Richard Seymour of Lenin's Tomb asks: "Is it possible to survey Britain's most celebrated littérateurs and not find them repulsive?". Based on their novels alone, the answer has to be a resounding NO! But that's not what provoked our blogger's question. It's in response to Ian McEwan's latest interview in which he defends his "dear friend" Martin Amis from vaguely attributed accusations of racism. Along the way he reveals that "I myself despise Islamism". While Seymour answers better than anyone what McEwan says, I'll take issue with what he doesn't.
However "controversial" Amis's comments or "brave" McEwan's position on the indigenous culture of neo-colonies, both are red herrings. Nowhere in this interview does McEwan express any regret, let alone horror and shame, at his nation's responsibility for the deaths of more than a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. (There's not a word about his fictionalised apologetics either). One would have thought the continuing aggression of the most powerful army in the history of mankind and its allies would be more pressing than media-enabled paranoia about a foreign religion. In the last century, should the population of Weimar have been more concerned with rumours of Jewish "blood libels" than what was being carried out in their name just up the road?
While McEwan asks for his fellow subjects to start "to reflect on Englishness: this is the country of Shakespeare, of Milton, Newton, Darwin", he does not reflect that this is also the country of Prince "Bomber" Harry, a member of the English royal family involved in military attacks on civilians. During his time in Afghanistan, he is said to have guided fighter jets "towards suspected Taliban targets". In mitigation, McEwan can, with the rest of us, claim not to know what is really happening. After all, the London media that fawns over each of his claustrophobic and inorganic novels tends not to report that the "suspected Taliban" are often women, children, wedding parties and even herds of sheep. (Maybe we'd hear more about it if they lived in tower blocks).
All in all, it's a depressing lurch to the right. Twenty-five years ago, McEwan wrote the screenplay to The Ploughman's Lunch, a film that went against the political grain of the time. It showed in negative light Thatcherism's "promotion of self-interest, of ruthless dedication to obtain a desired goal". The main character is James Penfield, a social-climbing journalist played by Jonathan Pryce. He is writing a revisionist history of Britain's imperial adventure at Suez in 1956 in order to curry favour. As Channel 4's feature says, he is "keen to keep his political paymasters happy [by adopting] an extremely right-wing, partisan tone." There's a memorable scene at the end in which Pryce walks around the floor of the Conservative Party conference during Michael Heseltine's rallying speech. This was the famous post-Falklands War conference with the stage at the Brighton Centre designed to resemble the bridge of a battleship. It is as if Penfield is surveying the ruins of his own victory. As a person, he is empty; hollowed out by ambition. At the time I recall being struck by his definition of professionalism: "knowing instinctively what you can and cannot do".
Take a look The Afghan Victim Memorial Project and then try to curl up with the latest award-winning unit from one of our most celebrated literary professionals.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Contact
Please email me at steve dot mitchelmore at gmail dot com.
Website roll (in alphabetical order)
- ABC of Reading
- An und für sich
- Being in Lieu
- Blckgrd
- Blue Labyrinths
- Books of Some Substance
- Charlotte Street
- Craig Murray
- Daniel Fraser
- David's Book World
- Declassified UK
- Donald Clark Plan B
- Ducksoap
- Flowerville
- In lieu of a field guide
- Kit Klarenberg
- Literary Saloon
- Notes from a Room
- Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
- Of Resonance
- Resolute Reader
- Robert Kelly
- Rough Ghosts
- Socrates on the Beach
- Spurious
- The Goalie's Anxiety
- The Grayzone
- The Last Books (publisher)
- The Philosophical Worldview Artist
- The Reading Experience
- Times Flow Stemmed
- Tiny Camels
- Vertigo
Recommended podcasts
Favoured author sites
Blog Archive
- November 2024 (1)
- October 2024 (1)
- September 2024 (1)
- July 2024 (1)
- June 2024 (3)
- May 2024 (31)
- April 2024 (8)
- February 2024 (1)
- December 2023 (2)
- October 2023 (2)
- September 2023 (1)
- August 2023 (1)
- July 2023 (2)
- June 2023 (2)
- May 2023 (1)
- April 2023 (1)
- December 2022 (2)
- November 2022 (1)
- October 2022 (1)
- September 2022 (1)
- July 2022 (2)
- April 2022 (1)
- December 2021 (2)
- November 2021 (1)
- October 2021 (1)
- September 2021 (1)
- August 2021 (1)
- July 2021 (1)
- June 2021 (1)
- April 2021 (1)
- February 2021 (1)
- December 2020 (1)
- November 2020 (1)
- October 2020 (2)
- August 2020 (1)
- June 2020 (1)
- March 2020 (1)
- February 2020 (1)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (2)
- October 2019 (2)
- September 2019 (2)
- June 2019 (1)
- May 2019 (1)
- March 2019 (1)
- February 2019 (2)
- January 2019 (1)
- November 2018 (1)
- September 2018 (1)
- August 2018 (1)
- April 2018 (1)
- March 2018 (1)
- February 2018 (1)
- January 2018 (1)
- December 2017 (1)
- October 2017 (1)
- August 2017 (2)
- July 2017 (1)
- June 2017 (2)
- May 2017 (3)
- March 2017 (1)
- February 2017 (3)
- December 2016 (1)
- October 2016 (1)
- August 2016 (2)
- July 2016 (1)
- June 2016 (2)
- May 2016 (1)
- April 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (1)
- February 2016 (2)
- January 2016 (1)
- December 2015 (1)
- November 2015 (1)
- August 2015 (2)
- June 2015 (1)
- May 2015 (1)
- March 2015 (1)
- February 2015 (2)
- January 2015 (1)
- December 2014 (1)
- October 2014 (1)
- September 2014 (2)
- July 2014 (1)
- June 2014 (2)
- April 2014 (1)
- March 2014 (3)
- November 2013 (2)
- October 2013 (1)
- September 2013 (1)
- August 2013 (1)
- July 2013 (2)
- April 2013 (1)
- March 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (1)
- January 2013 (1)
- November 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (1)
- June 2012 (1)
- May 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (3)
- February 2012 (1)
- January 2012 (1)
- November 2011 (1)
- October 2011 (2)
- September 2011 (2)
- July 2011 (3)
- June 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (3)
- April 2011 (5)
- March 2011 (3)
- February 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (2)
- December 2010 (7)
- November 2010 (1)
- October 2010 (5)
- September 2010 (2)
- August 2010 (3)
- July 2010 (4)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (3)
- April 2010 (4)
- March 2010 (11)
- February 2010 (3)
- December 2009 (3)
- November 2009 (5)
- October 2009 (5)
- September 2009 (3)
- August 2009 (6)
- July 2009 (6)
- June 2009 (4)
- May 2009 (8)
- April 2009 (8)
- March 2009 (12)
- February 2009 (11)
- January 2009 (7)
- December 2008 (7)
- November 2008 (7)
- October 2008 (17)
- September 2008 (7)
- August 2008 (7)
- July 2008 (7)
- June 2008 (7)
- May 2008 (7)
- April 2008 (5)
- March 2008 (8)
- February 2008 (2)
- January 2008 (9)
- December 2007 (26)
- November 2007 (28)
- October 2007 (14)
- September 2007 (22)
- August 2007 (13)
- July 2007 (17)
- June 2007 (11)
- May 2007 (22)
- April 2007 (11)
- March 2007 (23)
- February 2007 (25)
- January 2007 (21)
- December 2006 (8)
- November 2006 (23)
- October 2006 (21)
- September 2006 (16)
- August 2006 (14)
- July 2006 (32)
- June 2006 (17)
- May 2006 (24)
- April 2006 (16)
- March 2006 (18)
- February 2006 (15)
- January 2006 (8)
- December 2005 (8)
- November 2005 (10)
- October 2005 (7)
- September 2005 (13)
- August 2005 (13)
- July 2005 (8)
- June 2005 (15)
- May 2005 (11)
- April 2005 (12)
- March 2005 (8)
- February 2005 (7)
- January 2005 (15)
- December 2004 (2)
- November 2004 (4)
- October 2004 (6)
- September 2004 (2)
Contact steve dot mitchelmore at gmail.com. Powered by Blogger.
McEwan's luxuriously naive views on the Iraq atrocity (that mounting pile of, what, a million? disposably brown bodies), as allegorized in Saturday, taint his *reasonable* position on what is a *murderously* illiberal Belief System. I don't see what's difficult (or paradoxical) about abhorring Islamism locally and Coca Colaism globally; the latter crafts megadeaths, but that doesn't make the former tolerable.
ReplyDeleteThe "Left" forming a ring of rhetorical solidarity around a Queer-hating, Woman-dehumanizing, pleasure-criminalizing death cult who make The Boers look like The Beatles in comparison, is the kind of Kafkan (I'm tired of the other adjectival form) joke the world can't seem to get enough of.
One really *can* be anti-Bush and anti-Taliban simultaneously; the slogans become admittedly more complex (and less fun) then, of course...
I've a short coincidental piece, here if interested, or even if not.
ReplyDeleteI read this post last night. I knew that if I checked in this morning, there'd be just such a comment from Steven Augustine. Do you have macros programmed for this kind of thing? What is so hard about this?
ReplyDelete"The "Left" forming a ring of rhetorical solidarity around a Queer-hating, Woman-dehumanizing, pleasure-criminalizing death cult who make The Boers look like The Beatles in comparison, is the kind of Kafkan (I'm tired of the other adjectival form) joke the world can't seem to get enough of."
This is utter nonsense. The Left (or "Left" if you prefer) does, and has done, no such thing. What Defenders of Western Civilization continually (one would have to think intentionally) fail to notice is the responsibility those of us in the West have for the actions carried out by our own governments (which actions are incidentally explicitly linked to the rise of political Islam). These actions we can have some--if, alas, negligible--influence on. Whatever it is the Taliban is up to, we can have no effect on (except, it seems, where we call for those same untrustworthy governments to kill them for us, lest they come for us in our sleep). It is vastly more important that we concern ourselves with the former. But, sure, we can sit back and "oppose" the Taliban (or the apparently dark forces of illiberalism generally). Where does that get us? And why must such "opposition" always (always) come clothed in the worst sort of racist twaddle, always in the form of calls for collective punishment?
Liberals are always appalled when leftists don't leaven their criticisms of the US or Britain with either an acknowledgement that the official enemy is also pretty bad (possibly even as bad as the Nazis!), or with some sort of statement recognizing the US as the Best Place in the World Ever, or the like. Tough shit.
Richard:
ReplyDeleteWow... if only you'd read my comment before activating your shareware anti-Steven-Augustine comment-generator, you'd have noticed that the West's culpability for megadeath-scale-atrocities was a substantial feature of my argument.
I'm no defender of "Western Civilization". Really: can you bloody *read*?
"Liberals are always appalled when leftists don't leaven their criticisms of the US or Britain with either an acknowledgement that the official enemy is also pretty bad (possibly even as bad as the Nazis!), or with some sort of statement recognizing the US as the Best Place in the World Ever, or the like."
I happen to think the U.S. is a tarted-up "third world" hell-hole, chum (and I lived there for a couple of decades, though not now, so I should know); and the "new" Nazis happen to inhabit the White House (and have since Reagan): does that mean I should turn a blind eye (or the simperingly patronizing smile of cultural relativism) as some guy slits his daughter's throat for flirting?
Argue with A) logic or B) persuasive data or C) a combination thereof, please.
"But, sure, we can sit back and "oppose" the Taliban (or the apparently dark forces of illiberalism generally). Where does that get us?"
Well, for one thing, we can make a difference in the lives of girls/women who've run afoul of Sharia's edicts while on European soil. Save a few lives, perhaps? Or isn't that worth it on the grand scale of your geopolitical vision? Or perhaps you don't consider women truly human, either... ?
Yes, Steven, I read your comment. I noticed the passing reference to McEwan's blindness when it comes to Iraq. Congratulations. That doesn't change a thing. Your first comment has little to do with the substance of the original post, and your second comment ignores the substance of my comment. So I see no need to respond to you.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, it was only a matter of time before you got around to wondering if, "perhaps", I, too, "don't consider women truly human". Awesome.
As an independent observer - and someone who loathes the smug McEwan for any number of reasons - I can see some truth on both sides here.
ReplyDeleteIt is, for example, demonstrably true that elements of the left have been defending Islamism for some time. See the Respect Party, George Galloway, the SWP, the 'we are all Hezbollah' banners at marches. It is a problem, and it ought to be possible to discuss that sensibly without an either/or dynamic developing. Opposing the Taliban, Islamism, faith schools or whatever does not automatically mean defending the Iraq war, capitalism or George W Bush, unless you believe that your enemy's enemy automatically becomes your friend. Orwell, of course, was very good on where this gets you.
Incidentally, political Islam is at least fifty years old as a doctrine and, while opposition to 'the West' is certainly a motivating factor, much of the impetus for it, as with Al Qaeda, actually came from an opposition to 'unIslamic' regimes in the middle east. Propped up by the West, of course; but this is an existential, cultural opposition and would doubtless remain even if we pulled all of our troops out of the region and mediated an Israel /Palestine solution (all of which we should nonetheless be doing).
It is also the case that it ought to be possible to dislike Islam as a religion, and to say so - just as one might dislike Christianity - as a principled, left wing position. Indeed, there was a time when political radicals of the left were suspicious of all monotheistic religions. As Kenan Malik pointed out on Radio 4's 'Start the Week' yesterday, the word 'radical' in the Asian community in Britain today has come to mean 'extremely conservative' - whereas when he was young, calling himself 'radical' defined him as a secular leftist: the more traditional use of the word.
Nonethless, it is also obviously the case that when McEwan talks about 'Englishness' he is talking about a tiresomely Establishment version of the English story, and that his predictable position on Islam is a shield for his views on Iraq - which he is too much of a coward to say he supports openly.
The sooner the literary editors get off their knees and start delivering McEwan the critical panning he deserves, the better.
Paul: you are of course right that political Islam, in its many different forms, has been specifically a response to the regimes in the Middle East. But it's not just that the West has "propped up" these regimes. In many cases, the West specifically created them. The conflict would remain if we left the region, but it can change for the better only if we do so. (Of course, "leaving the region" doesn't mean we abdicate responsibility. Quite the opposite. We should finally take responsibility. I should think that after decades of destroying various indigenous left-wing movements--and taking seriously only those most repressive elements--the West owes the region quite a lot of free, agenda-less assistance.)
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have with these "debates" is that no one is saying anyone has to like Islam, or find its repressive manifestations tolerable. The question is what there is to do about it, and what value opposition has. McEwan and Amis are being criticised not because they find certain illiberal practices odious, but because they lump all manifestations of Islam (all Muslims, in fact), under the umbrella term "Islamism", and then employ various tired racist and Orientalist tropes in their subsequent complaints. You have done something similar to the former (without resorting to these tropes): you implicitly link Hezbollah with the Taliban. Hezbollah is not the Taliban. I'm not all that knowledgable about George Galloway or Respect, but when Respect flies a banner "We are all Hezbollah" it presumably does not mean "We subscribe to everything Hezbollah currently stands for or claims to believe in" but rather "Hezbollah is fighting against an unwarranted, illegal attack; we support them in their defense against it" or something like it. Similarly, you may recall that after 9/11 Le Monde ran a headline reading "We are all Americans". Does this mean that Le Monde were now fans ("supporters") of George Bush, of the American Christian Right, of the abysmal US healthcare system, of the US role as capitalist enforcer, of the prison industry, the drug war, and on and on? I strongly doubt it!
I happen to believe that certain groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, are subject to influence. I think the record shows a certain willingness to back off some of their more extreme positions. The best way to continue this process is, oddly enough, not endless war and impoverishment. People tend not to be so open-minded and liberal when they are constantly under seige and perhaps can't feed themselves or find stable shelter.
Well, Hezbollah and the Taliban are both Islamist political groupings, so they have that in common. But you are right to suggest that in other ways they are very different, and I'm not trying to suggest that all Islamic parties are the same.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm getting at is the unquestioning support by some on the left (you should read up on Galloway and Respect, by the way: they've had a disastrous impact on the left in the UK) for any organisation which shouts about its opposition to US imperialism, without examining too closely what else it is shouting about.
That said, talking about 'the left' in too broad brush a fashion can also land us in hot water.
I never liked that le Monde headline, by the way. It made me think: 'speak for yourself'!
www.paulkingsnorth.net
"One would have thought the continuing aggression of the most powerful army in the history of mankind and its allies would be more pressing than media-enabled paranoia about a foreign religion. In the last century, should the population of Weimar have been more concerned with rumours of Jewish "blood libels" than what was being carried out in their name just up the road?"
ReplyDeleteThat's the one essential point in a nutshell.
But another thing may be worth stressing here: McEwan, a literary artist, was saying this in defence of Amis, another literary artist. Now, it's nice, no doubt, when people stick up for their mates; but writers do neither themselves nor their writer-mates any favours at all when they insist on helping them to eradicate their own talent. That's not solidarity, it's partnership in crime. Amis's grotesquely boring, boringly grotesque fantasy about a chronically-constipated Mohammed Atta was simply indefensable as an artwork; and that artistic disaster was a direct result of Amis's paranoia about real Muslim men in real Middle Eastern countries, who (he told us with a criminally straight face) yearned secretly to slaughter him and his blond children.
Both McEwan and Amis have given us at least one book each that was well worth having: 'The Innocent' and 'Experience', respectively.
Ian McEwan gave us many other books worth having before that, and he is certainly a far superior artist to Martin Amis. But it is no accident that they both did their best work well before 9/11, and that they have both been in steep decline ever since. No other event in recent history has scrambled more brains more effectively. That's just one of the things it was good for.