Wednesday, February 01, 2006

 

812 THE STATE OF THE EARTH MESSAGE TALK

HAROLD C FUUK THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS FEB 3 TO 5 2006
205 GLADSTONE AVE APT 46 OUT ON MONDAY-FRIDAY TEL(613) 235-0617
OTTAWA, COMMENT:http://thevoiceless.blogspot.con FAX(613)235-5573
ONTARIO K2P OY5 http://wwv.thebeatonthestreet.ottawa.on.ca
DEAR HEAD OF NATION
THE STATE OF THE EARTH MESSAGE TALK:
SEE: HAROLD PINTER:
ART,TRUTH & POLITICS: NOBEL LECTURE DECEMBER 7,2005.
FULL 12 PAGE TEXT ON MY ABOVE "VOICELESS BLOG" AS LETTER NO:812.
HIS POEM FROM THE TEXT.

WHERE WAS THE DEAD BODY FOUND?
WHO FOUND THE DEAD BODY?
WAS THE DEAD BODY DEAD WHEN FOUND?
HOW WAS THE DEAD BODY FOUND?
WHO WAS THE DEAD BODY?
WHO WAS THE FATHER OR DAUGHTER OR BROTHER
OR UNCLE OR SISTER OR MOTHER OR SON
OF THE DEAD AND ABANDONED BODY?

WAS THE BODY DEAD WHEN ABANDONED?
WAS THE BODY ABANDONED?
BY WHOM HAD IT BEEN ABANDONED?
WAS THE DEAD BODY NAKED OR DRESSED FOR A JOURNEY?

WHAT MADE YOU DECLARE THE DEAD BODY DEAD?
DID YOU DECLARE THE DEAD BODY DEAD?
HOW WELL DID YOU KNOW THE DEAD BODY?
HOW DID YOU KNOW THE DEAD BODY WAS DEAD?

DID YOU WASH THE DEAD BODY
DID YOU CLOSE BOTH ITS EYES
DID YOU BURY THE BODY
DID YOU LEAVE IT ABANDONED
DID YOU KISS THE DEAD BODY

I WOULD ADD.

DID YOU LOVE THE DEAD BODY?

DID YOU CLEAN THE WOUNDS OF TORTURE OF THE DEAD BODY?

DID YOU CREMATE THE DEAD BODY

TO GET RID OF EVIDENCE OF TORTURE?

DID YOU BUILT MORE GUNS,

AND WEAPONS OF WAR

IN LOVING MEMORY OF ALL DEAD BODIES

THE VICTIMS OF THE MILITARY AND TORTURE

SO THAT THERE CAN BE MORE VICTIMS?

IN LOVING MEMORY OF 1.65 MILLION IRAQI

AND I MILLION AFGHANI DEAD BODIES.
IN LOVING MEMORY OF THE 80,000,000 DEAD BODIES
MURDERED WITH HIV/AIDS BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

PEACE

HAROLD C FUNK TO:192 HEADS OF NATIONS. LETTER NO:812 E-MAIL ON.
© THE NOBEL FOUNDTION 2005
General permission is granted-for the
publication IN NEWSPAPERS IN ANY LANGUAGE
after December 7,2005 5:30 p.m_ (Swedish time).
Publication in periodicals or books otherwise.
than in summary requires the consent
of the foundation.

On all publications in full or in major parts
the above underlined copyright notice
must be applied.

Harold Pinter: Art, Truth & Politics

Nobel Lecture
December 7, 2005
1

In 1958 I wrote the following

`There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between
what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be
both true and false.'

I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of
reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I
must ask: what is true? What is false?

Truth in drama is forever elusive. You never quite find it but the search for it is
compulsive. The search is clearly what drives the endeavour. The search is your task.
More often than not you stumble upon the truth in the dark, colliding with it or just
glimpsing an image or a shape which seems to correspond to the truth, often without
realising that you have done so. But the real truth is that there never is any such thing as
one truth to be found in dramatic art. There are many. These truths challenge each other,
recoil from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are blind
to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your hand, then it
slips through your fingers and is lost.

I have often been asked how my plays come about. I cannot say. Nor can I ever sum up
my plays, except to say that this is what happened. That is what they said. That is what
they did.

Most of the plays are engendered by a line, a word or an image. The given word is often
shortly followed by the image. I shall give two examples of two lines which came right
out of the blue into my head, followed by an image, followed by me.

The plays are The Homecoming and Old Times. The first line of The Homecoming is
`what have you done with the scissors?' The first line of Old Times is `Dark.'

In each case I had no further information.

In the first case someone was obviously looking for a pair of scissors and was
demanding their whereabouts of someone else he suspected had probably stolen them.
But I somehow knew that the person addressed didn't give a damn about the scissors or
about the questioner either, for that matter. _

`Dark' I took to be a description of someone's hair, the hair of a woman, and was the
answer to a question. In each case I found myself compelled to pursue the matter. This
happened. visually, a very slow fade, through shadow into light.

I always start a play by calling the characters A, B and C.

2

In the play that became The Homecoming I saw a man enter a stark room and ask his
question of a younger man sitting on an ugly sofa reading a racing paper. I somehow
suspected that A was a father and that B was his son, but I had no proof. This was
however confirmed a short time later when B (later to become Lenny) says to A (later to
become Max), `Dad, do you mind if I change the subject? I want to ask you something.
The dinner we had before, what was the name of it? What do you call it? Why don't you
buy a dog? You're a dog cook. Honest. You think you're cooking for a lot of dogs.' So
since B calls A `Dad' it seemed to me reasonable to assume that they were father and
son. A was also clearly the cook and his cooking did not seem to be held in high regard.
Did this mean that there was no mother? I didn't know. But, as I told myself at the time,
our beginnings never know our ends.

`Dark.' A large window. Evening sky. A man, A (later to become Deeley), and a
woman, B (later to become Kate), sitting with drinks. `Fat or thin?' the man asks. Who
are they talking about? But I then see, standing at the window, a woman, C (later to
become Anna), in another condition of light, her back to them, her hair dark.

It's a strange moment, the moment of creating characters who up to that moment have
had no existence. What follows is fitful, uncertain, even hallucinatory, although
sometimes it can be an unstoppable avalanche. The author's position is an odd one. In a
sense he is not welcomed by the characters. The characters resist him, they are not easy
to live with, they are impossible to define. You certainly can't dictate to them. To a
certain extent you play a never-ending game with them, cat and mouse, blind man's
buff, hide and seek. But finally you find that you have people of flesh and blood on your
hands, people with will and an individual sensibility of their own, made out of
component parts you are unable to change, manipulate or distort.

So language in art remains a highly ambiguous transaction, a quicksand, a trampoline, a
frozen pool which might give way under you, the author, at any time.

But as I have said, the search for the truth can never stop. It cannot be adjourned, it
cannot be postponed. It has to be faced, right there, on the spot.

Political theatre presents an entirely different set of problems. Sermonising has to be
avoided at all cost. Objectivity is essential. The characters must be allowed to breathe
their own air. The author cannot confine and constrict them to satisfy his own taste or
disposition or prejudice. He must be prepared to approach them from a variety of
angles, from a full and uninhibited range of perspectives, take them by surprise,
perhaps, occasionally, but nevertheless give them the freedom to go which way they
will. This does not always work. And political satire, of course, adheres to none of these
precepts, in fact does precisely the opposite, which is its proper function.

3

In my play The Birthday Party I think I allow a whole range of options to operate in a
dense forest of possibility before finally focussing on an act of subjugation.

Mountain Language pretends to no such range of operation. It remains brutal, short and
ugly. But the soldiers in the play do get some fun out of it. One sometimes forgets that
torturers become easily bored. They need a bit of a laugh to keep their spirits up. This
has been confirmed of course by the events at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad. Mountain
Language lasts only 20 minutes, but it could go on for hour after hour, on and on and
on, the same pattern repeated over and over again, on and on, hour after hour.

Ashes to Ashes, on the other hand, seems to me to be taking place under water. A
drowning woman, her hand reaching up through the waves, dropping down out of sight,
reaching for others, but fording nobody there, either above or under the water, finding
only shadows, reflections, floating; the woman a lost figure in a drowning landscape, a
woman unable to escape the doom that seemed to belong only to others.

But as they died, she must die too.

Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory
since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in
truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is
essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even
the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon
which we feed.

As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that
Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction,
some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We
were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship
with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September
I Ith 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq
threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.

The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States
understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.

But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which I
mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is
obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny,
which is all that time will allow here.

Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe
during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the

4

ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and
verified.

But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been
superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone
recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has
considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain
extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the
world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.

Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method.
In the main, it has preferred what it has described as `low intensity conflict'. Low
intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a
bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that
you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace
has been subdued - or beaten to death - the same thing - and your own friends, the
military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera
and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in
the years to which I refer.

The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a
potent example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now.

I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the
Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a
delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this
delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz
(then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said:
`Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school,
a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra
force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the
cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal
manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw
its support from this shocking terrorist activity.'

Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly
sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused
and then spoke with some gravity. `Father,' he said, `let me tell you something. In war,
innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did
not flinch.

5

Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

Finally somebody said: `But in this case "innocent people" were the victims of a
gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows
the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the
case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and
destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?'

Seitz was imperturbable. `I don't agree that the facts as presented support your
assertions,' he said.

As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not
reply.

I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement:
`The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.'

The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40
years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a
breathtaking popular revolution.

The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their
political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were
intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic
society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken
peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to
land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced
illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established. and a
free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.

The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the
view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was
allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to
raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national
self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same
things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.

I spoke earlier about `a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan
commonly described Nicaragua as a `totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by
the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But
there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was
no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No
priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the

6

government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were
actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down
the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that
over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.

Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the
Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl
regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop
Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died.
Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible
and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They
died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty,
disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.

The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years
and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally
undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty
stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free
education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. `Democracy' had
prevailed.

But this `policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted
throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military
dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia,
Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala,

El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in
1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take
place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes
they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you
wouldn't know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't
happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have
been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually
talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical
manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good.
It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

7

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal,
indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is
out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all
American presidents on television say the words, `the American people', as in the
sentence, `I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the
American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he
is about to take on behalf of the American people.'

It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The
words `the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You
don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your
intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of
course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and
women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.

The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any
point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or
favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law
or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own
bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.

What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these
words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days - conscience? A
conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in
the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people
detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due
process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in
defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by
what's called the `international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed
by a country, which declares itself to be `the leader of the free world'. Do we think
about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They
pop up occasionally - a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no
man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger
strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding
procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your
throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said
about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why
not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay
constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.

8

The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating
absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary
military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media
and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and
economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other
justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation. A formidable assertion
of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of
innocent people.

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random
murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it `bringing freedom
and democracy to the Middle East'.

How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass
murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have
thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International
Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the
International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that
matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the
marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution.
We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing
Street, London.

Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the
back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before
the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist.
They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. `We don't do body counts,'
said the American general Tommy Franks.

Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British
newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. `A grateful child,' said
the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of
another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He
was the only survivor. `When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped.
Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated
child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie
when you're making a sincere speech on television.

The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in
the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds,
some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds
of graves.

9

Here is an extract from a poem by Pablo Neruda, `I'm Explaining a Few Things'

And one morning all that was burning,
one morning the bonfires

leapt out of the earth
devouring human beings
and from then on fire,
gunpowder from then on,
and from then on blood.
Bandits with planes and Moors,
bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,
bandits with black friars spattering blessings
came through the sky to kill children

and the blood of children ran through the streets
without fuss, like children's blood.

Jackals that the jackals would despise

stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out,
vipers that the vipers would abominate.

Face to face with you I have seen the blood
of Spain tower like a tide

to drown you in one wave
of pride and knives.

Treacherous
generals:

see my dead house,
look at broken Spain:
from every house burning metal flows
instead of flowers

from every socket of Spain
Spain emerges

and from every dead child a rifle with eyes
and from every crime bullets are born
which will one day find

the bull's eye of your hearts.

And you will ask: why doesn't his poetry
speak of dreams and leaves

and the great volcanoes of his native land.

Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see

the blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood
in the streets!

10

Let me make it quite clear that in quoting from Neruda's poem I am in no way
comparing Republican Spain to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I quote Neruda because
nowhere in contemporary poetry have I read such a powerful visceral description of the
bombing of civilians.

I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on
the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as `full spectrum
dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. `Full spectrum dominance' means control
of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.

The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132
countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know
how they got there but they are there all right.

The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two
thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is
developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever
cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder,
are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who
knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened
use of nuclear weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We
must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and
shows no sign of relaxing it.

Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably
sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they
are not a coherent political force - yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we
can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish.

I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would
like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can
make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious,
winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously
attractive, a man's man.

`God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His
is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian.
We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So
does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-
loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate
electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a

11

dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral
authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'

A writer's life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity. We don't have to weep
about that. The writer makes his choice and is stuck with it. But it is true to say that you
are open to all the winds, some of them icy indeed. You are out on your own, out on a
limb. You rind no shelter, no protection - unless you lie - in which case of course you
have constructed your own protection and, it could be argued, become a politician.

I have referred to death quite a few times this evening. I shall now quote a poem of my
own called `Death'.

Where was the dead body found?
Who found the dead body?

Was the dead body dead when found?
How was the dead body found?

Who was the dead body?

Who was the father or daughter or brother
Or uncle or sister or mother or son

Of the dead and abandoned body?

Was the body dead when abandoned?
Was the body abandoned?

By whom had it been abandoned?

Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?

What made you declare the dead body dead?
Did you declare the dead body dead?

How well did you know the dead body?
How did you know the dead body was dead?

Did you wash the dead body
Did you close both its eyes
Did you bury the body

Did you leave it abandoned
Did you kiss the dead body

12

When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move
a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of
reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror - for it is on the other side
of that mirror that the truth stares at us.

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce
intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our
societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of
restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man.

* from Pablo Neruda Tercera Residencia, "Explico Algunas Cosas " in Selected Poems
by Pablo Neruda. Edited and translated by Nathaniel Tare. Jonathan Gape, London 1470.
Used by permission of The Random House Group Limited.

Comments:
THEORY OF WAR
Those conceived IN TERROR are delivered in freedom.

Then there is the story of Geogette W. Bush who dreamed he was lecturing a platoon of raw recruits, only to awake to find it was true.

You always know when a politician is lying, when you see their lips moving.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?