Lorca III

Lorca III will be the third part of my Lorca trilogy. You heard it here first.

The first thing I know about it is that it will deal with both poetry and theater. It will differ from the other two in that it will actually be about Lorca, and won't be confined to poetry.

So... a book by Mayhew, about Lorca, his actual works, not just poetry but also theater. Sounds promising. To me at least.

The first idea I have is that it should have a chapter about the "persons of the verb." Just what kind of poetic speakers and interlocutors Lorca has. This is a way of teasing out the relation between lyric and dramatic poetry.

This is the first chapter. I wrote 833 words of notes for this, this morning.

Lógicamente, it would have to have a chapter or two on some dramatic works, and on some performances of dramatic works.

I'd like to bring in Mr. Samuel Beckett at some point.

This is very inchoate thinking. This usage note from my built-in dictionary on my computer might be useful:

Because inchoate means 'just begun and so not fully formed or developed,' a sense of 'disorder' may be implied. But to extend the usage of inchoate to mean 'chaotic, confused, incoherent' (: he speaks in an inchoate manner) is incorrect, although not uncommon. Perhaps even more common are incorrect pronunciations of inchoate, such as |inˈ ch ōt|, which assumes two syllables (rather than three) and a ch sound like that of chair or chosen (rather than a k sound like that of charisma or chorus).

Seinfeldeando

I had a good stretch of 16 days of working on my last chapter every day. Then one day that I couldn't. Then yesterday, and today, when I started again and was better than ever.

The stupidest trick I know is to write every day in a Seinfeld chain. Just see how many days you can do it. Even two days in a row is a chain. It is stupid because it is easy to do an to understand. It's not some complex idea that needs to be planned. All you need is a calendar and a pen. If you skip a day, then you start a new chain. Pretty soon, there's no stopping you.

Salaita's Lawsuit

It pretty much shows that the argument that "he wasn't hired yet, therefore wasn't fired" argument is bogus. (Thanks to Natalia for sending me a link to this through my fb account.) He was assigned classes, in which students were enrolling, invited to new faculty reception, asked about computer needs, and all the rest of the normal stuff that goes on with a new job. His offer said that when the trustees approved his appointment, etc..., but not "if." He was using that affiliation to publish already.

The lawsuit is weaker in entering into the merits of his actual speech. After all, we could disagree with him about Hamas and still think he has solid case. I suppose he had to cover all the bases. If it comes down to a hermeneutic battle over what his tweets mean, he might have an uphill fight, because people don't interpret them the same way. I've wavered myself several times on whether they are anti-Semitic.

Another weak point is going after the donors for tortious interference. They have the perfect right to decide not to give money to Illinois if Salaita is hired, and to make their views known in advance. The response of the university should have been: ok, I'm sorry you feel that way, but if we fire him / refuse to follow through with this then the multi-million dollar lawsuit will also be a financial hit for the university. We'd prefer to lose your donations than to pay him millions because we made a mistake.

The lawsuit also says that he is a scholar of American Indian studies, which I can see is a weak(er) point. The idea that he can't publish without institutional affiliation is also bogus.

A settlement can protect the university reputationally. Salaita would have to accept money but probably couldn't speak out anymore. If it goes to trial, both parties will look bad. The most offensive-sounding tweets get debated over and over again. The fact that an American Indian studies dept. hired someone who has marginal qualifications hurts both Salaita (and his followers) and the university itself. The kowtowing to donors looks awful from Wise's standpoint, etc...

The damages should be substantial. Not only lost earnings for this year, but for his entire career. Reputation damage, etc...

It will be interesting to see whether this is settled or goes to court.

PC

PC started as a semi-ironic thing on the left, at places like UC Santa Cruz, a mockery of Stalinism but applied to trivial things. "Smoking is not p.c."

Then came the culture wars of the 90s. The term "political correctness" became applied by the right to the left. The idea was not that racism is bad, but that the over-sensitivity to perceived racism, sexism, or whatever is the real problem. It is easy to see that this is a ruse. Instead of arguing about real issues, we begin to debate the nuances of tone, and measure outrage. The right's own culture of grievance mirrored the culture of grievance supposedly on the left.

(Academic administrators did enact hideous speech codes, in an effort to be more pc.)

Now it is true that outrage can be phony, or exaggerated, on either side. I can be outraged that you are outraged, or not outraged, or that you are more or less outraged than me, and so on. That you care more about one trivial thing (in my eyes) than some more profound thing that is much worse (for me). This is all more or less absurd posturing, of course, fostered now by the quickness of social media. It is a false politics of staged grievances.

There are real issues to be debated, though. The culture of staged outrage serves to cover up those issues, not to reveal them. Now who is to decide what a real issue is?

Naturally, it is me, because I am smarter than you. But seriously, anyone can do this. Just analyze the situation and decide what the real issue is behind the faux spectacle of outrage.

Jump Start Your Day

I wasn't doing particularly well this morning, and left home around 10:15. A very young-looking woman with a small child stopped me in the parking lot and asked me to jump start her car. We hooked up the cables to her vw bug and it started. It took about 5 minutes and I felt very boy-scoutish. It was a good way of jump start my day. I can change a tire, jump start a car, check the oil, fill the windshield wiper fluid--and that's about all. A small modest competence is a good start anywhere.

Truth Claims

It’s interesting how relativist arguments get used in apologetics for institutions that claim to have had the absolute truth always and forever.

The moderate defenders of religion are very quick to make relativist and aesthetic arguments, and downplay any claim to the truth. What exactly is being defended.

Judging the past

Is it unfair to judge the past for things we supposedly know better now? Possibly, but that it not the question, really. Part of the problem is that we are not better than the past in the way we think we are. So really, what we need to do is judge ourselves.

In other words, it is the same ideology that persists in us that must be examined.

Let's say, for example, the idea of making Junipero Serra a saint. We who had fourth grade in California knew of his missions up the coast, from San Diego to San Francisco. He was a Franciscan, and the current Pope chose the name of Francis for himself.

It is unfair to blame him for mistreating the Indians, we are told, because nobody knew any better at the time. Now, of course, we know it is wrong to enslave people and destroy their culture, impose your religion on them, kill them with epidemics. Easy for us to say!

But to excuse him from this on the grounds that he brought Christianity to them (supposedly a good thing) and that the Europeans were going to colonize anyway, so it was good to have Christianity soften the blow, well, that is said by someone in the present who should know better. Really, Serra is dead so he won't care if he is judged harshly. When we claim to be sparing him we are really sparing people in the present.

Brilliance

Here is an article that kind of pisses me off, since it is dripping with sexist assumptions. It seems to assume that women will always see themselves as hardworking drudges and attribute brilliance only to men.

Also, there are some places where you need brilliance. That spark of true intelligence is pretty rare, and few have it. If we give that up, then what are those people supposed to do?

A Few Remarkably Stupid Ideas About Religion

The first is the idea that only the good parts of religion are religious, by definition. Thus any evil that stems from religion is not "religious" in nature, but political, cultural, economic, or just the result of people failing to live up to religious principles.

It is easy to see why this won't work. If we are trying to evaluate the results of an actual religion, in the actual world, then we cannot automatically put everything good into the religious category, and chalk up everything evil to non-religion.

***

The second, a remarkably stupid one propagated by Karen Armstrong, is that religious wars of the Middle Ages weren't really religious, because there was not separation at the time between religious and secular realms. Everything was religious.

First of all, there is the whole business about religion before the modern period never having been considered a separate activity but infusing and cohering with all other activities, including state-building, politics and warfare. Religion was part of state-building, and a lot of the violence of our world is the violence of the state.

This is true, but the implications are the opposite of those drawn by Armstrong. It is precisely the implication of religion in state violence and non-state terrorism that is at issue, after all, for those in search of secular alternatives.

This idea goes hand in hand with the first. Religion itself is pure, so even when it is implicated in one cohesive political war-machine, it retains its purity, somehow.

***

The third is that religions do not truly preach the horrible things they do preach. Everything unacceptable becomes irrelevant or metaphorical, and people who actually believe that holy books say what they seem to say are naive fundamentalists. Since religion is pure and beyond critique, those who act on what the books actually say are not truly religious. Only the moderate, intellectual type are truly religious. Those who don't actually believe in anything very firmly.

Myths of the Non-Religious

I prefer the term "non-religous," because it is accurate and describes various kinds of atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism, without committing any individual to any particular position within this spectrum. Here are some myths about us.

1. We lack religious education.

Many of us have had extensive religious upbringings, and have wide knowledge of a diverse number of traditions other than our own. The non-religious tend to be better educated, on average. That is to say, a higher proportion of better educated people are non-religious. Being non-religious is often a conscious choice, involving extensive study of religion.

2. Our ethical shortcomings derive from our lack of religiosity.

We do have ethical shortcomings, like everyone else. It makes no sense to attribute these shortcomings to a lack of religion, or to attribute the flaws in religious people to their religion. In fact, one of the most frightening things is not that religion causes wars and other horrific things (which it does, by the way), but that in many cases it makes no difference. In other words, imagine the front in WWI, with French and British and German and Austrian soldiers shooting at each other. Some are Protestant, some Catholic, others Jewish. It is not a religious war, but religion has done nothing to alter it either. The non-religious and the religious soldier act exactly the same.

3. We worship science.

Some of us are scientists. I happen not to be. I do accept scientific conclusions when my layman's knowledge of them leads me to believe they are are well supported. Some non-religious people are scientifically ignorant or ill-informed. Some have a very basic understanding of some parts of science, but are still pretty much ignorant (like me). Scientists nowadays are highly specialized and don't have detailed knowledge of other highly specialized sub-areas of research either.

4. Lack of religion is the main motivating factor in our lives.

No. It could be for some, especially if one's lack of religiosity is recent and hard won. For the deeply religious, it is hard to imagine not being motivated by religion, hence the assumption (on their part) that a lack of religion is equally motivating.

5. We are hedonists.

This one is true, I have to confess. Non-religious people live for life's pleasures. Fine foods and wines, sex. Few of us are ascetic hermits. In this respect, we are profoundly different from religious people.

6...but we lack aesthetic sensibility and our lives have no meaning.

Since we see reality as a bunch of atoms swirling around, we cannot appreciate Picasso or Bach. This one is obviously true: there are no agnostics in concert hall and museums. Also, our lives are meaningless. We derive no meaning or satisfaction from personal and family relationships, political activities, hobbies, or work. Sarcasm aside, I don't happen to believe in MEANING in the cartoon version of the hermit on the mountain top, who knows the the meaning of life.

7. We are an organized group with leaders.

While I appreciate that some people have written popular atheism books, I haven't read much of that literature, and have varying opinions about the cogency of their arguments. My non-religion precedes the boom of popular atheism books. There are organizations of the non-religious, but I don't happen to belong to any of them.

8. We are obnoxious.

This is also very true. Our very existence is obnoxious to those who can't understand our lack of religiosity. If we speak out and make our existence known, this is also obnoxious. If we go so far as to criticize religion, in any way, then our obnoxiousness grows, by just that much. If we take a strident tone in this criticism, then we even more obnoxious (and so on).

9. We are misogynists.

Ok, you got me again. Non-religious people hate women. The cat is out of the bag. Seriously, though, this is a case where religion or its lack is not a determining factor. Religious liberals support equal rights for women, religious conservatives do not. Virtually all Abrahamic religions have been profoundly and unapologetically patriarchal until about half an hour ago, and some still are. If your church is progressive on all gender and sexuality issues, great for you. You should realize that it only became that way because of rising secularism. In fact, your moderate religion is only moderate because it supports liberté, égalité, and fraternité.

But you're getting me off track here. Non-religious people are as misogynist as they would be if they were religious, and for the same reasons. Suppose a socially awkward scientist tries to pick up a woman at an atheist convention and makes her uncomfortable, that's because he is inept, not because he doesn't happen to go to church.

Secular Offense

The non-religious are used to having our lack of religion dismissed, ridiculed, rebutted. Many of us grew up in religious communities, and are accustomed to displays of religiosity. We rarely take offense at the expression of religious opinions, except to the extent that they are offensive for other reasons. Only the attempt to make religious ritual a part of state functions is directly odious. I am personally offended by anyone saying that "religious murders are wrong, but...". I fly into a rage when I hear that. Of course, nobody notices this because I am only at home in front of my computer. Of course, my rage does not mean that I have a right to commit physical violence against people expressing that opinion. By their own logic, though, they should expect me, and others like me, to be violent. After all, they have offended me! Why wouldn't they expect a punch in the nose? The Pope made the analogy just yesterday, that if someone cursed his mother in the Argentine fashion, he would punch them.

The difference is that that non-religion, for the non-religious, is not a sacred icon. You insult my lack of religion, you don't insult me at all, because that is not a part of me. You can burn effigies of Bertrand Russell or Darwin all day long, I don't care. You might as well insult my love of cilantro or my lack of affection for cats.

Nobody cares about offending a secular humanist, and perhaps they are right not to care, because we are slow to offend and slow to violence.

What I have learned from my own post, then, is that the claim to offense is a powerful tool that non-religious people don't use a whole lot. By claiming this power you automatically gain a mother who can be cursed at obscenely, and hence the right to punch people in the face. The non-religious are orphans. You can say "chinga tu madre" all day and our answer is that we have no mother to be fucked.

So I Wrote This This Morning

10 Footnotes

In 2009, I published Apocryphal Lorca: Parody, Translation, Kitsch, with University of Chicago Press. Although I wrote this book quickly, beginning in 2006, much of what I had been studying all my life went into it: American poetry, translation theory, jazz, Lorca himself. A friend and colleague of mine, Jill Kuhnheim, told me that it was fun for her to read it because there was so much of me in it. I did not abandon Lorca after the publication of Apocryphal Lorca. My first thought was to write a book on the contemporary Spanish poet Antonio Gamoneda, but this soon morphed into a project on Spanish modernism, and then, eventually, into What Lorca Knew: Fragments of a Late Modernity.

Although I have written other books and articles on Spanish poetry, I remain most closely identified with my work on Lorca. My current project, while substantially different in its conceptual scheme, continues to draw out some the implications of the central idea behind Apocryphal Lorca: that a poet like Lorca becomes strangely unrecognizable in a foreign context—in this case a foreign context that happens to be my own, domestic American literary culture. Of particular interest to me is the discovery of things that I might have explored in this book, but that either escaped my attention or did not seem significant enough to me at the time. Some of this material has worked its way into What Lorca Knew, but not in any systematic manner. Hence the idea of offering up these “Ten Footnotes to Apocryphal Lorca,” which I conceive of as an exercise in scholarly humility.

I am not a modest person by any means, and a display of false modesty is unlikely to convince anyone to the contrary. Still, in scholarship I maintain the posture of epistemological skepticism: the idea that one’s own conclusions are inevitably questionable and incomplete. Some of the discoveries I have made after the publication of the book confirm my insights into Lorca’s North American reception; others reveal my blind spots and lead to significant revisions of my ideas or to new directions of research.

10 Footnotes to Apocryphal Lorca (6): Vallejo

6. Ahora bien, al trabajar en mi segundo libro sobre Lorca (inédito todavía) me di cuenta de que había una comparación lógica entre Lorca y Vallejo, como dos poetas modernos de subjetividad fragmentada. A la vez hay una diferencia de recepción, entre el lorquismo desbordado en EEUU y la presencia menos destacada de Vallejo. A pesar de haber sido reconocido como uno de los grandes poetas latinoamericanos, Vallejo no era "surrealista" (tampoco Lorca, pero le pusieron esta etiqueta). Uno de mis apuntes al libro podría tratarse de esta comparación.

10 Footnotes to Apocryphal Lorca (5): Lorca / Rilke

5. I discovered this interesting pattern, that mentions of Lorca tended to be found in proximity to those of Rilke. I mentioned this in my book but I don't know if I said enough about it. That might be part of this essay I am planning to write called "10 Footnotes to Apocryphal Lorca." First would be noting the instances of this, then trying to figure out why.

10 Footnotes to Apocryphal Lorca (4): Theater

4. My biggest omission was Lorca's influence on American theater, and the influence of Lorca's theater in general. I had it in my head somehow that Lorca was not significant for American dramatists. This is obviously not the case, and I have a chapter in the new book which I am now completing on this very topic. This is a rather strange case of me missing something that should have been right in front of me. A disturbing lack of intellectual curiosity and tunnel vision. Once again I believe that the lesson to be drawn is one of humility.

I did look for theater influence by Lorca, but not hard enough. I was not as expert in American theater as I thought I was in American poetry.

10 Footnotes to Apocryphal Lorca (3): Hughes and Intersectionality

3. I did deal with Langston Hughes a bit in one of my chapters, but inadequately. What was missing was the intermediate step, someone who had already "queered" him so that I could make the argument that his interest in Lorca was as a fellow gay writer. I didn't want to make this argument, because it would have been overstretching a bit, from my posture of epistemological skepticism. In other words, I could guess that this is behind some of Hughes's interest in Lorca, but I didn't have enough evidence. It seems clear that Lorca's influence in the US is intersectional (to use a popular term). That is, someone who taps into several dimensions of identity politics at once.

10 Footnotes to Apocryphal Lorca (2): Strayhorn

2. I discovered that Billy Strayhorn had done music for a Lorca play when I was doing reading for a course on jazz that was going to teach, shortly after submitting the final copy-edited and proof-read ms. to the publisher. I read two biographies of Strayhorn. The idea was to take me out of Lorca and into something else. I couldn't have known that I should have been reading about Strayhorn while working on my Lorca book. Once again, the lesson is kind of intellectual humility. Something relatively close to me (jazz, and all things Duke Ellington and Strayhorn) that had enclosed a Lorca reference that escaped my attention. Once again, this discovery confirmed a central thesis of the book: the interest of gay and black intellectuals in Lorca.

10 Footnotes to Apocryphal Lorca (1)

1. One of my chapters dealt with Creeley's "After Lorca" and Spicer's After Lorca but I missed Padgett's "After Lorca." One of my ideas was that New York School poets were the unheralded champions of Lorca, and I had chapters on O'Hara and Koch. I am a great admirer of Padgett, since my high school days, and yet this poem escaped my attention until yesterday, literally, when I was leafing through a copy of his collected poems that I had had since the summer. None of my New York School contacts told me about it; they probably never remembered it existed. I got it for my birthday in August. It is not an extraordinary poem for all of you, maybe, but it demonstrates a nice parodic vein in American Lorquismo. It's got that nice silly repetition vibe going on.

The lesson is a bit of epistemological humility. The new things I discover in the American reception of Lorca are things that are close to me, but that had escaped my attention. I find them when I am not looking for them, but pursuing other interests.

Waltz

A young girl about 15 was playing "Waltz for Debbie" perfectly on the piano. I went around to see whether she had sheet music but she was playing from memory / ear. I felt jealousy.

11

There was a woman who declared herself 1/11 related to Lorca. Her claim was disproven. I was some how involved in this process. The dream went on for quite some time, and morphed into one in which I was at an artist's colony of some kind, but it wasn't clear what my talent was supposed to be.

Short i

I dreamed of reading a scholarly article in which it was demonstrated that the vowel sound of big would make your eyelid itch. This was just one of the points, the only one I remember now, but the idea was that language was connected to the body in verifiable ways. I actually felt my left eyelid itch.

Voicings

So you would basically never play a C major triad chord. CEG. You would normally play a 7th, and maybe some other chord extensions, like the 9th, the 11th, and the 13th. You can leave out the C itself, for a rootless voicing, and the G, which is the fifth. So a C major & chord might be E, B, D, F#, and A, in other words, only one of the notes of the C major triad. You can play 4ths and 6ths too. A fifth can be flatted, an 11th augmented.

You can strip down the voicing, only playing the root and the 3rd or 7th. You can spread it out, playing the root and the 7th at the bottom, and color notes on the top.

But still, you would never play a simplistic triad.

If I could hear this as simply as I hear an iambic pentameter, that would be great.