Translate

Friday, 22 November 2013

Wierdness - DEAD PRESIDENTS

The first US president to be assassinated was Abraham Lincoln in 1865. The last – so far – was John F Kennedy, fifty years ago today. A century separated the two men’s election – 1860 for Lincoln, Kennedy in 1960.
Most Americans still refuse to believe Kennedy’s killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, acted alone, insisting he was either framed or part of a conspiracy. Curiously, many believe a lone nut did murder Lincoln – whose assassination actually was part of a documented plot[*].
Kennedy’s death was quickly followed by the swearing in of Vice President Johnson; thus, he became the first southerner to hold the office of president since Lincoln was succeeded by his VP – Johnson[†].
Both Presidents Johnson, governing in difficult times, became increasingly unpopular and mistrusted. Bitter, facing opposition from within their own parties and almost certain defeat, neither sought a second term.




[*]John Wilkes Booth was head of a small group of radicals and Confederate spies. They planned, initially, to kidnap Lincoln on the road to his summer residence and hold him to ransom for the South’s independence. When the President’s travel plans were cancelled, they settled on a synchronised round of executions to decapitate the Union Government.
While Booth was shooting Lincoln, Secretary of War Stanton was set upon in his bed – where he’d been recuperating from a carriage accident. Stanton escaped serious injury but his son was stabbed wrestling with the attacker, who fled.
Secretary of State Seward survived because his would-be assassin lost his nerve at the last moment.

[†]Andrew Johnson of Tennessee. Kennedy’s successor was, of course, Lyndon Baines Johnson of Texas. 

Thursday, 21 November 2013

More Historical Weirdness - W and Q

The United States, thanks to the vagaries of its Electoral College, has had two presidents elected without winning the popular vote. Both were sons of two-term vice presidents, later single-term presidents, of the same name.
Both rejected the appellation “Junior”, instead distinguishing themselves from their fathers by their middle name or initial – John Quincy Adams, and George W Bush.
The fathers were both vice president to popular two-termers, succeeded to the presidency, and lost after one term to slippery characters who also shared a name – John Adams was vice president to George Washington, and lost to Thomas Jefferson; George Bush served Ronald Reagan before losing to William Jefferson Clinton.
Both fathers were hampered in re-election by a decidedly odd third-party candidate. In the case of Bush, snr, it was eccentric millionaire Ross Perot. For John Adams, it was Aaron Burr of New York – who later not only killed a Founding Father in a duel, but also tried to make himself Emperor of Mexico.
There, the comparison ends. John Quincy Adams served just one term. Like his father, he suffered from an inability to play populist or party politics. His presidency, however, was only a comma in a long, distinguished career.
Entering the Diplomatic Service in his teens, he played important roles in the Netherlands, Prussia, Russia and Britain. At home he served in Congress and cabinet. It was Adams who largely conceived and negotiated the modern boundaries of the continental United States. Returning to Congress after the presidency he was an early, lonely voice in the fight against slavery. He finally died, at an advanced age, on his feet on the floor of the House.
George W Bush, of course, won re-election to a second term. It was hardly important, though. He did all the damage in his first.


Friday, 15 November 2013

Short Flights of Historical Weirdness: DID YOU HEAR THE ONE ABOUT THE IRISH JAILBREAK?


File under, “Irish inventions that sound stupid till you find out they actually worked”:
On 3 February, 1919, Michael Collins[1] and Harry Boland[2] broke Eamon de Valera[3] out of Lincoln Gaol in England.
Exactly how did Harry and the Big Fellow manage it, to whisk the leader of Ireland’s rebel government away from His Majesty’s boarding-house? They used files and a duplicate key, of course.
Files and a duplicate key they had smuggled into the prison ahead of time . . . baked inside four cakes.
Not exactly a submarine with a screen-door, now, is it?




[1]1890–1922: Legendary figure of the Irish War of Independence; signatory to the Anglo-Irish Treaty (6 December, 1921); head of the first Irish Free-State Government. Ambushed by anti-Treaty guerrillas and killed in the ensuing fire-fight, 22 August, 1922.

[2]Collins’ friend and collaborator; joint party-secretary, Sinn Fein, and president of Irish Republican Brotherhood (1918); minister in rebel Irish cabinet. Sided with de Valera against Collins, joining Republican MPs who walked out of the Dail (Irish Parliament) in protest against the Treaty. Killed fighting against government forces in the opening days of the Civil War, 31 July, 1922.

[3]1882–1975: Statesman and revolutionary. Born in New York of a Spanish artist father and Irish mother; raised in Ireland by his grandmother and an uncle.
Commanded a battalion of Irish National Volunteers in the doomed Easter Rising (Dublin, 1916); the only commander to escape execution, thanks to his American birth; rose to prominence in the rising’s aftermath.
President of Ireland during War of Independence; resigned in protest when the Dail approved the Anglo-Irish Treaty; fought against the provisional government in the Civil War (1922–3).
After defeat in the war formed Fianna Fail party (1926), taking most Sinn Fein supporters with him; head of Irish government, 1932–48, 1951–4, and 1957–9. In 1937 promulgated a new constitution establishing the Republic of Eire.
President of Eire, 1959–73.

Saturday, 2 November 2013

ANSWERS TO A FRIEND'S TWO QUESTIONS or Portraits of the Artist as Old Man and Young Twat


My friend, Parkstreet, has a project going at the moment. He’s asking people to conduct two interviews – one with their eighteen year-old self, one with themself at eighty.
To participate, go to:
Here’s my effort.

I
Answering the first question involves two trips back in time. Or, more precisely, one trip, two different locations.
            One on one, eighteen year old me is attentive and philosophical. He doesn’t tell me what he thinks of me. Instead, he listens. He lets me talk about myself and asks thoughtful questions. He likes to help people feel good about themselves, but also to see themselves – the better to make their own decisions. Besides, he doubts his ability to say anything intelligent or useful.
So he talks in clichés. The closest he comes to actual advice, or judgement, is, “Do you know what you’re good at? Are you doing it? Then keep it up. The rest will sort itself out.”
             I’m tempted to offer some advice of my own; to nudge him in a direction conducive to my own well-being. He’s a sweet-natured kid and, given what he’s been through already, I’d like to spare him some of what’s coming.
I resist the urge. Sure, if he thinks I’m his friend I could get him to do just about anything – others have and will – but it wouldn’t stick, and later he’d resent it. Beneath the gentle acquiescence he’s a stubborn, rebellious creature; telling him what to do is a sure way to get him to do the opposite. He learns best when he learns for himself, even if he has to repeat the experiment a few times to be certain.
            That’s the private interview. If we meet in company, things go a little differently. For a start, he’s probably drinking. He still asks questions and listens to the answers, but he’s not being helpful. He’s scanning me for weakness. Petulantly chain-smoking, gazing out half-face and heavy-lids from behind a wall of dark hair, he waits for the chance to cut me off at the knees in front of an audience. That, to him, is being clever.
            He doesn’t know why he dislikes me, he just does. It’s instinctive. Maybe I remind him too much of the guy described above. Anyway, he’s surprised we’re still alive at my age and for some reason holds it against me.
He already makes more money than I do. That’s not important to him right now, but in a year or two he’ll think it is. I want to tell him, just to see the look on his face, how much time he’s about to spend in sales and marketing. To this half-baked idealist – who, on a camp-bed on the building site where he labours, fills candle-lit notebooks with bad poetry – that constitutes a monstrous sell-out.
He’s mildly surprised that we married, and so young, though not surprised the marriage broke down. That’s what marriages do.
My mobile phone on the table elicits a sneer. So does the news that I’m on speaking terms again with our father. He’s disappointed we didn’t do more with music. He’s pleased we’re still writing, but doesn’t think I’m doing it right; still believes art should turn the world upside-down. I think art reflects the world or turns it inside-out.
The conversation doesn’t go very far. Eventually, he abandons trying to make me look like an idiot. Instead, when I respond to some bit of pseudo-Nietzschean twaddle with the observation that Nietzsche was a great writer, but also a syphilitic loon, he just loses it and takes a swing at me with his chair. A bouncer and a barman wrestle him out the door.
In the end, who cares what this asshole thinks? Not me.

II
The old man opens the door and ushers me inside. We could have met at a cafe – or in the abstract for that matter – but he wanted me to see where he lives.
            He’s still nearly as tall as me; not at all stooped (I’ve already been thanked for taking better care of myself, especially our teeth). And he still has his hair.
            He doesn’t say if he owns the apartment, but whoever does obviously looks after it. There is no mould or broken fittings. His furniture’s nicer than mine. Not new, but well made.
            From the corner of my eye, in one of the rooms off the hallway, I think I see a woman. I can’t tell if she’s real or only the shadow of a ghost of a memory. I don’t ask – for the same reason I don’t look for photos of a wife, kids or grandchildren.
             “This is where I work,” he says, showing me in to his study. I recognise from my own library some of the books lining the walls, and he’s added two- or three-times as many again. Some, on a little shelf near the desk, are his own. The desk faces away from the window. He indicates two armchairs and we sit.
            “I’ll be as brief as I can,” he begins. “Since you’re short on time.”
            “I am?”
            “Yes, you are. Where are you now, exactly? Thirty-eight? Okay. You’ve arrived at an important point. You’ve done some hard work in the last eighteen months, but now you’re flailing.
            “You’ve gotten clean and done a lot to straighten your head out. Congratulations. But you’ve fallen in to your old familiar trap – trying to do what you feel you should do, at the same time as what you think others think you should do. And, surprise, surprise, you’re fucking them both up.”
            While speaking he’s been looking over my shoulder at nothing in particular. Now, for the first time, he fixes me from under a raised eyebrow. “You’re really not as stupid as all that,” he jabs. “You know that leads right back to the hole you’ve just tunnelled out of.
            “You’re new to doing what’s good for you, so let me help. The people you care about only want to see you do well, whatever it is you do, so choose a road.
            “That angry smart-arse you still carry inside had one thing going for him – once he made a decision he sure as hell got things done. You don’t need to like him, just use him.
            “You know you can live on almost nothing. Do it for another six months and work at something you can be proud of. You’ve got the beginning and the end of a decent novel; write the middle. You’ll either succeed or you won’t – you can always whore yourself later. Demand for proofreaders and content-hacks won’t dry up any time soon.
            “You’re fantastic in a crisis and fuck-all use any time else, so pretend you don’t have any option. Because you don’t. It’s either self respect, or making just enough lucre to destroy yourself. Make your crises worthwhile.”
            He stands and curtly guides me back up the hall.
            “What else can I say? Don’t spend too much time alone – You don’t notice so much, but others notice it on you. Be kind to your family. Make time for your friends.
            “And, oh,” he winks as he closes the door. “Try to keep me in mind.”

Friday, 1 November 2013

LEE HARVEY OSWALD

Oswald killed Kennedy.
That simple statement, three weeks out from the fiftieth anniversary of the event, remains more controversial than it needs to be. In any group of five people it’s likely at least two will vehemently disagree, while a third – and possibly a fourth – will have “unanswered questions”.
It was the CIA. It was the Mob. It was pro-Castro Cubans. It was anti-Castro Cubans. It was the military-industrial complex. It was some combination of the above – maybe all of them. There were two gunmen. There were four. Even Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy’s successor, didn’t “discount the possibility” of a conspiracy – commies, of course (Johnson himself was yet another at whom the finger has been pointed).
All the conspiracy theories ignore one important piece of evidence: the person of Lee Harvey Oswald. Once you understand a little about this enigmatic figure, hidden for fifty years in plain sight, no further explanation is required. The assassination can be seen for what it was – a simple, senseless act of murder.
Why is it important? Stick around, I’ll tell you later.

Profile

Loner. Misfit. Malcontent. Ideologue. All the usual clichés apply. Father, either absent or brutal. Mother, by turns indulgent and manipulative (Interestingly, while the first mass-media assassination has yielded interview upon interview with just about anyone who was in Dallas that day, there are precious few with Mrs Oswald. She always demanded money first).
He was nobody’s dupe, nobody’s patsy, nobody’s sleeper-agent. These demand either gross stupidity or respect for an authority beyond oneself. Oswald possessed neither.
Here was a guy who taught himself Russian, then read the classics, before defecting to the Soviet Union. His diary entries from the return trip reveal profound disillusionment. He’d hoped to discover a paradise of freedom and equality. Instead he found hypocrisy – just another society where, in his eyes, the politico-military elite oppressed the people by means of centralised government. He could have that back at home.
It’s at about this time, it seems, that his thoughts began to coalesce. No definite plan yet, but the germ of an idea. If the world was going to change, he’d have to strike the blow himself.

Objections and Evidence

Conspiracists raise countless objections to Oswald being the shooter or, if he was, to the idea he acted alone. I’ll deal, briefly, with just three.
First and most famous, the “magic bullet” – also known as the “pristine bullet” due to its being, it is said, improbably intact after doing impossible damage. This, Oliver Stone notwithstanding, is nonsense. Repeated computer reconstructions and ballistic experiments have shown a single bullet would not only follow the course described in (what doubters call) the official version, but would arrive in much the same condition.
The first objection intersects the second. We’ll call it “Back, and to the left” – Oswald couldn’t be the only gunman because of the nature of the wound, and the way the President’s body reacted to the head-shot. There had to have been a second sniper, in front of the motorcade, on the grassy-knoll.
Again, live-fire experiments – on everything from ballistics gel to live goats to gel-packed human skulls – have reproduced identical wound-patterns with a shot from behind.
And then, as he had on most days for twenty-five years, Kennedy was wearing a back-brace. The Zapruder film shows what happened. At the moment of impact the President’s head pitches forward for an instant. Then the combined force of the exiting bullet, the back-brace restraining his torso, and his skull exploding like an overripe watermelon, jerks him upright and back as he slumps over sideways. Isaac Newton would have understood.
Finally, we’re told that Oswald possessed neither the time nor the skill to make the shots. To the contrary, Oswald, an ex-marine, was a proficient marksman. He had a serviceable rifle with a telescopic sight. He had an excellent firing position with good visibility and little cross-wind. He had a clear target moving slowly along his line of vision. And he had seven-point-one seconds to discharge the three recorded shots.
These facts alone – viewed dispassionately – render flights of fancy about magic bullets, doppelgangers and puffs of smoke on the grassy-knoll superfluous.

Oswald’s Razor

Lee Harvey Oswald was an incurable malcontent. He held strident yet amorphous political views, based on not only the rejection but the destruction of all authority. Abortive attempts to find his place in the world – the Marine Corps; Russia; a rejected application for residency in Mexico – fuelled a growing resentment.
Reeling from one frustration to the next, he began to lash out. Oswald frequented various, often opposing, political organisations, causing trouble wherever he went. Seven months before the Kennedy killing he fired a bullet into the Dallas home of Major-General Edwin A Walker. Walker (unlike Kennedy, unencumbered by a surgical corset) was able to take cover. Thwarted again, Oswald went back to trouble-making – until fate delivered the most powerful man in the world to the street under his window.
As we’ve seen, there is no good reason to believe Oswald didn’t kill the President. The School Book Depository was immediately searched, and an improvised sniper’s nest discovered at the sixth-floor corner window.
Descriptions – and the name – of a man seen leaving the area led, within the hour, to Oswald being stopped in the street by patrolman JD Tippet. In front of witnesses, he shot Tippet four times. Lest there be any doubt about the eyewitness accounts, they led officers to a cinema nearby. Here, Oswald was arrested, still holding a gun. The chain of events is incontrovertible.

Unseen Hands

So, why is any of this important? Belief in conspiracy theories is rarely harmless. At best, it distracts us from real problems. At worst it leads to dangerous extremes.
It’s a palliative, a white-noise ego massage. We’re in on the secret. We know the truth but are relieved of responsibility. “They” are much too powerful – we can do nothing but bleat.
Whether it’s the Kennedy assassination, the charge that the Royal Family killed Princess Diana, or the belief that the US Government caused 9/11, conspiracist-thinking can have unforeseen consequences.
The first two instances – leaving aside the simple, human pain of those caught in the crossfire – have led to endless inquiries, chasing absurd leads, employing public resources that could be much better used elsewhere.
The third is more interesting. While millions believe the Bush Administration carried-out the 9/11 attacks, the Administration’s own belief in a global Islamist conspiracy diverted its attention from the small group that actually did the deed – leading them to invade Iraq in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
Conspiracy theories come in many flavours. Which ones we choose to believe is dictated by our political, social, intellectual or ethnic prejudices.
Fifty years on from Dallas, we’re also seventy-odd years from a bigger, more brutal event that scarred the twentieth-century.
It’s worth pausing to reflect on just what, in favourable circumstances, can be accomplished by a small, angry man with big ideas.
And on what can happen when enough, otherwise rational, people give credence to the notion that history is directed by unseen, all-powerful hands.


Tuesday, 15 October 2013

WHEN IT HURTS A LITTLE


“You’re doing well,” they’ll say. “Most people need a break by now.”
            And so by accident I discovered I have a relatively high pain threshold. Being somewhat of a dullard, I had to be told. Also, it’s something I keep rediscovering – to my perpetual surprise – usually reclining in a chair while someone buzzes me with something pointy.
            Honestly, though, it’s hard to notice pain when you’re focused on not staring up at the breasts of the pretty Belorussian dentist whose lower-abdomen is pressed against the top of your head:
“Do you need me to stop for a bit?”
            “No, no, I’m fine – just keep doing what you’re doing.”
            My tattooist would rather spend a whole day under the gun than twenty minutes having his teeth scraped. Personally, I don’t see the difference. Except for the view. This would come as a surprise to the shrink who told me I’d become a junkie to avoid discomfort – before handing me a self-help manual and sending me home to meditate. She may have got it just about exactly wrong.
            “The aim of the Wise,” Aristotle said, “Is to seek out pleasure and avoid pain.” Not the first dangerously stupid idea Aristotle ever expressed. I prefer a little Huxley: “And as for the really spiritual people, look what they revert to. Not merely to silliness and stupidity, but finally to crass non-existence. The highest spiritual state is ecstasy, which is just not being there at all.”
            So, does pain turn me on? No. I’m not a whips and chains kind of guy – neither administering nor receiving. In my experience, most masochists are some variation or other of guilty control-freak. Even submitting, they rarely relinquish the final word. And your average sadist? Usually a garden-variety moral coward with a wounded ego and a grudge. That scene, like the spiritual one, is largely an elaborate illusion; there’s little about it all that’s real. Beyond any initial fascination, it quickly gets sordid – and rather boring.
Pain can elevate; degradation is only that. The most degrading pain is unnecessary pain; and the worst thing about unnecessary pain is the impulse to give it meaning. People end up defining themselves by their suffering to render it worthwhile – or make it seem to hurt less. Sometimes pain just is.
            It’s wrong, though, to say that it can’t be exciting – even stimulating. Pain fires the endorphins. It anchors you; reminds you that you exist. It throws into sharper relief any joy or ecstasy you may experience. And it moulds you just as effectively as pleasure.
            Me, do I like pain? No. Do I dislike it? Not necessarily. Do I just like to choose who gets to see me hurt? Almost certainly. In any event pain can test you, revealing the self to the self; you don’t seek it out for its own sake, but it’s often the price of something valuable; and you don’t know who you are until you know what you can take. It’s nice, occasionally, to surprise yourself.
            Anyway, I never know what I like until I’ve tried it.


Friday, 4 October 2013

THE ACCIDENTAL EXISTENTIALIST


“Are you not going to do up all of it?” demanded Beni narkily.

“I was going to save some for later – for both of us, I mean.” Not for the first time, Craig was a little taken aback that someone wasn’t in tune with his thoughts without his having to explain them. “And I thought you could do without your neighbours seeing the paramedics arrive.”

“If you’re worried about dropping, take less yourself and give the rest to me – or don’t give me any at all. I’m an old man with old veins. I’m not pricking my skin for half a twenty.”

Craig sighed, shrugged, and emptied the rest of the deal into the spoon.

“And by the way,” added Beni. “If I drop, don’t call the ambulance. Just wash your hands, wipe off your fingerprints, and lock the door behind you.”

This old trip. “Not a chance,” Craig shot back, smiling an impatient grimace. “You have my permission to kill yourself, but not while I’m watching.”

The expression of his readiness to die was nothing unusual for Beni. Neither was the petulant assertion of rights over someone’s generosity. First, there was that manic euphoria most junkies default to having decided, despite themselves, to score. And then, he’d lived his entire life in a world of influence and favours. Put simply, he saw it as his just recompense for a phone-call and a safe place to shoot.

Like most old gangsters and stand-over men he was on the bones of his arse, although a small trust account allowed him to live decently – if frugally. And old habits are hard to break.

Some people wondered why Craig liked Beni, but he did. Then again, Craig had never had Beni put a gun to his head. Neither did Craig own a small business where Beni could walk in and threaten to go berserk if he wasn’t given coffee or a meal.

He hadn’t always been a gangster – or a depressive – the war did that. He had seen his country occupied and torn apart. He had seen his brother ambushed and killed. And, along with the bullet wound and the mortar shrapnel lodged in his legs and chest, he’d carried away a new streak of cynical ruthlessness – a brooding sense that life eviscerates everyone; that all you can do is take whatever you need, by force if necessary. Suddenly, vice seemed more natural to him. The war rumbled over his ideals. It scorched and blighted the future, imprisoning him in eternal present scourged by incessant memory.

The tragedy was that Beni hadn’t needed to fight. He’d gotten out. But his family were active in government and defence, and his travels had made him a believer in causes. He was hardly a Kennedy but, in a small post-colonial state where land ownership and military service still counted, he was close enough. He was, he knew, a prince; a son of the families; born not to rule, but to govern. Tradition, duty and conviction brought him back. His older brother received him with surprise – and pride – and Beni went to work alongside him in the secret service.

Until then he’d been seeing the world. A stint in the mines of Western Australia had led to a position in the union, and then membership of the Communist Party. On learning he was fluent in several languages, and could make himself understood in several more, the Party gave him a press-pass and sent him abroad. Most of Beni’s thirties were spent in passionate, purposeful travel. Working as a journalist, translator and part-time intelligence gatherer, he’d seen Paris and London, Moscow and Vienna. He had reported from Latin America and South-East Asia. He’d played baccarat in Monaco, and fallen in love at least once on every continent. Before the war Beni was both a joyful liver and that rare thing, a practical revolutionary.

Before the war, Beni wasn’t a junkie.

Not everyone knew these things about him. Not everyone knew that his flinty rapacity existed side by side with a fundamentally over-generous nature. People who rolled their eyes when they saw Craig paying for Beni’s coffee didn’t know that, sometimes, Beni fed Craig for days at a time. Nor did they know how he worried whenever the younger man was ill. And they certainly wouldn’t have recognised the figure Craig had found one night, upon returning to Beni’s flat, after going out without his phone.

It was his turn at having some cash, so Craig had gone to buy them a meal. Finding nothing open close-by, he’d walked some distance to a pizzeria he knew. All up he was gone about an hour, maybe a little more. Now, while it wasn’t unheard-of for Craig to become preoccupied and lose tranches of time, on this occasion he happened to know just how long he’d been away – he’d checked the TV guide before going out. When he opened the door, the pizza box still warm against his forearm, he saw on television the start of the movie for which he’d hoped to be back in time. He also saw his friend pacing, panicked and teary, up and down the living room. Beni had nodded off over a book and, waking, had misjudged the time by an hour. The sound of Craig’s ringtone from the kitchen counter when he’d tried to call and check on him turned foreboding to the certainty of disaster. Obviously, he’d been mugged or had overdosed somewhere.

Yes, that would definitely surprise some people.

It didn’t surprise Craig. Theirs was an odd friendship, but a friendship it was; the kind formed between types who know and like a lot of people, but have few real friends; who form few attachments but, when they do, form them strong and deep. They had helped one another through bouts of depression, each knowing when to prod his friend into the world and sunlight and when to leave him the hell alone. They talked about politics and history, books and music, science and religion, women and misfits they knew. They drank a lot of coffee and spoke in French; Beni, fluent if a little rusty; Craig, much the same way he spoke English – in a monotone, either too fast or too slow, too soft or too loud, and nowhere near as well as he read it or wrote it.

Despite a vast difference in age and class, culture and experience they were, in many ways, remarkably alike. Both were attractive to women, though with little idea why or what to do about it. Both could be considered either brooding or hilarious, depending on the day or the hour in which you caught them. And they shared a basic existentialist philosophy – which though never quite breaking free of a Catholic education rendered it, at least, a kind of poetry. Neither believed in heaven or hell; neither was morbidly suicidal. They both simply accepted the Algerian’s take on Sisyphus: that every day you decided anew whether to keep pushing the boulder up the hill or let it roll back over you; all other considerations flowed authentically from that. You made the best decisions you could, and accepted the consequences.

Beni kept a chosen death as his last reserve, to be employed when all else was exhausted. His father, the Commandant, had done the same thing. Widowed and sick but still strong enough to exert his will, he had, Beni said, “planned it like a military operation”. Finalising his affairs and waiting till his youngest son had left the country, he’d just stopped taking his medication. Within a month he was found, upright in his favourite chair, dead.

Alongside the grief and resentment, Beni admired that. He planned, one day, to go with the same kind of dignity – though possibly with a little more drama. He liked the idea of smuggling a syringe, loaded with a gram of coke and a gram of heroin, on to a sky-diving plane. One last monumental rush before his heart exploded in terminal free-fall had a nice ring. It seemed like poetry. It was also why he wanted to preserve his last workable vein.

So, no, you didn’t have to worry about what he might do if you left him alone at the wrong moment. He talked in terms of a few years. “Who wants to live much past seventy?” he’d say. Craig could respect that; even offered to help, if the need arose. The trouble was that Beni mistrusted his kismet. For all his military planning talk, he was certain he’d be taken in some absurd accident – he’d get his toothbrush stuck in his throat and choke to death, or fall under a bus after tripping over a Chihuahua.

“Here,” Craig tendered. Beni snatched the syringe and, clenching his fist, jammed it straight into the vein that bulged on his knuckle. He always did it that way. Craig liked to be a little more meditative. He liked the ritual; tying-off his arm, swabbing the injection site and flicking the bubbles from the fit while the alcohol evaporated from his skin; the careful, clean insertion and the bloom of dark blood like an undersea plant in the liquid. Scoring was usually impulsive, so he liked the using to be deliberate. Beni would soon start talking again. Craig adjourned to the bathroom and closed the door.

Sitting legs crossed on the edge of the toilet, he withdrew the spike, tongued the blood in his elbow-crook, applied a cotton ball and waited. His eyes fell on the electrical cord, plugged in and switched on, snaking down to the part-open vanity drawer.

Every morning Beni would wash his face and shave, then wet his hair and reach from his puddle for the blow-dryer. As he closed his eyes and felt the heroin burst warm then cool in his brain, Craig decided that this time he wouldn’t unplug it.

Monday, 30 September 2013

WRITER'S BLOCK


It’s one of the oldest clichés: the awful silence; the blank page, glaring and menacing; the lonely writer driven to despair by the keyboard’s mute mockery. The image is powerful – just like all myths.

            But there’s no such thing as writer’s block. No writer worthy of the name is ever unable to write something. Writing is a kind of mania: it happens to you whether you want it to or not. “Wanting to be a writer” is a daydream indulged by people with other things to do.

Like any other mania, it alienates people upon whose understanding you may have presumed. Like any other mania, it will drag you by the hair to an absurd peak and show you the view; then – just when you’ve begun to feel safe in your own omniscience – it will dig its fingers into your throat, fuck you with a broom handle and hurl you from the precipice. Like any other mania, you either manage it or you don’t.

            No, the blank page doesn’t frighten real writers. The truly terrifying thing is the full page. Writer’s block, if there is such a thing, isn’t the inability to write – it’s the utter certainty that nothing you have written is of any use to anybody. Or that it will hurt someone you’d rather you didn’t.

            Great writing is like music. From the ether it springs, perfect in pitch and rhythm. Sensuous, unintellectual, it enters the mind only via the soul. By the alchemy of the word it transforms impressions into experience, evoking, transporting, caressing. It makes the general specific, and the personal universal.

            Good writing is like sculpture. The muse of merely good writing is Memory. A sleight of hand, it tricks the mind into seeing and feeling. You start with an ugly, unformed mass then pare away layers until something beautiful, recognisable, or at least functional is revealed. This is the hard kind of writing, but you keep chiselling away until you’re satisfied.

            No writer worthy of the name is ever satisfied.


Friday, 20 September 2013

THE GOD CONFUSION

You may be surprised that I never really address the atheist/faith debate in this space. Enough people are certain enough of their ground to do enough damage, and enough discord is being sown, without my chiming-in. That’s been my feeling, anyway.
My thoughts on the spiritual and its relation to science, history and psychology are a little too fluid and nuanced (not to say, “Fuzzy”) to express in a five-hundred word blog post or throw-away tweet. Suffice it to say, the standard arguments on both sides strike me as equally selective and dogmatic; equally irrational; and equally childish.
            But, having ranted enough about politics – a theme I’m currently unable to ponder without collapsing into suicidal despair – I figure we might just as well break the other social taboo and talk about religion for a bit (Unless, that is, you want to talk about sex. Anybody? No? Then here we go ...).

My Shepherd is Right, Your Goat-herd is Wrong

“If another mass attachment takes the place of the religious one ... the same intolerance towards outsiders will ensue as in the era of the Wars of Religion, and if differences of scientific opinion ever managed to attain a similar level of importance for masses, the result would be the same for this motivation as well.”
 – Freud,
                                               Mass Psychology and Analysis of the ‘I’


Nobody can deny the damage that has been done whenever one group, fired by zeal for the certain righteousness of its cause, has sought to impose its religion on another. It is fundamentally important to recognise that modern, proselytising Atheism – typified by Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling – springs from precisely the same psychological ground.

            It has, although forever invoking its name, nothing to do with science. We see in the New Atheists the same narrow focus; the same belief that a benighted world, in thrall to false idols, can be delivered by their own special brand of Truth; the same blindness to any possible virtues in the enemy; and the same willingness to twist accepted facts – or invent them – to suit their argument as we see in any Genesis spouting evangelist.

            Richard Dawkins is a superb scientific communicator. His books and documentaries on evolutionary biology are classics of the genre. He is also, behind the calm exterior, a textbook zealot. As soon as he climbs on to his hobby-horse, any “scientific” objectivity, any semblance of scholarly argument, is abandoned and he becomes dogmatic – even shrill. His attempt, in The God Delusion, to counter a standard Christian line by asserting that Hitler was a practicing Catholic is an instructive example.

            (Since we’ve mentioned him, AC Grayling deserves a look-in too. He has been known, using that spectacular sophistry only a professional philosopher can summon, to argue against the idea of “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you” – an evil and malignant precept if ever there was one!)

            Zealots are rarely zealots in one area alone; Saul of Tarsus, however brilliant his mind, was undoubtedly a bull-headed misogynist even before he fell from his horse and became Saint Paul, the Apostle to the Roman World; and so it is with Dawkins. His decades-long feud with the geologist, Stephen Jay Gould, over the correct interpretation of Darwin is again illustrative – Darwin is made the Prophet and only Dawkins, and those who agree with him, are blessed with true knowledge.

           
The Knowledge of the Wise


The world was brutal and frightening. Starvation, pestilence and invasion were always on the horizon, and they weren’t discouraged by the evolution of societies and cities. People craved certainty. Even their rulers needed someone to look up to.

            A pattern repeats itself, from the priests of Egypt and the Magi of Mesopotamia; through the Temple of Solomon and the early Christian communities; to the grandeur of the Orthodox and Imperial Roman Churches, and the desert storm of Islam.

            People looked to the secret men – the wise. Dressed in special robes, the knowing-ones disappeared into holy places to do mysterious things; to commune with the spirits over things the ordinary person didn’t understand. As they tried to unpick the screen separating world and mind, the ordinary person accepted their pronouncements on faith. And, lo, there was certainty. Civilisation progressed. It was no permanent settlement, but for a long while things went well enough – as long as nobody incited the ordinary man to go and kill infidels.

            Thankfully, it was just a stage. We’ve evolved beyond that kind of simplicity now. We were blind, and now we see. Not for modern cafe guy or Arts graduate that kind of ignorance and prejudice: cafe guy knows about science. He’s read The God Delusion – or at least heard of it.

            Now men and women in white coats disappear into laboratories to do things cafe guy doesn’t understand, and cafe guy accepts their gifts; civilisation progresses. He views the entire universe through this half-comprehending prism, but cafe guy finds certainty in that soothing word, science. This is not at all like blind faith.

            And, oh, the delicious zeal with which he – although unable to tell the difference between a pulsar and a proton – berates those religious types for their stupidity. He knows better. He is not at all self-righteous, merely right. He has it from on high.


The Uncertainty Principle


“What is ‘Truth’?”

 – Pontius Pilatus


            The Dawkinses, Graylings and cafe guys of the world are entitled to their beliefs. Just don’t say that it’s science. Don’t claim to be ridding the world of the Plague while you spread Ebola. Maybe someday we’ll evolve beyond religious bigotry but, if the New Atheists are any indication, we’re not there yet.

            Science is more than people with Bunsen-burners and telescopes – it’s a habit of mind. It infers laws from evidence. It doesn’t twist evidence to fit its theories. It remains alive to possibilities, looked for or not. Selling dogma in the name of science is no better than invoking a god of love on the way to war.

            Kierkegaard posited that it’s impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god; that we can only examine ourselves and make a decision – a conscious decision, not facile posturing based on no more than prejudice – for or against. Both options require courage. Either way will be hard. Either way, we accept the consequences. And either way, we decide for ourselves and no-one else. That seems about the most honest treatment of the question.

            Wisdom begins in admitting we don’t know something. Ignorance – and bigotry – begins in thinking we know something we can’t.