Skip to main content

Mumbai

Terror knows no bounds, is an attempt at boundless contempt for society's limits. It appeals, therefore, to those who believe that limits are wrong, or currently are of the wrong shape - paradoxically, many who enact terror desire more, not less, limit. Yet they work in chaos who desire a new order. Mumbai, a great city of the world, is currently facing a new kind of freewheeling madness and cruelty that makes artistic depictions of the urban same, in films (like the recent Batman) jejeune and false. What is being expressed in these terrifying acts is that free agents of ruthless determination can move at will through serious cities, nearly unhindered - yet ultimately, hindered. That battles are still raging, more than 24 hours after the initial attacks, is alarming. Anarchy, it now appears, can appear anywhere, in even the midst of great civilisations, and establish small failed states. The 21st century is falling apart. Obama can only do so much, and most of the world seems to be tearing itself to bits.
Labels:

Comments

Coirí Filíochta said…
I think you're too pessemistic Todd.

Your most important prediction concerning how the mass of humanity think and would react in the American election, was 100% wrong, as you stated that though it pained you to think the worst, you firmly believed McCain would triumph. And after the event, you removed the post predicting in a resigned world weary tenor, this failed prophecy, thus leaving no record of it.
Sat Nov 29, 12:57:00 am 2008
Anonymous said…
A point well-made that those who desire new limits first seek to explode the old limits. But isn't it the luxury of the powerful to declare 'terror' an arbitrary, incoherent force, one that can't be reasoned with, or that has no inherent reason? Whoever the 'Deccan Mujahideen' may be, they won't be topping the approval polls, but that's never the point with terrorism. Consider instead the possible motivation for a young Indian jihadi, in particular the continued prevalence of 'hindutva' politics in India, progenitor of the Gujarati pogroms of 2002, which have never been properly accounted for either politically or judicially. The rise of Hindutva itself gains some of its appeal from those who wish to align India poth economically and politically with the world's pre-eminent superpower, by redefining India as a religiously exclusive state. Such gestures are rarely made without prospect of reciprocation. Whether Obama has the inclination or ability to reconstruct American foreign policy's entire orientation towards Asia, from Istanbul to Dhaka, remains to be seen.
Sat Nov 29, 12:24:00 pm 2008
Unknown said…
background artist is pretty much spot on. I've almost always felt your political perspective veered way off track, Todd: i.e. your support for the Federal Liberals in Canada back in the 1990s, your prediction that Pat Buchanan would rise to the top of the G.O.P., and most importantly, your absurd support for Ross Perot (even if it was humorous, I think your were, mostly, in earnest). Since about two years ago, if not after Obama's speech at the Democratic convention when the Daily Show went into raptures over the Democratic Party's latest discovery, I suspected that Obama might very well become President. And it has happened! What else can I say, eh?
As for your predictions about terrorism, in Mumbai and elsewhere, while I agree with you that it is serious, and that we are in a watershed decade/time/era-or/whatever-else-it-might-be-called, I don't think that this means that we are "tearing ourselves to bits." Apocalyptic? Yes. Apocalypse? No. The decline of a civilization à la Rome? Yes. Bin Laden will ultimately be depicted as something along the lines of Attila, but more effective. But again, he won't be the ruler. There will be endless conflicts between nations, city-states, districts, etc. ad nauseum, just like in the dark-ages. Have you seen the movie, The Moneymakers? Have your read your Hobsbaum? Ahem. I need not say more.
Sat Nov 29, 05:12:00 pm 2008
Anonymous said…
How beautiful painting. It looks like it will start talking.
Thanks for posting
Mon Dec 22, 05:23:00 am 2008
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A  poem for my mother, July 15 When she was dying And I was in a different country I dreamt I was there with her Flying over the ocean very quickly, And arriving in the room like a dream And I was a dream, but the meaning was more Than a dream has – it was a moving over time And land, over water, to get love across Fast enough, to be there, before she died, To lean over the small, huddled figure, In the dark, and without bothering her Even with apologies, and be a kiss in the air, A dream of a kiss, or even less, the thought of one, And when I woke, none of this had happened, She was still far distant, and we had not spoken.
Post a Comment
Read more

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...
15 comments
Read more

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....
3 comments
Read more