Harold Pinter acknowledgement speech

[Fragbait]

harold pinter's nobelprize speech

Harold Pinter, this years nobelprize laureate in the category literature, launched a quite anti-American and anti-British address as his acknowledgment speech. This has been translated into several languages and first catched my eye in one of the newspapers I occasionally read.

Judge for yourselves.


Greetings, Fragbait

[Guest]

"There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal"


Ya, his opinion seems valuable. If you you have burned out half your mind with drugs or make a habit of believing in nonsense he might seem brilliant.

[Doc]

You know Ghost, you can stand to believe in a little nonsense here and there. It most certainly wouldn't hurt you at all.

Merry Christmas. :rolleyes:

[Occhidiangela]

harold pinter's nobelprize speech

Harold Pinter, this years nobelprize laureate in the category literature, launched a quite anti-American and anti-British address as his acknowledgment speech.

Judge for yourselves.
Greetings, Fragbait
[right][snapback]96784[/snapback][/right]

Let's take his own words and apply them to his speech.

In 1958 I wrote the following:  "There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false."

Funny, his writing is all sound and fury, signifying nothing, as measured by his own yardstick. :whistling:

I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?

Based on his opener, he'll never know, having hanged himself by a metpahysical rope to begin with. How does he get along in the world, never knowing whether the petrol he is pumping into his car is really there? /sarcasm off (I realize the question is rhetorical.)

Bottom line up front: Bless his pointed little head. :rolleyes: He writes well.

His rant/speech is the song of yet another disappointed choir member who once sang the Internationale in full voice. He wins a literature prize, well done indeed! *applause* B) Like many artistes and entertainment notables, he uses his award to act, for a moment on stage, as an allegedly objective moral arbiter, regardless of his own bias -- which is well established in his previous, and very public, political activism.

He chooses to forget, in his bitter and biting critique, to weigh the alternative outcome of the Cold War. Rather than that, he excoriates the "winner" (loaded term that :rolleyes: ) for not having been perfect, for failing to get through 40+ years of The Great Game without defect, without error. Bless him for his conscience, but "it's not the critic who counts." And as rich as "The West" is, it can't afford zero defects.

He confesses to intellectual laziness, in his comment on "we are not sure how they got there" regarding his accurate assessment of where America has military people stationed. If he had bothered to read any open source publication of the US National Security Strategy (less than 50 pages last I recall) over the past 20 years, he'd realize the so-called veil is of his own making: he chose to remain ignorant of easily accessible information for his speech's purposes: he pretends to ignorance. Who else is as transparent about policy as the US? Given his long record of political activism, I suspect he is more than familiar with public policy pronouncements of that nature: heck it is his topic at hand!

If he'd read Kaplan's Imperial Grunts, he'd note that his assertion regarding little versus "big war" is false, and specifically has been for the time period he covers. His characterization of "little wars" is well made, and anyone in a "little war" will tell you it is a war, and that it sucks. This point hits in the bull.

The spike that is Iraq clouds his vision: it provides a veil of his own construction. This (artificial ?) myopia hampers his critique on policy, though on other points he scores very well.

He's been writing plays, poems, and stories for decades; apparently very good ones. By choosing to overlook the simpler workings of geopolitics, his speech ends up as incisive commentary marred by clumsy (and I suspect deliberately adopted) ignorance. He plays the same game he pillories with his commentary. I will guess this artifice is the byproduct of his embedded positions taken in his political activism.

In his defense, and one of his better made points: since WW II ended, his chosen frame of reference, the US has gotten in bed politically with a whole crew of unsavory characters (governments) to achieve various ends. Funny old thing, that point of reference of his, him being a Brit. Please pardon my suspicion of yet another whinge from the impotent "has beens" of geopolitics: the British intellectual class.

As to disappointment for the details of geopolitics, macro style: it is a game you play to win. There are no time outs. There isn't even a game over.

He saves his scorn for Reagan and Bush in this speech, yet gives a complete pass to Clinton's leading NATO in a 71 day attack on Serbia, which was energetically encouraged by, among others, the PMs of France and the UK. I wonder why that is: Dealing with an incomplete deck? Forgetting that play is continuous?

He has made very pointed comments on that mess before. Why the omission in this context, given his chosen frame of reference and the time he took to loose a quiver full of arrows of scorn? (From the Harold Pinter website: His most recent speech was given on the anniversary of NATO'S bombing of Serbia at the Committee for Peace in the Balkans Conference, at The Conway Hall June 10th 2000.) He appears to reserve his scorn for UK and US governments, giving the rest a pass. Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

Unlike his books and plays, which end, the clashes of titans and dwarfs on the geopolitical battlefield goes on 24/7 no matter how he or I or any other oberver would wish to divide the clashing up, to put into chapters the apparently completed and related sets of events and skirmishes.

On another point he is absolutely correct: political discourse and commentary is embedded with falsehood, chicanery, smoke, mirrors, misdirection and partial presentation of facts . . . to include his own. America didn't invent that, nor did Britain. A less critical reader than I might be led to believe that only the US/UK cabal is playing the shell game in public policy utterances.

Insofar as his perceptiveness, he chooses to underestimate the discontent in America over the entire process under which Pres Bush embarked on the War in Iraq. Appears to be deliberate tunnel vision again: there is no shortage of material on that matter. I get the feeling that he, like President Bush and his War Council of 2002, "hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Given his long and energetic participation in political activism, he appears to have fallen in love with the sound of his own voice, his own soundbytes.

Pinter plays the same rehtorical game Bush (both of them, really) did with Saddam: set up a single individual as the avatar of evil/wrongness. He overlooks a chance to scourge, for example, VP Cheney or the many folks who made a mess of the "Saddam in Exile" effort, and yet spends time and prose on a self-masturbatory fantasy game of writing an idiot's speech for Pres Bush. Time badly spent, words wasted. A pity, given his superb prose.

He raises a chicken little game of where US nukes are aimed. *Snort* Harold, worry not, they aren't aimed at your precious UK. :P He also misses a fact or two on bunker busters, which Congress rejected funding for this year (yay!) but his carelessness with fact has already been established earlier in his speech, and in his rhetoric over the years. Pot calls kettle black, given that his premise is the general falsehood and "smoke screen" of political discourse.

The anecdote he provides about Nicaragua reveals his approach to, and his tunnel vision view of, the dirty, deadly earnest global game of power politics: a game that Europeans invented and the Brits perfected long before the US tried its hand. More "has been" whinging, but to his credit, he's made a living out of it. B)

In the process of cleaning up Europe's centuries of garbage, and in trying to play at the game as the rules keep changing, America has gotten its hands filthy. America has been heavy handed in Latin and South America since T Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson opened the policy door to embryonic imperial ambitions. He and I would agree on that were we to share a pint. :whistling: I wonder if the Chinese will get as dirty, in 50 or 100 years, cleaning up our geopolitical garbage. :P Since they don't waste as much energy in hand wringing, maybe they'll just clean off their hands and get on with it, and hence do it more cost effectively. ;)

On the bright side, Harold Pinter writes very well. I found the speech easy to read and well constructed to make his point, which he took the time to get to based on his format and audience: acceptance speech turns bully pulpit. He pounded his point into dust for the entertainment of the predictably receptive audience of elites, for whom he crafted his speech. All in all, when it comes to the written word, Mr Pinter is a craftsman. :) I wish I had a tenth of his talent.

Occhi

[jahcs]

For a guy that dwells in that area between truth and fiction, even admitting that some things can be both, he sure does put his foot down about what he "knows" to be true - even when many sources disprove his facts.

America may be a guilty party for some of the events shown but the rest of the world allowed many of them to happen too. America is not blameless, things should change. "The enemy of my enemy" is a very dangerous entity - especially in hindsight.

And I know many families and soldiers that would take great offense to:

The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.

I know several people who were wounded, some greivously, that don't lay in bed waiting to die. They would all give Mr. Pinter a piece of their mind if placed in the same room as him.


EDIT: Well done Occhi, you said some things I was thinking and couldn't phrase, items I didn't have direct knowledge of but "knew," and a few things I just didn't want to get into.

*a virtual guinness slides down the bar. :shuriken:

[yangman]

If you you have burned out half your mind with drugs or make a habit of believing in nonsense he might seem brilliant.
[right][snapback]96790[/snapback][/right]

Seriously now...

Anyone with experience in metaphysics can tell you that "reality" is a tricky topic, and the one thing you can prove is that most things can't be proved to be "real".

[Occhidiangela]

Seriously  now...

Anyone with experience in metaphysics can tell you that "reality" is a tricky topic, and the one thing you can prove is that most things can't be proved to be "real".
[right][snapback]96818[/snapback][/right]

When the bullet hits the bone, and the flesh is shredded, the bleeding is real. It is not illusion. When the baby pukes on your shirt, the mess is real. Metaphysics won't clean your shirt. When your car hits the tree, the dent in the metal and the sound of the thump are not illusion. The propagation of the soundwaves through the fluid that is air is not only real, it is both reproducible and simulatable with vibration producing tools.

Not everything needs proof to be real, some things simple are.

Put that in the proverbial metaphysical pipe, and if the draw is smooth, smoke and blow a few smoke rings with it, as Gandalf and Bilbo once did in an imagined reality . . . ;) Oh, wait, are we all merely Gandalf's worst nightmare come true? :huh:

*blink, blink*

Ah, that would be the "caffeine low pressure" warning light.

*hurries off to find some coffee*

Occhi

[Munkay]

When the bullet hits the bone, and the flesh is shredded, the bleeding is real.  It is not illusion.  When the baby pukes on your shirt, the mess is real.  Metaphysics won't clean your shirt.  When your car hits the tree, the dent in the metal and the sound of the thump are not illusion.  The propagation of the soundwaves through the fluid that is air is not only real, it is both reproducible and simulatable with vibration producing tools. 

Not everything needs proof to be real, some things simple are. 

While a part of me agrees fully with you here Occhi (as I almost wrote a similar post in reply to Yzilla), there is credence to what Yzilla was (whether sincerely or jokingly) suggesting.

Now I too am part of the school that believes when some one points a gun at me, I don't question the metaphysical argument for the existence of the bullet, its time to run. When a car looks like it might run me over, I don't ask whether a car exists, I step out of the way. Practically speaking, you are correct Occhi, the existence of this computer in front of me does not need to be questioned (although perhaps the existence of PETE Bot © might be worth questioning).

But on the other side, when you are trying to prove reality does exist, the classic problem of confirming the world outside of the mind (Philosophical Idealism as it's coined to describe those Germans who tackle this trouble) causes on heckovah lot of trouble. For anyone, whether metaphysician or a NASCAR superfan, if they do attempt to find some shred of proof to conclude that the world does in actually exist, they will find it impossible.

Practically speaking, whether the world is real or only assumed to be real, there is no need to worry about it. A bunny is a bunny, a vegetable is a vegetable, and a gun is going to hurt you.

But people are curious creatures, and they will keep trying to find the proof that reality is truly permanent. And as silly as this questioning can be, there is something all too human about it.

Now, whether or not this should give any credence towards winning a Nobel Prize is up to you.

Lookout! A car is coming! :P

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

Well said.

I'm wondering, when it comes to the topic of politics, cold war, and alliances that there are many strange bed fellows, and not just those of the USA.

For instance, I recall Saddam getting help in his chemical weapons armarments from Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Britain, Italy, Sweden, Nederlands, France and of course the USA. How many hundreds more examples are there with all the dirty little pockets of greed and evil around the globe?

The TRUTH about the war is that a suspected WMD capable nation was being led by a thug who no longer was interested in playing by the world's rules. The one thing that everyone knew was that Saddam had a closed society, and it bred suspicion and distortions of what was under the covers.

I don't have regrets about going to war, although I think the stated reasons of "WMD" and "Links to Terrorism" were a weak justification in that they were more suspicions. The *real* reason for the war was more complicated in a geopolitical sense, than many people would understand and unfortunately rather than pursue a good justification, Bush and Blair sought a short-cut which returned to bite them. In my opinion, the war happened because sanctions failed.

I do have regrets about the execution of the post war occupation, which allowed an insurgency to fester which has slowed the reconstruction, and prolonged the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Pinter's lecture is another high profile whine of the same refrain, covering the same tired ground, and reveals no more light than any other pre or post war artists rant.

[yangman]

Darn wizards and their crazy imagination. ;)

My reply was mostly a retaliation of sorts to the thread-parent's comment of dismissal towards the idea that reality not as clear as it may seem, and, especially, that people who think as such must have a half-baked brain. Simply, I was pointing out the academic, or at least intellectual merit behind the idea.

Personally, I'm somewhat of an existentialist; I'm content with the idea that what is, is. Having been put through the excersize of exploring "reality" in a first-year philosophy class, I found it not to be cup of tea I'd like to sip.

[Guest]

Seriously - NO

We have had this disscussion here many times already.


When you start letting me murder existentialists(think about it) then Ill let you say reality is subjective.

[Doc]

I am more of a pragmatic existentialist. And my nihlism has been curbed somewhat with age.

And Ghost, I am shocked. You made a funny, and I actually laughed. Good work. And thank you. I mean that sincerely.

[eppie]

The TRUTH about the war is that a suspected WMD capable nation was being led by a thug who no longer was interested in playing by the world's rules.

--Hoho, what do you mean with "suspected" everybody knows the US has WMD's

I don't have regrets about going to war, although I think the stated reasons of "WMD" and "Links to Terrorism" were a weak justification in that they were more suspicions.  The *real* reason for the war was more complicated in a geopolitical sense, than many people would understand and unfortunately rather than pursue a good justification, Bush and Blair sought a short-cut which returned to bite them.  In my opinion, the war happened because sanctions failed.

This I find a very unfair explanation. Especially against people who beforehand were against the war. Look the war went on, for mostly wrong reasons. So let's say, pro-war people won. But at least now be a real man, and just admit we have been lied to.


Same thing with the "secret flights" business now. If you hear Rice trying to find words to make things look less bad. I mean she knows europe is too scared to really do anything against it.

Just be honest and admit it. Yes we fly prisoners all around the world to torture them, but we think we have our reasons for that. I mean than it is clear. Probably you have good reasons to do these things but stop treating the world as little children and keep lying.

[Fragbait]

--Hoho, what do you mean with "suspected" everybody knows the US has WMD's
[right][snapback]96885[/snapback][/right]

Hi,
Funnily enough I thought of the U.S. at first, too. Ain't it ironic that this description

led by a thug who no longer was interested in playing by the world's rules

applies to the 'model-state of the world', too?

Nice, really nice. Kandrathe made my day with this B)


Greetings, Fragbait

[eppie]

Let's take his own words and apply them to his speech.

And still Occhi, I don't understand your way of thinking. Like always, the "the europeans misbehaved before us, so we are also allowed now-theme" is one of your important arguments again.
Why don't you just try not to see everything as a europe against USA problem. Mister pinter did not blame you he blamed american governmenst for some bad things that happened. He could of course have written his speech about the kolonialism of the britisch, belgians, and french in afrika. The slave transports from afrika to the US conducted by the dutch, or hitler concentration camps....but what would be the point. At this moment in time there is a government that does nbot play by the rules, so it shoudl be that government that is critisized.

Bad people are everywhere and have always been there. Blaming an entire people for the mistakes of one man is not correct...but he does not do that.

I think you should start thinking more in a "bad things versus good things" way instead of a "I have to defend George Bush way".

We discussed this point very often; because I don't like your government does not mean that I don't like you.


Something else; no writer can ever be greater than his best book....I don't see a point in a Nobel prize for literature.

[kandrathe]

I'll ignore the bulk of your post which was pure troll bait...

... and just admit we have been lied to.

No. There was no lie, there was a communication of the worst case scenario. There was a National Security Assessment with some poor intelligence work supporting the suspicions that Iraq was hiding a WMD program. That poor intelligence and wrong conclusion was shared by the US, Britain, Isreal, Germany, France, and many others.

Let's paint a different outcome of history for the "What Ifs"; First assume the Iraq war did not happen and consequently sanctions were lifted (or just ignored), and in the closed society of Iraq, Saddam was now free to rebuild his arsenal. What outcome do you foresee for the Kurds? How long do you think if would be before there would be another war, this time started by Saddam? This time, rather than fighting the war on our terms, in Iraq, it would be in defense of Saudi Arabia, or Jordan. Or perhaps, having survived politically against the West he would have forged a new coalition of at least Yeman, Syria, and covertly possibly others. Explore the possible outcomes from what you know of Saddam, what good could have come from a scenario leaving Saddam in power with the UN failing to enforce sanctions?

Sometimes when you take on the role of policeman, you believe you have evidence that a known criminal is hiding a body in the basement, you storm the house and discover you were wrong. In this case the criminal is standing trial for his other outstanding crimes, and the gangsta's house is being rehabilitated into the neighborhood.

[kandrathe]

Hi,
Funnily enough I thought of the U.S. at first, too. Ain't it ironic that this description  applies to the 'model-state of the world', too?
...

Even Winston Churchill had his detractors, such as David Irving.

Mind you, I'm not trying to elevate Bush or Blair to anywhere near a Churchill. Leadership is something more than a popularity contest. You are forced to make decisions that are right or wrong and face the consequences of either.

I just find it pathetic that so many people play arm-chair commander in chief when it comes to criticism of events after the fact. I'm sure many decisions would have been made differently had they been made with the full knowledge of hindsight that you now possess. I doubt many really have any idea how difficult it must be to make good decisions if you are really sitting in their place. Very few are willing to state "What should we do now?" and discuss it like adults.

We can rehash this again if you like, but I doubt you will convince me that Bush or Blair are thugs on the order of Saddam, or that they "do not play by the rules" on the order that Saddam did not in defying UNSCOM, or the UN.

So yuck it up if you like, and be happy in knowing that Bush will not be President in 2008. So until then, are you going to join Eppie in his hurling of rotten tomatoes?

[Doc]

Even Winston Churchill had his detractors, such as David Irving. 

Mind you, I'm not trying to elevate Bush or Blair to anywhere near a Churchill.  Leadership is something more than a popularity contest.  You are forced to make decisions that are right or wrong and face the consequences of either.

I just find it pathetic that so many people play arm-chair commander in chief when it comes to criticism of events after the fact.  I'm sure many decisions would have been made differently had they been made with the full knowledge of hindsight that you now possess.    I doubt many really have any idea how difficult it must be to make good decisions if you are really sitting in their place.  Very few are willing to state "What should we do now?" and discuss it like adults.

We can rehash this again if you like, but I doubt you will convince me that Bush or Blair are thugs on the order of Saddam, or that they "do not play by the rules" on the order that Saddam did not in defying UNSCOM, or the UN. 

So yuck it up if you like, and be happy in knowing that Bush will not be President in 2008.  So until then, are you going to join Eppie in his hurling of rotten tomatoes?
[right][snapback]96940[/snapback][/right]

I was not informed that there would be rotten tomatoes provided! Damnit!

[Occhidiangela]

Dear eppie

You are wrong again. I am not defending George Bush in my post. You are reading something into the post that is not there. My aim was to apply some critical analysis to Mr Pinter's speach, to jab at his residence in English "has been" land and false Utopia, and to offer some reality based comments on the utopian standard he chooses to apply to US policy for 60 years.

And still Occhi, I don't understand your way of thinking. Like always, the "the europeans misbehaved before us, so we are also allowed now-theme" is one of your important arguments again.

"Allowed" is not the issue, eppie, "is able and can" is. Powers do things to change the world, for better and worse. I find intriguing his silence, given his utopian standards, on China. He has an axe to grind, and he is using a bully pulpit to grind it selectively. Well, he earned the time and the bully pulpit by winning the prize, so he did. As a political activist, why waste an opportunity?

You probably ask "should" (a subjective assessment) and that is a well asked question. Pinter has done so through out his career as an activist. I asked the same on this forum a few years ago, when I expressed my misgivings about trying to implement democracy in the Mid East at the point of a bayonet, and my belief that Iraq would break into three nations versus one if we went in there.

Why don't you just try not to see everything as a europe against USA problem.

Why don't you try not seeing things as you versus George Bush, I could ask with the same opacity of thought, but I won't.

I will ask you to not see everything I write as anti-European, since it isn't and I'm not. You forget that I lived 9 years of my life in Europe, and like it very much, even though some of the political posturing strikes me as self destructive, false and counterintuitive. Quite a bit of American politics strikes me the same way. :o

Mr Pinter focused his comments in that speech on the US government. Thus, my rejoinder is to him, a Brit not a European, and his deliberate omissions based on the expected audience he was speaking to, the elites of the Nobel committee.

This is not Occhi versus Europe, and indeed, I am not anti Europe, I am anti-Eurotrash, a very small but loud sub set of Europe who whine to the world's ending about the evil empire that is America. When you place yourself in that camp, perhaps unintentionally, during forum conversations by the positions you take, you mistakenly deduce that I must be anti-Europe. I am anti-wanker. :o

At this moment in time there is a government that does nbot play by the rules, so it shoudl be that government that is critisized.

I see, eppie, only America does not play by "the rules." Right. What other bridge are you going to try to sell me? Any "True Scotsmen" around? :P When you spew the slanted saliva that Pinter does in some of his points, you echo his unspoken assertion that "everyone else" plays by the rules, or "a perfect nation does so" which is nonsense. Cheating is rampant, else the Sanctions would have worked and there would be no war . . . I think. Maybe Wolfowitz and FEith and Cheney and a host of others, Bernard Lewis comes to mind, could have come up with another excuse if the Sanctions had worked and been ended under the conditions set by the Security Council. (ya know, the 90 day time limit in 1991?)

Geopolitics is bound very loosely by rules, some of which are poorly enforced, some of which are not enforced, and some of which are unenforceable without resort to force. See my comment on "play is continuous." This is not a football match we are talking about, it is deadly earnest stuff. It gets people killed.

Bad people are everywhere and have always been there. Blaming an entire people for the mistakes of one man is not correct...but he does not do that.

He blames America, and American policy since WW II, although I think you are right in that his ire is aimed at the political class. Where do you think they come from? ;) His charges against the current administration are not without grounds, and you will note that I DID NOT DEFEND them. I even noted that he wasted an opportunity to go after more than Pres Bush. Go back and read the post.

I think you should start thinking more in a "bad things  versus good things" way instead of a "I have to defend George Bush way".

And I think you should not try to put words in my mouth, and make sure you understand what I wrote before you rebut it.

Better yet, how about neither of us tell the other "what to do" OK?

Pinter does far more than cast stones (some well earned, I might add) at the Bush administration, who are new comers: he attacks a whole series of American policies. I choose to rebutt some of his BS, while I agree with some of his points.

Did you not notice the agreements in your speedreading of my post?

Or did you read my entire post? Could it be you assume that "Occhi is posting, he must be slamming Europe." Not well played, eppie. :(

I don't see a point in a Nobel prize for literature.

You have a point there, but since the foundation chooses to spend their money that way, why not? Blowing things up, Nobel's area of excellence, has fallen out of favor with the committee. While I have more respect for the Nobel Prizes for science, let's give Mr Pinter his due. He would not have made the short list of nominees if he weren't very good at what he does -- which he is. B)

PS: Nobel prizes are not infrequently, wait for it, influenced by politics. Go figure! So are the Olympics.

No, eppie, they shouldn't be, but they are, and that is the crux of the biscuit. I find Mr Pinter's outcry too weighted to "should be" versus "are" in the messy continuum of geopolitics.

Occhi

EDIT: How did you interpret this passage of mine? Curious.

In the process of cleaning up Europe's centuries of garbage, and in trying to play at the game as the rules keep changing, America has gotten its hands filthy. America has been heavy handed in Latin and South America since T Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson opened the policy door to embryonic imperial ambitions. He and I would agree on that were we to share a pint. I wonder if the Chinese will get as dirty, in 50 or 100 years, cleaning up our geopolitical garbage. Since they don't waste as much energy in hand wringing, maybe they'll just clean off their hands and get on with it, and hence do it more cost effectively.

[Guest]

Good post Occhi.

Issues aside it was kind of "bizzaro presentation" to read Eppie's retorts to so much you neither said nor inferred.