It’s always a mistake to let Americans loose in the literary china shop.
In my first post on this very blog, I praised Leonie Brinkema, the judge presiding over the Moussaoui trial, for conducting herself with a modicum of decency and fairness and with a minimum of prosecutorial, rah-rah-American zeal. I haven’t exactly revised that opinion, but after reading the account of the last day of sentencing, I think it's worth noting that despite a basic decency and a scrupulous fairness, Judge Brinkema has no better understanding of just what occurred in her courtroom than does the vapid American media or the vacuous American public.
In her final address to Moussaoui, Brinkema said, "As for you, Mr. Moussaoui, you came here to be a martyr and to die in a great big bang of glory, but to paraphrase the poet T. S. Eliot, instead you will die with a whimper." In the whole corpus of English literature, could she have chose a more infelicitous work than "The Hollow Men" to express our Anglo-Saxon jurisprudential triumphalism?
We are the hollow menThomas Stearns ain't talkin' 'bout no Mohammedans, that’s fer damn sure. Dear Judge Brinkema, The world-ending whimpering that concludes Eliot’s poem about spiritual dessication and the dilemma of modernity ("Shape without form, shade without colour, / Paralysed force, gesture without motion") afflicts us. We are the hollow men—as if the pronouns aren’t clear enough.
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Brinkema surely only knows that famous world-ending-not-with-a-bang-but-a-whimper. But since Moussaoui was given to preening about America’s impending defeat at the hands of the truly faithful, it might do the judge well to reread the penultimate section of the poem:
IVPuts a rather different spin on it now, doesn’t it? (I hate to be crass, but really . . . Besides which, I object to quoting a Grail-quest, Crusader-kingdom aficionado while sentencing, ya know, a self-professed Muslim counter-crusader.)
The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms
In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river
Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.
I’m circling around the main point. Whether in The Waste Land or “The Hollow Men,” Eliot explicitly embraces despair that the West is not just declining, but declined, that out of the sight of that which is Godly and Holy, out of communion with the made world, having dissipated the spirit and abandoned communal ritual (metaphorized, in Eliot’s oeuvre, by the Grail quest more than anything else—the recherche for the venerated object-symbol of lost authenticity), having, ultimately, debased ourselves as spiritual beings, we’ve nothing left but to witness the decline of all our kingdoms, the temporal kind and the otherworldly. "There, the eyes are / Sunlight on a broken column."
I don’t share Eliot’s conclusions or convictions, of course (even less so as they metamorphosed toward High Church Anglicanism); I’m as spiritually debased as they come. But it hardly does one of our greatest poets proper service or pays him adequate respect to turn his words on their head as an indictment of a man who, after all, is making the same claims, albeit very crudely and inconsistently: that we’ve become Crusaders unaware of our own agnosticisms, searching for a golden grail rather than the sacral symbol that contains the essence of our divinity. Hell, you don’t even have to read Eliot for that. Just watch Indian Jones and the Last Crusade. "He chose . . . poorly."
Anyway, there’s an inescapable bathos to the end of this trial, as the families of the 9-11 dead got their chances to speak in open court. You don’t have to condone what Moussaoui claimed (rather fantastically, if you ask me) to have done and supported to recognize a terrible truth in his final statements. Even a monster can tell the truth. After listening to the litany of lives he’d ruined, he said: “Your humanity is a very selected humanity—only you suffer, only you feel.” That the judge then saw fit to bookend that condemnation with unintentional commentary on the hollowness of that self-professed feeling . . . well . . .
In the third year of our murderous rampage through Iraq, where we’ve killed tens of thousands in pursuit of abstract policy goals and chalked them up as unfortunate but necessary (and therefore uncountable) sacrifices, it's a shame to have to hear it from a stooge who imagines himself a soldier.
Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
14 comments:
I will be back to comment on this, but in the meantime and OT, I insist you read this:
http://fray.slate.com/?id=3936&m=17437120
And meanwhile also, yer still a prick for never posting here:
http://www.SylviaHalitsky.org/Forums
Prick!
OK - I'm back.
Brilliant and much-needed post.
I will be curious to see if any of the "establishment" poets choose to do a similar riff. I doubt it.
I am thinking of energizing Fraysters to pool their resources (like the Korean grocery-lotteries in NYC) to establish a new online zine that would be edited by you with assistance from such associate editors as Moloch/Samson and a few others.
I mean - how much could it really cost to do another Slate ?
ciinc
sorry - didn't mean to write "establishment poets" above - meant "establishment pundits" ...
Ah - I am very pleased that "seablogger" (Alan Sullivan) saw sufficient merit in your post here to warrant linking to it at his blog and posting a fairly lengthy comment on it:
http://www.seablogger.com/
(See post entitled "Hollow".)
He claims, however, that you are a "leftist", which I am not sure is at all the case.
http://fray.slate.com/?id=3936&m=17443349
poor Ciinc!
He is always overwhelmed by others who have a greater flair for the descriptive ...a la The Worst blog..of which several of the FraySickened posters have a far greater ability to have a continuous audience, whether they comment to the blog or not.
Alas...ciinc...he thinks there are so many out there who can do or will do what he envisions. Little does he know how much work it all takes...
The thousands of readers each day who log into the Fray, of those thousands, hundreds each day, post an average of 10 to 30 postss per day.
Alas...Only IOZ should have his blog his readership and his accolytes. none else.
Geez, IOZ, that sounded like it coulda been written by Anne Rice, fer crissakes.
Come to think of it, IOZ as Lestat is a pretty scary notion - glad I'm not a 19-year-old kid livin in the snow-cum-rust belt!
'It’s always a mistake to let Americans loose in the literary china shop.' 'Americans' in this regard seems a little broad. Eliot, after all, was born in St. Louis, surely his countrymen (by virtue of their birthplace) are not precluded from alluding to him. While it is apparent Brinkema did not apply the reference in a manner consistent with the author's intent, it is also apparent that certain words and phrases enter the vernacular and ultimately shed their origins. 'Bangs and whimpers' is likely one of these. Still, I enjoy your blog, hyperbole and all.
Heya Michael. I don't think that Eliot's midwestern ville natale has much bearing on the reading habits, or lack thereof, of the American public, boradly speaking. I wouldn't want to be the one making the case that we have a national literary consciousness like, say, the French . . . or the Iranians, for that matter.
I agree that phrases from literature shed their original meaning and enter the vernacular as common usage, including, as you note, the bangs and whimpers. But the judge didn't say, "Mr. Moussaoui, you thought you were gonna go out with a bang, but instead you're gonna go with a whimper." She claimed explicit paraphrase of Eliot, and then went on to mangle it.
That's my objection.
Ah. Okay, point taken. Although you introduce the word 'explicit' and I don't find that in the good judge's comments but, not to belabor my point, the error was in Judge Brinkema's use of the word 'paraphrase'. I can well understand her hesitancy to apply 'bang' and 'whimper' without an acknowledgement of Eliot, but 'paraphrase' was wrong. She should probably have simply said 'with a nod to Eliot' or 'with apologies to Eliot' because, as you have pointed out, in the strictest sense, she did not paraphrase him. One last effort to defend the judge. We frequently see the word 'paraphrase' used incorrectly as there doesn't seem to be another word which adequately describes lifting and splicing the clever turns of phrase of others for our own purposes.
I usually attribute such things to the risks of typing quickly and not having an adequate way to see posts until they are posted, but your intensity, intelligence, and precise lazer-sharp-wit (I wish I had another "i" word for that) force me to suggest that your grammar's correctness be impeccible ("...could she have chose a more infelicitous work..."?). Besides, you jump on everyone else so you deserve an occasional thump yourself.
Such small things aside, I am enjoying your observations on things literary and current-culture. I agree with you about Toni Morrison, by the way, although I find DeLillo as unreadable as Updike - well, in a different way. Do you have an all-time favorite writer and/or book??
I'm no literary genius, especially with regard to Elliot. But I see a beautiful correlation between the fanatics like Moussaoui and "Holy Grail Crusaders" They've totally missed the point of their religion, and in turn, fail to see the irony of their senseless violence and killings. Unless you think the crusades were somehow noble, but I doubt that, since you seem to think that America's waging of war against terrorism is (at least somewhat) unjust.
Even if Elliot was alluding to "The West" having spiritually debased themselves. It's hardly a stretch to apply the words to the religious radicals who chose death and terrorism to spread their "Spirituality" especially from a religion like Islam, which (at least outwardly) is a religion of peace, which leaves judgment of man, up to God.
Like “forming prayers to broken stone”, their actions are hollow and meaningless. These nut jobs will one day realize that their actions were “as meaningless as wind in dry grass, or rats' feet over broken glass.”
I don't think his intent was to compare Moussaoui to "The West" he was just using, as someone else has said, a fairly common piece of vernacular. And whether you're a purist or not, it's hardly reasonable grounds for criticism. If a (perceived) misuse of a quote is all you can find to complain about, then I'd have to say the judge did a damn fine job.
I enjoyed reading your blog, it was well written, and witty. However, I'm going to have to respectfully, and strongly, disagree. Moussaoui is a loser who intended to be a martyr but will be all but forgotten in his own lifetime. He's going to dwindle and rot in a jail cell, he's not going out with the “Bang” he was hoping for.
I said "his" when reffering to Judge Brinkema, I had started to write a sentence referring to Eliot's intent, and then chose instead, to comment on the judge's intent. But I forgot to change it from "his" to "her". I know Leonie Brinkema is a woman, I just forgot to change the pronoun. Sorry, my mistake. I'm really not an idiot.
Pretty nice place you've got here. Thank you for it. I like such topics and everything connected to this matter. I definitely want to read more on that blog soon.
Truly yours
Darek Wish
Post a Comment