Rss

"Poor Poor Pitiful Me"

Is there anything worse than the desire for sympathy on the part of someone with little apparent reason to receive it? Well, actually, there are lots of things worse than that, but I must say that the whining of pretty comfortable people drives me NUTS. The victim mentality, the “look at what I have to put up with!” schtick.

Which makes me shudder, In turn, when I consider the psychological truism that what most irritates us in others tells us a great deal about ourselves. (Oh-oh.) And I definitely don’t like it when others just don’t seem to realize how hard poor li’l me has it. And I hate it when I realize that I’m dipping into self-pity. (And then I really start feeling sorry for myself…)

What is the best possible light in which to regard this? Hmm. It’s quite simple, really. If life is suffering – and a focus on material things always brings, late or soon, some kind of challenge or difficulty, just like the Buddha and His Buddies have always said – then it is somewhat natural to want another person to be aware of our troubles. We want to be known, and the guiltifying fact that “others have it worse” doesn’t help with that at all. Sympathizing with the others, though, is a great start, and all part of acting as if other people (all six point whatever billion of ‘em) are real. The other half, it seems to me, is what loving and being loved are for. (And what prayer is for: Big Friend, Creator of All, You see me, You know me, You are my haven and my refuge…) The greatest consolation is to know that someone (Someone?) else, fallible or Infallible, knows our secrets and cherishes our single little lives anyway.

To all the whiners out there (and in here!), my slippery thesis is saved for the end: Tell the Maker, not me! Prayer is the cure for self-pity. (And probably a few other things, too.)

PopCult Quiz o’the Day

Do you know that witchy girls repeatedly adorn the grave of a J. Dawson – it’s in a Halifax graveyard – because they believe it to be Jack Dawson, the character played by Leo DiCaprio in Titanic? The only problem is that the dashing Mr. Leo plays a fictional Dawson, a James Cameron invention. The man in the Atlantic Canadian grave is Joseph, a coal shoveller on the Titanic. So, this gives us today’s multiple choice quiz.

Are people in general, and young women in particular, a) fatuous idiots b) natural believers c) eager lovers or d) watching too many movies? (You don’t have to log on anywhere to take the quiz. But be nice to people.)

Leonard Cohen and Five Good Songs

“You should never throw anything away, including people and ideas. It’s really true that we should never give up on anyone.”  That was Leonard Cohen, in my radio today.

Cohen is 71 now. Five of his songs were inducted into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame on the weekend. (Did you know there was one? Not the weekend, I mean the Hall. Although, actually, there is no actual hall for the Hall. Someday.) He was on Sounds Like Canada this morning, a taped interview he’d done with Shelagh Rogers. I missed the first 15 minutes or so of a warm, intelligent conversation of the type that CBC Radio occasionally pulls off so wonderfully well. (The “Mother Corp” takes a lot of hits from people who don’t listen to it. The TV side has its highs, even beyond Hockey Night in Canada, but I don’t watch it much; it’s so-so, even before you account for having to watch commercials. But the radio side is brilliant, commercial-free, and getting better, getting a little younger. Superb.) It was an hour-long conversation, followed by an hour of highlights from the HoF awards show. (How’s a guy supposed to get any work done?)

“Ring the bells that still can ring / Forget your perfect offering / There is a crack in everything / That’s how the light gets in…” This is an example of the songwriter as Writer, as Poet, a designation Cohen once refused, feeling that it was too early in his career to apply to himself such an exalted title; I take it upon myself to confer it now). It comes from “Anthem”, which enters the Canuck Songster Pantheon along with “Bird on a Wire” (Willie Nelson was there to sing it, and that’s the version I hear), “Ain’t No Cure For Love” (I hear Jennifer Warnes), “Hallelujah” (kd lang did a glorious version at the ceremony, but I like Bono’s, too) and “Everybody Knows” (Don Henley does a terrific rendition on the tribute album Tower of Song, but Cohen’s own is one I find more listenable than some of the others, gritty and morose).

I’m hoping that the whole interview, as well as the awards package, will be available. I looked on the CBC site tonight for it tonight, and instead went wandering through their archives of 1950s radio interviews and 1960s television chats – Adrienne Clarkson, in all her youthful bouffant glory! – and on into the more recent past. And in case there’d been any doubt, I found an extraordinary man. Even in his youth, Leonard Cohen was profoundly articulate, gently contrarian, an artist and a seer who sounded and looked as contemporary as his interviewers looked and often sounded quaint. Now, his intelligence, insight and deep humility are beautiful to hear. I hope to hear today’s interview again. (Apparently it was filmed for eventual airing on television. I’ll let you know.)

Of Groundhogs and Heroes

We have such mixed feelings about rodents. Hate rats, revere bunnies. Kill mice, make them movie stars. Laugh at lemmings, make beavers a national symbol. But will someone explain to me why the news leads with groundhog sightings? Wiarton Willie says early spring, I’m told, but the American pet hog-caster (Piskaquatty Phil, or some such) says six more weeks of winter. More continental discord. Oh, my. February 2 makes me curmudgeonly. Hey, let’s celebrate ignorance! Let’s pretend that furry critters are news! Sigh. Lighten up, buddy. There go your “Man of the People” credentials. You’ll lose your drive-through status. “Man refused Canadian Maple doughnut – called unpatriotic snob.”

“It is what it is,” I say with Jock Zen wisdom, and turn to the real news. Benjamin James is heading North, groundhogs be darned, for twelve more weeks of winter. He’s my hero today. A teaching job 200 light-years north of Churchill, Manitoba, and he has jumped on it instantly. He’ll teach ESL, some life-skills maths and sciences to the largely Inuit residents of Arviat, Nunavut. He’ll be able to keep working on his novel and other writing. He’ll cut into student debts. He’ll be a service pioneer in the tiny Bahá’í community there. He’ll play trombone to the caribou. How exciting is that? My kid is going to beat me to the Arctic. Lay on, McBen!

KV Junior, I Miss You Already and You Haven’t Quite Left

I happened to pick up my hero, Kurt Vonnegut, on CBC Radio’s The Current this morning. He’s 83, and his combination of profound pessimism and dogged goodness continues to knock me out. He’s so appalled by all the dastardly things humans have done that he figures it’s about time we were done.

“Done?”

“Over! We’ve had our chance; we screwed it up. The dinosaurs are finished and I suspect they did a lot less to screw up the planet than we have.” He imagines a great voice from “the bottom of the Grand Canyon or someplace, saying ‘It is finished. These beings did not like it here. They were not happy.’” He advocates a “War on Petroleum” instead of the failed war on drugs (or war on terrorism, bien sûr), and ridicules the wealthy and powerful for their residence in the 51st state (“the state of Denial”). In one of his characteristic KV Junior  flights of bitter fun, he offers that driving a car is perhaps the happiest thing humans have ever found to do, and now we’ll keep on driving blissfully until there’s no fossil fuel left and the system falls for those who follow us. “And what do I care? I’ll be dead! What does a CEO care, ‘just fuel up my jet today ‘cause I’m going to be dead anyway.’”

I saw Mr. Vonnegut give a public talk years ago in Stratford, Ontario. We were all so delighted to laugh with him, so ready to rumble. He got talking about smoking, his status as an “old fart with his Pall Malls”, and laughed at the warnings on packages. “These warnings are ridiculous. ’Smoking can kill you,’ they say. So what? That’s the whole point?” Strangest thing I ever heard in a theatre: the audience rolled instantly into a good laugh, and halfway through it collectively realized the nihilistic point he’d just made. In midstream, the laughter morphed into a sudden groan. “Ha, ha-ooohh.” When Anna Maria asked him today about his smoking, he said he was planning to sue Pall Mall. “Their packages promise they’re going to kill me. But I’ve been chain-smoking unfiltered Pall Malls since I was 12 and I’m still alive! They owe me.”

He was on the radio, of course, to comment on the war in Iraq, to compare it with his Second World War experience as an American soldier in Germany, and the imprisonment that became so well-known with his classic novel Slaughterhouse Five. He has sworn off novels, but has a new book out called A Man Without a Country. As pessimistic as he so volubly is, he continues to stand and to write and fight for what he has called the greatest thing we can have, “a little human decency”. This dogged use of his despair is terrifyingly good, painfully inspiring.

“You’re awfully pessimistic,” the interviewer says with some surprise.

“That’s what my wife says. Imagine what my marriage is like!”

“If you were to speak on behalf of your generation to young people today, what would your message be?” I’m sure Ms. Tremonti expected some warm and emphatic clichés, but I didn’t. Without fail, he breaks my heart with his sadness and courage.

“I apologize.” There was a pause. “And love one another, what the hell.”

“Thank you for talking to us, Kurt Vonnegut.”

“Go jump in the lake!” He chuckled and coughed. What a voice we will lose when he is gone.

And Who is Akaash Maharaj…

…and why is he speaking so eloquently on my radio these days? Turns out he’s a former policy chief for the Liberals, perhaps shoved aside during the Martin years but making up for it now. It’s so rare to hear someone speaking of politics with not only elegance (a rich, quite British tone and vocabulary and actual sentences) but idealism and principle. His watchwords appear to be “practical idealism”. He’s death on rule by polls, and on Paul Martin’s institution of “regicide” as a matter of Liberal operating fact. Yikes. I’m sure he’s too intellectual, too soft-spoken (and, likely, too brown) to be Prime Minister, but a look at his website suggests that he is certainly ambitious and very capable. Perhaps by the time he can speak to the Tim Horton’s Every(Wo)man – if he ever acquires that knack and loses that Oxbridge lilt – his ethnicity will no longer be a barrier. (Or perhaps he’s in line to be our Henry Kissinger.) He’s a political animal, but I am still impressed.

Crazy Frenchman on the Road: Catching Up With BHL

In my frequently relenting quest to get caught up on the pile of Atlantic magazines  that looms accusingly over my desk, I went back to May 2005 because it began a series by the French writer and philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy. The cover story last May was “In the Footsteps of Tocqueville”, a wonderfully affecting and effective look at America a century and a half after Alexis de Tocqueville, another son of France, wrote the famous Democracy in America. (I wrote about this here.) This, of course, was long before the United States had caught the imagination (and inspired the resentment) of much of the rest of the world.  Well, good news, friends! I’m now up to June 2005, whose cover carries the provocative title “How We Would Fight China” and which includes articles like “Managing China’s Rise” (Holy hubris, Batman!) and “The Next Cold War” (more erudite apocalyptica from the gloom-meister, Robert Kaplan).

But the best and most telling writing in the issue belongs to BHL (Lévy’s superstar nom de célébrité in Europe; it sounds quite zippy when the letters are pronounced as in French) and his “Road Trip, Part II”. His favourite American city? Seattle mon amour. “If I had to choose an American city to live in – if I had to pick a place, and only one, where I had the feeling in America of discovering my lost bearings – it would be here, in Seattle.” The Space Needle, the docks, the Sound, the intellectual ferment – he loves it all.

From Seattle, BHL goes on to the queerly conservative, even geriatric ambience of “Gayland”, the heart of the homosexual district of San Francisco. He also has an unusual and characteristically thoughtful take on “one of the most significant and innovative American political movements in recent times”, MoveOn.org. (If this is unfamiliar to you, think Clinton, Lewinsky, and the hungry Republican effort to impeach the Prez.) While in California, of course, Lévy is obligated to meditate (in the spirit of Tocqueville’s investigation of American prisons) on the myth and the meaning of Alcatraz, the long-closed island penitentiary from which none, famously, could escape. His conclusion on the latter obsession: maybe America’s prisons aren’t even really about the usual debate between “rehabilitation or rectification” but more about banishment, exclusion from the “sacred circle” of power. In California, he also ponders the “anti-city” of Los Angeles and the “bombastic kitsch” of San Simeon, the Hearst mansion that inspired Orson Welles’s depiction of “Xanadu” in the immortal film Citizen Kane. It also inspired in BHL the “irrepressible and contradictory wishes to laugh, to vomit, and yet at times to applaud”. (This last may be a microcosm of Lévy’s response to his entire American odyssey, but it’s too soon to say.) He investigates America’s suddenly legendary obesity, and draws some interesting and contrary conclusions regarding Europe’s exaggeration of it but also of its necessity. He wanders along the California/Mexico border, tries to explain the uneasy paradox between the States’ desire to exclude migrants and the undoubted economic need for them, and concludes that “I don’t like any of these explanations….[But] in America, newcomers take nothing for granted. For them, America is a place that must be earned.”

What I offer here, as you can probably tell, are the tiniest snippets from an involved, digressive but coherent 11-page article, pages of text with only tiny flourishes of illustration. (Don’t mean to discourage anyone, but the Atlantic is a magazine for people who read, which is not as redundant a statement as I wish it was.) One of these days, Bernard-Henri Lévy’s series will become a book, and you’ll no doubt thank me for this prescient and forward-looking advance review, even as you now snicker at how far behind I am in my reading.

Truman and Nelle and Cold Blood

Add me to the list of people calling for Philip Seymour Hoffman to win the Best Actor Oscar this spring. Capote is good stuff, and the film leaves me unable to remember Truman Capote except through Hoffman’s portrait of him. (I used to see this eccentric conversational darling on The Tonight Show. He was one of Carson’s favourite guests in the ‘70s, and imagine this: a writer regularly appearing on the top talk show; an effeminate, flamboyantly dressed man on TV with no mention of homosexuality; he and Johnny were likely smoking, too.) Hoffman has the lisp, the languidly mannered way of speaking, the physical movements, but on top of that he gives an affecting performance and not merely as impersonation. Catherine Keener was a revelation to me as Capote’s childhood friend, assistant and fellow writer Nelle Harper Lee.

Having taught To Kill a Mockingbird, I’ve admired Harper Lee as a writer and been mystified by her; how does one write a Pulitzer Prize-winner as her first novel and never publish another? I’d also taught In Cold Blood, Capote’s famously successful attempt to bring literary method and sensibility to the writing of non-fiction. (It is magnificent because, among many other reasons, it can be brought to largely male English classes of mainly non-reading future farmers and plumbers and it can work. Salvation for the English teacher.) When I realized that Capote was going to not only give me Truman but also a glimpse of Harper Lee, I was pumped. When I read that TC had been a childhood friend of Lee’s, that he was the model for the character Dill from her one and wonderful novel, I was fascinated. (What are the odds of two iconic American writers sharing a neighbourhood as kids?)

So I was fascinated going in, and remained so afterward. My hopes were mountain-high walking into the Bytowne last night, and they were topped by the film. Clifton Collins Jr. was broodingly watchable as Perry, one of the “cold-blooded” killers of the Clutter family in rural Kansas in 1959, and an interesting companion to Robert Blake’s portrayal (yes, that Robert Blake) of Perry in the film version of Capote’s book. There is so much more to be understood here. Watch Hoffman’s Capote and his profoundly graceless (non) acceptance of the tremendous reception for Lee’s novel. Not long before her sudden fame arising from Mockingbird, she had been Capote’s assistant, a friend who knew him, could challenge him and especially act as a bridge between the foppish writer and the rural Kansas community for which he was so exotic. Here are two writers and lifelong friends, each of whom produces in this period the book from which they cannot recover, the book that ends (and, for Lee, begins) their publishing careers with a bang and, I think, a whimper as well.

"…But I Know What I Like": The Arts of Christopher Pratt

I’ve been living a modest bike ride from the National Gallery of Canada for three and a half years, and yesterday I made it there for my (count ‘em) second visit. This is a deeply pitiable record for someone who claims interest in the arts, but I have to admit: the visual arts pieces in the Globe’s Review section are the only ones I can skip without anxiety. I’m more likely to read a dance review than one on contemporary painting, which may explain a little about why it was Christopher Pratt that ultimately drew me to the National Gallery.

Pratt is a living painter, though not necessarily a contemporary one. His paintings astonish because of their hyper-realistic detail, but also because of a fantastical feeling often attaching itself to the most mundane subjects. Or objects: you won’t find such messy and unpredictable things as people in a Pratt. (I don’t know if he would be labelled with the same “magic realism” brush as Alex Colville – for one thing, the brooding sense of menace is not so likely in Pratt – but he did train with Colville and shares a predilection for clean, precise (yet mysterious) realistic treatments that do not smack of kitsch.) I’d been somewhat more familiar with the exuberant work of Mary Pratt, his ex-wife, and first became interested in Christopher via his poetry, which I heard him reading during a radio interview. It struck me as plain and good, and when I toured his exhibit, it became all the more amazing that someone with his monkish devotion to painting could spare the mental energy and time to attain skill in another métier. But he has. A quiet dynamo.

I found his painting compelling. I laboured over each work, watching the evolution of his interests and skills and fascinated by the incredible level of application, of discipline. Unsophisticated as I am in the visual arts, his style — one in which technical skill (and painstaking, tiny-brushed attacks on often quite large canvases) is so obvious — likely makes it easy for me to appreciate his industry and skill. I loved to hear him speak of his approach to being an artist, and to watch film of Pratt at work in his studio. It’s a level of artistic focus, a grimly rigorous expression of passion, of which I can only dream. He gets himself to the studio and he is not afraid of the work, nor is there any apparent intimidation in the face of the empty canvas. It’s a wild, an extreme level of self-discipline (or canalized love), nearly frightening and utterly humbling to this sometime scribbler. His pieces are dazzling, but I was stunned as much by his furious method as by his distinctive and prodigious output. Whew. I left exhausted and moved.

Discovering America: Levy and De Tocqueville

I just finished reading the first article in a great series from the Atlantic magazine. It arises from a little-known bicentennial which, truth be told, is likely not much more commonly known for the Atlantic’s commemoration of it. (It’s a superb read, but it’s no Entertainment Tonight. (Mercifully!)) And as is typical of my relationship with this fine American publication, I’m in catch-up mode: we’re talking about the May ‘05 edition here. (Oh, that darned Canadian postal system…)

Last year was the 200th anniversary of the birth of Alexis de Toqueville, a French scholar and writer. His Democracy in America is still considered among the most wise and influential perspectives on that young and enthusiastic nation that is now an empire. The Atlantic calls him “our keenest interpreter”. In view of this bicentenary, and of the torrid world-wide discussion about the international role and approach of the United States, the magazine “asked another Frenchman to travel deep into America and report on what he found…”

That reporter is the Parisian writer and philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, perhaps best-known to Americans for his book Who Killed Daniel Pearl? In France, he is the thinker-as-rock-star, a public intellectual of the kind that makes Americans nervous and Canadians indignant (consider the widespread grudge against John Ralston Saul — “who does he think he is!?“). Lévy has taken a strong position of what he calls “anti-anti-Americanism” in French public debate, making him a European who might get a hearing in the American conversation. (He’s also a sharp dresser, apparently, which helps.)

He begins the first article with the stars and stripes. “It’s a little strange,” Lévy writes, “this obsession with the flag.” His observations and ruminations about why ‘Old Glory’ is so omnipresent in the American imagination and on most American streets mark his point of departure.  “It’s a good question to ask oneself…at the beginning of this journey that will lead me for almost a year…from one end to the other of this country I really know so little. Lord knows I’ve come here time and again in the past. Of course I have always loved it, and been molded, from boyhood on, by its literature, its movies, its culture.”

As he sets off “In the Footsteps of Tocqueville”, Lévy reminds us that his compatriot’s  initial intention was to study the American penal system. Accordingly, he begins at New York City’s Rikers Island prison. From there, he offers his wry and thoughtful impressions of baseball and religion; the “museumification” of America; the death of its rust-belt cities; George W working his way through hostile electoral territory; looks at Arab Americans, American Indians, the Amish and Orthodox Jews; the “Black Clinton?” Barack Obama and his impact on Democrats; U.S. highways; the ’04 Republican convention and the Mall of America. (I remain amazed that citizens of the Excited States, up to the present moment, have allowed this massive consumer cathedral to remain only the second biggest shopping centre on the globe; the Oilers may not make the NHL playoffs, but the West Edmonton Mall is still the square-footage champion.)

And away Lévy goes: describing, interrogating, comparing and speculating about every aspect of America that intrigues him. There does not appear to be much that doesn’t. His writing is cool and elegant, but his impressions gyrate from bemusement to admiration, from pity to gentle ridicule, from wonder to outright disgust. “Love it or leave it” types will not enjoy Lévy at all – mind you, they miss out on a wide range of the finest things – but anyone wanting to see the U.S. through a lens other than their own will find this a thought-provoking and enriching series. Tocqueville is said to have observed that it is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth, a remarkable reflection given America’s current political climate. The “complex truth” that his compatriot, M. Lévy, is seeking makes compelling reading. I’m eager to continue the trip.