Author Archives: Michael Happy

“Liberalism — The ‘Canadian’ Temperament”

frye-divisions

Glen Pearson at his blog The Parallel Parliament cites Frye on Canadian liberalism in a post here.

Money quote:

When Canadian Northrop Frye penned his seminal Divisions on a Ground, he used that very term to describe this very country he appreciated.  While acknowledging the various diverse components struggling to make their way in Canada, he also affirmed that they were in one place – “On A Ground” – and that accommodations were being made.  For that reason, his work was hopeful.

The liberal temperament looks at it the same way.  To live together, temperament matters just as much as policy.  To be decent, tolerant, smart, accommodating, principled and generous has mattered just as much in this country as wealth.  It is who we are and it’s best we get back to it.

Napoleon

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIJimmYKYYA

An extended excerpt from Abel Gance‘s restored 1927 masterpiece, Napoleon

On this date in 1799 Napoleon left Egypt en route to seize power in France.

Frye in “The Drunken Boat”:

The self-identifying admiration that so many Romantics expressed for Napoleon has much to do with the expression of natural force, creative power, and revolutionary outbreak.  As Carlyle says, in an uncharacteristically cautious assessment of Napoleon: “What Napoleon did will in the long-run amount to what he did justly; what Nature with her laws will sanction.” (The Stubborn Structure, 209)

And here he is in one of the late notebooks on the same quote:

Carlyle said that what Napoleon did will ultimately become what he did justly: people like Napoleon never really do anything, certainly not justly.  They’re thunderstorms in the hell-world.  (CW 6, 672)

Saturday Night Video: Joe Strummer and the Clash

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfK-WX2pa8c

“London Calling”  (Video not embedded: click on the image and hit the YouTube link)

Today is Joe Strummer‘s birthday (1952 – 2002).  You can watch the excellent documentary about him, The Future is Unwritten, here. The film opens with a scalding version of “White Riot”; I understand this won’t be to everybody’s taste, but to those it is, the studio footage of Strummer laying down the lead vocal track will give you goosebumps.

A few weeks ago I posted on British music of the ’80s, and it must have seemed to some that there was a conspicuous omission — no Clash.  That was no accident.  The Clash need a post all their own.  They were not just another British band.  They were, for starters, the most London of bands.  They made the London of the Thatcher era a habitat for everyone demanding a better world to call home.  If, for example, you haven’t heard it in a while, put on London Calling, which is in its idiosyncratic way the most sunshiny and optimistic punk album imaginable.  The Clash were, for the period, an uncharacteristically un-nihilistic and socially committed band. They were the Happy Warriors of the Left, and it’s why they are still loved by people who weren’t yet born when they stopped recording.

When I lived at Vic in the early 1980s, the Clash were the band of choice in many residences.  It may be somewhat frivolous, I know, but a lot of the music I heard during that time got twisted into the skein of my experience of Frye, the Clash especially. Because they — always under the heartfelt and uncompromising guidance  of Strummer — actually cared. And cared to an extent few people in their situation do. They took the best of punk and became arguably the first (and most enduring) of the post-punk bands; drawing, in a way that is typical of English musicians, from as many popular musical influences as they could convincingly string together.  The effect was to render up a sound and an expectation that was not to be ignored.  They were, like the very best English musical artists, concerned but cheeky monkeys.  Think of the Beatles by way of the Sex Pistols.

I know that Frye probably regarded the punk movement in much the same way he regarded the hippies a decade earlier: as a reaction to “an overproductive society” and not a revolutionary response at all.  But I’ve noticed that many of my students — all of whom were born long after the fact — have enthusiastically absorbed both the hippie and punk outlook to resist and perhaps even reform in a very civilized way an approach to life that is not only unsustainable but seems determined to commit slow suicide.  It will be interesting to see if the genuine concern these students seem to carry so lightly and confidently can translate into the future that Wilde says is what artists are.  Their default settings are strikingly liberal and tolerant and thoughtful when it comes to the accelerating destructiveness of a rapacious consumer society.  I am cautiously hopeful.  I know they are capable of it.  It remains to be seen if they can reverse the inertia that plagues a society rendered almost senile in its indifference to the needs of others, and even to the near future it behaves as if it will not live to see.  But it is still a future that remains unwritten.

So, with that in mind — This is Radio Clash; everybody hold on tight.

Continue reading

Video of the Day: “Is Fox News a Terrorist Command Centre?”

STEWART-MOSQUE-large

Yep.  Jon Stewart once again channels Fox News’ guilt-by-association-follow-the-money tactics to demonstrate that Fox News itself might be an Islamic terrorist command centre.  He’s not outright saying it is, mind you.  Like Glenn Beck, he’s just asking questions no one else is asking.  And, of course, they’re much better questions, which is what makes them so damn funny and much more pertinent.

Video via Gawker here.

TGIF: “You vicious bastard”

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a23irJlpjT4

No case needs to be made for the genius of John Cleese’s portrayal of Basil Fawlty as a study in anger mismanagement, and anybody who knows Fawlty Towers will have their favorite moment or two.  But I defy anyone to come up with a funnier moment than this one from “Gourmet Night.”  Technically, it’s a little masterpiece, something that’s nothing on paper but brilliant in execution: a stalled car, a single stationary camera, a flood tide of verbal abuse from someone who, for a good portion of the sequence, we can hear but cannot see.  And then the payoff. . .

If this whets your appetite, you can watch the full episode here.

Quebec Separatism

parizeau

The now nearly forgotten Jacques Parizeau, leader of the Parti Quebecois and Premier of Quebec at the time of the 1995 Referendum.  The near miss may have been partly the result of an attempted electoral fraud by PQ party workers at the polls who suppressed “no” votes. Parizeau, of course, saw the result differently and notoriously blamed the loss (some say drunkenly did so) on “money and ethnic votes.” We also discovered that had the PQ won by the narrowest of margins (the question posed in the referendum included negotiating a new constitutional arrangement with Canada first), Parizeau intended to make a unilateral declaration of  independence on behalf of a newly sovereign Quebec.  As Parizeau put it, the bamboozled population would accept it once they realized that they were now “lobsters thrown into a boiling pot.”

On this date is 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Quebec cannot legally secede from Canada without the consent of the federal government.

Frye in “Canadian Identity and Cultural Regionalism”:

When the cultural and imaginative regionalism in Canada takes on a political cast as well, it becomes merely provincial.  In extreme cases, as with certain extreme separatist groups in Quebec, British Columbia and the Prairies, it can become a kind of squalid neo-fascism.  On the other hand, when the national political consciousness attempts to become generally imaginative and cultural, it is apt to become confused by insoluble problems of identity.  I think we can eventually work our way towards a national culture and imagination, but it needs a solid regional  basis.  (CW 10, 268)

Ogden Nash

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQxIybJ2AcM

Ogden Nash reading “I Never Even Suggested It’

Today is Ogden Nash‘s birthday (1902 – 1971).

Frye in The Well-Tempered Critic

Works of intentional doggerel are usually satire, and digression and constant change of theme and mood are structural principles of satire.  Again, we are approaching the creative process, the associative babble out of which poetry comes, but, as with euphuism, are approaching it deliberately and in reverse, as it were. What makes intentional doggerel funny is its implied parody of real doggerel, or incompetent attempts at verse: the struggle for rhythms, even to the mispronouncing of words, the dragging in of ideas for the sake of rhyme, the distorting of syntax in squeezing words into metre.  Again, as in euphuism, a normally subconscious process becomes witty by transforming it to consciousness.  [As in this poem by Nash.]

The creature fills its mouth with venom

And walks upon its duodenum

He who attempts the tease the cobra

Is soon a wiser he, and a sobra.

Kermode, Frye, the French, and British Criticism

kermode

An excerpt from Imre Salusinszky’s interview with the late Frank Kermode in Criticism in Society:

IS: Why was Frye, as well as the subsequent theoretical modes that have originated in America and France, rejected by British critics?  Why are they so resistant to theoretical criticism?

FK: I think they’ve probably been less resistant than that formulation suggests.  There are people like Stephen Heath in Cambridge, for example, who in his own individual way has followed the French line.  Culler is not British, but is a product of the British academy.  At Cambridge, in my time, there was a great hunger among undergraduates for more of that kind of thing — that’s why Heath’s were enormously popular courses.  On the other hand, there was bitter opposition to it.  The animus against theory is very strong in English departments in England, especially among the older teachers.  Cambridge, of course, is exceptionally hostile to any kind of thought at all, as far as the English faculty is concerned.  There’s always this feeling you get among certain sorts of English critics that all this French nonsense is something which you can blow over with one good “huff.”  People like George Watson think that, just as they can demolish Marxism in a twenty-page article, they think they can demolish the entire French critical effort with an obvious exercise of common sense. (105)