 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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 1975-1986 |
| ||||||
| 1975. Since I began writing and then selling my books at the semi-annual Small Press Book Fair in Toronto about 20 years ago (I was in my mid-forties then,admittedly a late bloomer, but with extenuating circumstances –had to do a lot of living to have something to write about) I met a lot of writers. Right away I sensed ( and as time passed, this initial feeling has turned into almost a conviction) that none of them could be characterized as an average, ordinary person. There is something different about them, something strange and unusual. And though I know very little about their lives, I suspect they have always been like that, even as children, different, strange and unusual. And one of the most prominent manifestations of this strangeness at present is their overwhelming compulsion to write, with varying degree of abilities of course. But writers need readers, though a few sufferers from "sour grapes syndrom" may deny this. Anyway, since I began to fancy myself a writer, I accepted this imperative proposition as self-evident. Unfortunately, the reverse of this assumption –readers needs writers– has never seemed as obvious to me as the first one. These doubts eventually assumed the form of an nagging and rather unsettling question, always present at the back of my mind, whenever or whatever I write: " Why would ordinary, ‘normal' people be interested in what these strangers, me included, have to say?" Since in a certain sense no matter what we're talking/writing about we always talk/write about ourselves, these strangers(whose experience, which is the source of their creativity, being different from that of the majority) in their capacity as writers should have little to say to the ordinary, average people –the readers. For how many of them can relate or identify with these strange creatures –the writers. Fortunately, very few, for otherwise social life would be unbearable if not impossible. And yet, the number of the readers exceeds many times that of the writers. How can one explain it? The easy answer would be to say that there is no such thing as "ordinary people," that everyone is strange and unusual, and the only difference between writers and readers is that the first write and the second don't. But this, as I've said at the beginning, is going against my observations of many years of the writers I know personally. And even if we assume that, as far as life in general is concerned, all of us go through essentially the same motions and often experience similar emotions, the scope, frequency and depth of those emotions in case of the writers are qualitatively different, the fact which, believe me, the non-writers should consider as comforting rather than regrettable. Thus again we are confronted with two facts, each containing an internal contradiction, which could be (but not necessarily is) resolved as follows. First, though being a stranger in our midst, a writer nevertheless could become a chronicler of the common lives different from his – one who is not fully engaged in the ordinary business of life has a lot of time to observe and, if so inclined, to write about it. Given a sufficient talent, he may even occasionally shed some light on the often obscure and murky aspects of it. Second, in case a writer is excessively preoccupied with singularity of his character and peculiarities of his experience, as some do, this estrangement of a writer may not preclude the readers from being attracted to a stranger's tales. For as much as the ordinary people dislike and often persecute the unusual ones who tend, in the words of Thomas Wolfe, " to arouse any feeling among their companions and kin but discomfort, bitterness and mockery," they like to read about them, driven by curiosity and attraction to the opposite, at a safe distance of a printed page of course. This estrangement of readers and writers may also explain the present decline of readership. Provided with the new types of amusement and entertainment and finding them more congenial and relevant, perhaps because they have much more in common with their creators than with traditional writers, less and less people are choosing the book as the primary source of either. At the end, only those who feel strangers themselves and see a book as but a mirror reflecting their own lives with at least some degree of accuracy will continue to enjoy (if this is a proper word for it) reading. Which should deprive my initial premise of its validity(assuming it had any, to begin with)–the inherent contradiction between writing and reading shall disappear as well, though I am not sure whether it would be for the better. 1976. Modern relativism, whether of moral, cultural, ideological, or any other kind, and which could be summarized as " to each his own, i.e. one has as much right to his world views, opinions, tastes, etc. as the others," ultimately leads, when it's practiced as it's preached, to the division of society into autonomous individuals, each living in a world of his own while any attempt to seriously discuss the conflicting views between these individuals is discouraged or even condemned. But since it is only through such interactions that people can reach mutual understanding and find common ground, "to agree to disagree" (to use this famous Canadian motto) is far less beneficial then it is purported to be — we avoid conflict but gain loneliness. And though at the end, it comes to the "Catch 22", i.e. to a choice between two evils, this highly consequential choice should be left to each individual to make instead of being imposed as a universal governing principle of modern times —as important as peace and safety are, for some they may not be as important as for the others. 1977. There is this one little problem with all the good advices: the giver is seldom any better in following them than the supposed taker. 1978. As far as the pathological lying is concerned no one can accuse me of harboring any prejudices against it, for some of my best friends are compulsive, incurable liars. If anything I just feel really sorry for them. For at the root of their peculiar affliction lies inability to accept the world as it is and the people in it(including themselves) as they are. But since we all have to find a way to deal with whatever is ailing us, they cope with this "disease" by fabricating the world of illusions populated by the imaginary people. And they do it the only way they know how – by lying not only to the others but also to themselves, driven most of the times not by some ulterior, self-seeking motivation but by this instinctual urge to alter the reality they find so unacceptable. The other reason for treating such liars with compassion rather than contempt is that since an average lie has a very short shelf life –most are exposed by the light of reality sooner rather than later–the lives of the pathological liars are precarious and hectic, and ultimately very lonely. They tend to lose friends at a much faster rate than they can replenish them and sooner or later are abandoned by everyone in their immediate circle and forced to look for the new ones again and again. How I deal with such people? Being more than once bitten and, consequently, more than twice shy, I assume, right from the start, that whatever they say isn't true unless proven otherwise. This way I'm spared both expectations and disappointments. They lie, I listen, never contradicting, never arguing. Both sides have no illusions what is going on. They know I don't believe a word of what they are saying, but a liar has to lie to somebody and therefore cannot be picky and risk losing yet another friend. I, on the other hand, feel as if performing a vital humanitarian function by helping them to survive without trying to change them, which they can't anyway, and providing them with a friendship they're so desperately in need of. 1979.One of the most harmful side-effects of ever accelerating pace of societal changes, which constantly threatens it stability and cohesion, is increasingly widening generation gap (or rather gaps) accompanied simultaneously by ever narrowing chronological intervals that separates succeeding generations . For while in the times passed "a generation gap" implied the difference between "father and sons" and therefore chronologically was about 20-30 years, now it indicates contrast between the segments of society separated from each other by 10 or even 5 years. There is also a qualitative difference. Before, "a gap" was more in style than in substance. Now, it is in both, and much more pronounced. 1980. "Or, if thou wilt marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them." Alas, poor Ophelia was too young and inexperience to respond in kind to Hamlet's bitter outburst, even if Shakespeare allowed her. But it would be only fair, and in spirit of equality prevalent in our enlightened times, to let women reply. And if they do , the short version of it would probably sound something like: "a pot calling a kettle black," and the long one: "...for wise women know well enough what monsters you [men] make of them." Of course, the sad truth is that both, men and women, are right And it is this knowledge of what one does to another, i.e. bringing the worst in them, that makes them hate each other and loathe themselves for their weakness to resist this soul destroying force. One may forgive almost anything, but not being turned into something one would be forever ashamed of. And the more intimate their relations are (and what could be more intimate than marriage) the greater the knowledge of it, and the greater the knowledge, the deeper the hate. Which sometimes leads to violence, the so called "domestic violence," the most vicious of them all, for it is often hard to tell who is a perpetrator and who is a victim, both being entangled in a kind of interminable combat neither seems to be capable to extricate oneself from. And even when it doesn't end in violence it still produces the profound unhappiness, the life spent in a "quiet desperation," except in Hollywood perhaps, where as the saying goes there is no such thing as "unhappy marriages," for people who are unhappy in it don't stay married. To end this rather depressing reflection on a lighter note let me quote P.G. Wodehouse on this subject: "Chumps always make the best husbands. When you marry, Sally, grab a chump. Tap his forehead first, and if it rings solid, don't hesitate. All the unhappy marriages come from the husbands having brains. What good are brains to a man? They only unsettle him." 1981. As far as we know, Emperor Justinian didn't write a single law in Justinian Code. Actually, it was an imperial commission headed by the renowned jurist Trebonianus that worked for ten years to collect and systematize existing Roman law. But does the world remember any one of its members? No. It was the Emperor who, just by ordering the work to be done, had secured his place in history as its creator. As far as we know, King James hadn't translated a single line in the Bible generally called the King James Version. The actual work had been done by the men, whose names we'll never know, and who followed William Tyndale, the English reformer and translator of the New Testament from Greek text and of the Old Testament from Hebrew. But it was the King who, just by commissioning and authorizing a new translation, had assured that his name will always be associated with this English literary masterpiece. Many more instance of such spurious "eponymization" could be added but they all amount to the same thing —the highest ranking individual at the time of creation of the cultural icon usurps the title of its Creator simply because he has the authority to do so. Thus creatively impotent men of power enter history while the men of genius responsible for the creation sink into oblivion. 1982. As far as a pure monotheism is concerned, the Christianity is clearly a step backward from the Judaism's uncompromising "You shall have no gods except me." It relaxes its high standards by sliding ever so slightly, yet steady and irresistibly, back into paganism, first by making one and only God to father a Son (in a manner very similar to Zeus's begetting his progeny, the difference being mainly in fecundity) and then introducing the Holy Spirit as co-substantial to Father and Son, thus creating a Trinity –three gods where there was only one before, each assigned a specific function– the implicit acknowledgment of insufficiency of one God to handle the multiplicity of divine tasks.(Eventually, even the original three were deemed not enough, hence the introduction of numerous saints signifying the further departmentalization of responsibilities.) But this celestial division of labor is exactly what paganism is all about. One may explain and try to excuse this slackening of the strict monotheism by the practical necessity to attract large numbers of pagans into the new religion, but it is indisputable that from the point of view of consistent and coherent monotheism Judaism is superior to Christianity, making Christian claim of superseding Judaism unfounded, for instead of strengthening monotheism Christianity first diluted and then weakened it. But, the Christians may reply, if not in theology then in morality we've improved significantly on Judaism. Isn't offering the other cheek superior to "an eye for an eye"? Isn't forgiveness superior to vengefulness? Isn't loving your enemies superior to hating them? Yes, as the noble sentiments they are. But as a practical guidance they have been proven utopian and even harmful. For asking a men to be perfect in a way relives him of responsibility of being simply good. The perfect is often the enemy of the good, for from the soaring heights of perfection everything bellow may look as essentially undifferentiated, whether good or bad , or anything in-between, and if I cannot be perfect, it really doesn't make any difference, in the greater scheme of things, what else I am and do. As the proof of a pudding is in eating it, so the "proof" of professed morality is in how it is practiced. Besides, any religion, any ideology, any policy is as good or as bad as the people who actually believe, embrace and implement it. And at the end of the day (or of two millennia, to be precise) the observable behavior of an average Christian is in no way more moral then that of an average Jew. Thus even the claim of moral superiority of Christianity over Judaism, the claim which the Christians always took for granted, has been proven in practical terms, the only ones which really count in human relationships ("deeds, not words"), to be unfounded. And where there is no improvement, there is no right or need to supercede –if it ain't broken don't fix it. Alas, the voice of reason invariably falls on the deaf ears of ideological inflexibility and religious intolerance. And as viability of scientific socialism was predicated on failure of capitalism as economico-political system and a way of life, so the viability of Christianity as a new religion was predicated from its beginning on the failure of Judaism as an old one. Hence the notion of supersession even if it defies the reality and truth. 1983. "Know thyself" is a quest which only a man could embark on. For a man believes that he is something to be discovered as definite and consistent. Not knowing what exactly is it makes a man doubt his character, his purpose, his very manliness, i.e. turning every man into Hamlet –"to be or not to be." A woman, on the other hand, couldn't care less about self-definition and consistency, and whether she is aware of it or not, could be many different persons depending on with whom she is at the moment. The same woman with two different men is two different women. A woman possess flexibility and versatility of behavior a man can only dream of. And it is all driven by one imperative –to be attractive to a man she is attracted to. It is like, I would be whatever you want me to be so that you like, admire and ultimately love me. In comparison with rigidity of man woman innate ability to turn herself into variety of women who look different, feel different, think different, etc., etc., is truly miraculous. While a man has a rather limited emotional arsenal and remains basically the same in all his relationships, a woman is unique with every new man in her life —a man married 5 times is essentially the same man in every marriage, while a woman married 5 times is 5 different women. And the amazing thing is she does it absolutely effortlessly. It is a phenomenon to behold and marvel at. Thus, looking at a woman this way makes a man's jealousy almost groundless, for a woman who betrays you and a woman who loves you are two different women, albeit contained in one body. Of course every rule has an exception. There are some women who lack this emotional flexibility and versatility of character which understandably limits their options. They are usually, and in a rather condescending tone, called "manly" and , the modern advances of feminism notwithstanding, looked upon as an aberration, a freaks of nature, to be pitied rather then admired. 1984. The retired politicians, unlike the old soldiers, don't fade away anymore. They live on as various foundations bearing their still recognizable names. 1985. The sure sign of aging is the increasing tendency, when love and sex are concerned, to think about it, to question one's motivation, and to analyze one's reactions, instead of experiencing them spontaneously and immediately and acting almost automatically in response to feeling aroused by them. 1986. Though I like to attend poetry readings and an occasional lecture on some serious intellectual subjects, I am not particularly fond of a kind of women who usually gravitate to such events and do my best to keep as great distance as possible between us. For they are invariably so plain looking and dull that I suspect the main reason for their coming has nothing to do with poetry or intellectual pursuits —they're simply desperate to find the men equally plain and dull (because they know well that nobody else would be interested in them), and having tried everything else decided that such gatherings offer the best opportunity for success in their quest for some kind, any kind of relationship. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00041 |