"In this land of boundless expanses and unnerving strangeness, this land with which none of their memories were linked, the bunker was a semblance of home."
“Seems long to you, does it,” Steiner said tightly. He shook his head slowly. “It was yesterday, I tell you. Yesterday and today and tomorrow and always.”
- Willi Heinrich (Cross Of Iron 1955 - translated by Richard and Clara Winston for 1956 English edition)
"But there is no honor in this war, memories will be ugly, even if we win, and if we die, we die without God."
- From 1957 movie, "The Enemy Below"
Director Samuel Peckinpah's work was often pigeonholed into a violent, macho loser niche by critics in the 70s, and any philosophical underpinnings misunderstood or treated as thematic flaws. His visual art was judged by superficial elements like his trademark slow motion deaths (a technique now in common use in films).
Those mainstream opinions, thanks to the Internet, have multiplied by a factor of around a million (calculated by net standards of accuracy) and certainly are valid, at least as personal opinions. As far as my feelings on the various critiques, none are relevant to what really is interesting about the subset of four films that resonated most.
"Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid," "The Wild Bunch," "Major Dundee," and "Cross Of Iron" all dealt with the themes of decay, change, loss of faith and physical distance. All showed people in the twilight of an era, stuck in degraded routines and duties played out over vast stretches of land that didn't add grandeur but emphasized their rootlessness.
Those themes struck home out there in the car. My homeless life played out in five locations, each quite different from the other. It all started up north in Marin County, then moved down south to Silicon Valley, and finally alternated between the farmlands of Gilroy and the coastal region of Salinas, with a short sojourn to the Sierra Foothills and Fresno.
It wasn't a search for home. Like with Corporal Steiner and his squad in Cross Of Iron, it was just a long journey shaped by circumstances and outside forces, and my earlier life as a well off worker in Silicon Valley was a memory that seemed more and more unreal.
...the cost of war...
The military aspect of Willi Heinrich's Cross of Iron, the book on which Peckinpah's movie was based, wasn't entirely relevant to my experience. Not because of any philosophical objections but because it was a story that could only be written by someone who'd been a soldier. All the research in the world can't put even an empathetic writer or observer in that state of mind. At best, points of view or accounts can be quoted to insert a sense of experience into a work, but it won't be the author's truth.
Sure, a Jack Kerouac or other master could write a book about war, and it would probably be a great one, but he'd either have to lean on another's personal accounts of combat, or substitute or transpose feelings from an activity that seems to provide a similar experience. Which is why Vietnam vet Oliver's Stones' movie Platoon would have more intrinsic truth than Saving Private Ryan, and the side question of which is a better movie is a discussion more in the realm of art (and commerce).
Which is why some aspects of Peckinpah movies related to my situation and only my situation. My book will make a strict differentiation between actual experience and observation or research.
For example, I was aware of homeless camps and been through some, but had reasons to avoid living in those. Some based on what I saw, and some from what I'd read and heard from others. Second hand accounts can be described, but an understanding of what motivated someone to live in such groups would have to be derived through research. That may be good literature in a sense, but not necessarily truth.
...there is relevance, though...
One interesting subtlety, the various characters in those movies, who are failures to the respectable folk do teach an important skill; how to live with failure. This isn't a small thing. Focusing too much on winning can result in paralysis or self-punishment in the aftermath of losing. The nature of competition at all levels guarantees that everyone loses at some point in their life.
The soldiers in Cross of Iron did experience the same feelings of rootlessness and loss that the homeless had. Contrary to some critics and reader comments about the book, that it was "talky" and "slow" at points, it was in fact very much how many human beings will act and think in such circumstances. Many American comments, for example, came from people who grew up watching war movies where the morale officer was depicted as a trivial idiot, and the conclusion of a tense plot is some pyrotechnic. Losing was an unthinkable outcome, like a heresy.
Which is admittedly oversimplifying, but many Americans don't understand homelessness and that's not a criticism, just a fact. Most opinions on the subject are observations and judgements filtered through Puritan or Darwinian (i.e. Capitalism) attitudes. There's been no real comprehensive study of the phenomenon and most "experts" that the media do quote on the subject are speaking from a small sample size or vast statistics that are open to interpretation. "Homelessness" is basically treated as a single catagory, and at worst, a stereotype.
Most modern images of the homeless are stereotypes (which I've discussed in earlier blog entries), and the actual diversity of the scene is great enough that I had to limit the scope of the book to what was actually seen or heard.
...critical discussion...
I recall an early critical discussion of the Cross of Iron movie, and the negative comments seemed to focus on the seemingly irrelevant philosophical discussions. The western point of view is more about men of action who get things done and chase women (or want more action scenes), and there isn't much appetite for self-examination.
It was a surprise to run into homeless people who did engage in philosophical explorations. In retrospect, it shouldn't have been. Most intelligent people will try to understand how they found themselves in such a catastrophic situation, and are acutely aware of what was lost.
Now, I'm not saying that we discussed Newtonian Agnosticism or chaos theory (though I did give some thought as to the absurdity of making all soda sizes .99 cents at a gas station sale. I mean, will people actually chose the smaller size?), but more than a few had astute descriptions of the scene or had evolved a viable survival strategy, which doesn't come to one dimensional types.
The soldiers in Corporal Steiner's unit weren't simply losers or outcasts (another critical characterization of Peckinpah movies). Most by sheer survival of the fittest had become very smart soldiers (Nietzsche's Supermen?) who whatever their differences (or how Gumplowicz describes the shaping of society via conflict) could rely on each other. Their disillusion (Sartre's other side of dispair?) didn't preclude trying to live on to go home (or was Thomas Wolfe right, you can't go home?). The idea that they were "losers" (or Bukowski's vision of rebels) is really a western idea, where success (Spinoza's attainment of perfection?) is calculated against metrics (mainly money given that we're a dialectical materialist society).
However, it's best not to overthink such things, as Steiner says in the book, "it seems to me that philosophy, too, finds new questions in every answer."
All of the characters in the aforementioned Peckinpah movies had been successful in their younger days, or experienced a time when they were winning the game. Aside from the lost optimism of youth, they were all still the same person, and in most cases, considerably smarter than they had been. Survival is both a skill and instinct.
...time waits for no one...
What changed was the era, due to the movement of time and the implicit loss of freedom. In the Wild West, the setting for The Wild Bunch and Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid, being an outlaw was probably as free as any other life choice, at least in terms of not having to having one's life run by the military or some tycoon. Pat Garrett loved Billy The Kid, yet later in life, they had to be enemies because "law" had come to the west, and he had become a lawman to survive.
In Corporal Steiner's case, time had brought the realization that the war really wasn't what he thought it was, that it had become a remorseless machine that just went on and on and ate up lives to no real purpose.
The Cross of Iron book, of course, is richer in psychological detail than the movie, and it's interesting how his perception of time evolved. Rather than become a existentialist who only lived in the present (as some war books or movies would depict men), his past moved into closer view and influenced the present. An entire lifetime was vividly alive in his head, so his emotions could fluctuate in an unpredictable manner.
...childhood's end...
That happened to me; events from childhood merged with my view of the present, like a filter that colored every perception and situation. It was such a complex web that I began to think that it was due to some mental illness. It didn't help that early on, due to sleep deprivation and poor nutrition, I suffered from periodic hallucinations. Had the police or other authorities caught me in that state, I'd have been at least temporarily held and tagged as just another mentally ill transient. In my book, you'll find that I almost was.
Luckily, it didn't go in that direction, and one reason it didn't was that there was an archetype of a person who had a vivid merging of past and present, aggravated by poor nutrition and exhaustion. That being Corporal Steiner, and if he was sane, so was I. That's the difference between a good book and literature that speaks truth.
"Thou art the god, thou art my lord, etc. This was in heathen Babylon, some three thousand years ago. Since then, the world has moved on—"
- Upton Sinclair (The Profits Of Religion)
In medieval times, priests served a vital function in the armies: they made sure that the peasants who served as coerced unpaid infantry, forgot about the Ten Commandments long enough to kill the King's enemies, but quickly return to being happy with their humble lot in life.
Their status as all knowing experts on the Word of God helped with a variety of ills that could afflict the fighting morale of armies; such as conscience, fear of dying, pacifism, resentment over being exploited, and dismay at the entitled ingratitude of the nobility towards their sacrifice. The good and noble Lords of the King got into the spirit of things too, enthusiastically torturing and executing any soldier that offended God's favored servant, the King, with a variety of methods that were zesty tonics for the recalcitrant and cowardly.
That might be an overly cynical view of those shepherds of men's souls in the glorious, but grim task of enriching Kings who only answered to God, but the Internet has proven that similar influencers and experts will always be needed to guide flocks into absurd and illogical behavior, or in modern times, spend money.
...in defense...
In defense of priests and other types of sages; there's now a host of aimless souls with disposable incomes not derived from sweaty back breaking toil, who no longer have the simple task to serve or die, and are thirsty for guidance navigating the bewildering responsibilities of choice in a complex modern world, particularly in the west, where artificial intelligence hasn't yet reached the point of being able to decide things for them like the good ole days.
It's not easy figuring out which vegetable will increase your life span, how to relate to a partner without personal communication, or finding a socially acceptable outlet for bigotry. In a materialistic world where people regard God as a rabbit foot keychain, there still is a need for people who can provide guidance and stifle dissent. Even the Communists needed commissars to keep the workers paradise ship shape and feeling that old time religion.
The word "expert" now has the same power as the old phrase, "it's the will of God." It should be noted that this doesn't always apply to the Internet where it's not necessary to identify as an expert to give relationship or financial advice, diagnose mental illness in people you've never met, and of course, expound on theories covering all aspects of diet and nutrition.
...a short disclaimer...
I should add at this point of the essay that I'm certainly not referring to you intelligent and discerning readers who visit and enjoy this blog.
The media needs experts to ensure that customers aren't distracted by crippling doubts as to where the information came from or suffer the mental paralysis caused by pondering if what's being said is actually true. The Giants of Commerce need influencers to assist in the holy task of making life as expensive as possible and ensure that money is concentrated into the ever shrinking number of hands of the truly deserving.
Quoting experts is now like waving the cross or flag in earlier times. It simplifies the issue; any skeptics are recalcitrant cretins and the like minded are rallied to the standard. Which is good, as arguing over every fine point of an issue (though the Internet has opportunities available for those who enjoy doing that) wastes precious time better spent on online games, waiting for a superfood to work wonders on your body, or, if truth be told, arguing over every fine point of an issue with strangers (but on more agreeable and relevant subjects).
...once upon a time...
There was a time when the title of "expert" meant that the person was really an expert (I'm only speculating here, I'm not sure there actually was such a time). Before the net, there were less media outlets and only those who could truly provide unassailable commentary to further the point of a news story and sell commercial time could get the gig.
However, with the number of news and commentary outlets now estimated at five zillion (a number derived from the same methods used by political event organizers, which should be accurate enough by Internet standards), the demand for experts now exceeds that required for testimony in lawsuits by a factor that some experts estimate at four superduperquadrillion times the norm. That may seem like a lot, but still only enough to fit on the head of a pin.
That's a lot of experts, man, but necessary in an age where vegging out time with the phone or big screen TV is precious, and not to be wasted thinking about complex issues, like for example, wondering which of a hundred brands of guitar will make you into a rock star. After all, most guitars are the same anyway, and thinking too much wastes valuable time guitar makers could be spending making their owners richer.
...absolution...
There's also the vital job of absolution. Falling short of high moral standards can cause feelings of guilt and stress that pharmaceuticals can't always relieve. People who fret that their phones and other goods are made in substandard sweat shops need assurance by experts and other butt kissing toadies directly employed by employers that "the company is committed to providing outstanding working conditions and above market level wages in a joyous environment that lifts workers out of the poverty caused by previous colonialist exploitation by ((http:// << fill in national origin of business here >>))."
I may not have worded that quite correctly, but close enough I think. To achieve the great aims of capitalism, the captains of industry are more than happy to help absolve the customer of any culpability in the evasion of First World safety and wage standards. If that ain't priestly power, I don't know what is.
You, most alert and virtuous reader, may have noticed that the essay seems to concentrate on process and not policy. That is to say, not delineating how those who use and quote experts determine who is one.
I can only say, when they know, we'll all know.
"JAM3:07 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: JAM3:08 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison."
- King James Bible...ban the book...part one (to be continued next blog entry)...
Banning a book meant more before the advent of the Internet, when access to the written word was limited (Nowadays, blocking your internet access is the modern equivalent). Plus in eras like the 50s, much of the public trusted the various gate keepers who controlled access to the printed word in the name of protecting public decency.
It's more of a symbolic act these days, and more often than not, posturing to get media coverage or even increase demand for a book. In fact, even being involved in a sex scandal or committing a crime can induce yawns with a jaded public so finding that juicy grey zone of outrage that'll get people reaching for their piggy banks gets more elusive by the day.
The whole idea of banning books is more about the concept that information is power. In this case, people are kept from reading a book based on the judgement of a few who did read it. They shun the work on faith, trusting in the judgement of the gatekeeper or gatekeepers that it's a tome that would cause concrete harm to society, or some such thing. That's assuming the protected public gives a crap, of course, but let's assume every book is important for the purposes of this argument, shall we?
...these days...
These days, banning a book, particularly a public domain classic that can be easily downloaded, is an act that really has no real world effect. You can't stop distribution and there's no economic damage to an author who's long gone. That doesn't mean a ban has no effect at all. For a new author, getting proscribed or attracting grass roots opposition can be disasterous.
...the interesting thing...
What's really interesting is the relationship of gate keepers (most being self-appointed), and the compliance of those who accept instruction to not read a particular book. Understanding that process gives one a real insight into the mechanics of power via control of information (and ideas), and what is supposedly being protected.
Say, for example, some historian or activist says that Mein Kamph by Adolf Hitler is dangerous or Darwin is blasphemous, and a large portion of society then assumes that's it's bad and never read the work.
That's a form of faith, which can be as harmless as thinking anyone rooting against your football team is an idiot, but the issues that surround both of the aforementioned books do get debated and influence actual laws and social behavior. In that case, the debate can become manipulated by a few who actually know (or think they know) what the books said.
Most of the people who throw the word fascist or blasphemous around haven't read the books in question. They end up arguing in terms of symbols, throwing around terms like Nazi or heathen, or bypass discussion by dismissing the unconvinced as dingbats of low intelligence.
...black and white...
There is an absolute (in my opinion); people can't intelligently discuss a book they haven't read. Period. You can quote someone who has, but it isn't your thought or conclusion. Now, there's no law that says you can't comment on the bible, for example, even if you haven't read it. Plus, in most democratic counties, you can even advocate the banning of a book you've never read.
However, try to say that a diet consisting of bacon and steak won't shave lots of pounds off the hips and there'll be calls to prove it by those who have studied nutrition data (we'll avoid the larger question of what valid data is) or the even larger number who started the diet because some website said it was guaranteed to give you a swimsuit booty. To be fair, eating burgers and steak to lose weight is an attractive concept so even having proof that it doesn't work may not sway the carnivores. That gets into questions about faith, so we'll avoid such bends in the road in the interests of staying on point.
Like I said earlier, a century ago, banning a book was a more powerful gesture. Books and paper media were once the equivalent of the Internet (the info side that is). The more educated fascist type now knows that to cut the public off from ideas, it's better to cut off Internet access, and it's really the same idea, as most bans are aimed at a person or single idea (book, movie, etc).
...control...
If people are content to just assume Mein Kamph is evil because someone says so, then having it on every library shelf won't make any difference. Sure, some fascist types might get all tingly reading it, but they were already inclined to be Jack bootees. Plus in the personal sphere, sociopaths don't need a handbook by Hitler to control people, they already know how.
The problem with such an atmosphere isn't that certain books won't be available, as the Internet pretty much guarantees that won't happen. It's more of a concern that people may want to cut off your access. I use the word access because it's impossible to read every book ever written, so it's silly to say people should read every banned book. But if an issue or work interests you, a free society should allow that research. In fact, encourage it, as it reduces the amount of hearsay type arguments that can devolve into who or which expert is right.
The essence is that while books are safer now, the concept of suppressing an idea, or voice hasn't gone away. The anarchic freedom of the Internet also permits the social control or suppression of a person or their voice as expressed in a blog, web site, or social media account.
I'll do part two in the next blog entry, and get into specific examples.
- Al Handa
The Al & Ivy Homeless Literary Journal Archive:
There are earlier blog entries on the Delta Snake Review section of this site that aren't on the On The Road page:
http://deltasnake.blogspot.com
http://deltasnake.blogspot.com
Cover Reveal For Hide In Plain Sight
This is the cover for the upcoming book, Hide In Plain Sight, hopefully out sometime in 2021.
-Al Handa
The American Primitive Acoustic Collection by Handa-McGraw International can be streamed on all of the major services, including Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, and dozens of others.
The Music Of Handa-McGraw International can also be heard on the Electric Fog Factory on YouTube. You can hear the album, and dozens of unreleased cuts and demos, plus exclusive video of Ivy.
