Actors try to behave like real characters and real characters try to imitate actors.

So inside the onion for de Mol is "The Person" and for Goudsblom "The Truth"? What does a layer mean on this scale? Conceilment of truth/persons, so a lie? So truth is covered in lies? Or is this just a characteristic of truth/persons?

Noa

Don't give up on us. We need you.

Dens

Goudsblom didn’t suggest that at the end the truth is waiting, after having peeled the onion.

Oh Mieke, that's sweet. You don't need me, just throw in a critical note now and then and hopefully in your case it won't result in your falling from grace (with the sea ;)), Just peel a few onions and hopefully, like De Mol, all that business of onion peeling (where the onion represents others as opposed to oneself which is usually the case with the onion metaphor) will leave you crying all the way to the bank.

I just realized that was a sloppy reaction. Sorry about that, I'm a little distracted. The real life worries weigh heavier than the second life ones.

Noa

No need to apologise.
Apparantly the onion is a popular metaphor. I used it a lot for explaining the different layers in my identity.
Falling from grace with the sea? Here it is maybe more appropriate to say " Falling from grace with the river, in this case : Arnon.

Arnon

I wonder. Aren't you secretly after his sister?

In order for an onion to be peeled, it needs to have grown into an onion first, right? This seems more relevant to me than the peeling. I think such relevance should also guide us when we think about life and the world. Too often, we approach things like we're a bunch of scientists, peeling and dissecting, only to find death in our hands. Such science only leads to disappointment and feelings of guilt and misplaced morality. It is no wonder that Günter Grass called his nazi confessions "Beim Häuten der Zwiebel". I would opt for a different kind of science, e.g. the one Nietzsche called "gaya scienza", or happy science. (End of snobbish rant).

@Mieke, let me then put it this way: "The sailor who fell from grace with the sea." That will do the trick.

Noa

Sorry but, that's one of Mishima's novels I haven't read.

should I read Goudsblom to understand his metaphore? Happy Science, that's positive science, I presume. And I believe we're still persuing positive science.

@Mieke, it was indeed a reference to our previous exchange and it may look off topic but it's not: the book I 'm referring to is about (ao) "...the lengths some will go to in order to maintain what they believe to be true." I took that from Wikipedia, but this novel by Mishima is one of my favourite novels.
@Arnon, you speak of truth. While writing a novel, are you being entirely (or consistently) truthful to yourself (aka peeling your personal onion or - as Rutger mentioned - in fact the reverse, growing one)? Does it even matter?

Arnon

I'm interested in John de Mol's onion comparison. You're not very specific about what he actually meant. Could you elaborate?

It's interesting that an exploitative and rather tasteless ("the sperm show") billionaire businessman should see people as onions. Theo van Gogh once called John de Mol's sister "the queen of plastic", I suppose one could say then that he is the "king of onions".

When are you going to interview Dr. Phil?

@Carlos
I am sorry, but most reality shows make me think about Nazi ‘re-education’ camps: put a few people together with limited recourses and give them difficult competitive tasks; the final goal is to eliminate each other, so only one can survive, the winner of the game.
I think they want to peel the human onion until what they assume is it’s purest core: the shiny eyes of the merciless beast, to quote the once beloved Fuhrer.
But maybe I am exaggerating things, although.

To Jan Thys

Your comparison between Nazi camps and reality-tv strikes me as being grotesque.

@Pjotr
I only wanted to refer to the basic ideology behind all this (I was not referring to the extermination camp, but to the early concentration, also called re-education, camps of the thirties).

Jan Thys

If that is what Mr. de Mol meant by his onion theory then I think it is absolute rubbish. It's like putting a dog in a tiny cage, mistreating it, putting it with another dog it can't stand and claiming that the ensuing behaviour reveals the true nature of the dog.

A prominent psychologist and criminologist (Prof. Wilson) withdrew from the English "Big Brother" with serious criticisms of Endemol. I don't think it is exagerated to say that Endemol would do anything to the participants of their shows for the sake of money. Oddly enough it is the advertisers, who do not want to be associated with complete filth, that limit Endemol's callousness.

I do not think your comparison with the Nazis' treatment of their prisoners is grotesque.

endemol programs make me vomit. good luck with being surrounded by a people that is shaped by endemol culture.

@Pjotr
Furthermore Nazi ideology did not came from Mars. A lot of it’s components were already widely accepted: Eugenetics, racism, nationalism, even re-education camps.
Only the final consequences can we call now grotesque, like Stalin’s Goulag camps.

@Carlos
I fully agree.

Rutger

Have you actually read "Beim häuten der Zwiebel"? My understanding is that the book is much more than "Nazi confessions".

Noa

First of all, please stop being a crybaby, with this falling out of grace business.
I’m not sure what you mean with being truthful to yourself while writing a novel?
The only honest I can answer I can give is that the text (i.e. the novel) itself must be an answer your to your question.
By the way you seem to suggest that a novel is a tool to get self-knowledge. I’m not sure about this.
The distinction is not always clear, but I would argue that it makes sense to distinguish between a novel and let’s say a memoir.
For the record: I never stated that writing is like peeling an onion.
Is it possible that you are looking for somebody who is willing and able to peel you?

Carlos

I cannot speak on behalf of Mr. de Mol but I would say that his onion was definitely connected to a quest for truth, although in this case the quest for truth was a side effect of the quest for entertainment. This is my interpretation.
It’s possible that the quest for truth by definition is entertaining.

the last sentence struck me. to like someone doesn't seem te me as a very good argument for whatever conclusion of a discussion with opinions.

@Arnon,
First of all: I like to cry. It's about as big a release as an orgasm or a sneeze for the same matter. I cried when reading Tirza.
Thanks for your response though, it was interesting. I wonder about personal honesty (or truth if you like) as opposed to (or within) the use of effect in novels. To obtain answers is an interesting point of view, I've heard a different writer say it's an act of control (reorganizing life).
I'm not looking for someone to peel me, I'm not an onion. I don't have layers. If anything, I look more like garlic. Or sugar cane, have you ever tried biting sugar cane?

Arnon

No, I'd sooner read a novel :)
I did post an entry about it though, http://blogger.xs4all.nl/cornets5/archive/2006/08/14/114375.aspx

Peeling an onion to get to the truth, or the truth of a person, that is absurd. Layers for the sake of layers are what make onions useful and good. I agree with R, the construction of layers is what is interesting, rarely their removal. The beginning is always the same, and the end. I don't think Endemol peels onions anyway, just irritates. Contestants who can stand it get the pearl of prizes, viewers who can stand it get what they deserve.

In addition, I would also say that it is a prejudice to assume that "the" truth (truth of what? where? when?) lies in a certain origin of a given thing. What if the critics of the CERN particle accelerator--a machine designed to peel the universe--are right? I don't believe they are, but what if this quest for the first moment of the universe does lead to the formation of a black hole that will swallow the earth? Is the black hole then the beginning or the end of existence?

Ontology is not about origin, but of knowing how to enter right in the middle of a story, because that is what we always do; we're always in the midst of things.

Rutger

You are rather judgmental about books you haven't read. This is common of course.

D hylobates

To unmask has to do with the search for truth. This is not necessarily related to the origin of something, or to the pure state of it, whatever we might mean with purity.
I understand the peeling as an act of unmasking.

Arnon

I expected this response, only not from you. One can do many things with books; reading is only of them. I prefer to reject this one.

Rutger

I object to belittling a book without evidence. Escpecially a book by Grass. And when words as "Nazi confessions" are thrown in my objections will be stronger.
If this is old-fashioned, alas.

Arnon

I am not belittling or even discussing Grass' book. I have a problem with a confession done by a 78 year old on something he did when he was 17, *plus* I have a problem with people who find reason in the confession to disavow Grass. I am not sure what your problem is with the term, "Nazi confession" in this context. But perhaps you can read my entry first if you want to continue this discussion. Otherwise, I suggest we skip it.

The onion metaphor

Like Dens, I’m somewhat confused about the metaphor. Frankly, I never understood why the onion metaphoris so popular. I mean, the onion is nothing but layers. There is no inside, nothing to reveal. The inner layers are the same as those around it. To put it differently, why are Goudsblom and De Mol not peeling oranges, for example? Can someone explain this to me?

Michel V

I liked it because of the feminine ring to it. In dutch the layers are called "rokjes".

Dear Mieke

Who are we?

Eric

To Jan Thys

Your referring to the ‘basic ideology’ is what made the comparison, in my judgement, grotesque. As the ideology (insofar as the term is appropriate) behind reality television is to make money by providing entertainment. That this desire leads to the nullifying of human beings is something that would bring us to the morality of capitalism ‘an sich’.
A more than valuable subject to go into, but however not granting us to forget that the principles of Nazism and capitalism differ. I argue: differ to that extent that the preposition from which your reasoning started (‘shared basic ideology’) cannot be called just, making your comparison unjustified.
I am aware that we, as human beings, are responsible for the ideologies that we – to some extent – bring forth. This however doesn’t lead to the conclusion that solely the consequences of abject, or defunct reasoning are grotesque. No, more so that human nature by itself is highly questionable.

Pjötr

Re: "This however doesn’t lead to the conclusion that solely the consequences of abject, or defunct reasoning are grotesque. No, more so that human nature by itself is highly questionable. "

How would you describe "human nature by itself", and how is your conclusion that it is highly questionable external to that nature?

@Pjotr
If capitalism is interpreted in it’s purest Social Darwinist form, as some people do, then it is very close to Nazism. I think De Mol is playing with that kind of Social Darwinism for entertainment and money making too (as did some SS in the camps when throwing food between the starving prisoners and let them fight).
But, I know, capitalism can be interpreted in a more gentle, social way.
I think the setting is very important in human behaviour. You almost get what you want to see. (See the Stanford experiments with the prisoners and the Milgram experiment)

@Pjotr
And keep in mind that, in the thirties, Nazism and Fascism were not seen as grotesque ideologies. On the contrary, they were at least accepted, even by socialists leaders like De Man in Belgium.
Nazism became only grotesque when they lost the war and the first images of Buchenwald and Auszwitz and the huge killings on an unseen industrial scale came in.
At least, that is how it has been told to me and how I perceived it.

Dear Arnon

And why did you like De Mol?
Was it the way he spoke about people?

Eric

Rutger

I would argue that the book is much more than “Nazi Confessions”. It’s hard for me to believe that calling a book “Nazi Confessions” is not a judgment.

Eric W

Likes and dislikes are often based on intuition. I respected and liked his attempt at honesty.

Eric

I have a multiple personality.

Arnon

Is "Max Havelaar" by Multatuli about the coffee auctions of the Dutch Trading Company? No. Still, it is the book's subtitle. Is it a judgment? Undoubtedly.

I called Grass' confessions "Nazi" because it is their main significance. And, I mentioned the title of the book, because that's where he put them in. They are all formal qualifications, as anyone can see. So, please.

To Jan Thys

However I don’t disagree with you that the atrocities of capitalism in ‘it’s purest Social Darwinist form’ could be compared to the atrocities National Socialism is guilty of, I am afraid that we continue to disagree.
Let me start by pointing out that we are still talking about reality television the way that John de Mol presents it to the public.
I, personally, wouldn’t argue that the Netherlands are reigned by capitalism in ‘it’s purest Social Darwinist form’. (Could you name, let’s say 2, countries where it does? I failed to retrieve examples myself.)
John de Mol is an individual functioning within the limits that the Netherlands’ free market offers. This cannot be said of the Nazis who overthrew democracy as a whole in the first month of 1933.
Roughly sketched Nazism is an ideology dividing mankind into Unter – and Übermenschen. An atrocious premise to fund a society on.
Whereas capitalism in ‘it’s purest Social Darwinist form’ starts from the premise that everyone has the means to outlive a free market. However, I consider the latter to be wrong, I do not consider it to be of the same order as the assertion on which National Socialism is based. If a term needed to be coined I’d introduce: ‘defunct reasoning’.

On your second posting: If I understood it correctly, I feel that we agree that Nazism was grotesque long before the broad European public perceived it as such.

Arnon

I would say more that turning to see facets rather than unmasking is a kind of search for a kind of truth. My behavior at work is different than my behavior at home but it is not a mask which conceals (or eradicates) my home self, it is simply a functionally different facet of myself. To turn, to see from other angles, contexts, reveals only the truth that we are composed of these facets. Endemol creates inorganic situations that compel new facets, revealing only again that mundane truth of multiplicity. Surely not worth the diversion of resources from fine scripted entertainments? My bias, of course, from which perhaps my arguments derive.
Layers, in the metaphor of personality, suggest to me things arising over time and fully worn. Perhaps I am good at accounting or like zydeco music but was not or did not in the past (I ain't and don't). These would be new layers and peeling them reveals nothing but garden-variety mutability.
Nevertheless I'm sure John de Mol has seen things in the course of his work that have revealed to him much more human truth than many psychiatrists or philosophers see. But you get that working with people with your eyes open.

Pjötr

My father was a nazi and an SS during a certain period of his life. I grew up in it. I agree with Jan that fascism is social darwinism in it purest form.

@Pjotr
Fortunately I do not know capitalist countries entirely based upon Social Darwinists, but there are many active promoters for it. So the danger remains, because some people want to get rid over all those democratic restrictions of the free market – no rules.
For me De Mol is simply playing or fishing in very dangerous waters., although he can be honest about it. The same source were Hitler got his mustard. In fact Nazism - Hitler’s personal child was not so much about German or Arian Uebermensch or Untermensch – crap for the crowds -, but simply about the survival of the fittest, whoever wins. Hence Hitler’s late declaration the best race now are the Russians, the sole winners of the war, in his eyes. (Maybe that is why there are many Hitler admirers in Russia now.)
But I agree no systems is ever an exact copy of an other and every comparison can be crippling.
But I stay with my observations that I get a very uneasy and familiar taste when one plays with people in De Mol’s way. An all too familiar feeling. But then again my explanations are also personal observations.
Feel free to disagree.

@Pjotr
A final personal note. Imagine you see a crying child intensely hugged and kissed against his will by an aunt or an uncle. SA lot of people will laugh and mock about the child, but a former victim of child abuse would have a quite different look upon that picture. Is he overreaction? Are other bystanders negligent? Who is right? Who will tell in the end?

To Mieke Dutoit

Is there any reason to assume that I disagree?

To Jan Thys

I feel equally uneasy, about nullifying human beings. But that was not where we parted company.

@Pjotr
Did we ever part? It was more about your appreciation of my comparison. It seems we both have slightly different connotations when mentioning Nazis. Most people have, and a source of many harsh discussions; not such a big deal, if you ask me.

Hylobates

To expose a false theory is also unmasking.

Rutger

You wrote:
"It is no wonder that Günter Grass called his nazi confessions "Beim Häuten der Zwiebel". "
Based on what information exactly do you conclude that this book can be summarized as "Nazi confessions."
And do you really believe that there is not a hint of condescendence in "Nazi confessions?"

Arnon

Your admiration for Mr. Grass seems to make you want to believe that his book is about basketball playing or growing pumpkins, instead of his serving in the SS. In psychology, this is called denial. However, I cannot be held accountable for it, nor for any ensuing paranoia.

Arnon

Q. "Jetzt sprechen Sie zum ersten Mal und völlig überraschend darüber, daß Sie Mitglied der Waffen-SS waren. Warum erst jetzt?"

A. "Das hat mich bedrückt. Mein Schweigen über all die Jahre zählt zu den Gründen, warum ich dieses Buch geschrieben habe. Das mußte raus, endlich..."

(From the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, August 12, 2006)

Social Darwinism

Endemol makes a spectacle of social Darwinism and calls it entertainment.

Rutger

I might admire Mr. Grass or I might not, I never said that I admire Mr. Grass and my conversation with you does not justify his conclusion.
My point is this: there is a source, the book by Mr. Grass in this case.
You can research the source. In other words you can read the book.
You don't have to rely on quotations from German or other newspapers. They are by definition a less reliable source than the book itself.
You are entitled to not reading the book, of course. All I suggest is that it is wise to not jump to conclusions about books you haven't read.

Dear Mieke

Mieke: Noa
Don't give up on us. We need you.

Eric: Dear Mieke
Who are we?

Mieke: Eric
I have a multiple personality.

Eric: was my question that confronting that you needed a small lie, or a joke to answer me?
As I understand it now it should be:

Mieke: Noa
Don't give up on us. I need you.

Eric

Arnon

1) I never made any reference to the book; I merely mentioned its title
2) I didn't pass any judgment on the book, but only on Mr. Grass doing his confession.
3) In the book, Mr. Grass confesses that he served in the Waffen-SS, a military organization of the Nazis. Hence, my shorthand, "Nazi confessions". Nothing condescending, but a strictly formal reference.
4) Upon your request, I offered you a source for my reference. Like the contents of the novel, which you have not read either, it is inadmissable to you.
5) Advising me not to believe what the papers write, is condescending.
6) I asked you twice to let this pass, I offered you a link to a blog entry I wrote in order to give our conversation some more substance, but like the book, you chose not to read it but instead to keep charging me on my use of a small phrase.
7) You are urging me to read a novel that I have no interest in; it would seem more appropriate if you would read it instead, since you care for it so much.

This is aggravating. I urge you again to drop it.

Eric

While with some co-commentators of this blog, I have the feeling that something has developed wich one could describe as 'us', I don't think your part of it.

Rutger

Please explain this sentence to me:
"It is no wonder that Günter Grass called his nazi confessions "Beim Häuten der Zwiebel".

Dear Mieke,

So there is a 'we'; at least you 'have the feeling that something developed' as such.
I hope there is, you seem to need it.
And no offence, I'm rather not in this 'we'.

with love,

Eric

Arnon

What don't you understand? The sentence begins with, "It is no wonder..."
But you are bothered by the "Nazi" part. For all I know or care, another author could have written a book under the same title confessing some other misbehaving, like recently Mr. Duyvendak. Or anybody at all on any secret history. I was trying to demonstrate that the onion peeling metaphor seems to fit any type of confessing rather well. I gave the title of Grass' novel as an example. He happened to confess a history with the Nazis. Hence, "Nazi confessions".

But you know all this. You seem to want to find some prejudice in me, but it looks to me like you are prejudiced toward people using the word, "Nazi". Since I am in the business of writing, I take pride in choosing my words carefully. For that reason, they command respect. Your Nazi is not my Nazi.

Rutger

No it’s not the word “Nazi” that bothers me.
What bothers me is that you summarize this book as “Nazi confessions”, which is probably (I have read parts of it) more than that.
Also I disagree that there is nothing derogatory in “Nazi confessions.”
That’s all.

Arnon

If I had called the book, say, "Grass' childhood memories" it would have been a euphemism. Now with the word "Nazi" in there, it is derogatory.

Summarizing a book is always doing injustice. Translating it is doing injustice. Any word we write down is an act of injustice. There will undoubtedly be more to the book than just Nazi confessions, and obviously, the word "Nazi"can never account for or represent the contents of the book, nor history between 1933-1945, let alone *my* use of it. It would be impossible to write if this were the case.

You may choose to call the book a memoires or autobiography, or any other neutral term you can think of. But would that be doing justice? In my view, it would not be doing anything at all. And certainly, it would not constitute writing as a much needed and fundamental act of injustice.

By taking my words and laying them over a series of historical events in order to see if they match, you seem to perform an act of justice. But what you are really doing is changing their context. They are *my* words. They do not have a soul or a spirit or history when they start out but acquire one through their usage by me. Like it says in the Terms and Conditions, I make no representations about the suitability of the information published on this site for any purpose. I cannot be responsible for any match or mismatch between what I write and what in history may or may not be indicated by these writings.
In short, any condescension or derogation is entirely what you read into my words, and I cannot be responsible.

Rutger

Once again: all I’m suggesting is that it is decent to read a book before you jump to conclusions about title and content. The content of the book was part of your conclusion.
When you are not responsible for my interpretations of your words you seem to suggest that there is no basis for further conversation.

Arnon

Re: your first remark. We have been over and over this now. I deny that I jumped to any conclusion regarding book or content. And I don't think you or anybody needs to tell me how I should deal with books, writers, or newspapers. I find it rude and undeserved. If you had read what I wrote about Grass on my weblog, you would have seen that I have no problem whatsoever with his serving in the SS, but with his confessing 61 years after the fact. Therefore, the word "Nazi" cannot and does not have any derogatory intention in this context. Also, you will see that I am not addressing his book in any way. Still, you insist that I do. I don't know why. It's not my problem, even though I go at lengths here to explain it's not.
Your second remark: no, I disagree again. For two reasons. Number one: if Noa would have decided to fly to her mother out of fear of me coming after her with an axe, would that be my responsibility?
Number two: while we are not responsibile for the interpretation of each others words, it is of course the nature and course of that interpretation that determines the quality of the conversation. I may have an interest in you for all the wrong reasons. In fact, I probably do. But that doesn't matter. If we were in constant agreement on what our words mean, who would we start talking to? Would we still write novels, paint pictures, go to war?
Enjoy your Sunday.

Rutger

Some would say that it is rude to speak and write about books you haven’t read but alas.
The responsibility fort the interpretation of the text does not lie with the reader or the author of the text only, it’s a shared responsibility.
I would say that a reader who feels the need to react to a text with violence steps outside the boundaries of the game.
You suggested that don’t want to assume responsibility for my interpretation of your comments here. That’s a cop-out.
All I can say is that since you have problems with Mr. Grass’s confessions (your own words) it’s not unreasonable for me to urge you to actually read these confessions. This might solve a lot of problems.
Of course you are entitled to not read the book and still participate in the debate or express your problems with confessions on this site or where ever, but when I suggest that reading the original source is not a bad thing to do for a man who is having problems with confessions expressed in this original source I’m not being rude. Perhaps I’m a little bit old-fashioned.
One last question about your statement: "I find it rude and undeserved."
Do you always get what you deserve?
Are you the only one to judge what you deserve and what you don’t deserve or do I have a say in this as well?

Arnon

Re: "Some would say that it is rude to speak and write about books you haven’t read but alas."

Please point out exactly where I said or wrote anything at all about the contents of Grass' book. You seem to find it hard to distinguish between signifier and signified. If I say "Nazi", you require me to account for everything that has passed and is passing under that name. If I say "Arnon Grunberg", does that require me to know and find out everything about you? Surely, you will agree it does not, if only because it would not be possible. It is not even possible to know everything about myself. I have pointed out time and again that I have used the title of Grass' novel as a shorthand, a quick reference for his confessions. In my view, mentioning the title does not require me to read the book that goes under that title. I am fully prepared to discuss with you my opinion that his confessing sucks. I never pretended to express any view on the book, and again, my blog post does not address the book (if only because it was not published yet at that time).

Re: "The responsibility fort the interpretation of the text does not lie with the reader or the author of the text only, it’s a shared responsibility. I would say that a reader who feels the need to react to a text with violence steps outside the boundaries of the game. "

Well, so do I. But I don't believe in a shared responsibility when it comes to literature. A novel or a poem or a play does not constitute an agreement between reader and writer. There is no notary involved, no pledges, no signatures, no promises. There is only a text that is distributed by an author and his publisher to a bunch of readers. There is no way for an author to be responsible for what a reader does with his text. Again, it would be impossible to write if an author were required to account for everything that might be read into his text. If you take that to its extreme, we would have another Holocaust everytime the word "Nazi" is uttered. But literature is not a collection of magical formulas. Nor is it the property of accountants, lawyers, auditors, appraisers, or anyone who uses the world as a verification model. It is written on the level of signifiers, not of signifieds; any signification is the reader's responsibility. Therefore, I much prefer Mulisch' position on the matter: "I do not know what the things I say and write mean, but I am infallible".

Re: "You suggested that don’t want to assume responsibility for my interpretation of your comments here. That’s a cop-out."

Not at all. First, because I don't need that. Second, because I cannot be responsible for what you do. But this is exactly where the rudeness comes in. It is alright to hold me accountable as long as you do not take my words away from their context. But you interpret my words, infuse them with whatever *you* deem appropriate and fitting, from Nazis to what have you, and then you look at me. Is that fair? Is it reasonable? Is it courteous? No. It is putting me in a position against my will, and outside of my reach. That is called rude.

Re: "All I can say is that since you have problems with Mr. Grass’s confessions (your own words) it’s not unreasonable for me to urge you to actually read these confessions. This might solve a lot of problems."

See above. After 61 years, he confessed that he served in the SS. That is all I have been talking about. I have not discussed any other stories that might be in the book, nor the composition or the style. *You* read the book; I have better things to do.

Re: "Of course you are entitled to not read the book and still participate in the debate or express your problems with confessions on this site or where ever, but when I suggest that reading the original source is not a bad thing to do for a man who is having problems with confessions expressed in this original source I’m not being rude. Perhaps I’m a little bit old-fashioned."

Irrelevant.

Re: "One last question about your statement: "I find it rude and undeserved."
Do you always get what you deserve?
Are you the only one to judge what you deserve and what you don’t deserve or do I have a say in this as well? "

You are free to say anything about me that you desire. It is not my problem. The fact that I am answering to your charges is an act of courtesy, nothing else. What strikes me as rude is your insisting that I can only qualify for participation in this debate if I bow down to your demand and Grass' novel, and read the horrid thing. While I have invited you twice to read my blog post (which, again, clearly does not address the novel *as* novel, and could have saved us a lot of time and trouble) or to skip this tiresome discussion, you chose to bypass it, and harrass me instead. In my book, that is called rude.

Within the context of this discussion, I don't take offense, and there is no need for an apology if you were so inclined. But I am pointing it out.

Rutger

"The horrid thing" -- this is not derogatory?

Arnon

Let me quote myself, "I expected this response, only not from you."
Times have changed, I guess. I put the word in especially for you.

"To expose a false theory is also unmasking. "
True, true, and useful, even vital. But de Mol? I suppose he exposed the false theory "Filming ordinary people in a box all day will be entertainment." Anyway, like I said, I'm biased by my revulsion.

Rutger

Another cop-out?

Arnon

"The object is not to answer questions, but to escape, to get away..."
(Gilles Deleuze, "Dialogues")

What you so gladly call a cop-out in your newly found language, however, is rather a distancing from your insistence, and overwhelming moral claims. You may call it a form of hygiene.

Rutger

Have you actually read Deleuze? Or just about him in the FAZ?
Would you say that Grass is a pupil of Deleuze? Answering certain questions after sixty years is a sort of escape.
How would you describe your refusal to answer my question if labeling a book "a horrid thing" is somehow derogatory?
Hygiene?
Do you believe that your statements on this are free of moral claims?

Schweigen und Verschweigen

"Was verbindet mich trotz allem mit Günter Grass? Wir beide waren und sind große Schweiger und Verschweiger. Beide haben wir unsere Kinder über unsere Vergangenheit belogen. Auf die Frage meiner Töchter, was die Tätowierung an meinem linken Unterarm bedeutet, sagte ich, dass das meine Telefonnummer wäre. Ich schwieg über meine Erlebnisse in sechs KZs und über das Überleben von zwei Todesmärschen genau 40 Jahre lang, bis 1985. Grass hielt es 21 Jahre länger aus."
Arno Lustiger in an essay about Günter Grass' book
http://tinyurl.com/5ktfnl

Arnon

Before I answer whether or not I have read Deleuze, perhaps you can you tell me if there are there any other things you want to know about me? Who I sleep with? What I vote? You seem to be entitled to know anything as soon as I make a statement.

But to answer your question, I mainly *wrote* about Deleuze. I admit that this is unacceptable. I should have asked you for permission first.

I don't know if Grass is a pupil of Deleuze. Perhaps I am. I'll tell you what, why don't you wait 61 years, and I'll give you an answer then. Meanwhile, I will on this Prinsjesdag enjoy the benefits of the 80 Years War, when we abolished Spanish law and its Inquisition.

As to the question of whether the statements I have made so far are free of moralism, I would say that I have not asked you to do a thing other than to desist. I really have no desire for anything else from you. Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to take another bath.

Dear Rudger

Nothing sounds better then the sound of defeat.
Thank you.

yours,

Eric

PS. Is your Nazi maybe my Nazi?

Dear Erik Wanker

My Nazi is up

Yours,

RH CdG

Before anyone jumps to any conclusion re: defeat or victory, please allow me to summarize the course of events so far.

Arnon has pressed me to support my statement that I don’t like the book, "Beim Häuten der Zwiebel" by Günter Grass. He will not accept that I used the title of the book as a metonym for Grass’ confessing that he served in the Waffen SS. (I have been looking for the word, "metonym"; it means using the name of one thing for that of another with which it is closely associated). He believes that I should read the book before I judge it. He will not accept that I have not been referring to the contents of the novel but to the confessing as such. He urges me to read a book that I have no interest in, and that I don't like--not because I have not read it, but because I read about it. To Arnon, reading or hearing about something does not suffice. He believes you can only support a decision to not read a book after you have read it. The utter absurdity of that proposition does not seem to bother him.
I have not read Hitlers "Mein Kampf". Therefore, Arnon will not accept when I call that book "a horrid thing". He requires me to to read it, and only after I am done throwing up on the last page will he accept that statement.

These are the facts as I see them. There is nothing as sad as the smell of stupidity, dogmatism, bigotry, and wanking paladins who are eager to claim victory on behalf of their superiors.

Dear Rudger

mmmm, there is more.......

your wanker

Rutger

Ah, but you owe it to yourself to read Mein Kampf.

Rutger

Any other books you would like to label “the horrid thing” without ever having read them?

Arnon

I think we are done.