No posts in a while, mostly because my Internet Service Provider was not fulfilling the function you’d take for granted in its name.
Not that this has stopped the litblogging world, which is all up in arms about a work entitled Reality Hunger – a work which seems (from what I’ve read) to consist entirely of quotes from other books.
Mitchelmore, with his usual insight and profundity, right at the beginning of his review seems to question the very physical nature of the work, wondering: “but in what way is it a book?” – I don’t know. At a guess: it consists of a series of pages stuck together with glue and bound at one side with some printed text on the pages. (Am I right?). Though, knowing Mitchelmore never says anything without acuity, it did leave me wondering if it came packaged as an aeroplane or a potted plant.
But it’s Mark Thwaite who – as so often – provides the most fascinating commentary, falling as so often in the simplest of post-modernist contradictions. (Oh, he’s been reading some Continental philosophy!). He claims, of Reality Hunger:
One of the very many obtuse things about David Shields’ obtuse “manifesto” Reality Hunger — an obtuse book which contains many wonderful quotes about literature and life and which could have been simply a very fine commonplace book — is its obtuse and strident assertion that the line between the real and the fictive was in any way ever absolute and that the commingling of these two supposedly separate realms will save literature from redundancy.
This last point is further elucidated:
Shields […] seems to think that reality is a given rather than a perpetually socially constructed fiction which we half-wittingly recreate each and every day of our lives.
OK, let’s ride with that idea.
The next paragraph runs:
If the recent banking crisis showed us anything it was that the make-believe is at the heart of what we tell ourselves is real — and that fiction becomes fact when we have faith enough, or fear, in the (empty) lies that keep us in our places…
At which point, we might want to say: hey, wait a minute! Just now you said that “reality is … a perpetually socially constructed fiction”; so what’s this you’re meaning now when you’re talking about a point where “fiction becomes fact”; – you’ve just established that there isn’t any fact; that everything’s fiction.
He goes on:
Those who rule our world kill to maintain the presence of this absence every single day. Every day thousands starve or go cold, kids are bombarded in Iraq whilst neoliberal bloggers cheer, countless bore themselves stupid in offices — all so that bankers in Saville Row suits are maintained and preserved, and maintain the fiction that thinking beyond a system predicated on their maintainance and preservation is an impossibility.
Which makes us wonder why the author uses “fiction” here in a highly pejorative sense, and implies that the beliefs stated are somehow wrong, when – as has already been established – “reality” (any view of reality, whether someone else’s evil one or whether your “correct” one) “is … a perpetually socially constructed fiction”. On what possible basis can you claim that one fiction is preferable to anyone? – Certainly not by assessing it in relation to any facts, since there are no facts to relate it to. – You talk about “every day thousands starve or go cold, kids are bombarded in Iraq whilst neoliberal bloggers cheer”? – but there are no “thousands” starving or going cold and there are no “kids” being bombarded in Iraq, nor “neoliberal bloggers” cheering it on – this is all a socially constructed fiction, like the “bankers in Savil[l]e Row suits” and the people not thinking beyond their “mainta[i]nence and preservation”.
But, of course, what this really suggest to me, is that the writer doesn’t really believe that “reality is a … perpetually socially constructed fiction” at all, since he so quickly slips out of the notion when it doesn’t suit him. [ed. His common-sense takes over, eh?]
Here’s the Wall-Street investor Philip A. Fisher explaining why we bailed out the banks (he’s writing in 1958):
Prior to 1932 there would have been serious question from the responsible leadership of either party [this is the US we’re talking about here] as to whether there was any moral justification or even political wisdom in deliberately running a huge deficit in order to buttress ailing segments of business. Fighting unemployment by methods far more costly than the opening of bread lines and soup kitchens would not have been given serious consideration, regardless of which party might have been in office.
Since 1932 all that is reversed. … The responsible… leadership has said again and again that if business should really turn down they would not hesitate to lower taxes or make whatever other deficit-producing moves were necessary to restore prosperity and eliminate unemployment. This is a far cry from the doctines that prevailed prior to the big depression.
He then goes on to mention other significant factors: the increasing importance of income tax for central government revenue; the immense extension of benefits (notably unemployment benefits) – which would also encourage government to bail out the banks (i.e. so that the economy wouldn’t collapse, unemployment increase massively, and a much much larger deficit be created by a fall in GDP combined with an enormous increase in benefit payments).
What’s the main difference between 1929 and 2009? – In 1929, they didn’t bail out the banks, the US economy collapsed, the world economy collapsed and we entered into a wholesale slaughter of one another the scale of which had never been seen before.