David Churchill (1959-2013) |
Given the sad passing of our friend and colleague David Churchill, we've decided to honour him in a manner totally fitting to our memory of him. Since he was such a strong advocate of Critics at Large from the beginning, he was quick to initiate ideas. One thing he was quite fond of were omnibus projects like the Remembering 9/11 collection (which led to our first e-book) and the Titanic 100th Anniversary commemoration. Therefore, we felt strongly that we could best salute our late columnist by creating an Omnibus of David. From April 16 until April 24, we plan to publish – daily – the best of David Churchill as chosen by our writers.
Today's piece is from Shlomo Schwartzberg.
– The Editors at Critics at Large.
I’ve known David for many years but it’s only in the last five years or so that we became good friends. He kindly called me in Montreal when I was sitting Shiva for my father – my first inkling that he considered me a friend and not just someone he was friendly with, which he was. But it was Critics at Large that actually brought us closer and allowed me to get to know the David that we are honouring on the site this week. Reading David’s posts introduced me to a passionate and opinionated critic who personified what Critics at Large was all about: views that go against the popular grain, that argue cogently for what one believes in and which demonstrate a concern with the issues of the outside world.
Last year, David also became my regular editor on the site, offering much support for me, a writer who often doubted himself when finishing a piece. He didn’t say everything I wrote was terrific, his favourite adjective for my output, but often enough so I felt better afterwards about what I’d written. I also got to know David better through his curiosity and interest in subjects (the FIFA World Cup™, the British car show Top Gear) I would normally not care a whit about, though we also shared a similar passion for the writer Harlan Ellison, with David contributing a nice addendum to the piece I had written. He was much better at putting his personal views and life experiences into his writing then I was, which was a revelatory approach that journalism school said I should never do.
But David was much more than a good, smart editor. He was so empathetic when someone close to me faced a terrible illness, even showing genuine concern for my situation on the greatest night of his life, his book launch for The Empire of Death. That ability to reach out to someone else at such a crucial time when you could be easily forgiven for thinking only of yourself was a mark of what distinguished David and made so many love him. I’ll remember him for his kindness and for the honesty with which he approached me and my work. We often discussed writing and what we expected of it – David, too, had had a time when he didn’t much like doing it – and while I still have difficulty writing I think David (and our Critics at Large colleague and friend Kevin Courrier, too) taught me, at least, to value what I have to say. I will always be grateful for that. In the way he conducted himself, personally and professionally, David Churchill came across as a real mensch, which is Yiddish for a person of integrity and honor, a description which defines him perfectly. I've chosen David’s impassioned, powerful piece assailing Nicholson Baker’s pacifist but immoral book Human Smoke for displaying what I value most about Critics at Large and David Churchill, a courage to dissent from fashionable thinking, a complexity of view that didn't fit neatly into that political box marked Right or Left and, finally, a well-argued, well-written case for something he deeply believed and a passionate response to someone who vexed him tremendously. We’ll miss your trenchant, critical voice. David. Rest in peace, my friend.
– Shlomo Schwartzberg is a film critic, teacher and arts journalist based in Toronto. He teaches regular film courses at Ryerson University’s LIFE Institute. He has just concluded his course, What Makes a Movie Great?. Beginning on May 3 he will be offering one on science fiction movies and television.
Pernicious Pacifism: Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke and Julian Assange's WikiLeaks
While doing research into World War II for a writing project, I came across Nicholson Baker's non-fiction book, Human Smoke (2008 – Simon & Schuster), on the bargain tables at my local Chapters bookstore (it was a second-printing hardcover). Looking for a stand-alone source of quotes and thinking on the war while it was happening, Baker's work looked promising. The book consists of hundreds of short vignettes (the shortest 20-30 words; the longest 1 page) taken from letters, diaries, speeches, books, magazine and newspaper articles published from between August 1892 and December 31, 1941 (the first vignette is a quote from Alfred Nobel, inventor of dynamite, and the last is by Mihail Sebastian, a Romanian-Jewish writer and diarist). The majority of the book covers the years between 1933 and 1941. Baker's thesis? If the Allies had not been so complicit, so blood-thirsty in their actions, and only listened to the pacifists, a peace treaty could have been established between them and the Axis powers. Because Baker is a pacifist, the book not only repeatedly argues that a peace treaty of some sort could have been established with the Axis powers (thus preventing the war), he also blames the Allies for much of what happened to cause the war to break out in the first place. Although, to be fair, Human Smoke doesn't let the Nazis off the hook, Baker's book does suggest that Roosevelt and Churchill were little different than Hitler.
Nicholson Baker |
Ultra Decoding Machine |
As I continued to
read, I was constantly resisting the urge to pitch this god-forsaken
book across the room (since each vignette is so short, it was hard to
stop reading – hmm, maybe “pernicious popcorn” would have been a better
title for this piece, because once you eat one piece you need to keep
going). What Baker fails to do is to fill in the whole story. For
example, the dozens of events that caused the Americans to give fighter
planes to the Chinese and locate its fleet in Pearl Harbour – such as
the “rape of Nanking” incident in December 1937 when the Japanese
attacked and conquered Nanking, China, killing and raping thousands of
civilians – are never mentioned because it would defeat his argument.
Sure, the Allies did some bad things during this period (some of which
were pretty horrendous, like turning away Jewish refugee ships that in
many cases were forced back to Germany, and imprisoning
Japanese-American/Canadian citizens in internment camps), but during
war, actions are taken and directions determined (such as, fire-bombing
civilian targets in Germany to break the German citizens' will) based on
the need to defeat the enemy. Many of these ideas were failures, but
many of them had to be tried since they didn't have the 20-20 hindsight
we have today. Baker also brings out the tired story of how Coventry
could have been saved because the British knew it was going to be
attacked. He never mentions that they knew this because of the German
Ultra decoding machine the Allies had secretly captured. The British
uncovered the truth of the attack by decoding messages using their copy
of the machine. If they had moved enough weaponry and airplanes around
Coventry to protect the city, the Germans would have known Ultra had
been compromised and would have changed their coding techniques and
untold thousands more people may have died elsewhere. And the war could
have raged on longer than 1945 – horrifying decisions had to be made,
and Coventry was one of them.
Julian Assange |
This leads me to Julian Assange and his lunatic organization WikiLeaks. Another pacifist who blames the West for what's going wrong in the world, Assange's organization recently released 92,000 pages of secret American documents onto the Internet in an attempt, I guess, to blame the West for what they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. His aim is to hurry the end of these wars by holding a mirror up to the West and shaming them into getting out. To what end? So the Taliban can come back, oppress women and kill anybody who disagrees with their medieval point of view? Now, as far as I'm concerned, Assange has as much blood, if not more, on his hands as he accuses the West. Within the 92,000 pages were also names and addresses of Afghan citizens who were assisting NATO forces in order to bring about some form of democracy to their country (no, not a Western version as it won't work, but one that makes sense in the Afghan context). Because of Assange and his gang's actions, the Taliban have announced they now have these names and retribution will commence. NATO is scrambling to find these brave folks and get them to safety, setting back some form of freedom in Afghanistan by who knows how many years. Assange, of course, counters the charges that he is now helping the Taliban to kill by saying “the West has all the blood on its hands, not me” (he's wrong). I cannot conceive of a worse use of the Internet.
If Assange and Baker are what it means to be a pacifist, they can have it all to themselves.
– originally published on August 5, 2010.
– David Churchill is a film critic and author. He is putting the finishing touches on his first novel, The Empire of Death, and continues to research that WWII project.
No comments:
Post a Comment