literature

Sunday, May 3, 2009
***********************************
WHAT IS LITERATURE?
**********************************************
There is no consensus on the subject. Some say the function of literature is to understand reality. Others, to introduce or enhance moral standards. To educate, explain, and instruct. To fight corruption and injustice. To expose prejudices. To see beauty and eternity in a blade of grass.
Dissidents believe the function of literature is to question authority. Those in authority disagree: they say writers should behave like a chorus singing hymns to their infallibility, greatness, integrity, vision, and glory.
It has also been said what literature does is to make "sh*t look like rose jam" (Jean Genet).
Speaking for myself, I believe the first and most important function of literature is not to bore the reader.
And speaking of sh*t and rose jam: I am reminded of Saroyan defending his one-dimensional depiction of Armenian characters in his fiction by saying he had only “stylized” them -- probably meaning that he had done to Armenians what Leonardo had done to Mona Lisa, or what Balthus had done to his street scenes: that is to say, introduced something that is not present in reality.
*
Monday, May 4, 2009
****************************************
AMERICANS AND GENOCIDE
*************************************
Hugo Chavez: “Columbus was the commander of an invasion that resulted in the greatest genocide the world has ever known.”
Now you know why American presidents promise but they hesitate to deliver. All the Turks have to do is tell them, “Armenians are our Indians.”
*
A WOMAN ON WOMEN
***********************************
Colette on feminists: “I would put them all in a harem.”
*
CIORAN ON THE FRENCH
**************************************
“They prefer an elegant lie to a clumsily expressed truth.”
*
ON SACRED COWS
*********************************
The only thing they are good for is shish kebab.
#
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
*****************************************
NOTES AND COMMENTS
*************************************
To understand how easy it is to be wrong, all I have to do is review my past, and I don't mean my distant past. I mean yesterday.
*
There is more to being Armenian than hating Turks and lamenting our martyrs. Looking backward is useful only if we learn from our blunders. What have we learned so far?
Life isn't fair?
Big fish eat small fish?
Politicians speak with a forked tongue?
But then, are we fair to one another?
Are our big fish vegetarian?
Are our politicians honest?
Don't make me laugh.
*
Truth may well be beyond our reach, but honesty is not.
#
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
*****************************************
THE INSULTED AND THE INJURED
**************************************************
One of the most astonishing things about human nature, Dostoevsky tells us, is that it can get used to anything.
For a thousand years we were ruled by tribal kings, princes, and nakharars. For six hundred years we were the obedient subjects of sultans and more recently of ruthless commissars. Today we find ourselves at the mercy of empty suits and bearded charlatans who rule by delivering empty verbiage and whose role models are not statesmen or men of faith but “crocodiles” (Chekhov). And whenever someone takes it upon himself to point this out, he is either starved or silenced permanently. And here I could make a long list of names from Abovian (who committed suicide) to Zarian (who for all practical purposes was buried alive).
Have I said this before? Why shouldn't I say it again, if what I and many others before me have said has so far failed to register on our collective consciousness?
“I can't write novels like Dostoevsky,” Oshagan is quoted as having said, “because we Armenians don't have Dostoevskian characters.” But what is the history of our nation with all its unspeakable betrayals, degradations, and suffering if not a character straight out of Dostoevsky?
#