Skip to main content

The Day


There are several faces of the most famous day in American history - and the defining moment of the 21st century.  There are the faces of the valiant rescue workers, caked in soot and sweat.  There are the astonished faces of the shocked and bereaved, fleeing, simply staring, or returning to help.  And there is the clueless face of the worst American president ever, on hearing the news of the attack.  Ten years later, it is clear that 9/11 ended the so-called "post-modern" era.

Instead, the terrifying event immediately stamped the age with its defining images, and its defining conflict - between The West, and a newly-resurgent variant of fundamentalist Islamic ideology.  Depending on who you talk to - Tony Blair for instance - the West's reaction - wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - did, or did not, act as bellows to the coals.  The question which remains unanswered is -  was there anything "we" could have done differently, before or after?  Nothing justifies the murder of the day - but history lessons would have forewarned "us" that exceptionalism and neo-colonialism, coupled with a hedonistic, capitalist and scientific world-view, could hardly endear us to people with a less-secular perspective, people who felt our very existence was illegitimate, and a profound insult to their way of life.  What no one quite expected was that such people could be so determined, and so deadly.  Or so imaginative.

Ten years later, the cultural impact of the day has been mixed.  It has informed music, plays, films, poetry, and fiction - but few if any truly great works of art have emerged from the decade dealing directly with 9/11.  Nor have the wounds healed yet.  It is all too soon.  Politically, many argue that we are in the long wake of the attacks now - that with the killing of the mastermind, and the decline of the wars it triggered, and the rise of China, new forces and factors are at work - the Arab Spring was the broom to wash away the debris of ten years before.  We can't be sure.

The towers collapsing remains our benchmark for contemporary outrage, and fear.  The decade has seen the rise of very violent horror films, and a swing to religion in America - surely interconnected - our bodies have been exposed as ultimately, utterly vulnerable to atrocity anywhere, even in our heartland - and morbid nihilism or evangelicalism seem apt responses.  True Blood, Twilight - what are vampires but victims that carry on by other means, bled dry, yet romantically driven forward?  Elsewhere, we found distraction in Hogwarts, deeply impacted by 9/11 of course in its political nuances; and followed the true post-9/11 star, Matt Damon, whose everymanism coupled with quickfire responsitivity to violence became the icon of action films.

As to the conspiracy theories, they have faded in lustre, it seems.  The new conspiracy theory is that America is led by a secret Muslim, a sort of Hawaii Malcolm X, as if the planes of that day were a dark stork, that dropped a Midwich cuckoo into our midst - who would grow to become president, and tarnish America.  2012's elections will next define where America, and the world goes - back to a Texan imbecilism, or further on, past the green light.  All we know is, many died and suffered that day.  And we will never forget.

Comments

Unknown said…
Texan imbecilism? You doubtlessly mean Rick Perry. I have little doubt, however, that Perry will not win the nomination. The front runner will be one of the following three: Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, or Jon Huntsman. One of the remaining of the three will be chosen as VP candidate. I predict Paul/Huntsman or Romney/Paul, or Huntsman/Paul. Paul will need to choose someone who appears moderate, like one of those two, devoid of conspiracy theorist credentials in order to obtain full confidence of a voting public. Obama has been a sham He has been, as a president, not much better and not much worse than Bush. At least he could have tried harder, either way, left or right, ideologically, or in other ways. He is a cipher, signifying nothing but hubris and nothing else besides. The ironic thing is that I used to wholeheartedly root for him. That is my shame, our shame. Still, it is good that we had a black man as President. We will again, just as we will have a woman as President. Everything shouldn't be based on simple intelligence, speechmaking capabilities, charisma, or race, however. Our ability to discern a candidates ability and vision matters the most. Paul, Huntsman, or Romney could well define the future of America.
Poetry Pleases! said…
Dear Todd

I'm not American but I do follow American politics quite closely. The Republican nomination will go to either Rick Perry or Mitt Romney, neither of whom (hopefully) will have enough support to defeat the incumbent president, Barack Obama.

Best wishes from Simon

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".