Good Art, Bad Artists

Judith Beheading Holofernes, by Caravaggio: a scoundrel and murderer. The artist, that is: Judith was a warrior fighting an oppressor. And a badass.

I had a difficult conversation with a student this week.

Actually, I had several: and yes, I still need to write about how teachers have too many expectations put on us, because I acted this week as a counselor and a confidante, a corrector and a — a conspirator is too strong; but “co-worker” is not strong enough. Ah, well. Even without the perfect alliteration, I still talked to a student about cheating, and to another student about old relationships, and another student about aging family, and another student about old relationships that won’t go away; and I discussed abortion with two different classes, and the dress code with three, and racism with my co-workers…

And then there was this difficult conversation that came up with one of my favorite students.

I start every day with “Has anyone got any questions or concerns or issues you’d like to raise to the class?” And in some of my classes, there are specific students who respond to that invitation every single day: two of them ask about me and how I’m doing, which is very sweet but also invites dishonesty, because I don’t usually want to start the class with “I’m terrible and right at this second talking to all of you people is the last thing on Earth I want to be doing;” so instead I say something more neutral, even though I don’t like lying. But that’s an acceptable lie, because the class isn’t about me, even though students are happy to delay work by discussing me and my life; my job is to move them into the learning, so I do that, and it’s not a big deal.

But I have this one student who always brings something up. It’s usually something philosophical: this young person is extremely bright, extraordinarily curious, and has a deep love of learning, and so all of his free time is spent learning things or discussing things that he has learned; and all of his time in class is spent — well, the same way, really. I have shown him that I’m also interested in philosophy and enjoy talking about topics both random and profound, and so he has grown more comfortable over the school year with talking about whatever happens to be on his mind.

For perspective, he responded to my invitation Friday morning by talking about the deep anxiety he feels when he thinks about death: because, as he said, swaying in his seat and throwing his arms and head about like a wild-eyed symphony conductor, leading the orchestra of his body in playing the song of his opinion (which is the way he always talks when he gets excited about something), he loves life so much, and wants to experience everything, and the human lifespan is just not long enough! And while I was trying to disagree with him, because I am of the opinion that years are actually very, very long, and while there is never enough time to do and see everything we want to do and see, there is so very much time to do and see most things, he explained that in a few months’ time he will have a birthday and at that point he will be older than his older brother: and that comment made some things very clear to me. This is why he knows, in his bones, that life can end, suddenly, without warning, and far too early; and so of course he is anxious about it, and of course it seems to him like it is far too short. Because sometimes it is: and he knows it much better than I.

And that wasn’t the difficult conversation we had.

No, the difficult conversation came on Thursday: when he asked if it is possible to separate the art from the artist, and enjoy content created by a person you could not personally enjoy, or agree with, or even abide. And if it is possible, how could it be done?

That’s a tough conversation.

It was made worse by the fact that we disagreed on at least one prominent example of this issue, the author J.K. Rowling; and then, as we were getting into the weeds with this, I realized that I was speaking only to this one student, while the rest of the class was off on their own; so I had to cut it off. I hate cutting conversations off: particularly when they are important, as this one is, and when they are meaningful to those involved, as this topic was both to me and to this young man. And to be clear, if this had been one of my English 10 classes, which are currently studying argument, or my AP Lang class, which is just about ready to move into argument, then I would have opened the discussion up to the whole class, formalized it into a specific topic with a specific claim, and then solicited points pro and con, and counterarguments to those points, and then spent the whole class period on this if necessary; but it was College Readiness, which never studies argument, and I needed to move on. I tried to write more of my opinions on this for the young man to read, while they were working on their application essays, because part of what I had said had hit him in the feelings; but I didn’t have the time or the mental acuity to make my point clear enough.

I knew I had to write about this for this week’s blog.

(Yes, I know I am again procrastinating the analysis of the rest of the Letter from Birmingham Jail. I’ll get there. But I asked my class if I should write about what I said I was going to, or if I should procrastinate that topic and write about the one that had captured my thoughts; and they all said I should procrastinate. Who am I to dispute with a class full of honors students? At least, when they say something I want to agree with anyway. So. Here goes.)

“Tehemana Has Many Parents” by Paul Gauguin, who abandoned his wife and children to move to Tahiti and make art. Amusingly, I got this image from a New York Times article titled “Is It Time Gauguin Got Canceled?”

So the question is, if something is created by somebody who has something terrible about them personally, can we enjoy the thing that terrible person created? Or is it tainted by the terribleness of the creator? Is it possible to separate entirely the art from the artist, and enjoy content from problematic people? This question is made more difficult, of course — particularly for my students’ generation, though also for all of us older more jaded people, too — by the recent rise of the social standard which says anything associated with, for lack of a better word, evil, is also evil, and taints everyone and everything who touches it. This is the standard by which people have been cancelled online — again, like J.K. Rowling.

And that’s where this gets complicated. Because I am a liberal, and I want to promote liberal ideas like equal rights and privileges for all, and a safe, supportive community for those who are marginalized and discriminated against. And because I am a white man, and I recognize that I am not a good judge of what is hateful and hurtful, as essentially none of the hate in the world is directed at me, and even that which is doesn’t have much impact on me, as white men like me have built a society that privileges and protects us, I know that I should listen to others who say the work is offensive more than I should dismiss those claims based on the useless fact that I was not offended by the work. But I am also an artist, and a teacher, and therefore a passionate believer in the value of art, and in the defiant opposition to what I see as the unforgivable act of censorship. So my liberal side wants to support those who tell me that artists with evil ideas or acts or intentions are harmful; and my artist/teacher/free speech side refuses to even consider the idea of cancelling anyone.

That is, at least in part, what we are talking about: cancel culture. But see, the second I type that, and start to think about opposing the idea of cancelling someone like J.K. Rowling, I start to sound like what I look like: a privileged middle aged white man who has never had to deal with oppression, and is therefore too quick to protect other such privileged white people, and maintain the status quo that continues the oppression and marginalization of people who don’t look or live like me. I start to sound like a Republican, and particularly like the worst of them. I sound like Trump.

Okay. Not really. I’ll never sound like Trump, not least because I can put together a goddamn sentence; much more because I’m not a heartless, shameless narcissist. But still: it’s uncomfortable to side with the bad guys. I want to stay on the side of the angels, as I see them.

But on this? The angels are kinda wrong.

Okay, so let’s lay out the basic premise. If an artist has a bias, it is likely, but not inevitable, for it to show up in their work. This is particularly true of artists from the past, because as time goes on, and society progresses away from the oppressive past, we recognize more about what we do and have done that is wrong — not least because we are finally paying attention to what marginalized and oppressed people have been saying all along. This means that the biases of past artists were not as obvious to them as they are to us, and were also frequently more socially acceptable. Shakespeare, for instance, was atrociously anti-semitic; but that’s partly because Edward I expelled all Jews from England in 1290, and the persecution of Jews continued through Shakespeare’s time: so for Shakespeare, he was likely unaware of how the stereotypes of Jews that he knew were false and offensive. For him, simply having the character of Shylock was very progressive; he wrote a caricature of Jews (And a nasty one — a bloodthirsty moneylender), because that’s all he knew; but then he gave that Jewish caricature an important role in the play — albeit as the antagonist — and a genuinely wonderful speech that argued eloquently for the essential humanity of Jews. And then, of course, he has Shylock saved at the end of The Merchant of Venice by converting to Christianity: so yeah, pretty gross. But my point is that Shakespeare wouldn’t have recognized that as offensive in the same way that we do: he likely would have seen it as open-minded. It’s the same, though on a different scale, with Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird: the work is consciously and intentionally anti-racist, with the portrayal of an African-American man, Tom Robinson, as an innocent victim of the corrupt Alabama courts and jails, who are clearly in the wrong; and with Atticus Finch’s insistence that people be judged by their actions and not their appearance or reputation. But at the same time, there aren’t many better examples of the “White savior complex,” the idea that African-Americans are incapable of fighting for their rights, defending their own against racism and racists, just generally incapable of solving their own problems — and thus in need of rescue by high-minded White heroes. Atticus rides in on his white horse to save the day, and the Black population of Maycomb are immensely grateful and also extremely deferential, standing for him as he passes from the courtroom, and even doing the same for his children when Scout and Jem go to Calpurnia’s church. The book centers the White experience of racism, with the Black characters serving as background. But again, considering the 1960 publication date, and the author’s upbringing in Alabama in the 1930’s, it’s a damn progressive novel — which we can now see is problematic. I hate reading the scene where the people at Calpurnia’s church line up and take off their hats for the kids, and though Atticus’s closing argument is one of my favorite speeches in all American literature, there’s a part there where Atticus offers something of an apologetic for Bob Ewell, the appalling villain of the book:

“…We do know in part what Mr. Ewell did; he did what any God-fearing, persevering, respectable white man would do under the circumstances—he swore out a warrant, no doubt signing it with his left hand, and Tom Robinson now sits before you, having taken the oath with the only good hand he possesses—his right hand.
“And so a quiet, respectable, humble Negro who had the unmitigated temerity to ‘feel sorry’ for a white woman has had to put his word against two white people’s.”

Because yes, that line about “God-fearing, persevering, respectable white man” is sarcastic; but it’s sarcastic because Bob Ewell is none of those things other than a White man, and therefore it’s ironic and even absurd that he is playing the role of such a White man: but that argument relies on the idea that swearing out a warrant to arrest the innocent Black man, who was definitely not raping his daughter, is precisely what an actual God-fearing, persevering, respectable White man (Henceforth a GFPRWM) would in fact do. And that’s gross. As is Atticus’s complimentary description of Tom which focuses on him being “quiet” and “respectful,” rather than, say, dignified and respectable.

So in both of these cases, as in countless others, the bias of the artist is clearly and indelibly represented in the work. And that, I have no disagreement, degrades the work and takes away from any positive impact the work may have. The fact that neither author would necessarily have seen their art as racist or even insulting is beside the fact: we now recognize these works as such — and we’re right, because the authors were blinded by bias and cultural ignorance.

But does that bias, and that degradation it causes, mean that the work should be eliminated from our culture? Forgotten, put aside, replaced with something more current and aware?

Maybe. In some cases. In these two cases, no.

I think that, while the work shows bias and is offensive, these two examples (and others, like Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn) are also of such high quality and such important influence on our society, that the negative aspects do not entirely negate and disqualify the positive aspects. There are cases (like Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, which is both deeply racist and also pretty dang stupid as a book, even though Twain’s writing craft is always brilliant) where the negative aspects do override the positive aspects, because the positive aspects are smaller, or the negative aspects are worse; another fine example would probably be Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, interesting for historical study but otherwise definitely worth being consigned to the ash heap of history. (Clarification: I’ve never read Mein Kampf. It may be better than how I am describing it. But I doubt it. And there the author is SO bad that even work of Shakespeare’s quality should probably be discarded. I mean, it’s Hitler.)

But the important point is this: the negative aspects of the author and the work do detract, yes. But the positive aspects of the author and the work should be seen as pushing the needle back the other way, weighing in on the good side and thus counterbalancing some or even all of the negative aspects. Which means that we can’t simply discard every work by every artist we disagree with, even if that would be easy and feel nice. These decisions need to be made, even though they are hard; there isn’t a simple, fast, obvious rule. Each case should be decided individually, on its own merits — and as individual pieces, not merely one decision about the artist’s entire body of work. I would argue that the work, and our society, gains something positive by the simple process of having those conversations, even if they are difficult.

This is where I part ways with many of my fellow liberals who participate in or support what is often called “cancel culture.” The label “cancel culture” is itself biased and offensive; it is a sarcastic label, applied by the right to people on the left, which has come to be taken seriously by those on the right without any sense of humor or proportion; saying that people were cancelled because of their misdeeds and misstatements and bad personal ideologies or habits was originally a joke, though a biting one that was sometimes serious; and it gained initial popularity on “Black Twitter” — though I’m sure that’s a coincidence, and the opposition to cancelling and cancel culture from the right is in no way related. (More detail here.)

Cancelling someone often means a total separation, a total refusal to have anything to do with the person or their work; and I don’t agree with that. As I said, I think artistic work has to be taken on its merits as well as its demerits: and it has to be done on a case-by-case basis. Because if a piece of work does not reflect the creator’s biases or negative ideologies, then the only reason to cancel or refuse to engage with that piece is a moralistic judgment of the person and a sort of self-righteous attempt to remain pure and untainted by association with the offender.

And that’s bullshit.

That is not to say that I support people who have nasty opinions or who are nasty people; and that is where this argument gets even more complicated — with the idea of support. If I subscribe to Andrew Tate’s How To Be A Manly Man videos (Again, I have never actually watched Tate’s content; and I ain’t gonna), then I’m giving him money and adding to his follower count. If I share or promote them, then I am extending his reach and influence. Though, if I subscribe because I want to make fun of him and have specific evidence of what makes him a cripplingly ridiculous shitnozzle, I tend to think that counterbalances the money and the notoriety I add in his favor. Mentioning his name in this here blog is in some ways promoting him, because now people may look him up out of curiosity (Word to the wise: don’t. That is, don’t watch his videos or subscribe to his content. Feel free to read about how Greta Thunberg broke his little man-heart.), but I don’t believe that I am going to gain him followers. I recognize there is some risk of this, because somebody who reads this may look him up out of curiosity, and end up being influenced by his worldview; but I don’t really think that people who read this blog are liable to fall in line with a toxically masculine fucksack like Andrew Tate. I think the same thing about the movement in recent years to never mention the name of a mass-murderer, because some of them have said that they carry out their massacres in order to achieve notoriety; first, I call bullshit on that, because murderous psychopaths are murderous psychopaths, and if you take away one motivation, they’ll find another one; and second, which murderous psychopaths are going to read this blog, or someone’s social media post, and then get a frisson of pleasure at seeing their name? Does that really happen? I don’t buy it.

On the other hand: there is not much lost which is positive if I use general epithets instead of a specific name, like if I mention the school shooter at Sandy Hook without naming him. I don’t lose anything; I guess the phrase “school shooter at Sandy Hook” is longer and a little more unwieldy than his actual name, and one could argue that a murderer who was an attention hound would get just as much pleasure from the notoriety of his actions even if his name weren’t actually included, so naming Sandy Hook takes away the point of leaving out his name (It was Adam Lanza, by the way, and he certainly can’t benefit from me writing his name since he is dead; and the argument that giving him notoriety might inspire other shooters is too unlikely for me to accept); but generally speaking, there isn’t much harm in not writing out a killer’s name. So even if I don’t think it matters, I’m willing to follow the trend there, because it doesn’t cost me anything other than a few extra keystrokes — and considering how many extra words I put in any particular post, well.

You’re a vile one, Dr. Seuss! You have termites in your smile! You have all the tender sweetness of a seasick crocodile, Dr. Seuss…

There is, however, a cost in discarding great art, and particularly in cancelling an artist and all of their work entirely. Dr. Seuss did indeed create a number of deeply racist cartoons when he was illustrating for magazines before becoming the world’s most famous (and in my opinion, best) children’s author and illustrator; and those things are genuinely bad, and do taint his legacy because they change our view of him. But Dr. Seuss’s books are an absolute wonder, and a gift to children as well as to the world. It is not worth losing all of Seuss in order to send a message about people being racist in the 1940s. Similarly, while Mahatma Gandhi was a terrible husband and father, the incredible influence he had on the world should not be thrown aside in order to avoid “promoting” bad behavior by talking about a man who committed such bad behavior. I don’t think simply speaking about a person promotes everything they ever said or did or thought: I think promoting those particular bad works, those bad actions, those bad words, specifically, maybe promotes those negative words and deeds and thoughts — though even then, the context matters, and how you speak of the artist’s work or the politician’s words or the historical figure’s personal life, matters.

As a teacher, I also think that presenting the issues of bias and offensive material in art honestly and fully, with an understanding of the context of the artist and the art, and a clear recognition of both positive and negative impacts of the work, helps to detract from the potential negative influence of art produced by nasty people. H.P. Lovecraft, who created the Cthulhu mythos and the genre of cosmic horror, was a disgusting racist, and you can see that bias in the fact that every one of his protagonists is a white-collar white man, like Lovecraft himself; and frequently in his books, the monstrous demon or god is summoned by a group of non-white people who are frequently described as “sub-human” and shit like that. Again, the author’s bias is clear, and present in his work, and it definitely detracts. But I think if I go in as a teacher of fantasy and science fiction, and choose a story that doesn’t have the same problems (Say, “The Shadow Over Innsmouth,” in which the evil human minions of the evil god are, in fact, not really human — and not because they are not white [they are white New Englanders, just like Lovecraft and the story’s protagonist], but because they are part fish [And another thing that might help to prevent Lovecraft from negatively influencing my students might be pointing out that while he hated non-white people, he actually hated fish even more, which is why so many of his monsters are subaquatic and have fishy characteristics like scales and tentacles and cold blood and slimy skin. He also hated and feared air conditioners. Just sayin’.]), and in teaching it I bring up and show the negative sides of Lovecraft in a negative light for my students — I think that makes the experience overall positive, and creates a positive influence for my students, even though I’d be talking about and teaching something from a racist.

Image by Matthew Childers: who may or may not be a bad person. Or an eldritch monster. Prints available here.

Which is why I teach To Kill a Mockingbird even though it shows the biases of its author; because despite those biases, there is not another work I know of which attacks the same issues with the same brilliant prose and the same ability to captivate teenagers, even 60 years after it was written. When I find a work which does that but without the problems that come with Harper Lee’s book, I will stop teaching To Kill a Mockingbird. But I still won’t tell people not to read it or say its author’s name.

The conversation with my student got difficult because he brought up J.K. Rowling, and also Lewis Carroll. (I’m not going to talk about Lewis Carroll here: because although he is another prime example of my argument, that the vile nature of the artist does not necessarily disqualify the full value of the art, the specifics with Carroll are too toxic and taboo to discuss fairly — because Carroll was a pedophile, which we understandably see as literally the worst kind of person. I understand my student’s point that the fact of Carroll’s attraction to the actual Alice, because it is so closely connected to the work, taints the reading experience for him; I respect that, though I don’t agree. Rowling’s example is better for my overall argument, even though her opinion is also vile.) J.K. Rowling is a TERF: a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. She believes that people who have lived their entire lives with the full biological apparatus of a female person, meaning a womb and ovaries and menstruation — and who have, therefore, suffered from living under an oppressive male patriarchy which commits violence against women without hesitation — are more deserving of the name “woman” than someone who is trans. (Read this for the whole story in detail.) There’s no question for me that this bias is terrible and wrong — because trans women are women, and while the experience of cis women and trans women is different and you can certainly discuss those differences, there’s no good reason at all to argue that one or the other is a “better” or “worse” experience, or more “deserving” of anything — and also that it is a strongly-held part of Rowling’s specific worldview; but I don’t believe that it is a bias which is reflected in the Harry Potter books. Gender, and especially transgenderism, are simply not anything that matters particularly in Harry Potter. The work reflects the author’s biases in that there are more male heroes and villains than female heroes and villains; the Headmaster of Hogwarts is apparently always a man, or an evil woman (Dolores Umbridge) who is fanatically loyal to a man despite the man’s incompetence. But there’s just nothing in there about transgenderism, neither positive nor negative. It’s not a factor. The closest I’ve seen to the issue being present in the works is the idea that Rowling’s prejudices make the books, which are about an outsider who faces constant rejection, but eventually finds a place where he belongs, less wonderful for those, such as people who are trans, who found inspiration in them; and I can see that, and sympathize with those who may feel that way about the books — but that is a subjective response, which may certainly make a person discard the books: but it doesn’t mean that everyone should discard the books.

I do not think we should discard the books. I am a fan and lover and teacher and author of fantasy literature: and in the history of fantasy literature, the most influential and significant author is Tolkien — and the second most influential and significant is Rowling. Her opinions are, to me, nasty and unreasonable; but the books are wonderful, and largely untainted by those disgusting opinions. I recognize the desire to refuse to support Rowling by buying her books, or paying to see movies or other content based on her characters, all of which makes her more money — but I have to call bullshit on the value of a boycott of Rowling: she is the richest goddamn woman in Britain, and one of the richest women in the world. No boycott is ever going to touch her. No boycott, therefore, is ever going to change her opinion. Part of the issue here is her pride, her arrogance, in refusing to back down over this argument; she’s decided this is the hill she will die on, and that’s it. So let her die on it: don’t think that you can starve her out. Now, the article I linked above says that her last two books, written under the pen name Robert Galbraith, are much more connected to the issues of transgenderism and social media; though I haven’t read them, I’ll bet those are much more tainted by Rowling’s biases: and so I’m fine with cancelling those.

But not Harry Potter. Not over this.

There have been a number of commentators on the internet, it seems, who have gone back and looked at Rowling’s masterwork in order to find problems with it; but I am going to call bullshit on those, too. My student, in trying to argue that Rowling was too toxic to accept Harry Potter in our culture, said that the books are anti-Semitic, because Rowling created a race of beings who are short, ugly, deformed, big-nosed, cruel, and deceptive, and who run the banks. No: she gave goblins, who have ALWAYS been all of the descriptors I listed, a place in her magical world. Not a good place, granted, but then goblins have always been evil, as well. Reading that as an intentional negative portrayal of Jewish stereotypes is nonsense. I’ll accept it as a biased depiction of goblins, but I don’t see that as much of a concern. (Also, Griphook, while not really good, shows that the goblins have many positive qualities, and are also deserving of dignity and respect and equal treatment by wizards even if we don’t like them. So for a bigoted screed, it sorta doesn’t hold up.) The next shot was at the House Elves, and how Hermione is seen as ridiculous and stupid for standing up for this enslaved race, while all of the other wizards are entirely fine with slavery; this was described (by my student, again, who probably saw a video explaining this issue, but I have not done the research into it and did not ask for more details during the conversation, so it may have a source I am unaware of.) as supportive of or promoting slavery of a specific race. Probably supposedly an apologetic for slavery, though again, I don’t have the primary source for this. This is also nonsense, because Hermione — who is not alone in her objection to the enslavement of house elves; Harry agrees with her and eventually frees and befriends Dobby — is clearly the one in the right here; the plotline about the house elves is a criticism of the wizard world, and all of the wizards who scoff at Hermione are the ones falling in line with their society’s biases rather than engaging with them and questioning them, even when prompted to by Hermione. And those biases are wrong: even if the house-elves enjoy their situation, as many of them do, they are not seen as in the right, they are not benefiting from their slavery, as actual slavery apologists have argued for centuries. Nobody in Harry Potter says that the elves are better off for being enslaved by the wizards. They, the wizards who support slavery (And let’s note that, other than the elves who work for Hogwarts, the only two family house elves we see directly are both owned by evil families, the Malfoys and the Blacks), are the ones being critiqued, just as Voldemort, who is expressly linked to Nazi ideas and paradigms including racial purity and fascist dictatorships, is certainly not putting forward ideas Rowling agrees with, at least not in the books’ depiction of them. Rowling is certainly not promoting the idea that enslaving the house elves is right: Dobby is one of the best characters in the series, and his death one of the saddest moments in the books.

Frankly, he makes all the other characters look bad.

This, for me, shows the problem with the argument for cancelling someone: people have to go looking for reasons to do it. If the argument for discarding someone entirely stands on its own merits — as I would argue that Hitler’s work as an artist can be discarded summarily and entirely — then you don’t have to go making up shit to make them look bad, or to make the books look bad. But in trying to find something new to say, in a world where a million voices are all shouting at once, people find bad reasons to criticize people who are perfectly deserving of honest criticisms, because the honest criticisms don’t make the people look bad enough for the desired conclusion, that nobody should ever again interact with anything those bad people create. (Or because the people who make up criticisms and pile onto someone who has been singled out for attack online want to say something unique and different to promote their own brand. I’m not in favor of that shit, either. Don’t make your name throwing shit at someone else’s.) And they do the same to the art: Harry Potter is certainly male-dominated, and certainly largely monocultural, owing to the cultural experiences and biases of the author; that’s a fair criticism.

But it ain’t anti-semitic. And it’s not transphobic, either.

What Harry Potter is, is one of the most important and wonderful pieces of art created in the last half century, which has spawned other wonderful pieces of art, like the movies. (Not as good as the books, but then, they never are; the Potter movies are still excellent.) And the value of that art, the fact that in my 23 years of teaching English I have never seen books that inspired readers like Harry Potter did and still does, the fact that these books transformed our culture and gave us a dozen touchstones we can all connect to (Muggles! Dumbledore! Hagrid! He Who Must Not Be Named! Expelliarmus! Avada Kedavra! And on and on and on,), shows that the value of the art far outweighs the failures of the artist.

At least in this case.

The last thing I have to say is to speak up for the value of the right to free speech. It’s become such a political football, tossed around to try to score points in the unending nonsense debates that we use as a way to keep from having to actually understand one another and work together, that it’s maybe hard to consider it honestly for what it is: but this is perhaps the most fundamental right that humans have. Because those are our most fundamental abilities. We are social animals; we are rational animals. We therefore have ideas: and we give life to those ideas by expressing them to others who can understand them. By giving life to our own individual ideas, we give life to ourselves: we give ourselves reason to live. While I don’t think that people whose ideas tend towards removing life, or reason, or freedom, from other people, should be allowed to put their ideas into practice, or to express their ideas without rebuttal, I do believe that they must have their right to try to express their awful thoughts protected; or else we will lose our ability to respond to those terrible ideas. And when only one person is speaking, their words become truth: and that’s when you get genocide. Not as a simple “If A, then B” cause and effect; but limiting freedom of thought and freedom of communication does lead pretty directly to oppressive regimes, which are the ones who actually destroy people and their lives. And there is no communication, no speech and expression, more at risk than art: because so much of our society believes we can always do without it. We can always buy a nice poster instead, of a kitten, maybe. We can always read the poem in a Hallmark card, if we can’t read the poem about oppression. People don’t like those troubling art works: and artists are not and have never been good advocates for themselves (ourselves) or for their work. But when we lose the art, the rest of our speech is not far behind: and with the loss of free speech goes everything else we should care about.

Art is precious. Art is what defines us as a species, along with truth. Art that speaks the truth, even if that truth is mixed with lies and false beliefs, is something we desperately need, always, and often. It can’t be separated from the artist, and it shouldn’t be; we should grapple with it, and with the flawed human who created it, even more closely when it can serve as a way to learn how to be better than we are.

That’s the best we can do.

Pablo Picasso was an arrogant, womanizing son of a bitch. Who created Guernica.

Good Food, Good Meat, Good God, Let’s Eat!

merry and pippin

Food: it’s what’s for dinner. And breakfast, and lunch. Supper. Second breakfast. Elevenses. Afternoon tea. Dessert!

I suspect we can all relate to the hobbits from The Lord of the Rings. They think in a way that we consider acceptable: they love home, and peace and quiet, and friends and family, and food. (Also beer and smoking a “pipeweed” that seems not to be tobacco, exactly… But those are less commonly accepted habits. Still not the worst habits to have, though.) J.R.R. Tolkien used these qualities to make the hobbits relatable because that served to present part of his message to his audience: he wanted people to understand that single individuals, even the smallest and least significant people, can change the world, if they act with courage and honor and loyalty. Not a subtle man, he made the “smallest” literal, and the evil the hobbits fought against as monstrous and demonic as he possibly could. Subtle or not, though, he was right on the money with his ideas on how his audience would feel about the hobbits; and Peter Jackson, bless his heart, was able to capture the same feeling in the movies. And right at the heart of that affection we all feel for the hobbits is food. They love it, we love it. Even when we’re a bit stupid about it, such as when Merry and Pippin steal from Farmer Maggot, or when Sam joins the other two in cooking at night on the side of Weathertop, broadcasting their location to the Nazgul. Of course they don’t think about the consequences of getting or making food: they’re hungry. As someone who has eaten garbage like weeks-old bagels, month-old popcorn, and years-old candy, I can relate.

But the more impressive task that Tolkien and Jackson both tried to accomplish, and I think did accomplish, is creating sympathy for another character who is not cute, who is not friendly, who is not relatable (at least not in the same way), and who does not eat sausages and tomatoes and nice crispy bacon and, most famously, PO-TAY-TOES like a hobbit: Gollum.

Gollum is everything the hobbits are not: he is disgusting to look at, with his stringy hair and his stringy body that he twists into impossible postures, with his broken teeth and twisted features, with his disturbing voice and mannerisms. He is selfish where the hobbits are generous, untrustworthy where they are loyal — evil where they are good. Most importantly, Gollum eats disgusting things, when he eats at all. His preferred meal is fish, which he likes “raw and wrrrrrrrriggling,” as he tells Sam Gamgee. There is more than one moment when Gollum is shown eating fish in a particularly animalistic and disgusting way; one scene that sticks with me is when the film is showing the origins of Gollum, and gives us a slow-motion close-up of Gollum’s rotten teeth sinking into a whole, raw fish, with water — or saliva? Maybe just slime? Which is the most disgusting? — bursting out of it, oozing over his discolored lips and gums. Gives me the cold shivers every time.

Which is, of course, the intent. We are supposed to be disgusted and appalled and horrified by Gollum, first viscerally, and then as the story reaches its climax in Mount Doom, morally and spiritually. But that is not so that we can hate Gollum, because Gollum is not the villain: Gollum is the victim. We are meant to pity Gollum. Gandalf, who knows all, points this out to Frodo in the Mines of Moria: 

Frodo: ‘It’s a pity Bilbo didn’t kill Gollum when he had the chance.’
Gandalf: ‘Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play in it, for good or evil, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.’

And, indeed, it does: when Frodo falls victim to the same corruption that twisted Gollum, it is Gollum’s own corruption that saves the day, that leads to the destruction of the Ring, and Gollum’s own destruction. And it is those same rotten teeth, his willingness to eat what should not be eaten, that allows him to take the evil away from Frodo, while sparing Frodo’s life: by biting off Frodo’s ring finger, Gollum saves him from sharing in Gollum’s fate. If Bilbo had not pitied Gollum, if Frodo had not repeated that same generous response to the vile Gollum and also spared Gollum’s life as Bilbo had done — and if Gollum had not been willing to eat (or at least bite) part of Frodo — then Gollum would not have made it to Mount Doom and taken the Ring, and not only would Frodo have been lost, but the world might have been lost as well, since the Nazgul were at that moment winging their way to the volcano to retrieve their master’s property.

The Nazgûl Returning to Mount Doom | Warrior, The hobbit, Doom

We are to feel sorry for Gollum, who was destroyed by the corruption of the true villain, Sauron and his Ring of Power (Another un-subtle symbol, which simply represents: power. The power that corrupts.). It is not Gollum’s fault that the Ring destroyed him, and so we should not hate him for that; we should pity him for being destroyed. Tolkien gives us some help with that, through the depiction of Smeagol, the hobbit that Gollum once was (and all the associations with the beloved hobbits that come with that history), and the depiction of the beloved character Bilbo’s similar corruption, particularly the moment in Rivendell when he tries to take the Ring from Frodo, and in Peter Jackson’s movie, Bilbo’s face for a moment takes on Gollum’s features (Notice the teeth).

Why didn't Bilbo become a creature like Gollum? - Movies & TV Stack Exchange

But for the most part, Tolkien makes it very, very difficult to pity Gollum, because he is disgusting, because he is contemptuous, because he is vile. And that’s the point: the people who most deserve and need our pity are the people who are most difficult to pity. They are the ones we find disgusting, contemptuous, even vile. Though Tolkien understands our struggle, and gives us a voice through Sam Gamgee and his hatred of Gollum (and the mini-victories Sam wins when he is proven right by Gollum’s betrayal, and when he gets to beat up Gollum, on three separate occasions), he insists that we find it in ourselves to sympathize with the creature: because that is what is required to defeat evil. Pity for those who are hardest to pity is the only way for good to win. Everything the hobbits are is necessary: their courage and generosity and loyalty, even their smallness, are all vital as well; but the pity for the unpitiable is the last requirement. We must find the way to treat Gollum with dignity and respect, no matter what. We must.

Another author, another story, that makes the same argument, and makes it, if anything, even more difficult, is Franz Kafka’s classic story The Metamorphosis. In it, the relatable and even admirable human Gregor Samsa becomes a disgusting, contemptible, vile creature, generally depicted as an insect, but only named as “ein ungeheuer Ungeziefer,” an unclean vermin that is “unfit for sacrifice.” Essentially, something that is too disgusting to eat, if we take sacrifice as the ancients did, in the sense that the sacrifice provides food for the gods. And just like J.R.R. Tolkien, Kafka insists that the reader pity this unpitiable man: that we find a way to see him as a man, as worthy of our sympathy and our love, no matter what.

The Metamorphosis: Kafka, Franz: 9781600964220: Amazon.com: Books

Just as Gollum is introduced to us first as the creature, and only later as Smeagol the hobbit, Gregor is transformed into his monstrous self in the novel’s very first sentence: “One morning, when Gregor Samsa woke from troubled dreams, he found himself transformed in his bed into a horrible vermin (“ein ungeheuer Ungeziefer,” that is).” No explanation for this transformation is ever given, or even guessed at; Gregor himself spends that first morning worrying about being late to work, and how his family will survive if he loses his job — a real question, as Gregor is the only wage-earner for his family of four. But still, one would think that the most prominent thought in the mind of a person who just turned into a cockroach would be something along the lines of “Hey — I just turned into a cockroach. Wonder how that happened?” That is not Gregor’s main thought, and part of the reason Kafka wrote him that way has to be so that he remains relatable, even while he is apparently in the body of an insect: here’s a man who wakes up annoyed because he slept through his alarm, and because he has to go to work; who doesn’t like his job, and doesn’t feel fulfilled. Just like so many of us. He just also happens to be an unclean vermin, for some reason or other.  

Regardless of what happened or how it happened, the important fact in the story is that Gregor is now disgusting. He is unacceptable. When he emerges from his room, the other people — or perhaps I should just say “the people” — react with horror and revulsion:

He had first to slowly turn himself around one of the double doors, and he had to do it very carefully if he did not want to fall flat on his back before entering the room. He was still occupied with this difficult movement, unable to pay attention to anything else, when he heard the chief clerk exclaim a loud “Oh!”, which sounded like the soughing of the wind. Now he also saw him – he was the nearest to the door – his hand pressed against his open mouth and slowly retreating as if driven by a steady and invisible force. Gregor’s mother, her hair still dishevelled from bed despite the chief clerk’s being there, looked at his father. Then she unfolded her arms, took two steps forward towards Gregor and sank down onto the floor into her skirts that spread themselves out around her as her head disappeared down onto her breast. His father looked hostile, and clenched his fists as if wanting to knock Gregor back into his room. Then he looked uncertainly round the living room, covered his eyes with his hands and wept so that his powerful chest shook.

The chief clerk (come to Gregor’s home from his employer to see why Gregor had not arrived at work on time, and to be honest, I find that much more bothersome than the giant insect) shows a gesture of disgust and nausea; Gregor’s mother faints, his father weeps. Perhaps this is not exactly what the audience does when we first see Gollum — but imagine how Gollum’s family would have reacted to him.

As the story goes on, Gregor is given a number of traits that show him first as inhuman — from the rest of that first paragraph, which includes: “He lay on his armour-like back, and if he lifted his head a little he could see his brown belly, slightly domed and divided by arches into stiff sections”, and, “His many legs, pitifully thin compared with the size of the rest of him, waved about helplessly as he looked” — and then as disgusting, when, at the height of his strangeness, he starts crawling over the walls and ceiling, which habit is detected because “he had, after all, left traces of the adhesive from his feet as he crawled about.” Gregor makes us most uncomfortable, seems the most alien, when he presses himself against a framed picture on his wall to keep his family from taking it away from him, for which we are given the strangely inappropriate description “He hurried up onto the picture and pressed himself against its glass, it held him firmly and felt good on his hot belly. This picture at least, now totally covered by Gregor, would certainly be taken away by no-one.” His mother collapses in a faint after seeing “the enormous brown patch against the flowers of the wallpaper.” Gregor has been reduced to a stain, a patch of dirt; still, he is so upsetting that his mother can’t bear to look at him even though she loves him and has hope that he will somehow return to his former state — a redemption that Gollum is also offered through the recovery of his Smeagol personality, though of course, Smeagol is physically no less disgusting than Gollum, and his short time onscreen is soon ended when the Gollum-self returns and takes over once more, and for all his remaining time.

But never is Gregor so disgusting as when he eats. Gregor is first given food after his first shocking emergence; he is driven back into his room by his father, who actually wounds Gregor (and gives us the rather upsetting description “One side of his body lifted itself, he lay at an angle in the doorway, one flank scraped on the white door and was painfully injured, leaving vile brown flecks on it, soon he was stuck fast and would not have been able to move at all by himself, the little legs along one side hung quivering in the air while those on the other side were pressed painfully against the ground.” Nonetheless his father is pitiless: “Then his father gave him a hefty shove from behind which released him from where he was held and sent him flying, and heavily bleeding, deep into his room.”), and it is not until late that evening that Gregor’s sister, Grete, tries to reach out to her brother with food.

Her first attempt is bread soaked in milk, a common food for children and invalids, and one of Gregor’s favorites. At least it used to be.

By the door there was a dish filled with sweetened milk with little pieces of white bread floating in it. He was so pleased he almost laughed, as he was even hungrier than he had been that morning, and immediately dipped his head into the milk, nearly covering his eyes with it. But he soon drew his head back again in disappointment; not only did the pain in his tender left side make it difficult to eat the food – he was only able to eat if his whole body worked together as a snuffling whole – but the milk did not taste at all nice. Milk like this was normally his favourite drink, and his sister had certainly left it there for him because of that, but he turned, almost against his own will, away from the dish and crawled back into the centre of the room.

Shoving his face into the milk up to his eyes is not a great image; but it almost has a silliness to it that makes it acceptable, even close to funny. Not so Grete’s second attempt to provide for her brother (after she first disposes of the uneaten milquetoast, “using a rag, not her bare hands”):

In order to test his taste, she brought him a whole selection of things, all spread out on an old newspaper. There were old, half-rotten vegetables; bones from the evening meal, covered in white sauce that had gone hard; a few raisins and almonds; some cheese that Gregor had declared inedible two days before; a dry roll and some bread spread with butter and salt. As well as all that she had poured some water into the dish, which had probably been permanently set aside for Gregor’s use, and placed it beside them.

One attempt to offer Gregor his favorite food; and then it’s straight to garbage. But it seems to have been a good choice, as Gregor finally digs in:

“Am I less sensitive than I used to be, then?”, he thought, and was already sucking greedily at the cheese which had immediately, almost compellingly, attracted him much more than the other foods on the newspaper. Quickly one after another, his eyes watering with pleasure, he consumed the cheese, the vegetables and the sauce; the fresh foods, on the other hand, he didn’t like at all, and even dragged the things he did want to eat a little way away from them because he couldn’t stand the smell.

Once more, the leftovers are, for Grete, untouchable — corrupted:

“[H]is sister unselfconsciously took a broom and swept up the left-overs, mixing them in with the food he had not even touched at all as if it could not be used any more. She quickly dropped it all into a bin, closed it with its wooden lid, and carried everything out.”

Another trend continues as well: that Gregor is not to be seen. His first attempt to emerge from his room is met with horror and violence (And perhaps it is unimportant, but since my topic is food, that first time his mother faints, she falls onto the breakfast table and knocks over the coffee pot; Gregor, in response, “could not help himself snapping in the air with his jaws at the sight of the flow of coffee.” So maybe it is not a matter of his new self being incapable of eating proper human food.), and immediately afterwards, the doors that had locked the family out of Gregor’s room are now locked to keep him in what has become his prison. Even there, Gregor finds a hiding place for whenever his sister, and then later his mother or the cleaning woman, come into his room: he goes under the couch, and lest they spy even a small part of him, he takes the sheet from his bed and drapes it over the couch as a privacy curtain. Gregor’s safe space gets smaller and smaller. Whenever he does emerge from it, he suffers terribly: after his mother faints when she sees the large brown patch on the wall, Grete leaves the room to get smelling salts, and Gregor, horrified at what he has caused, follows her: he startles her, and she drops a bottle of medicine, cutting Gregor’s face with a shard of glass and splashing caustic liquid on him, as well. She then rushes back into the room and locks Gregor out — the usurpation of Gregor’s once-secure space is now complete  — and Gregor, panicking, crawls all over the walls and ceiling in one of his most insect-like moments, and then collapses — atop the dining table. It’s hard to know if the point here is that Gregor is at maximum visibility, and therefore at his most unacceptable, or if Kafka is making explicit what is only implied: that Gregor himself, while he may now be an unclean vermin unworthy of sacrifice, has up until now been sacrificed — devoured — by his family, who have lived off of his work and his suffering, who have absorbed his kindness and generosity without giving any in return. Perhaps Gregor transforms into an unclean vermin as a defense mechanism: they alienate and abuse him, but at least they no longer consume him.

Whatever the meaning of Gregor’s collapse atop the dining table, the real danger in this moment comes home with Gregor’s father. The proud patriarch had been fading away, his authority reduced along with his income, his power apparently transferring to his son when Gregor became the sole breadwinner. He still had influence: it is he who decides that breakfast should be extensive: “The washing up from breakfast lay on the table; there was so much of it because, for Gregor’s father, breakfast was the most important meal of the day and he would stretch it out for several hours as he sat reading a number of different newspapers.” (Is it petty to note that breakfast is a meal Gregor, who wakes at 4am to get a 5am train to work, is sure to miss every day?) and much of the family’s daily life revolves around him; but he himself had grown weaker. Not any more. As his son becomes incapacitated, the elder Samsa regains his former power, and now when he arrives home, Grete runs to him for help in this crisis, and the father goes to deal with his son:

He took his cap, with its gold monogram from, probably, some bank, and threw it in an arc right across the room onto the sofa, put his hands in his trouser pockets, pushing back the bottom of his long uniform coat, and, with look of determination, walked towards Gregor. He probably did not even know himself what he had in mind, but nonetheless lifted his feet unusually high. Gregor was amazed at the enormous size of the soles of his boots, but wasted no time with that – he knew full well, right from the first day of his new life, that his father thought it necessary to always be extremely strict with him.

That last sentence is questionable, at least where Gregor ascribes his father’s strictness to his new situation post-metamorphosis; after all, this is our first introduction to Gregor’s father:

[S]oon his father came knocking at one of the side doors, gently, but with his fist. “Gregor, Gregor”, he called, “what’s wrong?” And after a short while he called again with a warning deepness in his voice: “Gregor! Gregor!” At the other side door his sister came plaintively: “Gregor? Aren’t you well? Do you need anything?” Gregor answered to both sides: “I’m ready, now”, making an effort to remove all the strangeness from his voice by enunciating very carefully and putting long pauses between each, individual word. His father went back to his breakfast…

Note, again, the father’s real priority. This scene shows us that Gregor’s words are apparently incomprehensible to other people, so his father seems not to get an answer to his question; but having delivered a warning and heard some kind of response, his work is complete and he goes back to his food. Now, in the later scene, Mr. Samsa is once again not interested in what Gregor has to say, why he is where he is; he just wants to put him back where he belongs. It is impossible to miss his attitude towards his insect son in the way he lifts his feet so high, as if preparing to stomp the bug flat (The first time he chased Gregor back into his room, he did it with a folded newspaper; another anti-bug strategy, it seems.).

But he does not, in fact, stomp on Gregor: instead he attacks his son in a particularly unusual way: with food.

[T]hen, right beside him, lightly tossed, something flew down and rolled in front of him. It was an apple; then another one immediately flew at him; Gregor froze in shock; there was no longer any point in running as his father had decided to bombard him. He had filled his pockets with fruit from the bowl on the sideboard and now, without even taking the time for careful aim, threw one apple after another. These little, red apples rolled about on the floor, knocking into each other as if they had electric motors. An apple thrown without much force glanced against Gregor’s back and slid off without doing any harm. Another one however, immediately following it, hit squarely and lodged in his back; Gregor wanted to drag himself away, as if he could remove the surprising, the incredible pain by changing his position; but he felt as if nailed to the spot and spread himself out, all his senses in confusion.

The most interesting element here is the description of the apples “knocking into each other as if they had electric motors.” It’s hard to know what to make of that. Perhaps the apples represent the essence of the modern, industrial era, nature turned into machinery, turned hollow and cold and efficient — and, of course, inedible. Gregor clearly doesn’t belong in the world of industry, with his reluctance to work himself to death, his general indifference to the conspicuous consumption that signals wealth and prosperity, his anxiety where his pugnacious arrogance should be, the arrogance of a man of business: a man like the chief clerk, and like his father. Gregor is far too apologetic, far too concerned with other people’s happiness, far too willing to sacrifice himself; perhaps that is why he is seen, and sees himself, as something unworthy. It almost feels as though the apples have the right attitude: bustling about, bumping into each other, constantly on the go; they become weapons so easily, turned against one another, against a harmless innocent — because whatever else Gregor may be, unclean, unworthy, unacceptable, he is also harmless. Maybe he is too much like the actual fruit, too little like what they become in his father’s hands.

Then again, if we may see mechanical, electrical fruit, turned from sustenance into a weapon, as corrupt, then perhaps the one whom the fruit represent is not Gregor: but his father. Perhaps this is another depiction of the idea that Tolkien represented with a magic ring: power corrupts. 

After this, the Samsas reach an uneasy sort of truce, with the family paying less and less attention to Gregor, and he, in turn, having a bit more freedom, as they open his doors so that he can observe the family. But he observes them turn even further away from him, focusing in more and more on the father, whose self-centered willingness to be coddled, to be the center of attention, lets him allow his wife and daughter to  literally carry him to bed every night. The family also, more interested in money and in presenting a proper appearance to outsiders, allow those outsiders in, in the form of three renters who move into a spare room in the flat; these three now become yet another focus for the family’s attention and desire to please, yet another person (Because they are clearly a single unit, like a Greek chorus of citizens) who can stand between Gregor and any care his family might offer. Gregor’s sister and mother cook for the renters: they give Gregor more garbage to eat, spending less and less time thinking about whether Gregor is happy and his needs are met, cleaning apathetically and indifferently, clearing away his leftovers without caring if he ate or not. Gregor, roused at last to anger by his treatment at the hands of his family, wishes to return to eating human food, at least as a symbol of his value (though notice that this is only at some times; at other times, in other moods, he still, still, wishes to look after his family):

Other times he was not at all in the mood to look after his family, he was filled with simple rage about the lack of attention he was shown, and although he could think of nothing he would have wanted, he made plans of how he could get into the pantry where he could take all the things he was entitled to, even if he was not hungry.

Garbage, in fact, comes to define Gregor, and his space eventually becomes a storeroom, and then simply a rubbish heap: 

They had got into the habit of putting things into this room that they had no room for anywhere else…many things had become superfluous which, although they could not be sold, the family did not wish to discard. All these things found their way into Gregor’s room. The dustbins from the kitchen found their way in there too. The charwoman was always in a hurry, and anything she couldn’t use for the time being she would just chuck in there. He, fortunately, would usually see no more than the object and the hand that held it. The woman most likely meant to fetch the things back out again when she had time and the opportunity, or to throw everything out in one go, but what actually happened was that they were left where they landed when they had first been thrown unless Gregor made his way through the junk and moved it somewhere else.

Their indifference and neglect seems to drain Gregor’s energy, and he becomes more and more inert — though perhaps it is because of his injury, which is never dealt with; but whatever the reason, the result is that Gregor stops eating, though he never stops wanting to eat, particularly when he sees how well his family feeds their lodgers:

The gentlemen stood as one, and mumbled something into their beards. Then, once they were alone, they ate in near perfect silence. It seemed remarkable to Gregor that above all the various noises of eating their chewing teeth could still be heard, as if they had wanted to show Gregor that you need teeth in order to eat and it was not possible to perform anything with jaws that are toothless however nice they might be. “I’d like to eat something”, said Gregor anxiously, “but not anything like they’re eating. They do feed themselves. And here I am, dying!”

Gregor wants to eat because to eat means that he has been provided with food: in his case, because he cannot provide it for himself, it shows that he is cared for, that he is valued enough, to be fed. Of course: providing food for another is one of our most basic gifts, one of our most symbolic acts to show that we accept another, value another, enough to give them what they need to live. Sharing food is creating a connection, not only through the gift of a necessity (which means the giver must sacrifice some of their own necessary sustenance, an act of altruism that defines our survival strategy as a social animal rather than as a pure individual), but through the recognition that you and I eat the same thing. It is no accident that Gollum is incapable of eating the food that sustains Frodo and Sam; since Tolkien had a strong pro-Elf bias, it is a symbol of Gollum’s corruption and impurity that everything Elvish is anathema to him, including the lembas and Sam’s rope, which burns his skin. But this is our sign that Gollum is not good at his heart, that he is dangerous: he won’t eat the food. Indeed, it is food that Gollum uses to betray Sam and corrupt Frodo, who is already being corrupted by the Ring: as they climb the Black Stair towards Shelob’s cave, Gollum throws away the hobbits’ remaining food and then blames Sam, saying Sam ate it rather than share it with Frodo. This (false) betrayal of their partnership pushes Frodo to turn on Sam and send him away, because the way out of a man’s heart is also through his stomach.

Doubly true of hobbits.

Food is one of our defining characteristics, one of the clearest cultural markers; and thus, also, it is one way we separate ourselves from others: what we eat, versus what they eat. And in this case, it is more than simply a matter of different tastes: Gregor is given items that his family no longer recognizes as food. It is waste, it is refuse.

And we are what we eat.

So Gregor is not properly fed, and so he does not eat. He grows weaker and weaker, suffering more and more pain and exhaustion. Finally, Gregor himself becomes little more than garbage:

[H]e was covered in the dust that lay everywhere in his room and flew up at the slightest movement; he carried threads, hairs, and remains of food about on his back and sides; he was much too indifferent to everything now to lay on his back and wipe himself on the carpet like he had used to do several times a day.

And then at last, mercifully, he dies. He makes one last attempt to come out of his room and connect to his family, when Grete puts on a violin concert for the renters, and Gregor is enchanted by the music; but he is spotted, and the renters use the opportunity to reject the Samsa family entirely, declaring that they will be moving out and they will not be paying any rent, due to the shocking imposition of having had to live in the same apartment as that thing. Grete turns on her brother, now calling Gregor “it” and saying, “It’s got to go!” Gregor returns, one last time, to his room, and is locked in for the last time.

“What now, then?”, Gregor asked himself as he looked round in the darkness. He soon made the discovery that he could no longer move at all. This was no surprise to him, it seemed rather that being able to actually move around on those spindly little legs until then was unnatural. He also felt relatively comfortable. It is true that his entire body was aching, but the pain seemed to be slowly getting weaker and weaker and would finally disappear altogether. He could already hardly feel the decayed apple in his back or the inflamed area around it, which was entirely covered in white dust. He thought back of his family with emotion and love. If it was possible, he felt that he must go away even more strongly than his sister. He remained in this state of empty and peaceful rumination until he heard the clock tower strike three in the morning. He watched as it slowly began to get light everywhere outside the window too. Then, without his willing it, his head sank down completely, and his last breath flowed weakly from his nostrils.

In the end, Gregor is quite literally thrown away by the charwoman who had been filling his room with garbage. And when he is gone, the family is at last free, and happy. Happy ending! Hooray!

But of course it isn’t a happy ending. That would only be possible if the heroes of the story were the Samsa family, and the villain were Gregor, the monstrous insect who ruins their lives, but who they are eventually freed of, to live out the rest of their lives in bliss.  Of course that’s not it: the message of the story, the point Kafka is making, is not that the family would have been better off without Gregor; nor that terrible freak occurrences, such as the spontaneous transformation of a man into an insect, lead to terrible outcomes. 

The point is this:

No-one dared to remove the apple lodged in Gregor’s flesh, so it remained there as a visible reminder of his injury. He had suffered it there for more than a month, and his condition seemed serious enough to remind even his father that Gregor, despite his current sad and revolting form, was a family member who could not be treated as an enemy. On the contrary, as a family there was a duty to swallow any revulsion for him and to be patient, just to be patient.

Kafka says here, outright, how Gregor should be treated: insect or not (And I believe he is not, that he does not actually transform, but merely sees himself as his family sees him, as unworthy, as contemptible, as a monster: as inhuman. But I think that no matter how much he may feel like an ungeheuer Ungeziefer, he remains, both in his essence and in his actual physical form, human. Notice the original cover image, which does not show a bug.), incapable of earning money or not, he is a member of this family, and he should be treated with patience, and kindness. Instead, the family attacks him, harms him, refuses to feed or care for him, locks him away from them, and then ignores him in his pain and suffering, his sadness and loneliness, until he dies; and then they are relieved to be rid of him. I think it is especially telling that Kafka says “no one dared” to remove the apple from Gregor’s back; whether they are too disgusted by Gregor’s appearance, or too afraid to stand in opposition to his father’s will, they are ungenerous cowards. They are not the heroes of this fairy tale. They are the villains.

All people, all of us, have a share of this duty to all others who do not actively treat us as enemies: to treat others with kindness, to swallow any revulsion we may feel, no matter how monstrous they may be, and to be patient, just be patient. (And my God, what a small and simple request: only for patience. And my God, how we fail to give it.) Gregor shows us the right way, when, even as he is dying from his family’s neglect and violence, he thinks of them with empathy and love. While they let him be thrown away, first when he is alive, and then when he is dead. They do treat him as an enemy: and he loves them to his last breath. 

I think it is clear, then, who in this story is truly human — and who is garbage. 

But no: I can’t say that. Didn’t I just say that our duty as humans is to be patient with each other, to ignore the revulsion we may feel for those who act differently, look differently than we would want them to, and to treat them, even the most monstrous, with kindness and love — or at least with patience? Aren’t we all members of one extended family, really, considering how very much we have in common with each other, in comparison to how little we have in common with everything else in the universe? After all, we all breathe the same air, we all walk the same Earth — we all eat the same food. 

I do not want to be like Gollum: he is a murderer. I don’t even want to be like Bilbo, who wants the Ring more than he can admit to himself, though at least Bilbo doesn’t attack Frodo and bite his finger off in order to get the Ring. I admit that I don’t want to be like Gregor, either; I pity him, in his suffering, in his contempt for himself, in his attachment to a family who doesn’t deserve him. Most of all, though, I do not want to be like the Samsa family; and so I will be patient with them. I will resist the temptation to turn away in disgust. I will treat them as fellow humans. As my family.

Though I’m not sharing any of my food with them.

Seinfeld - NO SOUP FOR YOU! - The Soup Nazi | Facebook

Serving the Battle-God

There’s a poem that I have taught for years, a piece by the American author, journalist, and poet Stephen Crane. I’m reminded of it every time Memorial Day or Veterans’ Day rolls around; every time my Facebook feed is filled with “God Bless the Military” statements and sentiments. Here it is.

“Do not weep, maiden, for war is kind”

Do not weep, maiden, for war is kind.
Because your lover threw wild hands toward the sky
And the affrighted steed ran on alone,
Do not weep.
War is kind.

Hoarse, booming drums of the regiment,
Little souls who thirst for fight,
These men were born to drill and die.
The unexplained glory flies above them,
Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom—
A field where a thousand corpses lie.

Do not weep, babe, for war is kind.
Because your father tumbled in the yellow trenches,
Raged at his breast, gulped and died,
Do not weep.
War is kind.

Swift, blazing flag of the regiment,
Eagle with crest of red and gold,
These men were born to drill and die.
Point for them the virtue of slaughter,
Make plain to them the excellence of killing
And a field where a thousand corpses lie.

Mother whose heart hung humble as a button
On the bright splendid shroud of your son,
Do not weep.
War is kind.

I love this poem. Not only has it helped to clarify my own feelings about the military, but it has served as an incredibly useful teaching tool over the years. It’s become one of my favorite lessons, the one I look forward to and plan around. Even though it is probably the saddest thing I teach, both for subject matter, and because, no matter how well I teach it, whether my students understand it as I do or not — it doesn’t change the U.S. military. I can’t kill the Battle-God.

I lead my students through this first as though it were sincere: we skip the second and fourth stanzas, and I gloss over the specifics of the imagery; we focus on the apparent speaker, and who that person might be. It seems, based on the speaker’s attempts to comfort the surviving relatives — first sweetheart, then child, then mother — of soldiers killed in battle, that the speaker would be a military spokesman, the guy who writes the letter home or delivers the telegram that says “We regret to inform you . . .” I get my students to make a list of the kinds of things this familiar figure would say: Your loved one was very brave. He was a patriot, he was a hero. He died for a greater good, fighting for his country. He didn’t suffer. On the surface, it all seems to fit, and they get it quickly.

Then we go back and look more carefully at the images. In the first stanza, the lover throws wild hands toward the sky, and the affrighted steed runs on alone. So the man was shot while riding a horse into battle. But for me, the steed running on is a telling detail: I would think the horse, terrified by the sights and sounds and smells of the battle, and by the sudden violent loss of his rider, would run away from the fighting. But if the steed runs on — that implies it was already going that way. So perhaps this man was shot in the back while fleeing, perhaps even by his own side, killed as a deserter. I ask the students: doesn’t it seem strange that a military man would describe this scene so specifically to that dead man’s sweetheart — and then afterwards tell her not to cry, because war, which killed her terrified (and cowardly) lover, is kind?

Maybe I’m reading too much into that one. But look at the third stanza. Look at the details in the description of the father dying — see how painful and pathetic it is? And realize that this is, apparently, being described to that dead man’s child. His young child, because it is a “babe.” (I often think of the scene with Christopher Walken and the gold watch in Pulp Fiction, one of the most horrifyingly amusing scenes I know of in any movie.) I mime this for my students: I crouch down with my hands on my knees, and bounce as I say, in that cheerful sing-song we use to ask little kids if they want to see Santa Claus or ride the pony: “Okay, little boy, let me tell you about your daddy: he was shot in the chest, fell on his face in the mud, and died choking on his own blood!” Then I stand up and say, in an aggressively sarcastic tone, “Oh — and don’t cry. Because war is kind.” It’s effective.

After I take them through the fifth stanza, which I think of as ironically juxtaposing the humble, unimportant mother (whose heart is but a button) with the bright, splendid shroud of the son (I like connecting this to the American flag we drape over soldiers’ coffins, though Crane probably just meant the actual white winding sheet. There’s another one, too: the yellow trenches the dying man chokes in in the third stanza really should be a reference to the use of mustard gas in World War I — but Stephen Crane died in 1900, so, nope. Possibly a reference to yellow fever, since he did cover the Spanish-American War, where more soldiers died of disease than from bullets and bombs.) — a pair of images that lionizes the dead man and devalues the living, sorrowing mother — I have them look at the second and fourth stanzas, where the speaker changes and the tone changes. These stanzas, with their references to drums and glory and swift, blazing regimental flags, seem much more like the words of a pro-military warmonger, at first. I point out for them the irony in the comparison between the little souls, pointless (“The unexplained glory flies above them,” either the American flag, or the idea of gloriously dying in war, or both), valueless (“These men were born to drill and die,” and nothing else), and the line “Great is the Battle-God.” I ask them who the Battle-God is; though I have to get them past the idea that it is Ares — there is always at least one who is very proud to know this fact — since that is more symbolic than I need it to be. I ask them who is made great by battle — and who, in truth, is made greater when the losses in that battle are greater. Who rules over a kingdom of a thousand corpses? The answer I want is: the generals. The presidents. The ones who send the little souls to die, and are made famous by their ability to order men killed. I ask them how on Earth it can be said that slaughter is virtuous and killing excellent — and I help them recognize that there is really only one place in our world where it is possible to be an excellent killer, and it is a virtue to wipe out swaths of people as if they were lambs being slaughtered; that one place is, of course, war.

Yup. War is kind.

This poem, all in all, strikes me as a criticism of the military: not the soldiers, though they are certainly seen as fools or children who die for no good reason; and not the officers who would bring the sad news home to the survivors, if they are sincere in their desire to comfort — that’s the point of the list of common statements these people would use: there is no way that anyone would actually talk to a family member the way the speaker in this poem does, as he says quite the opposite of what we would expect: your lover is a coward; your father died in incredible pain; your son only matters because he died, and you don’t matter at all. But if those people, those officers, are knowingly lying about the experiences of those who died in war, there can only be one reason: they want that child, that babe, to grow up and — follow in his father’s footsteps. They want the family members to believe that those who die in war were heroes, every one of them, even though the officer telling them of this heroism knows the truth: these soldiers died for nothing, in great pain and fear, because the only thing that matters is that they die: their corpses make the Battle-God great. Those liars serve the Battle-Gods, and they make a new generation of little souls thirst for fight; they ensure that their destiny, which could otherwise be grand and great, as any human’s could be, is — to drill and die. This poem criticizes two groups: those who profit from the deaths of soldiers — the Battle-Gods — and those who lie to people in order to get men to agree to be soldiers, and to die for the aggrandizement of the Battle-Gods. The recruiters.

And that’s why I think of it every Memorial Day. Because that’s exactly how I feel about the military.

Those men and women who volunteer to fight because they want to protect innocent lives, because they believe in the cause, or in their country, I have great respect for, in some ways. There is no question to me that the willingness to die for the safety and well-being of another person is one of the most honorable qualities a person can have. I think it less honorable, but still virtuous, to be willing to fight and kill for the same cause — for the sake of other people. This is why I have great respect, too, for police and firefighters and other people who put themselves into harm’s way in order to protect the rest of us. They are brave, they are strong, they are noble and good.

That’s the good stuff. Now here’s the bad.

Our military is not always used to serve the greater good. It is sometimes, because the Army Corps of Engineers builds things, and because the military has been used for rescue missions, for relief missions, and, sometimes, for peacekeeping; I think the National Guard has been used more frequently and reasonably in this way, simply because it is the National Guard, and the U.S. hasn’t been invaded in two hundred years. The National Guard, and the Coast Guard, then become large bodies of well-equipped, well-trained people serving to keep people safe and happy. This is what the military should do, and the only branches that should still exist, in my opinion. Yes, some wars — World War II and the American Civil War, from the Union’s perspective — are actually fought for the greater good; but even those wars do not require a standing military like the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. We could send our National Guard to fight, if necessity required it; even better, maybe we could offer some genuine support, troops and materiel, to the United Nations. Imagine what they could do with the military might of the U.S. Then ask yourself why the U.N. doesn’t have that already.

Because our military is, and has always been, used to do harm. They are sent to foreign lands to kill and destroy, not to help people, but to serve the “national interest.” Not to keep us safe, but to achieve policy goals. Not to die so that others may live — but to make the Battle-God great with their corpses. And this is a crime, and a tragedy, without exception. I refuse to accept, for instance, that the millions who died in Vietnam served any greater purpose, for the United States. For the Vietnamese, one could argue that they died protecting their country from a terrible foe, a foreign aggressor who dropped millions of tons of high explosives, incendiaries, and poison on their country; perhaps that was worth all the murder, all the destruction, all the death. But for us? For the U.S.? What was that war but evil? The same for the war in Iraq, and the extended war in Afghanistan. Perhaps you could argue that Osama bin Laden needed to die for 9/11, but the argument is troubled by the fact that we made bin Laden, training him to fight the Soviets in the ’80’s, and by the fact that we invaded and destroyed Afghanistan but retain strong ties with Saudi Arabia, and with Israel, and with Turkey, and with dozens of other countries with histories of terrible human rights abuses.

Not to mention our own record in that area. How any nation that manned Abu Ghraib, that STILL maintains Guantanamo Bay, can claim to be protecting people or freedom or human rights, is beyond me.

Now it becomes a question of, not the greater good, but the greater evil. It is bad enough to attack a sovereign nation for your own political purposes, bad enough to kill for your ideals; but to use good people as your weapons to do that? Because those people who join the military for noble reasons, the ones who are willing to die for others, are the best of people, those who are willing to send those good people to their deaths, must be the worst of people. They are even more vile when they do it for selfish reasons, which is why Dick Cheney (Who knowingly lied us into war) is a worse man than George W. Bush (Who, for the most part, stupidly believed what he was told, and was otherwise knowingly selfish and arrogant), who is a worse man than Barack Obama. But all of them sent good people to die unnecessarily, and thus are they all villains.

But are even those people the worst?

I think it — let’s say naive — to join the U.S. military for honorable and noble reasons, in the modern era. Perhaps it made sense in the nation’s first century, though I personally consider the American Revolution a political war, not a war for the greater good (Yeah, we won our freedom from the British. So did Canada. How many people died for that one?), and the Mexican-American War and the Indian Wars were nothing but bad. But today, a thinking person cannot believe that joining the military will be all noble or all good. Because in this country, which does still have free speech and a free press, I think it impossible to believe the military only does good things, unless one possesses great skill in the most Orwellian of doublethink, or the deepest ethnocentric prejudices (“Everything we do is good, because ‘Merica!”).

Unless, of course, one is actively, aggressively, and successfully lied to, exactly when one is most vulnerable.

That’s why the worst people in the world, in relation to the U.S. military — if it is not the Battle-Gods themselves, that is — are recruiters.

That’s who Stephen Crane was criticizing in his poem: those who would lie to the family members, who would try to make war seem glorious and good when it is nothing but evil and suffering; those who knowingly manipulate and deceive, in order to bring fresh meat to the grinder, in order to aggrandize the Battle-Gods, to make their kingdoms — not a thousand corpses, but tens of thousands, a million. More.

The people who show up at high schools, particularly high schools with low graduation rates, with terrible college attendance rates, where the local community is economically depressed (Because I never once saw a recruiter in my own upper-class public high school, and I have not seen a single recruiter in the school where I teach now, which has a near-100% college attendance rate — but they were there every damn week in St. Helens, Oregon, which is everything I just described.), and stand there in clean, well-pressed uniforms, challenging children to perform feats of strength — as though it matters in the military how many goddamn pull-ups you can do, over how many people you can kill or how slowly you can die — and handing out prizes to those who “win,” and telling children who don’t know any better that: the U.S. Military is honorable, and glorious, and good; that it protects our freedoms and it makes the world safe for democracy; that joining up will make them better people, give them a better future, and offer them adventure and a wonderful life.

I would excuse those people if I believed that they actually thought what they said was true. And inasmuch as the military uses new recruits to bring in other recruits — which they do, in one of the more callous and appalling pyramid schemes I know of, as they actually offer promotions to those who can lure in larger numbers of fellow victims — I don’t blame the actual people who try to tell their friend that they should join up, too. They are naive children, who have been manipulated and lied to themselves. But that isn’t who mans the recruiting offices, or the tables at high school lunchtimes. Those are the older soldiers. The ones who know better, and who do it anyway. They are the ones who make the military seem good, so that good people will join, so that they can then be used, by evil men, to do evil.

Perhaps the most insidious and harmful part of this process now is the tendency of the military, since World War II and the G.I. Bill, to glorify the military as something other than a military: they make the military sound like a job, rather than an institution that creates death. With this, you have people signing up to serve in the military who don’t have noble reasons, nor evil ones; they just don’t know what else to do with themselves. This is perhaps the worst, because it is the easiest: for these people, you don’t even have to lie that much. The GI Bill is a real thing; the military does offer benefits to veterans; you can indeed learn skills that will serve you later in life. All those things are true. To talk about this, as a recruiter, you just have to ignore two things: one, the vast majority of soldiers do not do skilled work, and so will gain nothing of practical use — particularly not those who may after service have access to money for college, but have not one of the academic skills necessary to succeed in college, possibly because they blew off high school knowing they would just be going into the military at 18 — and two, you have to ignore that the reason the military exists is to kill, and the first job of any soldier is to die. If you can ignore those things as a recruiter, you can make the military sound just fabulous; if you can ignore those things as a recruit, you can look forward to your service. You can also see the military as a way to cure your ills, your laziness, your juvenile delinquency, your chemical addictions, your weight problem; all of these are put forward as valid reasons to sign up, and all of them have brought in new corpses for the kingdom. Hell: we even see military service as a way to get laid, because you get in shape and get a cool uniform and you get to be a badass — and women loooooove a badass in uniform with six-pack abs. Just watch Top Gun. That’ll prove it.

So that’s what I think about, when I see memes honoring soldiers. I think: Did you really sign up to protect freedoms? Or was it just that you couldn’t get a job? If you did sign up to protect freedom, did you think of fighting the Taliban in the hills of Afghanistan, quite literally on the other side of the world, and so removed from anything even remotely good for America that nobody even tries to justify the war any more beyond “You broke it, you bought it?” If you believed fighting in Afghanistan would be noble, who lied to you? And how hard did they have to work to convince you?

It all makes it very hard to look at a serviceman and say “Thank you.” I know it’s not their fault, and I know that many of them do have genuinely noble intentions in joining the military; some of them have noble intentions despite going into it with eyes wide open; and to those people, for their intent, I am indeed grateful, and I will salute them, and I will thank them. The same for those veterans who fought in the past, and those who died, for actual noble causes.

But most of the time, I just feel sorry for them, these little souls who thirst for fight, these men who were born to drill and die — or at least that is what they are told, by the Battle-Gods and their vile minions. All they are is more corpses for the kingdom.
Let me close with another poem, this one by a soldier who died, for his country, soon after writing this.

Dulce Et Decorum Est
by Wilfred Owen

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!– An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.–
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.