Comments on: Henry James missed his calling

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Having the best and brightest of your generation being killed, tends to make one lose one's faith in humanity, patriotism, nationalism, peace through superior firepower, and all that good stuff.

Then having the Americans swoop in and declare victory, that must have been the icing on the cake for them.

Only explanation for how a Great Empire like Britain, who'd shoot Indians out of cannons in retaliation for rebellion (or some such) can't even confront the Germans whom they beat in the last war.

Only explanation for how the French, who supposedly had patriotism and vive le France glory in abundance, would accede to a puppet government and a collaborationist one at that, controlled by their infernal enemies the Germans.

Let's also not forget the weird French, German, Russian alliance in 2002. Bismarck might have been quite suprised at what finally united two of Germany's worst enemies into their best friends. Talk about real politek, blood and iron.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

To 1:30 anonymous: Actually, Nafisi mentioned some suspicions around James's Civil War activity or lack thereof. I didn't include that part of her quote because it seemed somewhat tangential to the matter at hand, and this post was already getting overlong (a problem I have sometimes!).

I think you are correct that this is definitely a possibility. But, having read Fussell's The Great War and Modern Memory, there were also elements of WWI that made it particularly horrifying to those alive at the time, and made them lose faith in the entire concept of progress and even civilization. I think that at least a good deal of James's reaction was based on that.

Maybe it's time to add his diaries or a biography to my lengthy reading list. Can't seem to get around to reading more than a tiny fraction of the interesting books around.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

All above doubtless legitimate in terms of research and personal expression; however, a further and perhaps even more interesting speculation as to HJ’s emotional motives for his utter dismay at WWI centers around exploration of his response to the American Civil War, his lack of participation in which is fraught with unknowns. Though not a participant, HJ witnessed this war first-hand in many respects — as most Americans did — and the horrors of it, interncine as they were, could not have been less apalling than those of WWI. One wonders if his own failing health at the time of outbreaking hostilities in 1914 had something to do with his dramatic response to the war’s circumstances. He was generally, I glean from my readings, in a quite depressed state during these years. I’m not gainsaying the first poster’s conclusions by my comments but as usual with circumstances surrounding The Master’s writing and activities there is a great deal more than meets the eye or intellect of those who have written about him or those of us who simply (simply?)love his work.

By: mizpants

mizpants — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

As usual, a thoughtful and original rumination, Neoneo. Even so, I have to admit that the idea of a Jamesian blog strikes me as potentially hilarious, perfect for satire. It would be beyond me, but would anyone else care to try it? Iowahawk, maybe?

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

One must never confuse Wilhelm II with Adolph Hitler. America should not have fought in WWI—but had to engage our ideologically driven enemies during WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. The Imperial German Army was not a direct threat to the values of Western Civilization. Many Jews in Poland, for instance, were thrilled that it had taken over the governance of that region. The Germans were only mildly anti-Semitic and far more benevolent than the Polish Catholics of that era. Jews openly served in the Kaiser’s military and their rights were respected. The disgraceful Dreyfus affair, in case anyone forgot, occurred in France.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

War lovers generally don’t have to fight them. They can set back like Monday morning quarterbacks and second guess everything. Some warhawks hide behind patriotism. I think Remarque’s words have a great deal of creedence even today. War is hell!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Yes, neo-neocon, there is a Conservative Movement and it has a sense of humor. http://www.neoconjob.blogspot.com has some srticles you might enjoy. It could certainly use some therapy.

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Henry James likely took too seriously the lying propagandists of the British government. Slandering the Germans was their specialty. There are wars that must be fought---and there are ones that should be avoided. WWI was among the latter. The United States was foolish for entering this conflict. Germany was something of an aggressor, but England and France also pushed the envelope. They were not simply victims. Some sort of truce would have eventually been worked out. Unfortunately, our involvement unwittingly helped bring about the existence of both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.

America’s citizens overreacted to the infamous Zimmerman telegram. Yes, the Germans stupidly did try to persuade the Mexicans to invade our country. Nonetheless, common sense dictated that this was a foolish hope. The Mexican government had about as much chance of successfully invading the United States as I do defeating Shaq O’Neal on a basketball court! We should have swallowed a chill pill and not allowed our emotions to get the better of us.

By: The Popinjay

The Popinjay — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

That would be a lot of fun to have a great mind like his blogging. Orwell too. Unfortunately these days, we’re stuck with the likes of Phillip Roth and Jane Smiley.

By: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Your remark that "I think it's interesting that for James the human suffering, which obviously deeply moved him, led to a deep mourning of the loss of the power of language to convey what was happening. For a man like James this was terribly important; as a writer, words were key to him. Clearly, though, he was undergoing a deep crisis which led to a turning point, because despite that despair about the power of words he began using them in an activist way for the first time in his life" is a fascinating one- one can deduce that James 'activism' is an extension of reality- that is, he understood what he was seeing, rather than an expression of a strictly political agenda.

That war is immoral is a given. The moment the first innocent dies in a war, the waging of war becomes immoral. That does not mean that there aren't just wars, or that a just war cannot, or should not be prosecuted. Notwithstanding the politcal rhetoric expended in te justification of behaviors that are immoral, the line has to be drawn. Moral equivalence is not bestowed because we can walk on two legs. There is much more to it than that.

I think that is the reality that James wanted to express.