Hieronymous the Anonymous

Beyond good and evil

Image via Wikipedia

The Melbourne Writers Festival was on again last week. One of the visiting writers was Bernard Schlink. the author, most notably, of The Reader, which was made into a movie last year.

For those who don't know the story is about a German schoolboy who in the period 10 years or so after WW2 meets and forms a relationship with an older woman. Their affair is brief but memorable, particularly for an adolescent and innocent boy. They lose contact until years later, the boy now a man and studying to become a lawyer, he attends a landmark trial as part of his studies. A bunch of women, formerly guards from a concentration camp, are being tried for the horrible deaths of their charges in the last days of the war. As he sits there in the gallery he recognises one, Hanna, the woman who years before he had lost his virginity to. I won't go any further than this, except to say that the sight of her in that court room shakes him to his roots. It causes him to question and to wonder and finally, tentatively, to reach out to her. The remainder of the book examines the complex question of guilt, responsibility and justice. And love.

I had intentions to attend the festival, but left it too late, as often I do. I liked this book, and I enjoyed the movie when I saw it earlier this year, so if I had have known that Schlink was attending I might have made a better effort to be there. I've read his stories as well, and find his writing to be intelligent and gently provocative, the sort of writing that makes you stop to question easy assumptions, to go deeper than received wisdom would have you. He is a German writer who probes what it means to be German post the holocaust.

I read on the weekend about a session he was the guest speaker at. I don't know what he said, but quite aptly it was entitled 'Guilt about the Past'. Predictably maybe, it provoked some fierce comment. As I don't know what he said I can't comment on that, but I will on the wider subject of his book and the questions it poses.

The Holocaust as an event and German responsibility for it is never going to be an easy subject - which is good reason why it should be explored. Unfortunately subjects like this will often produce emotional, ill-considered and extreme reactions. You can understand that, but it's no reason to sweep it under the carpet and condemn any reasoned discussion of it with trite generalisations and cliches. Regardless of subject, that's wrong.

A couple of months ago I read a review of a new history of Germany during WW2. The reviewer in passing alludes to The Reader (book and movie) with what seemed unseemly contempt. He suggested that it was an apologia for what had happened in the war, and went further to claim that Germans had not faced up to the war, the holocaust, and their culpability.

Reading I felt a rare moment of outrage, as much for the sloppy and unprofessional thinking as anything else. Then I thought how unreasonable it was that he should be critical of a book looking to examine the very thing he accused Germans of avoiding. It was ridiculous.

For what it's worth, I'm no expert on German culture, but my sense is that Germans have had an almost unhealthy focus on the the war and their responsibility for it. And the book, far from seeking to absolve Germans is actually a very finely tuned and subtle examination of responsibility and guilt. It may offend some, but it goes way beyond stereotypes of good and evil - as literature should. Which brings us back to the Writers Festival.

There were a number of published responses to Schlink's talk, but there was one particularly that offended my intelligence. Louise Adler is a well known publisher and second generation Holocaust survivor. You would expect her to have strong opinions and fiercely held beliefs. She essentially decried the way that Hanna, the camp guard in The Reader, had been humanised in the book and film. She had been responsible for atrocities she said, and yet we were being asked to understand her. This much I could appreciate reading, it was an entirely understandable objection, though not one I could agree with.

Her next comments though went to the very heart of the difference in our perspectives, and perhaps our philosophies. "What the Holocaust demands of us is distance, not closeness," she said.

It took me a moment for this to sink in. What was she saying? What does she mean by distance? That we should put it up on the top shelf and never examine it? That it is too horrible an event to explain? And then as I reflected further it seemed to me to be a puerile, glib remark that sounds cleverer than what it is.

Don't get me wrong on this. In the history of mankind there is no more tragic, barbarous event than the Holocaust. As for those who perpetrated those crimes they should be tracked down and held to account for what they did. It's not about retribution, not in my eyes anyway, rather it is an acknowledgement of what happened. With that accounting done I would let them go - I see no value in locking up old men for what they did 60 years ago, no matter how heinous.

These are the realities of justice, of crime and punishment, they are the bedrock upon which our society is built. It is black and white - in the eyes of the law one is either guilty or innocent, and dealt with accordingly. That is as it should be, yet nothing in the world is purely black and white. Schlink, a lawyer himself and student of the judicial process, knows this.

Around the world right now there are doddery old men at large who once committed terrible crimes. Many will have lived lives of unimpeachable virtue since. They will have families, wives and children and grandchildren who know nothing of what they did and love them instead for the kindly old man they are. Some will be remorseful for what they did, they will show contrition for what they were a willing part of. Is it enough? No. Is it something? Yes. Should they be absolved? No - but nor should we deny their existence as human beings.

There are few people in life who are pure evil. We are all a combination of virtues and vices that may tilt one way or another according to circumstances. All of us have human frailties. Most of us will never do anything worse than speed occasionally, or cross the road against the lights. Most of us will live lives of bland mediocrity within the happy embrace of our family and friends.

Books like The Reader are necessary because they disturb that neat little picture. It is easy to believe that the war criminals we read of are demons, and comforting to our peace of mind. It's unhealthy though, the intellectual equivalent of closing our eyes to what we don't want to see, to keeping things at a 'distance'. The law may be black and white, but we live our lives in shades of grey, questioning, wondering, uncertain sometimes as to what is right, and forever doing battle with the complexities of leading a moral life. We all know it is wrong to take another life, but is it wrong to love someone who has? Beneath the surface little is simple.

Perhaps pure evil exists, but most people guilty of momentary acts of evil are likely little different from you and I. They are condemned forever for what they have done, but it is in our interests to understand how this comes to be, and to remember that human nature is infinitely complex. No good is served by turning our back on it.

The spirit of Anzac Day

I don't know of any other nation in the world who has such a day as Anzac Day as it is celebrated in Australia and New Zealand. It is more than a national day - which it isn't here in Oz, more than just a simple day of remembrance. It is a huge day in the Australian psyche, the biggest day on our calendar. When I think of it I find remarkable, and I am deeply touched by the continuing devotion the common Australian has to this day and everything it stands for.

In my own mind I think it goes beyond remembrance. There is great reverence for those old men who march each year who when young fought on our behalf. There is great affection for their memory. Each year there are less of them though, and each year the memory grows bigger. I believe it is our great day of national bonding. This is something we can all believe in regardless of where we come from, this is something we can all share - and do.

A few moments ago I saw reported that there were 3,000 at the dawn service at Villers-Bretonnuex. That's amazing. 3,000 Australians have travelled almost to the other side of the world to attend this moment. At Gallipoli in Turkey the crowd was near 8,000, and has been as high as 15,000. This has gone beyond a national celebration to stretch across the world.

I read a lovely story this morning in the paper. Villers-Bretonnuex, where the service was held this morning, has had a strong bond with Australia ever since the end of the Great War. It was Australian troops who re-captured the town from the Germans on Anzac day 1918. After the war the local Mayor dedicated a memorial to the 1200 Australian soldiers who lost their lives there, which in part says:

Soldiers of Australia, whose brothers lie here in French soil, be assured that your memory will always be kept alive, and that the burial places of your dead will always be respected and cared for...

After the war an appeal by Victorian school children raised money to re-build the shattered school in Villers-Bretonnuex. Ever since the French school children have een taught to honour the memory of the Australians who fought there, just as they promised. In the school building in Villers-Bretonnuex there is a sign that says: Never Forget Australia. It is a lovely and heartwarming thing.

All these years later the French school children of today are looking to return the favour. Upon learning of the devastation wreaked by the fires of Black Saturday the school children of Villers-Bretonneux organised an appeal to raise money to help re-build the ruined school buildings of Robinvale here in Victoria. It is a lovely, almost poetic, thing.

It's that spirit which we really come together to celebrate today.It is on days like this it means much to be Australian.

The C word

I watched an interview last night with the Jewish-American comedienne Sarah Silverman. During the interview she dropped the C word - cunt. Now Sarah Silverman is a controversial comedienne, and could be accused at times of being gratuitously provocative. That's a big part of her schtick. Last night the audience reacted with a predictable gasp and then with good humour. And in truth it was not so bad. She was speaking on self-styled divas and how they excuse their rude and insensitive behaviour because of their status. She suggested humourously - and perhaps accurately - that they could be better described as you know what. Perhaps the choice of word was extreme, but it was in context - and meant to be extreme.

A few weeks ago I watched an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm on DVD. In this episode Larry David and his wife were playing poker with a bunch of acquaintances, couples all. Larry David is an eccentric, misanthropic sort of character, always getting himself into sticky situations (he was one of the creators of Seinfeld, and George was based on him). In the wash-up of one the hands Larry accuses one of the other players of folding weakly, and calls him a cunt.

The word has an immediate effect. The table stills and all eyes turn to him. He is told he has crossed the line and made unwelcome. In his typical way he blusters humourously and tries to explain: they won't have a bar of it. Leaving he mutters that perhaps he should have called the guy a pussy instead. And to his wife explains he calls men pricks all the time without any problems - why is this any different?

By issuing this word he is branded as a certain type of person. He is a man of low character and capable of anything. Before long he is being accused of all sorts of transgressions, including beating his wife.

Now this is a comedy show, and a very funny one, but there was something in this whole episode that reminded me of the Albert Camus classic, The Outsider (L'Etranger). That may seem an unlikely connection, but if you recall in the novel the protagonist Meursault is virtually convicted of murder (in self defence) because he didn't cry at his mother's funeral. This was was held to be proof of him being a cold blooded and dangerous misanthrope. His true crime is not the death he caused; it is in not conforming to societies conventions.

The C word is bound by similar conventions. I have used it a few times myself, usually for impact, but I know its general use is a no-no. Thinking about it objectively I wonder why that is the case.

We all know what it means. For both men and women there is a great variety of slang for genitals. They may not be all socially acceptable, but none evoke the outrage the word 'cunt' does. It is particularly offensive to women. Why is this so?

The word in its general usage is intended to be offensive. It is only occasionally used in its literal context - that of female genitalia. It is intended to be extreme - it is indicative of only the greatest anger or disgust or disdain (strangely self-fulfilling - the more people find it to be offensive, the more it will be used). It is not a light-hearted insult.

I suspect many women take it personally because it is their body part. There are male equivalents - dick, cocksucker, etc, but none are as offensive - certainly not to men. I would guess that women are offended by the word not for what it describes but in how it is used. And because it is used in that way it is associated with the female body part it describes. It is a term used in anger that also describes female genitalia, ergo it expresses anger against women. It becomes a term of oppression.

Hell, I could be completely wrong. For me, while being aware of the obscenity, I have never been terribly offended by it. I've been called a cunt a few times, but in general it's water off a ducks back - but then I'm not a woman.

PS Just as a matter of interest, I find Sarah Silverman sexy - and not just because she has a potty mouth. She has a great rack too ;)

The greatest cricketer of all time?

I've just finished reading an article pondering who is the best cricketing all-rounder of all time - Sobers, the established king; or Jacques Kallis, the present South African cricketer. Watching some of the telecast from South Africa I've even heard Kallis described as the greatest cricketer of all time (though by the scurrilous Cullinan).

These are always contentious discussions, and can't be measured by mere statistics.

Kallis is a fine cricketer with a great record, but I struggle to think of him as one of the greats, let alone the greatest of all time. On paper he stacks up well. He has a great batting average, and while his bowling average is mediocre there's no doubt that he is a very handy and intelligent bowler. On top of all that he is a great slips fielder.

It's one thing to have great numbers, but very often it is the style in how those numbers were amassed that ultimately tells - and on that measure Kallis falls well behind Sobers, and many others.

There is no doubt that Sobers is the greatest all-rounder of all time, and is one of the greatest cricketers of all time. While Kallis is steady and reliable he is not a match-winning cricketer. By modern standards is a stodgy scorer, the cornerstone around which an innings can be built. While those players are necessary they are reasonably common. It is the rare cricketer though who can the turn the match and take it away from an opponent in the blink of an eye. Sobers was such a cricketer, Kallis is not.

Sobers was a devastingly effective cricketer, particularly with bat in hand. On top of that a very versatile bowler and a brilliant fielder anywhere on the ground. Not to be discounted is his sheer charisma. He was a player that spectators came to see, and a team-mate who inspired his peers and intimidated opponents. By contrast Kallis is colourless, and it is perhaps revealing that for all his great achievements he has never been offered the captaincy, unlike his great modern rival, Ricky Ponting.

I feel a bit churlish writing this - Kallis is a great cricketer after all. If I were to pick my team though Sobers would be ahead of him, as would be Miller. I can think of many cricketers as being more valuable - give me a Wasim Akram, a great, great bowler, and on his day a matchwinning batsman. Or Imran Khan, Alan Davidson, or, heaven forbid, Ian Botham. What sets these players apart is that they were capable of tearing a contest apart - and Kallis can't.

I might be adding to that list soon. It's hard to think of a better cricketer right now than Mitchell Johnson, who I think will be a great one day to compare with Sobers and Miller. 96 not out with the bat, an innings including 5 sixes, one of them lost out of the ground; and 4/25 with the ball. And he's still improving.

As for the greatest cricketer of all time? Doesn't it have to be Bradman? Followed by Sobers then Warne.

Breaking the nexus

A lot has happened in a short time since Kevin Rudd has become Prime Minister. First we finally signed the Kyoto Protocol. Then a formal apology was given to the native peoples here for the wrongs done to them. The long process of winding back Work Choices has begun. And last week Rudd was in Iraq, promising to bring our troops home by mid-year.

There's a temptation to try and do too much too soon, but I feel greatly encouraged by this burst of energy. I voted for Rudd as a neutral, feeling an indifference to the man but a willingness to believe he might do much. More than anything else I voted against the last, evil government. It is reassuring then to see some of the bad done by Howard so quickly undone, and I hope it continues - there is much to do.

One of the things I would like see done is a review of media ownership rules in this country. Over the years, and hastened by a Howard government looking to curry favour with those who influence, media ownership has become concentrated in fewer hands. That fewer independent voices, and increasing leverage in the hands of select media barons. Any way you look at it it's bad, against democratic principles and dangerous for a country that holds true to free speech and equal rights. Dissent is an essential element in that, and it is the right to dissent that is one of the great touchstones of a free society.

No-one is saying that we have been denied that here, but fewer voices have been heard. The alternate opinion was muted through the Howard years. There were brave souls who spoke out, but by and large they were discredited, or at least derided as 'elites', out of touch with the rank and file of society that Howard so proudly proclaimed he represented. That was his way. If he could not legislate them out of existence then he would isolate them. As he was with so many of his corrupt schemes, this was largely successful.

It is tempting to call the Australian media pissweak throughout this era. There's some truth in that: the government got away with things that once upon a time would not have been possible. They were not held to account as they should have been. There were too few voices speaking out against them, and no-one of moral authority declaiming the truth. And so the truth was lost, twisted, re-jigged and re-phrased.

Howard tilted the whole playing surface though: that was his genius. He made the unacceptable look acceptable. He changed our moral compass, turned us around in our thinking until what we once took as being moral truths now seemed like foolish whimsy.

In this he was aided by the media barons. 70% of Australian newspapers are owned by Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is a genius too, cold and calculating, one could argue without a strong moral compass of his own - though I think him to be a man of ideas. In fact he is a fascinating character, a man of monumental energy and ambition. In ways he reminds of the titular character from Citizen Kane, but without the tragedy.

I believe that Rupert Murdoch could have been anything - what he chose to do was become the most powerful media proprietor in the world. I'm not going to argue the morality of that: good for him. You wonder though what authentic good a man like that might have done - and is even now in a great position to do.

He is a man of ideas, but outweighing all that he is a pragmatic man of ambition. He knows the angles, and plays politicians off like a puppeteer. They need him after all, need the power of his press on their side. The irony is they have given him more power over the years to buy his support, and in so doing have ensured that they must continue to do so. Having got into bed with him they now had to continue paying for the privilege.

And so in Oz media has been concentrated in the hands of News Corporation, and a lesser extent Fairfax. The checks and balances introduced by more sober governments were eroded and whittled back. The Howard government courted News Corporation and in turn they peddled the governments line. Any who stepped out of line, those few independent voices in the wilderness, were then decried, first by the Howard government as elites in ivory towers, and then by the right wing hacks working in the Murdoch press.

That nexus has been broken. While I expect Rudd to meet with and attempt to find a middle ground with Murdoch, he should not be beholden to him. The likely reality is that this government will be in power for two terms at least. That gives them some leeway to act and to do things which may be opposed and be unpopular. So be it. It's the job of government to do what is right, not what is popular.

Given the start to his tenure as PM there is every reason to expect that Rudd will not shy from the tough proposition. I hope that the cross-media ownership laws are on his agenda. We need to break this power, and to return to a society where voices great and small can be heard once again.

What I think

If we are to one day die then let it be that we die having lived fully, and without regret. Let us take the high wire, and not look down to where we might fall, but ahead, to what we may gain.

Dare to dare, dare to believe, dare to try, and with every fibre of your being. There are no accidents, we must claim what we think to be ours, and fight for it - and in this comes the worth and value of all we do, and what we become.

Evil times

Pick up the newspaper most days and there’s something there for the liberal minded reader to cringe at. We live in a time of extreme measures, of sharply defined shades of black and white. Much of this is driven by political expediency, particularly here in Australia, where politics has degenerated under the present government to a cynical degree.

How cynical has become clear in the last few days. The newspapers lately are more than usually full of revelations of the behind the scenes manipulations of some of the big ticket news stories. There’s the children overboard saga for example, and about how John Howard contrived to turn the misfortune of those poor refugees on the Tampa into political advantage. This is typical of him, and no surprise to me – I’ve had him marked for years as a rank political opportunist, where the lives of others and general principle are the currency to be traded to advantage, and no more.

I am wary of John Howard – I may despise him but must respect his hard nosed savvy and his survival instinct – in a nuclear war it will be the bugs and him that will survive (which is strangely apt). Those survival instincts, however, have led him astray lately. He seems to have lost much of the feel for public sentiment and opinion that has served him so well in the past. I am reluctant to write him off, but right now he is looking down the wrong end of the political barrel – and he knows it. It is this knowledge that is making him act in desperate ways, but without his customary judgement. Under pressure he reverts back to old ways, to old methods that worked once – but no longer. The political landscape has shifted a degree or two to the left, and the scare-mongering that once worked so splendidly now appears to be exactly what it is – cynical, nasty and a perversion of justice.

I am talking of Dr Haneef. When I first heard of his arrest I thought nothing of it. As his interrogation continued beyond the normal period I was willing to believe that it was necessary. In times of terror you must be to some degree ruthless. Slowly though one began to smell a rat. That was confirmed when the government, using extraordinary powers, reacted to his release on bail by revoking his immigration status, allowing them to lock-him up again. Justice is at the heart of our democracy. At the heart of justice is the court. If the democratically appointed guardian of justice rules that bail be granted then rightfully we should accept that as justice in action. It is only totalitarian states who then react by throwing the poor bugger behind bars anyway – which is what happened here. By no measure was justice seen to be done.

Now there must be serious questions about the motivation behind all this. Was Howard trying to conjure up the mythical spectre of a terrorist in our midst? By his actions was he hoping – like Tampa – to show the strong leadership that brought him the votes on that occasion?

Then it was revealed that some of the evidence used against Dr Haneef in the bail hearing was false. The case againt him seemed flimsier every moment. When it was mooted he would be deported back to India the question had to be asked: if he is guilty then why not prove it? If he is innocent then why deport him? Fishier and fishier.

I don’t know, Dr Haneef may be guilty of all manner of crimes. We need to be diligent in pursuit of the truth. In these times we cannot afford to leave a stone unturned – but there must be line drawn. It is that line that defines the difference between the democratic and the despotic. From where I sit it feels as if Dr Haneef is being fitted up, the sacrificial lamb on the altar of John Howard’s political career. If this can be true then I am ashamed. This is not the Australia I grew up in.

It would be lame if it were not so serious, for what we are talking about in this latest instance is the misuse of power and a corruption of our democratic values. It comes as no surprise to me that Howard would stoop so low – nothing comes before his political ambition – but it is shocking to think that our political principle has degenerated to such a point that we can no longer feel surprise. We have come to expect, and to some degree accept, that this is the way of things. In part we have become as cynical as our masters. It is what has always angered me most about Howard. He has done terrible things, but worst is how he has cynically warped society to suit his aims. I think the pendulum is beginning to swing back now, but for a time I think we lost some of those values that made us special as a society, and all because of the landscape he created. I’ve always been proud to be an Aussie, but for a time I was less proud than before. This was not the country I believed in, and is yet to return to that ideal that I hold dear in my patriotic heart.

Howard will burn one day. It pleases me to think that he will be ultimately discredited, and the truth about him revealed. In the meantime he has to be gone, and we have to return some way towards what is true about us – if it is still true. I hope we have not gone too far down the path Howard has led us.

No love

Went out for a few drinks the other night. Was a good night, had a couple of bottles of red wine, and a bit to nibble on. Just another night out really, except for one thing.

The first place we went to, Bar Lourinha, is a narrow but cosy tapas bar, with big communal wooden tables. We had a few drinks sitting at the bar before deciding to order some food and sit at the end of one of the tables. The place was about a third full at that point, but quickly filled up in the half hour after. We ordered a few tapas plates, sipped our wine and enjoyed the conversation.

Then at one point a group of four people came in. The waiter sort of tizzed around looking for somewhere to put them before approaching us. He was awfully sorry but a group of people had come in and there was nowhere to sit them, would we mind moving to the bar? I answered, yes, we would mind. We were halfway through our meal and with another plate still to arrive. He tried to persuade us in a wheedling tone that had an undercurrent of the ‘if you don’t move we’ll do it for you’. That did no good. By now I was pretty pissed by the whole situation. As I said to him it’s a tough gig if they’re no seats available, but it happens all the time. You walk in a bar, it’s full, you have a look around then turn around – try another place, situation normal. He looked at me as if I might change my mind, and I told him it’s not going to happen, that was that.

We left once we had finished our meal. It had a nice ambience but the attitude had left a sour taste in my mouth. It’s silly really. Sure they want to squeeze as many in as possible and make as many dollars as they can. Fair enough, but it can’t be at the expense of those already there, halfway through a meal. At the end of the day that’s what you remember, and it’s the thing that will prevent you ever going there again. Nice bar - bad attitude = lost custom.

In praise of Amy

I've come to the conclusion that girls called Amy are almost always good people and women well worth knowing. I'm not sure exactly why that is but suppose the simplicity of the name itself has an affect on the person bearing it as they grow and develop. Why shouldn't that be the case? A man called Lombardo is going to have a different experience of a life from a man called Alf. And people do tend to look like their name.

Just imagine what I look like with a name like Hieronymous!

Tacky as

You can tell a lot about a person by the ring tone they choose. At the St Kilda baths over the weekend the phone of the guy at the next table rang - like an ambulance siren. Very tacky.