Angels in Pullman’s Fantasy

Gustave Doré, Satan struggling through Chaos in Paradise Lost

Wednesday

This evening I’m giving a talk on angels as they appear in contemporary fantasy fiction so I’ll use today’s post for some initial brainstorming. The talk is the third of three on angels for Vacation Bible School, and, in the first, Dr. Becky Wright of Sewanee’s Theological Seminary informed us that the angels that show up in the Old and New Testaments are metaphorical rather than literal and were indeed seen that way. It was only in later years that they hardened into actual beings. Or, as we used to say when studying Marxist intellectual history at Carleton College, a once dynamic concept became reified, a shell of its former meaning.

Becky noted that translators always have to make a choice when they translate malakh (Hebrew) and angelos (Greek): both words mean both messenger and angel. Sometimes the translators choose one, sometimes the other, but in both cases we need to drop the notion of beautiful and androgynous beings with flowing locks showing up. After all, Becky pointed out, their first words are often, “Be not afraid,” and why should someone be afraid of a Hallmark card angel.

It’s more useful, she noted, to think of angels as metaphors for divine inspiration, similar to the way that Homer and the ancient Greeks personified creative inspiration as the muses. When one feels one has received a message, one searches for a way to visualize the experience and angels are one visualization.

Once Becky pointed this out, I felt right at home. After all, metaphors—or, to go broader, figurative language—are the meat and potatoes of literature, including contemporary fantasy. So what is the symbolic significance of angels in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy, Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman’s Good Omens, and China Mieville’s Perdito Street Station?

I’ll confine myself to Pullman for today’s post. The second talk in the series was my Sewanee colleague Ross Macdonald’s discussion of angels in Paradise Lost, and the poem is Pullman’s jumping off point. In fact, “his dark materials” is a line from the poem, a reference to the material that God uses to create worlds.

Pullman has a love-hate relationship with Milton, however, and ascribes to William Blake’s perspective that “Milton was of the devil’s party without knowing it.” In Pullman’s trilogy, then, he turns Milton on his head by making his fallen angels the good guys and the loyal angels the bad guys.

I find this to be a slightly shaky foundation for a story since, much as I admire Blake, I don’t agree with his view of Paradise Lost. As I see it, Satan is one of literature’s great depictions of a charismatic narcissist, and I think Milton intends for us to fall for his charisma before becoming aware of his emptiness. But set that aside. Pullman’s Satanic rebel is a couple, Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter, who go to war with God, his archangel Metatron, and his legions of angels. They have a few angels on their side, as well as witches and giant polar bears.

In Pullman’s version, God is not the actual creator but an angel who took credit for creation, which means that Pullman is not as radical as he appears. (In other words, “God” isn’t really God.) The author’s target is people who claim to speak in God’s name while twisting God to serve their own purposes. But if this is Pullman’s purpose, why not just go after the church rather than having this titanic battle in heaven, complete with flying machines and bombs.

For the record, Pullman targets the church plenty. The church we see in the trilogy is a cross between the Catholic Church of the Spanish Inquisition and the fundamentalist Protestant church of Calvin’s Geneva. Both are obsessed with purity and obedience, which means that they are prepared to do everything they can to keep children from thinking for themselves and from enjoying sexuality. They are fanatical opponents of sensuality.

The reason for the aerial battles is that Pullman wants his battle against intolerance and narrow-minded religiosity to be as spectacular as Milton’s battle in heaven. Pullman has said this His Dark Materials is his own Paradise Lost. But where Milton uses his poem to “justify the ways of God to man”—to find divine meaning to our suffering—Pullman wants us to focus on living our lives fully and sensually. He wants us to build the kingdom of heaven on earth—or to use phrase he uses, the republic of heaven.

We should not want to become angels, he notes, because they are ethereal. Pullman’s angels, rather than glorying in their immateriality, envy humans. As Mrs. Coulter notes when she is in the process of using her beauty to seduce Metatron into a trap where she and Asriel can destroy him,

[S]he trusted to her flesh, and to the strange truth she’d learned about angels, perhaps especially those angels who had once been human: lacking flesh, they coveted it and longed for contact with it. And Metatron was close now, close enough to smell the perfume of her hair and to gaze at the texture of her skin, close enough to touch her with scalding hands.

For those who think that Heaven is heavenly because it is purely ethereal, Pullman has a countervision. In his vision, Christian Heaven is a barren place, dark and empty. At one point, protagonists Lyra and Will find a way to release those trapped there—at least those who haven’t deluded themselves into thinking that their sense-starved existence is Paradise—and the dead souls are thrilled when they get a chance to mingle with the elements. Here’s Pullman describing the moment when they move from the afterlife to earth:

The first ghosts trembled with hope, and their excitement passed back like a ripple over the long line behind them, young children and aged parents alike looking up and head with delight and wonder as the first stars they had seen for centuries shone through into their poor starved eyes.

The first ghost to leave the world of the dead was Roger. He took a step forward and turned to look back at Lyra, and laughed in surprise as he found himself turning into the night, the starlight, the air…and then he was gone, leaving behind such a vivid little burst of happiness that Will was reminded of the bubbles in a glass of champagne.

As Robert Frost says, “Earth’s the right place for love, I don’t know where it’s likely to go better.”

If Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter are not able to defeat Metatron, then he will impose his will directly on the world rather than having to go through the church. In other words, we will have orthodoxy or fundamentalism on steroids. Some version of Margaret Atwood’s Gilead, in other words.

But because they take down Metatron, the next generation will be able to think for themselves and taste, without guilt, the forbidden fruit of sexuality. In fact, we see Lyra actually feeding Will a “little red fruit” in the lead-up to their lovemaking scene. Their love, which both the church and Metatron have been doing all they can to prevent, saves the world.

Hmm, love saving the world. Where else does one encounter that idea? Maybe Pullman isn’t as anti-Christian as he seems.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

Good Omens and Vladimir Putin

Sheen and Tennant in Good Omens

Tuesday

I’m currently reading Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman’s Good Omens (1990) in preparation for a Vacation Bible School lecture I will be giving on angels. I’m the third of three lectures on the subject–angels in the Bible, angels in Paradise Lost, and angels in contemporary fantasy—and I’ll share my insights in future posts. For the moment, however, I found a scene that I’m imagining as a comic rendering of Vladimir Putin ordering Russian soldiers into Ukraine.

First, a word on Good Omens, which is a remarkable collaboration between two of the greatest contemporary fantasy authors. Pratchett stands out amongst fantasy practitioners since he writes comic fantasy, which is a departure from the deadly serious fantasy that is the norm. (Think Tolkien.) Good Omens has more of a Pratchett than a Gaiman feel to it.

In the novel, the Antichrist has been delivered to an English hospital with the full expectation that he will bring about Armageddon when he grows up. A hospital mix-up, however, means that he is switched with another baby and brought up by a dull tax accountant and his wife. This wreaks havoc with Satan’s plans to have an all-out battle with the Almighty. Issues of nature vs. nurture come to the fore.

Responsible for the mix-up is the fallen angel Crowley, who has been doing Satan’s bidding for centuries.  Crowley has become comfortable with his life on earth, however, and isn’t keen on it all coming to an end. He’s even become chummy with Aziraphale, his good angel counterpart, and we learn that he has never been an enthusiastic evil doer: he “did not so much Fall as Saunter Vaguely Downwards.” (Elsewhere we are told, “He hadn’t meant to Fall. He’d just hung around with the wrong people.”) In any event, he now drives around in a Bentley, and his way of causing evil is disrupting everyone’s internet service from time to time.

When the time comes to drop the infant Antichrist off at the hospital, Satan assumes that Crowley will be excited by his chance to bring about the end of the world. I’m thinking that he’s excited in the way that Vladimir Putin is excited at the prospect of recreating the Tsarist empire of the 19th century or the Soviet empire of the 20th. Like many Russians, however, Crowley is less interested in restoring lost glory than in enjoying his comfortable middle-class life. You’ll pick up the discrepancy in enthusiasm levels in their interchange, which occurs over Crowley’s car radio. Satan speaks with the voice of whoever is performing at the time, which in this case happens to be Freddie Mercury of the rock group Queen:

“Ohshitohshitohshit. Why now? Why me?” he muttered, as the familiar strains of Queen washed over him.

And suddenly, Freddie Mercury was speaking to him:
BECAUSE YOU’VE EARNED IT, CROWLEY.

Crowley blessed under his breath. Using electronics as a means of communication had been his idea, and Below had, for once, taken it up and, as usual, got it dead wrong. He’d hoped they could be persuaded to subscribe to Cellnet, but instead they just cut in to whatever it happened to be that he was listening to at the time and twisted it.

Crowley gulped.

“Thank you very much lord,” he said.

WE HAVE GREAT FAITH IN YOU, CROWLEY.

“Thank you, lord.”

THIS IS IMPORTANT, CROWLEY.

“I know, I know.”

THIS IS THE BIG ONE, CROWLEY.

“Leave it to me, lord.”

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING, CROWLEY, AND IF IT GOES WRONG, THEN THOSE INVOLVED WILL SUFFER GREATLY. EVEN YOU, CROWLEY. ESPECIALLY YOU.

“Understood, lord.”

HERE ARE YOUR INSTRUCTIONS, CROWLEY.

And suddenly he knew. He hated that. They could just as easily have told him, they didn’t suddenly have to drop chilly knowledge straight into his brain. He had to drive to a certain hospital.

“I’ll be there in five minutes, lord, no problem.”

As it turns out, Crowley’s mission doesn’t go any better than Putin’s as both Earth and Ukraine survive to live another day. Moral: Don’t expect success when you lack buy-in from your followers.

Further application: While the Antichrist is growing up, the four horsemen of the Apocalypse—make that the four horsepersons—are assembling. War is an arms dealer named Scarlett, who has auburn hair that “fell to her waist in tresses that men would kill for, and indeed often had.” We see a before and after description of “Kubolaland” that vaguely resembles Ukraine before and after the February 24 Russian invasion. Here’s before:

She was in the middle of a city at the time. The city in question was the capital of Kumbolaland, an African nation which had been at peace for the lat three thousand years. For about thirty years it was Sir-Humphrey-Clarksonland, but since the country had absolutely no mineral wealth and the strategic importance of a banana, it was accelerated toward self-government with almost unseemly haste. Kumbolaland was poor, perhaps, and undoubtedly boring, but peaceful. Its various tribes, who got along with one another quite happily, had long since beaten their swords into ploughshares; a fight had broken out in the city square in 1952 between a drunken ox-drover and an equally drunken ox-thief. People were still talking about it.

The Scarlett shows up, at which point all humor leaves the narrative:

She looked around the street: a couple of women chatted on a street corner; a bored market vendor sat in front of a heap of colored gourds, fanning the flies; a few children played lazily in the dust.

“What the hell,” she said quietly. “I could do with a holiday anyway.”

That was Wednesday.

By Friday the city was a no-go area.

By the following Tuesday the economy of Kumbolaland was shattered, twenty thousand people were dead…, almost a hundred thousand people were injured, all of Scarlett’s assorted weapons had fulfilled the function for which they had been created, and the vulture had died of Greasy Degeneration.

When it comes to Vladimir Putin and all other “masters of war,” the anger of Bob Dylan’s song is only too appropriate:

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good?
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could?
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

Atticus: Future Racist or NeverTrumper?

Peck and Peters as Finch, Robinson

Monday

A month or so ago the Washington Post had an article on books that schools are banning—or should I say, canceling? (I list the books at the end of this post.) All but one of the attacks are from the right and the reasons will surprise no one. To Kill a Mockingbird is the one exception in that it has been attacked by liberal parents, and that imbalance is reason enough why liberals should back off.

After all, if you ban To Kill a Mockingbird for its politics, how are you going to keep conservatives from using that same rationale to ban The Bluest Eye and Beloved and Song of Solomon and The Color Purple and Native Son and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and The Hate U Give and The New Kid and Black Boy and Go Tell It on the Mountain.

I’ve written several times about my own reservations with regard to To Kill a Mockingbird (for instance, here) so I won’t do more than mention some of the concerns here—how it feeds into the White savior myth, how it gives us only saintly Black figures, how it papers over the White terrorist violence that underpinned segregation. Harper Lee’s sequel Go Set a Watchman is more honest in these areas, showing how the White establishment is benign only so long as it is unchallenged. In Watchman, Atticus Finch is so upset by the Civil Rights movement than he has joined the White Citizens Council, which is basically an upscale KKK: it doesn’t engage in outright violence like the KKK but it relies on that organization to do the dirty work of voter suppression. As a result, a disgusted Calpurnia has stopped working for him.

But it’s because such conversations can grow out of To Kill a Mockingbird that I think teachers should continue to teach it—although only if it is taught along with these other works that I mention. In fact, I believe that, by looking at Lee’s two novels, one can understand a lot about what has happened to the GOP in the years since the Civil Rights movement.

In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch looks saintly in part because he has an ideal defendant. Not only is Tom Robinson innocent but the book goes out of the way to note that he doesn’t, in fact, sexually desire Mayella Ewell (which would have clouded the picture for 1961 White audiences). Robinson is, to borrow a phrase from D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation, a “faithful soul.” The good Blacks, in that racist movie, are those who know their place while the villains are the freed slaves who want what the Whites have.

To shift registers for a moment, I think of what Jed Leland says to the entitled Charles Foster Kane about the working class on the eve of their breakup. Kane, like Finch, thinks of himself as a defender of the downtrodden, but only to a point:

You talk about the people as though you owned them, as though they belong to you. Goodness. As long as I can remember, you’ve talked about giving the people their rights, as if you can make them a present of Liberty, as a reward for services rendered…Remember the working man?… You used to write an awful lot about the workingman…He’s turning into something called organized labor. You’re not going to like that one little bit when you find out it means that your workingman expects something is his right, not as your gift! Charlie, when your precious underprivileged really get together, oh boy! That’s going to add up to something bigger than your privileges! Then I don’t know what you’ll do! Sail away to a desert island probably and lord it over the monkeys!

Substitute “people of color” for “working man” and you have what has happened to the GOP establishment. I’ve seen the shift up close because I have GOP cousins. At one time they labeled themselves “Percy Republicans,” taking the designation from the moderate Illinois Republican senator Charles Percy. They saw themselves as faithful stewards of society (and they were), and some even voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 election. If Obama managed to get their vote, it was in part because he maintained a delicate balance, appearing Black but not too Black.

He lost them, however, when (1) he voiced his anger at the Cambridge, Massachusetts police for arresting Henry Louis Gates in his home (they thought he was an intruder); and (2) he observed, after Trayvon Martin was killed by a vigilante, that, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.” While this endeared him to many in the Black community, who had had their suspicions about their mixed-race president, it signaled to my GOP cousins that he had thrown in his lot with the other community.

This means, however, that, like Finch, they began allying with the Bob Ewells of the world—or to get specific, with Donald Trump, whose ridiculous “born in Kenya” charge was an emotional appeal designed to delegitimize a Black president. Trump prevailed and now it’s Bob Ewell running the GOP, not Atticus Finch. To win elections, Republican politicians believe they have to attack teachers who teach novels that allude to America’s race issues and propagate fears of White replacement.

And because of that fear, they also refuse to condemn the proliferation of guns, at least when guns are mostly in the hands of rightwingers. (The country’s last meaningful gun regulations occurred when the Black Panthers were arming up.) As political scientist John Stoehr explains it,

After Obama’s reelection, Republican governors and legislators began loosening previous firearms restrictions, allowing guns in churches, parks and other public spaces. The liberal reaction was befuddlement. After the bloodbath at Sandy Hook, what they were doing was insane!

Not to the rightwingers, though. After all, the sociopolitical orders of power that had once put them on top had been turned upside down. The oppressors had become the oppressed under this rule by a Black man. Expanding the range of guns was a way out of that predicament.

To restore the natural order – the rule of white power – they first needed to bring down the current one, to knock out its foundation. 

As former Bush speechwriter turned NeverTrumper David Frum has observed, “If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” Stoehr links the dots by showing how the chaos caused by gun violence serves that cause:

[M]ass death works in the rightwingers’ favor whether it comes from bullets or a virus. When an electorate is scared enough, it will stop turning to democracy to solve problems. It will turn to the party that promises to restore “law and order,” that is, rule by white power.

Interestingly, in To Kill a Mockingbird there’s a mention of guns in the passage that gives the novel its title. Scout reports,

When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.” Or to apply the title to the book’s themes, it’s a sin to kill a deserving Black.

As long as Atticus’s class is firmly in power, he doesn’t need to resort to violence. Once white entitlement is threatened, however, he joins the White Citizens Council, and one wonders if he will turn a blind eye if guns take out people he thinks of as blue jays. After all, once previously he turned a blind eye to vigilante justice in service of a good cause—which is to say, Boo Radley killing Ewell to save Scout and Jeb.

Perhaps I’m underestimating Atticus. Perhaps, rather than tolerating white supremacists in his party, he will become a NeverTrumper. To do so, however, he would need to rethink his White identity in a foundational way. In any event, I want teachers teaching To Kill a Mockingbird to address the issues—although, as I say, such a program will only work if they teach it along with Go Set a Watchman, Bluest Eye, Beloved, Stamped and other novels targeted by rightwingers.

Other banned novels mentioned in the Post article: Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer, Jerry Craft’s New Kid, Art Spiegelman’s Maus, Nicole Hannah-Jones’s The 1619 Project, Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell’s And Tango Makes Three, Ashley Hope Perez’ Out of Darkness, Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi’s Stamped: Racism, Antiracism and You, Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, and Robie H. Harris and Michael Emberley’s It’s Perfectly Normal.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

The Moonlight Leaks Through

Loutherberg, Moonlight

Spiritual Sunday – Pentecost

The original Pentecost came at a dark time, and things aren’t so great at the moment as we look at the ravages of climate change and gun violence and the rise of authoritarianism. In this simple but profound poem by the 10th century female Japanese poet Izumi Shikibu, however, there’s a glimmer of moonlight, even as the wind batters our ruined house.

Indeed, it is because our house has leaks that the light is able to get through. Often we are most open to the Holy Spirit when things are falling apart. Here’s the poem, which I found in a Poetry Foundation article where poet Jane Hirshfield has assembled “22 poems about spirituality and enlightenment.” Hirshfield translated the poem with the help of Mariko Aratani:

Although the wind
blows terribly here,
the moonlight also leaks
between the roof planks
of this ruined house.

A wind reportedly blew through the hall on the original Pentecost as well, bringing about its own light (tongues of fire). Into this ruined world came divine hope, as Luke informs us:

When the day of Pentecost had come, the disciples were all together in one place. And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.

May our battered hearts open themselves to the moonlight that wants to leak in, filling all with its radiance.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments closed

Dying of a Broken Heart

Soyer, The Artist’s Parents

Saturday

The heart attack suffered by the husband of one of Uvalde’s victims is one of many instances of the massacre’s collateral damage. Along with all the children who were killed, three more were orphaned when first their mother and then their father died.

MSNBC commentator Malcolm Nance tweeted out the following note after hearing about the incident:

To new widows/widowers: When I lost my wife my mother-in-law called me the next day and warned me to wake up to life because Takotsubo Myocardia aka Broken Heart Syndrome is REAL. It can kill you…with a heart attack. I could feel it coming too. I started running…in Paris.

Henry Fielding mentions the danger in Tom Jones. In this case, the broken heart is caused by a sibling betrayal but the outcome is the same:

The doctor went directly to London, where he died soon after of a broken heart; a distemper which kills many more than is generally imagined, and would have a fair title to a place in the bill of mortality, did it not differ in one instance from all other diseases—viz., that no physician can cure it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

To Welcome in June, Stand and Stare

Friday

Welsh poet W. H. Davies has a wonderful poem to usher in the month of June. Here in Appalachian Tennessee we are currently experiencing our own version of the “gold-dust” pollen that he mentions on his shoes

All in June

A week ago I had a fire
To warm my feet, my hands and face;
Cold winds, that never make a friend,
Crept in and out of every place.

Today the fields are rich in grass,
And buttercups in thousands grow;
I’ll show the world where I have been–
With gold-dust seen on either shoe.

Till to my garden back I come,
Where bumble-bees for hours and hours
Sit on their soft, fat, velvet bums,
To wriggle out of hollow flowers.

It sounds like someone else spends hours and hours sitting on his soft, fat, velvet bum. Indeed Davies, who spent years as a train-hopping hobo and then as a tramp, was famous for not letting the world’s cares get in the way of observing nature. We see this especially in his poem “Leisure”:

What is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare.

No time to stand beneath the boughs
And stare as long as sheep or cows.

No time to see, when woods we pass,
Where squirrels hide their nuts in grass.

No time to see, in broad daylight,
Streams full of stars, like skies at night.

No time to turn at Beauty’s glance,
And watch her feet, how they can dance.

No time to wait till her mouth can
Enrich that smile her eyes began.

A poor life this if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare

This is a good month to pay attention to the natural beauty that surrounds us. Take time to stand and stare.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

Hemingway on What War Atrocities Mean

Bucha following Russian withdrawal

Thursday

To stay up to date on Ukraine’s resistance to the Russian, I follow several military experts on twitter, including Mick Ryan, a retired Army Major General from Australia. Ryan’s observations about the Russian army’s lack of discipline and professional ethics match something that a character (ironically, a Russian) says in Ernest Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls, which I’m currently listening to. For his part, Ryan says that, all else being equal, “ethically corrupt and criminal armies” are more likely to lose wars than those who follow a strict code of ethics.

I find Ryan’s twitter thread on this matter so interesting that I quote from it at length before turning to Hemingway. Commenting on Russia’s war crimes, Ryan observes,

Bucha shows the Russian Army is not “professional” nor do they deserve the term “soldiers.” The Russian military transformation since 2008 has clearly not transformed anything at a human level. Beneath the shine of fancy equipment and clever slogans (like ‘active defense’) lies a rotten core of a sloppy and corrupt Russian military culture. But, as the saying goes, fish rot from the head. If the military serves a self-interested class of corrupt authoritarians, why would its military culture be any different?

Ryan elaborates on the importance of the military having a healthy relationship with both society and with the military profession. First, society:

It is important that democracies have a theory of how military organizations interact with elected governments and with the people they defend…This theory of civil-military relations will vary slightly from country to country, and there is more to it than I can put in one thread. But each nation will need their own that they can educate their military (as well as politicians, public servants and citizens) about.

Then, the military profession:

The second issue is that military institutions must see themselves as part of the profession of arms. Only this mindset can prepare large organizations, the sole elements of society legally able to kill, maim and destroy at scale, for the responsible use of those powers.

Understanding that “one is part of the profession of arms,” Ryan writes,

imposes the responsibility to lead people ethically and with purpose, to use force responsibly, to protect those who can’t protect themselves, and live the values of the society they serve.

And he adds,

All of these characteristics are conspicuously absent from the Russian military, given its performance over the past 6 weeks. They lack the vital mindset of a professional, which is very clear from the appalling leadership and behavior on display throughout their campaign.

Ryan concludes that,

at heart, the best and most successful military forces are built on smart, connected, ethical and well-led humans. This is the core of military advantage in this century, and every other age.

Protagonist Robert Jordan’s mentor as he fights for the Republican cause in the Spanish Civil War is a Russian journalist named Karkov. Unlike those who surround Vladimir Putin, Karkov tells the truth as he sees it, even when it’s bad. One cannot win a war, he says, when you have to rely on undisciplined conscripts, especially when (as is the case with Russia’s current army) they don’t understand why they are fighting. Jordan has just asked how bad Karkov thinks the situation is:

 It is better now than it was. We are getting rid of some of the worst. But it is very rotten. We are building a huge army now and some of the elements, those of Modesto, of El Campesino, of Lister and of Durán, are reliable. They are more than reliable. They are magnificent. You will see that. Also we still have the Brigades although their role is changing. But an army that is made up of good and bad elements cannot win a war. All must be brought to a certain level of political development; all must know why they are fighting, and its importance. All must believe in the fight they are to make and all must accept discipline. We are making a huge conscript army without the time to implant the discipline that a conscript army must have, to behave properly under fire. We call it a people’s army but it will not have the assets of a true people’s army and it will not have the iron discipline that a conscript army needs. You will see. It is a very dangerous procedure.

We see, earlier in the novel, what lack of discipline looks like. Pablo, a peasant leader, captures a fascist-held town and then enrolls the peasants in the execution of the fascists. The men are to line up in two lines with flails, at the end of which is the edge of a cliff, and their fascist prisoners are to walk between them, beaten before being tossed off the cliff. In this way Pablo hopes to implicate every town resident in the rebellion, with the intention of ensuring their loyalty when the fascists counterattack.

Instead, the whole affair spirals out of control and becomes a frenzied blood bath. There is no sign of the iron discipline that will be required to fight off the fascists when they counterattack. I’m not far enough into the novel to know if the town experiences fascist payback, but it’s not difficult to imagine something horrific, with the peasants unable to effectively defend themselves.

In his twitter feed, Ryan notes that those Russian soldiers who are raping, pillaging and murdering will not stand firm when the Ukrainians counterattack. Thus, although they are currently making incremental advances in Eastern Ukraine—in large part because Russia is now concentrating all its firepower there—those advances may be temporary. For one thing, according to a recent New York Times article, Russian pilots are exhibiting

the same risk-averse behavior they did in the early weeks of the war: darting across the border to launch strikes and then quickly returning to Russian territory, instead of staying in Ukrainian air space to deny access to their foes. The result is that Russia still has not established any kind of air superiority, officials said.

The article quotes Frederick W. Kagan, a senior fellow and director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute, who observes that the invasion is not

proceeding particularly differently in the east than in the west because they haven’t been able to change the character of the Russian army. There are some deep flaws in the Russian army that they could not have repaired in the last few weeks even if they had tried. The flaws are deep and fundamental.”

We have yet to know how the war will turn out. But unlike the Russians, who declare victory in towns and cities they have reduced to rubble, the Ukrainians know what they’re fighting for.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

Gun Violence and Armageddon

Bruegel, The Triumph of Death

Wednesday

This past Sunday I shared a number of poems from Lucille Clifton’s Book of Days to reflect on how Christian nationalists, many of them wielding weapons of war, work against Jesus’s goal to bring the kingdom of God to Earth. One poem from the collection particularly stands out in the wake of the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde.

In “armageddon,” God foresees men coming, “full armed,” into our lives, and of us all dying as a result. When Clifton mentions “ruby hearts still bleeding through in places,” I think of those Uvalde children who, reports tell us, were bleeding out, even as “good men with guns” dithered in the school hallway.

In an ironic conclusion, Clifton says that enemies who shoot each other will “lie here together then, intimate and quiet as lovers.” In Uvalde, the killer, shot himself, lay alongside his victims.

Our own ruby hearts, our most precious resource because they represent our capacity to love and care for others, are also at risk of bleeding dry from our repeated exposure to gun trauma. “Too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart,” W.B. Yeats writes in “Easter, 1916,” and Clifton uses the image of the bleeding heart to remind us that we can still feel and love and grieve.

We need the reminding because so many bodies littering this valley floor threaten to fry our circuits, overwhelming our ability to empathize. The day we completely shut down is the day when Armageddon will in fact have arrived. Here’s the poem:

armageddon
By Lucille Clifton

i am all that will be
left to them in that day.

men will come here, full armed,
to make their last war.

their bodies will
litter this valley floor.

they will lie here together then,
intimate and quiet as lovers,

their ruby hearts still bleeding through in places.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Debunking Cherished Myths

Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury, Galileo before the Holy Office

Tuesday

There are few fallacies more toxic than the NRA’s mantra, “A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun.” The fallacy was spectacularly exploded in Buffalo and Uvalde, where determined killers overwhelmed local law enforcement with their weapons of war—including the Uvalde killer, who at one point was shooting children while 17 armed cops stood in the hallway.  But the mantra is also delivered in bad faith, ginning up fear and tapping into a wild west myth in order to sell guns. We saw Donald Trump invoking the myth when, after the Parkland shootings, he imagined himself running into gunfire to save students. Only fanatical Trump cultists can imagine that happening, and even for them it’s probably a stretch.

Bertolt Brecht provides a powerful counter to the mantra in his play Galileo. “Unhappy the land that needs heroes,” asserts the scientist late in the drama. Which is to say that, if we’re expecting heroic cops and gun enthusiasts to protect us from the epidemic of guns and loose regulations, then we are indeed screwed.

Galileo’s insight is hard won. Under the threat of torture, he has recanted his revolutionary discovery of Jupiter’s moons, thereby disillusioning some of his supporters. These want him to become a martyr to scientific truth, regardless of personal cost. It’s their version of wanting “good men” who, brandishing their guns, will always run towards the killer. (In this fantasy, these good men are always cool under fire, are always skilled marksmen, and never hit innocent bystanders.)

Here are Galileo’s followers and admirers praying that he will stay true to his beliefs and refuse to recant. The bell is supposed to ring at 5 if he recants:

Federzoni: Five o’clock is one minute.
Andrea: Listen all of you, they are murdering the ruth.
[He stops up his ears with his fingers. The two other pupils do the same….Nothing happens No bell sounds.]
Federzoni: No. No bell. It is three minutes after.
Little Monk: He hasn’t.
Andrea: He held true. It is all right, it is all right.
Little Monk: He did not recant.
Federzoni: No
[They embrace each other, they are delirious with joy.]
Andrea: So force cannot accomplish everything. What has been seen can’t be unseen. Man is constant in the face of death.
Federzoni: June 22, 1633: dawn of the age of reason. I wouldn’t have wanted to go on living if he had recanted.
Little Monk: I didn’t say anything, but I was in agony. O ye of little faith!.
Adea: I was sure.
Federzoni: It would have turned our morning to night.
Andrea: It would have been as if the mountain had turned to water….Beaten humanity can lift its head. A man has stood up and said No.

[At this moment the bell of Saint Marcus begins to toll.]

Shortly afterwards they hear the town crier calling,

I, Galileo Galilei, Teacher of Mathematics and Physics, do hereby publicly forswear this teaching with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith and detest and curse this and all other errors nd heresies repugnant to the Holy Scriptures

When Galeleo emerges, his followers first turn their backs before Andrea confronts him:

Andrea (in the door): “Unhappy is the land that breeds no hero.”
Galileo: No, Andrea: “Unhappy is the land that needs a hero.”

Everyone is angry at the Uvalde cops at the moment, but the right is particularly incensed because of how their lack of heroism makes NRA types look particularly bad. At first the authorities tried to make the facts fit their preferred narrative. They told us that cops engaged the killer and then that they breached the door and shot him. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, meanwhile, told us it could have been much worse. Only later did we learn that the cops hadn’t in fact engaged the killer and that they stood around for 45 minutes until someone found a key and unlocked the door. Abbott complained bitterly that he had been misled by the cops, but everyone was just giving him the narrative he wanted.

In Galileo, we see how powerful a preferred narrative can be. Several years after Galileo recants, he gives Andrea a copy of his Discourses to smuggle out. As the work will revolutionize science, Andrea revises his narrative: Galileo is a hero after all! Galileo, however, won’t allow him to hold on to his illusion:

Andrea: You gained time to write a book that only you could write. Had you burned at the stake in a blaze of glory they would have won.
Galileo: They have won. And there is no such thing as a scientific work that only one man can write.
Andrea: Then why did you recant, tell me that!
Galileo: I recanted because I was afraid of physical pain.
Andrea: No!
Galileo: They showed me the instruments.
Andrea: It was not a plan?
Galileo: It was not.
[Pause]
Andre: But you have contributed. Science has only one commandment: contribution. And you have contributed more than any man for a hundred years.
Galileo: Have I? Then welcome to my gutter, dear colleague in science and brother in treason: I sold out, you are a buyer. The first sight of the book! His mouth watered and his scoldings were drowned. Blessed be our bargaining, whitewashing, death-fearing community!

Brecht’s brilliance lies in his showing us how our preferred narratives win out over actual facts. In Andrea’s fantasy vision, heroic science wins out over a world of superstition, regardless of Galileo’s professed motives. In the NRA’s fantasy vision, a good man with a gun wins out over a bad man with a gun. In the world of facts, scientists and gunslingers alike are fallible, and the latter won’t save us in a state like Texas, which is inundated by weapons of war that anyone over 18 can buy, no questions asked.

Yes, unhappy indeed is the country where the only solution put forward by one of the two major parties is for us to rely on gun-toting heroes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments closed