
I’m at something of a loose end tonight, and thought that, as it’s been a fair while since I last posted, a freshly pressed writing was possibly in order. I’m currently taking a break between two books I’m rereading for this week’s classes: Margaret Atwood‘s Alias Grace and Orhan Pamuk‘s My Name is Red. Whoever decided to assign six or seven texts he’s never taught before during one term has much to answer for, I’ll tell you that for certain. That would be me, of course. And while I’m not especially appreciative of the time-consuming nature of the enterprise, particularly over the long weekend when there’s also marking to be done, I must say that I really quite enjoy teaching both texts. In fact, I’ll be rereading a few chapters more after writing this post.
I’d meant to post about this topic far earlier, but the time just never seemed quite right. Now that enough time has passed, and the statue of limitation on bad behaviour has presumably lapsed, there’s not so much fear of this story’s walking abroad, as it were. The ‘fighting words‘ in question occurred during an Applied Probability Seminar not so terribly long ago. And though I was myself in something of a state of refreshment at the time, I believe that, after comparing notes with others who were there, most of what occurred really did occur — and if it didn’t, it ought to have. Perhaps unsurprisingly, and, as with most disagreements, the burning issue at hand was whether or not Leonard Cohen is (or, perhaps, was) any good. I’m serious.
There had been a previous incident some time ago, presumably also involving the relative merits of Canadian poet-songwriters, that only ended when one of the two parties involved produced a guitar, and demanded that the other ‘play for him’. It was like a scene out of some twisted sort of Midwestern Casablanca. (My thoughts at the time, when first seeing the guitar were that no good could come from it, but, in truth, I was also curious to see what would happen next. I do not understand people at the best of time and, here, I reasoned, was just the sort of opportunity I needed to watch adults resolve differences with other adults. As usual, I was mightily disappointed, particularly as I really quite liked — and like — both of the parties involved.
Indeed, I had occasion to use the Great Leonard Cohen Debate in my last class concerning My Name is Red. Although this new favourite book of mine can also be read as a murder mystery, at the novel’s heart is a profoundly philosophical puzzle: how ought we to perceive art, and, in this case, portraiture in 1591 Istanbul? At a crucial point in the novel, one of the characters, Master Osman, is simply incredulous at what all the fuss is about. Of course, he has his own firm opinions on the matter, but his assessment remains sound: ’What was even more incredible was that they were killing each other over this nonsense.’ I must say that, having listened to what was said on both sides of the divide, I must concur with Master Osman.
It’s not that I don’t have my own firm opinions about books and the like, but, I’m not particularly bothered about what others might make of them. (As I see it, everyone’s entitled to read things as they’d like. It’s just that some readings are better than others — but, once I’m off the clock, as it were, I really don’t see it as my place to say.) Suffice to say, this sort of conflict-adverseness and readerly relativism has served me moderately well over the years. It’s also undoubtedly saved me from more black eyes and hard feelings that I care to reckon. (One perhaps not insignificant example of my own waywardness can be found in ‘A Serious Man‘, a post from some time ago.) I suppose that I always thought that my friends would have far more common sense.
I cannot say precisely how the forbidden topic was broached, though undoubtedly it had something to do with control over the night’s playlist. (For my part, I’m always happy to defer to others’ judgement as to what is to be played or not played. Indeed, I even sat through a nine-minute live performance of Billy Joel’s ‘Piano Man‘ on Friday night that was, frankly, interminable. And I was the host for that evening’s seminar. I do have particular songs and genres I prefer to listen to, but never saw fit to subject everyone else to them. That said, I did once introduce them to Icelandic popular music, and they’ve never let me forget it.) Once the chairs and handbags started flying in earnest, I left the room. As I said, I don’t like conflict.
I was disappointed to have missed folks shouting ‘fascist’ at one another, though. I’ve always had a certain fondness for The Young Ones, and that’s not an everyday sort of insult. (Well, at least not for some time, it hasn’t been.) In fact, I believe that my absence from the more energetic part of the affair has allowed me to look at it with a certain degree of perspective. Indeed, when I did return after a spell away, everyone was awkwardly seated in a proper middle-class manner, although some of the assigned seats had been rearranged. (I can never puzzle out precisely how grown ups can pretend that nothing’s happened, when it most certainly has. But they do.) For my part, I was happy enough to play cards. Everything else was so much stuff and nonsense.
N.B. You might be amused to learn that, when I mentioned Leonard Cohen’s role in the whole affair to my class, there was a certain confusion as to who he was on their part. In the end, the consensus was that he was one of the former frontmen of The Velvet Underground. I was highly amused, but never corrected them. Given some of the language that was allegedly used that night, they were, perhaps, not so far from the mark after all. (Also, I suppose that I quite liked the notion that he really was ‘a frontman’ — their words, not mine — for that particular group. It would have made for a far more interesting debate, that’s for certain.) And, besides, there were books and ideas still to discuss, and, to me, they make more sense.