Saturday, November 30, 2013
Truth and Philosphy
Friday, November 29, 2013
Life is a hill for most folks.
I strongly reject the concept of respectability politics, which postulates that a style of dress or speech justifies injustice, and often violence, against particular groups of people or explains away the ravages of their inequality.
I take enormous exception to arguments about the “breakdown of the family,” particularly the black family, that don’t acknowledge that this country for centuries has endeavored, consciously and not, to break it down. Or that family can be defined only one way.
I don’t buy into the mythology that most poor people are willfully and contentedly poor, happy to live with the help of handouts from a benevolent big government that is equally happy to keep them dependent.
These are all arguments based on shame, meant to distance traditional power structures from emerging ones, to allow for draconian policy arguments from supposedly caring people. These arguments require faith in personal failure as justification for calling our fellow citizens feckless or doctrinally disfavored.
Those who espouse such arguments must root for failures so that they’re proved right. They need their worst convictions to be affirmed: that other people’s woes are due solely to their bad choices and bad behaviors; that there are no systematic suppressors at play; that the way to success is wide open to all those who would only choose it.
Any of us in the country who were born poor, or minority, or female, or otherwise different — particularly in terms of gender or sexual identity — know better.
Misogyny and sexism, racism, income inequality, patriarchy, and homophobia and heteronormative ideals course through the culture like a pathogen in the blood, infecting the whole of the being beneath the surface.
So it is to the people with challenges that I would like to speak today. I know your pains and your struggles. I share them. It is incredibly dispiriting when people are dismissive of the barriers we must overcome simply to make it to equal footing. I know. It is infuriating when people offer insanely naïve solutions to our suffering: “Stop whining and being a victim!” I know.
But I also would like to share with you the way I’ve learn to deal with it, hoping that maybe it will offer you some encouragement.
I decided long ago to achieve as an act of defiance — to define my own destiny and refuse to have it defined for me. I fully understand that trying hard doesn’t always guarantee success. Success is often a fluky thing, dependent as much on luck and favor as on hard work. But while hard work may not guarantee success, not working hard almost always guarantees failure.
I frame the argument to myself this way: If you know that you are under assault, recognize it, and defend yourself.
Trying hard and working hard is its own reward. It feeds the soul. It affirms your will and your power. And it radiates from you, lighting the way for all those who see you.
When I am asked to give speeches, I often include this analogy:
For some folks, life is a hill. You can either climb or stay at the bottom.
It’s not fair. It’s not right. But it is so. Some folks are born halfway up the hill and others on the top. The rest of us are not. Life doles out favors in differing measures, often as a result of historical injustice and systematic bias. That’s a hurtful fact, one that must be changed. We should all work toward that change.
In the meantime, until that change is real, what to do if life gives you the hill?
You can curse it. You can work hard to erode it. You can try to find a way around it. Those are all understandable endeavors. Staying at the bottom is not.
You may be born at the bottom, but the bottom was not born in you. You have it within you to be better than you were, to make more of your life than was given to you by life.
This is not to say that we can always correct life’s inequities, but simply that we honor ourselves in the trying.
History is cluttered with instances of the downtrodden lifting themselves up. The spirit and endurance that it requires is not a historical artifact but a living thing that abides in each of us, part of the bloodline, written in the tracks of tears and the sweat of toil.
If life for you is a hill, be a world-class climber.
Charles Blow
Another Uncommon Interview
Thursday, November 28, 2013
My "Development"
Self-Honesty
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Thanksgivng once more
The Wall
Language and Reality Once More
Psychosis
If recognized and treated, psychosis may be a painful and debilitating illness, but not one that is dangerous to others. The failure to speak and write clearly about psychosis, instead using such vacant euphemisms as “disturbed,” impedes our ability to care for its victims and protect the public."
WILLIAM IRA BENNETT
Cambridge, Mass., Nov. 26, 2013
The writer is a psychiatrist.
Lanza was a 20-year-old mass shooter at Sam Hook Elementary School, where he used to attend as a kid, killing over 20 children and some teachers after shooting his mother dead at home. Lanza was diagnosed of having Asperger's syndrome. The human brain is a dedicate organ and highly vulnerable. After seeing all the defense (a misnomer, really) mechanisms---including denial, self-projection, blaming others, denigration (including self-denigration, but this inward denigration is rare), cruelty, aggressive lashing at sources of discontentment---exhibited by monkeys and defective humans, I concluded that a clear-eyed acceptance of self and others is essential for mental health. If we have to act out, it's safer to do so via displacement and sublimation. Monkeys and defective humans tend to have an unduly inflated sense of self despite glaring realities, and hypocrites always present a self that is the opposite of what it is. All these sorry pieces of being are not comfortable with realities, especially the realities as to who they are, and the discrepancies between their aspirations and actual accomplishments. They live a life no different from that of barnyard animals: eat, shit, sleep, have sex and offspring, and then die. They leave nothing of themselves behind that is contributory to human culture or advances---they are not good enough, yet they proudly present a false front of happiness and contentment and they are full of excuses as to why they have not been able to do as well as others have done ---they never once entertained the thought that their failure to do so lies at the their lack of ability and/or drive. Monkeys and Pygmy chimps have excuses. Real humans have strong desires and drives and determination, on top of having a better brain. There lies the differences.
Wissai
canngon.blogspot.com
Thanksgetting and Thanksgiving
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Of Skunks, I, and Wittgenstein, and the true Nature of Fraud, an excerpt from Wittgenstein's journey.
A Talk with a Hindu, an extract and a detour from Wittgenstein's Journey
Monday, November 25, 2013
Things you must say to yourself everyday, every conscious and unconscious minute of your life
Limits of Understanding (and Thinking)
Speech
Speech
"They are speaking, like you and me, to fill a void, to pass the hours, to assert their identities, to pretend that they’re truly connected to someone, anyone else. Making noise is what they do to keep out the silence that’s waiting to step in and devour them. Of course, they like to hear themselves talk. It’s how they make sure they’re alive."
They speak, but they don't care if we hear them, let alone understand them. Noise is the essence, not the understanding. They gave up on understanding a long time ago. To live is to engage forever in a battle with silence.
I know about their speech and the noise they make. I am a writer, don't you see? I write to connect myself with myself, to make noise and music with my words, to dance on the precipice of the abyss while wrestling with existential questions. I am happiest when I write.
One Difference (among the multitude) between a Human and two, maybe three, Monkeys
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Language and Reality
God forbid anyone attempt to regulate that.
JP"
Thank You, Mr. Veteran and the Aftermath
I shared the poem with Omar. He read it and then called me up about it just when I was having one of those unforgiving, sad, bitter moods. He just hung up a few minutes ago. So the conversation was fresh in my mind.
-Roberto, the poem you just sent me made me feel like learning Vietnamese. If the translation was that smooth and unstilted and memorable, then it must be awesome in the original.
-Thanks, Omar. Don't stop at feeling like doing anything. Don't be a mental masturbator. Be a Nike. Do it.
-Okay, boss. Boy, you are in a great mood, aren't you? Anyway, I liked your translation very much. I liked its musicality.
-I don't know from whose point of view the poet wrote the poem. That of the crippled veteran or his former girlfriend or a social critic who decried at social injustice?
-Ambiguity is always good for arts. You can interpret it at whatever angle you want. No black or white. Just 50 shades of gray.
-Is that so? A literary fan of mine wrote to me indicating the poem turned her off for its content. She thought it was cruel toward the veteran who sacrificed his life, gave part of his body to protect the noncombatants. When I pointed out to her that life is basically cruelty, injustice, and indifference; that cynicism is the order of the day if one wants to go through another day without having own's heart breaking into a thousand pieces; and that is why true love is a balm and big in demand, she wrote back, saying given a choice of unavailability of true love and loneliness, she would choose aloneness.
-Ah, what does she know about true love, loneliness, and aloneness? I am an assassin of the heart, a killer of despair, a terminator of self-pity. I bet she just used words for the rhetoric of it. She does not know their meanings, their private truths. Ah, the language game humans play!
-Go on elaborating, Mr. Samurai.
-You see, true love is what everybody talks about, but they don't know what the hell it is because they don't have it within them or are exposed to it. It is like God, a God that you know, your own private God that only makes sense to you, and to nobody else. It is not trite at all to say Love is God and God is Love. It is the goodness inside you, the capacity for giving all of yourself for a person or for a cause that makes living meaningful, relevant, magical, transcendental, and beautiful. The two bitches you told me, VAW and JAW, the two idiots, the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, didn't have any love within. All they have within is shit and an unhealthy inflated sense of self. That was why they said nasty things to you, trying to arouse anger and hate inside you. They are suffering and they want you to suffer, too.
Tell your fan there will be a time-- and I hope well before she is invalid, crippled, bedridden and "alone" in bed with feelings of regret consuming her---when love will hit her like a bus, no matter what bus it is, school bus, city bus, or tour bus, she must be ready for it. Seize the day. Carpe diem. Act. Stop thinking and "feeling". Jump into the abyss. Climb Mt. Everest. Kiss a leper. Live. It's not you she must love. No, I don't mean that at all because I know you. You have moved beyond love and hate. You are now in a realm of darkness. You have become Lucifer. You have become Prince of Darkness. Quite a pity. But that's your choice. Life is about making choices, in whatever way that makes sense to you. I apologize when I said "quite a pity" in describing your choice. I should not have done so. I should not have passed judgment. I have no right. But I am your friend, the only friend you have in this world and I care. Anyway, go break young girls' hearts, as the song Billie Jean says. Do whatever makes you happy. I hope your conscience is strong enough.
-Omar, you make feel like crying.
-Didn't you just lecture me a few minutes ago that "don't feel. Be a Nike. Just do it!"?
"Billie Jean" Lyrics
[1st Verse]
She Was More Like A Beauty Queen From A Movie Scene
I Said Don't Mind, But What Do You Mean I Am The One
Who Will Dance On The Floor In The Round
She Said I Am The One Who Will Dance On The Floor In The Round
[2nd Verse]
She Told Me Her Name Was Billie Jean, As She Caused A Scene
Then Every Head Turned With Eyes That Dreamed Of Being The One
Who Will Dance On The Floor In The Round
[Bridge]
People Always Told Me Be Careful Of What You Do
And Don't Go Around Breaking Young Girls' Hearts
And Mother Always Told Me Be Careful Of Who You Love
And Be Careful Of What You Do 'Cause The Lie Becomes The Truth
[Chorus]
Billie Jean Is Not My Lover
She's Just A Girl Who Claims That I Am The One
But The Kid Is Not My Son
She Says I Am The One, But The Kid Is Not My Son
[3rd Verse]
For Forty Days And for Forty Nights
The Law was on her Side
But Who Can Stand When She's In Demand
Her Schemes And Plans
'Cause We Danced On The Floor In The Round
So Take My Strong Advice, Just Remember To Always Think Twice
Do think Twice
[4th Verse]
She Told My Baby We'd Danced 'Til Three
Then She Looked At Me
She Showed A Photo Of A Baby Crying
His Eyes Looked Like Mine
Go On Dance On The Floor In The Round, Baby
[Bridge]
People Always Told Me Be Careful Of What You Do
And Don't Go Around Breaking Young Girls' Hearts
She Came And Stood Right By Me
Then The Smell Of Sweet Perfume
This Happened Much Too Soon
She Called Me To Her Room
[Chorus]
Billie Jean Is Not My Lover
She's Just A Girl Who Claims That I Am The One
But The Kid Is Not My Son
Billie Jean Is Not My Lover
She's Just A Girl Who Claims That I Am The One
But The Kid Is Not My Son
She Says I Am The One, But The Kid Is Not My Son
She Says I Am The One, But The Kid Is Not My Son
Billie Jean Is Not My Lover
She's Just A Girl Who Claims That I Am The One
But The Kid Is Not My Son
She Says I Am The One, But The Kid Is Not My Son
She Says I Am The One, She Says He Is My Son
She Says I Am The One
Billie Jean Is Not My Lover
Billie Jean Is Not My Lover
Billie Jean Is Not My Lover
Billie Jean Is Not My Lover
Billie Jean Is Not My Lover
Billie Jean Is Not My Lover
The Things They Carried. Read the Book, if not, hear the voice. I've read the book. Several Times.
THE THINGS THEY CARRIED
By Tim O’Brien
Read by Bryan Cranston
Playtone/Audible.
“Often in a true war story there is not even a point, or else the point doesn’t hit you until 20 years later, in your sleep, and you wake up and shake your wife and start telling the story to her, except when you get to the end you’ve forgotten the point again.”
This passage, from a chapter called “How to Tell a True War Story,” gives succinct voice to some of the themes that preoccupy Tim O’Brien in “The Things They Carried.” Described simply as “a work of fiction,” the book is self-evidently autobiographical, a record of the memories of a writer in his 40s named Tim O’Brien, who two decades earlier was a soldier in Vietnam. His account of what happened — amid the hamlets and forests of the Batangan Peninsula and in other areas of operation — to him and the other members of his platoon is punctuated by rueful, sometimes anguished reflections on the elusiveness of meaning and the fraught relationship between truth and invention.
War — perhaps especially a war that, on the American side, began in deception and continued in confusion — has a way of blurring such distinctions. What happens in combat can be grotesque, absurd, senseless and transcendent, sometimes all at once. Capturing this in prose that upholds the post-Hemingway, Raymond Carver-era values of plainness and specificity is a challenge. “In any war story, but especially a true one,” O’Brien writes, “it’s difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen.” As a result, the standard of truth is not epistemological, but visceral: “It comes down to gut instinct. A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe.”
“The Things They Carried” has lived in the bellies of American readers for more than two decades. O’Brien’s third book about Vietnam (following “If I Die in a Combat Zone” and “Going After Cacciato”), it sits on the narrow shelf of indispensable works by witnesses to and participants in the fighting, alongside Michael Herr’s “Dispatches,” Tobias Wolff’s “In Pharaoh’s Army” and James Webb’s “Fields of Fire.” While he conveys the details of grunt-level life and death — the weight of boots and weapons, the smell of mud and vegetation, the split-second swerves from tedium to terror — with startling immediacy, O’Brien is also haunted by the way experience is altered by the passage of time, by the gap that opens up between his young and middle-aged selves. Some of the most wrenching moments in the book find him back home, at 43, with a career and a family and a restless itch to make sense of his earlier transformation from a Minnesota college student with mildly antiwar politics to a member of the squad whose stories he will eventually borrow.
In 1990, when Houghton Mifflin published the book, Vietnam was still recent history, its individual and collective wounds far from healed. Just as the years between combat and publication affected O’Brien’s perception of events, so has an almost exactly equal span changed the character of the writing. “The Things They Carried” is now, like the war it depicts, an object of classroom study, kept relevant more by its craft than by the urgency of its subject matter. The raw, restless, anguished reckoning inscribed in its pages — the “gut hate” and comradely love that motivated the soldiers — has come to reflect conventional historical wisdom. Over time, America’s wars are written in shorthand: World War II is noble sacrifice; the Civil War, tragic fratricide; Vietnam, black humor and moral ambiguity.
Which is partly what makes Bryan Cranston a more than suitable choice to narrate the new audiobook edition of “The Things They Carried.” Thanks to his role on “Breaking Bad,” Cranston may be the most charismatic embodiment of moral ambiguity we currently possess. There was always something comforting as well as menacing in Walter White’s voice, and Cranston attacks O’Brien’s sober, sinewy prose with slightly scary authority.
In print, “The Things They Carried” is a fast read, less because of narrative momentum — it is a compendium of vignettes and digressions, not a traditional novel — than because of the intimate urgency of the voice. There is an Ancient Mariner quality to the narrator; he needs you to listen to his tale, even if he remains uncertain of its import. You need to know the names of his comrades (Rat Kiley, Kiowa, Norman Bowker and Ted Lavender) and to hear the gruesome and comical facts of their lives and deaths. It is impossible, it feels insensitive, to turn away before the recitation is finished.
Cranston’s reading has a similar quality, and in any case, if you were a binge-watcher of “Breaking Bad” it will be no big deal to spend six hours in his company here. His calm, gravelly diction, unmarked by any noticeable regional accent, carries a faint echo of Walter Cronkite, who delivered the news from ’Nam with a matter-of-factness inflected with moral concern. But Cranston is also a capable mimic, and he does the Army in different voices. Characters who on the page are names, fates and identifying attributes grow into a chorus of American regional and ethnic types — Native American, African-American, Midwestern, Southern.
Sometimes the impressions feel a little too on the nose, as if we are watching a corny World War II platoon picture, and the voices of Vietnamese and female characters edge close to caricature. But for the most part the individuality of long-dead, sparely sketched people is honored and restored. The novel’s two best sections — the account of an aimless drive around an Iowa lake interspersed with flashbacks to a horrible night in a Vietnamese bog, and the chronicle of an abortive flight to Canada on O’Brien’s part — take on new and gripping power.
This audiobook is one of the first fruits of a collaboration between Amazon’s Audible and Playtone, Tom Hanks’s production company, that aims to bring important works of American literature and history into the format. “The Things They Carried” certainly qualifies, and so, in its modest way, does “The Vietnam in Me,” an essay by O’Brien included as a bonus, read by the author himself. Originally published in The New York Times in 1994, it juxtaposes scenes from a visit to Vietnam O’Brien took in the company of a younger girlfriend with his bitter reflections, a few months later, on the end of their relationship.
“The Vietnam in Me” is a rougher piece of writing than “The Things They Carried,” and hearing them together makes you realize that the book, for all its anguish and unsettlement, is a highly disciplined and polished literary performance. Hearing O’Brien read the essay aloud is also startling. He has a writer’s voice, not an actor’s, sometimes short of breath and usually rising at the end of a sentence in the default cadence of spoken-word performance. You detect Minnesota in the flatness of his vowels and also, perhaps, Vietnam in his scratchy, weary, nervous vocalization. What you also hear is some of the grief and anger that were always part of the invisible baggage of “The Things They Carried,” and that turn out, 20 years later, to have been the point of the story all along.
A. O. Scott is a chief film critic for The Times.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
ALM revisited
Adolescene, Love, and Memory
When I was in middle school, I read Margaret Mitchell’s epic romance, “Gone With the Wind.” Not once. Not twice. But continuously. Each time I finished the novel, I began again, flipping open the broken-spined paperback so many times the book split in half, yielding two portable sections of text. I preferred a break of at least several hours between readings, but sometimes compulsion forced me to begin again only moments after finishing it.
I told myself that I could resist, that I’d read some other book, some “real” book, that I could read on the couch in front of family members without raising eyebrows. For my parents, it was the repetitive reading of a single text that seemed deranged, and for my brothers it was reading such an enormous tome in the first place, but my own sense of shame arose from my deep ambivalence about the novel itself.
Even then, I knew that reading “Gone With the Wind” was not transformative; that its portrayal of romantic love as the only prize worth having was wrong; that the book presented a distorted view of womanhood. My obsession was based purely on titillation, the excitement of following the fatally flawed Scarlett O’Hara through her breathless, war-torn, starvation-marked pursuit of love. “Gone With the Wind” was my “Twilight” series.
At the same time, the book was also a repository for all my adolescent loathing, of both self and others. The beginning section represented everything I hated about middle school. Scarlett was the perfect stand-in for my arch enemy, a girl who resembled her in each particular — green-eyed, brunette and brutal. The first line of the novel dazzled me with its concise encapsulation of a distinct feminine mystery: “Scarlett O’Hara was not beautiful, but men seldom realized it when caught by her charm as the Tarleton twins were.” How could this be? This was the central question of middle school. How could the most vital fact of female existence — were you a beautiful girl or not? — be surpassed by mere will? Scarlett O’Hara controlled male perception. She created her own reality. She was a genius. She was also a slave owner. When Scarlett returns home after the war, she is aghast that any of the family’s slaves had run off, and the reader, who wants Scarlett to survive so she can get on with the essential work of pursuing Ashley Wilkes and succumbing to Rhett Butler, is forced into the uncomfortable moral position of empathizing with her. In other words, the end of human bondage in America is a subordinate concern to whether or not Scarlett is able to use her charms to get the man she wants. (Despite the frustrating fact that you know from the moment you are introduced to the principal characters that Rhett is the right man for Scarlett and Ashley is utterly wrong! Why then read on? Why then the obsession?)
Because, in the world of “Gone With the Wind,” romantic thinking trumps everything, including war, civility, morality, starvation and childbirth. The book amazed me with the grandeur of its delusion.
It also made me guilty, perhaps above all because reading “Gone With the Wind” made me feel that a part of myself might be like Scarlett, that I, too, might be capable of caring about the wrong things in life, so long as I was loved by a man.
I finally put aside “Gone With the Wind” once I entered high school, and discovered “Goodbye, Columbus,” “Slaughterhouse Five” and the dizzying complications of actual teenage boys. Years later, when one of my brothers bought me a commemorative edition of the novel, I sulkily stashed it in a dark corner. How, I wondered, could anyone who knew me well think that I’d wish to be reminded, would treasure, an artifact of such a shameful episode in my literary explorations?
And so I forgot about “Gone With the Wind.” Until recently, when I was talking with a friend about our daughters (now in middle school themselves), and their fascination with impossibly lengthy, endlessly repetitive supernatural romances. I casually mentioned my romantic epic of choice, and it occurred to me that “Gone With the Wind” was in fact the ultimate young adult novel. The choice between two starkly different lovers (one gentlemanly, one roguish) appears, for the very young, to be a choice between two utterly distinct potential identities, two possible roads through life.
I realized then that I was, for the first time, outside that romantic paradigm. I am getting a divorce, and so I am now on my own path, rewriting my life’s narrative to include that most modern of twists: interruption. In my darker moments, it feels as though time itself has stopped. Having been married for nearly 18 years, I find it hard to imagine exactly how one day unfolds into the next outside the dynamics of coupledom.
I can’t help but be reminded of the one part in “Gone With the Wind” that I routinely used to skim: the postwar section, in which Scarlett is married to the pathetic Frank, whom she stole from her own sister. This is the one loveless section in the book, when Scarlett cares more about food, shelter and money than she does about either Rhett or Ashley. It is the one moment when real life appears as more than a set piece for the conjured world of love. It is Scarlett’s reality test; the suspension of the girl-dream of romance as the core of one’s being.
But — perhaps thankfully — this section doesn’t last. In the end, it does not matter that Scarlett’s true love scorns her, so long as the reader knows that love exists and that Scarlett will continue to pursue it.
Talking about the book with my friend over lunch, I felt no rekindled desire to read it. But I did feel a fondness for the girl who had done so those many times over — an admiration for the adolescent voraciousness that compelled me to search again and again in the same place for resolution to a story I knew had none. I realize now that this youthful tenacity might be a source of strength I need again to drawn on. Although I am a mother and a mature, single woman, newly awakened to the perils of love and the demands of reality, I can’t deny in myself a Scarlett-ish sensibility, the drive to believe that there is in the idea of tomorrow another story line worthy of pursuit, something dazzling to ponder, if never quite possess.
This almost redeems the book for me today: It is a romance grounded in absence and error. Its end is a beginning, not of an idealized life, but of pursuit and desire. It is a thousand-and-some-page proof of the human need to seek love. It is the young adult novel I am now too experienced and humbled to scorn.
Claire Needell is an English teacher at a public middle school in Manhattan and the author of the forthcoming collection of short stories for young adults “Nothing Real.” The above piece originally appeared in New York Times on November 23, 2013
Friday, November 22, 2013
Tạ Ơn Anh ( Thank You, Mr. Veteran)
Thank You, Mr. Veteran
You no longer have the feet
That used to glide on the dance floor
Your arms are here no more
So my sleepy head can meet
You no longer look quite human
But you are not yet a beast
But why on your lips spreads a smile
And your eyes are like two bright stars in the sky
You were in the days of yore
An angel in a red beret
You wore jumping shoes that I adored
While guiding the parachute against the wind
Were you of the local militia
So the village could sleep in peace
Or were you a Green Beret
Guarding the fort at the fighting front, really neat.
The motherland's ground has not sung you a lullaby
The war has ended, the flag is in tatters
You arms and feet now serve as fertilizer
For the blooming wild flowers
Once you were armed with grenades and knives
Now all you have is a begging cup
Yesteryear you put away pieces of artillery and tanks
Now into your cup are poured left-over soup and rice
In the past marched proudly you and thousands of comrades
The marching shoes made resounding sound all over town
Now you are separate from your former comrades
All alone in this corner of a local market
Twenty years came and went
Like an interrupted dream
All you have left is a broken body
That longs for days of former glory
November 22, 2013
Translated by
Wissai
canngon.blogspot.com
Follow-up:
Dear R.W.
I hate to say this but I don't like this piece Ta On Anh at all. It sounds terrible with "your arms and legs are now compost for the vegetables" and "now you are a nobody lying around regretting the glory of the past"
I am glad your translation made it lots better, but still, enough is enough. !!! : How dare they tell a war veteran that he does look neither a human, nor a beast !! Then what is he? Oh I am so angry !!! Who left the veterans eat leftovers and who left them begging at the market place? What do foreigners think of us and of Vietnam when they read that ? It is not nice to talk about the "before" and "after" without mentionning the why in between. Here, the veteran got into this degradation situation, being a degenerate person BECAUSE HE WAS DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY AGAINST THE ENEMIES WHO TRIED TO KILL HIM.
If this poem is aimed for getting the social services/ government to do something to help, then that would be another story, and I would understand; at the beginning we read that the woman has been sleeping with him then where is she now???? Would she leave him behind in this atrocious situation? Where is the TA ON ANH? I didn't hear anybody say "thanks, for having tried to save my life ?" Ok OK I am sorry I have disturbed you by dumping my trash in your sweet and gentle site. Please throw it away for me. I feel better now, but I still don't like them treating soldiers and veteran like waste. It was nice to see Omar and Castaneda : You are right on about Castaneda. Only the first and the fourth books were good. If I remember it right.
Take care and thanks.
J.
On Nov 22, 2013, at 7:10 PM, wissai <wissai@yahoo.com> wrote:
<image002.gif>