Wiki Actu en

December 16, 2011

Author and contrarian Christopher Hitchens dies at age 62

Author and contrarian Christopher Hitchens dies at age 62

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Friday, December 16, 2011

Christopher Hitchens speaking in 2007 at The Amazing Meeting 5 (TAM5) conference in Las Vegas.
Image: ensceptico.

British-born author, journalist and political commentator Christopher Hitchens has died yesterday aged 62 at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, following a diagnosis of esophageal cancer in June 2010.

Hitchens was born in 1949 in Portsmouth. After graduating from Oxford with a third-class degree in politics, philosophy and economics in 1970, Hitchens wrote for the Times Higher Educational Supplement briefly, before moving on to the New Statesman where he met the novelist Martin Amis. After moving to the United States in 1981, he started writing for U.S.-based publications like Vanity Fair, The Atlantic and Slate.

In more recent years, Hitchens sided with George W. Bush in supporting the war in Iraq, and also went on to write a polemical book on religion, God Is Not Great, following a theme apparent in his earlier debunking efforts towards Mother Teresa—”a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud” according to Hitchens. The death of Jerry Falwell raised Hitchens’ ire, stating that it is “a shame that there is no hell for Falwell to go to” and calling him a “faith-based fraud”.

In his memoirs, Hitch-22, he wrote of a sexual encounter with two (unnamed) male members of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet. Hitchens was well-known for his drinking and smoking habits, consuming 50,000 cigarettes a year according to one report, and drinking enough every day “to stun the average mule” (according to Hitchens himself). The discovery of cancer last year was, according to Hitchens, “something so predictable and banal that it bores even me”.

Salman Rushdie, whom Hitchens had supported against Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa, wrote on Twitter following Hitchens’ death: “Goodbye, my beloved friend. A great voice falls silent. A great heart stops”.

Hitchens was not close to his brother Peter Hitchens, a conservative columnist. He is survived by wife Carol Blue, daughter Antonia, and two children Alexander and Sophia from an earlier marriage.

Related stories

  • “Tony Blair debates religion with Christopher Hitchens in Canada” — Wikinews, November 30, 2010

Sources

Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

November 30, 2010

Tony Blair debates religion with Christopher Hitchens in Canada

Tony Blair debates religion with Christopher Hitchens in Canada

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Photo of Blair and Hitchens at the debate.

Last Friday, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair debated the role of religion with atheist author and journalist Christopher Hitchens at the Roy Thompson Hall in Toronto, Canada. Organised under the auspices of the ‘Munk Debates’, the motion was: “That religion is a force for good in the world”.

Hitchens argued that religion is “a cruel experiment whereby we are created sick and ordered to be well” and that the omnipresent, omniscient God supposed by many world religions was “a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea”.

Blair — who in 2008 established the Tony Blair Faith Foundation — conceded whilst religion is not necessary for everybody to act morally, it was still helpful for many despite violent interpretations of texts by extremists. He said the world religions unite in a moral mission to, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, describing “a spiritual presence, bigger, more important, more meaningful than just us alone, that has its own power separate from our power, and that even as the world’s marvels multiply, makes us kneel in humility not swagger in pride.”

Continuing, Blair stated: “If faith is seen in this way, science and religion are not incompatible, destined to fight each other, until eventually the cool reason of science extinguishes the fanatical flames of religion.”

Hitchens listed numerous aspects of religion he thought were negative, arguing “is it good for the world to appeal to our credulity and not to our scepticism? Is it good for the world to worship a deity that takes sides in wars and human affairs? To appeal to our fear and to our guilt, is it good for the world? To our terror, our terror of death, is it good to appeal?”

Pressing his points, Hitchens asserted: “To preach guilt and shame about the sexual act and the sexual relationship, is this good for the world? And asking yourself all the while, are these really religious responsibilities, as I maintain they are? To terrify children with the image of hell and eternal punishment, not just of themselves, but their parents and those they love. Perhaps worst of all, to consider women an inferior creation, is that good for the world, and can you name me a religion that has not done that?”

Blair responded, “I don’t think we should think that because you can point to examples of prejudice in the name of religion, that bigotry and prejudice and wrongdoing are wholly owned subsidiaries of religion.”

Before the debate, the audience opposed the motion 57% to 22% (21% undecided). Post-debate, the motion was opposed by 68% of the audience and supported by 23%.



Sources

Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

September 15, 2010

Pope Benedict XVI heads to the UK amid protests

Pope Benedict XVI heads to the UK amid protests

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Benedict XVI travelling (USA, 2008)
Image: Shealah Craighead / White House.

The Roman Catholic Pontiff is visiting the United Kingdom for the first time since 1982, when his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was in Britain. The Catholic Church has been preparing an official visit of Benedict XVI for some time, with the visit starting tomorrow. The initial plans were made last September; the visit was only announced on March 16, 2010 when it was officially confirmed by the Vatican. The tour extends through Sunday, and includes stops in Edinburgh, Glasgow, London, and Birmingham, at the latter of which the Pope is going to celebrate the Beatification of Cardinal Newman.

Portrait of Cardinal Newman by Sir John Everett Millais

When Pope Benedict departs from Rome Ciampino Airport at 8:10 am, he will first head to Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, to meet Queen Elizabeth. After he has presided over several celebrations in Scotland, including an open-air Mass at Bellahouston Park, he will fly to London.

On Friday and Saturday the papal delegation and its leader will remain in the British capital to meet several religious authorities, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, leader of the Church of England. Furthermore Benedict XVI will receive courtesy calls from Prime Minister David Cameron as well as the leader of the Opposition Harriet Harman and other political and institutional personalities.

On the last day, Sunday, the Pope will travel by helicopter to Cofton Park, Birmingham, for the Beatification of Cardinal Newman (1801–1890), a priest in the Church of England who converted to the Roman Catholic Church. Newman was defined as “man of conscience” by the Pope in his speech for the centenary of Newman’s death, in 1990.

The first recent source of conflict between British policies and Vatican positions emerged in February in the form of the Equality Bill, aimed at preventing discrimination against heterosexual, homosexual, and transsexual people.

Richard Dawkins
Image: Marty Stone.

In the same period, the National Secular Society launched an online petition called “Make the Pope Pay”. At the deadline of the petition, June 6th, 2010, it counted 12,340 signatures.

On April 11th Richard Dawkins, with Christopher Hitchens‘s support, interviewed by The Sunday Times, said that they were trying to initiate criminal proceedings against the Pope – on the occasion of his visit to UK – over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

David Miliband, Foreign Secretary until May 11th, 2010
Image: Shelley and Alan Heckman.

A further incident happened at the end of April 2010 when a British Foreign Office internal memo (attached to an official document which listed brainstormed ideas for the Pope’s tour) suggested many sarcastic ideas for Benedict XVI. This included launching a condom brand marked “Benedict”, or, during his visit in UK, inaugurating an abortion clinic, blessing a homosexual couple, or ordaining women as priests. The Ministry immediately apologized and explained that the document was only brainstorming that didn’t represent the political positions of the Foreign Office. The Vatican answered via Benedict XVI’s spokesman the Rev. F. Lombardi who said “[a]s far as the Vatican is concerned, the case is closed. There never was the slightest doubt about the trip.”

In the United Kingdom in July, many of the people opposing the Pope’s State visit gathered thanks to a new web site named Protest The Pope, which intends to organize protests against the visit. The events suggested and organized by the site include marches, protests, and cultural events.

Protest The Pope plans the biggest march for Saturday in London, when the Catholic Pontiff will stay in the capital for his tour. The march will start at 1:30 pm from Hyde Park (Piccadilly side) toward Piccadilly Circus, then to Trafalgar Square, Whitehall and Downing Street.

The British Government is expected to spend for public safety and public policy in general more than £12 million (14 million). £1.5 million (€2.2 million) alone is for the evening at Hyde Park.



Related news

Sources

Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

November 14, 2007

Dalai Lama\’s representative talks about China, Tibet, Shugden and the next Dalai Lama

Dalai Lama’s representative talks about China, Tibet, Shugden and the next Dalai Lama

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Kasur Tashi Wangdi: “We are seeking a solution within the framework of the Chinese Constitution for a meaningful autonomy. Until we are able to achieve that goal, we effectively have a government in exile with a charter—a Constitution.”
Image: David Shankbone.

Kasur Tashi Wangdi was appointed Representative of the Dalai Lama to the Americas on April 16, 2005. He had previously served as His Holiness’ representative in New Delhi. He has served the Tibetan government-in-exile since 1966, starting as a junior officer and rising to the highest rank of Kalon (Cabinet Minister). As a Kalon, he at one time or another was head of the major ministries, including the Department of Religion and Culture, Department of Home, Department of Education, Department of Information and International Relations, Department of Security, and Department of Health. He is not a Buddhist scholar but describes himself as a civil servant. He possesses a BA in Political Science and Sociology from Durham University.

Wikinews reporter David Shankbone recently spoke to him about Chinese-Tibetan relations, the status of the Panchen Lamas, the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal to Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th and current Dalai Lama, the appointment of Tibetan high monks by the Chinese government and some of the Dalai Lama’s views on topics on religions and societal topics.

The Office of Tibet and the Tibetan government in exile

David Shankbone: What is this office’s relationship with the government in exile?

Tashi Wangdi: I am the Representative of the Dalai Lama. We look after Tibetan affairs in North and South America.

DS: Are you essentially an embassy without a country?

TW: Yes.

DS: Professor Venerable Samdhong Rinpoche was elected the head of the Tibetan Administration cabinet–effectively a prime minister of the Central Tibetan Administration, the government-in-exile?

TW: Ever since His Holiness held leadership responsibilities at the age of 16 when he was in Tibet, he wanted to bring about social political reforms. He started those reforms in Tibet. Because of the Chinese invasion and the problem thereafter with the occupation, he could not get through the reforms he wanted to implement. Then in 1959, when the situation went beyond a solution and he had to leave Tibet, as soon as he went to India he continued with the reform and promulgated a draft Constitution. A parliament was elected by Tibetans in exile. He then brought about gradual changes for the democratization of the system. The political leadership is now elected. We have had a parliament in existence since 1961 and seven years ago we elected a Prime Minister. His Holiness describes himself as semi-retired.

DS: Retired from administrative functions?

TW: Yes. The governing responsibility is now carried out by the elected political leadership.

DS: The Dalai Lama exists as a spiritual leader and essentially a figurehead, similar to Queen Elizabeth?

TW: As you know, we are not seeking independence, but it’s more about the future of Tibet.

DS: As an autonomous region.

TW: Yes. We are seeking a solution within the framework of the Chinese Constitution for a meaningful autonomy. Until we are able to achieve that goal, we effectively have a government in exile with a charter —a Constitution. In that charter, his holiness is effectively head of state, and the prime minister is head of government, to use ‘normal terms’. His Holiness, however, describes himself as semi-retired.

DS: He’s a symbolic head of the people, whereas Rinpoche would be an administrative head? I understand you may want to shy away from using government-oriented terminology.

TW: No, we function as a government in exile. Nothing to be shy about; we want to be open and transparent. It is nothing to hide. Elected parliament, elected leadership; the Tibetan people consider that government as their government, so there is nothing to shy away from. But as I said, in that charter His Holiness is described as head-of-state, and the elected leadership is head of government, in normal terms.

DS: What would be some of the first actions the Dalai Lama would undertake if he were to return to Tibet?

TW: He would hand over all of his responsibilities to the new leadership in Tibet. He made in very clear as far back as 1992, in a public statement, that as soon as we are able to reach an agreement with the Chinese government, the government-in-exile will be dissolved and the responsibility for managing future affairs will be carried out by Tibetans in Tibet. In other words, people like me who have no claim for leadership and responsibilities by the mere fact that in exile we have been working for Tibet; we will have no claim that we will be in some leadership role when we go back. His Holiness has made it very clear that the people in Tibet should take the responsibility.

DS: What are the functions or responsibilities of the Office of Tibet in the Americas?

TW: My responsibilities are to inform the governments, the people of the situation in Tibet and what we are trying to achieve. Simple as that.

The Chinese invasion and occupation

Wikinews
This exclusive interview features first-hand journalism by a Wikinews reporter. See the collaboration page for more details.

DS: How many Tibetans were lost during the Reign of Terror directly after the Chinese invasion?

TW: According to our research, we believe that 1.2 million died as a result of Chinese invasion and occupation. That would include people who were killed in fighting, who died of starvation, suicide; people who died being tortured in prison, and so on. 1.2 million. Between March 1959 and the end of 1959, according to China’s own documents—we got hold of the report of a Chinese military officer, an official document—in about nine months, in Central Tibet near Lhasa alone, 87,000 Tibetans are killed in nine months. That’s an official Chinese military document. That document is available and been made public many times.

DS: How has the Chinese government’s Western China Development program affected ordinary Tibetans?

TW: Of course, development per se is to be welcomed. One of the reasons why His Holiness has repeatedly stated for wanting to be part of China is the economic benefit. Tibet is underdeveloped; materially and economically it is backward, in a development sense. Tibetan people, they need economic development and assistance. If it is meant for the Tibetan people, it is to be welcomed.
But unfortunately, the development plan they have and the impact—we suspected and we now see—it first doesn’t take into account the fragile environment; secondly, it is not benefiting the local Tibetans. It is providing facilities for the resettlement of Han Chinese in Tibet. At every point of development, and any casual visitor such as a tourist can see it, all the development is in Chinese towns and cities. The local people have become more and more marginalized. There are minor side benefits, of course, but if it continues Tibetans will become a completely insignificant minority increasingly marginalized. If Tibetans in Tibet were enjoying economic development, there would be no reason for them to be unhappy.

DS: The phrase used to describe this by the exiled Tibetan government is “Chinese Apartheid?”

TW: Effectively it is the segregation of people; the economic benefits are not going to Tibetans, who are second class citizens in Tibet.

DS: How are the local people handling this situation?

TW: Resentment! But Tibet should be opened up and we’ve always said you should be able to ask these questions of local Tibetans, and not to me. It is better to be able to ask people in Tibet openly.

DS: But that’s not possible.

TW: No, journalists are not allowed to go. Why? If Tibetan people are happy and free to express their views, then there is no reason why people should not be allowed to meet outside reporters. Journalists are not allowed to go, though. About four months back in the international news, it was reported that of the 74 Tibetans in the Tibetan Chinese Communist Party, 54 were dismissed.

DS: Why?

TW: For not being loyal to the party. They were Tibetans who were members of the Chinese Communist Party who are holding posts in the administration.

DS: Have any spoken out as to why they were dismissed?

TW: No.

Tibetan reaction to the Dalai Lama’s Congressional Gold Medal

Drepung Monastery was surrounded by Chinese troops after the Dalai Lama was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. News agencies reported that monks were arrested for exhibiting their joy.
Image: Philipp Roelli.

DS: What happened when the Dalai Lama received the Congressional Gold Medal?

TW: Restrictions were imposed on people; in spite of that, people expressed their happiness. Better dresses were worn that day.

DS: Was there a crackdown?

TW: Yes. Why should that be if people are happy? We have always said that if people are happy we have no reason to continue.

DS: What is the status of the monks who were arrested after the Dalai Lama received the Congressional Gold Medal?

TW: According to the reports I have seen, a large number of people have been detained.

DS: At the Drepung Monastery?

TW: Yes, one of the monasteries was completely surrounded by troops. The movement of people was highly restricted and party members—retired people—were warned that they would lose their pension. I’m sure many of them who, despite these strong warnings, expressed their happiness may have suffered. I have no recent report on that.

DS: How difficult is it to receive information from Tibet?

TW: Not very difficult. Our job is to represent people in Tibet, so our main effort is to try to understand the situation and their feelings, their views. Therefore, it is very important to us to keep in touch with them and receive accurate, objective information from inside Tibet.

DS: Do you know the situation with Ronggay A’drak, the Tibetan nomad who was arrested?

TW: What he said is nothing—it was the basic asking for the release of prisoners, that His Holiness should be allowed to return to Tibet. Because of some democratic change there has been land pressures with Tibetan nomads, so he also appealed to them to not fight amongst themselves for land ownership, which would never have happened in the past. In this country, nobody would even notice what he said.

DS: What will happen to him?

TW: He has already been sentenced to prison. I think it was 10 years.

DS: Is that standard?

TW: Yes. It’s almost a treasonable act to make that kind of a call; unfortunately, it is a very serious crime in Tibet.

The disappearance of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the eleventh Panchen Lama

DS: Where is Chadrel Rinpoche, the man who selected Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the eleventh Panchen Lama?

TW: I have no information.

DS: Does anyone?

TW: There was a report, but I have no confirmed information. At one point I heard he was not in good health. He was appointed by the Chinese government to search for the new Panchen Lama and he was in touch with us with the knowledge of the Chinese government.

DS: The Chinese government knew he was in touch with the Dalai Lama over the selection?

TW: Yes. Some of his people went to Beijing when His Holiness’ delegation was in Beijing. They met and even sent some offerings to His Holiness to pray for the quick discovery of the Panchen Lama. His Holiness has always made it very clear to the Chinese government that the search for the genuine—the important thing is we have to follow all the procedures to make sure that the genuine reincarnation is discovered. It was made very clear to the Chinese government that His Holiness and the Tibetan leadership outside was willing to work with the Chinese government in this search. At that time I was His Holiness’ representative in Delhi, so I had a number of meetings with Chinese officials to convey these messages. There were no behind-the-scenes.
Cquote1.svg They can’t keep their Panchen Lama in Tibet. They tried to bring him to his monastery many times but people would not see him. How can you have a religious leader like that? When a Panchen Lama goes to his monastery thousands and thousands of people will come from all over Tibet and outside. He is an important Buddhist leader. But when they brought their Panchen Lama, they had to force government officials and the public to attend certain public functions. Cquote2.svg

—Tashi Wangdi

DS: So at age six, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima just disappeared?

TW: When the final decision came close, there was a lack of willingness on the part of the Chinese leadership to involve His Holiness. Unfortunately, we then ended up having two people. Now we don’t know because since the age of six he has disappeared. It is totally ridiculous on the part of the Chinese officials, who say he is kept in hiding at the request of his parents, for his security. That makes no sense.

DS: And nobody knows where he is.

TW: No, nobody.

DS: What do you think will happen to him?

TW: I have no idea.

DS: Do you think he is aware of his status?

TW: I’m sure. He is mature now.

DS: But at six years of age, it is probable he was not able to completely comprehend the fight between the two governments over who he was and what role he is to play. If they were to take him at the age of six and place him somewhere in Manchuria, re-educate him and deny him his heritage, it is possible he does not even know who he is?

TW: I suppose. It’s speculative, but there are apprehensions on the part of the Tibetans that this was the plan for taking him away and keeping him in isolation. To brainwash him. At the same time, by deduction, one could say neither he nor his parents and other relatives have given in to the Chinese government. Because if they had, they would have made some kind of public statement to say, “We do not think he is Panchen Lama, we have been treated well and we are ordinary people.” Nothing has happened like that.

DS: There have been no rumors, no words through the grapevine as to his status?

TW: No. The logical deduction would be there is no cooperation from the Panchen Lama’s side to follow the official line.

DS: That’s pretty amazing when you consider it.

TW: It is amazing! It’s also very silly. Unnecessary. It’s a religious matter. Reincarnation is purely religious, and it is a very unique tradition in Tibet. If that is allowed to be followed-through, it is the best way of winning the hearts and minds of people. It’s the best diplomacy and a wise way of dealing with things. Now they have screwed it up. Unnecessary.

DS: What do you think is the thinking on the part of the Chinese government that this six year old boy would be a threat to their power?

TW: They sense their lack of legitimacy. It’s weakness. It’s fear of illegitimacy. They think everything is going to blow up in their face. In the long run it’s counterproductive.

DS: It would seem that by the Chinese government installing their own person, they have created their own symbol of illegitimacy as opposed to allowing religious practice to happen whilst keeping their governmental authority intact. They have created a symbol in the form of Gyancain Norbu of their illegitimacy and meddling in the cultural affairs.

TW: That’s right.

Gyancain Norbu, the boy selected by the Chinese government

DS: Do you think Gyancain Norbu, the boy the Chinese government selected as the eleventh Panchen Lama, is a victim as well?

TW: As a good Tibetan, when he comes to his age of making his own decisions, which he is about that age—18 or 19—he will make the right decisions.

DS: What would be the right decision?

TW: I think if he wants to pursue religious leadership, in Tibetan customs we have more than one reincarnation. If he proves himself to be a good practitioner and religious leader, people will treat him as a reincarnation.

“It’s a religious matter. Reincarnation is purely religious, and it is a very unique tradition in Tibet. If that is allowed to be followed-through, it is the best way of winning the hearts and minds of people. It’s the best diplomacy and a wise way of dealing with things. Now they have screwed it up.” Wangdi on the Chinese government’s selection of the 11th Panchen Lama.
Image: David Shankbone.

DS: But if he insists on his status as the Panchen Lama?

TW: If through his own contact and learning he proves himself to be worthy of being a reincarnation—as I said there is more than one reincarnation in our tradition—then people will treat him as a reincarnation. It’s not a political institution. Panchen Lama is a religious institution. So you can have two reincarnations. I don’t see it as a clash of interests.

DS: But he has no legitimacy now as the Panchen Lama, where as the one the Dalai Lama selected does have that legitimacy, is that correct?

TW: Yes, that’s right.

DS: Gyancain Norbu has not made any statements?

TW: No. Lately he has not been seen in public. People are starting to ask questions and there have been speculative reports that he has escaped, or ran away. There was speculation, but I can’t comment on this. The fact is that lately has not been seen in public. About a year or so ago he was prominently shown in public as a propaganda. For some reason of late he has not been physically seen or made any statements attributed to him. It raises questions, but I can’t comment on speculation.

DS: What do the Tibetan people think about him?

TW: People will respond to him when he comes out on his own. I don’t think people have any bad feelings against him personally. It’s not his fault.

DS: But they are against what he represents.

TW: Yes. At the moment it is not against him, but against the Chinese authorities. Not against him, as a person. He’s not asserting himself.

DS: He’s not towing the party line but just keeping quiet.

TW: Yes, that’s understandable.

DS: So in a sense he is a victim himself?

TW: I suppose one could say that, yes.

The selection of the next Dalai Lama

DS: In September the Chinese government has said they must approve all high monks—

TW: Yes, the state council has promulgated some order. It’s a religious matter and it’s ridiculous for any government to interfere in religious affairs. No democratic government would interfere. Not here in the United States, not in India. China’s government believes in atheism and doesn’t believe in a religious tradition, which is the Communist government in China. It believes in religion as an opiate, a destructive element; to interfere in that is irrelevant, ridiculous and meaningless. It is interference in the affairs of followers of traditions.

DS: How will it affect the choosing of the next Dalai Lama?

TW: It will have no effect. You can’t impose a Pope. You can’t impose an Imam, an Archbishop, saints, any religion…you can’t politically impose these things on people. It has to be a decision of the followers of that tradition. The Chinese can use their political power: force. Again, it’s meaningless. Like their Panchen Lama. And they can’t keep their Panchen Lama in Tibet. They tried to bring him to his monastery many times but people would not see him. How can you have a religious leader like that? When a Panchen Lama goes to his monastery thousands and thousands of people will come from all over Tibet and outside. He is an important Buddhist leader. But when they brought their Panchen Lama, they had to force government officials and the public to attend certain public functions.

DS: How do they force the public?

TW: They said if you don’t come you will be punished and each family has to send one person, and so forth.

DS: How do they keep track of that?

TW: It’s a totalitarian system. Look at the former Soviet Union and China itself. They keep track; the civil system is built like that. It’s run on the basis of fear. They have developed an effective system of control and monitor.

DS: Did the Dalai Lama support India’s nuclear testing?

TW: His Holiness has always spoken against violence, arms sales; he has signed with the other Nobel laureates against arms sales and nuclear disarmament. When India exploded a bomb, he said India is a big country and has its foreign concerns, so it would be unfair with its security concerns to deny of that ability to defend itself. He also said that in the long run, all the nuclear countries should work towards total disarmament.

The views of the Dalai Lama

DS: What is His Holiness’ view on abortion?

TW: He has said many times that as a Buddhist taking a life is wrong. But on abortion it depends on so many other factors and stages of the development of the fetus. And the circumstances. It’s a question for the mother and the child, and he did say if there are developmental issues.

DS: He believes that it should be a personal decision and not a governmental decision?

TW: Yes.
File:Tenzin Gyatzo foto 2.jpg
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama.

DS: But that it’s frowned upon as a Buddhist principle?

TW: Yes. But he has certainly spoken very often on population control, but that is more on the preventative side.

DS: What are His Holiness’ views on homosexuality?

TW: He said according to Buddhist practice it is wrong. In society, it is all right. I think of it like this. I am Buddhist. You are Christian, let’s say. For me, I have to follow the precepts and principles as a Buddhist. For me it would be wrong to do that. But it would be wrong for me to say it is wrong for you because in multicultural, multireligious societies you can’t do that.

DS: So if somebody is gay they could not be a proper Buddhist?

TW: I’m sure under certain precepts of Buddhist tradition, a person would not be considered as following ALL the precepts of Buddhist principles. People don’t follow all the principles. Very few people can claim they follow all the principles. For instance, telling a lie. In any religion, if you ask if telling a lie is a sin—say Christian—they will say yes. But you find very few people who don’t at some point tell a lie. Homosexuality is one act, but you can’t say they are not a Buddhist. Or someone who tells a lie is not a Buddhist. Or someone who kills an insect is not a Buddhist, because there’s a strong injunction against that.

DS: Have you ever killed an insect?

TW: I’m sure, yeah.

DS: Is the Dalai Lama planning on visiting Latin America any time soon?

TW: There’s likelihood that it will be next year. We are looking at it. We have so many invitations from countries and every few years we look to see what we can fit in.

DS: It’s likely next year?

TW: We are thinking of it, yes.

DS: Do you know why the Dalai Lama has not explicitly said he is a reincarnation of the Dalai Lama?

TW: In the broader sense, it is a manifestation, so you can manifest in different ways. He is talking in that sense. It’s a broad principle argument.

DS: It’s that he believes he is a reincarnation, but whether he is the whole and sum of the 13th Dalai Lama is another question?

TW: Yes. Yes. Something to that effect.

DS: Do you have thoughts to share on the situation in Burma?

TW: His Holiness issued a statement soon after the recent crackdown in which he expressed his deep concern and sadness over the violation, and he expressed solidarity with the Buddhist monks and people asking for democracy. He appealed to the generals to refrain from using violence—they are Buddhists—and as Buddhists they should follow the teachings of Buddha and enter into meaningful dialog.

DS: Have you any information on their current status?

TW: No, we follow whatever comes into the media very closely. It’s a Buddhist country and historically Tibet and Burma have good relations.

DS: It’s such a difficult region with many complex disputes.

TW: There are ethnic differences, different religions, but through democratic process things can be resolved. Let’s look at India and Pakistan. India is a huge country, so many ethnic, religious—they have the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia—but through a democratic process and the federal structure that came into being the last six years, that’s through democratic process. Unfortunately on the Pakistan side with the same people, same culture, the political system is not fully developed and you see more ethnic problems. With Burma if you see more democratic process I’m sure these problems will be worked out.

DS: All over Asia so many people have long-lasting conflicts and memories never seem to die.

TW: I think it’s a problem that is remnant of the British rule and all these new states came into existence when British rule was withdrawn. But where democratic process came into place things are better. In places where interest groups came into rule, they divide. But democracy reduces special interest.

Arunachal Pradesh, an historically Tibetan area of India claimed by China

DS: What is your view on Arunachal Pradesh? Is the Government-in-Exile’s relative silence over the issue due more to a recognition of India as a friendly government, or does the Government-in-Exile view the area as less Tibetan than the areas controlled by China?

TW: We are bound by the 1914 Simla Convention under which the McMahon Line was formed between India and Tibet. It has been accepted. Both by British India and the Tibetan government, so we are treaty bound. At that time the Tibetan government entered into and signed that agreement. We can’t change. The McMahon Line is the international boundary and whatever falls on either side of that line is the territory of either India or, as of now, the People’s Republic of China (Tibet).

Shugden worship

DS: Christopher Hitchens criticized the Dalai Lama for his supposed suppression of Shugden worship?

TW: There’s no suppression! His Holiness made it very clear that according to his own observations over many years—in fact, he himself used to worship Shugden—and over many years of his own experience and observation and investigation, he found that this practice is not according to Buddhist practice. That practice is also bringing in divisions within the Buddhist traditions. The practitioners are attaching more importance than the basic Buddhist practice, and therefore he felt that it’s a practice that he would not approve of and therefore he advised people to not engage in it. But he made it very clear right from the beginning it was up to the individuals. He has a responsibility to explain the negative aspects of it and then it’s up to the individuals to decide on their own. Officially there has never been any repression or denial of rights to practitioners. But after His Holiness’ advice many monastic orders adopted rules and regulations that would not accept practitioners of Shugden worship in their monastic order. The followers have set up their own groups and they are free to function. But it’s in the right of institutions to make their own decisions.

DS: Was Lozang Gyatso, the director of Institute of Buddhist Dialectics murdered by Shugden worshipers?

TW: Yes, that’s a fact. There’s some misunderstanding that groups taking their own actions is the policy of the Tibetan government, but it’s not. Institutions take advice and it is within their right to say they do not want Shugden worship. But now if a group of people say they want to set up their own institution because they are different practitioners, which is within their right.

Karmapa controversy

DS: What is the reason for the Dalai Lama’s decision to become involved in the dispute over the identity of the current Karmapa [the leader of the largest sub-school of one of the four main schools in Tibetan Buddhism – ed.] by endorsing one candidate?

TW: There was no special decision. His Holiness was approached.

DS: By all sides?

TW: Yes. And then later on there was unfortunately some disagreement. Even Shamarpa—who had disagreements with the other regents at that time—even he did not dispute His Holiness’ decision as to who should be the throne holder. There should be no dispute.

DS: Does he still play a role as a peacemaker?

TW: No, there’s no need. It’s accepted by the vast majority of that tradition.

DS: Do you think Ogyen Trinley Dorje [one of the two contestants in the Karmapa dispute – ed.] will be able to travel freely to visit his followers?

TW: He’s traveling freely. Under the circumstances he escaped from Tibet there are security concerns about his personal safety. The government of India has to make sure he is not personally harmed, so in that sense there are some security restrictions. But as far as movement is concerned in India he can travel anywhere in India. There’s no ban on his movement.



External Links

Source

Wikinews
This article features first-hand journalism by Wikinews members. See the collaboration page for more details.


Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

October 18, 2007

John Reed on Orwell, God, self-destruction and the future of writing

John Reed on Orwell, God, self-destruction and the future of writing

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Thursday, October 18, 2007

John Reed: “A kid who reads a book and says, ‘This isn’t for me. It doesn’t have anything to do with my time period; I don’t know why I’m reading it. Literature is completely removed from my experience.’ They’re right! There’s no reason to have that kid reading books that are removed from their experience.”
Image: David Shankbone.

It can be difficult to be John Reed.

Christopher Hitchens called him a “Bin Ladenist” and Cathy Young editorialized in The Boston Globe that he “blames the victims of terrorism” when he puts out a novel like Snowball’s Chance, a biting send-up of George Orwell’s Animal Farm which he was inspired to write after the terrorist attacks on September 11. “The clear references to 9/11 in the apocalyptic ending can only bring Orwell’s name into disrepute in the U.S.,” wrote William Hamilton, the British literary executor of the Orwell estate. That process had already begun: it was revealed Orwell gave the British Foreign Office a list of people he suspected of being “crypto-Communists and fellow travelers,” labeling some of them as Jews and homosexuals. “I really wanted to explode that book,” Reed told The New York Times. “I wanted to completely undermine it.”

Is this man who wants to blow up the classic literary canon taught to children in schools a menace, or a messiah? David Shankbone went to interview him for Wikinews and found that, as often is the case, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Reed is electrified by the changes that surround him that channel through a lens of inspiration wrought by his children. “The kids have made me a better writer,” Reed said. In his new untitled work, which he calls a “new play by William Shakespeare,” he takes lines from The Bard’s classics to form an original tragedy. He began it in 2003, but only with the birth of his children could he finish it. “I didn’t understand the characters who had children. I didn’t really understand them. And once I had had kids, I could approach them differently.”

Taking the old to make it new is a theme in his work and in his world view. Reed foresees new narrative forms being born, Biblical epics that will be played out across print and electronic mediums. He is pulled forward by revolutions of the past, a search for a spiritual sensibility, and a desire to locate himself in the process.

Below is David Shankbone’s conversation with novelist John Reed.

On the alternative media and independent publishing

[Conversation in progress…]

John Reed: Yeah, exactly. Well, working with the Brooklyn Rail is my community service.

David Shankbone: How is that?

JR: It’s turned into a much bigger piece of community service than I thought it would be. It started without major expectations. At that time I had been drafted into it, there were still places to get literary books covered, it felt like. There was a VLS; there was a New York Press. VLS doesn’t exist anymore . . . it’s a big deal.

DS: All the alternative media is either becoming a conglomerate, like the Village Voice, or it’s dying, like the New York Press.

JR: The Village Voice may be dying, too. It’s been bought and resold so many times, I don’t really understand what it is anymore.

DS: I interviewed Michael Musto, and that was one area that I wanted to touch on, but we got involved in so many other things. I don’t even know how much I could really get out of somebody who’s working there, but–

JR: I would love to know what he thinks about it. But the Rail is doing well–I like covering all those books.

DS: How does the Rail make its money in order to operate?

JR: Well, the Rail is really doing well. They are getting grants and I’m a little bit astonished at how well they do. I think the Rail is in a good position to pull it together and bring itself to the next level. I’m not over there at the office every day, but that’s my impression of it.

DS: What about this theory that the drop in advertising for the print media, even though it’s going to go through a period of growing pains, in the end might actually be better for the literary press like the Brooklyn Rail, because people who have keys to funding will see more of a need to do grants, which will allow them to be more experimental as opposed to worrying about, “Are we going to offend our advertisers?”

JR: It may work that way. There is a gigantic fragmenting because, because the new venues for literary books are not just in print media. They’re on the Internet; there are millions of these micropresses now. So many I can’t keep track of them. And a lot of them are publishing really good books. Many are not concerned with getting reviews. They just don’t care. They’re willing to do a very small print run to facilitate their sales through networking sites, and a few literary blogs or literary sites–and there are a lot of them now. And of course, as these things condense from one thing to the next and grow into larger organisms, there’s going to be a fair share of power there filtered down to the small presses.

DS: I interviewed a musician named John Vanderslice, and off-the-record he talked about how the mainstream music press has almost lost all influence–Spin, Rolling Stone; those kinds of magazines. He said that whenever he did some small blog interview his web site jumped up in hits. But when he got a favorable review in Rolling Stone he said, “I barely heard a word about it.”

JR: The whole music industry has shifted over into networking sites, the Internet, and it’s just extremely comparable. The way that it’s functioned–and now half of the music industry is made up of this kind of independent record label–that’s what’s happening with books. You don’t have mid level artists recording at Sony, and you don’t have many mid-list authors at the large houses. The little presses are snapping them up. Of course, the large houses are aware of this, in the same way that the large record labels are aware of it, and I think that they’re gearing themselves to either take them over or have imprints address it. Like, MTV Books now has Vice books. They do like cool, beautiful books, and they’ve given Vice a real platform to do what they want.

DS: Do you think it’s becoming like the pharmaceutical industry? There the really big drug companies don’t have a lot of drugs in the pipeline, but there are all these like little drug companies that are existing for one-or-two-drug clinical trials, and the big drug companies are watching them. Once they have a seller, big pharma goes in and snaps up the little companies.

JR: That’s exactly what it is. I don’t know if it’s all bad, though. When a big press buys a small press, the small press sort of loses its identity. But it doesn’t happen right away. Right now, the distribution of the small presses is so piss poor for the most part, that it’s just very hard for them to move units. It’s a real challenge. Most of them don’t care that much; they want to have one or two books that are hits, but to sell big numbers of books, distribution is a real problem.

DS: How does the business model for small presses make up for a lack of blockbuster books?

JR: They need one or two, but most small presses that don’t care.

DS: It’s more of an idealistic enterprise, then?

JR: Yeah, if it’s a non-profit–they get some grants. For the functional small presses–let’s say Akashic Books, or Archipelago Books–which are very small but I believe run at a profit, the business model is to put all these books out there, and if one or two of them hits every couple of years, they’re fine. Soft Skull is another one. I love MacAdam Cage; I don’t know how they’re making any money, but they do wonderful books. They’ve got to have a few titles that sell a lot of copies. One press who used to have this theory of publishing is Saint Martin’s Press, a sort of “Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks” phenomenon.

DS: But they’re not like that anymore, are they?

JR: I don’t know. I mean, now it seems like a lot of places have taken on that model. You have all this stuff out there, something hits, and then everything goes behind that.

On Christopher Hitchens, Orwell and 9/11 as inspiration

DS: Why did you decide to take on Orwell?

JR: I went to school at P.S. 41. I read Orwell over and over again and of course as a kid, I liked it. But I didn’t really understand what about it that also depressed me. It’s kind of a bludgeon for revolutionary thinking. On a number of levels, Orwell encourages you to think that you’re not as smart as the pigs–that revolution is doomed to failure. I don’t know if that’s exactly what Orwell meant, but that’s certainly how it’s framed in school.

DS: How it reads in general?

JR: Really how it’s used. It’s the paradigm of the Cold War and it was used to promote the Cold War. In fact, the phrase “Cold War” is Orwell’s term. He was very aware of what was happening with this. I don’t know if he would have liked that it ended up being a real tool for the CIA to push the Cold War agenda–I don’t think he would have liked it. But that’s what happened, and at the end of his life he was involved with some pretty conservative people. Whether or not it was entirely his own doing or he was a weak, lovelorn old man is another question. I think probably some of both.

DS: Christopher Hitchens called you an “Osama bin Ladenist.” How do you react to that label?

JR: Honestly, I didn’t really expect it to be so thrilling to me, but I loved it.

DS: I photographed many of the New York academics who are featured in the David Horowitz book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, and every single one of them held it up as this badge of honor. They all received emails like, “How did you get in there?” It gave them stature that they may not have had before. Is it the same?

JR: Yeah, I mean it’s just also completely so absurd. We got all this press for Snowball’s Chance, and of course it was all based on whether people were conservative or progressive. They either liked me based on their politics or didn’t like me based on their politics. Hitchens didn’t read the book. In fact, that’s the only thing that makes me a little bit bitter, that he called me a “bin Ladenist” without having read the book. But yeah, I don’t mind. It’s just so completely absurd.

DS: He coined a philosophy for a terrorist. Like ‘Trotskyite’–there never really existed this phrase “Osama bin Ladenist.” Do you think it elevated bin Laden?

JR: Yeah, it was so bizarre. He was selling Why Orwell Matters at the time. With that book they were trying to reorient Orwell away from this Cold War model. I don’t know if they can do it, really. They’ve done so much damage to his canon. I don’t know if they can shift it out of a sort of Cold War emphasis. Maybe they can. The idea that Snowball brings capitalism to the farm–we see the pitfalls there–it’s anathema to a sort of CIA model of the Cold War. But they’ve got to change it, because the Cold War is over.

DS: But the thinking is there. Right after the Soviet Union ended–you could sense it, you could feel it in the air–this “Who do we set our sights on?” I think that all of us felt that way to a degree, if not just because we were socialized to think that way.

JR: Yeah. Yeah. I think that’s what they were trying to do, to by–

DS: Denouncing ‘Islamofascism’…

JR: Yeah. I think that there’s a little bit of that. I don’t know if it’s quite as transparent as it was with the Cold War, the Dark Empire model, but it’s still there.

DS: Do you think it’s a little bit trying to fit a square peg through a round hole, like the old paradigm of the Soviet Union as the evil empire, and now the evil empire is this very disparate range of peoples from Indonesia to Iran and trying to make them into a ‘Soviet Union?’

JR: Yeah, it’s a tough sell. But they’re doing it, they’re all over it over there.

DS: It’s worked. It’s sold.

JR: Yeah, they’re doing it. I can’t even believe how much money they’ve spent over there.

DS: They are going to be spending a lot more; it’ll be a trillion dollar war.

JR: Yeah, and that’s the other thing: this whole idea that we’re in this capitalist country. We’re not really in a capitalist country; we’re in something else. Because if it were pure capitalism, then these decisions would be terrible decisions. That’s why Ron Paul is so interesting. Because he’s up there just with steam coming out of his ears, saying, “We’re spending too much money! This is crazy!” And it is. It’s not fiscally responsible. We’re bolstering these oil companies, who peddle a vestigial energy source, when we have all kinds of other options. We know it’s not where we should be. But we’re there because that’s where the economy is; that’s what these large corporations are. But that’s not capitalism. That’s some kind of weird version of corporate socialism–our whole government is now buoying antiquated technologies.

DS: Was there a moment where your switch was flicked, where you were like, “I’ve had enough.” Was there a breaking point?

JR: For me it was 9/11. You had these armies of people covered in chalk walking past our apartment. I had had the idea for the book–I had a title in my head, Snowball’s Chance, walking along Lafayette Street on September 10th. I mentioned it to my wife; she said, “Uh, I don’t know, it doesn’t sound too great.”

DS: [chuckles]

JR: But I was sure that there was something good about it. And then 9/11 happened. I sat there watching TV for three days, like everyone else, riding my bike with a gas mask on and getting cartridges for my wife and brother.

Reed at the Brooklyn Book Festival.
Image: David Shankbone.

DS: Did you really?

JR: Yeah, you know, I have a lot of really strong memories from that period. The one that is with me right now is there was a policeman…we were downtown, so we had to go past this checkpoint. I was wearing a gas mask from minute one, because I just could feel that this was not good, the stuff that was in the air. He looked at me–you know, most of the cops would make fun of us for wearing gas masks, because they heard that it was safe–this one cop was standing there, looked at us and said, “Do you know something that I don’t know?” And of course, we did know something, which is that the city officials were lying to us. I always think back on that guy, and I wonder–

DS: Is he dead?

JR: Yeah. Who knows? But anyway–

DS: Or suffering–

JR: Two or three days after 9/11, I realized Snowball’s Chance meant that Snowball came back to the farm. I had pretty much the whole book in my head at that moment. I wrote it over the course of about two weeks, sitting there writing nonstop, writing what I already knew was there–catching it on paper. Was my rage directed then at Orwell? More it was like my creative energy was just into this thing. In retrospect, I realized what it was. A lot of the book mocks Orwell and ups his very dry delivery; all of that stuff is creative impetus.

DS: Orwell forms such a fundamental basis for so much neoconservative thinking, almost as an ideological text. Like The Outsiders forms our sense of what a rebel is to a degree, and Orwell gives us a worldview of–

JR: Yeah, I think that’s it exactly. Right when 9/11 happened, that period was over. Animal Farm was looking forward into a fifty-year period, and suddenly that period was over. That paradigm was over at that moment. That’s when it seemed like open game to me. I was actually pretty pissed at Orwell, once I figured all that out, because the Cold War mentality had largely gotten us into that mess.

DS: What about 1984?

JR: Yeah, there are people really pissed about 1984. I’ve gotten a few emails from people saying that they want to go after 1984, suggesting that I should, but I don’t know, I just didn’t–

DS: All of a sudden you’ll be in an Orwell genre: Orwell criticism–

JR: For some reason, I don’t mind that one as much. There are also so many dystopic . . .

DS: 1984 is used by both liberals and conservatives to attack each–each in different ways–

JR: Yeah, 1984, as far as I know, doesn’t have that history of being backed by the CIA.

On the future of the narrative

DS: As a writer there’s always a desire to be innovative and original, but you can’t be original anymore in writing. It’s very difficult. Almost everything has been done. I think that I read somewhere that the only genre of art that hasn’t fully been mined is maybe poetry.

JR: Yeah, could be. Well–

DS: How do you handle the challenge with wanting to be–

JR: Well, there are new art forms that are forming. The Internet is going to have much larger–

DS: What are they?

JR: Well, interestingly, the narrative forms. Americans are extremely sophisticated in terms of narrative forms. We see it in commercials, we see it on TV, we see it in movies. But the narrative forms we’re talking about are three acts, five acts, depending on how you want to look at it. They’re all based on a Christian model of sin, suffering, redemption; which is not a large model. We’ve actually got a sophisticated view of a relatively narrow sort of idea of what narrative is. But as the Internet enables larger shows–as TV, magazines and the Internet join–you’re going to have much larger narrative structures. Sort of like a soap opera, if you could imagine a soap opera that was on the Internet, where you would have a cross-section of narratives and could go in any direction at once. The producers could get behind any narrative at once. Essentially, then, what you’ve got is large epic structures, or Biblical structures, or mythological structures, where you have strains that interconnect–different storylines that interconnect and are often discrete–that make up a whole. But the whole thing isn’t three acts. The whole thing isn’t five acts. It’s an infinitude of three acts or five acts; it can be as big as you want.

DS: Can you conceptualize that to an example?

JR: Well, the best example I could give would be the Bible, or Greek mythology.

DS: On an Internet forum.

JR: I don’t think that the technology is quite there yet. It’s close.

DS: Once you can envision it, the technology will follow, though. Once you can start seeing it.

JR: Yeah, there are sites that are sort of attempting it, and if you look right now, there are all these new multiplatform shows, that are beginning to do it. And there won’t be just networking capabilities in these shows; they’ll be much different than the shows that we see today. But on another level, they’ll still be narrative shows.

DS: A very common thing for a writer is to be riddled with self-doubt, and that can often ruin a lot of inspiration and creativity and make you lose your way in what you’re doing. How do you handle a challenge like that?

JR: Unfortunately, I can’t stop myself, whether I’m having self-doubt or not. This new project of mine is a new play by William Shakespeare; I’ve taken lines from all the plays and put them together into a new play, essentially. I liked the idea; I thought it was a cool concept. But I didn’t know if it was a publishable idea. I didn’t want to waste my time doing a non-publishable thing, but then I ended up doing it anyway. And when I saw it, it was a complete surprise.

On changing the literary canon

DS: Do you have a memory that has stuck with you that–where you continually turn back to it to learn new lessons?

JR: I feel like I have a lot of memories that I turn back to all the time.

DS: Is there one that stands out?

JR: Right now, there’s not. Although there is a dream I had that’s been sticking with me. Memories that I’m inundated with right now have to do with my childhood, and remembering–actually, I have a picture of me standing on the West Side Highway when I was a little kid. I was just a street urchin, and now my daughter smells like that.

DS: She smells like a street urchin?

JR: She smells like a little kid who runs around in the park, you know? Is a dream too off-base?

DS: And that brings back a lot–the olfactory memories?

JR: Yeah, yeah. Is a dream too off-base?

DS: No, I’d love to hear your dream.

JR: So, I was standing in this field–I think it was a polo ground kind of thing. And there were a lot of sort of petite bourgeoisie/intellectuals/professors–these sorts of people. It was late afternoon after some kind of sporting event; I think it was polo. I don’t really know. And everyone’s standing around; it’s the first cooling off of a hot day. It didn’t really have a time period. Sort of recent distant past.

DS: Sure.

JR: And someone came screaming out: they’d had an audience with the Queen. They were shouting that they had just met the Queen and that the Queen had given him … a poop. One of her poops. And he comes running out and he’s saying this, and everyone is mocking him. He’s taking it good-naturedly, as he should. He’s standing there, and the crowd kind of quiets down, and he’s holding this small plastic tub–which incidentally is the one that we put the lizard in when we’re cleaning the cage–he’s holding this small plastic tub that has two dry, narrow poops in it, one sort of tipped on the other. There’s a silence overwhelming the crowd. Then he pops the lid, and he lifts it to his nose to sniff it. And he sniffs it, and he really takes it in, and he’s thinking about this smell and committing it to memory. Then, in utter silence, he just passes it to the person next to him, and that person takes the poop up to their nose and sniffs it, and then it passes through the whole crowd.

[both chuckle]

JR: So, that dream I keep thinking about.

DS: Do you do dream analysis?

JR: I think that dream has to do with the way things become big in culture. I have all kinds of complaints about the literary canon. For example, there are a lot of books that are widely remembered that I think could be forgotten–

DS: Like Animal Farm?

JR: Well, Animal Farm, I don’t know if I would forget it, but I might forget other lesser-known books by–let’s pick a Trollope book and get rid of it, because that book is at the expense of a contemporary author. I don’t really see the genres as competing against literary authors; I see the backlist as competing against literary authors.

DS: What’s a book that every kid in high school reads that you think should be removed?

JR: Well, I read Typhoon by Joseph Conrad, and that could definitely go. I was not a big fan of those James Fenimore Cooper books, which I had to read. I thought they were just preposterous. They could go. There are a bunch of Trollope books that could go. I know there are some people who love Balzac, but frankly, a lot of those bore me to death, too. I would have kids reading contemporary books. A kid who reads a book and says, “This isn’t for me. It doesn’t have anything to do with my time period; I don’t know why I’m reading it. Literature is completely removed from my experience.” They’re right! There’s no reason to have that kid reading books that are removed from their experience.

DS: Clearly a lot can be gained from literature, and as you’ve have shown talking about Shakespeare here. But you think there might be a problem with building a new generation of readers, in that we train people to read things that they can’t relate to? It would be like raising kids to watch Bette Davis movies, and then you get to watch the Harry Potter film.

JR: Exactly. I think that is exactly the problem. It is exactly the problem, and I can’t iterate strongly enough that I feel like people should be reading contemporary books, that we should melt down the canon and have people reading contemporary authors. There are amazing contemporary authors, and if you were to walk around the basement of the Strand for a day and look at all the review books down there, and tell me that there aren’t amazing contemporary authors, I’ll cede the point. But I know. I know you won’t come out of that basement and tell me that. There are just so many amazing authors, people who are writing extremely well right now.

DS: Is there at all a movement for that?

JR: I don’t know but I actually think that it’s going to happen, partly because of the public domain, the downloadable Internet.

DS: But can’t you see such a reaction against that change?

JR: Yeah, I can. No, I can already hear someone harping “Faulkner lost to Toni Morrison?!?”

DS: [laughs]

JR: Well, first of all, Faulkner isn’t going to be lost, right? And second of all, the Toni Morrison books you’re talking about are twenty-five years old.

DS: There’s a magical thing that happens when people feel they discover things that went to the wayside–think about bell bottoms! I remember in the early 90s, the idea of bell bottoms, or even just large pants at the bottom, was just anathema.

JR: Yeah. Yeah.

DS: And then all of a sudden it’s like people get bored with the same thing, and boom! Bell bottoms are back.

JR: Yeah. It doesn’t seem so foreign now.

DS: People who are raised watching “Die Hard” and Schwarzenegger, all of a sudden they discover old Joan Crawford films.

JR: Yeah, the literary canon is not going to disappear. Having people read contemporary authors is just going to build a readership of contemporary readers. I don’t know why we’re having kids read books that bore them. There are just so many good books out there.

On belief in a higher power

DS: Do you believe in a higher power?

JR: I think that my feeling about the higher power is in keeping with most of America, in a lot of ways–we think of ourselves as a Christian nation, but in fact, we also think we can pick and choose what we want about religion. Most people, if you press them, their concept of God is something like a divine spark within them or something that we all share. Which is very in keeping with the Gnostic principle–we call it Gnosticism now–but a Gnostic principle of Christianity. And I would put myself somewhere in there.

DS: How do you raise your children?

JR: I tortured myself about this before I had kids, and now that I have them, there a couple of things that make it very difficult for me to choose any one particular religion. I can’t forgive Catholicism for the kind of pederasty that it allowed. It’s hard for me–Jewish–I can’t–I don’t even know, I’m afraid to publish that, but–I can’t, you know, abide a religion that would distinguish a child from its parents, to say this child isn’t part of this religion because its mother isn’t. To me, that’s exactly the kind of distinction that makes religion sinister and destructive.

DS: How do you circumvent that in the rearing of children, then?

JR: I’m thinking of something like a Unitarian. I would do a Gnostic church if they really existed. And I know they sort of exist, but they seem a little small. I think Unitarian is probably as close as I’m going to come.

DS: Why would you be afraid to have it published that you’re part Jewish?

JR: First of all, I’m tired of being Jewish. I’m tired of the fact that I’m counted among Jewish people; when I’m at a funeral, and there have been a lot of funerals on that side of the family, they’re perfectly happy to have me carry a casket. But you know, I’m not part of the Promised Land, and I’m tired of the selective tally. Also, people say that Judaism is a philosophy, and then it comes up: “Are your kids Jewish? Is their mother Jewish?” I say, “No”; to me, that makes it a religion, you know? I’m getting baptized in the next few months, because the Gnostic principle–

DS: [chuckles] As a big “Fuck you” to Judaism, or–?

JR: Partly, but I appreciate Gnostic principle of–the Gospel of Thomas is meaningful to me. I like it.

DS: So you’re going to be baptized into the Gnostic church?

JR: Well, this is the other thing. I’ve got to decide exactly how to do it. Baptism is looked at in different ways contingent on what Christian group we’re talking about. Some think it’s okay to baptize children. Others think it’s part of a later conversion in life. For me, the ones that think it’s okay to baptize children, that’s precisely what I don’t want, because the idea that a child wouldn’t be accepted, blessed by God regardless, whether or not they’ve been baptized–to say that God would have anything against any child is just disgusting to me. I can’t forgive it.

DS: It’s an odd concept.

JR: I don’t really think of myself as a born-again, and they of course insist on later baptism. I don’t know. I’m sort of currently leaning towards the Baptist church.

DS: Southern Baptist?

JR: Maybe. I have a lot of Southern–

DS: They’re one of the least intolerant.

JR: Well, that’s interesting. I don’t know; I haven’t decided–

DS: I went through a Southern Baptist phase when I lived in Georgia.

JR: Oh, did you?

DS: Yeah, yeah. The Southern Baptist convention is probably the most conservative out there.

On politics

DS: If you were forced to choose, which war would you prefer to fight in, Iraq or Afghanistan?

JR: Which one would I rather fight in? Well, for whom?

DS: On the side of the United States.

JR: Iraq or Afghanistan…God, that’s tough man. I think Afghanistan.

DS: Afghanistan?

JR: Well, at least we had an endgame.

DS: Hillary or Barack?

JR: I think Hillary. My reasoning is completely ridiculous: I distrust men who are that skinny. You and I are both lean, but if I told you, you’ve got to go take this stump out to the backyard, and I gave you an axe, I’d be pretty confident you could do it. Obama doesn’t look like he could do it to me. [both laugh] There’s something about that I mistrust.

DS: If you remain that lean on the campaign trail, when they’re having all those–

JR: There’s something about it I distrust, a guy who can’t lift a hammer.

DS: [laughs]

On self-destruction and survival

DS: How would you choose to die?

JR: How would I choose to die? I don’t know. Most men stop being afraid of dying. Then, when they have kids, suddenly they’re afraid of it again. But not for themselves, for their kids. So I don’t really care, just as long as my kids are provided for.

DS: You think that most men, pre-parenthood, lose their sense of mortality and their fear of it?

JR: I think you just get tired of being afraid of it.

DS: Were you ever afraid of it?

JR: Yeah, I was afraid of it in my early twenties; and as a kid, I just remember being really, really afraid of dying, and it being incomprehensible and depressing.

DS: Did that affect your behavior?

JR: Well, my daughter, too. We had a lizard die, and that was a big deal. She was asking these questions, “Is it gonna be another lizard?” You know, she has all of these–

DS: “Where does it go?”

JR: Yeah, she has a lot of really valid questions. I don’t know; I also don’t feel that we understand everything. For all the people who praise Shakespeare, Shakespeare is still really quite extraordinary. The sense that I have of Shakespeare is he does understand that on some level, we as human beings, our bodies, are like the top of an iceberg that you can see. Then there’s all this other stuff under the water that you can’t see. That’s my feeling about it. I’m not that afraid of it anymore because I feel like there’s all this other stuff under the water. But it does worry me–

DS: An afterlife?

JR: I don’t know if it’s in those terms, exactly, but there are a lot of things we don’t understand. We’re all part of the same thing. For various Gnostic reasons, saying that there’s this thing that existed before all of us, that we’re all part of it, and that each of us is made up of a piece of this thing–it’s appealing to me.

DS: What’s a trait you deplore in yourself?

JR: The trait I hate most in myself is probably one of my best traits —

DS: Isn’t that always the case?

JR: Yeah, probably. Probably. I’ve always been loyal to people, and I think it’s one of my worst and best traits.

DS: How is it your best trait?

JR: I stand behind people who are really quite troubled and messed up. [laughs nervously]

DS: Is that also how it’s one of your worst, then?

JR: Yeah, yeah.

Image: David Shankbone.

DS: What’s a time that this trait screwed you over.

JR: As a young writer, I knew a lot of extremely talented, amazing people who were hell-bent on self-destruction, as are a lot of people at that age who are creative people, and yet I still believed in them.

DS: How so? Typical drug, alcohol problems, or–

JR: Yeah, or just really self-sabotaging. A novelist, let’s say, who refused to finish the novel and kept rewriting until it was ruined. Or an artist who–

DS: Like Joseph Grand in The Plague where he was rewriting the same sentence over and over?

JR: Yeah, yeah, or just doing a gigantic revision when it was really finished, or an artist who was doing quite well and then started dating their art dealer and cheated on them. People have all kinds of ways of destroying themselves.

DS: What do you think it is that drives many artists to sink their own ships?

JR: Well, because partially, I think the inclination to be a creative person is to blow things up, right? And of course the nearest thing around you is yourself.

DS: Do you think that Norman Rockwell had that inclination?

JR: I don’t know his history that well. Did he?

DS: I don’t know, either. No by his popular image.

JR: There’s also a lot of bullshit in our culture, which pushes the idea that to be a successful artist you have to be utterly self-destructive.

DS: What’s your most treasured possession? You can’t include kids, because they’re not really possessions.

JR: My most treasured possession? Well–I like this painting right here.

DS: Is it your most treasured?

JR: I don’t know if I have a most treasured, but I have a most precious possession. Shall I go get it?

DS: Yeah, definitely.

JR: This is a scraper. A red chert scraper that I found walking along in the desert in New Mexico, about a year and a half ago. Christmas, two years ago. With two kids I work really hard–pretty much constantly. But the thing about this is it has such an amazing energy, to hold it.

DS: Mmm. I feel that, yeah.

JR: And the other–it may be prehistoric, it may be several thousand years old–

DS: What makes it a scraper?

JR: This is what’s interesting, to me–after you killed the meat, this is what you would use to scrape the inside of the flesh off the fur. Scraping the fat or the gristle off the top of the meat. And it’s a reminder how much harder things were, you know? Any time I’m feeling down on myself–

DS: You could be scraping meat off bones.

JR: I could be scraping–and it was really like that, you know? So–there’s that.

DS: I have treasured possessions, but I also have treasured memories. I found a suicide in the woods when I was thirteen: a kid my age, who was probably fourteen. It’s a treasured memory in some ways, one that’s lasted my whole life, and it’s come back in a lot of ways. On my MySpace profile, I make an allusion to that in my narrative. I don’t think people actually read that. I think that people look at pictures, and then they move on. But that’s not really true. I have been contacted by both that individual’s younger sister, who was eight when he killed himself, and the girlfriend he killed himself over. Separately.

JR: Yeah, people do read the stuff on there. People do.

On raising children

JR: The kids have made me a better writer.

DS: Really?

JR: Yeah, on the Shakespeare thing, I think part of what was holding me back from finishing it was–because I had written the first half in 2003–that I hadn’t had kids. I didn’t understand the characters who had children. I didn’t really understand them. And once I had had kids, I could approach them differently. And it’s great when kids appear in your work.

DS: Gives it depth and also maybe opens you up to a new audience.

JR: Yeah, I can’t believe I didn’t have any kids in my books. I did have kids in my first novel, but not having kids or parents in your work is so weird. It’s just such a weird lack. You often see literary books that don’t have them.

DS: Especially based in New York.

JR: Especially based in New York, yeah.

DS: Do you find that when you have friends outside the city, and they know you’re raising kids here, they bate their breath? So many people still have this vision of New York from like “The Warriors,”; from the Abe Beame days of New York.

JR: That’s true, it’s true. The funny thing is we were just in San Diego and my daughter, who’s three, would just lie on the floor moaning in boredom, because it’s so boring there. We were in a couple of houses, one of which had a pool. She was fine when there was a pool. But the driving–she just hated it! You have to drive to go anywhere, and we couldn’t find our health-food-store food…and we’re driving around for forty minutes, and she just would sit in the back saying, “I don’t want to live in the suburbs.”

DS: So many parents think that–my sister would be one–the preference of that controlled atmosphere is better for the kids. They don’t realize what they lose not living in an urban center.

JR: Yeah.

DS: People creating this thriving environment where we can influence each other, and kids —

JR: –They love it–

DS: –have more stimulus. When you see news reports that on the discovery of an Earthlike planet does that affect your perspective or does it go unnoticed?

JR: I don’t know; there’s so much out there that we don’t understand that it’s hard for me to imagine there isn’t some larger relationships, somehow. Let me see if I can phrase it better: there’s a lot out there we don’t understand.

DS: If you had to choose, and you had to choose or both would be devastated and destroyed, which continent would you have blown up, Asia or Africa?

JR: Asia or Africa! I don’t know, I have to blow up one of them??

DS: Or they both go.

JR: I would just do it based on population, I guess. I don’t know their population figures, but I think that there are more people in Asia, so I think I’d blow up Africa.

DS: So it would be a sum total of human life, as opposed to your judgement of cultural significance, or–?

JR: I’m not sure. The land mass thing might figure in, but mainly yeah, just the populations.

On paedophilia and the death penalty

DS: What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?

JR: Before I was a parent, I was sort of wishy-washy on the death penalty; but being a parent makes you conservative about some things. My wife is very progressive. But then when we talk about a paedophile priest or something, and someone suggests that they be executed, she doesn’t say anything. I don’t think it’s just because there’s a sense of vengeance. I think it’s because that would be the most miserable you could possibly be, that I can imagine. To a person with such a damaged soul that you would harm a child–I can’t imagine anything worse.

DS: Augusten Burroughs made the exact same point; the death penalty came up when we were talking, too.

JR: Is that right?

DS: He’s a very dynamic person to talk to. He was like, ‘I’m not one of those people who cares about the whole taking another life. I feel like when you damage a child, you’ve damaged them. You’ve given up your right to be here amongst us.’

JR: Nobody’s doing you a favor, either, by keeping you around.

DS: I’m pretty ambivalent on the death penalty. It doesn’t bother me on some philosophical level, like the death, you know? But I think that the argument that makes me ambivalent as opposed to pro- what worries me is the idea that there’s innocent people being put to death.

JR: Yeah, well, I have an easy solution for that: you don’t execute someone who’s been convicted once, but when they are convicted twice. The thing is, we’re not executing paedophiles. That’s not what we’re doing with them.

DS: They’re still out there. Just recently, there was some 15-year-old girl who was–

JR: I was just watching something last night, about a pederast in Idaho, who was fine because the statute of limitations was up. (In Idaho they’ve recently changed it.) So, as a 23-year-old, if you hadn’t done anything by the time you were twenty-four, you couldn’t do anything, ever.

On personal relationships

DS: What do you value most in your friends?

JR: It’s funny, because I was just saying this is my biggest flaw —

DS: Loyalty?

JR: –probably it would be loyalty, yeah.

DS: Before you got married, what would have been a bigger turnoff for you with your wife, her speaking in a baby voice, or her being overly flatulent?

JR: I don’t think I would have minded a baby voice; it would have depended what she was saying, of course.

DS: Say, both scenarios in bed.

JR: I think flatulence would have been a bigger bummer.

DS: Than a baby voice.

JR: Well, if she’s saying smart things in a baby voice, I wouldn’t mind it.

DS: Like what?

JR: If she was just as brainy as she is and she had a baby voice, I would have been fine.

DS: Is there a lot of brainy pillow talk in your household?

JR: Not with two kids around!


Audio Wikinews

Intro to interview with John Reed

Audio Wikinews – Problems listening to the file? See media help.

Sources

Wikinews
This article features first-hand journalism by Wikinews members. See the collaboration page for more details.
Wikinews
This exclusive interview features first-hand journalism by a Wikinews reporter. See the collaboration page for more details.

External links

Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

Powered by WordPress