Comments on: Literary leftists (Part II): Hemingway, Dos Passos, and the Spanish Civil War

By: troutsky

troutsky — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:08:00 +0000

"think artists, and more so writers, are drawn to passion that can be expressed in overarching themes and unambiguous (as they see it) conflict-struggles."

That would make the Bush administration a bunch of artists and writers.Is the real world black and white ,or not?you people have to make up your minds.Was the Spanish civil war evil commies against evil fascists or was it more nuanced? How about our current war?

By: Michael B

Michael B — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:08:00 +0000

Rebecca Pawel has a fictional trilogy based in the immediate aftermath of Spanish Civil War, supposed to be terrific stuff, all written very recently, though have not yet purchased or read any of it myself, have simply read a couple of enthusiastic reviews:

Death of a Nationalist, Law of Return and The Watcher in the Pine

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:08:00 +0000

Writers of fiction are used to having things go their way--in the book. They may have to write a hundred-page backstory bio of a character to make his actions consistent. But they make up the backstory, too.
And they use coincidence and they use anything else they need to make things go their way.
So, perhaps they have the habit, eventually, that when they think things are a certain way, that's the way the things are.
Have to be.
Always been that way.

If true, this is a sure way to miss reality.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:08:00 +0000

I think artists, and more so writers, are drawn to passion that can be expressed in overarching themes and unambiguous (as they see it) conflict-struggles.

That's where they find their poetry, what they define as nobility. They see the Marxist revolutionary, or even today's terrorist, and they see a purity of essence that they cherish.

By: cakreiz

cakreiz — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:08:00 +0000

Fascinating stuff, neocon. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

By: David

David — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:08:00 +0000

A beautifully-written memoir about Spain and the Spanish Civil War is "The Forging of a Rebel", by Arturo Barea. The author was on the Republican side, but is honest about its atrocities as well as those committed by the fascists. I reviw it here.

By: chuck

chuck — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:08:00 +0000

I read Dos Passos' Three Soldiers when I was a teenager. Although I don't recall much detail, the atmosphere of the novel lingers and vaguely reminds me of dark fantasy/science fiction, so that is where I would shelve it in a modern bookstore.

Three Soldiers was also my first introduction to the concept of fragging and the book pretty much embodies the attitude of the modern left to the military. It is amazing how old many leftist tropes are: the whole blood-for-oil thingee derives from Rockefeller and Standard Oil a hundred years ago and the anti-military rhetoric traces back to the aftermath of WWI. To enter the leftist world view is to enter a time warp and live in the oldern days. The left offers a sad bit of nostalgia for a forgotten time. I suppose that is part of its appeal.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:08:00 +0000

The communists and the fascists are natural allies. Not because of any particular love one has for the other, but because to survive against all odds they must unite their strength against their common foes. The enemy of fascism becomes also the enemy of communism.

THe Spanish Civil War is an example of what happens in any society or culture, without the aid of enlightened principles of governance. Europe may see itself as the beacon of social justice and civilization, but the truth is somewhat cruder.

In the case of the SCW, it seems to be that both sides were destroying the middle, the enemy, and partitioning what was left between them in a final free for all. Using whatever means available, or whatever persons available, to accomplish the task of partitioning the spoils.

We saw it in Poland, between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. We saw it between Nazi Germany and xenophobic and militarist Japan. We even saw it with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam.

There comes a point however, when not even the unified power of both radicals and status quo conservatives, can defeat their common foe. Dividing an alliance based upon hate, is rather easy, but it does require some strength of character. Of national character.

It is this aspect of the strategy in combating political and ideological extremism that Bush either doesn't know how to communicate or doesn't want to communicate.

The advantage of the alliance of hate, towards American, towards human dignity, is simply that they acquire a bunch of useful idiots in enemy territory. The disadvantage is that they need it, to break the alliance of human dignity and rights.

Our actions should be to separate our enemies from each other, to make their actions harm each other by necessity, and then to swoop in and take out the weakened party. As you can see, Europe believed it had its own grand strategy during the first half of the 20th century. It didn't go so well. Sure, they left the fascists and the communists fight it out, but they were supporting both the communists (ideologically and propaganda wise) as well as the fascists (political appeasement).

America crafted a different national policy during the 20th century, which is simple in its elegance of form. Divide the enemy, and then conquer them. Divide dictators from terroists, then divide terroists from the Arab street, then divide the Arab street from our useful idiots. Divide the Emperor of Japan from his military, divide the island of Japan from other islands. Divide Germany from Japan. Divide Russia from Germany. France from Russia. Then initiate the coup de grace, obliterating each group in succession. First Germany, then Japan, then Russia in the Cold War. (As you might notice, skipping France might not have been optimal, although it was very clever of the French to side with the apparently winning party and then switch sides in order to get a UN seat after the war with the winners.)

This strategy is simple. That is not the curious aspect, the curious aspect is how many people in the world know nothing about it. And how many Europeans seem to think diplomacy and social justice brought about perpetual peace upon their continent, rather than the Grand Strategy of uncouth Americans.

Look at Europe today. They have no military to stage coups. They have no Soviet union to fund coups and revolutions. They have no threat but the ones they invite to their own countries. I cannot accept that this came about because Europe became enlightened, ahead of all other continents on Earth. Many other continents, South America or Africa perhaps, would love to find themselves in the same situation of perpetual peace and prosperity (mebe not prosperity).

Unfortunately for them, it seems, they can't get American interventions as easily as our extended family in Europe can. Talk about nepotism.

By: Andrew Scotia

Andrew Scotia — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:08:00 +0000

For what it is worth as an insight, John Dos Passos, while born to privilege, was illegitimate. His father was a self made attorney/investor and his mother a high born Virginian. He grew up using his mother's last name.

He never seemed to be the "go along to get along" type that Hemingway was.

By: erasmus

erasmus — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:08:00 +0000

Tatterdamalian

Sorry you're under the weather tonight. Read slowly, sip a cup of tea, and perhaps things will clear up. A copy of "Elements of Style" might hel.
Cheers.