsoever. But for some strange reason people put a bigger burden on the artist than on the baker, and blame him/her for social/political errors, lapses, wrong action, or inaction.

3) When bad things happen on a big scale, usually it is the fault of millions of people. It's irrational, unfair, and senseless to single out the society's prominent artists as scapegoats for the sins of the masses. And, when it comes to power and brutality, if you're going to extend the blame not only to those active in the repression, but also to the collaborators, the complicit, and passive, and those who seek their own security first, then yes, the sins belong to the millions. Most of the blameworthy are anonymous. If you want to find someone more blameworthy than the masses, then okay, turn on the powerful political figures and military leaders who actively pursued bad policy. But why blame a novelist who doesn't speak up any more than you blame a successful aftershave-lotion spokesmodel?

But, however much you dispute points two and three, and I'd be willing to discuss them further, I can still always return to point one, which is primary. How can anyone love Borges after Clive James? By loving his work.

Z -

Borges was an elitist who "existed" in a non-existent world when the military junta was at the height of its power. This says nothing about his talents as a writer, true. But the great Argentinian writer cared not a damn about his country and much less so about the masses. This is a tough pill to swallow for those of us familiar with the Pinochet regime. It is doubly difficult to accept it came after the Holocaust. Theodor Adorno had it right the second time around - there is still much to be said in the aftermath of genocide. And yet Borges said nothing. Had Borges been consistent in his political indifference, I would find it easier to overlook his ignorance. But it is well documented that Borges only began exercising his political obscurity after the coup - after which he did well enough, becoming the librarian of the National Library.

This is not to say that I do not enjoy Borges works. Or discredit his stature in the world of letters. When he had the world as his audience, Borges said nothing.

Tia wrote: "Z -

Borges was an elitist who "existed" in a non-existent world when the military junta was at the height of its power. This says nothing about his talents as a writer, true. But the great Argent..."

Are you Argentine? Was your family impacted? Just wondering.

BTW, this topic is similar to the GR debate about reviews being "about the book" and not about author behavior. On a minor scale, for sure, but the reviewers feel it is their duty to point out bad behavior - mostly from self-published authors - but also from writers like Scott Orson Card(?) and his anti-gay politics.

Zadignose wrote: "Okay, fair enough, the article does not demand a change to the way he does his art, but puts demands on him as a person outside of his art, though the article does hold him in contrast to Sábato wh..."

The article does put demands on him as a person. I agree that everyone is responsible of speaking out about atrocities, but those who have the world as their audience, as Tia said, have a larger responsibility. Many would argue that intellectuals in general have that larger responsibility. One would hope that supermodels would also take a stand, but presumably a writer is typically better able to articulate their criticisms as well as be taken seriously. Another reason writers get singled out more often is that they are being singled out by other writers, who are policing their own. And I don''t think anyone is saying that writers are responsible for massacres, only that they aren't living up to their responsibility to call out those in power.

The argument about art being completely separate from the life of the creator is a different kettle of fish. People are people, and it's hard not to let the knowledge that someone is a rabid misogynist, racist, or homophobe, especially if they are actively engaged in repression, color one's perception of their art. I'm also not convinced we shouldn't let that knowledge color our perceptions. I'm not a believer in art as a solely aesthetic experience. It exists in the world. I've never had my world view challenged or changed by a baked good, no matter how artistically made.

Whitney wrote: "Zadignose wrote: "Okay, fair enough, the article does not demand a change to the way he does his art, but puts demands on him as a person outside of his art, though the article does hold him in con..."


Lovely, Whitney. Especially the last bit! ^5

Jim -

I am not an Argentine but I do consider myself an honorary world citizen. As Joao Ribeiro's Sgt. Getulio said, "I live everywhere."
As an undergraduate I studied the history of Latin America, which is to say, I studied the history of violence. Luisa Valenzuela's novel "The Lizard's Tail" brought me to tears; but it was Nicholas Shakespeare's "The Dancer Upstairs" and Malkovich's subsequent film adaptation that brought my attention to the Shining Path movement. Sadly this radical movement is little studied in the English-speaking world. Odd, considering that its members continue to make international headlines.

Now look here. I am still going to watch the Olympics this year. But would I go to Russia to watch it? Nope. Will I continue to express my concern about the country's atmosphere of hatred and bigotry towards gays? Yes.
Hell, Borges couldn't even do that. Instead, he went to work everyday FOR the bastards - nay, * because * of the bastards. smh

This raises the additional issue that in civil conflicts situations are messy, sorting out the "good guys" from the "bad guys" is by no means clear, and for many the best policy appears to be to stay clear of trouble.

By the way, from the shining path we get: "We reject and condemn human rights." Note that one person's "movement" is another person's terrorist organization.

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge was also a movement, and an idealistic one at that.

One could certainly understand how, whether right or wrong, a citizen who has reason to suspect the oppressive government is capable of any sort of violence, and at the same time who can imagine the revolutionaries capable of any kind of atrocity were they to come to power, just might stick with the status quo. If the alternative seems to be the risk of personal security for oneself and one's family, yet "speaking out" promises no certain gain (and you may someday be condemned, and perhaps rightly, for supporting the other side... because what common man can predict the course of history?)... well, I'm not going to be too harsh in criticizing someone for opting out on being a political mouthpiece when they may not really know what they're getting involved in.

It's unfortunate that, in the aftermath of large-scale conflict and strife, the survivors compulsively play the blame game and point at one another in condemnation and contempt, but always with the benefit of hindsight and a superior view.

Z -

I don't think it's a matter of one man, or even a group of men, being able to stop a movement/terrorist organization/holocaust. But one man can be a witness to a century. See Klemperer's diaries of the Nazi years.