 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
page 1
page2
page3
page4
page5
page6
page7
page8
page9
page10
page11
page12
page13
page14
page15
page16
page17
page18
page19
page20
page21
page22
page23
page24
page25
page26
page27
page28
page29
page30
page31
page32
page33
page34
page35
page36
page37
page38
page39
page40
page41
page42
page43
page44
page45
page46
page 47
page48
page49
page50
page51
page52
page53
page54
page55
page56
page57
page58
page 59
page59
page 60
page61
page62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page66
page67
page 68
page 69
page 70
Page 71
page 72
pare 73
page 74
page 75
page76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page92
page93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page98
|
|
| QUOTATIONS 1921-1933 |
| ||||||
| 1921. Having never lived in England, I am not sure whether this is a part of English culture in general or only a peculiar social behaviour of Toronto WASPs. I even invented a name for those who display it–"situational greeters," i.e. people who would greet you in some situations but not in the others. For example, in a church, but not in the streets, at a party, but not at work, etc., etc. I believed it to be some kind of a public ritual which only Toronto WASPs have a secret knowledge of and studiously keep it from anyone who isn't one of them. But for someone, like me, who is not one of them, the ignorance of such a ritual is a considerable social handicap – on meeting in passing someone you know and who definitely knows you, and who sometime in the past has greeted you and at other times hasn't, one has two choices. First, to wait until they greet you and then to respond likewise. Unfortunately, this choice carry with it the possibility of appearing to be impolite. To avoid that, the second choice would be always greet them first. But this choice also has its drawback, for it somehow puts one into a subordinate position– it is well known that in any hierarchical setting it is expected of one of the lower rank to greet his superior first. And perhaps that's what Toronto WASPs, by waiting for you to greet them first, wants to emphasize– that they are above you(who isn't one of them) on social scale, though they would never admit it when asked directly. To be perfectly fair, many other Torontonians, who aren't WASPs, also practice this intricate art of "situational greeting." But since I never observed this habit anywhere in the world, I must assume that this must be a learned behaviour – the customary imitation by minorities of social mores of dominant majority. 1922. Many people today, too many as far as I am, as a writer myself, concerned, would ever consider opening a book to read unless put into solitary confinement. And though this particular commentary has started as an attempt at a witticism, the more I think about it the more it appears to me as an observation containing a large element of truth. 1923. A man who is about to get married should ask his future wife one very important question: "Do you want to marry me, or do you just want to get married?" And though no woman would ever answered such a question frankly, the fact this poignant question is asked puts her on notice that she is suspect and would have to prove her innocence. A woman in a similar situation doesn't have to ask the same question. It is well known fact that most of men are not interested in marriage per se and rather apprehensive about it. Therefore, when a man overcomes his natural reluctance and finally decides to go through with marriage a women has no doubt that he does it only because he wants to marry nobody but her. 1924. Regardless of how bad (in my estimation) book is, once I start reading I always finish it. I would persevere to the end, no matter how much efforts on my part it may take . For following the Christian precept "hate a sin but love a sinner," even when I strongly dislike a book I have the greatest respect for a writer knowing well enough how demanding the process of writing is, how great a toll it exacts from anyone embarking on this so arduous and often so thankless pursuit. And this, I feel, imposes on me a moral obligation to give a due consideration to any work of writing, no matter how appalling (in my view) it is. 1925. In a realm of personal relationship women have one very important psychological advantage over men, namely, they know what they want from it. And what they ultimately want is marriage, children and family. On the other hand, the only thing men are certain about in their relationship with women is sex. They don't even have to think about sex. Nature takes full care of it, in form of spontaneous erections and nocturnal emissions, thus leaving little room for any doubt on this score. But after sex, what? Alas, the rest, as far as majority of men is concerned, is in a kind of a fog of uncertainty where everything seems to be questionable and tentative. But when in a relationship one side knows what she wants and another doesn't, naturally the first takes charge. Which produces this famous comparison of men with children who have to be led and told what to do. This, in turn, brings about negative consequences –a man tends to resent his child-like standing vis-a-vis a woman and often develops a real hostility and desire to strike back at her, who put him into an inferior psychological position by simply knowing what she wants while he doesn't. This, I believe, to be the main cause of the so-called "war of sexes." So, the real question is not what women but what do men want beside sex. And though society provides ready made answers, no man is ever sure his use of them is true to his nature, and many a man die never gaining this certainty. 1926. Judaism, the core of which is love of God for his chosen people, is an enduring testimony to a collective national delusion. Consider the Jews, a tiny nation, the purported object of God's love. Consider their experience and history, both ancient and modern. At the beginning, by any objective standard, the Jews were dealt a dismal geographical hand –a narrow sliver of land, in fact a link between two continents, a bridge across which the warring empires of the ancient world marched back and forth to fight their bloody battles. And the Jews, the original casualty of "collateral damage," were robbed, enslaved and killed in passing, again and again. For them, to paraphrase, but only slightly, Matthew Arnold, life, most of the times Had really neither joy, nor love, nor light, Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain; For they were here as on a darkling plain Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night. And just because they are never completely wiped out, but given now and then some short respite so that the remnants could start anew and rebuild and restore the appearance of old life, until the next inevitable cataclysm will devastate them again, for that they thank their God and believe to be his special favorites –the chosen and the beloved. And this is the essence of their faith– Judaism. And though the degree of its irrationality is truly breathtaking its origins could be rationally explained – "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't." Considering once more the Jewish historical experience of being always on the brink of extinction, of having to face one Haman/Hitler after another, it is impossible to imagine that this, so grating to Gentiles, notion of the chosen people was a product of pride and prejudice. Much more likely it was triggered by amazement and incredulity that despite the unremitting horror of their existence they nevertheless survive. It was truly a miracle and therefore God must be responsible for doing the Jews especial favor – keeping at least some of them alive. Yet, there was obvious inconsistency in this view, the glaring contradiction the Jews have to face again and again – if they were favored by God, how come they were subjected to all this relentless hardship. And the only "logical" answer they could come up with was that it is their own fault. Hence the Old Testament, the thousand pages variation on the theme of Jewish guilt and God's chastisement and retribution for it. Take, for example, the story of Esther which allegedly gave birth to festival of Purim. For more than two thousand years a lot of ink has been spilt to analyze the reckless refusal by Mordecai, the Jew, to bow before Haman, the chief minister of Persian king Ahasuerus (Xerxes), thus putting all the Jews into mortal danger of total annihilation. It fits perfectly with the Biblical tendency to look for and to find the Jews being, somewhere, somehow responsible for their own suffering. It seems to have never occurred to the Biblical writers that something wrong with this picture, and if Mordecai has never existed or done what he is accused of they would have to invent both him and his recklessness to keep the central to Judaism myth of inherent Jewish guilt coherent. It took the Jews a long, long time to realize that their plight has nothing to do with what they do or don't do, that they are persecuted for who they are – the Jews, whatever it means. But since it is impossible to define it must be just that – the name. For as far as the Jews are concerned, the only plausible answer to a question, "What is in the name?" is, if you are a jew, everything. And every jew has personally encountered this effect of "the name," has experience this chasm between "before" and "after," before one is identified as a jew and after. For one who was treated with respect "before" is exposed to scorn "after," one who was an object of kindness becomes a target of animosity, etc, etc. And so the Jews, who used to be called "a people of the Book," became "a people of the Pause." For in my experience no one but a Jew when asked about his ethnicity pauses before uttering this crucial phrase "I am Jewish." Without the slightest hesitation a Russian would say "I am Russian," a French – "I am French," an Italian – "I am Italian," etc., etc. Only the Jews, among all the nations on this Earth, have to overcome (which takes time) the fear of being exposed as Jews and thus to become instantly the target of scorn, abuse and persecution. Thus, no matter what Mordecai the Jew does, Haman would find a reason to destroy him and his people. For a jew is born already guilty and then spends most of his life desperately trying to prove his innocence. But a jew is never judged by the same standards as everybody else. Paradoxically, despite being universally despised, he is, at the same time, expected to be better than anybody else. Yet, to achieve this a jew must lead such a consistently exemplary life that only very few ever succeed. The rest die as they were born – guilty. And that, paradoxically, what keeps Judaism alive. 1927. Before I began to fancy myself a writer (and this didn't really sink in until two of my books were published, albeit by myself) I used to read just for a sake of reading, spontaneously and self-unconsciously. I just liked or disliked what I've read. Not any more. Now, almost invariably, after reading something I like very much I would ask myself a question: "Could I write something as good as this?" And when I really dislike a sentence or a paragraph, I would tell myself that I‘ve never written anything as bad as this. Clearly, having written myself, I've become a more qualified reader. And yet there is an element of sadness in such an accomplishment, a loss of innocence and the ability to experience pure emotions of pleasure or disappointment. 1928. It never ceased to amaze me how very different people draw from widely divergent occurrences the same uniform conclusions. But, considering unique ness of each individual and the great variety of human experiences, without this uniformity of universal verities no human communications or society would have been possible. 1929. Everybody lies, the poor as much as the rich. The main difference is that the upper classes do it more convincingly and their lies are less transparent than that of the lower ones. 1930. Let me say a few words in praise of worrying, an emotion much maligned by happy- go-lucky denizens of today's brave new world. Together with other psychological and biological functions of our bodies, worrying, anxiety and apprehension are all parts of the survival mechanism. We are the decedents of people who'd worried about lions, tigers and other cuddly creatures with big teeth and survived to produce offsprings – us. Those who hadn't didn't. Of course one should distinguish constructive and destructive worrying. The first succeeds by preventive actions, the second doesn't which leads occasionally to more or less unpleasant consequences. So, from the point of survival, it is definitely better to be save than sorry. 1931. Yesterday I saw a new movie "The Merchant of Venice" based on a Shakespearian play written around 1600. "What a piece of work" the Christians are in it! "How noble in reason," how gracious in action. Antonio, Bassanio, Lorenzo, Portia–how decent, how likable are all of them. And in the starkest possible contrast how ignoble in his intentions, how indecent in his actions Shylock, the reviled Jew is, his cri de coeur "I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means..." not withstanding. O, what a piece of hackneyed anti-Semitic propaganda this play ultimately is! I am also a Jew, and I was outraged. I'm still is and that's why I'm writing this now. And yet, the same Shakespeare is author of Hamlet, the best play ever written, the one I'm never tired of reading and seeing, again and again. I also remember feeling the same outrage when, while reading some times ago Down and out in Paris and London published in 1933 (the year, by the way, when Nazi took power in Germany) I've come across several, truly revolting pages in it. They described a despicable, grasping Jew (whose name is not even given, for apparently in the author's mind calling a man, repeatedly, "a jew" should be sufficient and self-explanatory) subletting a bed for a few hours a day at exorbitant price to hard-up Eric Blair, soon to be renown as George Orwell, one of the most important writers of 20th century, the author of seminal 1984. And so, how am I, an enlightened and emancipated 20th-century Jew, who lives to read (and believe me, this is not an exaggeration) and whose life would be unthinkable without great European Literature, how am I to deal with the fact that every European writer, from Shakespeare to Orwell, whenever he introduces a Jewish subject suddenly and inexplicably loses his "infinite faculties" and reveals himself to be an anti-Semite (albeit, some more vicious than others) and every Jewish character he creates is but a grotesque pernicious caricature? Some would suggest, as some always do, that there must have been some exceptions. Perhaps, though I am not aware of any. In the period in European Literature I'm talking about I've never come across a single Jewish character which was not a caricature, and not for a lack of talent –the same period produced some of the greatest writers in history of European Civilization. And in any case, the exceptions in human affairs don't make any real difference. Like a few guns that occasionally misfire do not make guns less lethal, so a few "righteous gentiles" didn't save millions of Jews, a few conscientious objectors didn't abolished armies, a few pacifists didn't stop wars, etc., etc. All they did is to make some people, mostly those involved in such actions feel good about themselves and to delude their admirers into believing that there is inherent goodness in human heart which would ultimately change world for the best. And of course, they feel god about themselves as well for having such spirit elevating beliefs. The others might reply that it is all in the past. Yes and no. It is true that no European writer of repute would dare to write at present similar things about the Jews after Holocaust –it took six million Jews slaughtered to affect this change of their aesthetic sensibilities. But the great European writers of the past and their books are still being read and the venomous anti-Semitic pills some of them contain would continue to poison the minds of generations to come. 1932. Poor, hapless Russians, they never seem to be able to please anybody, including their own rulers. For 70 years the Communists kept them under the press to squeeze out "the last vestiges of capitalism in consciousness of a Soviet man." And now the Capitalists, both home grown and imported, are exasperated by the way Russians (and apparently other citizens of the former Socialist countries) , as if driven by nostalgia for the good old days, stubbornly cling to the last remnants of socialism. They must be all bipolar, i.e. afflicted by a collective split personality syndrom – half capitalist, half socialist, and an unfortunate proclivity to express each half in the most inappropriate time. 1933. Neither a dog nor a man can go through life without wounds and scars. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00040 |