Graham Greene did not write a book about how "America bumbled into Vietnam."
The fact that so many Americans read The Quiet American as a book about how America bumbled into Vietnam indicates just how deeply the myth of good intentions is ingrained in our national psyche.
The fact that Phillip Noyce, director of the 2003 film remake of The Quiet American, thinks that Alden Pyle was "a dunderhead" and a "caricature" is the root of his movie's failure.
When Alden Pyle arrives in Vietnam, he certainly seems naive. He has a foolish affection for a pseudoscientific political tract on what we now call "promoting democracy." He is comically large in a country of small people. He is ostensibly bemused by our narrator Fowler's louche, cynical, almost nihilistic manner. He is charmingly provincial about women. He is contemptuous of the French and heedless of the dilemmas of colonial administration. He is not--he'd tell you--interested in colonialism anyway. All in all a portrait, well-played, of a Yankee ninny with a half-baked Freedom Agenda and a penchant for getting people hurt without actually intending it.
So what's he doing in the aftermath of a catastrophe directing people in fluent Vietnamese?
Fortunately for literature, Greene, an author whom I increasingly believe to be greater even than Conrad, didn't carry biases about the redemptive qualities of the West's good intentions. Even in his outwardly comic works--Our Man in Havana, for instance--the comedy is a thin mask for a more substantial horror. In TQA, Pyle is occasionally played for yucks, and his half-baked political convictions are genuine mockery of America's half-baked politics, but Pyle is no bumbling moron. No Quixote. No Candide. Alden Pyle is a character played by Alden Pyle, the latter of whom is a cold, bloody figure willing to put bombs in a marketplace in service of his theories. He is an intelligence agent who lies. He doesn't end up dead because he's dumb. He ends up dead because he is a soldier in a war.
He's a soldier in a war that Greene saw the Americans pursuing in 1953.
It wasn't a war that was bumbled into. It wasn't an accidental war. There is no such thing as an accidental war. It wasn't the result of good intentions gone awry, of bad intelligence, of decent convictions that simply exceeded the operational capacity of the military. It was a calculated policy, enacted over the course of decades with callousness and deception, in the service of an ideology no less deluded, brutal, inhuman, and flawed than the colonial French that preceded it or the native Communism that followed. Actually, it was more deluded, more brutal, more inhuman, and more deeply flawed.
Whatever it was, it was not an accident.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Literature Lessons
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
That website HURTS, Ioz. At least some of the commentors do. Don't agree with us? Well, since you evil liberals all love them abortions, maybe your father should have aborted you!!!!! sO THERE!!! LOL.
Do you think there is a middle ground-a combination of "naivite" AND horrible, overarching will-to-power and greed? Because there does seem to be a lot of bumbling going on, even in the context of a vicious bipartisan policy structure?
Brian: Please forgive the self-pimping, but you might find my latest post of some use regarding your second paragraph.
There are two different levels of analysis involved. The first, the level of what is said publicly re aims, goals, etc., is where you will find "irrational motives," or what you refer to as "naivete." The second, deeper level involves what is actually going on, insofar as the various major elements of the War State economy are involved. I think understanding the two perspectives helps to dissolve some of the confusions that otherwise result.
It's unfortunately still more complicated than this indicates. I'll be writing much more about these issues in upcoming essays.
I think the Bush handlers' affinity for TQA's Pyle is based on Pyle's chaste seduction of Fowler's girlfriend -- take that frenchie! -- and his plan to do The Right Thing™: apple pie marriage. Though apparently no longer a virgin, Phuong's nuptial role would have been part of a healing process. Redemption through schtupping, you see. This plan is treacherously thwarted by the low untermenschen cunning of the the effete, jealous, opium smoking Fowler and his terrorist ChiCom cronies -- who are probably queer anyway, so why do they want the girl?
Driven mad by impotence, drug addiction and jealousy, the untermenschen destroy an entire country and drag in a few others, all in an attempt to recapture a symbolic efficacy that was never theirs in the first place. It's a tragedy, but this time we have a chance to set it right. Fowler, who is also the embodiment of the the lib'rul MSM, can still be sidelined. The ChiCom terrorists, al Qaeda, whatever, can be waterboarded until they talk, goddamit, and Phuong -- now Miss O'Potamia, sporting purple nail polish -- can finally be fucked.
I have loved Graham Greene's work especially from the 50s-60s-70s since college, which was the 60s and 70s. We forget often that the ability to make you want to read the thing in the first place is the sine qua non for a successful writer. I have never been able to read Conrad just to read Conrad. But, I could sit down now with The Comedians or The Power and the Glory and just read the damn thing for pleasure -- the influence would come later.
The humor in Greene's stuff is usually a sweet form of gallows humor. The five time candidate of the Vegetarian Party who shows up in Port Au Prince; the Whiskey Priest in Mexico; the absolute absurdity of the agent's cover story--vacuum cleaner salesman? In the tropics? in the 50s -- is subtle and about one step to the left of consciousness. Until you think about it. I found Waugh after Greene and frankly, I have no desire to reread Brideshead Revisited. (JP Donleavy did it better anyway) although Vile Bodies and The Sword of Honor trilogy do appeal still. Waugh was comedic and if he wrote the damn thing -- which given his rage and off the charts reactionary view of life, he couldn't -- The Quiet American would have been pure farce.
Greene is interesting because of his Catholicity -- he became a Catholic, but I never get the feeling he believes in God. I recognize a kindred soul. The Jansenist in him is as strong as it is in me.
Pyle was no dunderheaded naif, that's for sure. He knew what he was trying to do, even if he temporarily got queasy when he saw the results of his bombs up close. And he could not be dissuaded.
But...couldn't you say America bumbled just a little into Vietnam?
Bumbled malevolently to be sure, (if one can bumble in such a fashion).
Its involvement there spanned three decades and it was never really clear to them why they were as committed as they were. It was only clear why (they thought) they could not leave. America's leaders never really believed they could "win", but withdrawal/disengagement was not considered an option, so forward was the only way to go.
It was evil, and it certainly wasn't a case of being sucked in to Vietnam. But it still seems kind of bumbling to me. Pyle envisioned a third force, and saw that as an endpoint. We know of course that it could not be an endpoint, and the only effect such a (failing) strategy had was to "force" America to further commit itself to the conflict (since leaving well enough alone was out of the question).
The road from bicycle bombs in Saigon to airplanes over Haiphong to millions dead is clearer in retrospect.
Who is IOZ? Fuggetaboutit! The real question -- after 48 hours of silence -- is, Where is IOZ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM2QTimBoeo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebelgraviadispatch%2Ecom%2F
LBJ
Coincidentally, I started rereading TQA at a beach house this past week and found it astonishingly well done; spare, arch, and acutely observed (and a rare Greene tale told in flashback.)
Don't neglect Pyle's academic backgound either, fresh from Cambridge, Mass., full of ideas from books, father a famous professor, an expert in underwater erosion. (!!)
Can calculating academics blunder? Really, that's the only thing they can do.
graeme wrote: "But...couldn't you say America bumbled just a little into Vietnam? ... Its involvement there spanned three decades and it was never really clear to them why they were as committed as they were. It was only clear why (they thought) they could not leave."
I'm afraid you are rather typically uninformed about the history of US involvement in Vietnam. George Kahin's books might be helpful to you, or Noam Chomsky's piece "The Backroom Boys", or an article by H. Bruce Franklin the December 11, 2000 Nation. The US always knew why it was there: first and foremost to keep the gooks under our, or at least "Western" control. Of course, imperialist states always claim to be motivated only by benevolence, so the real reason for the US invasion of Vietnam is rarely admitted publicly; but it's well documented, if you can't guess it from our conduct.
Note, for instance, that the Vietnamese declared independence immediately after the defeat of Japan in 1945. The US preferred that they be handed back to the French. By 1954 the US was largely paying for the French war to keep Indochina; when they gave up, we moved in, continuing to undermine Vietnamese self-determination. Anti-communism was always an after-the-fact rationale, except insofar as anti-colonialism was equated with Communism.
It could be said that the US did not foresee how deucedly difficult it would be to keep its collective foot on the Vietnamese neck, and in that sense we blundered or bumbled. In rather the same sense Hitler (or Bonaparte before him) didn't foresee how much resistance he'd encounter when invading Russia. In general I can only see this insistence on bumbling or tragic blunders as attempts to avoid facing the imperial brutality of US policy, and that's not innocent.
Some years ago I wrote at http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=2373 :
"In line with U.S. propaganda, many Americans speak of all of this destruction as a 'mistake' (or perhaps a 'tragic error'), but you don't devastate three countries by mistake -- it was entirely deliberate.
"I always wonder what 'mistake' means in this context. Does it mean we really meant to bomb Bolivia or Nigeria back into the Stone Age, but the bombers missed their target? Or was this more the kind of 'mistake' a bully makes when the the scrawny guy who looked like an easy target turns out to be a lightweight boxing champ?"
Um, Willy, being fresh from Cambridge, MA does not make one an "academic," calculating or otherwise. It makes a privileged young person. And having attended a 2002 talk by Bill Kristol at 79 JFK Street I can tell you that the "academics" were almost uniformly right about this war. Take your complaints about academia to the Heritage Foundation.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Where is IOZ?
anony:
"A privileged young person" from a university town (and a professor dad) with a head full of ideas gained from books rather than experience. Maybe not a PhD candidate, but definitively academic nonetheless.
I don't take these ideas of competence and naivete to be mutually exclusive. I haven't read The Quiet American (it's one of many on the list) but fitting such oppositions neatly and logically into a character is certainly something Greene can do well. It might be fun to compare Pyle to Greene's whiskey priest.
All the chess metaphors aside, I do question the ability of any group or individual to really orchestrate anything, however, whether it's a spy, general, or CEO. It seems more like these guys read events and react, more or less capably, creating one short-term consequence after another, a drunk's walk maybe with a mild force of self-interest keeping things going in the same general direction.
You may have to call that non-accidental, but I think "malignant bumbling" isn't too far off either.
Ioz, you're putting a little too much weight on the word "bumbled." In the Alden/Fowler dyad, Alden is clearly meant to be the more naive of the two, so to call him anything other than a naif is to strain the interpretation. He's clearly an excellent spy, quickly allying himself with the local players and supplying them with Yankee weaponry and know-how. But Alden believes - deeply and honestly believes - in the redeeming power of the West's sacred touch. I mean, he eats health food, for crying in church.
The difference is that Alden has not yet learned that "war" inevitably means "babies dying from bomb shrapnel," and Fowler has. Hence Fowler's cynicism; hence Alden's horror.
Also, any sentence which begins "The fact that so many Americans read The Quiet American ..." makes me snicker, no matter how it ends.
Post a Comment