I’ve had a variety of reactions to author Gunter Grass’ admission that he was a member of Hitler’s (the real one, not the metaphorical one) SS during World War II.
Then it hit me. And I went to the bookshelf, and pulled down my copy of ShrinkLits, by Maurice Sagoff.
Dafoe’s “Moll Flanders”
The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the famous
Moll Flanders, who was born in Newgate, and
during a life of continued variety, for
threescore years, besides her childhood,
was twelve years a Whore, five times
a Wife (thereof once to her own
brother), twelve years a
thief, eight years a
transported Felon in Virginia,
at last grew rich, lived honest,
and died a penitent.
Written from her
own memorandums.– original title page
That’s the story,
…Briefly told.At age 70,
…Weak and old,Pricked by conscience,
…Moll retires,Banks her savings
…And her fires;She repents her
…Sins and all…Love your sense of timing
…Moll.
This is cute:
bq. The Tin Drum author Günter Grass has admitted that he was a member of the Waffen-SS, an elite fighting unit in Nazi Germany. Grass, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1999, sharply criticized the United States earlier this year:
bq. _Grass quotes liberally from the blistering speech given last year by British playwright Harold Pinter in accepting the Nobel Prize for Literature: “The United States supported and, in many cases, engendered every right-wing military dictatorship in the world after World War II — Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador and, of course, Chile …_
bq. _”Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place in those countries … but you wouldn’t know it. The crimes of the U.S. have been systematic, constant, vicious, and remorseless but very few people have actually talked about them._
bq. _”You have to hand it to America. It has exercised quite a clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s brilliant, even witty, a highly successful act of hypnosis. How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal?”_
bq. It’s a good question. I can’t wait to see how Grass answers it.
From “bookslut”:http://www.bookslut.com/blog/archives/2006_08.php#009724 via “Tyler Cowen”:http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/new_blog_with_g.html
Doesn’t suprise me a bit. During the rise of fascism, socialists effortlessly became fascists. After the fall of fascism, fascists effortlessly became socialists. How many former Nazi’s became free-market liberals?
And now, as the socialist edifice in Western Europe begins to crack under the massive weight of its own contradictions, there can be little wonder what contemporary socialists will become. The first generation of fascists arose out of the failure of the first incarnation of socialism. So it is with today’s socialists who are allying themselves with Islamic terrorists and assisting the rise of Islamic fascism in the West.
We can see the first signs of this totalitarianism in the government harassment of Brussel’s Journal for the “crime” of speaking the truth:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1251
As Hayek stated:
“In Germany and Italy the Nazis and the Fascists did indeed not have much to invent. The usages of the new political movements which pervaded all aspects of life had in both countries already been introduced by the socialists. The idea of a political party which embraces all activities of the individual from the cradle to the grave, which claims to guide his views on everything […] was first put into practice by the socialists.
It was not the Fascists but the socialists who began to collect children from the tenderest age into political organisations to make sure they grew up as good proletarians. It was not the Fascists but the socialists who first thought of organising sports and games, football and hiking, in party clubs where the members would not be infected by other views. It was the socialists who first insisted that the party member should distinguish himself from others by the modes of greeting and the forms of address. It was they who by their organisation of “cells” and devices for the permanent supervision of private life created the prototype of the totalitarian party.”
Mussolini himself was a socialist activist before becoming a Fascist – or better, the Duce. ’nuff said…
Germans who served in the Waffen SS are not eligible for veteran benefits unless they were conscripted. They would not have a right to keep such service secret, though.
What´s all that fuss about?
Gras hasn´t hide his love for socialist (If not specifically for national-socialst) cruel tyrannies. Grass´s been one of the stauchest and most influencial long-time propagandist/apologist (among others) of Castrism and its crimes. Compared to this anything he could do as a teenage SS (Certanly not masterminding Treblinka)is peanuts.
I’m certainly no fan of Grass’ politics. I am, however, a fan of his work. _The Tin Drum_ is an endlessly fascinating novel. It is also highly moral in its critique of the mindset that resulted in Nazism. The fact that Grass himself belonged to one of the worst Nazi organizations doesn’t change that. It’s ironic that some on the right are now using the very “argument from hypocracy” that the left so often uses. It’s just as bogus in both cases. If a smoker tells you smoking is bad, he may be a hypocrit. He’s also 100% correct. Grass’ politics may be stupid. His work is not.
Yes because there’s no difference between someone engaged in unhealthy behavior who acknowledges that it’s unhealthy and someone who secretly served as a member of a genocidal dictatorship defeated by the United States and who accuses the United States of engaging in the sort of crimes committed by his former regime.
Yep, no difference at all.
Well, Grass’ work may indeed be interesting and critic of Nazism, but then he champions an ideology that has too many points in common with Nazism for comfort.
Curious at the very least.
I’ve not read Grass, it hasn’t come up yet in Bush’s existentialism reading group. But I’ve found personal fault with many of the artists whose work I enjoy. G.B. Shaw would be a good example. I try to put a wall up so that personal biography and politics don’t get in the way, but the artists themselves aren’t always helpful in this.
Thorley,
I think you’re (proabably deliberately) missing the point. Let’s say recent scholarship uncovered that Shakespeare was a child molester. Does the fact that he wrote great plays excuse child molesting? Or imply that it’s ok to be a child molester if you write great plays? Of course not. But that doesn’t change a single word in a single Shakespeare play. It’s still the some of the greatest poetry in our language. I’m not saying being a good writer excuses being a Nazi. I am, however, saying that Grass the man and Grass the work are two separate things and the loathsomeness of the man does nothing to lessen the quality of the work.
I’ll agree, Fred – Grass the man may (or may not) be despicable, and that has little impact on my view of Grass the author.
But not no impact.
Heiddiger as a philosopher is clearly a great one, but his attachment to Nazi beliefs can’t be escaped in reading his work; similarly, when I reread Grass, his background will influence how I see it.
A.L.
The Tin Drum is about a little boy who refuses to grow up, who heckles everything he disapproves of with a toy drum, and who goes on to work for the Nazis as a circus midget.
I didn’t realize it was an autobiography.
> I am, however, saying that Grass the man and Grass the work are two separate things
Which Glass is talking when he says “America is evil”? Should we take that as the word of an artist or the word of a youthful fascist?
I note that few folks would cut a right-wing figure any of the slack that Grass seems to be entitled to.
We’ve already found that Grass will excuse any left-wing dictatorship. We’re now finding that a lot of folks will excuse any apologist for left-wing dictatorships.
What does it take for you folks to condemn folks with the fervor that you demand as a matter of course from your opponents?
Andy F,
I agree with you that a right-wing figure wouldn’t “get a pass” (though I’m not arguing Grass should be given a pass for his past, only that his work should be taken on its own terms) from the left. However, I would argue that the left in that case would be guilty of the same fallacy as the right in this case. That a person’s “hypocracy” undermines or refutes his/her argument or vitiates the quality of his/her artistic creation.
As for his statement that America is evil, that too should be taken for what it is, a stupid remark inspired by an equally stupid ideology. It would be that whether Grass said it, I said it, or anyone else said it. It’s stupid on its own terms.
_I’m not arguing Grass should be given a pass for his past, only that his work should be taken on its own terms_
I agree. Can’t we simply enjoy “Barbarella”:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMW6iGhGQT0&mode=related&search= without letting Jane Fonda’s politics muck it up?
(Not workplace safe)
> though I’m not arguing Grass should be given a pass for his past, only that his work should be taken on its own terms
We wouldn’t extend that courtesy to anyone on the right, so why should Grass get it?
Yes, I know the answer. Every leftist deserves the benefit of every doubt. No rightist deserves the benefit of any doubt.
Note that continuing to revere his work does help shine up the rest of his stuff. You can’t actually separate these things as nicely as you’d like.
Which I guess is the point.
Doesn’t it bother you to always apologize for folks who defend left-wing monsters? Heck, doesn’t it bother you to defend said monsters?
I know, they meant well, or at least said the right things while running the killing fields.
PD Shaw, Good one!
Andy, I feel your pain. I’m just as sick as you are of the left’s double standard. I’m just saying the right is ill-served to adopt the same fallacious arguments. To give you a reverse example of what I’m talking about here: Ezra Pound was conservative to the point of reactionary. In fact, he worked for Mussolini during the war. He was also one of the greatest poets of the twentieth century. As a literature graduate student, I heard his fascism attacked _ad nauseum_ while hard-core Stalinist writers were portrayed as heroes. It sickened me. But in either case, the important thing was the work. My opinion is that the right, with its sense of tragedy and human limitations has an artistic advantage over the left, which tends to be rather shallow and monomaniacal about politics, as though politics were the only dimension of humanity. Having said that, though, I’d rather read and study a well-crafted, philisophically interesting, entertaining work with a left perspective (like, say, _The Tin Drum_ or _Slaughterhouse Five_) than a shrill, propagandistic, artistically thin work from the right.
> But in either case, the important thing was the work.
The important thing for what?
I understand the sentiment behind “Ode to a Grecian Urn is worth any number of old ladies” but it doesn’t stop there. As long as Tin Drum spills over, so should his SS past, especially since the spill-over is clearly biased the way it is.
FWIW, I’ve never thought that one should put much faith in folks who confuse truth and beauty.
Re #17:
I think Sidney Hook summed up the whole issue of separating the man and the work nicely: “Ezra Pound was a great poet, who should have been hanged.”