Category: Uncategorized

  • The government takes no view

    I’m a little late on this one but never mind. On June 13 there was a parliamentary debate to mark the tenth anniversary of the Iraq war. Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, argued that ‘war is a matter of conscience‘ and…

    That is why, when MPs are faced with a decision about whether to go to war in future, we cannot have a situation where the government of the day tells the story and we are expected to take it at face value.

    If parliament is serious about learning the lessons of Iraq, then it must establish a constitutional convention that votes on going to war are not subject to party whipping.

    Well, nobody is ever obliged to take anything at face value, and often there are strong reasons for not doing so, but for the rest Philip Cowley tries to put Lucas straight on this proposal:

    Think about what it means when a party has a free vote on an issue. It is saying that it has no formal position on that issue. Officially at least, it is saying that it doesn’t mind what the outcome of the vote is. This is tricky enough to justify when it applies to some of the issue[s] where free votes normally apply – witness the pressure recently for Labour to whip the votes on gay marriage, on the grounds that it would be wrong for the party to say that it had no position on an issue that advocates saw as one of human rights. Insofar as there is a justification for treating issues like gay rights or abortion as ‘free’ it is that they are somehow not central to political debate and ‘cross-party’ (although they are, in practice, not half as cross-party as is claimed).

    But it would be difficult to make this case about military action – and even harder for the party of government to do so. Is the Prime Minister really supposed to say that his or her government have no position on the issue? That there will be a vote in the House of Commons on going to war and the government do not have a position on it? That they are ambivalent on the issue? Imagine the Paxman interview: ‘So, Prime Minister, your government doesn’t mind whether we go to war or not?’ The idea is absurd.

  • Back to the fifties

    Last weekend I posted this little bit of nostalgia. Here’s another piece of the same, to go with it.

    (Thanks: AC.)

  • The shape of things to come in Afghanistan

    With the Taliban now at the negotiation table, Christoph Sydow reports on the concerns of human rights groups:

    Human Rights Watch is already painting a grim picture of the future of women’s rights in the country, and Amnesty International is complaining about extensive violations of human rights. In its annual report, the latter said that women and girls are already being subjected to particular and repeated violence.

    For some time now, the Taliban has held de facto control over a number of areas, particularly in the border region with Pakistan in the eastern part of the country. There, they are increasingly imposing what they view as a lawful Islamic order. Part of this implementation process is being carried out with the sword. Just last week, extremists in the southern province of Kandahar decapitated two children accused of spying for Afghan security forces. The following day, they launched their biggest bombing attack in more than a year outside the Supreme Court building in the heart of Kabul, killing at least 17 civilians and wounding 39 others.

    New shape, old shape.

  • Rawlsian game

    Was John Rawls’s assessment of baseball as ‘the best of all games’ made from behind a veil of ignorance? Or is it just ‘really hard to explain why you love something‘? The best of all games is, of course, cricket. That’s what I call the difference principle.

  • Morality, necessity and realism in Syria

    As one of those (few?) who doesn’t know what the best thing to do about Syria is, I don’t mind sharing with my readers the views of people who are more confident that they do know. Here’s Marko Attila Hoare, for whom the West’s failure to support the Syrian National Coalition with arms ‘is strengthening the hand of al-Qaida’ there. Marko writes:

    If Iran, Russia and Hezbollah feel free to intervene with arms and troops on the side of Assad while the west continues to tie the hands of the democratic resistance, the pursuit of “negotiations” and “ceasefires” will be merely the fig leaf behind which Assad completes his victory.
    …..
    The west’s inaction in the face of the pending Ba’athist and Shia Islamist victory amounts to a colossal failure of leadership. It is all the more surprising, coming as it does after the successful 2011 intervention in Libya, in which western intervention saved the revolution against Gaddafi, without the loss of a single western soldier. In the subsequent free elections in Libya, the liberals defeated the Islamists, dramatically disproving the Cassandras’ claims that intervention amounted to support for al-Qaida. Unlike the misguided 2003 adventure in Iraq, an intervention in Syria – in the form of arms supplies to the FSA and the imposition of a no-fly zone – would enjoy broad support both in Syria and the wider region, including from Turkey and the Arab League. In these circumstances, the ostrich-like stance of the anti-interventionists appears all the more bizarre.

    A rather different perspective is offered by Dan Drezner, though it’s one he characterizes as being ‘morally questionable‘:

    Naturally, this will feed the “return of the liberal hawks” meme that’s spreading in some quarters. Other commentators will gnash their teeth or decry that this is the first ill-considered step towards dragging the United States into another Middle Eastern war.

    To your humble blogger, this is simply the next iteration of the unspoken, brutally realpolitik policy towards Syria that’s been going on for the past two years. To recap, the goal of that policy is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible. This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished… at an appalling toll in lives lost.

    This policy doesn’t require any course correction… so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. A faltering Assad simply forces Iran et al into doubling down and committing even more resources. A faltering rebel movement, on the other hand, does require some external support, lest the Iranians actually win the conflict. In a related matter, arming the rebels also prevents relations with U.S. allies in the region from fraying any further.

    So is this the first step towards another U.S.-led war in the region? No. Everything… this administration has said and done for the past two years, screams deep reluctance over intervention. Arming the rebels is not the same thing as a no-fly zone or any kind of ground intervention. This is simply the United States engaging in its own form of asymmetric warfare. For the low, low price of aiding and arming the rebels, the U.S. preoccupies all of its adversaries in the Middle East.

    The moment that U.S. armed forces would be required to sustain the balance, the costs of this policy go up dramatically, far outweighing the benefits. So I suspect the Obama administration will continue to pursue all measures short of committing U.S. forces in any way in order to sustain the rebels.

    … It’s a policy that makes me very uncomfortable… until one considers the alternatives. What it’s not, however, is a return to liberal hawkery.

    So, to conclude: the United States is using a liberal internationalist rubric to cloak a pretty realist policy towards Syria.

    For Benedict Brogan, intervention by Britain is a terrible idea but perhaps a necessary one nonetheless:

    The coalition against intervention in Syria appears to have all the arguments on its side. It is, by any measure, a terrible idea, and on current standings the Prime Minister would struggle to secure necessary support in the Commons. But Mr Cameron says he wants to save Britain from international relegation. In which case, membership of the league of front rank nations comes with a price that is sometimes quite awful. Going in could have consequences that, after Iraq and Afghanistan, we are all too familiar with. But we should acknowledge, as he evidently does, that sitting this one out carries a price as well. The global race is not just about economics. It is about the willingness of the few countries with the capacity to intervene to stand up and be counted when the need arises. Mr Cameron knows that the burden is always ours.

    On which, see also Alex.

  • Writer’s choice 385: Helen Rappaport

    Born in Bromley, England, Helen Rappaport studied Russian at Leeds University but ill-advisedly rejected suggestions of a career in the Foreign Office and opted for the acting profession. After appearing on British TV and in films until the early 1990s, she abandoned acting and embraced her second love, history, and with it the insecurities of a writer’s life. She is a specialist in Russian history and 19th-century women’s history. Helen’s books include An Encyclopedia of Women Social Reformers, No Place for Ladies: The Untold Story of Women in the Crimean War, and Conspirator: Lenin in Exile. Her latest title is Capturing the Light: The Birth of Photography; and Four Sisters: The Lost Lives of the Romanov Grand Duchesses is scheduled for publication early next year. Here Helen writes about A.J.A. Symons’s The Quest for Corvo.

    Helen Rappaport on The Quest for Corvo: An Experiment in Biography by A.J.A. Symons

    What on earth could possibly be interesting about a biography of an obscure writer still known only to the initiated few, written by an equally forgotten author? Well, those who have never read this book and who love the process of discovery, as I do, who find the challenge of piecing together the facts of a lost and barely documented life utterly engrossing, will find this book as compelling and dark and intriguing as I did when I first read it. For this is not just the story of Frederick Rolfe, aka ‘F[athe]r. Rolfe’, aka the equally bogus ‘Baron Corvo’, it is also, obliquely, the story of another hidden life – that of his biographer Symons.

    I can’t remember exactly what prompted me to read The Quest for Corvo, but my inscription on the flyleaf of my copy says I bought it in 1993. Back then I was a freelance researcher for the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, which may well have led me to it, at a time when I was also writing short entries for biographical dictionaries and pondering my own first biographical subjects.

    Rolfe found the ideal biographer in A.J.A. Symons, an aesthete, eccentric and dandy and who remains as much of an enigma as his subject. As an aficionado of fine and rare books (he was a founder of the First Edition Club), essayist and sometime unsuccessful biographer himself, Symons shared many of the experiences of penury, rejection and artistic frustration that Rolfe endured during his own haphazard and unfulfilled career. As scions of the 1890s they both had connections on the London gay scene, Rolfe managing to be briefly published in the Yellow Book, whose publications Symons avidly collected, and Symons’s brother Julian becoming one of Oscar Wilde’s first biographers. Despite their shared interests they never crossed paths; but their coming together after Rolfe’s death is a poignant and revealing one.

    Symons’s quest sprang from a conversation he had in the early 1930s with bibliographer and bookseller Christopher Millard, about books that had ‘missed their just reward of praise’. Millard suggested that Rolfe’s Hadrian the Seventh was one of them. In its story of a failed English hack writer and priest who is plucked from oblivion to become Pope, it presents a distorted self-portrait that mirrors Rolfe’s own relentless quest for personal aggrandizement and recognition by his peers. Its satire of the Catholic Church is venomous – a 400-page act of revenge, first on the Scots College (a Catholic seminary in Rome from which Rolfe had been expelled in 1889) and also on all those who in his estimation had spurned or slighted him and denigrated his artistic talents.

    After his failed attempt at the priesthood, Rolfe worked intermittently as a painter and photographer, at the same time pursuing a writing career. But he was constantly thwarted in his attempts to get published. In response, the whole of his short, sad and embittered life was lived in an atmosphere of mounting paranoia, watching at the door for enemies. Some called him a sponger, a charlatan, an imposter; he was, at times, all three, but he was also extraordinarily gifted. Yet, perversely, he refused point blank to compromise as a writer and his natural gifts went tragically to waste. As Symons shows, there were a few flashes of friendship and fleeting periods of happiness and self-fulfillment. But they never lasted long. Rolfe’s erratic, picaresque career – wearing threadbare clothes and existing on handouts – was lived for the most part in debt and on the edge of destitution. His seething resentment at the bad hand that life had dealt him led him to quarrel with even those few friends he did make. One by one, every single person who offered the hand of friendship, who collaborated on a literary venture or helped Rolfe get his work published, every kind host who gave him free bed and board (often for extended periods of time), was ultimately spurned – and often libelled – by this stubborn outcast.

    In response to the catalogue of missed opportunities he had to endure, Rolfe made a profession of the art of insult by letter. But there was artistry even in his invective; these letters, Symons observed, were always written ‘in a script more beautiful than is used in Papal Briefs’. There was the same artistry and genius in Rolfe’s venom, as in his extraordinary, ornate written works, such as Chronicles of the House of Borgia, crammed full of erudition and obsolete words, Latin and Greek phrases. Such self-indulgence was guaranteed to alienate all but the most devoted and persistent of readers. But Rolfe, the linguistic show-off and narcissist, who always placed himself at the centre of his own narratives, remained an unrepentant elitist.

    In 1908 after being dogged by so much artistic misfortune and with £30 in the bank he gave up on England and decamped to Venice, where he swam a great deal and lazed in the sun with the Venetian fisher boys – who increasingly became the focus of his sexual interests. When the money ran out and he was thrown out of his hotel and reduced to sleeping in gondolas and going hungry for days, he wrote begging letters to his few remaining friends in England. ‘I am now simply engaged in dying as slowly and as publicly and as annoyingly to all of you professing and non-practising friends of mine as possible,’ he told them. In 1912 a few cheques once more bailed him out but his heavy smoking and unsettled lifestyle had fatally undermined his health; as too had the worm of unremitting anger and resentment. ‘I am so awfully lonely. And tired,’ he wrote in his last letter.

    Symons brings Rolfe’s intriguing but often repellent character vividly to life, thanks to his concerted efforts to contact everyone who knew him. Published in 1934, The Quest for Corvo set the standard for a new style of experimental biography that challenged the conventional, cradle-to-grave approach of the genre till then. It made Symons’s search for his subject’s surviving manuscripts and letters as central to the story as the subject himself, which is why The Quest for Corvo remains a continuing source of inspiration to me, as I try to winkle out the truth of human lives that till now have been lost in the footnotes, or seek to restore the lost or forgotten phases of much better-known lives to history. A.S. Byatt, who wrote the introduction to the latest 2001 reprint, said that she had ‘learned much from it about how to construct novels and how to think about human lives’; her novel Possession was directly inspired by it.

    This year, 2013, is the 100th anniversary of Rolfe’s death. It will no doubt pass unnoticed, as did his pathetic demise in Venice at the age of 53. His extremely rare first editions are highly sought after today; his letters, published posthumously between the 1950s and 1970s, are fascinating. But the written works remain familiar only to the few, bar Hadrian the Seventh, which in its stage adaptation earned a degree of critical acclaim when revived by the Chichester Festival in 1995 starring Derek Jacobi.

    Like his subject, A.J.A. Symons, died prematurely – at the age of 41 of a brain tumour. But in writing this still largely unsung masterpiece, he posthumously secured his own place in literary history. He most definitely taught me ‘how to think about human lives’ and this is a book I shall always treasure.

    I still haven’t read a single book by Frederick Rolfe though, and never shall. But that’s part of the enduring enigma. The subject rather than his written work is, in the end, far more compelling.

    [All the pieces that have appeared in this series, with the links to them, are listed in the index here.]

  • How many stones for Stoner?

    In case I haven’t already given enough of a boost here for John Williams’s Stoner, I’ll just draw your attention to a piece about it by Bryan Appleyard in today’s Sunday Times (£). He calls it ‘the greatest book you have never read’. He also quotes the view of Ian McEwan:

    Great authority in the prose, beautiful, sad, utterly convincing account of an entire life, of how a gifted man can drift into obscurity, can almost lift himself into the clear light of happiness in love, then fall back. The awful wife, the disappointed hopes for the daughter, the bitter lifelong persecution by a fellow academic – it sounds depressing when these elements are listed, but Williams makes a thing of beauty out of them. The subjective rendering of Stoner’s death is unsurpassed in modern literature.

    I’ll leave off now with the observation that it will become less and less true for all values of ‘you’ that ‘you’ have never read it.

  • Blackbird

    On the grass verges of a road near us with a lot of traffic, you’ll find this guy and friends of his. The traffic doesn’t bother them, but pedestrians do; off they jolly well flit. So whatever you think of the quality of my pictures, the fact of them is a minor triumph. I’ve been trying and failing for months to get close enough with my complicated equipment, otherwise known as an iPhone.

    052

    I even got a second shot of him.

    051

    He also sings – like this.

  • No longer dithering over Syria

    A month ago I drew attention to Michael Walzer’s view that for President Obama to be dithering over Syria was no bad thing in the circumstances. According to a report in the Times of Israel, Michael’s thinking has evidently changed over the last few weeks:

    [Walzer] said that his position on Syria gradually shifted from skepticism about US military intervention in the early days of the uprising to staunch opposition to it today.

    “Now you have jihadi fighters on the one hand and Hezbollah on the other, and it really doesn’t look like there’s much to choose between… It’s almost impossible to describe a desirable outcome in this civil war, and if you don’t have a desirable outcome – you can’t intervene.”

    See here for the conditions he specifies for feasible intervention in Syria now.

    In view of the misunderstanding created by my last ‘dithering’ post, I had maybe better say that it can be true that non-intervention in a crisis of this sort has enormous costs even if the benefits of intervention are in doubt. One isn’t bound to think one knows what should be done.

  • The well-known World War II

    I had this memory, shared with two of my oldest friends, of an ancient Goon Show; I blogged about it here. Now, eight years later, I’ve found the recording – I Was Monty’s Treble (‘the story of the film of the book of the tram’). If it’s to your taste, you can find the part remembered in the first six and a half minutes, before Max Geldray puts in an appearance. It was 1958 – but as Eddie Izzard says, timeless.