Friday, October 12, 2012

MO YAN GETS THE NOBEL 2012

       scared orphans, nanking memorial


Today I saw the first disk of a 2disk film from netflix, a BBC nature tv series, 3 one-hour episodes per disk, Wild China. The first disk deals with the Southern Mountains above Laos and Vietnam, tropical forest. Central China, Hunan province, has beautiful mountains. Then western China, the Tibetan plateau and the mountains, the Himalayas and Chinese mountains we've never heard of that have never been explored by any human, inaccessible. We of the west pay no attention to China except as the place everything we buy is made. Cheap labor, militarist society. The video shows how the very most remote people live in those places where the most remote rural people are poor and have least interference from government. The filming of the birds and underground burrowing critters, the insects, the fish, it was an amazement to see what a few photographers good at getting close-up shots could do with a mother monkey carrying her one day old baby, monkeys that live in cold mountains with snow, seeing varieties of animals I've never seen before, like a Tibetan bear with eyes that make its face look like a mask, even a few seconds of seeing a snow leopard. It brought to mind Peter Matthiesson's beautiful book, The Snow Leopard (1978), his search for the elusive snow leopard. The memory of it makes me want to read it again. All I remember of it from so long ago was that I loved it. Sometimes I wonder if Matthiessen might be the great American writer of our time.

I've been reading history of China, have seen multiple films of different times in Chinese history. I don't mean kung fu westerns, but films from mainland China where an art renascence is in progress. For example, today I heard on the news that Mo Yan of mainland China was given the Nobel Prize for literature. I was a bit disappointed the Committee didn't see Dylan having it coming like I do, but have no argument with it going to Mo Yan. A very respectable writer, good to have this attention pointed to him. He's a straight-forward writer, but does not challenge the government to put him in prison. I get the impression he likes to write. The freedom now for writers is almost as free-wheeling in China as here. Mo Yan is one of many in China. He stands out from the rest. At amazon.com is a good list of his novels available in translation. He's been keeping his translator, Howard Goldblatt, busy for several years. Just thinking that in my next lifetime I might enjoy translating contemporary Chinese writing into whatever language I'm born into, maybe Danish. I don't say any of this to forecast next lifetime. It struck me a lifetime as a Chinese translator of beautiful writing would be a good life, fulfilling. It has its agony, of course, like everything else.

In Mo Yan's Red Sorghum, he lets it happen. The rape of Nanking, December 1937, is one of the great atrocities in human history. It's there with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nazi death camps, Pol Pot, and the list goes on and on without end all the way back to the trees, to the ants. It's what we embodiments of the spirit of life do. I'm recalling my friend Millard Pruitt back in the time the Ayatollah was on tv. His solution to the Iran problem in the late 70s early 80s on tv news and everything else that came up, was universally, "A-bomb em." I sat there and chuckled within, not looking downward at him, but seeing country wisdom, a way of thinking from a place that was outside time until television arrived soon after electricity. A-bomb is television imagination. Change the channel. Zot! End of that one. Knowing he was coming from a way of seeing that was another time, another Age, another century, respecting that, and liking that in him, I said in fun, "If A-bomb em is the answer to every problem around the world, seems like there'd come a time you'd be the only one left." He said, "That'd be all right." A straight-ticket republican and a straight-jacket mind. If he were living, he'd be sending money to Alice's tea party, like he did to Reagan before, and Nixon and Goldwater.

Mo Yan wrote about the rape of Nanking from the inside, from someone telling it who was there seeing it, living through the Japanese occupation after initially mowing down everybody they saw. It was a full military assault on a civilian city inland. It was so bad it makes me feel immense sorrow just it coming to mind without details. I've read about it, seen documentaries about it, seen films made from fictional accounts of it. It's a moment in Chinese history I know fairly well. Couldn't pass a test on it, but sure do have a feeling for it, evidenced by the dampness in my eyes from it just coming to mind. Mo Yan gets down and dirty in it. I mean real dirty. It's not for the squeamish. What I've learned from Mo Yan and other sources of what the Japanese did to the Chinese people of Nanking makes me look at the Japanese a little bit more like WW2 vets I know look at them, men who won't drive a Japanese car. They gave the Nazis a run for the most vicious people on earth championship in their time. It was a blessing for all of Asia that America shut the Japanese military mind down, or possibly redirected it into corporate mind. Nonetheless, Mo Yan writes visually like a movie.

The memory from Mo Yan's Red Sorghum that will never leave my mind, I don't mean I obsess on it, but I'll sure as shit never forget it, is the old man the Japanese soldiers tied to a post and forced the local butcher, the man's neighbor and friend, to skin him alive in front of a big crowd of people gathered to see what was happening. The man whose skin was getting cut off cursed the Japanese with every breath, every curse word and phrase he knew; he cursed them until he expired. The Chinese don't mind getting down and dirty and they don't mind sorrow. Sorrow is a legitimate feeling in Chinese writing, and in Chinese life. They haven't had enough television and prozac etc yet. American writers over the last half century have taken sexual writing surely by now as far as it can go and not repeat itself, the Chinese don't go there in excess. In China, the Sixties sexual revolution passed them by. Some tried it, but the Tienanmen Square incident put an abrupt halt to that thinking. There are more important things going on in China than sex, as dictated from the top down. There is a certain way of looking at what I call the Chinese embrace of sorrow as a metaphor for the dark cloud of militarist rule and continual surveillance from known and unknown directions that hovers over all of China from way back in its history. Like the American pop culture fascination with zombies and vampires as metaphor in a time when the Bank is draining, coincidentally, our energy from our pockets to unaccountable Cayman Islands accounts.

The Chinese have their issues like we have our issues. Their issues are particular to their history as our issues are particular to our history. It's like individually it's our experiences that individuate us. I like reading Chinese writings of this time, fiction, poetry, essays, histories and the subtitles in films as well. China was closed up through the early part of my life. I wondered what was going on there, but didn't know how to find out with a logjam of curiosity backed up, waiting to see if I'd see the day China opened enough to let us see what is going on inside. First, I discovered the film, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which pulled me in and made me want to see more. Discovered Zhang Yimou films. Zhang Yimou made a film of Red Sorghum with Gong Li. Netflix doesn't have it. I want to see it. I'll go to amazon soon and pick out something by Mo Yan to read. Or could read Red Sorghum again. It's such a powerful incident in China's history, in China's psyche. It's a story that needs telling and a story that needs hearing. I'm glad Mo Yan won the Nobel, for himself and for China. Congratulations to Mo Yan.

*

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

KNOWING AND NOT KNOWING

 
        sonia delaunay
 


Fall is gradually coming on. The leaves that yellow are the first to turn. We haven't had a cold snap yet to turn the orange and red ones. My understanding from a biology class was that a night below 32 degrees closes a membrane between the twig and the leaf's stem. It shuts off nutrients; the leaf dies and falls away. Last year and this year I am wondering why the yellow leaves turned and are falling when the temperature has only touched the upper thirties. That explanation does not hold up for me anymore. About all the leaves fell last year before temperature went down to 32. I won't dispute the explanation from biology class, because I believe there is something to it. After a night when the temperature drops below 32, leaves start changing that day. Now leaves are falling with temperatures in the 40s at night. The explanation that the membrane closes at 32 degrees probably has something to it. But something else is happening too.

There is an interesting zone between thinking I understand a process in nature and not understanding. Like I think I know about why leaves change colors, but it doesn't hold up completely. I think I know the sound of a chickadee when it is making clicking noises. When I hear a chickadee, I see one in my mind's eye, and often look for it in the trees. When I hear a song I can't fit with a particular bird, I see nothing in my mind's eye and wonder what the bird is, but not enough to investigate. I learn a process that has to do with the changing colors of the leaves in autumn, and I think I know something about it. Then a winter comes along where the rule doesn't apply. Like the saying, Rain in May makes good hay. It's true. I remember a year when there was little to no rain in May. The hay was still good. So rain in May is not the source of good hay. It's just a saying that holds true, because it almost always rains in May. Then it doesn't rain in May and the hay is still good.

I find a kind of comfort, like recliner kind of comfort, in not knowing what might be behind certain behavior or how rocks absorb water like sponges. I didn't know rocks absorbed water until a sweat-lodge experience where the leader recommended not using rocks from a creek to heat in the fire. The water in the rocks turns to steam and the rocks explode like grenades, shrapnel in all directions, pieces of sharp-pointed rock flying through the air like free-range bullets. Pretty much the same as tossing a handful of bullets into the fire. I saw some rocks explode and felt I understood the principle. Not understanding why rocks from a creek explode in a fire would be the same as nothing to me. It would make me curious about why. I learned long, long ago never to ask anyone around me for an answer to such a question. I don't know why a crow is a corvid and don't care enough to look it up. If I'd remembered it from biology class, if it came up, I'd feel like I had a little bit of understanding about a crow that I wouldn't have without it. But what does it matter? Not at all. But for some people it is simply enjoyable to feel like we understand certain processes in life. Those who don't care miss nothing, even feel good not knowing, not wanting too much useless information floating around in the head.

I have a mix of wanting to know and not wanting to know. Some things pull me to understand them, while other things do not. I'm satisfied I understand hydraulics well enough to to get it that pushing on the brake pedal uses fluid in the line to make the brake work at the other end. Incredible. I think that is a lot more interesting than just knowing you push on the pedal the car stops. Hydraulics is a very amazing principle, like controlling steam. It only matters to know it if I'm a mechanic. But one day I pushed down on the brake pedal, heard something snap, and the pedal went to the floor. Rust in a bend in the brake line weakened the line and pressure punched a hole in it. I didn't understand where the leak was, but knew enough about the principle of hydraulics to understand something broke and the fluid drained out when I pushed the brake pedal. It doesn't help anything at the time, but I could see in my mind's eye an approximation of what happened so when I drove into the mechanic's place I could give him an idea of what happened, instead of brakes-don't-work.

I look out the window at the birds around the birdfeeder, the birds scratching on the ground around it. This time of year mostly the rufus-sided towhees are in abundance. I call them the calico bird. Good coloring to be scratching among the leaves on the ground. Standing still, they're hard to see. I know nothing about them but their song and their coloring. That doesn't diminish my enjoyment hearing them and seeing them. It would probably be very interesting to do a little cyber research to see what I can learn about towhees. Feel like I know a little bit about them. But when I see one, what I have in my mind about them is nothing. The bird itself is the most interesting; information about the bird in my head is the same as nothing. It's almost like the more I "know" about the bird, the less living the bird can be for me when I see one. If I can see it as a soul in a lifetime with wings, that's when I feel like I'm getting to know the bird. Watching the bird's behavior tells me more about the bird than a paragraph in a bird book. The Indians knew the various life forms by their behavior. Civilization mind is more concerned about genus, Latin names, details about bone structure, details learned from dead birds. The Indians studied living birds.

It's a major difference studying a species of bird, say the chickadee, by watching its behavior closely over a period of time, and by its bone structure, it's beak, etc. A latin name does not help my understanding of the bird. I'm more of the line of thinking that wants to know a bird by its behavior instead of its physical characteristics, yet I see both are valid ways to know a bird and together are better than one of the two. Maybe. Indians didn't bring the earth to the climax of having to reject the human infestation on its surface. Civilization did that. Understanding a bird or a mammal or another human being, my personal preference is to observe behavior. On the psychiatric couch we talke about behavior not bone structure, vocal chords and guts. In behavior is how we know one another and the world around us. It's interesting to know why one car will go up to 140mph in a few seconds and another car could never go that fast. Interesting things to "know," but not essential. A lot of people can get through life never reading Faulkner and never miss it. Some people need to know. I've an idea we all live in the zone between wanting to know and not wanting to know. We take what we want to know for our "interest." Like I love Constantin Brancusi's art, so I want to read a biography so I can learn his behavior for insight into the spirit behind his sculptures.

*

Saturday, October 6, 2012

BAD TELEVISION FOR PRESIDENT



A few hours ago this interface was not working. Now it is. Thank you to whoever makes such adjustments.

I can't listen to the news without hearing some kind of comment about the so-called debate that happened on tv last Wednesday. I listened to about 5 minutes and turned it off. Obama was stammering and stuttering like it was his first time on tv and Romney, coached by Karl Rove strategies, played Reagan, sometimes even using Reagan's voice where he could. Romney wasn't saying anything, but gave the appearance of meaning by suspension of disbelief using references to Reagan's flippant attitude toward Carter. Though Reagan never said anything worth hearing, his "Where's the beef?" statement stole the show with a predictable theatrical device. He shot that educated liberal right down with the ignorance trump card. I'd been wondering what Karl Rove had up his sleeve with only a month left of the countdown. These things I know: Karl Rove does not lose; Karl Rove has no bottom to how low he's willing to go.

I felt for Curious George playing President, the man who lives every minute of his life in the cross-hairs of assassins. I know it's not right, but every time I see him, I see Curious George, the children's book. It is such a likeness I wonder if it had something to do with all the white middle-class twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings carried away in his run for presidency. They knew Curious George like I knew Howdy Doody. Would I be carried away like that if Ted Koppell were to run for president? I don't think so. Curious George was as familiar to them as Reagan was to Death Valley Days viewers in the Fifties, and movies I never wanted to see. He was down there with Burt Reynolds, Charlton Heston and Victor Mature. If a movie had him in it, that told me it was not worth the time it would take to watch it, and certainly not worth the ticket price, whatever it was, even a free pass.

I felt for Obama's experience with coached ignorance that night like I felt for Carter up against coached ignorance on international tv and radio. A tight-rope to walk. In the short time I heard Obama talking, I was ashamed of him, though not entirely. He knew he was up against Karl Rove. He knows Rove's strategic mind, has studied it. I could hear Rove laughing at Obama in my mind. I had to turn it off. Rove stumped him good. So far, Obama has countered Republicans by exposing the lies with facts. He'd do well to forget that strategy. Rove is coming at him stepping around Obama's reminder of lies. Yeah it's a lie, so what. He'll pull something else next time. These "debates" are already confessed to be about style only. Obama attempted to insert substance, but was shouted down by ignorance. That's what I hear when the news plays excerpts from the exchange. Why so curious? OK, so you got facts--nobody cares. Romney sounded to me like Faulkner's line, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. That's all I hear when he talks. I see now that Rove is using the "debates" for the home stretch strategy, go into the last turn high and swing low like a slingshot. It's all or nothing from here on. Obama better listen to Samuel L Jackson.


*

Friday, October 5, 2012

CANNOT WRITE AGAIN


     archipenko, reclining torso

The blogger interface is working against me again. A phrase at a time. Crazy making. Can't go on writing when everything stops suddenly and I have to wait for water to boil again, and again, and again.




*