Friday, 21 April 2017

The English and Children (from fiction in progress)

We took the child on a river boat, and to the Tate gallery to see the Blakes. He pointed to "Ghost of a Flea" and shouted.From there we wandered through Battersea park and finally to the white stone church where Blake was married. On a path outside the church the child stamped and scuffed his feet on the gravel to make a noise. "This is a cycle path" mumbled a middle-aged man on a bike with muffled rage.
The English in fact hate children. You only have to travel to Greece or Italy or Spain, where the baby or toddler in a restaurant or other public place is the star of the show, a VIP, an entertainer applauded and feted by all. You only have to witness the delight of the waiters and shop workers, suddenly lit up and animated by the prodigal presence of the child, and who always meet the baby half way, as it were, and become babies themselves, to realise that, by contrast the English resent and are embarrassed by children and wish them invisible, inaudible or unconscious. Of course, their hatred wears the mask of concern, or the muzzle of concern, as in “that baby should be asleep!,” or “They shouldn’t be letting it behave like that..” and so on. They "blame the parents” and can be heard sniping at the parents from adjoining tables, barely audible of course, for most of their cancerous bile is directed inward, to their own organs,  where, with other monsters, it festers and mutates. They cannot admit to themselves they hate children, for that would amount to confessing that they hate life. But this is exactly what the English do hate. The vitality and exuberance of the baby, or the wobbling toddler, circling in gleeful triumph around the listless ironic adults, shrieking and laughing, screeching and crying, are the stream and bubble of life in its pure state. The shriek of a toddler is an arrow of pure life fired directly between the torpid eyes of those who long ago sent the child they once were to rot in exile. 

Genius is the voluntary reclamation of childhood, Rimbaud says, by which he means not the memory of childhood, a la Proust, but the plastic powers of childhood to perceive, play and create. If we can retain these powers, invoke and use them, then we are geniuses. A genius sees the world differently and walks roughshod over the established symbolic parameters, which is also what the child does. The small child spends much of its time in a state of sweet delight, as Blake knew. It notices that a piece of wood makes pleasant sounds when hit against a wall or a cupboard; a tennis ball is better employed knocking over a glass; a small drawer’s contents can be scattered over a large area; doors are for slamming, and a switch makes a pleasant click which can also plunge the world in darkness or call up from nowhere a small room which adults call a “lift.” Each day there are Olympian leaps of the understanding, jubilant discoveries, new creations and ecstatic destructions. What a life to live, this exponential and daily increase in the body’s powers, the collapse of familiar boundaries, and, even within the wall of house and garden, an ever-expanding universe...

All of this, for the English, is to be extirpated, re-programmed and subject to regimentation.  Children in all their fabulous innocence are labelled miscreants from the start. They are naughty or possessed or hateful. Original sin is simply the sin attributed to children by adults, the labels and symbols used to defame the exuberance of the child, which properly understood and heard would corrode their Englishness as salt dissolves a slug. For it is not unfair to say that Englishness is, point by point, the antithesis of childhood. Everything that the child incarnates, in the way of joy, unstopped desire and piping glee, is then drained away by the cultural apparatus of Englishness, and replaced with repression, glumness, irony and resignation. The laughter of a child and that of an Englishperson are completely different, if not the exact reverse of each other: the one affirms and spills over, the other denies and drains.

Wednesday, 5 April 2017

Ideas: the web spun by our imagination

The baseball cap belonged to Grenson, a friend of mine at Oxford. He owned very few books and I never saw him in the library. He was working on a PhD in Logic and all he had to do was think, as he told me, just sit and think and write. This was an enviable position to be in, I always said. He could do this anywhere, unencumbered by books or tangles of footnotes. He could sit by the canal, for example, with his laptop, working through the logical structure of sentences and scribbling notes, wearing his cap. I remember very clearly the little spot by the canal where he used to sit on sunny days. I’d join him and we’d analyse a film we’d seen, or we’d talk about a woman he was pursuing. It was always a question of uncovering the implicit rules of the situation and following them. Every sphere of life had its explicit and implicit rules, and in every case the task was to identify what rules were operating and behave accordingly. And just as one could not simply choose to speak and communicate outside the rules of grammar, without making grammatical mistakes that impede communication and lead to misunderstandings, so there was no way to simply sidestep the rules and laws of interpersonal behaviour. 

I always thought that this view of things, of a world structured according to manifold rules and laws, was a great imaginative construct on Grenson's part. It suited him, and pleased him, to think of the world in this way, to act and behave in a world so structured. No doubt he would say that the world really is like this, it really is structured by rules and laws, and his view simply reflected this fact, just as Leibniz might say the world is really composed of monads. But just as Leibniz's system is now thought of primarily as a fantastic imaginative construct, almost a work of art like Joyce's Wake, so Grenson's picture of the world as a network of rules can likewise be seen as, in fact, the web spun by his own imagination and expressing his soul. Most of our ideas, whatever philosophical rigour they appear to exhibit, are also always webs spun by our imagination and expressing our own peculiar form of life. All the great philosophical systems shine forth as imaginative and aesthetic constructions long after their truth content disappears or at least dwindles. The great systems, whether it be Plato or Hegel, but also more modest systems, such as Grenson's, are in fact, independent of their truth, lattice structures which conduct flows of psychological and affective energy, great machines which we plug into and from which we derive cerebral and emotional pleasure. 

Friday, 24 February 2017

The Death Of Guy Debord (from fiction in progress)

Of Carvell and myself, I can say that it is (or was) one of those friendships whose star, long after the friendship has ended (as may already have happened in the case of Carvell and I) continues to glimmer and sometimes to shine.
We'd sit in the Senior Common Room, long after everyone else had gone, playing chess and talking, until the morning sun told us it was time to sleep. I sometimes wish that a secret agent had recorded those conversations, and delivered them to me years later so that, like Beckett's Krapp, I could play them back and smile, and marvel at who I was once was, at who we once were.
Carvell was working on the militant and philosopher Guy Debord.  I now see that Carvell "identified" with Debord, which is to say he made him into a kind of Idol or Double, an avatar whose fortunes were linked to his, whose successes and failures he somehow shared. For Carvell, Debord was the name of a path and a destination, but also a map - of how to live in an "alienated world", as Carvell called it, wherein "everyday life is opaque and unbreathable" (as he said to me once on Broad street, overtired and smelling faintly of urine). Debord, Carvell told me, was a man who never worked and somehow lived by writing and by other activities forever covert, all of which was, for a time, true of Carvell. And yet, Debord, Carvell's idol, was also a proud alcoholic, forever chasing the "last drink", the lip of darkness, who only managed to squeeze out a single book of note, albeit one which, according to Carvell, names, with exactitude and justice, the historical epoch in which we live as no other book has: an epoch of spectatorship, a life lived in the shadow of signs and signifiers but never quite touching the thing itself, a population mesmerised and held captive by images. 
Conquered by drink, the later Debord resembled nothing so much as the later Behan, or the middle period Hawking, a crestfallen sac emptied of its former eloquence, baffled by existence and sunk in wordless nostalgia. This image, of ruin and self-sabotage, I suspected, was the secret attraction of Debord for Carvell. For I always thought that Carvell would end up similarly capsized. But, utterly to my surprise and disappointment, he married - he who seemed most capable of resistance, most resolute in his convictions. And yet, I am sure that he would still be ‘single’ (except no one ever is) today were it not for what happened in 1994, one afternoon in November.
Carvell called me from a phone booth somewhere in London, for he made frequent visits there - using a stolen bus pass - to see films at the ICA. I was in the common room drinking a cup of coffee from the big vat they placed near the door after lunch. Disgusting stuff, actually and I’m not sure why I drank it. A call came through and the Russian Agronomist picked up, summoning me over. I had no idea who it might be, and was very surprised to hear Carvell’s voice. "Have you heard the news!" he asked, in a tone that suggested the destruction by fire of the Bodlean library or possibly the outbreak of war. "Debord has killed himself." In his remote house in Champot, in a blizzard, utterly estranged from all the world, he’d taken his own life. Carvell was stunned, intercepted by darkness. His double had died, and just as some children, when a parent commits suicide, interpret this as a message addressed to them, of the kind “Sorry, you weren’t enough,” or “I chose death over you,” so did Carvell seem to take this very personally, stumbling through the winter streets let down and unloved.
It is fair to say that the death of Debord was an event not just in the remote village of Champot where the suicide took place, but also in the remotest provinces of Carvell’s body and mind, wherein some crystal of light and faith was shattered and a portion of soul escaped through the broken panes of his eyes. Carvell thereafter was not the same man as the Carvell before, such that the name "Carvell" is now the sole filament connecting, and lending fake continuity to, the two very different incarnations
It was a remarkable coincidence that less than a year later my own beloved philosopher, Gilles Deleuze would similarly end his own life, although for very different reasons I think. But at that point I had scarcely heard of Deleuze and, not being similarly invested, as Carvell was in Debord, I was insured against the same psychological damage which had been inflicted on my friend. I was not protected, however, against what attacked me from another source entirely…

Thursday, 2 February 2017

The English (from a fiction in progress)

The English never get beyond their teenage glee at being able to drink. They go out in order to “get pissed”, and they “get pissed” in order to release pockets of emotion which, made ugly or maudlin by suppression, stink of mothballs or sour milk, and evaporate with first light.  The English hate anything which doesn’t return them to the prosaic and the everyday. Grand passions and intellectuals are automatically suspect. They live under the sign of Necessity: "What can you do?" they burble, "It's a funny old world". They permit themselves the sole freedom of mockery.  To a script written and edited by others, they make ironic additions in the margins. By deprecating their own existence and “not taking themselves too seriously,” they silently abstain from living. They relinquish control of their fate, placing it in the hands of a They about which they can cynically complain – "They are now saying butter is good for you, They’re saying it’s going to be the hottest summer for 400 years, They're introducing a new tax".. and so on.  The English vote without thinking it will make a difference, for only They are voting. Each English person thinks of their own vote as superfluous. Politically, the English are among the most passive in Europe if not the world; or, if they are roused to passion, it's to rail against foreign bodies that threaten the stolid familiarity of what exists. The English, with few exceptions, are a nation of sleepwalkers. 

The English may have a “good sense of humour” and a historic litany of  many comedians, satirists, ironists of the best mettle. Fine. But the forfeit they pay is intellectual castration. The critical impulse, the philosophical force of the Negative, which might once have fomented revolution or toppled the King, is instead turned on themselves, shrivelled  to mere carping and grumbling.  The regime’s faults are inevitable; such is the way of the world. Whereas the Gallic shrug says "who can tell?", the English shrug says "What can you do?" The former shrugs off the world to win a yard of freedom, the latter is an act of surrender. The laughter of the English is their measly consolation for a world beyond change. It is not the laughter of Joy, of surplus vitality, like a baby's laughter when it discovers a new trick, but the laughter of deficit, life’s perpetual deficit and defeat, life’s perpetual falling short. 

Monday, 2 January 2017


I am, I will admit, very susceptible to injury. I don't mean physical injury, but injury ensuing from harshness of tone, sneering, or disrespectful remarks; being treated, in short, with lack of human courtesy. There are a number of incidents over the years, which have lodged firmly in my mind, like little wounds, or scars that can be easily opened and once opened freshly bleed. 

I remember very clearly one time, some twenty years ago, I was travelling back from university to Bradford on the train. I had a heavy cold and was sniffing and sniffling, full of phlegm. Across the aisle was a man not much older than me, in an expensive suit, with papers spread out before him. He kept trying to buttonhole me with a bold stare, some sort of high velocity stare he was, doubtless, accustomed to firing at people who annoyed him. "Excuse me," he barked "you're making some disgusting noises. Why don't you get a tissue?" I was very taken aback of course. You don't expect to be addressed in this fashion on public transport. “Thanks for pointing that out,” I replied, with a faintest aftertaste of sarcasm. But of course, he wasn’t just “pointing something out.” He was very far from “pointing something out”, just as most acts of “pointing something out” are also acts of another sort entirely. In this case, the man, to whom I assigned the name Godfrey, wished to posit me as an object of disgust, as the source-object of his disgust. It is clear, and commonly agreed, that “disgusting” objects are of a certain category, thus: things that are excremental, various form of discharge and disjecta, things that have irreversibly exited the body - the guts of a squashed bird, a steaming pile of faeces, or the clot of cold blood I saw this morning in a public urinal near Beak Street. This is what the man was invoking in speaking to me, grouping me with such things, treating me, very precisely, as a piece of shit. What is more, of course, he was asking me to go along with this, as when someone says "pick up the litter, vermin,” where to respond by merely picking up the litter is, by that exact same stroke, to posit oneself as vermin. In my case, to respond with "sorry, yes, I'll get a tissue," would, of course, be to accept my status as an object of disgust, to define myself as such. What sort of person asks another to do this? Only a sadist.

This was, in fact, one of those "micro humiliations" of which I have spoken, the microsadisms that people get away with, or assume they can get away with: inflicting on others the worse kind of indignity by forcing people to collude in their own humiliation. Any such person, a person who posits another as an object of disgust, is the very worst kind of person, and the fact that he (it often is he) operates within the law only makes worse his crimes. For the worst crimes are those committed within the law. This is easily illustrated. The law is a high perimeter fence, beyond which there are acts of murder and theft, fraud, embezzlement and vandalism. The fence has many policemen, guards, sentinels, wardens, beadles, bureaucrats, judges, and so forth. It’s no surprise that few people venture beyond the fence. They are threatened and penned in. But inside the boundary of “What is permitted,” people can do as they please. There is no law against laughing at the beggar who asks for money, blanking the friend in mental distress, meeting someone’s evident pain with cold logic or polite condescension. These are the true crimes, and such a criminal was this Godfrey man on the train. After my brief reply, I blushed and blew my nose. But the barb was still in my side, and after his words had bubbled in my belly for a while, my anger rose and reddened, my skin blushed and tingled, to the extent I could no longer stay seated. I rose and left the carriage

Of course, it was not possible to kick him in the kidneys or break his nose. I walked instead to the buffet car. I ordered a black coffee, "extra hot please, extra large." And, as I returned to my seat, I tripped, or "tripped" I should say, I took a tumble, and the violent coffee darkened his belly, his papers, his crotch. He squealed like one of Circe’s pigs, his face a blazon of Pain against the rushing light. Then, such a furore of shouting ensued, with “You fucking arsehole, for fuck’s sake you idiot” and so on.. So much rage released through his mouth. I rolled out the expected apologies, offered to call for assistance, a few clockwork phrases to serve as an alibi.  He was still shouting and balling, something about suing me and so forth.. Just a wall of sound really, I wasn't listening.

He took with him his Mulberry bag to the toilet and returned in tracksuit bottoms and a t-shirt, stripped now of his symbolic integument, de-feathered, ashamed to be merely human. He asked for my address, which was an act of laughable imposture, as if he were the official registering the event, as if it had to be registered by him before it existed, before its meaning solidified. Anyway, I gave him the address of my doctor in Broad Street. When he rang the number, and heard the receptionist, there would be a dawning realisation of the wool pulled over his eyes, which would also be, at the same time, a subtle adumbration of my smiling face looking down on his, as Ali looked down on Liston.

My actions in this anecdote might be thought "extreme", but I had only caused temporary anger and pain. I had scalded his skin, ruined his paperwork and parboiled his bollocks, whereas he had asked that I deny my humanity, which no one can ask, by acceding to my status as an object of disgust. At no point, by the way, did he think my action was deliberate. But when he left the train I knocked on the window and he turned around to see me laughing, as one might laugh with a friend, reminiscing about the old days.