Friday, 29 August 2014

From The Hurst 5


It's all over bar the readings now. The group part this morning was led by Kathryn and was dedicated to the notion of breaking the rules and excess. Here we considered the various injunctions developing and starting writers tend to be given, such as show not tell, make it new, kill your darlings, go in fear of abstractions etcetera, some adapted from Ezra Pound.

So we look at Pound's advice regarding music, devices, dullness, description, discovery, end-stopped lines and control. We also look at Simon Armitage's 'Testing Kit' which is not so much for writers as for readers who are looking to gauge a poem: the eye test, the magic eye test, the hearing test and so on right down to the acid test, some of which is simply telling us that good is good and bad is bad. We examine the warnings against adjectives issued by writers from Voltaire to Orwell, from Twain to Stephen King and others.

But what is the function of rules? What do we mean by rules, who gives them, and how are they to be followed if at all? How innate are they? Is there such a thing as good practice or good craftsmanship? What is best advice?

My personal view on this is that any advice given is likely to be agreed by about 80% of writers and will be useful about 80% of the time but that 'making it new' might be best achieved by not following too many rules too closely.

Nevertheless you can only depart from a rule that is perceived as a rule. A rule is a form of expectation. If you have no expectation you can't be doing something that runs against expectations.

The first poem we look at is The Haulier's Wife Meets Jesus on the Road Near Moone by Paul Durcan. This is a piece of high Durcanry, a Molly Bloomish monologue rooted in catholic belief set against an unruly and fantastical set of circumstances in which a great many rules are broken. There is a good deal of repetition, a certain randomness in the look of the page, huge comical inconsistency and hyperbole all executed with tremendous élan and insouciance. There is so much going on in it, and so deliberately, we could hardly accuse it of ill judgment or disproportion since that is precisely what the poem feeds on. It's a great riot with both a savage and a humane side.

Elizabeth Bishop's marvellous poem, The Fish, serves as an example of almost childish repetition, of the use of what someone had termed 'pink' words that are in some way value words of the kind poets are encouraged to resist.  These include words such as big, little,  tremendous, terrible, and there is the repetition of 'wallpaper' in a simile within three lines.

From Bishop to Alice Oswald's Walking past a Rose this June Morning which begins with the reiteration of the line 'Is my heart a rose?     how unspeakable' and moves on pitching the high romantic against the mechanical (is my heart folded to dismantle / is a rose a turning cylinder of senses / is this the ghost of the heart...the inmost decelaration of its thought), and all the time a series of comments, exclamations and questions proceed down the right side of the poem. This is, I think, a remarkably original work that looks to rescue the value of hearts and roses not as symbols but as things and re-energise them through a technique charged with passion, intelligence and wilfulness.

We read Sylvia Plath's Poppies in October which offers a set of energetic bladed gesticulations in response to something not quite revealed to us. There are long lines, short lines, the liberal use of adverbs (which rules discourage). There is no time by now to read Deborah Digges' poem Broom, Deryn Rees-Jones's marvellous and heart-rending Dogwoman or Frank Bidart's Ellen West.

We review what we have done and are required to write within some twenty minutes a poem in which we must 1. Tell not show, 2. Use six adverbs, 3. Use ten adjectives, 4. Employ at least one ellipsis, 5. Make the lines unusually long, 6. Include at least two abstractions and 7. Rely on no more than four images.

Some of this might take more than twenty minutes but there is nothing like working under pressure and the good results when read back are very good indeed.

Here is mine:

Devious

Deviously, deviously, was he grievous and warily moping
in the something he called emptiness, which was devious,
both something and a cold, faint, lilac nothing such as a window
or the mood he was in, which was grievous and full of moping. But
this mood, this injudicious mood, was his undoing, or so he considered
and said, yes said, quite clearly while propped against the bar
in his customary fashion. It was the saying of what he was
that rendered him helpless, moving helplessly yet deviously along
the bar as he spoke, moving away beyond…. well, a
certain discomfort in the long green bar, along its metallic surface
and the words he used which continued devious and wary,
the very image of moping, the colour of the liquid
in his glass which was even then vanishing.

I will write one more blog, possibly tomorrow, reviewing the week. The students were delightful, a mix of age and gender - chiefly female of course, as always. But bright and ever brightening. It is they who read tonight after dinner.


From the Hurst 4


Not a good night with reduced sleep. Early to rise, shower, wash hair in order to bring myself slowly into being, then to read some of the poems given to me by students the previous night.

It was my turn to take the group on the theme of the multiple voiced self. There were two particularly interesting quotations used by Kathryn in her session yesterday. There was Blake Morrison's:

All poetry is autobiographical, even when the voice is detached and impersonal. You don't have to say "I" but it helps

And four lines from Zbigniew Herbert's Ars Poetica that go:

The purpose of poetry is to remind us
how difficult it is to remain just one person,
for our house is open, there are no keys in the doors,
and invisible guests come in and out at will.

Multiplicity of self. Distances of voicings and forms of address. Voiced presences at various distances from the fine integument of the text surface. Pronouns as distance: as intimacy or authority.

In T S Eliot's Preludes we are faced with a number of potential presences in the form of pronouns. Those withered leaves are about 'your feet' in part I. Then there is that more detached 'one', who thinks of hands and dingy shades in II. There is the other 'you' who tosses a blanket from the bed and lies on it in III. And finally we are presented with an assembly of selves in IV that include the implied 'he' whose soul is stretched tight across the skies that fade behind a city block, the 'I' who is moved by fancies that are curled, and that third 'you' who is told to wipe his hands across his mouth and laugh.

Why the multiplication? What is the distance of the voice from the experience it appears to inhabit? Why the evasion (if it is evasion)? Whose experience is being inhabited? How much knwledge do we bring to our hearing? What is the balance between the Morrison view and the Herbert view in this?

We spend a productive but long time on this, wondering what constitutes a self as a coherent believable dramatic being and how far back behind the surface of the poem might we locate the Eliot persona. He appears to be both 'impersonal' as he himself put it, yet vulnerable, almost neurasthenic. The quality of voice that characterises him is mediated by rhyme, metre and accumulation of detail.

We breeze through one of Edgar Lee Masters's Spoon Valley poems, the one about Dillard Sissman, which is a dramatic monologue for a dead man. Here, at least, we understand what is going on. It is a performance in costume that avoids being a pastiche because what the costumed figure says is understood to be said by a voice that belongs to Masters in some sense, a voice that interprets Sissman as Masters chooses to do. That much is clear. Largely, anyway.

Life becomes far more complicated when we read Sam Riviere's ice-cream sunsets, a tiny collage-poem full of proper names and talk that is clearly characeristic of persons who are not the poet even though the poem speaks as a distinct I - not an I that is someone else, but an I that is not a fully developed being, more a piece of commercial prose, a cliché walking about by itself, or rather a series of successive similar clichés set in an environment where clichés can prosper. At the very end the poem cuts out and remarks on itself, or rather on the act of the poet who has chosen to keep the poem.

This I is a derivative multiple and yet the voice has coherence. It has an aesthetic unity that, at some level, is the distant echo of a state of mind with which we can connect. Someone - a real person - has gathered the material for the collage. Someone has juxtaposed the material and taken up a position we can't quite gauge, beyond the received environment. That someone is responding to a perceived environment by shaping it. It does, thank God, actually feel something that is not entirely recondite. Yes, we say, perhaps the world is a little like this too.

Then it is a case of we versus they in Hugo Williams's poem, Last Things, in which the two pronoun terms assume the full opposition they - and we - presuppose. They is rarely good. We are threatened by them. But who precisely the we is, and how many of us (us equalling each plus each plus each) are happy to be lost in its vast but rather dominating embrace, is a moot question. Groucho Marx did not wish to belong to any club that would have him. We too have our occasional doubts.

So back to you. Here is William Empson's Let it Go. 'You don't want madhouse,' he tells us and no, you wouldn't, but why are we speaking of madhouses? What are the contradictions that cover such a range in the poem? How far is the you a figure for the Empson voice, behind which a real man called Empson is negotiating an experience that begins outside the poem but only finds itself through the poem. Is this a kind of desolation? Is it anxiety? Is it apprehension of apocalypse? Does the period of the poem contribute something to its web of meanings?

We also read Freda Downie's poem You, where the you figure whistles to the moon and rattles small change in his or her pockets. Do women keep small change in their pockets? Is you man or woman,  we wonder - and that question did, of course, arise in Eliot's Preludes too, for what man, after all, would use curling papers in his hair in post WW1 London? In Downie the female poet may be seeing a man whistling, but she is inventing him and it is her state of mind and relationship with the moon with which the poem is more concerned. Could that you perhaps be someone close, a lover or husband perhaps? Might it be David Turner, Freda Downie's real husband who, as we personally knew, could be pictured whistling at the moon.

But this is not a guessing game about what poets do in their private lives or who exactly they mean  when they invent their personae - the real question is how we, meaning a hypothetical reader furnished with our own level knowledge and sensibility, whoever we are, might apprehend them.

How complicated it all is. Finally we consider the proper name in James Dickey's The Performance a poem that concerns the actions and death of one Donald Armstrong, an executed prisoner-of-war in the Philippines. What is the significance of the full name? What changes when we are given a name in full?

This post is getting far too long but it might give an indication of the possibilities of selfhood in lyric poetry. None of it is altogether simple. Not even Shelley's cry at the height of the Romantic period: 'I fall upon the thorns of life! I bleed!'

Something bleeds, that much is certain; someone who has entered our Zbigniew Herbert house- without-keys and has occupied it (with us? instead of us? as us?) for the period of the poem. His or her hands might not be poking through the wall as did the hands in Polanski's film Repulsion did, but there are hands there, and eyes, and their presence is known to us whether we acknowledge it or not. That presence's full name might be Autobiography, but don't we mostly make that stuff up?



Thursday, 28 August 2014

From the Hurst 3


Coming to bed rather late so this might be a little shorter. The rain has lifted but not entirely departed. It hangs about like the police at a stage door.

The morning was Kathryn's, thinking about confessional poetry - mostly American - considering questions of autobiography and presentation. We look at poems by Jeffrey Harrison, Robert Lowell, Anne Sexton, Pascale Petit, Sharon Olds, John Berryman, Dana Levin and Nuar Alsadir. We walk around notions of truth, of presentation, of the location of the self. We consider what is true and how it might be true, what is fiction and what is report.

Essentially, this is about the balance between imagination and recording. It is also about the pressure of events on the writing self or voice, about how far the reader is an invited or willing participant in other lives. It is interesting, I think, how the poems of Sexton and Olds tend to gather narrative then erupt into associational imagery as if an energy button had been pressed. At first the voice is only telling us about something, almost reporting on it, but then, as it realises its position, it expands under pressure. It's like a release button.

We are invited to write a poem in the form of a letter in the sense that an 'I' is addressing a 'you', We have twenty minutes. I write this:

Ice Cap

Jack, you might recall the time I told you
about my years in the galley, pulling hard
for Bergen or Stavander. It was metaphor
as you understood and you also knew what it meant,
that I was cold and tired and having a hard time.
    Well, times are hard now and the galley is waiting,
I can practically smell the sea in my bones,
or so I’d put it, knowing you understand the sea
and its ice, that this is quite clear to you.
Back in London was all kind of trouble. My mind was
winter in Norway. I was all fjords and islands,
life was glacial. I was North of the Northern Line
numb from waist upwards.
            You know how it is, Jack,
Colindale, Burnt Oak, Edgware, the ice cap of Metroland.
We know where the heart is, we understand metaphor
better than language, that desolation is too big a word
to handle with bare hands when the fingers are frozen.
How is life in the suburbs? How is winter in Ruislip?
My compass is gone, I mean really. Talk to me, Jack.

Hmm. It has something going for it.  It's raw and possibly clumsy yet it has a certain enticing quality. I always do the exercises set by the other poet and often it results in a genuine poem - two of the poems in Bad Machine came about like this.

After lunch the individual tutorials. Five times half hour, intense, engaged, then a walk in the grounds, not too long, and back into the house as the rain starts to patter. We chat in the sitting / reading room - and soon Hannah Lowe appears. We sit down to dinner and, after it, she reads from Chick and  from later poems, rich material mostly based around the gambler father. These are not confessional poems in that they are not about the voice that is doing the talking. They are conjurations and variations on a person, a filling out of memory with desire and dream and wonder.

Then we stay up late talking of education, of reading, of music.

It is late. Tomorrow is my morning and I have work to read before then. It is past midnight.|



Tuesday, 26 August 2014

From the Hurst 2


Surprisingly nowadays I had a good night but woke early. I had a set of poems to read and duly read them then decided to go for my brisk walk before reading the poems again. The trees were still dripping with last night's rain and there was more rain in the air, all but intangible for a while then every so often producing a spell of something a little more pronounced and distinct. But whether it ws actually raining or not it was like being in Baudelaire's 'rainy country', a terrain dunked in a systematic wetness that was both dismal and romantic, hills coming into view like veiled and faintly operatic statements.

Just a bowl of cereal for breakfast and some coffee then to prepare for the first session which was to be mine. I squeeze a lot in but try to link themes, beginning with the sense of language as something both rich and multifarious but at the same time as thin and brittle as a sheet of ice over a mass of water. Language as a system of arbitrary signs, language as something not quite amenable to paraphrase, language as transaction, as code, as manners, as decoration. Might form with its apparently arbitrary rules be an echo of the arbitrariness of language? And if there was an element of the arbitrary and provisional in its way with meaning might that be a way of opening up possibilities, ways of conducting an exploration.

I talk of Nemes Nagy and her view of the poet as a scientist or explorer of the emotions,  as someone coming across a new emotion, discovering it by exploring it through language, and her sense that a poem was, in fact, a kind of name - the name of a complex emotion, or to put it another way, the name of a complex state of affairs.

When we come to patterned form I suggest there are various conventional ways of approaching it; in terms of tradition, song, echo, mnemonic, and music, but also as process, a process in which the rules of any particular form are constantly diverting us from simply articulating something we already feel and know, shifting our attention towards improvisation and the discoveries of improvisation. How paradoxical it is that the very things we assume to be limits to freedom may in fact be the producers of a less expected freedom; that having overt rules is a way of breaking a more pervasive covert rule.

We say something about the different natures of poetry and story: poetry as cry and naming, story as consequence.

But I have written all this before in various ways and the point is to see how form can help us. So we take a gallop through various received forms starting with some short ones: the clerihew, the haiku. We look at five Tranströmer haiku. We discuss the sonnet and its apparently infinite tolerance for rough handling - from Shelley through Ransom, through Berryman, Hacker and Lowell. Then the sestina, the canzone, syllabics and finally MacNeice's internal rhyme device in The Sunlight on the Garden, and a bit of Sitwell.

We also talk about the structure of the three-stage poem, which I explain then set as an exercise. We start with rain, then continue first by digressing, then by either returning or by digressing still further into an area that nevertheless seems relevant.

We spend about 20 minutes writing, then read and discuss the drafts and that takes us well past the time designated for lunch. The students have in fact done very well indeed: time pressure and structure (or rule) immediately produces results that longer forethought might not have. So it's pleasing.

Then a light lunch and into individual tutorials - three meetings in my case. I am always trying to gauge what level of advice / criticism to offer that might be valuable, not to an abstract student, but to the specific writer in front of me in the light of what they have shown me. I can of course get this wrong but hope to get it right most of the time.

An hour or so of quiet afterwards then Kathryn and I do our readings followed by some Q and A, then simple conversation. It's a long day. Tomorrow it's Kathryn's session, with Hannah Lowe to come in the evening.

I have in the meantime written a few half-ironic precepts relating to all the above. Time for that on another occasion.



Monday, 25 August 2014

From The Hurst 1


Almost a month without a blog but I'll try to keep one up from here, now that tutors get wifi.

It was a long journey of three parts, the first jogging along from Wymondham to Birmingham via Ely, the second a little nightmarish to start with because the journey from Birmingham to Shrewsbury had to be by bus, and not only is Birmingham New Street the worst possible major railway station in the country but also because though there was twenty minutes between arrival there and the departure of the bus there were no clues as to where the bus was likely to be found and the rail staff weren't too sure themselves, so the suspense and anxiety of possibly missing the bus did not help the sense of being in the rain in not only the worst possible station but the ugliest possible environment for it. The bus stop was in fact some distance from the station.

But the bus came and people got on and there followed two hours of mostly motorway - someone some time must write a book titled The Inexhaustible Pleasures of the Motorway - until we reached Shrewsbury then it was on to the small three-carriage train that goes all the way into the heart of Wales.

The last part of the journeyis beautiful even in the mist and mizzle, hills rising on hills, each peak fringed with cloud, the valleys billowing with it. It is wonderful to be among hills when one is used to living in a relatively flat landscape. Every hill is an event. Sheep everywhere, disposed, as Hans Arp might put it, according to the laws of chance.

Rain continues when I arrive along with a fellow student who introduces himself. A car is waiting for us and we are driven to The Hurst arriving at exactly the same time as Kathryn and a student who had driven her up from London.

We meet Natasha and Gabriella who show us round. The place has completely changed. The new architecture is nice though still needs snagging but everything is in one building now and my room is vast and modern and comfortable. The old circumstantial privations of Arvon are gone. We are a touch austere but there is space.

We photocopy material we want to use, Natasha talks to us, then we go into the dining room where I get involved in conversations about ekphrasis, Modernism, Max Ernst, manners and music. After that the introductions and the first session.

I offer some riddles and get people to write them, then suggest an epigrammatic poem by the morning, one in the form of an epitaph, the other in the form of a self-presentation. The course will concentrate on rule, self and voice.

Late. Almost 11pm. Which is not that late really but after an early rising and a seven and a half hour journey it feels late. And so to bed as Mr Pepys would say.

Therefore to bed. Pictorial matter later.


Wednesday, 30 July 2014

GOODBYE TO DEMOCRACY

Hungarian philosopher Gáspár Tamás Miklós
on Viktor Orbán's speech

Gáspár Tamás Miklós


'On Saturday Hungary officially, ceremonially, openly, publicly,
said goodbye to democracy.' 


In my previous post I wrote about Viktor Orbán's speech in Tusnád / Băile Tușnad (Transylvania, Romania). Here, on a  Hungarian television programme [c.18 minutes video link, in Hungarian] the well-known philosopher and commentator Gáspár Miklós Tamás reflects on the significance of the speech.

My transcript is very close but here and there I have cut a passage for brevity or shaped a phrase in what I believe is a faithful fashion.  In it TGM [TGM here since Hungarian puts the surname first] argues this is the beginning of a very dark chapter in Hungarian history.


I am somewhat amazed that the UK press hasn't picked up more on the Orbán speech. It is, after all, quite something to declare the end of liberal democracy and to suggest that the prime minister should not be answerable to normal state checks and balances.

one-to-one

Interviewer recounts views of other parties on Viktor Orbán's speech then turns to Gáspár Tamás Miklós. She asks if there are any points in Orbán's speech that the opposition and the press have left undiscussed.

TGM replies that this is a speech of extraordinary importance. He credits Orbán with being a highly  intelligent man, a significant historical figure and a charismatic politician, one whose place is assured in Hungarian history. This, he claims, is the proclamation of a new political system, the seeds of which had already been sown. The speech was clear and simple to summarise.

TGM counts on his fingers and summarises.

TGM:
1. He is building an illiberal state. This is demonstrated by his rewriting of the constitution and by his ending of the separation of powers. He joked about this saying that if there were any attempt to impeach or obstruct him that would mean he wasn't the leader of the country. In other words he knows what the game is, as do I.

2. His stated his doubts about democracy

3. He announced that the concept of human rights is out of date. That human rights are finished

4. He declared  the country must abandon any notion of social support (or welfare state)

5. He declared that his preferred state models were Singapore, Russia, Turkey and China.

6. He declared that all NGOs working in the cultural or social sphere were foreign agents, traitors paid by alien powers

Interviewer asks which of these six points was new.

TGM`: Every one of them.

Interviewer doubts that but TGM insists that they are completely new. Was it not just a matter of actually articulating them in a new way? asks the interviewer.  TGM repeats that it was utterly new, in every respect
TGM: Yes there was this kind breast-beating before but that's not important.

He goes on to Orbán's idea of the state founded on work, the 'work state', the 'illiberal state' the 'populist state' the 'national state' etc.

TGM: This is a complete break with the post-1945 consensus as espoused by what we call the free world, not only with 1945 but with the less-free post-1989 political, social and moral consensus. Its abandonment of social responsibility represents a break with the ideas of freedom, and equality. What does a 'work-based state mean?  It means a non-social state, a non-welfare state, a state that offers no support or aid - it is a case of arbeit macht frei isn't it? It means that work is what people do not because they want to but because they have to so that capitalists may prosper, the kind of work the unemployed would be forced to do against which, in a free country, there would be mass demonstrations….

Interviewer returns to her earlier question. 'But what is new in all this?' Again TGM replies: everything. The question is what is to come?

TGM: So what is to come? What is new is that this has become a political programme to be enacted by the state. On Saturday Hungary officially, ceremonially, openly, publicly, said goodbye to democracy. The prime minister, the autocratic leader of the country, has declared that he is opposed to civil society. Have you noticed we no longer have a governing party by the way? When was the last time we heard anything of Fidesz as a factor, a genuine player? - all we have recently been hearing is a state apparatus in which not a shred of democratic process remains and when we see the Secretary for Defence using a violent thug [a named army officer from Hungarian history] as a role model for new army recruits we may be certain what kind of violent, thuggish, and repressive state is being promised to us… a state that, since the prime minister's speech was given in Romania, believes in provocation, [a speech] that did in fact elicit a storm of protest in the Romanian press and many declared that they had had quite enough of Hungary.

So here we have, in this truly terrifying speech, given to his friends and a highly enthusiastic audience, one of the darkest moments in Hungarian history, a moment of darkness provided by Viktor Orbán. Meanwhile everyone goes, 'oh dear, there he goes again, isn't that just the kind of thing he tends to say ' But that's not what is happening here. It is time to take Viktor Orbán seriously so that we can take up arms against  him and save Hungary. I don't despise him, I don't look down to him. What we have here is an almost fully achieved dictatorship.

In any dictatorship the person of the dictator is important. Viktor Orbán is not going to let power slip from his hands now. All dictatorships depend on the dictator so now we have to concern ourselves with the kind of person Orbán is.

He told us that he will not be removed by elections. [That means] that those who are against him must be prepared for the grimmest struggle. Either that or he remains in office as long as his health permits, directing the affairs of the country by his own authority, while the country descends ever further into darkness in every possible respect in economic, political, cultural, social, or moral terms until we become a waste land, a wreck, a terrible place, a black hole in the map of Europe, a place more backward and more tyrannous than any of our Eastern European neighbours, and we will have to start envying the Bulgarians and Macedonians who will be in a far better condition, far freer, more cultured.

Interviewer asks what happens if Orbán refuses to be voted out through normal elections.

TGM: Blood and chaos. That's the way it usually goes when elections don't work. It's what happens when people's social plight becomes ever more desperate. Our social circumstances are bound to worsen and there will be people desperate and violent enough to bring down the country in the process.

We really can't take this seriously enough. What was said in that speech is highly dangerous.

Interviewer asks whether people are in the mood to rise in defence of such high ideals.

TGM: Not at all, not at the moment. This is a browbeaten society that has utterly bought into [the Orbán persona?]. But it won't always be so. Nothing lasts for ever. At the moment there is no ideology to confront this dark chauvinism, this cult of the state, this cult of force, full of anti-democratic sentiment.

Interviewer: Why isn't there?

TGM: We are exhausted. We Hungarians are too tired to argue. You can't expect people to sacrifice themselves without a hope of success. People are resigned. Like it or not, they accept they can't change it.

Interviewer:  So what hope is there?

TGM: [Thinks] The one hope lies in continuing to uphold the ideals of freedom and equality as long as we can. The hope is that, despite everything, we don't give up on the ideals of 1918, 1945 and 1989. Those  [ideals] belong to us. No one can take them from us. We might have to prepare for a long and very bad period. I myself might not live to see the end of it. Who knows? The fact remains that if we wish to live a moral life and to protect the culture of freedom we have to maintain a cool but obstinate resistance and to repeat our own commonplaces.

Interviewer: How can you maintain these high ideals when the prime minister offers hard facts? When he takes banks back into Hungarian control? When he forces banks to pay back what they owe. Has anyone ever made a bank pay us? So he doesn't go on about ideals, about constitutional details.

TGM: I never said he was an unsuccessful politician. He is that, among other things. He is the only man who can give us hard facts because he is in charge of the government.

Interviewer: So there you are, hard facts. Isn't it better to have hard facts than to be dreaming about ideals?

TGM: Are you talking about those four million people currently in desperate straits in this country? Do you think they like it? Do you think they don't believe in ideals such as a better life? That too is an ideal: they believe their own children deserve as much as the better off, the middle class and the rich. That ideal is called equality.

It's not the way they refer to it every day, of course. But that is the proper word for it. These things are connected. These ideals are not a matter for a few specialists divorced from reality. Equality means that the bottom four million have a right to food, electricity, to a heated home, to read, to enjoy their pleasures. That is an ideal but it's not the reality.

This ideal concerns the poverty of four million people and the servitude of ten million,  and opposes the torrent of state funded lies with which Viktor Orbán and his underlings flood this small country. Yes, there are ideals in which people believe, that, for example, they should be able to live a decent honourable life. That ideal has roots in Christianity, in liberalism, and in socialism. That is not something they are obliged to know, but they know it. And Viktor Orbán is telling you directly, in your face while laughing at you that that is what you have to live without.

And if, dear fellow Hungarians, that is what you accept that is what you'll get. There's nothing anyone can do for now except to regard this terrible speech with hatred and contempt. Because society is weak but it is possible for it to know these things.


That is the end of the interview. It is a very dark vision of Hungary's future and TGM is clearly angry.  It is fascinating - and liberating - to hear a man talk of socialism with such conviction. It is fascinating that he should include Christianity and liberalism in the struggle for freedom and equality.

What that shows is that TGM is not an old-system communist. He was among the opposition to the pre-1989 order. He is part of the spectrum that any democratic society should be proud to nourish.  It is the spectrum Hungary is on the point of leaving.




Sunday, 27 July 2014

No more liberal democracy in Hungary




So now we know.

Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán tells his Transylvanian audience that liberal democracy has failed and what he wants is something more like Russia and China. I am providing a translation of parts of the !!444!!! summing up below. For a longer, fuller comment see the article by the always excellent Eva Balogh .
 

Translation:

"The model of liberal democracy collapsed in 2008. We are now seeing a race between nations and large organisations to discover a new system. Hungary is at the cutting edge of these new politics since it has already broken with the liberal democracy model. The new political model in Hungary is the work-based state. It is not liberal in character. It allows for the principle of liberty but is not liberty based..."

The points Orbán continues to make are:

1. The vast differential between the very rich and the poorest in America is of a revolutionary nature. [GS note: Which is of course not the case with Russian oligarchs and Chinese millionaires, or the super-wealthy of Mumbai and Mumbai slum dwellers]

2. No-one is ever concerned for the welfare of the white working class [GS note: I don't need to draw attention to the whiteness of that working class]

3. The super-rich control everything. [GS note: The fact that he ascribes this to liberal democracy rather than capitalism is interesting. That is because Orbán and Fidesz loathe socialism more than anything]

4. Europe is an [economic] basket-case...

The problems with liberal democracy, he continues, were that

a) It did not serve the national interest
b) It did not recognise the nationality of Hungarians abroad to be Hungarian
c) It did not defend public [national] property

He goes on to condemn political [GS: add 'cultural', meaning certain theatres among other things] opposition groups who were, he said 'financed from abroad' and were 'fronts for political activism', blaming particularly the Norwegians.

This, he said, was Hungary's era in the Carpathian basin. [GS: That won't delight all the neighbouring states, but if he is well-in with Putin he won't care about that.]


I think we have seen such statements before, in the 1930s, pointing to the weakness of liberal democracies and advocating the Stalin / Mussolini / Hitler model. Here we go again.