Cotidiano de uma brasileira em Paris, comentarios sobre cultura, politica e besteiras em geral. Entre le faible et le fort c'est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui libère." Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Friday, June 17, 2011

Oh, Pleeeeeea!
 a rant




Mike McDermott: "...and please don't splash the pot."
Teddy KGB:  "... in my club I vill splash de pwot venever de fahk I pliz."




When will it be possible anymore to have a conversation or a heated debate about anything important if:

a) we must constantly start any discussion by reassuring our interlocutor we're aware of ethical, legal, moral, and politically correct considerations, therefore ensuring s/he knows we're not Hitler, or any of the "lesser" dictators; 
b) we must present as many easily verifiable facts as possible;
c) we must not make the conversation personal in any way;
d) we must not have any emotional reaction to a topic/point;
e) we must 'let go' as soon as it becomes apparent that "it is making ppl uncomfortable"

When did it become a faux-pas to make a point? to be passionate about it? to have convictions?  When did ppl start behaving as though they're on MSNBBCNN?  Why this endless need for consensus, for blandness?  What is wrong with a hint of chili in chocolate?   Are mashed potatoes always preferable to something that needs chewing?  Babies like mushy peas.  But that's because they haven't got teeth yet.  As soon as toddlers get teeth, they want crunchy things, hard candy.  Picture tigers only having smoothies.

Then ppl complain they're bored.  Well, of course they are.  Fascinating though an earthquake or a volcano eruption might be, there is only so much that can be said about these natural phenomena, unless they're turned into a metaphor in a bigger, more cunning, more difficult, stupendous, mega-fascinating, point.  Or a joke.  Or a euphemism.  You get where I'm going with this.

So you make the points you find need making (all these tiny points, screaming in your head, saying 'pick me! pick me!' - like 6yo orphans no one wants, desperate for attention, yearning for warm arms to embrace them and make them feel they matter-) only to be told 'oh but you see, we can't run the risk these ideas will take over because the moral consensus has always been that..---' and on.  As if it'd be okay if the conversation would only happen between you two, but it can't be discussed with others, lest ppl who aren't v mature or intellectually prepared for these ideas should be exposed to them. All very hushush.  "Oh I know John, you and I know this, but imagine if ppl like Gareth put their hands on it; we'll all be doomed."  Yah? Guess what, that's not the case. Ppl like Gareth can also hear about it, because ideas aren't the boogey man.

Picture someone saying that to Robespierre or George Washington or Nelson Mandela?  'Sorry, Nelson, we just can't have you saying these things; they're dangerous and plus which ppl might adopt these ideas and then what?'  Gandhi?  'Oh Mr. Mahatma, do stop sulking and have a bite out of this er plate of mushy peas.  Here's the salt.'

Then the skies open up and suddenly the sun shines on your face and obliterates even the most moronic and boring, relentless droplet of drizzle, the climatic equivalent of a whine. 
Every now and then someone will say something that makes you feel alive, because you couldn't agree or disagree more. The important thing is that it stirs a strong response in you, even if it is short-lived.  Isn't that a wonderful moment?  Isn't that why we live?  OK, one of the reasons why we live.  Otherwise, it'd be a situation where "I may not agree with what you think but I'll die to defend your right to say bluebells bloom in spring."  

This is probably why I find TV is so pernicious; it ends up BPermeating our unconscious mind and downloading onto our hardrive reactions which aren't normally ours, a kind of corporate takeover of the mind, much like these multinationals make every single city in the world look the same, so that you can be in Buenos Aires or New Delhi and buy the exact same products from the same shops with the same automatons who mistake bad taste for subversion.  
Now we can also talk to ppl from all over the world, of all ages, socioeconomic backgrounds, and education, and be almost sure they'll tell us exactly what we'll hear if we turn the tele on.  

Well, to this, I say an overweight NO. ¡No pasarán!

I prefer the slightly insane but thinking person to the reasonable consensual parrot, telling me how smoking will give me cancer, and betacarotene is good for tanning, and how donkey rides on Greek islands are giga-chic.  

12 comments:

Carl Johnson said...

Your first phrase gives the clue- 'anything important'

If we're discussing whether Superman is stronger than the Hulk (he is, btw) then pointing out admiringly that the Man from Krypton could destroy the planet by looking at hard with Supervision is fine. Pointing out admiringly that USA could destroy the planet X times more than China with its much better nuclear weapons invites a different response

I don't like chili chocolate, or smoothies for that matter, and I could probably find quite a lot to say about an earthquake or tsunami, especially if I lived in Japan.

TV is often an opiate, I agree, but I think that discussion programmes on French TV promote a reasonable range of opinion, and the bookshops even more (there's an anarchist guide in the musée d'orsay's bookshop as I type)and on the telly we can see Bloomberg and al Jazeera- it's a fair range even if we don't get the Glen Becks and Bill O'Reillys of the lunatic right of USican politics.

Bel said...

Oh you like French TV now. Ah... okay then, I sit uncomfortably corrected.

But really-- how much of what we hear on Fr tele these days differs from the megachannels? V v little. And the ppl who open their insufficiently obedient gobs to spout truly subversive thoughts do not get invited anymore. (See: Soral, Nabe, even Sollers! entre autres, and, most recently, Maître Lévy, dubbed the "pedophiles' lawyer".)

No, I'm afraid it is more and more how I described it. Also, in private conversation it is becoming positively nauseating how everyone repeats what Pez dispenser heads say on tele. I can't take it, this public life invading the private sphere. I'm not even paid to be on tv ffs, why should I talk as tho i worked in TV?

Carl Johnson said...

Construing 'tv is often an opiate' to mean 'You like Fr tv now' is quite a clever trick.

As they don't appear on tv I don't know what your guys say that might be subversive or controversial. As far as I know Nabe is a writer without a publisher and Sollers stopped being any good 20 years ago and Soral, well who he?

Is that the sort of controversial you like?

Bel said...

You would know who Soral is if you watched Fr tele 5 yrs ago. Not anymore, since he's no longer invited. Nabe is only a writer without a publisher now. His TWENTY SEVEN previous books were published by a publisher.

And you said "Fr tv promotes a reasonable range of opinion". I agree, provided the range is "the socialist party made mistakes, and the UMP did too. everyone's equallly bad, the FN is not a republican party, and Besancenot is cute but will never win an election."

On books the opinion is: whoever we invited to talk about his book is a good writer. The book s/he wrote is good, otherwise we woudlnt have invited him/her.

On music: we invited this band, this means they sell a lot of dloads on iTunes, so we'll get high ratings.

On paintings: Paintings? Nah. installations are innovative. Still. Forever.

Oh, and now? they'll also tell you what ppl TWEETED.

Pls.

Carl Johnson said...

Oooooh er, Mrs B Paris
Stout defence of the Nabe.

What other countries do you know where the leader of a party that gets less than 5% of the vote and which is without elected representatives at a national level have so much air time or are taken so seriously?

Do you think Francois Busnel should invite writers onto his show and then tease them? Might make for good telly I admit but hardly useful. I actually like the way he lets the writer make his pitch and present the strongest case he can for his work. I suspected that Coe's book would be rubbish from his piece on the prog, and by golly I was right.

What are you saying about pop combos? That they are only invited after they've sold a load on itunes?

Installation art? What if meaninglessness is the message?

Bel said...

Oh and btw? Did you not hear that Éric Zemmour AND Éric Naulleau were fired? Apparently their political and literary criticism, respectively, is too pungent; but of course, they wanted to "have a new, more challenging professional experience," the equivalent of a politician's needing to spend more time with his/her family...
And come on, Zemmour & Naulleau are hardly tomorrow's Rosa Luxembourg/Orwell.

Carl Johnson said...

I did know that. And I read who their replacements are, tho' I can't remember. But one is a chick, so she'll be able to bring some much needed femininity and delicacy to the prog.

Bel said...

hahahaha if meaningless is the message then can we PLEASE be spared the 2352-page brochure explaining its non-meaning?

hahaha be serious, now youre taking the mickey.

Of course a writer's going to make a good case for his work, unless he's... well, Nabe, who COULD make himself more unpopular with TV ppl if he tried, but he isnt invited anymore. And Soral's book sold more than any of the stupid pretenses whose books are grown-up versions of MyLittlePony -- no thanks to the "literary establishment". He did it all on the Internets, like Nabe. But this isn't about Nabe.

Carl Johnson said...

I'm not actually. Unmeaning is explicitly the point of the Morellet expo- tho' I don't want to get too Chinese boxey on you.

If Nabe could make his books interesting on telly he'd still be invited to talk about them even if he's self-publishing now. You think they wouldn't have had Céline on if they could.

Still don't know about Soral and your little pony. Are you trying to suggest Soral's is some stallion with throbbing limbs and sweat dappled flanks charging through the champs elysées....?

Bel said...

On François Busnel: i don't care what he does, but i'd prefer it if he a) had ppl on the programme who had a critical opinion of the book or b) didn't invite the writer at all. I don't care what the writer has to say, i want to know what he wrote.
I don't care what Clooney says on the Sudanese crisis, or if Angelina Jolie adopted yet another child and is the Unicef spokesperson. It will not change my opinion of their acting. I'm interested in the quality of the thing, not on whether the person is a good or bad person, a nazi or a saint. that's irrelevant.
Words on the page matter if you wrote a book, and not if your opinions on current affairs are unpopular. A writer should never be persona non grata for airing an unpopular or outrageous view; a writer will simply disappear if he writes badly. Unless he appears on Oprah, then he can be bad and he'll still sell and be popular. We'll be right back.

Bel said...

I don't think they'd have Céline on now if they could. The man escaped lynching by a wee little beetle's pinky fingernail! Jimmy Carter is called antisemitic. Carter!!! hahaha god, it's too ridiculous.

Carl Johnson said...

DUH...

They talk about their books on la Grande Librarie, and for a reader as ignorant as me the approach of the prog is incredibly useful. You get a sensible introduction to four writers per episode, and Busnel asks qs that help the writer make their work accessible to a new public. For example, when Patricia Cornwell comes on it might be tempting to ask her about why she needs a Stryker saw sequence in every novel (and if I saw her in a bookshop or library I might ask her that) but it's more helpful (and in many ways more interesting) to ask her about her research methods and how she plots her novels. Her answers were something of a let down, and it probably showed to an interested Fr viewer who didn't know her work what he could expect if he read one of her books.