New Voice

Illumination Rounds

by kconnolly on Jan.31, 2010, under History

Vietnam. A word that still to this day means many things to many different people. Travellers etch across its landscape throughout the year wandering its myriad paths and villages, soaking up its cultured cities. Its people are famous for their relaxed personalities and interesting take on life. But for several thousand Vietnam War veterans, this beautiful country remains a nightmare of ferocious memories, strange drug-addled flashbacks, and the emotions of fear and loss. Recently, I was picking through a history of America in the Twentieth Century and spent some time looking at this infamous war. One of the recommended readings, I was informed, was Michael Herr’s Dispatches. Herr wrote for Esquire Magazine during the late sixties and spent two years embedded with the US forces in Vietnam. A number of years following his return Herr wrote this book as a memoir of his time in the country and a scathing overview of the human catastrophe of the conflict. I was surprised, and deeply enlivened to the book before I even began reading, to find that Herr had co-wrote Full Metal Jacket – and indeed the crisp dialogue of that film is referenced significantly in the reality of his account of the war. He went further by writing much of the voiceover in Apocalypse Now – thus acquiring a central role in the two greatest Vietnam War movies.
Having finished the memoir, it is almost impossible to convey the savage intensity of Herr’s writing. Carefully examining the warfare from the point of view of the average “grunt” the book is a masterclass in exposing the utter depravity of the war. But much more than this the book finds a voice in the American soldier, a lonely dispirited, often courageous figure – mired halfway around the world in a green and brown sludge – drowning in death. Herr draws the colour from the country leaving only the forest and hills, the blood and rounds – the bright of napalm. Almost every single page (and I am not exaggerating here) reads like an image from the previously mentioned films – except Herr’s critical voice hangs dissonant echoing through the story, suffusing the theme. He examines the madness (absolutely staggering proportions), the fear and resignation, the burly anger and, scarily, the men who enjoy the unfolding drama. The killers. He weaves a narrative through some of the main conflicts of the latter section of the war – the Tet Offensive, the intensity of the military base at Khe Sahn. To my mind his journalist feels like Private Joker. Brash yet innocent, intelligent and conflicted. Herr mentions, quite loosely, that at times he crossed the line, his correspondent shedding viewer status and sitting behind an M-16 – gathering fire, shouting down the world.
Honestly, I have read very few books that truly – comprehensively – capture the very essence of a subject. Certainly, more so when that subject is the murderous hell of warfare. You sit with the marines for a period, wallowing in the endless rain of artillery (boarding the DMZ the forces effectively resided within bombing distance all of the time) the harsh shock of rifles and the buzz of choppers. Death exists permanently within inches, millimetres. And all of the time the NVA continued to pummel endlessly – never letting up, only dying, only to be replaced – inhuman in their courage. They fought viciously at night, armed to the teeth, almost no tracer rounds; just the startle of their AK47’s their AKMs, their shouts. It is serious reading when you look at the figures: Herr discusses this only in the broad sweep – 20% survival rate in some platoons, marine night-rotations often never returning, US napalm drops kill everything, period. It is serious reading any way you want to read it – but it is also reflective; it follows men into a war and explores their reactions, their humanity. Whether that humanity disappears into malevolence, or is shattered by madness and leaves an empty vessel where a grunt can exist on instinct, natural to the world around him, a marine, a Cav, whatever.

Vietnam. A word that still to this day means many things to many different people. Travellers etch across its landscape throughout the year wandering its myriad paths and villages, soaking up its cultured cities. Its people are famous for their relaxed personalities and interesting take on life. But for several thousand Vietnam War veterans, this beautiful country remains a nightmare of ferocious memories, strange drug-addled flashbacks, and the emotions of fear and loss. Recently, I was picking through a history of America in the Twentieth Century and spent some time looking at this infamous war. One of the recommended readings, I was informed, was Michael Herr’s Dispatches. Herr wrote for Esquire Magazine during the late sixties and spent two years embedded with the US forces in Vietnam. A number of years following his return Herr wrote this book as a memoir of his time in the country and a scathing overview of the human catastrophe of the conflict. I was surprised, and deeply enlivened to the book before I even began reading, to find that Herr had co-wrote Full Metal Jacket – and indeed the crisp dialogue of that film is referenced significantly in the reality of his account of the war. He went further by writing much of the voiceover in Apocalypse Now – thus acquiring a central role in the two greatest Vietnam War movies. (continue reading…)

Bookmark and Share
Leave a Comment :, , , , , more...

The Fallen Man

by kconnolly on Jan.17, 2010, under Current Affairs - Opinion, History

Networking is a significant impediment on my life. I have been offline for what seems an age, in reality a shocking three and half weeks. Often the issue, when I am down and out from the interweb, is the catastrophic nastiness that is wireless networking devices. LAN is just so much more logical. Anyway, Happy New Year to one and all: may they be technologically flawless.
Before Christmas I was nattering on about the German soldier, which was jumping up all over my radar due to their involvement in Afghanistan. Similarly, there is a deal of talk these days about the return of the Russian to the forefront of international relations. Given this, I thought I might look at an aspect of Russian history that has always stood out to my mind.
The Fallen Man
The Russian consistently has it difficult. History is enamoured by the imaginative character; the sweeping independent figure that explodes out of the text, whether they be morally staunch or fractured. Often the narrative is militaristic: civilisations story is epic, but always deeply antagonistic. Pick up any history of a nation and the fountain of war will be buried in layers, appearing at constant intervals, shaping the scene, ending cycles, moulding the next age. There is a tremendous consistency. So too with the protagonists. The brilliant generals rise above the fold and capture a distinct position in the text. Frequently they are significantly divisive persons, usually ruthless, amoral, troubled; but yet personable, loyal (when they see fit), and often entertaining – in the humorous, intelligent way. They are also all extremely quick to action. If you were to require one particular skill, based on historical reference, to succeed as a general (baring luck, which is not a skill but you know what I mean) it would likely be the ability to react with alacrity. They were all shockingly fast: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, William of Normandy, Genghis Khan, Edward the Black Prince, Napoleon Bonaparte, Erwin Rommel, etc, etc.
You will note, having keen eyes, that no Russian is included in that list. I am probably being remiss avoiding the name of Georgy Zhukov who (to many historians) was the finest general of the Second World War. But so little is known of this individual that it is difficult to assess him in the same way as the aforementioned commanders. Indeed, my point is that Russian military figures throughout history are consistently shadowy and seem to conform to a different mould than their contemporaries. Peter the Great is romantic certainly but as a leader he was more brash and wilful than any of the above traits. He is remembered more for his westernising of Russian society and his landmark urbanisation. Militarily he was involved and had some successes in his Northern War – though not to any major degree. Across the history of Russia there are few figures that stand up as remarkable generals, with the Soviet Union an improvement but still weakly compared. It is interesting, this fact, given the military nature of the Soviets and size and capability of its former armed forces.
Though, however, Russia has lacked in dynamic generals they have displayed an extremely powerful common soldier. Unparalleled courage remains the essence of the Red soldier: very few combatants attacked as consistently as the Soviets during the war, though their lack of ingenuity damaged them frequently. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the armed forces fell into decline in Russia (as did much else) and it is – as mentioned – only lately that this decline has begun to halt. Russia was massively affected by the Global Financial Crisis of Sept. 2008; they have been significantly reliant on the sale of petroleum and gas for their GDP for a long and with the crisis came a massive decrease in the costs of energy. Coupled with the share loss every globalised country saw – bar China and India – Russia is in major difficulties. And yet, they have re-entered international relations with a jolt. It is not easy to see why they have done this, though most commentators with an understanding of the Russian mindset (with analysis I agree with) believe that it is because the average Russian citizen requires their nation to be sufficiently strong in the world, or deemed to be strong, and will accept nothing less. Regardless if that strength is fact or fiction. These same commentators believe that Putin and Medvedev are jostling for position to retain their mandates. Their may be the whiff of electoral fraud any time United Russia goes to the polls, but their will be no United Russia without a world-leading Russian nation.

A World of Computers

Networking is a significant impediment on my life. I have been offline for what seems an age, in reality a shocking three and half weeks. Often the issue, when I am down and out from the interweb, is the catastrophic nastiness that is wireless networking devices. LAN is just so much more logical. Anyway, Happy New Year to one and all: may they be technologically flawless.

Before Christmas I was nattering on about the German soldier, which was jumping up all over my radar due to their involvement in Afghanistan. Similarly, there is a deal of talk these days about the return of the Russian to the forefront of international relations. Given this, I thought I might look at an aspect of Russian history that has always stood out to my mind. (continue reading…)

Bookmark and Share
Leave a Comment :, more...

The Absence of Everyday Epic

by doconnor on Jan.14, 2010, under Film, Literature

Towards the end of his follow-up to The Smoking Diaries, The Year of the Jouncer Simon Gray mentions going to see a film called  Look at Me, “the idiotic title of the French film Comme une image”.  He goes on to describe this “freak of a film, full of intelligent and civilized people behaving to each other as such people frequently behave to each other, egocentrically, thoughtlessly, narcissistically, with mainly accidental but sometimes deliberate cruelty, all of them perfectly observed in their smallest reactions…”.  I’ve seen the film in question, and he’s right, and justly celebrates the “everyday sort of treachery” that forms the basis for a “marvellously painful moment” in the film.  (continue reading…)

Bookmark and Share
Leave a Comment :, , more...

Secular Sundays

by efarrelly on Jan.04, 2010, under Literature

First of all, Secular Sundays would like to wish everyone a happy new year and all that. We dip a toe into 2010 with trepidation, here at New Voice. We can’t say we are all that optimistic, politically or economically speaking. Literature, however, is another matter, and we are prepapred to plunge into the literary waters of 2010 with the wild abandon of the Christmas Day lunatics at the forty foot, promised, as we are, new work from DeLillo and Amis. Following on from the glut of work by heavy hitters the like of Roth, Auster and Banville (though we didn’t like the Banville at all) and Carver and McGahern, released at the end of 2009, we can’t really complain, although we’d love something new from Cormac McCarthy – if anyone has heard anything on this front they might let us know. We had a moment of panic a few weeks ago when we noticed (I’m not sure why I’m sticking with the ‘we’ instead of ‘I’, the stout I’m consuming, perhaps) a headline announcing his auctioning of his typewriter for charity. Apparently somone bought him a new one, though, for a fiver or something, so hopefully we will get something before long. In the meantime, we must make do with the film version of The Road, which we await, again, with some trepidation.
(continue reading…)

Bookmark and Share
1 Comment :, , more...

Secular Sundays

by efarrelly on Dec.28, 2009, under Literature, Television

The team at New Voice would like to wish our readers all the best for the Christmas, and we hope that there was some decent literature under the tree, or at least a book voucher or two. I would also like to announce the arrival of the newest voice on the team – Ruadhán Tomás Farrelly – nearly two weeks old and already showing clear signs of being a literary genius.

I am too full of turkey, and there are too many unopened bottles of Tyskie in the fridge, (not to mention the fact of a new baby demanding attention) for me to spend too much time typing this week. In fact, I just want to alert readers to some Christmas TV – the excellent Orson Welles season on BBC 4 continues this evening and ‘The Dead’, John Huston’s fabulous rendering of, arguably, the complete (perfect?) short story is on RTÉ tomorrow evening. As Fintan O’Toole wrote last week in the Irish Times, it is impossible now to read ‘The Dead’ and imagine Gabriel as anyone other than the magnificent Donal McCann.

Finally, some words from James Joyce to end 2009 – chosen, from ‘The Dead’, for absolutely no reason other than their simplicity and beauty:

The patting at once grew louder in encouragement and then ceased altogether. Gabriel leaned his ten trembling fingers on the tablecloth and smiled nervously at the company. Meeting a row of upturned faces he raised his eyes to the chandelier. The piano was playing a waltz tune and he could hear the skirts sweeping against the drawing-room door. People, perhaps, were standing in the snow on the quay outside, gazing up at the lighted windows and listening to the waltz music. The air was pure there. In the distance lay the park where the trees were weighted with snow. The Wellington Monument wore a gleaming cap of snow that flashed westward over the white field of Fifteen Acres. (Dubliners, Triad/Grafton p230)

Bookmark and Share
Leave a Comment :, , , , , more...

Secular Sundays

by efarrelly on Dec.14, 2009, under Literature

I wrote, in the first of these posts on Carver, that I would address the question that Eileen Battersby was moved to ask, upon her reading of What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, and Beginners, side by side – why Carver allowed Lish to cut the book in the way that he did, why he didn’t fight for the original version of the book. It is a somewhat naïve question, and there are a number of answers, or a number of aspects to the answer. One I have addressed – some of the cuts worked. There is, or should be, nothing unusual in this, it does not mean that the author is not as good as we thought he was, it just means that the editor is doing his job. (continue reading…)

Bookmark and Share
1 Comment :, , , more...

Secular Sundays

by efarrelly on Dec.06, 2009, under Literature

Reading the Carver and Lish versions side by side proves an exercise as irritating as it is interesting: one wonders at how Lish could possibly justify what is best described, solely on the comparative textual evidence supplied here, as a slash and burn approach to editing. (Eileen Battersby, ‘Raymond Carver in his Own Words’ Irish Times, Sat Oct 31 2009) (continue reading…)

Bookmark and Share
Leave a Comment :, , , , more...

“Nothing is Impossible for the German Soldier!”

by kconnolly on Dec.03, 2009, under History

The above is an interesting line quoted by Hitler in the second or third year of the Second World War. Memorable for its brevity, yet comprehensively encapsulating the reality of the German fighting machine. Hitler threw it out during the planning stages for Operation Barbarossa, when clamped up spartanly in the forested fortress of the Wolfsschanze, the eponymous Wolfs Lair. In a way it is a throwaway line, consistent to the megalomaniac Furher’s distorted faith in German dominance. But the fact of the matter is the German soldier was considered the finest of the war. This is in almost every respect: courage, order, imagination, alacrity and probably most of all counter attacking initiative. This final one is sufficiently exemplified by the Battle of the Bulge, following several months of consistent allied pressure, and having clearly lost the war, they almost completed a rout, bizarrely; it said a great deal about the Wehrmacht. Of course, they did not complete this rout, nor win the war. It’s somewhat unsettling to consider but baring the tremendous over extension of Barbarossa it might have been a different war following the D Day landings of June ’44.
But Hitler refused to ignore the Soviet landscape and his burning ambition to both claim ‘unlimited living space’ and defeat the image of an unconquerable Russia. His multiple tactical errors, outside of the original decision to even begin the war, were devastating to the campaign. A refusal to plan for winter quarters (odd given the somewhat bleak Russian climate), indeed a refusal to even assign winter clothing; all based on the absurd view that once they ‘knocked in the door, the whole thing would come crashing down’. All of which led to the inevitable stall, followed by the grinding down of the Wehrmacht. Far too much was left by Hitler to the Lancer’s of his armed forces: thus ignoring major field requirements like contiguous supply lines and comprehensive artillery support. The Panzer brigades (tank units) were there of course, but not as effective as they had been for the first two years of war. Again the landscape was murderous to mechanised units, but also a major issue was the T-34, the Soviet’s finest tank, considered the best general purpose vehicle of the Second World War. Still, having begun to lose by the winter of ’41, having launched the offensive that summer, they held on for a savage period of time given the circumstances.
The story of the failure of Barbarossa is wide-spread, and the German capitulation at Stalingrad and ultimately the Soviet Union, was significant to their war effort. They were effectively pushed back from that point onwards. But yet, and this is clear from reading across many books dealing with the period, the German soldier remained consistently difficult to break down. There are savage critics of the allied contingent, which shines positive militaristic light on the Wehrmacht, with the US forces in particular viewed as impotent. There were consistent issues around getting soldiers to push forward in battles (as apposed to hanging back and waiting for artillery to pound defensive positions into submission) and it was well known throughout the war that the Allies often refused to fight at night. This allowed the German’s shocking freedom of movement knowing they had from sundown to organise positions. Not dissimilar to today, the U.S. relied on technology and vastly outnumbered all comers with regard to the fertility of their assembly lines. Though often their vehicles were only moderate in capability. The Sherman tank was relatively weak, certainly when compared to the Tiger and T-34. The Hellcat and Mustang were solid fighter planes, though inferior to the Japanese Zero and German Messerschmitt. Of course, the U.S. B-29 Superfortress murdered everything, so that one goes without saying. The Allies were infuriated for much of the war by their infantry weaponry, in that they simply did not work: the British PIAT and U.S. Bazooka, which were hugely inferior to the German Panzerfaust – a constant menace to allied tanking.
Bit of an aside there; my main point remains that the German soldier was a solid fighting machine. Today their armed forces are minimal. American bases are situated across West Germany, with few major local military outposts. With the European Union’s movement to a standing army there is of course an expectation that the largest population centre of Union would contain the largest assignment of man power. Time, even the short drift of decades, make for significant change. However, the return of a German military is not new in that they appear to have a prominent place in NATO’s campaigns across Afghanistan. Newsweek record the figure a several thousand. Not surprisingly they are understood to be very effective.

The above is an interesting line quoted by Hitler in the second or third year of the Second World War. Memorable for its brevity, yet comprehensively encapsulating the reality of the German fighting machine. Hitler threw it out during the planning stages for Operation Barbarossa, when clamped up spartanly in the forested fortress of the Wolfsschanze, the eponymous Wolfs Lair. In a way it is a throwaway line, consistent to the megalomaniac Furher’s distorted faith in German dominance. But the fact of the matter is the German soldier was considered the finest of the war. This is in almost every respect: courage, order, imagination, alacrity and probably most of all counter attacking initiative. This final one is sufficiently exemplified by the Battle of the Bulge, following several months of consistent allied pressure, and having clearly lost the war, they almost completed a rout, bizarrely; it said a great deal about the Wehrmacht. Of course, they did not complete this rout, nor win the war. It’s somewhat unsettling to consider but baring the tremendous over extension of Barbarossa it might have been a different war following the D Day landings of June ’44. (continue reading…)

Bookmark and Share
Leave a Comment :, , , , , , , more...

A Singular Notion

by kconnolly on Nov.26, 2009, under Science

One hundred and fifty years, exactly yesterday, since the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and I finish off the final words to peer, literally awestruck, at the breadth of Darwin’s thesis: there really are no words to sufficiently define the extent to which this work captures the utter power of nature. There are many things you can say about Darwin’s argument, not least that it was controversial, but I don’t think that the controversy really explores the vision within the story he unwinds. And I do mean this; above all else this book is to my mind a story: one that encapsulates the entire planet, her life forms, and their coexistence together. I read around the work to ensure I understood the period in which the book was written (being a ludicrously involved history buff, this was straight-forward) which I would highly recommend, as it gives a comprehensive context. Many sciences were still newly burgeoning fields during this period, including biology, however, the understanding in the physical sciences was high – so much so that many believed Darwin’s ultimate theory was a century or so later than it should have been. I’m not converted to this view, I think that this theory is novel in every way imaginable; indeed, its consistent opposition (slight, but there) over the past 150 years is representative of its ingenuity.
Nothing displays this view more than the difficulties society today has with the fact of evolution. In the year 2009 there have been three books released showcasing the argument for evolution (timed for the anniversary) which is so broad that it would actually take some serious effort to oppose the reality. One of these books (the only one I have read) is very thorough and easily digestible, Richard Dawkin’s The Greatest Show on Earth. Though Darwin’s work is rightly construed as the firing salvo, his theory is an explanation for evolution, explaining how it works via natural selection. Having read through Origin it feels as though Darwin’s main endeavour is deliver an opposing theory to the commonly understood origin of life from that period: namely, independent creation. This is of course part of its controversy – but it is clear when reading that Darwin is far more involved in dismissing the idea of independent creation than he is exposing faith. Independent creation is more or less the view that all individual entities (human or otherwise) were created in the current form we see in this age: i.e. they could not have evolved. Darwin’s fundamental argument against this is evolution, which he shows is controlled by natural selection, but also pretty much proves that all animals could not have been created in the form they currently hold, and must have originated from broadly a single life form (he argues five or six life forms, but today it is known to be one).
His proof that independent creation is not possible is absolute. Evolution, by its nature of occurrence over millennia, is impossible to prove to the same degree. Having shown that independent creation was not possible, Darwin proposes the argument for evolution as an alternative and to the best level that he could, explains how it occurs through natural selection. At its most basic natural selection is the selection (by nature) of dominant characteristics in any grouping of animals which best enable that group to survive. As each selection is made to the group the improvement it makes is carried down through their line and thus the animals evolve. This is of course over many many years. The genius, as with every theory, is how well this argument fits into place – in this case in the natural world. Darwin spends some time showing how his theory works; which is the story of life I mentioned earlier. All in all it’s a fabulous piece of work, and is rightly construed as one of the most important books of all time. I’ve always enjoyed the popular phrase of Darwin’s theory, which if you Google draws only one winner: the single greatest idea ever.

One hundred and fifty years, exactly yesterday, since the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and I finish off the final words to peer, literally awestruck, at the breadth of Darwin’s thesis: there really are no words to sufficiently define the extent to which this work captures the utter power of nature. There are many things you can say about Darwin’s argument, not least that it was controversial, but I don’t think that the controversy really explores the vision within the story he unwinds. And I do mean this; above all else this book is to my mind a story: one that encapsulates the entire planet, her life forms, and their coexistence together. I read around the work to ensure I understood the period in which the book was written (being a ludicrously involved history buff, this was straight-forward) which I would highly recommend, as it gives a comprehensive context. Many sciences were still newly burgeoning fields during this period, including biology, however, the understanding in the physical sciences was high – so much so that many believed Darwin’s ultimate theory was a century or so later than it should have been. I’m not converted to this view, I think that this theory is novel in every way imaginable; indeed, its consistent opposition (slight, but there) over the past 150 years is representative of its ingenuity. (continue reading…)

Bookmark and Share
Leave a Comment :, , , , , more...

Secular Sundays

by efarrelly on Nov.23, 2009, under Literature

Regular visitors to NewVoiceBlog (and our site stats tell us that there are at least some of you out there) will have noticed, I hope, the absence of Secular Sundays over the last few weeks. This was as a result of a very busy wife needing more-or-less constant access to the laptop. The time, though, was not spent idling, or at least not all of it, but was spent trying to keep up with the spate of new books released by some of the big guns – Auster, Roth and Banville being three and a fourth, for me the biggest, albeit dead, gun, Ray Carver. (continue reading…)

Bookmark and Share
1 Comment :, , , , , more...

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!