Monday, October 6, 2008
Open Forum on DeLillo
A few of you have been sending me some great responses (negative and positive) to Mao II, so I thought I'd create a final forum for discussion of the text before we move on to Galatea 2.2. So, if you have perspectives on DeLillo you'd like to share or points of interest, please post them here. Also: if you read the posts of your classmates, please feel free to respond to them. I look forward to the conversation!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Don DeLillo is afraid of something. Maybe it’s terrorism or technology or the spectacle, but it’s probably how the three work together so well.
First off, it’s important that we establish DeLillo as something of an ego maniac. If we subscribe to the idea that he is very much, or maybe exactly like Bill Grey, than he already considers himself to be an important person. So important, that someone might want to kill him to become famous. This is how he believes it’s dangerous to be an author. As if he is such a tormented genius that people will do whatever it takes to get close to him, to try to understand him. If he won’t share that with the obsessed fans of him, they might try to kill him so that no one can ever understand. It’s a fairly pretentious statement to me. I agree that a writer can inspire such extreme actions such as terrorism, but to me, DeLillo purposefully smears the distinction between the writer who inspires from the terrorist who does the actual killing. His writing is only dangerous if it inspires a dangerous person. To make the argument that his or any other author will certainly turn good people to deranged terrorists is not only preposterous, but egotistical. A person inspired by a written work to carry out terror has a characteristic in them prior to reading the written work which is already dangerous and already easily influenced. If DeLillo’s Mao II didn’t inspire the terrorist perhaps Mien Kampf would have, or even the Holy Bible. The point is, words don’t kill the person, the actions of the inspired do. An author shouldn’t be blamed or credited with the power the terrorist creates.
I agree with DeLillo that technology has facilitated the spectacle on a world-wide basis. The media sensationalize human suffering by shocking the public with grotesque images of deranged, deadly behavior carried out in ways that seem beyond human capacity. We’re intrigued by the extreme violence of genocidal killing, bewildered by kids and teens who randomly shoot their classmates, and confused yet fascinated at assassination attempts and important buildings being blown up.
Technology, terrorism, and the spectacle work in perfect harmony because people wont turn off their televisions. We allow marketers and networks to stimulate our senses with shock value and when the shock wears off, with saturation of events replayed a thousand times.
But technology isn’t an entity with a life of it’s own. We still have the power to decide how we should use tools and breakthroughs. Many a science fiction novel has been based upon the idea that technology is on an unstoppable crash course that will ultimately doom us all. And on some levels we allow that idea to become real. Those who stand to gain the most from the tidal wave of technology yell about infringed freedoms when the discussion of limiting the accessibility of certain uses of technology. Take for instance the use of nuclear power. We, the US, maintain the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. And we, the US, decide who should and shouldn’t be allowed to keep a few of their own. Does Iran have reason to complain of why they receive such a hard time for trying to develop nukes? I think so. Would you complain if the government decided you can only watch half the amount of television that you do now? I think so. Even if meant the world be a healthier, safer place? I think so.
If DeLillo wants to blame technology for the ills of the world that’s fine. But it still comes back to people being people. The Romans fed Christians to lions as a spectacle. They would flood the colosium and watch naval battles unfold where people actually died. Leaders were still assassinated and the accounts of their deaths were retold and written down a thousand times. Terrorist groups have always existed but in the history books they’re often referred to as courageous revolutionaries. DeLillo can through many filters of blame, but when it comes down to it, he is scared of human nature.
-Bryan Burke
I think an issue is mass-consciousness but...
On the DeLillo video:
I found it demonstrative of the themes in "Mao II". It was kind of strange that the readings from the novel were acted out before our eyes as if they were film renditions of the scenes in question. In fact, the first few scenes made me feel as if they were clips from full-length film versions. I think I felt this way because of the title of the novel appearing in white lettering at the bottom of the screen followed by the year of its conception (a similar format to a showcase of film clips). I frankly did not like seeing Bill and Brita so I had to look away.
But anyway, I was thinking about the spaces within the film(clip) interpretation of "Mao II" as well as the characters. Doesn't this imagistic approach to the story create a mass-consciousness?
Not to say that one's mind is highly susceptible to images, but knowing a film-maker's interpretation of Bill, Brita, Karen, Bill's house, and Brita's apartment does seem to move us toward a cohesive understanding of the characters/spaces themselves. (good thing/bad thing?)
One example:
Anyone who read the stuff, think of Harry Potter and his pals and how you imagined them before the movie versions flooded the senses. Or Lord of the Rings?
Just some thoughts...
Those are both really interesting posts. Bryan, I think it's important to ask whether DeLillo's vision of technology as the author of terror and the mass spectacle is exaggerated or, as you argue, the product of a paranoid mind. And, Madison, I am very glad you bring up the strangeness of seeing scenes from the novel being transformed into images. I had wondered if DeLillo made the movie in order to further question whether images retain a power that words don't.
I am glad we are discussing these issues on the blog.
http://perival.com/delillo/meandmaoii.html
Tom LeClair (a retired professor at UC) on Mao II: a good read.
Post a Comment