We Are All Cyborgs – ‘Paradigmatic Shifts: Narrative and Semantics Now’

Before getting up this morning I surfed the internet on my smartphone, roaming from Facebook to Twitter and from Twitter to the Huffington Post app (a ritual I partake in every morning). After reading several banal articles, most of which focused on bogus political manifestos and the weekend’s reaction to Manchester United FC defeating their English rivals Liverpool, I stumbled across a composition that reminded me of a research seminar I attended last October. The article told of how Taylor Swift reportedly purchased some adult web domain names to prevent porn sites misusing her name in the future to sell or promote their sexually explicit content. The reason the singer/actress felt so compelled to purchase a piece of the internet is because, in June 2015, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will release domain names ending in ‘.porn’ and ‘.adult’. Now, to Swift’s relief, no one can use the domain names ‘TaylorSwift.porn’ and ‘TaylorSwift.adult’ in the future. The article further tells of how Microsoft followed suit, purchasing ‘Office.porn’ and ‘Office.adult’ before anyone else could acquire those particular domains. The anxiety about such perverse usages of the World Wide Web is now characteristic of contemporary society.

The seminar that was fortuitously brought to my attention through my morning readings was Dr Orla Murphy’s ‘Paradigmatic Shifts: Narrative and Semantics Now’. I had taken pages of notes during her talk that needed revising so as to enable me to write this blog some five months after the seminar took place. Particular words and sentences stood out and I will attempt to write both from these notes and my memories of the seminar. To paraphrase Dr Murphy loosely, we are all cyborgs: that is, we (humanity) are digitally connected beings. Although a choice ten years ago, this digital connectivity is almost an indispensable capacity of modern man. On hearing the word cyborg I automatically think of Robocop or the movie I Robot, a sci-fi thriller set in the year 2035 where highly intelligent robots fill public service positions throughout the world. But, of course, why compare myself to a robot when I am already hypothetically a cyborg whose daily life centres on technological advances such as the internet? In the preceding sentence, I deliberately chose to use the word ‘centred’ instead of ‘advanced’ for the reason that the internet’s life-enhancing qualities are persistently exploited for malevolent purposes. Mentioned in the seminar was the poignant actuality that people now live a binary existence that runs parallel with each other. Not only do we exist in the real world but we now have a place in a virtual one, which often takes precedence over the former. In modern society, most people live in the virtual world and usually inhabit two houses – that of Facebook and Twitter. Apparently happy places, these dwellings harvest more lies than the Obama administration, but remain the primary method of communication between individuals in the twenty-first century. Facebook is to communication as McDonalds is to food. Although fast, cheap and convenient, it also is terribly unhealthy and innutritious. I would be a fool and a hypocrite were I to say Facebook does not have its uses but its shortcomings eclipse many of its benefits. Yes, Facebook enables one to communicate with a brother, father or friend half way across the world, but what should be measured is the quality of such communication; more often than not, it is poor and usually comprises of hitting the ‘like’ button under-neath a picture or commenting on an exceedingly exaggerated post (God forbid anyone thinks we are anything other than perpetually happy). We live in a virtual reality that is becoming much more important than our real lives and, subsequently, we are lonelier than we were before the invention of the internet.

Access to information is considered a basic right and is one of the many liberties that are exhibited in the United Nations charter of Human Rights. However, what about multinational corporations extracting peoples’ personal information in order to widen their profit margins?  Again to paraphrase Orla Murphy, we are being traced, tracked, and traded for profit. Imagine you are walking home from a night’s partying and you suddenly find that someone is watching you because they want all of your valuables – watch, mobile-phone, rings, money and credit cards. You would either run to safety or confront your stalker and call the police. So what are you to do when you open your browser and go to Facebook.com, only to find your personal information is being collected without your consent via cookies and tracking databases? The panoply of corporations harvesting your personal information make sure that every step you make along your internet trek is monetised. It is important to remember that often these corporations create or help construct your digital profile. Although they often dispense with names, you become a marketable number and your anonymity is cast to one side.

Typically, the internet was a space where we could express ourselves freely but such is the paradox of freedom that our expressions are monitored and surreptitiously confined to ticking boxes. The internet’s infinite capacity for storing information has been a source of consternation among people. These trepidations were heightened after Edward Snowden, a computer professional formerly employed by the CIA and NSA, leaked classified information to the public revealing numerous international surveillance programs. In other words, the National Security Authority, whose core responsibility is global monitoring for counterintelligence purposes, was spying on ordinary people and collecting their data. The internet does not embrace the freedom of individuals: rather, it allows powerful organisations to stretch their hegemonic boundaries. Why does this happen? A general misconception is that the internet is not owned or controlled by anyone but is somewhat owned and controlled by all of its users. This, however, could not be further from the truth, as Professor George P Landow states on discussing hypertext and the effects of digital technology: “technology always empowers someone, some group in society, and it does so at a certain cost” (Allen). This concept is explored in detail by Lawrence Lessig in his book The Future of Ideas. The book is very accessible and Lessig uses real-world metaphors to explain the computer details for the non-technical. He helps us understand the internet by using the concept of a ‘commons’, traditionally understood as a space or resource not owned by any individual or private institution. The internet began as a type of ‘commons’, public property accessible by all. However, currently people have been trying to control intellectual property through copyright, among other means, and Lessig explains that such desire for control is debilitating innovation across the virtual spectrum. I will now briefly return to Facebook for my last point. The internet has become one of the most powerful weapons in modern warfare, with the British army creating a special force of Facebook warriors. Social media has become an unconventional tool for combat in the information age and its prevalence in assisting ISIS recruit members from inside enemy territory reveals the damaging capabilities bestowed to those with access to the internet. The 77^th Brigade or Facebook warriors’ primary objective is to monitor social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter and 24-hour news channels. This way they will attempt to control the narrative and, again (similar to the NSA), will likely invade people’s privacy to do so. The internet is a modern invention comparable to pre-historic discoveries such as the wheel and fire, and the future of this invention will change our lives in unthinkable ways, whether they be for better or worse. What all humans must endeavour to remember is that the internet is a tool and we must not let it control and dictate the direction our lives take.

Works Cited

Allen, Graham. Intertextuality. Vol. Revised. Abingdon: Routledge, 2011. Book.

Lessig, Lawrence. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing, 2002. Book.

Welsh, Daniel. “Taylor Swift Buys Porn Sites’ Web Domains So They Can’t Missue Her Name.” Huffington Post. 23 March 2015. Online.

Murphy, Orla. ‘Paradigmatic Shifts: Narrative and Semantics Now.’ University College Cork. 30 Nov.        2014. Seminar.

‘The Unempty Wasps’ Nest and Kubrick’s The Shining: Rethinking Adaption’

Some weeks ago, on the fourth of March, Professor Graham Allen presented a seminar on his paper ‘The Unempty Wasps’ Nest and Kubrick’s The Shining: Rethinking Adaption’. I thought myself lucky as the paper is yet to be published, so those who attended the seminar were given a taster as what to expect from the issued article. The seminar focused on the issues pertaining to Kubrick’s removing of the wasps’ nest in his film’s adaption of Stephen King’s literary masterpiece. Although only one of many differences between the two media, Graham suggests that the wasps’ nest is present in the movie symbolically rather than physically. In the novel, the wasps’ nest reminds Jack Torrance of how he has been stung by life with his uncontrollable anger, his alcoholism and his abusive father. Jack decides to ‘bomb’ the nest as he thinks it would make a great decoration for his son Danny’s room: “I had one in my room when I was a kid. My dad gave it to me” (King 133). That same night the nest bizarrely comes alive with hundreds of wasps that crawl over Danny and sting him with near-fatal consequences. In the novel, the recurring motif of the wasps represent the troubles of Jack’s past. Nowhere in Kubrick’s film do we see wasps or a wasps’ nest but an unusual, although apt, correlation between the wasps and the Overlook Hotel was made by Graham during the seminar. Wasps have lidless eyes, therefore allowing them perpetual vision, and in the movie the Overlook Hotel seems to be aware of everything that is happening to the characters. Kubrick’s use of the Steadicam was revolutionary and his camera floats through the hotel’s corridors like an evil spirit, a spirit we assign to the hotel’s malevolence. Similar to the wasps, the Overlook Hotel seems to be forever conscious and an insidious participant in Torrance’s madness. The single most thought-provoking element of the seminar (for me) was the discussion Graham and some lectures attending had regarding the adaption of a book onto the big screen. A point highlighted during the sprightly conversation was that once a literary work such as a novel is adapted to another medium, that of a film or stage play, it becomes a partially original creation, and should be perceived as such. It is well known that Stephen King loathed Kubrick’s adaption of The Shining and particularly points out the film’s inability to ‘grasp the sheer inhuman evil of the Overlook hotel’ and instead focuses on Jack’s character’s descent into lunacy. King describes the film as a ‘domestic tragedy with only vaguely supernatural overtones’. However, The Shining is considered by most as a cinematic masterpiece whose innovative approach to the genre of horror transcends rather than conforms to conventions. The question asked is why an adaption should stay true to whatever it is that’s being adapted. The most iconic aspects of the film are not present in the movie and lovers of the book often consider the film inferior to King’s novel. The shining has become two stories and each is brilliant in its own explicit way. The rejection of the wasps’ nest in Kubrick’s The Shining portrays the director’s deliberate breakaway from King’s novel. In allowing the supposedly empty wasps’ nest to come back to life, King associates the unexplainable evil with the Overlook Hotel and not the character of Jack Torrance. In direct contrast, Kubrick portrays Jack as the film’s essence of evil, with the hotel acting as a complimentary backdrop to such perverseness. Therefore, the addition and omission of various aspects of the book becomes necessary and pivotal to the film’s success. The film tells a more realistic story and therefore is a more chilling tale than the novel. King portrays Jack as a character worthy of redemption and the happy ending of the novel strikes a false note with what is evidently more fitting to a Romantic novel than a horror story. Kubrick allows no room for emotional participation when watching the film and you feel instead as though you are experiencing the tribulations of Wendy and Danny. Such are the disparities between the book and the film that it almost feels unjust to compare and contrast them. The adaption of a book to a film is seldom considered the simple process of modification or adjustment but is more widely appreciated as the recreation of the old into the new, thus making it original in its own right. Although the concept of originality has lost its fundamental meaning since the avant-garde, I use the word only to emphasise the importance of a book or film’s adaption to be evaluated individually and not as an example of the direct imitation of a work dragged into another medium. In deliberately not staying true to King’s novel, Kubrick transcends the traditional concepts of horror in film. King was so unhappy with the film version of The Shining that he pushed for the production of a mini television series of his book. However, the TV-series was heavily criticised and demonstrates that novelists are not automatically the best choice when it comes to adapting their work into another medium. Writing a book and writing a screenplay are two very different undertakings and should not be assessed or categorised collectively. Mentioned in the seminar too was the influence Sigmund Freud’s The Uncanny had on Kubrick’s film. The use of doubles, mirrors, repetition, numbers, and the familiar correspond with Freud’s understanding that ‘uncanny feelings’ arise when something familiar starts to act in an inexplicable and peculiar manner. This something might be a house, a pet, a neighbour, and in The Shining it happens to be Jack, a husband and father. Freud states that “Death and the re-animation of the dead are typically represented as uncanny themes…the theory of intellectual uncertainty is thus incapable of explaining that impression” (Freud). Images of death appear ubiquitously in the film – the dead twins, the resurrected caretaker and the corpse in the bathtub. What we never find out is whether the ghosts Jack sees are products of his imagination or real apparitions. Similar to Freud’s understanding of the ‘uncanny’, the viewer’s uncertainty of whether the ghosts are figments of Jack’s imagination exemplify the ‘uncanniness’ we experience in times of confusion and doubt. Whether you are a fan of the novel or the film, one must appreciate that the addition and omission of several features of the book (the wasps’ nest) becomes a necessary evil in making Kubrick’s The Shining the celebrated work it is today.

Works Cited

Allen, Graham. ‘The Unempty Wasps’ Nest and Kubrick’s The Shining: Rethinking Adaptation.’ University College Cork. 4 Mar. 2015. Lecture.

Freud, Sigmund. The Uncanny. London: Peguin, 2003. Book.

King, Stephen. The Shining. London: Hachette, 2007. Book.

Strengell, Heidi. Dissecting Stephen King: From the Gothic to Literary Naturalism. London: Popular Press, 2006. Book.

UCC Textualities Conference Reflection

In life, each and every one of us will have to partake in an event, occasion or experience that will test the very limits of our personal abilities. My D-Day for 2015 fell on the 27^th February: it was the day of the Textualities Conference held by the English Master students of UCC. Since learning the conference was due to occur a month earlier than previously thought, it had positioned itself insidiously at the back of my mind. For some, speaking in public comes as natural as walking your dog in the park; however, for others (like myself) it seems a near impossible feat comparable to climbing Mount Everest with a man-eating monkey strapped to your back. Nonetheless, public speaking is a fundamental ingredient an academic must either possess or acquire, and this very reality meant I had to shape up or ship out. As the weeks drew closer, the tension and excitement reached new levels of eminence. The easiest task of my presentation was choosing a topic, Evelyn Waugh being the number one contender and outright winner. It was my personal appreciation of this exquisitely eloquent and highly articulate writer that compelled me to speak about him, but, more importantly, I felt the need to share my experience of Waughism with my fellow academics. 

Petcha-kucha was the order of the day, a most frightening confinement to how one would usually present an academic exhibition. However, my trepidations about using such an unfamiliar technique seem to have been unfounded. Instead of debilitating my presenting abilities, the use of Petcha-kutcha facilitated me in concentrating and compacting my thoughts and ideas to twenty slides, each lasting 20 seconds. In preparation for the event, I practiced relentlessly until my words correlated unerringly to each and every slide, a characteristic one must be ever so proud of.

Once the day finally arrived, my nerves took a back seat, a marvel consequential to me enjoying the other speakers’ varied and interesting presentations. Contrary to expectations, the conference room was replete with enthusiastic students all encouraging one another. ‘Evelyn Waugh Revisited: Vile Bodies and Modernism’ was the title of my presentation and I must say, once behind the lectern my enthusiasm for Waugh took over and the six minutes and forty seconds elapsed too quickly. My topic involved discussing how and why Waugh’s Vile Bodies should be considered an example of modernist literature. Satire and the use of individualism were the focal points of the presentation. My lecture posed two or three extremely pertinent questions relating to my topic which were answered competently, I hope. The level of efficiency present throughout the day’s events was due to the meticulousness of all the students involved. I took great pleasure in chairing the final group of speakers, whose varied and dynamic presentations concluded the day’s events superbly. During the weekend following the conference, my thoughts were dictated by the little Everest I had overcome, and the eruditions shadowing such an achievement revealed themselves accordingly. On reflection, the three principal accomplishments obtained from the conference were: (1) learning about new topics on which my fellow classmates presented, some leading to a renewal of past interests; (2) newfound confidence in speaking academically in front of more than two people; (3) furnishing an interest in Evelyn Waugh among my classmates. All in all, what I formerly thought to be a daunting and suffocating occurrence transpired to be terribly enjoyable, and the feeling of achievement following the culmination of the day’s events was invigorating.

Who’s got the Scoop

The lowest form of popular culture – lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people’s lives – has overrun real journalism. Today, ordinary Americans are being stuffed with garbage.

Carl Bernstein

This week I had the pleasure of reading Scoop, a book written in 1938 by the English author Evelyn Waugh. The book took me on an exciting journey through the musings of Fleet Street in the 1930s, the home of British national newspapers until the 1980s. In typical Waugh style, the novel ridicules journalistic endeavours in the most humorous manner imaginable. It seems pertinent to have finished reading Scoop this week having watched Brian Williams’s career deteriorate precipitously into almost non-existence. For those of you unaware, Brian Williams is (or was) a news anchor for NBC whose fabricated story about a life and death escape in Iraq has made international headlines over the last few days. Contemporary examples of Scoop’s characters facilitated my understanding of the goings-on at Fleet Street. Lord Copper effortlessly mutates into Rupert Murdoch, Corker transforms into Brian Williams, with William Boot becoming any of the thousands of journalists waiting anxiously for their big break. These metamorphoses empowered me to become knowledgeable in understanding how Scoop’s characters were portrayed and perceived by persons of that time period.

Scoop centres around a young writer whose bucolic life in rural England is abruptly interrupted, after being shipped off abroad to cover a civil war in Africa. Lord Copper, owner of the Daily Beast, in a case of mistaken identity, sends the wrong man for the job. William, a nature columnist for the paper is inexperienced and rather clueless about the journalistic endeavours necessary to succeed in such a cutthroat industry. However, Waugh satirically explores the daily undertakings of a foreign correspondent. After arriving, William – along with countless other journalists from France, Switzerland, Germany, and America – find no discernible war, so they simply go about inventing a conflict to please their tabloid masters back home. From misinformation to completely fabricated events, the journalists behave more like fiction writers than news correspondents, a misperception skilfully conveyed to the reader.

As mentioned before, the bulk of the novel takes place in fictional Ishmaelia, a country we might associate with Ethiopia today. Waugh himself departed for Abyssinia in 1930, representing several English newspapers, to cover the coronation of Halle Selassie. He reported the event as “an elaborate propaganda effort” to convince the world that Abyssinia was a civilised nation. This, of course, was untrue as Selassie triumphed over his adversaries using the most barbaric and inhuman means imaginable. Similar to those in Scoop, journalists and News Corporations continue to manipulate and distort stories to widen their publicity and increase ratings. Through a series of hilarious fumbles and bewildering encounters, William manages to pick up the scoop of the year, steering him towards prominence amongst his colleagues.

The fictional journalists in Scoop are bambi-like compared to those who have made international headlines (for all the wrong reasons) in the last decade. Police bribery, the hacking of personal information, and the unlawful tactics used to pursue a story have become commonplace among journalists today. The defunct News of the World has led the facade in such malpractice until its closure in 2011. Hacking a dead girl’s phone was to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, an unearthing that resulted in the resignation of senior News of the World employees and several high-ranking officers of the Metropolitan Police Service. A direct, although less sinister, correlation can be made with these shocking transgressions and various incidents in Waugh’s novel. The corruption that greases the wheels of society is effortlessly illustrated in Scoop. William’s first assignment for the Daily Beast is to report on a story involving the Minister for Defence’s wife driving her car into a male public lavatory. On trying to access the scene, William is stopped by a policeman.

“Press”, William tells him. “I’m on the Beast”.“So am I”, the sergeant replies. “Go to it”.

This rather amusing dialogue extracts a giggle from the reader but is pervaded by unsolicited truths about newspaper associates. A more recent story is that of a freelance journalist, Ian Bailey who had been falsely accused of murdering a French national at her holiday home in West Cork. Bailey became a suspect in the murder while reporting on the case for the Sunday Tribune newspaper. Although acquitted of any wrong-doing, Bailey supposedly told the news editor of the paper: “It was me, I did it, I killed her to resurrect my career”. Such frightening remarks propel us to think of how far one would go to succeed in his/her career. The 1996 editor of the Sunday Tribune told the court of her shock at the time of the murder: “probably the single biggest fiasco I had ever encountered, that the reporter I had on a story was in fact the suspect”. This remark is more fitting to the character of a fictional crime thriller than that of an actual newspaper editor. In Scoop, no journalist is killed to acquire a story, but all other opportunities are seized upon, such was the extent to which a journalist desired to report a big scoop.

Christopher Hitchens’ refers to Scoop as a “novel of pitiless realism: the mirror of satire held up to the catch the Caliban of the press corps, as no other narrative has done…”. Although I have mused over the parallels one can deduce from Scoop and present-day journalism, the narrative complies with Waugh’s usual satirical panache. Eloquent dialogue assisted by genteel jargon magnifies the characters’ attraction to the reader. A close aide memoire of a P.G Wodehouse novel, with all its flippancy and joviality combined.

Mr. Salter’s side of the conversation was limited to expressions of assent.  When Lord Copper was right he said, “Definitely, Lord Copper”; when he was wrong, “Up to a point.””Let me see, what’s the name of the place I mean? Capital of Japan? Yokohama, isn’t it?””Up to a point, Lord Copper.””And Hong Kong belongs to us, doesn’t it?””Definitely, Lord Copper.”

The above excerpt from Scoop is a hilarious example of Waugh’s tongue-in-cheek approach to the hierarchal inequity present in Fleet Street society. This is a little taster of what to expect from the rest of the novel. If you are searching for a better understanding about the workings of journalism, and want to laugh while doing so, I recommend you read Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop. “I am Tim Collins, reporting from behind my desk. Thank you for reading, Goodnight and God bless”.

Works Cited

Waugh, Evelyn. Scoop. London: Peguin, 2012. Book.

Rousseauism: Sexist Ideals and the Modern Man

“Behind every great man there stands a good woman” This quote sums up rather accurately Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s condescending view of women and the role they should play in society. After reading an excerpt from Rousseau’s writings on Education, which prompted Mary Wollstonecraft to write A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, I felt compelled to blog about the relevancy such feral misconceptions still have in our society today.

Rousseau’s argument rests heavily on what he refers to as the ‘invariable law of nature’, a term which anthropologically correlates with what is now referred to as biological determinism: an ideology that supposes the physiological or genetic structure of an individual controls their behaviour. To put it simply, women are confined to the home because of their ability to produce and nurture offspring, an ability afforded them due to their sexual composition (uterus, mammary glands). This leaves the man to integrate himself into the external world of social, economic, and political opportunity so as to provide for mother and child.

This rather caveman hypothesis of social roles, however simplistic, points to where such discourses initiate. Maybe a matter of convenience for the Neanderthal, this unintelligible human discourse has become the centre of female indignation. “Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture”, an essay by Sherry B. Ortner, articulates further on the matter. Sherry dismisses the biological approach of the devaluation of women, maintaining that, although relevant, its isolation as an affect remains erroneous. Sherry argues that there are a number of interrelated issues which have allowed men to think of women as secondary, and states that “we must attempt to interpret female subordination in light of other universals of the human condition”. The human conditions she speaks of are that of ‘nature’ and ‘culture’, in which she posits men as being associated with ‘culture’ and women with ‘nature’. Without belabouring each of Sherry’s viewpoints, one could ascertain that culture is broadly speaking controlled by man and, through manipulation and exploitation, categorised women as natural creatures whose very essence of life is to pro-create and nurture their young. This brings me to my next point. If sexism can be reduced to a cultural defect, why it is that racism is now, generally speaking, non-existent? One of the most culturally defected discourses in human history was the discrimination of Blacks and, alongside it, slave ownership. At one time or another, white folk thought it their human right (invariable law of nature) to own a black slave so as to enhance their own cause. This ‘invariable law of nature,’ as Rousseau calls it, is presently considered a fallacy regarding the superiority of white men over black men. Some points of interest to the reader of this blog are relevant here: (1) when speaking of the eradication of racism, I mean only to employ its concept universally, as to say racism is not prevalent in specific societies would be an obvious deception; (2) although the liberation of woman is said to have already occurred, sexism remains more tolerant than racism, particularly in Western civilisations.

  Why is it that racist positions are easier to relinquish than sexist ones? Lawrence Thomas, a Professor of Philosophy and Political Science, gives a compelling answer to this question. Thomas explains that, in liberating women, men must come to grips with their conception of themselves as men. If there is to be a reversal of roles – the man staying home and tending to his children, while the woman goes out and works – a feeling of inadequacy perturbs the male. However, in allowing the Black man equal rights, nothing changes for the White man. Even today, if I were to call a black man a ‘nigger’ publicly, this would lead to high condemnation from whomever was in ear shot of such a derogatory remark. Equally, if I were to call a woman a ‘fine piece of ass’ or ‘sexy fox’, people would more than likely smile and continue their endeavours. Stereotypical outlooks and their proliferation need to be opposed and, more importantly, prevented from seeping into future generations. Sexist expressions, similar to that of racist terms, must be seen to be criminally as well as personally offensive.

                                           Rousseau asserts that a woman’s purpose is to produce off-spring, a view inconspicuously held by some men today. Scholars argue that Rousseau’s views are far more complex and that, to fully understand them, they must be assessed in the context of his life and time. So why then do his beliefs continue to overshadow modern civilisation? Those who think like Rousseau are weak and those who think differently but remain passive are cowardly.

Works Cited

Thomas, Laurence. “Sexism and Racism: Some Conceptual Differances.” Ethics (1980): 239-50. Print.

Trouille, Mary. “The Failing of Rousseau’s Ideals of Domesticity and Sensibility.” Eighteenth-Century Studies (1991): 451-83. Print.

 

Evelyn Waugh: An Exquisite Snob

I am forever indebted to a man whose ideologies and doctrines I abhor, but whose very style in demonstrating such believes captured my fullest attention. The man, polemicist, contrarian, atheist and writer is none other than Christopher Hitchens. Although an avid reader of Hitchens’s own writings, his allusion to other writers became my focal point of interest in him. Hitchens’s best seller Arguably contains chapters in which his writerly influences become subject to his sharp-witted criticism.

Christopher wastes no time, ink or paper in getting his point across and begins his berating of Evelyn Waugh with titling his essay on him ‘The Permanent Adolescent’. A specific section of George Orwell’s review of Brideshead Revisited opens the essay, including thoughts on what it means to be a Catholic. Although a review of a novel, Orwell (who admired Waugh) could not resist the temptation of questioning the effect Catholicism has on a writer’s ability in composing fiction: “One cannot really be Catholic and grown up … Waugh is about as good a novelist as one can be while holding untenable opinions.” Orwell’s thoughts on Waugh conveniently tie in with those of Hitchens and become the basis of the essay’s narrative. Reading this essay prompted me to begin reading Waugh, a revelation into English eloquence that has absorbed much of my attention in the last two years.

To enjoy an author’s writing whilst disliking the author seems ambiguous to many, but such madness becomes a necessary paradox. Hitchens enjoyed reading Waugh for the same reason I enjoy reading Hitchens – turn of phrase, the comparable cause. In Penguin’s publication of Decline and Fall, the introductory notes include a quote that fastened my interest in Waugh. He said of his work: “I regard writing not as investigation of character but as an exercise in the use of language, and with this I am obsessed”. This shared enthusiasm led to a further investigation of mine into the life of Waugh and the findings are as interesting as his writings.

Most people will agree that Evelyn is categorically a girl’s name, and each time it was mentioned to friends or family I waited for them to ask what sort of literature ‘she’ wrote so as to correct their erroneous assumption. A little while later I was to learn that his name is pronounced ‘eve, like Christmas eve’ and not ‘ev’, important to know when advocating how terrific his novels are. Exploring Waugh’s life led me to take great interest in his view of the world. Waugh was an anti-modernist writer in the modernist period, writing against the grain while simultaneously exploiting various modernist techniques. He was a traditionalist, conservative and complete snob who feared the ‘age of the common man’. Disenchanted with having been born into a middle-class family, Waugh hoped to inhabit the lifestyle of the upper class, a pursuit that led to his unpopularity among contemporaries. Relentless in his veneration of the aristocracy and his conversion to Catholicism meant Waugh fell out of touch with the world around him, and so recreated a past world in some of his fiction.

Waugh’s writing is generally divided into two sections. His earlier works which include Decline and Fall, Scoop, Vile Bodies, A Handful of Dust and many more; these novels are satirical and were received favourably by critics and readers alike. Phase two include Waugh’s works after his conversion to Catholicism, while Brideshead Revisited is seen as the dividing line between the two periods. Waugh was received into the Catholic Church in September 1930, an event promulgated as a national scandal in newspapers. The headline of the Express newspaper was as follows: “Another Author Turns To Rome, Mr. Evelyn Waugh Leaves Church Of England, Young Satirist Of Mayfair”. Writing fiction is no easy task but writing fiction while aligning yourself with the Catholic Church can be a gruelling undertaking. Catholicism seemed to harden Waugh’s outlook of the world, an attitude which was to become, in his readers’ eyes, a negative influence on his writing. A traditionalist since his younger days, Waugh developed a sense of dogmatism his readers found superfluous to the point of repugnant.

Although Waugh’s works continued to be widely read, he, like countless other writers, found himself under financial duress in later years. Due to his financial difficulties, Waugh agreed to an interview by John Freeman as part of the BBC television series Face to Face. After watching the interview, which took place six years before his death in 1960, I was overcome with a mixture of melancholia and frustration. To give some context to the interview will help elucidate the reasons for my annoyance. Waugh was a considerably private man who partook in very few interviews throughout his life. Probably the most irritating aspect of the video, which can be viewed on YouTube, is the fact the interviewer is someone who tells the public that he is a great admirer of Waugh but nonetheless interviews him in a most demeaning and disparaging manner. Instead of allowing Waugh to answer the questions posed to him in such a way that the question can be answered in its entirety, Freeman boorishly interrupts Waugh by skipping to another question. This badgering is handled by Waugh in a truly courteous manner; however, it’s quite obvious he is perplexed at the lack of decorum showed by Freeman. The interviewer is targeting Waugh for being a Christian and a Catholic in particular, a disappointing condemnation because Waugh was invited to take part in the interview so as to discuss his life and novels, not to defend his ideologies and religious affiliations. However, apart from the ridiculous behaviour of the interviewer, Waugh’s command of the English language is truly remarkable. The eloquence and lucidity in which Waugh speaks is almost lyrical and it becomes apparent why his prose is packed full of delectable turns of phrase. Hundreds of years of English elegance appear to have refined itself in Waugh to fashion a truly unique model of neo-English elitism, a snootiness not vastly appreciated by his contemporaries. Leaving to one side Waugh’s elitist haughtiness, I strongly recommend anyone with an interest in how the English language should be articulated to go and read an Evelyn Waugh novel. Mark my words, you will be captivated hook, line and sinker by this truly remarkably author.

Works Cited

Berberich, Christine. The Image of the English Gentleman in Twentieth-century Literature: Englishness and Nostalgia. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing , 2007. Book.

Hendrix, Jenny. “The Lost, Unlovable Evelyn Waugh.” The Slate Book Review (2012): 1. web.

A Good Book Has No Ending

Harold Bloom, in his book on Nathaniel Hawthorne, writes that “The Scarlet Letter troubles the heart and stimulates the intellect”. After watching Roland Joffe’s cinematic adaption of the novel, one is left to contemplate whether the film troubles school-teachers and stimulates the phallus. Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter is undoubtedly his most recognised work and is considered a true American classic. A true test of the book’s rigid readability is its attempted conversion to the big screen on numerous occasions. The primary reason for this lies in the novel’s acute resemblance to a Greek tragedy: forbidden love, uncontrollable jealousy, an unforgiving Puritan society, an affable offender and, of course, a tragic-heroine. All of the aforementioned plot scenarios make for a mouth-watering visit to your local film theatre, and possibly may coincide with a brief history of Puritan civilisation in the middle of seventeenth-century New England. The Scarlet Letter, like so many classics, is a timeless piece of fiction writing, whereat even today the trials and tribulations of the protagonist Hester Prynne correlate to the hardships of contemporary women. Hester embodies the feminist ideology of equal treatment and to be allowed to express individuality, self-reliance and the autonomy of body, mind and soul. She is an empowering figure who defies the patriarchal society to which she belongs.
The difficult task of adapting a classic novel to the big screen lies in its marketability, a term associated with the omitting and adding of fragments from the original text. This process is now a general feature of Hollywood and deemed an essentiality by film producers. The development of expurgating a text became a common practice among publishers before strict censorship laws were lifted in the twentieth century. However, society has now done a complete U-turn and many classic narratives are considered too innocent for contemporary viewership. This development is both scandalous and perfectly comprehensible. To portray the story of Hester Prynne while bearing in mind the demands of the market place seems plausible enough, taking for granted that the main attributes of the novel remain intact. In fact, critics claim Hawthorne himself wrote The Scarlet Letter so as catch the public’s attention; Hawthorne and his family were financially unsound during the 1840s and hoped the book would relieve them of their monetary difficulties. Whether Hawthorne’s finances were the driving force behind The Scarlet Letter remains irrelevant, for the story is aesthetically a literary masterpiece. A general rule pertaining to literature is that each and every one of us interpret the same text differently, but this does not necessarily infer that every text has a million meanings. Bercovitch formulates a similar thought when discussing The Scarlet Letter: he observes that “Hawthorne’s meanings may be endless, but they are not open-ended”. Unforgivingly, Joffe’s screen adaptation of The Scarlet Letter attempts to ‘improve’ the text by modernising it to the values of 1990s American culture. Why unforgivingly, you ask? The film adaptation, which states that the movie is based loosely on Hawthorne’s novel confines, itself to a 135 minutes of sexual dramatization. To further explicate the disparity between Hawthorne’s text and Joffe’s movie, a glimpse into a comment made by Demi Moore (who plays Hester in Joffe’s adaptation) seems appropriate. When asked about how the film version plays fast and loose with the novel, Ms Moore supposedly answered that “not many people read the book, anyway”. She could not have been more erroneous in her assumption, as the book has become required reading for students engaged in literary studies across American Universities.
A question invariably playing on the minds of movie enthusiasts is the relevancy of whether or not the adaptation stays faithful to the original text, and, if not, why this should matter. A rejoinder from a literary student may seem a little partial or subjective but hopefully will incline those who have not read the book, but have seen the movie, to read it. The movie version is a nirvana for those seeking a sexual thrill from a well-established Hollywood actress. The suspense of sexual anticipation is deafening and absorbs the plot and characters from the beginning until the end of the movie. Not to sound like a Puritan, but Hawthorne’s text conveys so much more than caveman notions of lust and sexual desire. The aesthetics of love, evil, loyalty, nature, Puritanism, and libertinism are all explored in the novel in the most articulate way. A sense of fear, intrigue, and wonder fill the minds of its readers and a true understanding of what it was like to live in such a dogmatic society becomes a reality for the reader. The film version truncates all of these experiences by sexualising the Puritan society conveyed in the novel to almost depraved sex pests. If what Joffe did was modify the novel, he did so by removing its beauty and replacing it with a seediness comparable to that found in the novel by Erika Mitchell, Fifty Shades of Grey. The movie lacks real substance, or at least, any meaningful substance, a substance found in every page of the book. Another reason why literary scholars might support the need for film adaptations to stay faithful to the original text is that the film will supplant the place of the novel in the minds of many. Instead of musing over the perspicacity of Hester Prynne, viewers will be consumed by bedraggled thoughts of Demi Moore’s exposed bosom. The problem with film adaptations of classic novels has to do with conflicting social contexts – the period in which the novel is written and for whom (70s, 80s, 90s audience) the film is produced. Nevertheless, anyone who has watched the 1995 film version of The Scarlet Letter but leaves the original book untouched are doing themselves and Hawthorne a grave injustice. Left below is a link to the trailer of the movie version starring Demi Moore, Gary Oldman, and Robert Duvall.

Works Cited

Bloom, Harold. Nathaniel Hawthorne. California: University of California, 2008. Book.

Palmer, R Barton. Nineteenth-Century American Fiction on Screen. London: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Book.

Rick, Berg. “Literature’s Faithless Other.” Pacific Coast Philology (1998): 99-102. Document.

Rethinking the Avant-Garde

To continue to engage with the question ‘is the notion of the Avant-Garde as pertinent today as it was in the beginning of the twentieth-century’, we must engage with the etymological use of the word (avant-garde). The term, originally used in military practice to describe the foremost part of an advancing army, took on a whole new meaning when applied to innovative art in the latter part of the nineteenth century (Bishop). Furthermore, its initial application to these artists and writers denotes more to their eccentricity than to any inherently creative qualities in their work. This presents an ambiguous challenge for readers of the avant-garde today. In order for us to understand whether the avant-garde continues to subsist, an understanding of its present meaning is vital.

Historically, avant-gardism consists of ‘original’ or ‘authentic’ works created in direct opposition to the traditional or institutional assessment of art. This is paradoxical in its entirety. Historical or past avant-gardist art, although momentarily revolutionary, ultimately fails in its revolutionary usefulness as the art becomes outmoded. The ‘new’ and ‘original’ art matures into decadence, through no fault of its own and remains ‘original’ merely in historical terms. The works of Joyce, Beckett, Woolf, Picasso, Matisse and more recently Warhol prepared the way for future artists to continue with the process of experimentation and innovation. Therefore, when avant-garde art becomes fashionable- as say, collage in visual art and associational syntax in poetry already have, then they appear decadent, and contemporary artists feel aspired to try and transcend the old so as to make it new (Kostelanetz, Avant-Garde).Conventionally, avant-garde art endeavours to contest the traditional and philosophical notions of art, but today, all anti-traditional art is widely accepted both individually and institutionally. So how exactly does an artist create avant-gardist art today? The answer to this seemingly insoluble question is twofold. Firstly, an artist who attempts to be original with reference to content, might, succeed in creating a ‘shock value’ in their art, however, this art should not be considered avant-gardist art. The reason is, as already mentioned, the ‘shock value’ continually fluctuates. A painting depicting the beheading of an American journalist, by a member of the Islamic State, with the LGB flag as its backdrop, could be seen as having a ‘shock value’. This painting, unquestionably, would not be referred to as avant-gardist, since decadence alone is not enough to give a work such praiseworthy reference. With this mindless example, one realises, that it’s not a works content that truly matters but the method or media in which it is created. Therefore, a writer or artist must invent a new system of painting, or writing, to truly encapsulate the avant-garde, in all its generalities. Marcel Duchamp’s craftsmanship plays poorly in contrasts to his inventiveness when analysing his most eminent work. Duchamp invented a new method of artistic creation, a style he refers to as ‘ready-made’ art, in which the subject bared little importance to the meaning of the artwork.

Therefore, the definition of the avant-garde is as capricious as the concept of its meaning and will undoubtedly continue to change. In the following paragraph, I intend on using its more general meaning, that of the experimental and innovative delineation. Let us now look at some contemporary artists who are pushing today into tomorrow. Eva and Franco Mattes. Two artists from Italy who use new technologies to create original art. Internet art originated in the middle of the 1990s. Eva and Franco, are considered to be part of the second wave of this relatively new sensation. Similar to Duchamp, the pair enjoy engaging with the art world, in a disparaging and caustic manner. In one of their more famous works, “No Fun”, they choose a website where users surf webcam feeds, called Chatroulette (Burnett). In the room of their webcam, Franco pretends to hang himself and records the actions of strangers. This piece of performance art arouses diverse reactions from the viewers, ranging from complete horror to insensitive laughter. Eva and Franco understand that perception is our key to reality, and unlike artists before them, relay to the world this understanding in a new and experimental fashion. Academic artists might have a problem crediting their ‘performance’ as art, and for this reason I believe ‘No Fun’ to be of an avant-garde standard. Thus, artists must not reinvent imagery but instead reinvent the method used in which to display imagery.

---

                                                                                                           Works Cited

Bishop, Thomas. “Changing Concepts of Avant-Garde in XXth Century Literature.” The French Review (1964): 34-41. Jstor.

Burnett, Zaron. “Notes from the Avant-Garde: 5 artisit pushing today into tomorrow.” 17 April 2013. thoughtcatalogue.com. Website/Blog. 20 10 2014.

Kostelanetz, Richard. “Avant-Garde.” Hall, Donald. Claims for Poetry. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1982. 238-245. Print.

—. “Avant-Garde (1984).” New England Review and Bread Loaf Quarterly (1984): 24-40. Jstor.

Long Live The Avant-Garde

Is the notion of the avant-garde as pertinent today as it was in the beginning of the early-twentieth century? A multifaceted question in which I intend not to answer but to engage with. Theorists and literary critics alike (too many to mention) will argue that the avant-garde faded out or to a lesser extent perished. If so, when, where, how and why?

Avant-gardism originated in opposition to traditional expectations of what constitutes as art, whether institutionally or outside. Without being too exact one could argue that Paris was the nucleus of this innovative movement, particularly in the 1910s, 1920s and 1930s. Woody Allan’s Midnight in Paris depicts, rather accurately, (in my opinion) the ‘aesthetic longing’ artists and writers today wish to discover. Here Cubism, Dadaism, Impressionism, Realism, Symbolism, Primitivism, and many more, took centre stage, and with such gusto as the world had not experienced before. F.S Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemmingway, Gertrude Stein, and Picasso all frequented the same cafés and bars, where original ideas were shaped and moulded into the artworks that inhabit our libraries and museums today. Nelly Furtado’s crooning of the words, “why do all good things come to an end”, seem appropriate when writing about the Parisian artists of the early twentieth century.

The reason all good things come to an end is because the good becomes old and the old is never new. Art and literature strive on originality, a concept and term filled with the paradoxical elements which hold it together. Walter Benjamin attributes this loss of originality or aura to the mechanization of the work of art. This assumption is true to a degree but surely in a teleological or existentialist world progression is inevitable. Were artists supposed to boycott the new mode of production and continue the Dadaist tradition of useless art, surely not? Furthermore, one could argue that the original does not exist, for the ideas of writers and artists alike are perceived, then interpreted and finally put onto a canvas or blank page. Excellence and originality invariably alter for the reason that standards can and do change. What may be deemed original might also be considered a copy or a reinvention of a type of originality. Theoretically the avant-garde cannot exist without “tradition” and it is widely accepted in philosophical and historical circles that the discourse of tradition changes with the coming of each epoch, thus the avant-garde in keeping up with tradition evolves as opposed to regresses. This is only a thought, and is widely disputed among literary theorists.

An example of neo avant-gardism is Andy Warhol’s Oxidation Paintings. Before the exhibition of the painting, Warhol or an assistant, allegedly urinated onto canvases prepared with a copper emulsion, causing highly gestural green gas splotches of oxidation to form on the reddish ground. Due to his already preeminent status as an artist, this crude act becomes of instantaneous aesthetic value. My point in telling this story is that it replicates Marcel Duchamp’s urinal art. Both are accepted as art, the former immediately, and the latter after some time. Indisputably, urinating in an art gallery is as shocking as placing a urinal in a museum if positioned traditionally on a historical diagram. What is shocking now is unthinkable a hundred years ago and what is shocking then is deemed cultivated now. My point is, there are many factors which contribute to a so called “shock value”, including political and social ideologies. These factors are transferable to the degree of changeability, therefore, the avant-garde has no choice but to keep in line with its external and internal surroundings.

The tip of the iceberg remains untouched. Alas, time is too close to midnight to allow my cognitive thought to refrain from wandering, therefore, I will continue with this complex topic in the following days. Remember to comment like or share the above, if not for its usefulness, then at least to motivate me to continue to write on this subject.