Transcript 05-05-05

Our Common Text 2004-2005

ROUGHLY EDITED COPY

ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

May 4, 2005

COMMON TEXT SERIES

HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG BY ANDRE DUBUS III

PRESENTERS: TOM STONE (LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE), SEAN SUTTON (POLITICAL SCIENCE), RICHARD SANTANA (LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE)

********

This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

********

>> OKAY.

I THINK WE'LL BEGIN.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY, AND

THANK YOU FOR COMING.

I'M LINDA REINFELD, MEMBER OF

THE LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

DEPARTMENT AND CHAIR OF THE

COMMON TEXT COMMITTEE, THE

LAST COMMON TEXT COMMITTEE I

THINK BECAUSE THIS IS THE LAST

YEAR IN WHICH WE'LL HAVE A

COMMON NOVEL OR A COMMON TEXT

IN THE SAME FORMAT WE HAD IT

BEFORE.

SO THIS IS KIND OF A SPECIAL

TIME.

AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE

SECOND OF THREE EVENTS WE'RE

HOLDING THIS QUARTER TO

ACCOMPANY THE READING OF

"HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG," OUR

COMMON TEXT AT THIS TIME.

TONIGHT YOU'LL HEAR A FACULTY

PANEL, HEADED BY TOM STONE,

DISCUSS DRAMATIC PERSPECTIVES

IN "HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG."

NECK WEEK, SAME TIME, SAME

PLACE, YOU'LL SEE THE FILM

VERSION OF "HOUSE OF SAND AND

FOG."

THOSE WILL BE OUR THREE EVENTS

THIS QUARTER.

THE FIRST YOU REMEMBER WAS JEN

WOLFLEY TALKING ABOUT WOMEN'S

PERSPECTIVES IN "HOUSE OF SAND

AND FOG."

TONIGHT I'D LIKE TO THANK SOME

OF THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THIS

POSSIBLE.

FIRST OF ALL OUR TECH CREW,

WHO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO

ALL SEE AND HEAR, I HOPE, AND

THAT REMINDS ME, AFTER THE

PRESENTATION YOU'LL HAVE A

CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS.

WILL YOU PLEASE BE SURE TO

WAIT UNTIL SOMEBODY HANDS YOU

THE MICROPHONE?

IT WILL BE PROBABLY DAVE YATES

WHO HANDS YOU THE MICROPHONE

AND ASK YOUR QUESTION INTO THE

MICROPHONE SO THAT THE PEOPLE

WHO DOT CAPTIONING WILL BE

ABLE TO HEAR YOUR WORDS.

THEY CAN'T HEAR YOU IN THIS

ROOM WITHOUT THE MICROPHONE.

SO THAT WILL BE A HELP.

ALSO I'D LIKE TO THANK OUR

INTERPRETERS FOR TONIGHT,

MARIA WARNER, WHO'S TALKING--

SORRY, INTERPRETING RIGHT NOW

TALKING WITH HER HANDS, THANK

YOU, AND LAURA SAVALIER, WHO'S

GOING TO INTERPRET A LITTLE

LATER.

TOM STONE IS GOING TO TAKE

OVER FROM ME IN JUST A MINUTE.

HE'S A FRIEND AND FORMER

OFFICE MATE, AND SO I CAN TELL

YOU FROM FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE

THAT YOU CAN LEARN A LOT FROM

HIM.

HE HAS A BOOK READY FOR

PUBLICATION, AND HIS Ph.D. IS

FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF

ROCHESTER, WHERE HE

SPECIALIZED IN MEDIEVAL AND

RENASCENT STUDIES.

SINCE MANY OF US FEEL THAT

"HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG" IS NOT

A TRADITIONAL KIND OF TRAGIC

ARRANGEMENT, I'M HOPING THAT

TOM'S PERSPECTIVE WILL GIVE US

ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT.

SO WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, I'LL

GIVE MY PLACE OVER TO TOM, AND

I THINK YOU'LL ENJOY THIS

EVENING.

>> Tom Stone: GOOD EVENING.

AM I-- OKAY, GOOD.

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR

COMING OUT TO HEAR ABOUT THIS

NOVEL THAT ONE CRITIC CALLED

"THE POOL OF DESPAIR."

(Chuckling)

WHICH IS PERHAPS FITTING, AND

TO BEGIN TALKING ABOUT THIS,

I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY TELLING

YOU A STORY, SINCE THAT'S WHAT

WE DO IN MY DEPARTMENT.

WE TELL STORIES OR WE TALK

ABOUT STORIES.

I'D LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT

SOMEONE CALLED BOETHIUS, WHO

LIVED 480 TO 524, KEEP A

REALLY GOOD FAMILY, LOTS OF

CONNECTIONS, WE MIGHT SAY.

HE HAD EMPERORS IN HIS

ANCESTOR'S POPES, IMPORTANT

PEOPLE.

HIS DAD DIED WHEN HE WAS

FAIRLY YOUNG, BUT HIS-- HE

GREW UP AND A FRIEND OF THE

FAMILY WHO WAS ALSO FAIRLY

RICH AND IMPORTANT.

HE WAS A MAN WHO LOVED

LEARNING.

HE SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN HIS

LIBRARY, AND OUT OF A SENSE OF

PUBLIC DUTY, HE AGREED TO

SERVE THE KING.

AND THIS WAS KIND OF A MISTAKE

AS IT TURNS OUT.

AFTER SERVING VERY HONORABLY

FOR MANY YEARS, HE WAS

UNPLEASANTLY ARRESTED ONE DAY

AND DRAGGED OFF INTO EXILE.

HE SPENT ABOUT A YEAR IN EXILE

AND THEN WAS TORTURED.

THEY PUT A ROPE AROUND HIS

HEAD UNTIL HIS EYEBALLS POPPED

OUT AND THEN BLUDGEONED HIM TO

DEATH.

I'M BRINGING HIM UP, THIS

FAIRLY GRUESOME TALE, FOR A

REASON.

IN THAT INTERVAL, BETWEEN

BEING ONE OF THE MOST

IMPORTANT PEOPLE IN THE

REMNANTS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

AND BEING KILLED IN EXILE, HE

WROTE WHAT WAS TO BECOME ONE

OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL BOOKS

IN WESTERN EUROPE, AND THAT'S

CALLED "THE CONSOLATION OF

PHILOSOPHY."

HE WROTE THIS WHILE HE WAS IN

CAPTIVITY.

HE WAS FACED WITH A GRIM

SPECTER OF THE SAME THING A

LOT OF US ASK OURSELVES, "WHY

ME?

HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN TO ME?

I'M A GOOD GUY AND I DID THE

RIGHT KINDS OF THINGS."

HIS (Unclear) MIGHT REMIND US

SOMETHING OF THE GRIM TALE

THAT'S IN THIS "HOUSE OF SAND

AND FOG."

WELL, RELATED TO THIS, SOMEONE

WHO TRANSLATED BOETHIUS,

CHAUCER.

HE WROTE "THE CANTERBURY

TALES."

HE WROTE ONE OF THESE TALES.

IT'S A SERIES OF-- ACTUALLY

IT'S NOT A SET THING.

YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD PEOPLE

TALK ABOUT "THE CANTERBURY

TALES."

IT'S ACTUALLY A SERIES OF

NARRATIVES THAT A GROUP OF

TRAVELERS TELL ONE ANOTHER,

AND ACTUALLY ONE OF THE

EARLIEST OF THESE HE WROTE

WELL BEFORE HE STARTED THE

REST OF THEM; IN FACT, A GOOD

20 YEARS BEFORE.

IT'S CALLED "THE MONK'S TALE."

ONE OF HIS CHARACTERS IS A

MONK.

AND HE TELLS A STORY THAT HAS

A VERY DEFINITE PERSPECTIVE,

AND IT DEALS WITH TRAGEDY, HIS

VIEW OF TRAGEDY.

AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE A

CONNECTION BETWEEN THE KIND OF

LIFE BOETHIUS LIVED AND THE

"MONK'S TALE" AND HOPEFULLY

"HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG" AT

SOME LEVEL.

SO HE BEGINS-- THE MONK BEGINS

BY TELLING US-- THIS IS FROM

TRANSLATION.

"IN TRAGIC MANNER I WILL NOW

LAMENT THE FATE OF THOSE WHO

STOOD IN HIGH DEGREE AND FELL

AT LAST WITH NO EXPEDIENCE TO

BRING THEM OUT OF THEIR

ADVERSITY.

FOR SURE IT IS THE FORTUNE

WILLS TO FLEE, NO MAN CAN STAY

A COURSE, BUT NO ONE TRUSTS IN

BLIND PROSPERITY.

BE WARNED BY THESE EXAMPLES

TRUE AND OLD."

WHAT FOLLOWS IS A SOMEWHAT

STARTLING LIST OF MISHAPS.

THEY'RE ALL VERY BRIEF LITTLE

STORIES, SOME OF THEM ONLY ONE

STANZA LONG, FOR PEOPLE FOR

WHOM THINGS HAVE GONE

HORRIBLY, HORRIBLY WRONG, LIKE

BOETHIUS HIMSELF.

FOR EXAMPLE HE BEGINS WITH

LUCIFER.

WHO CAN TELL ME WHO LUCIFER

IS, BY THE WAY?

YOU ALL KNOW THAT, RIGHT?

WHO'S LUCIFER?

NO ONE KNOWS WHO LUCIFER IS?

RIGHT, SATAN.

BAD GUY, RIGHT?

SO THAT MAKES SENSE.

WE'RE NOT TOO CONCERNED ABOUT

THAT.

BUT HE DOESN'T REALLY MENTION

THAT VERY MUCH.

HE JUST SAYS HOW HE FELT IN

ONE OF THE BEST SPOTS IN THE

UNIVERSE.

AFTER HIM, ADAM.

WHO KNOWS WHO ADAM IS?

>> ADAM OF THE FIRST MINE.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU.

AND SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED TO

HIM.

INTERESTINGLY CHAUCER DOESN'T

TALK ABOUT THIS IN MORAL

TERMS.

HE DOESN'T SAY ADAM DID A BAD

THING AND SO HE SUFFERED.

THE STORY IS THAT HE WAS IN

THE GARDEN OF EDEN, WHICH WAS

PRETTY MUCH THE BEST DEAL YOU

CAN GET, AND ANYTHING PRETTY

MUCH WENT.

>> YOU HAD EVERYTHING YOU

NEEDED OR WANTED OR YOU ONLY

WANTED WHAT YOU NEEDED COULD

BE MAYBE ANOTHER WAY OF

PUTTING THAT, WITH ONE

INJUNCTION.

YOU CAN'T EAT THE TREE OF

THE-- THE FRUIT OF THE TREE OF

THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND

EVIL, AND OF COURSE THAT MEANS

THEY ATE THE TREE, HILL AND

EVE, AND WERE CAST OUT AND HE

FELL.

THIS ADVERSITY.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF FORTUNE

FOR THE MONK.

HE TALKS ABOUT SAMSON, ANOTHER

BIBLICAL HERO BUT AGAIN NOT IN

MORAL TERMS.

HERCULES.

THE LIST BEGINS TO GET VERY

LONG.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR, ZENOBIA AND

ONE PARTICULARLY INTERESTING

EXAMPLE FROM THE HISTORY OF

THE LATE MIDDLE AGES IN ITALY,

COUNT UGOLINO.

ACCORDING TO CHAUCER HE WAS

BETRAYED AND LOCKED IN A TOWER

WITH HIS THREE SONS, THE LOCAL

ARCHBISHOP.

WELL, THAT'S BAD ENOUGH.

THEY WERE LOCKED IN THERE WITH

JUST ENOUGH FOOD AND WATER TO,

YOU KNOW, JUST BARELY GET BY.

AND THEN I GUESS THE GOOD

ARCHBISHOP EVENTUALLY SORT OF

GOT TIRED OF HAVING HIM AROUND

AND THEY NAILED THE DOOR SHUT

AND DIDN'T PUT ANYMORE FOOD

IN.

SO THIS IS PRETTY BAD.

(Chuckling)

SO THE COUNT IS CRYING AND HIS

YOUNGEST SON SAYS, OH, YOU

KNOW, "DON'T CRY, DAD," ONE OF

THESE TENDER SENTIMENTAL

MOMENTS YOU ACTUALLY DON'T GET

VERY OFTEN IN MEDIEVAL

LITERATURE.

YOU KNOW, HE SAYS, "I'M HAPPY

TO JUST WISH, YOU KNOW, I

COULD SLEEP-- I HAD SOMETHING

TO EAT SO I COULD SLEEP."

WELL, A FEW DAYS LATER HIS

YOUNGEST SON, HIS 3-YEAR-OLD

DIES ON HIM IN THIS VERY

DRAMATIC MOMENT, AND THEN HE'S

SORT OF BITING-- THIS IS AN

INTERESTING GESTURE BECAUSE I

DON'T THINK WE THINK OF IT

THIS WAY, BUT HE'S BITING HIS

HANDS IN AGONY, AND HIS OTHER

CHILDREN SAY, "OH, FATHER."

THEY COME TO HIM, HIS TWO

REMAINING SONS.

"FATHER, IF YOU'RE HUNGRY, EAT

OUR FLESH, NOT YOUR OWN.

YOU HAVE GIVEN US OUR FLESH.

WE'LL BE HAPPY TO GIVE IT BACK

TO YOU."

OF COURSE THAT JUST MAKES THE

DAD'S GRIEF ALL THE MORE

PRONOUNCED AND THE HORROR OF

IT ALL AND THEY ALL EVENTUALLY

DIE.

NOW THIS IS A PARTICULARLY

INTERESTING CASE, NOT JUST

BECAUSE IT'S SORT OF A VIVID

STORY, BUT WE HAVE A POINT OF

COMPARISON WITH THIS.

BECAUSE CHAUCER ACTUALLY GOT

THE STORY FROM DANTE, WHO

WROTE ANOTHER WELL-KNOWN BOOK

YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD OF,

"DANTE'S INFERNO," IN WHICH HE

DEPICTS HELL.

AND DOWN AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF

HELL, THERE'S A FROZEN LAKE,

AND EMBEDDED IN THE ICE

THERE'S ALL SORTS OF BAD GUYS

YOU RUN INTO.

AND ONE EXAMPLE, THERE'S THESE

TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE STUCK

TOGETHER, AND ONE OF THEM IS

BEHIND THE OTHER, AND HE'S

GNAWING, CONSTANTLY GNAWING AT

THE BRAINS OF THE OTHER IN

ETERNITY FROZEN IN THE ICE.

AND THIS PAIR TURNS OUT TO BE

UGOLINO AND THE GOOD

ARCHBISHOP.

THE ARCHBISHOP IS THE ONE

GETTING HIS BRAINS EATEN OR

MUNCHED.

NOW WHAT DANTE TELLS US IS

THAT CHAUCER DOES IT AND THE

REASON HE'S IN HELL WITH THE

ARCHBISHOP IS THE FACT THAT HE

BETRAYED HIS PARTY.

HE WAS PART OF ONE LARGE SORT

OF POLITICAL ORGANIZATION AT

THE TIME, AND HE'S IN THE TOWN

OF PISA AND HIS GRANDSON WAS

THE OTHER GREAT READER.

THEY WERE GUELFS AND, WELL, SO

HE WANTED TO BE THE ONLY

PERSON IN CHARGE IN PISA, SO

HE BETRAYED HIS GRANDSONS,

TOOK THINGS OVER BY MAKING A

PACT WITH THE ARCHBISHOP, WHO

BELONGED TO THE DIFFERENT

PARTY, AND THEN ONCE HE SAW

THAT UGOLINO WAS ISOLATED, WAS

ALONE, HE BETRAYED HIM IN

TURN, AND THAT'S HOW HE ENDED

UP IN THE TOWER.

THAT'S JUST AN INTERESTING

NOTE.

BECAUSE AGAIN CHAUCER DOESN'T

MENTION ANY OF THIS IN HIS

TALE.

IT'S SAD.

IT'S A LITTLE BLEAK.

THAT MIGHT SOUND FAMILIAR

(Chuckling)

FROM WHAT YOU'VE JUST BEEN

READING, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE

ANY OF THAT SORT OF MORAL

SHADING.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S A WHOLE LIST

OF PEOPLE, AND SOME ARE INDEED

NOTORIOUS BAD GUYS, LIKE NERO

AND FOLKS LIKE THAT.

BUT OTHERS ARE PEOPLE WHO THE

MEDIEVALS ADMIRED GREATLY.

PERHAPS WE DON'T SHARE THEIR

ENTHUSIASM.

I'M THINKING OF JULIUS CAESAR

OR ALEXANDER THE GREAT, FOR

WHOM THEY JUST MADE A MOVIE

LAST YEAR, DIDN'T THEY?

THAT I UNDERSTAND WASN'T SO

GREAT.

BUT THAT'S ANOTHER STORY.

AND THERE'S ANOTHER KIND OF

INTERESTING STORY NEAR THE END

OF THIS LONG LITANY OF GLOOM

AND DOOM, AND THAT'S THE TALE

OF CROESUS.

NOW HE'S FAMOUS IN MYTHOLOGY

AND HISTORY AND LITERATURE AS

SUPPOSEDLY BEING THE RICHEST

KING IN THE WORLD.

HE'S THE KING OF LYDIA.

WHICH IS, BY THE WAY, IF

YOU'RE "SIMPSONS" FANS,

Mr. BURNS' OLD HOUSE IS ON THE

CORNER OF MAMMON AND CROESUS.

SOMETIMES THEY SHOW AN

EXTERIOR SHOT.

NOT THAT THAT'S HERE OR THERE.

SO CROESUS GOT OFF PRETTY

LUCKY.

HE WAS CAPTURED BY THE KING OF

PERSIA, CYRUS, WHO WAS HAVING

HIM-- THAT'S KIND OF AN

INTERESTING CONNECTION IN

ITSELF CONSIDERING (Unclear)

INCIDENTALLY.

THIS IS WHEN PERSIA WAS RISING

AND HE WAS BEING BURNED AT THE

STAKE AND THE RAIN CAME AND

PUT OUT THE FIRE, SO HE WAS

RELEASED.

IT WAS SEEN AS SOME SORT OF

PORTENT SO THEY LET HIM GO.

THIS IS ALL AGAIN TOLD WITH

GREAT ECONOMY BY CHAUCER.

HE HARDLY GOES INTO MANY

DETAILS.

HE'S NOT THINKING ABOUT HOW

FICKLE FORTUNE IS, AND SO HE

THINKS HE'S GOT IT PRETTY GOOD

BECAUSE HE WAS REALLY LUCKY.

FORTUNE WAS VERY KIND TO HIM.

AND HE GOES ABOUT MAKING WAR

AGAIN AND GETTING INTO TROUBLE

AND HE HAS THIS DREAM, AND IN

THIS DREAM HE'S IN A TREE AND

JUPITER OR ZEUS IS WASHING HIM

AND APOLLO IS DRYING HIM WITH

A TOWEL.

HE THINKS, WOW, THESE ARE LIKE

SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT

GODS.

I MUST BE DOING REALLY WELL.

THIS IS REALLY A GOOD DEAL.

EXCEPT FOR HIS SISTER, WHO WAS

GIFTED WITH THESE KINDS OF

THINGS, TOLD HIM A DIFFERENT

INTERPRETATION OF THE DREAM,

AND THAT IS THAT HIM BEING

WASHED REPRESENTS RAIN AND

SNOW AND THE DRYING OFF

REPRESENTS THE STEAMING OF THE

SUN WHICH IS GOING TO DRY HIM.

AND INDEED HE WAS HANGED.

(Chuckling)

LEFT OUT IN THE WEATHER FOR

THE ELEMENTS TO PREY UPON.

I ALSO LIKE THE STORY-- TO

POINT PARTICULAR ATTENTION FOR

A COUPLE REASONS, BECAUSE

CROESUS WAS AN INTERESTING

EXAMPLE OF THIS KIND OF THING

IN ANCIENT HISTORY.

THERE'S ANOTHER STORY THAT

GOES BACK TO ANCIENT TIMES

TOLD BY HERODOTUS, WHO WAS

BACK IN THE DAY WHEN WE USED

TO HAVE FATHERS OF THINGS, AN

ANCIENT GREEK WHO WROTE A

HISTORICAL WORK.

HE ALSO TALKS ABOUT CROESUS.

HIS STORY DOESN'T TURN OUT SO

WELL EITHER BUT IT'S A LITTLE

DIFFERENT.

IN HIS SAYS, WHEN CYRUS STARTS

BECOMING A THREAT IN THE

WORLD, HE WANTS TO KNOW IF HE

SHOULD GO OUT AND ATTACK HIM,

AND BEING THE RICHEST PERSON

IN THE WORLD, I MENTION THAT,

HE SENDS BACK TONS OF WEALTH,

BACK TONS OF GOLD AND JEWELS

TO THE DELPHI AND GETS NO

RESPONSE, AN ENIGMATIC LITTLE

MESSAGE, A LITTLE POEM AND

THAT SAYS BASICALLY IF YOU

MARCH OUT TO ATTACK CYRUS, A

GREAT EMPIRE WILL FALL.

OF COURSE HE THINKS THAT MEANS

CYRUS, AND YOU CAN IMAGINE

WHAT HAPPENS.

IT'S REALLY THE OTHER WAY

AROUND.

ONCE HE'S IN CAPTIVITY AND

BEFORE HE'S EXECUTED, HE SENDS

A MESSENGER TO COMPLAIN TO THE

ORACLE.

"HEY, I GAVE YOU GUYS A LOT OF

MONEY.

YOU COULD AT LEAST GIVE ME THE

RIGHT INFORMATION."

"BUT WE DID."

AND THAT'S VERY TYPICAL WITH

QUESTIONS OF FAITH AND

PROVIDENCE, WHICH IN ITS OWN

WAY TRAGEDY DEALS WITH.

BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE OFTEN

MISLED, AS IN THE CLASSIC

OEDIPUS STORY, WHERE IT'S A

QUESTION OF SOMEONE TRYING TO

AVOID HIS FATE AND FULFILLING

THE VERY THING THAT THE HUMANS

WERE WARNED AGAINST, HIS

PARENTS OF COURSE BEING WARNED

THAT THIS CHILD WOULD DO THESE

HORRIBLE THINGS, KILL HIS

FATHER, MARRY HIS MOTHER, SO

THEY ABANDON HIM HOPEFULLY TO

DIE.

OF COURSE THROUGH AN

IMPROBABLE SERIES EVERY

EVENTS, THE VERY THING THAT

EVERYBODY FEARS TOOK PLACE.

WE TEND TO MISREAD DESTINY.

WE TEND TO MISREAD FAITH, AND

IN A VERY ACT OF TRYING TO

CONTEST OR FORESTALL OR FAITH,

WE FULFILL IT.

THERE'S SORT OF A PARADOX

THERE THAT HAS BEEN

TROUBLESOME FOR HUMANS FOR

MANY THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

MAYBE IT STILL IS.

SO WHAT DO WE MAKE OF A

NARRATIVE LIKE THIS?

IT'S INTERESTING THAT THIS IS

ONE OF THE FEW TALES THAT GETS

INTERRUPTED IN THE CANTERBURY

TALES.

THE OTHER LISTENERS HAVE HAD

ENOUGH.

THE KNIGHT INTERRUPTS HIM,

BASICALLY SAYING, YOU KNOW,

"HEY, NO MORE, MY GOOD SIR,"

EXCLAIMED THE KNIGHT.

"WHAT YOU HAVE SAID SO FAR IS

NO DOUBT RIGHT, BUT STILL A

LITTLE GRIEF WILL DO FOR MOST

OF US IS MY BELIEF."

HE MUCH PREFERS TALES OF

INSTANCES OF MEN OF LOW

ESTATE, MEANING, YOU KNOW,

THEY COME FROM THE WRONG SIDE

OF THE TRACKS.

THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

"WHO CLIMB ALOFT AND GROWING

FORTUNATE REMAIN SECURE IN

THEIR PROSPERITY.

THAT IS DELIGHTFUL AS IT SEEMS

TO ME AND IS A PROPER SORT OF

TALE TO TELL."

HE LIKES HAPPY ENDINGS.

HE LIKES RAGS TO RICHES, WHICH

MY WIFE DOES, TOO.

SHE WOULD HAVE HATED THIS

BOOK.

SHE CERTAINLY DIDN'T READ IT.

AND THE OTHER GIFTS GROW AND

THE HOST SORT OF SHUTS HIM UP

AND THEY GO ON TO THE NEXT

TALE.

NOW WHAT'S INTERESTING HERE IS

A COUPLE OF THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO REFLECT

ABOUT THIS IN LIGHT OF

BOETHIUS, COMING BACK TO

BOETHIUS FOR A MINUTE.

CHAUCER DID A TRANSLATION OF

BOETHIUS, AND IN FACT HE--

IT'S REALLY HARD TO CONVEY HIS

CULTURAL IMPORTANCE.

HE WAS A REAL FOUNDATIONAL

DOCUMENT.

ONE SCHOLAR SAID, TO GET A

TASTE FOR BOETHIUS IS TO BE

NATURALIZED INTO THE MIDDLE

AGES AND THIS REALLY RAN

THROUGH THE RENAISSANCE PERIOD

ACTUALLY.

ALFRED THE GREAT, WHO WAS AN

ANGLO-SAXON KING LIVING, YOU

KNOW, THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO,

TRANSLATED HIM.

QUEEN ELIZABETH TRANSLATED

HIM.

HE WAS-- HE HAD A STATURE, AN

ACCESSIBILITY.

SO WHAT WAS HIS SOLUTION TO

THIS PROBLEM?

BECAUSE HE WAS A LIVING

EXAMPLE OF THIS.

HE WAS, YOU KNOW, WRITE THIS

IN THE CELL AWAY FROM HIS

LIBRARY, AWAY FROM EVERYTHING

THAT MADE LIFE WORTHWHILE AND

A SCHOLARSHIP AND HE WAS

REALLY WELL KNOWN.

HE DID TRANSLATIONS OF

ARISTOTLE.

HE HELPED CONTINUE THAT

CLASSICAL INHERITANCE IN THE

WEST, AND IN FACT HIS-- HE

WROTE A TREATISE ON MUSIC THAT

WAS A STANDARD TEXTBOOK ALL

THE WAY THROUGH THE 1700s AT

OXFORD, YOU KNOW.

1,300 YEARS LATER.

SO IT'S FAIRLY AMAZING.

WELL, IN THIS BOOK, PHILOSOPHY

AS THIS CHARACTER SORT OF

COMES VISITS HIM, AND THEY

HAVE THESE SORT OF GIVE AND

TAKE.

HE SORT OF BREAKS HER.

YOU KNOW, WHY IS THIS

HAPPENING TO ME?

AND SHE GIVES HIM CERTAIN

ANSWERS.

FOR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW,

BASICALLY SOMETIMES THEY DON'T

SEEM SO HELPFUL, BUT, YOU

KNOW, THINGS LIKE "IT IS

BETTER TO BE VIRTUOUS AND HAVE

IT BAD," YOU KNOW, THAN THE

OTHER WAY AROUND.

THIS IS SOMETHING YOUR MOTHER

MIGHT TELL YOU.

BECAUSE BASICALLY BEING GOOD

HAS ITS OWN REWARDS, THAT

WHOLE SORT OF IDEA THAT WE

DON'T NECESSARILY REALIZE THAT

YET.

AND ALSO IT'S SORT OF THE JOB

OF A PHILOSOPHER, ACCORDING TO

LADY PHILOSOPHY WHO VISITS

HIM, TO SORT OF BE DESPISED

AND BETRAYED, BECAUSE THAT'S

WHAT THE COMMON LOT OF MEN DO

AS PHILOSOPHERS.

SO HE KEEPS PRESSING HER.

THEN SHE GIVES THIS IMAGE AND

SAYS THAT ALL OF US KNOW THAT

GOOD IS HAPPY-- OUR TRUE GOOD

IS HAPPINESS, BUT WE TAKE THE

ROUND ROUTE TO GET THERE,

THINGS LIKE SUCCESS OR FAME,

WHICH SHE IS CONSTANTLY

PUTTING DOWN.

>> THINGS LIKE NOBILITY; YOU

KNOW, THAT'S A CLASSIC VIRTUE.

NOBILITY IS ONLY THE THING

WITH YOUR ANCESTORS.

AND FAME IS ITSELF A HOLLOW

PRAISE OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T

REALLY KNOW WHAT'S RIGHT AND

WRONG THEMSELVES ANYHOW.

THIS GOES SMACK-DAB AGAINST

REALLY--

(Chuckling)

YOU COULD ARGUE OUR DAY AND

AGE, TOO, BUT CERTAINLY THE

CULTURAL STREAM THAT THEY WERE

IN.

NOTHING WAS MORE IMPORTANT

THAN YOUR GLORY, YOUR FAME.

THAT'S WHY PEOPLE RODE OUT

INTO BATTLE.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS.

WELL, YOU KNOW, SO SHE SAYS,

PHILOSOPHY, PEOPLE WHO KNOW

WHAT THE TRUE GOOD IS,

HAPPINESS, BUT THEY TAKE THE

WRONG ROUTES TO GET THERE,

LIKE A DRUNK, YOU KNOW, WHO

KNOWS HIS HOUSE BUT CAN'T GET

THERE, CAN'T FIND HIS WAY

HOME.

SO HE ASKS HER: WHY IS JUSTICE

SO UNAPPARENT DOWN HERE?

AND THIS IS WHEN SHE MAKES THE

POINT THAT ALL IS JUSTICE.

WE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

YOU KNOW, THE GOOD ARE

REWARDED AND EVIL PUNISHED

SIMPLY BY BEING WHAT THEY ARE.

AND FURTHERMORE, WE DON'T

REALLY HAVE THE EYES TO SEE.

THIS IS WHERE HE GIVES THE

REALLY FAMOUS IMAGE.

HE SAYS IF WE WERE IN THE

CIRCLE OF THE "DIVINE

SIMPLICITY," THE PHRASE HE

USES, WHAT SEEMS TO US LIKE

DESTINY, FORTUNE THAT THE MONK

TALKS ABOUT, WOULD BE AT ITS

CORE PROVIDENCE.

AND WE'RE SORT OF LIKE

IMAGINING THAT THE CULTURE YOU

GET INTO, SORT OF INHABITING

THE TRUE SIMPLICITY OF

DIVINITY, THE MORE YOU'RE SORT

OF INHABITING PROVIDENCE AND

NOT GETTING CAUGHT UP IN

THINGS ON THE EDGE OF THAT

WHEEL.

THAT'S WHEN YOU'RE SUBJECT TO

FATE, WHEN YOU'RE SEEING

THINGS IN A FRACTURED WAY AND

TIME AND SPACE.

AND SO REALLY IT HAS TO DO

WITH OUR PERSPECTIVE AND HOW

WE'RE LIVING OUR LIVES AND

SORT OF WHO WE'RE LISTENING

TO.

WE'RE IN THE CENTER OF WE'RE

ACTUALLY INHABITING, WE SEE

THAT EVERYTHING IS HAPPENING

WITH SOME SORT OF PURPOSEFUL

PLAN IN A GOOD WAY AND WE

DON'T FEEL ALIENATED AND

MISTREATED.

THIS STILL LEAVES ONE QUESTION

THAT HE ASKS HER ABOUT, AND

THAT IS, WELL, THEN IF

PROVIDENCE KNOWS, IF IT'S IN

THE DIVINE MIND AND THIS ACT

OF KNOWING, WHAT I'M GOING TO

DO-- AND THIS IS ANOTHER

CLASSIC DILEMMA, HOW IS IT

THAT MY ACTIONS HAVE ANY

WEIGHT OR ACCOUNTABILITY?

IF THE DIVINE MIND KNOWS I'M

GOING TO WALK OVER TO THAT

STOOL, FOR INSTANCE, AND SAY

WALKING OVER HERE WAS A REALLY

HORRIBLE THING TO DO FOR SOME

REASON, BECAUSE LIKE THAT TREE

IN EDEN WAS TOLD THIS IS THE

ONE THING I CAN'T DO, HOW CAN

I BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR

THAT?

WELL, HER ANSWER TO THIS IS

THE FACT THAT THE QUALITY OF

KNOWLEDGE DEPENDS NOT ON THE

THING BEING KNOWN BUT ON THE

FACT OF KNOWING.

THE IMAGE THAT SHE USED IS

HUMANS.

YOU KNOW, WE CAN KNOW EACH

OTHER.

WE CAN KNOW A HUMAN THROUGH

SENSATION.

THAT KNOWS ONLY THE BODY.

WE CAN KNOW TO IMAGINATION,

WHICH WAS NOT QUITE WHAT WE

MEAN BY THAT TERM BUT IT WAS

ONE OF THE MENTAL FACULTIES

WITH WHICH WE IMAGE THE WORLD,

AND THAT IS ONLY A SHAPE

WITHOUT MATTER.

OR WE CAN KNOW THE REASON AS A

CONCEPT, A SPECIES, YOU KNOW,

THAT WHICH IS HOMO SAPIENS

VERSUS SOME OTHER SPECIES,

SOME OTHER CATEGORY.

AND BY ITSELF, NONE OF THESE

FACULTIES CAN REALLY SEE OR

PERCEIVE THINGS THE WAY THE

HIGHER FACULTIES CAN.

REASON CANNOT UNDERSTAND OR,

YOU KNOW-- SIMPLY THE BODILY

SENSATION CAN'T UNDERSTAND

WHAT IMAGINATION CAN, AND THE

IMAGINATION CAN'T UNDERSTAND

THE FULL COMPLEXITY OF WHAT

REASON CAN.

SHE ARGUES THERE'S EVEN HIGHER

FACULTY UNDERSTANDING, TO

WHICH WE CAN TRY TO TRANSCEND

OUR REASON AND GET SOME

GLIMPSE OF WHAT THAT DIVINE

SIMPLICITY, WHAT THAT

PERSPECTIVE WOULD BE WHY.

IT'S ONLY A SUGGESTION BUT HER

CONCEPT IS THAT ETERNITY IS

NOT PERPETUITY.

IT'S NOT AN INFINITE SERIES OF

EVENTS IN TIME.

IT'S-- TIME IS ONLY A DIM

IMAGE OF THAT.

IT'S A PLENITUDE.

IT'S AN EXISTING ALL NOW AND

FOREVER.

AND SO FROM GOD'S PERSPECTIVE,

SOMETHING YOU DID YESTERDAY,

HE DOESN'T REMEMBER IT.

IT'S NOT THAT HE SEES THAT

BECAUSE HE HAS A BETTER

MEMORY, BUT IT'S AS PRESENT TO

HIM NOW AS WHAT YOU'RE DOING

NOW IS, JUST LIKE AN EVENT IN

THE FUTURE IS.

SO HE SEES IT; HE KNOWS IT,

BUT HE NO MORE CONTROLS IT

THAN YOU WATCHING ME WALK OVER

TO THAT STOOL CONTROLLED ME

DOING THAT.

WELL, THAT'S HER SOLUTION AT

ANY RATE.

AND-- OH, SORRY.

AND ONE OF THE ISSUES HE DEALS

WITH HERE ARE THE FATES OF

NATIONS AND WHY CERTAIN

NATIONS SEEM TO PROSPER AND DO

WELL AND OTHERS SORT OF HAVE A

BAD TIME OF IT.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS TIMELY FOR

BOETHIUS, BECAUSE HE WAS

SERVING UNDER A SO-CALLED--

WHAT THEY USED TO CALL IN

HISTORY BOOKS A BARBARIAN

KING.

HE WAS AN AUSTRAL GOD, A

GERMANIC PEOPLE THAT CAME

ORIGINALLY FROM THE UKRAINE.

AND THE MAN HE WORKED FOR

ACTUALLY GREW UP IN IMPERIAL

CIRCLES IF CONSTANTINOPLE AND

ENDED UP THROUGH A LONG SERIES

OF EVENTS TAKING OVER ITALY.

AND HE'S ONE OF THE LAST

PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY SORT OF

CONTROLLED ITALY AS A WHOLE TO

THE 19th CENTURY.

BUT DURING THIS MAN'S REIGN,

HE'S WELL KNOWN FOR BEING

BASICALLY PRETTY ENLIGHTENED

AND HE HAD A GREAT RESPECT FOR

THE IMPERIAL SYSTEM, PROBABLY

BECAUSE HE GREW UP IN

CONSTANTINOPLE IN THE COURT OF

THE EASTERN EMPIRE.

AND HE PROMOTED SOMEONE LIKE

BOETHIUS, WHO WAS THE OLD

ROMAN ARISTOCRACY BASICALLY,

AND THERE WAS A REAL ATTEMPT

TO BRIDGE THESE DIFFERENCES.

BUT THIS IS ALL WHAT BROKE

DOWN AT THE END EVERY HIS

REIGN.

HE DIED A VERY BITTER MAN.

HE KILLED THE CURRENT POPE AND

BOETHIUS'S MENTOR AND OF

COURSE HE HAD BOETHIUS HIMSELF

PUT TO DEATH.

THERE WERE, YOU KNOW,

DIFFERENT FACTIONS AND RUMORS

CIRCULATING AND HE FELT PEOPLE

WERE ATTEMPTING TO UNDERMINE

HIM.

AND THIS SORT OF BRIEF

SYNTHESIS BROKE DOWN.

IT'S ALSO INTERESTING, YOU

KNOW, IF WE THINK ABOUT THIS

IN RELATION TO THE BOOK,

BECAUSE IT OCCURS TO ME THAT

COLONEL BEHRANI HAS A SIMILAR

CONFLICTED PLACE WITH

CULTURES, AND I THINK ALL

THESE PEOPLE ARE IN MANY WAYS.

HE COMES FROM HIS POINT OF

VIEW A VERY ANCIENT CULTURE.

I LOVE THAT SCENE WHEN THEY'RE

DRINKING WITH HIS GENERAL, HIS

MENTOR.

HE MAKES THAT COMMENT THAT,

YOU KNOW, THAT THE RICH-- THE

SORT OF COLONY OF RICH

PERSIANS THAT HE LIVES WITH IN

BERKELEY AT THE BEGINNING OF

THE NOVEL TO TRY TO KEEP UP

APPEARANCES THAT THEY CAN'T

AFFORD, HE COMMENTS THAT THEY

DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO DRINK

LIKE MEN AND HE REMINISCES

BACK WHEN HE WAS IN THE

MILITARY AND THEY WOULD GET

TOGETHER AT THE GENERAL'S

HOUSE AND THE

THOUSAND-YEAR-OLD SONGS WOULD

BE PLAYING, WHICH WERE ONLY AS

THIRD AS OLD AS THE COUNTRY

WAS, AND THERE'S THE DEFINITE

SENSE OF PRIDE IN NOT ONLY HIS

POSITION BUT THE CULTURE HE

COMES FROM.

OF COURSE HE FINDS HIMSELF

WORKING ON A ROAD CREW NOW, OR

IN A CONVENIENCE MART, AND

WITH ALL THESE SORT OF

REFUGEES FROM DIFFERENT

CULTURES.

AND IN MANY WAYS THEY'RE ALSO

DISPLACED FROM ONE SORT OF

CULTURAL CONTEXT OR ANOTHER.

INTERESTINGLY LESTER HIMSELF,

WHO, YOU KNOW, SEEMS LIKE THE

SORT OF STRAIGHT-ARROW COP

WHEN WE FIRST MEET HIM, AND WE

GRADUALLY LEARN MORE AND MORE

ABOUT HIM HOW, YOU KNOW, HE

PLANTED EVIDENCE ON SOMEBODY

AND THEN LATER IN THE NOVEL WE

LEARN WHERE THAT COMES FROM,

BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE THE

BULLIES, IF YOU REMEMBER.

AND THAT GROWS OUT OF HIS

EXPERIENCE IN CHULA VISTA,

GROWING UP THE MINORITY AS AN

ANGLO.

HE FELT WEAK AND POWERLESS

AGAINST THE CHICANOS WHO WOULD

BEAT HIM UP.

BUT HE'S SORT OF IN THAT SAME

KIND OF POSITION BEHRANI'S IN,

AND INDEED THEODORIC, WHO'S

THE KING BOETHIUS WORKED FOR

AND WHOSE CULTURE IS FALLING?

YOU KNOW, ARE WE DESTINED, ARE

WE FATED TO BE THE NATION OF

DESTINY AS IN MANIFEST

DESTINY?

SOMETIMES WE THINK THAT WAY.

OUR SUCCESS ITSELF TRUMPS ANY

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND IT

MUST BE RIGHT BECAUSE IT'S

SUCCESSFUL, AND THE MONK WOULD

SAY-- THE MONK MEANING NOT THE

DETECTIVE IN THE TV SHOW BUT

CHAUCER'S MONK, WOULD SAY

THAT'S EXACTLY WHEN YOU NEED

TO WATCH OUT THE MOST.

WHEN FATE'S READY TO PLAY HER

LITTLE GAME WITH YOU AND

TORMENT YOU.

IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT, LIKE

THE "MONK'S TALE," THE

CHARACTERS IN "HOUSE OF SAND

AND FOG," WE DON'T GET THAT

SATISFYING, CLEAR MORAL

COMPASS WITH THE NOTION OF

TRAGEDY THAT WE'RE USED TO

THINKING OF IN TERMS OF TRAGIC

FAULTS AND CATHARSIS THAT

WE'VE ALL HEARD THESE TERMS.

WE DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW-- WE

HAD THE STAGE CLEARING BUT WE

DON'T HAVE SOMEONE HEROIC

COMING IN AFTERWARDS CLEANING

UP THE MESS.

AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT'S

PUZZLING ABOUT THIS AND

DISTURBING.

I KNOW I TALKED TO A CLASS-- I

WAS HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH

MOSTLY GRADUATING TEENAGERS

AND I HAPPENED TO MENTION THIS

BOOK, AND THIS ONE STUDENT,

SHE WAS JUST REALLY SURPRISED.

HER EYES KIND OF GOT WIDE.

OH!

THAT'S THE COMMON NOVEL?

I FEEL SO SORRY FOR THEM.

SHE SAID I SAW THAT MOVIE LAST

SUMMER.

I WAS DEPRESSED, YOU KNOW, FOR

DAYS.

AND THAT'S JUST ANECDOTALLY

TALKING TO STUDENTS A LOT

ABOUT THIS NOVEL.

THAT'S KIND OF THE IMPRESSION.

IT'S KIND OF THAT "MONK'S

TALE" SORT OF FEEL, THIS SORT

OF UNREMITTING FATE ON THE

WHEELS, ON THE ENGINES OF

EVERYONE'S HEELS.

AND, YOU KNOW, IN-- YOU KNOW,

I THINK IN THE CASE OF "HOUSE

OF SAND AND FOG" WE DON'T HAVE

THE APPEAL TO THAT DIVINE

SIMPLICITY THAT WE HAVE IN

BOETHIUS.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THERE.

THIS IS SORT OF A POST

HUMANIST VIEW OF THIS.

THESE FALLIBLE, MALLEABLE

PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALL HAVE THESE

SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION IN THEM.

LET'S NOT FORGET THIS WHOLE

SERIES OF PROBLEMS WAS CAUSED

SIMPLY BY AN ERROR IN ADDRESS.

ANY OF THESE PEOPLE COULD HAVE

PULLED BACK AT ANY MOMENT.

LIKE BOETHIUS, IT SEEMS TO

PLAY OUT-- LIKE HIS VERY LIFE

STORY, IT SEEMS TO PLAY OUT IN

THIS SORT OF LARGER HISTORICAL

CANVAS, THIS CONFLICTS OF

CULTURES.

BEHRANI'S CONSTANTLY A

SKEPTICAL-- (Chuckling)

DISENCHANTED VIEW OF MODERN

AMERICA.

HE'S CONSTANTLY SEEING US AND

WE'RE LAZY AND WE'RE ILL-KEPT

AND UNDISCIPLINED.

YET IRONICALLY ENOUGH HE USES

THOSE SORT OF OBSERVATIONS TO

ENCODE HIS OWN VISION OF SORT

OF THE QUOTE-UNQUOTE AMERICAN

DREAMS BECAUSE HE SAYS WHAT HE

FEELS, WE'RE TOLD IT'S

PRECISELY IMMIGRANTS LIKE HIS,

FROM A COUNTRY THAT KNOWS WHAT

TO APPRECIATE HERE, THAT'S

GOING TO MAKE GOOD AND THAT'S

OF COURSE PRECISELY WHAT IS

FRUSTRATED IN THE COURSE OF

THIS NOVEL.

SO WE HAVE THE FACT THAT

EVERYONE'S DESIGNS FALL DOWN

AROUND THEM, AND I THINK IN MY

PERSONAL OPINION (Chuckling)

WITHOUT PROBABLY THE

INTENDED-- I WON'T SAY

GRATIFICATION, BUT I SAY

COMPILATION THAT WAS IN THE

BACK OF CHAUCER'S MIND.

ALL RIGHT.

WELL, THAT'S JUST SOME

TENTATIVE THOUGHTS THAT I HAD

ABOUT THIS IN RELATION TO THE

MEDIEVAL TRADITION, WHICH IS

REALLY PRETTY MUCH NOTORIOUS

FOR NOT BEING DRAMA IN THE WAY

WE'RE USED TO THINK ABOUT THAT

WHEN WE READ SAY SHAKESPEARE.

I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER.

THANK YOU.

(Applause)

I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO MY

COLLEAGUE IN MY DEPARTMENT

PROFESSOR SANTANA, WHO GOT HIS

Ph.D. AT THE GRADUATE CENTER

AT THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW

YORK.

HIS RESEARCH FOCUSES PRIMARILY

ON THE INTERACTION BETWEEN

LANGUAGE, BOTH LITERARY AND

SOCIAL, AND KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS

FROM THE MEDIEVAL TO THE

POSTMODERN.

HE HAS A BOOK COMING OUT AND

IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON A BOOK

ON RELIGION AND POPULAR

CULTURE, WHICH IS REALLY KIND

OF RIGHT UP THE ALLEY OF WHAT

I'VE JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

MOMENTS OF SUBVERSIVE

RELIGIOUS ERUPTIONS IN

CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN CULTURAL

PRODUCTIONS, INCLUDING FILM,

TELEVISION, NEWS MEDIA AND

VIDEO GAMES.

HE IS ALSO INTERESTED IN

CARIBBEAN WOMEN'S FICTION FROM

THE PERSPECTIVE OF IDENTITY

FORMATION, AND ONCE AGAIN HOW

LANGUAGE CREATES WAYS EVERY

KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING THE

SELF AND THE OTHER.

HE IS THE LANGUAGE AND

LITERATURE-- HE IS IN THE

LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

DEPARTMENT WITH ME WHERE HE

TEACHES COURSES RANGING FROM

LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE,

SHAKESPEARE AND (Unclear).

I NOW TURN IT OVER.

>> Richard Santana: THANKS,

TOM.

OKAY.

UNLIKE TOM, I'VE ACTUALLY

PREPARED A WHOLE PAPER SO I'M

JUST GOING TO READ IT.

IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE LESS

DYNAMIC.

I WAS GOING TO JUST TALK TO

YOU, BUT I THOUGHT I MAY AS

WELL JUST-- I STARTED TO WRITE

DOWN SOME NOTES AND THEN IT

TURNED INTO A PAPER, SO I

MIGHT AS WELL JUST READ WHAT I

HAVE.

ANDRE DUBUS'S NOVEL, "HOUSE OF

SAND AND FOG," HAS BEEN

REGULARLY DESCRIBED AS A

MODERN VERSION OF ANCIENT

GREEK TRAGEDY.

THIS PERSPECTIVE LEADS TO

SEVERAL POSSIBLE AREAS OF

INQUIRY: WHAT IS TRAGEDY AND

HOW IS THIS NOVEL RELATED TO

IT?

IF THEY ARE RELATED, WHAT IS

DUBUS'S INTENTION IN MODELING

HIS WORK ON THE ANCIENT FORM

IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT SOME

CONCLUSION ABOUT THE NOVEL--

SORRY, ABOUT WHETHER THE NOVEL

DOES OR DOES NOT RESEMBLE

GREEK TRAGEDY, WE NEED TO ASK

SEVERAL QUESTIONS.

FIRST: WHAT ARE THE CRITICAL

ELEMENTS OF TRAGEDY?

IF THE NOVEL DOES INDEED

RESEMBLE THIS FORM, WHAT

SALIENT ELEMENTS OF THAT FORM

ARE REPRESENTED WITHIN IT, AND

ULTIMATELY WHAT IS THE POINT?

TO BEGIN THIS CONVERSATION, WE

SHOULD START WITH ARISTOTLE'S

DEFINITION AS WESTERN

CIVILIZATION HAS DONE FOR

ALMOST 2,300 YEARS, ACCORDING

TO WHICH, QUOTE: "TRAGEDY IS

AN INVITATION OF A NOBLE AND

COMPLETE ACTION.

HAVING THE PROPER MAGNITUDE,

IT EMPLOYS LANGUAGE THAT HAS

BEEN ARTISTICALLY ENHANCED.

IT IS PRESENTED IN DRAMATIC

FORM, NOT NARRATIVE, AND

ACHIEVES, THROUGH THE

REPRESENTATION OF PITIFUL AND

FEARFUL INCIDENTS, THE

CATHARSIS OF SUCH INCIDENTS."

UNQUOTE.

WE SHOULD TAKE THESE ELEMENTS

ONE AT A TIME AND COMPARE THEM

TO THE NOVEL.

FIRST NOTE THAT THE DEFINITION

FOCUSES ON IMITATION OF

ACTION, NOT CHARACTERS.

ARISTOTLE'S POSITION ABOUT

TRAGEDY WAS THAT IT WAS

IMPORTANT TO ACCURATELY

REPRESENT HUMAN ACTION.

CHARACTER CAME A DISTANT

SECOND.

BY COMPLETE, HE MEANT THAT THE

ACTION CONTAINED A BEGINNING,

A MIDDLE AND AN END.

FOR A COMPLEX PLOT, THIS

INVOLVES TWO ELEMENTS:

PERIPETEIA, REVERSAL AND

ANAGNORISIS DISCOVERY.

IN THE COMPLEX PLOT, THE HERO

BEGINS THE ACTION WITH SOME

LARGER THAN LIFE QUALITY,

RESIDENT WITHIN THIS QUALITY

WE MIGHT FIND THE HERO'S FLAW.

THROUGH A SERIES OF SMALLER

ACTIONS, THE HERO'S FORTUNE IS

REVERSED, AND IN THE END THE

TRUTH IS DISCOVERED THROUGH

RECOGNITION OR MEMORY OR

HIDDEN IN-- SORRY, OR HIDDEN

SIGN AND THE GREAT MAN'S FALL

IS COMPLETE.

IT IS THIS MOMENT OF

RECOGNITION THAT IS THE WHOLE

THRUST OF THE DRAMA.

THE RESOLUTION OF TRAGEDY

SHOULD RELIEVE US OF THE

TENSION IT ITSELF HAS BEEN

BUILDING UP WITHIN US THROUGH

THE EMOTIONS OF PITY AND FEAR.

WHILE ELSEWHERE ARISTOTLE

GENERALLY TRIES TO AVOID THE

EFFECTIVE FALLACY, THE IDEA

THAT WORKS OF ART SHOULD OR

COULD BE JUDGED ON THE BASIS

OF THEIR EFFECT UPON THE

AUDIENCE, RATHER THAN ON THEIR

INDIVIDUAL MERIT BEYOND THE

AUDIENCE.

HOWEVER IT IS THE CATHARTIC

NATURE OF THE PLAY THAT MOST

DRAWS ATTENTION IN THIS

DEFINITION, AND THIS IS ALMOST

ENTIRELY DEPENDENT UPON THE

AUDIENCE'S REACTION TO THE

PLAY.

THE AUDIENCE'S EMOTIONS OF

PITY AND FEAR FOR THE HERO ARE

BROUGHT TO SUCH A HEIGHT THAT

WHEN THE FINAL DISCOVERY IS

MADE, IT HEAVES A GREAT SIGH

OF RELIEF, A CATHARSIS.

IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO POINT

OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THIS IS AN

IDEALIZED AUDIENCE AND NOT ANY

INDIVIDUAL AUDIENCE.

ENDLESS DEBATES HAVE CENTERED

ON THE TERM CATHARSIS, WHICH

ARISTOTLE UNFORTUNATELY DOES

NOT DEFINE.

SOME CRITICS INTERPRET

CATHARSIS AS THE PURGING OR

CLEANSING OF THIS PITY AND

FEAR, FROM THE SPECTATORS AS

THEY OBSERVE THE ACTION ON

STAGE.

IN THIS WAY, TRAGEDY RELIEVES

THEM OF HARMFUL EMOTIONS,

LEAVING THEM BETTER PEOPLE FOR

THEIR EXPERIENCE.

ACCORDING TO THIS

INTERPRETING, ARISTOTLE MAY

HAVE BEEN OFFERING AN

ALTERNATIVE TO PLATO'S CHARGE

THAT DRAMATIC POETS WERE

DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY BECAUSE

THEY INCITED THE PASSIONS.

IT IS THEN THE HERO'S REVERSAL

OF FORTUNE AND ULTIMATE

SUFFERING THAT ALLOWS THE

SPECTATORS THIS RELEASE OF

HARMFUL ENERGIES.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE APPLY

THIS FORMULA TO "THE HOUSE OF

SAND AND FOG"?

IN ORDER TO FOLLOW THIS LINE

EVERY REASONING, WE NEED TO

IDENTIFY A HERO WITHIN THE

TEXT, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TO

TALK ABOUT CHARACTER OR

CHARACTERS.

THERE ARE THREE CANDIDATES FOR

THE ROLE OF HERO IN "HOUSE OF

SAND AND FOG."

BEHRANI, KATHY AND LESTER.

IN EACH CASE, THERE ARE

PROBLEMS IN APPLYING

ARISTOTLE'S DEFINITION TO

THESE CHARACTERS FOR DIFFERENT

REASONS.

FIRST BEHRANI WOULD MAKE A

GREAT TRAGIC HERO IN THE

ARISTOTELIAN VIEW, BUT HIS

FALL HAS BEGUN LONG BEFORE WE

MEET HIM ON THE SIDE OF THE

ROAD OR IN THE QUICKIE MART.

THIS WOULD TEND TO EXCLUDE HIM

AS "THE" HERO SINCE THE ACTION

OF THE FALL IS NOT COMPLETE

WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE

DRAMATIC ACTION OF THE NOVEL.

WE'LL GET BACK TO THAT IN A

MOMENT.

KATHY IS NOT AN OBVIOUS

CHOICE, AND WE COULD ARGUE

THAT HER FORTUNE IN THIS NOVEL

IS ULTIMATELY RISING RATHER

THAN FALLING.

IN THE BEGINNING, SHE IS A

DEPRESSED, ABANDONED, FORMERLY

DRUG-ADDICTED WOMAN WHO HAS

RECENTLY LOST HER HUSBAND, HER

HOUSE AND BEGINS TO FALL OFF

THE WAGON.

AND BY THE END, THERE ARE SOME

HINTS AT ENCOURAGING SIGNS OF

RECOVERY.

LESTER'S COURSE IS RATHER

FLAT.

WHILE HE DOES LOSE HIS FAMILY

AND JOB, HE GIVES THE

IMPRESSION THAT THESE WERE NOT

THAT VALUABLE TO HIM AND HE IS

WILLING TO PUT THEM AT RISK IN

ORDER FOR SOME OTHER KIND OF

LIFE.

BOTH THESE CHARACTERS FAIL THE

LARGER THAN LIFE TEST OF A

TRAGIC HERO.

THEIR FALL, IF IT COULD BE

READ AS A FALL, IS NOT THAT

DRAMATIC.

THIS BRINGS US BACK TO BEHRANI

AS LOGICALLY THE ONLY

POTENTIAL HERO CANDIDATE LEFT

IN THIS STORY.

HERO HERE DOES NOT MEAN THAT

THE CHARACTERS ARE NECESSARILY

OF HIGH MORAL STANDING OR THAT

THEY MUST ALWAYS BE KINGS OR

GODS.

THE TITLE CHARACTER OF

EURIPIDES' "MEDEA" IS A WICKED

SORCERESS WHO KILLS HER OWN

CHILDREN.

ACCORDING TO JOHN HARDISON,

THE TERM COULD BE TRANSLATED

AS LARGER THAN LIFE MAJESTIC

OR JUST SERIOUS.

BEHRANI MIGHT FIT ANY OF THESE

ATTRIBUTES AND WHILE WE MEET

HIM IN MID-FALL, AS IT WERE,

WE COULD ARGUE THAT HE HAS

CONSIDERABLY FARTHER TO FALL

THAN THE OTHER CHARACTERS.

IT IS ONE THING FOR A FORMER

COLONEL OF THE IRANIAN ROYAL

AIR FORCE TO BE FORCED TO WORK

AT A CONVENIENCE STORE AND

PICKING UP TRASH ON THE SIDE

OF THE ROAD.

IT IS QUITE ANOTHER FOR A

FATHER TO WATCH HIS ONLY SON

DIE AND THEN TO GO HOME AND

KILL HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE.

THE PURPOSE OF THE HERO'S

NOBILITY, AFTER ALL, IS TO

ALLOW US TO FEEL PITY AND FEAR

TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE

CHARACTER ULTIMATELY FALLS--

SORRY, THAT WHEN THE CHARACTER

ULTIMATELY FALLS, WE FEEL

EMPTIED OF EMOTION.

IN THIS CASE, IT IS BEHRANI'S

CARE OF HIS FAMILY THAT MAKES

HIM MOST SYMPATHETIC AS A

CHARACTER.

WE ARE BEHIND BEHRANI, DESPITE

THE DUBIOUS ETHICS HE EMPLOYS

TO RATIONALIZE HIS POSITION ON

KATHY'S HOUSE.

BECAUSE WE FEEL HIS ACTIONS

ARE DETERMINED BY HIS LOVE FOR

HIS FAMILY, ON THE OTHER HAND

WE TEND TO BE UNSYMPATHETIC TO

KATHY BECAUSE SHE APPEARS TO

BE SELFISH, SELF-DESTRUCTIVE,

IRRATIONAL.

THE FACT THAT "HOUSE OF SAND

AND FOG" PRESENTS ONLY ONE

CHARACTER THAT COULD BE

UNDERSTOOD AS FULFILLING THE

ROLE OF THE TRAGIC HERO CAN

SUPPORT ITS RELATIONSHIP TO

THE GREEK TRAGEDY.

HOWEVER THERE IS ONLY ONE

CHARACTER WHO QUALIFIES DOES

NOT INDEED PROVE THAT IT

FULFILLS ALL OF THE

REQUIREMENTS, SINCE ARISTOTLE

INSISTS ON THE PRIVILEGING OF

ACTION OVER CHARACTER, WE

SHOULD EXAMINE BEHRANI'S

ACTIONS IN THE BOOK AND

COMPARE THEM TO ARISTOTLE'S

DEFINITION.

BY NOBLE ACTION, ARISTOTLE

DOES NOT MEAN THE ACTIONS OF

INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERS.

BUT THE PLOT OF THE STORY.

HIS CONCERN IS THAT THE

OVER-ARCHING NATURE OF THIS

PLOT BE HELD AT ITS ELEVATED

LEVEL.

IT SHOULD NOT REFER TO MUNDANE

OR TRIVIAL EVENTS BUT MUST

REFER TO AN OVERALL ACTION

THAT IS OF SOME MOMENT OR

SIGNIFICANCE.

THE ROLE OF THE CHARACTERS IS

SIMPLY TO MOVE THIS STORY.

IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE TO

ARISTOTLE THAT THE PROTAGONIST

OF THE TRAGEDY BE SOMEONE WHO

IS BOTH DIGNIFIED AND

BASICALLY GOOD FOR THE BEST

EFFECT UPON THE AUDIENCE.

BEHRANI'S ACTION THEN, IN THIS

COMPARISON, MUST BE

CONTEXTUALIZED WITHIN THIS

LARGER SCOPE.

HOW DO HIS ACTIONS CONTRIBUTE

TO THE GENERAL DIGNITY OR

HEIGHTENED EFFECT OF THE

OVERALL PLOT?

THE FIRST THING WE RECOGNIZE

IN BEHRANI'S CHARACTER IS HIS

WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE

HIMSELF AND HIS GREAT PRIDE

FOR THE SAKE OF HIS FAMILY'S

WELL-BEING.

THIS SINGLE CHARACTERISTIC

ALLOWS THE REST OF THE PLOT TO

RISE ABOVE THE ORDINARY AND

REACH THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF

BOTH COMPLEXITY AND EMOTIONAL

INVESTMENT FOR THE AUDIENCE TO

FEEL PITY AND FEAR.

WHEN WE INTERPOSE THE

MOTIVATIONS BEHIND LESTER AND

KATHY'S ACTIONS, WE GET

SUITABLE FOILS FOR BEHRANI'S--

FOR BEHRANI, WHOSE ACTIONS

WERE OFTEN MORALLY OR

ETHICALLY SUSPECT, ARE ALWAYS

GROUNDED IN THIS PRIMARILY

DECENT IMPETUS TO PROTECT AND

PROVIDE FOR HIS FAMILY.

THUS WE COULD ARGUE THAT THE

PRIMARY ACTION OF THE NOVEL

COULD QUALIFY AS A TRAGEDY IN

ARISTOTLE'S DEFINITION.

BUT WHAT OF THE OTHER ELEMENTS

OF COMPARISON?

ARISTOTLE CLEARLY

DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN MODES OF

IMITATIVE ART, THE EPIC POET,

HE MAKES CLEAR IS RELATED IN

SOME RESPECTS TO THE TRAGEDIAN

BUT UNRELATED IN OTHERS.

THE EPIC POET SHARES WITH THE

TRAGEDIAN THE SERIOUS NATURE

OF THEIR IMITATION BUT THEY

DIFFER IN TERMS THEIR METHOD

OF REPRESENTATION.

THAT DUBUS'S WORK IS A NOVEL,

A NARRATIVE AND NOT A PLAY MAY

APPEAR TO PUT IT OUT OF BOUNDS

FROM THIS DEFINITION.

BUT WE MAY CHOOSE TO IGNORE

THAT POSSIBILITY AS PERHAPS

TOO STRICT.

ONE WAY TO ASSOCIATE DUBUS'S

CONTEMPORARY NOVEL WITH THE

ANCIENT DRAMATIC FORM OF

TRAGEDY IS TO LOOK AT THE

DRAMATIC STRUCTURE OF THE

NOVEL.

DUBUS USES SEVERAL NARRATIVE

VOICES TO CREATE A TEXT OF HIS

STORY.

WHEN READ IN THIS FASHION, THE

VARIOUS VOICES IN THE NOVEL

MAY ASSUME POSITIONS WITHIN

THE CONTEXT OF TRAGIC FORM.

IN THE STANDARD GREEK TRAGEDY,

THE FIRST VOICE WE ENCOUNTER

IS THE PROLOGUE, SPOKEN BY ONE

OR TWO CHARACTERS, WHICH

INTRODUCE THE PLAY'S SETTING

AND MAJOR ACTION.

THE PARADOX BRINGS THE CHORUS

INTO THE ORCHESTRA TO BECOME

AN AUDIENCE AND RESPONDED TO

THE CHARACTERS.

THE CHORUS OFTEN ACTED AS THE

IDEAL SPECTATOR AS IN OEDIPUS

REX, WHEREIN IT CLARIFIES THE

EXPERIENCES AND THE FEELINGS

OF THE CHARACTERS IN EVERYDAY

TERMS AND EXPRESSES THE

CONVENTIONAL ATTITUDE TOWARD

THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STORY.

IN GENERAL, THE TRAGEDIANS

USED THE CHORUS:

ONE, TO CREATE ITS ODES;

TWO, TO INTRODUCE AND QUESTION

NEW CHARACTERS;

THREE, TO POINT OUT

SIGNIFICANCE OF EVENTS AS THEY

OCCURRED;

FOUR, TO ESTABLISH FACTS;

FIVE, TO AFFIRM THE OUTLOOK OF

SOCIETY;

THEN SIX, TO COVER PASSAGE

BETWEEN EVENTS.

THESE VARIOUS ROLES OF THE

CHORUS, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF

AN IDEALIZED AUDIENCE,

ESTABLISH A REMARKABLE

INTERACTION BETWEEN THE

AUDIENCE OF THE PLAY AND THE

CHORUS.

THE CONTEXTUAL STRUCTURE

RESULTS IN WHAT THE FRENCH

CALL A "MIS AU POINT," A

PLACEMENT WITHIN A WORK OF ART

OF AN OBJECT THAT RESEMBLE THE

THAT WORK OF ART IN TYPE.

FOR EXAMPLE, A FILM ABOUT

MAKING A FILM.

HERE, THE CHORUS RESEMBLES THE

ACTUAL AUDIENCE FOR THE PLAY,

AND THUS ENCASES THE PLAY

WITHIN A FRAME.

THE PLAY ITSELF BECOMES

REFLECTIVE.

IT BECOMES A REPRESENTATION OF

A REPRESENTATION.

THIS STRUCTURE CREATES, FOR

THE VIEWERS, AN INTERPRETIVE

LAYER FROM WHICH TO EXPERIENCE

THE ACTION OF THE PLAY.

THE CHORUS SERVES TO EMPHASIZE

FOR THE AUDIENCE THOSE

ELEMENTS NECESSARY FOR

CREATING AN EMOTIONAL

ATTACHMENT AND THUS THE

ULTIMATE CATHARTIC EXPERIENCE.

THE CHORUS ALSO REINFORCES

EXPECTED ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE

TO BE MADE.

IT IN EFFECT SHOWS THE ACTUAL

AUDIENCE HOW TO BE A PROPER

AUDIENCE.

IN "HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG,"

THE FIRST VOICE WE HEAR IS

BEHRANI'S, AND THE PERSPECTIVE

IS CLEARLY IN THE PRESENT.

THE BOOK IS UNFRAMED.

THAT IS THERE'S NO FRAMING

NARRATIVE.

WE BEGIN IN THE MIDDLE OF

THINGS AND VERY MUCH IN THE

PRESENT TENSE.

QUOTE: "THE FAT ONE, THE

RADISH, TORRES, HE CALLS ME

CAMEL BECAUSE I'M PERSIAN AND

BECAUSE I CAN BEAR THIS AUGUST

SUN LONGER THAN THE CHINESE

AND THE PANAMANIAN AND EVEN

THE LITTLE VIETNAMESE.

TRONG WORKS VERY QUICKLY

WITHOUT REST.

BUT WHEN TORRES STOPS THE

ORANGE HIGHWAY TRUCK IN FRONT

OF THE CREW, TRONG HURRIES FOR

HIS PAPER CUP OF WATER WITH

THE REST OF THEM.

THIS HEAT IS NO GOOD FOR

WORK."

UNQUOTE.

THESE LINES EXIST IN A BLANK

STATE, UNCONTEXTUALIZED.

THEY GIVE NO HINT ON WHO THE

IDEAL OR INTENDED AUDIENCE IS

BUT THEY ARE PERSONALIZED.

THEY REVEAL IMMEDIATELY A

TECHNIQUE DUBUS WILL EMPLOY IN

THE REST OF THE TEXT TO HELP

DEFINE BEHRANI'S CHARACTER AND

VOICE, THAT WE HEAR BEHRANI'S

VOICE FIRST AND FOREMOST

ESTABLISHES FOR US A FRAMEWORK

FOR EXPERIENCING THE ACTION OF

THE BOOK.

HE VOCALIZES FOR US HOW WE

SHOULD REACH-- SORRY, HOW WE

SHOULD REACT IN CERTAIN

SITUATIONS SO THAT, WHILE WE

DO NOT HAVE A CHORUS, WE

BECOME CONSPIRATORIAL WITH

BEHRANI AND ALLOW OURSELVES TO

READ THE REST OF THE STORY

THROUGH HIS EYES.

WE BECOME, TO SOME EXTENT, OUR

OWN CHORUS, OUR OWN IDEALIZED

AUDIENCE.

WHILE THERE'S NO PROLOGUE TO

HELP SET THE SCENE OR TONE,

THE READER FINDS HIM OR

HERSELF CREATING A CONTEXT FOR

BEHRANI'S WORDS AND THUS

ASSUMING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF

THE CHORUS.

BY PLACING BEHRANI FAIR TIFF--

SORRY, BEHRANI'S NARRATIVE

VOICE SIDE BY SIDE WITH KATHY

AND LATER USING THE THIRD

PERSON NARRATOR TO DESCRIBE

LESTER'S ACTIONS AND THOUGHTS,

THE TEXT CREATES A DIALOGUE

QUALITY.

>> THESE VOICES APPEAR TO BE,

IF NOT EXACTLY IN CONVERSATION

WITH EACH OTHER, AT LEAST IN

SOME COMPARABLE RELATIONSHIP.

BEHRANI'S NARRATIVE IS

ADDRESSED TO NO ONE IN

PARTICULAR.

IT LACKS A CERTAIN CONTEXT.

BY THE TIME WE MEET KATHY,

ABOUT 20 PAGES LATER, WE ARE

JARRED OUT OF OUR DEVELOPING

CONNECTION TO BEHRANI AND

AGAIN HER NARRATIVE SHOWS NO

FRAME.

QUOTE: "MY HUSBAND GOT TO MISS

ALL THIS.

THAT'S WHAT I KEPT THINKING,

THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE TO BE

AROUND FOR ANY OF THIS, AND I

WAS STUCK AT THE EL RANCHO

MOTEL IN SAN BRUNO.

IT WAS A SHITTY LITTLE

ONE-STOREY "L" OF ROOMS WEDGED

BETWEEN AN ELECTRICAL PARTS

WAREHOUSE AND A TRUCK STOP BAR

NEAR 101 RAMP-- SORRY, FREEWAY

RAMP," UNQUOTE.

KATHY'S NARRATIVE VOICE IS

DISTINCT FROM BEHRANI'S.

WHILE THEIR NARRATIVES DO NOT

SPEAK DIRECTLY TO EACH OTHER,

EVEN FROM THESE BRIEF

PASSAGES, WE CAN BEGIN TO SEE

HOW THEY CONTRAST EACH OTHER

AND HOW THEY WILL ULTIMATELY

BEGIN TO DESCRIBE THE VERY

DIFFERENT SENSIBILITIES

ENGAGED IN EXPLAINING THE SAME

SERIES OF EVENTS.

COMPARE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE

EXCHANGE BETWEEN BEHRANI AND

CONNIE WALSH, KATHY'S LAWYER,

WHICH IS JUXTAPOSED TO A

NARRATIVE SECTION OF KATHY'S.

QUOTE: "AGAIN I FEEL THE BLOOD

IN MY CHEST, MY FACE BEHIND MY

EYES.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

TO WHOM DO THEY THINK THEY ARE

SPEAKING?

OF COURSE YOU DO NOT

UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE SAID.

I AM THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF

THIS PROPERTY.

I AM WRONGED.

YOU HAVE HEARD MY OFFER.

YOU ARE FORTUNATE I HAVE

DECIDED TO SELL THE PROPERTY

AT ALL" UNQUOTE.

THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN LESTER

AND KATHY IS RETOLD IN KATHY'S

NARRATIVE AS A DIALOGUE ON THE

VERY NEXT PAGE.

QUOTE: "MY LAWYER SAID THE

ARABS WILL SELL ME-- SORRY,

WILL SELL MY HOUSE BACK."

REALLY, I NODDED.

A BUNCH OF OTHER BULLSHIT HAS

TO HAPPEN BEFORE I CAN MOVE

BACK IN THOUGH," UNQUOTE.

WHEN WE PLACE THESE VERY

DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF

EVENTS TOGETHER, THE

COMPARISON YIELDS A VERY

DIFFERENT READING OF KATHY AND

BEHRANI'S NARRATIVE IN

CONVERSATIONAL TONE.

BEHRANI IS FULL OF INDIGNATION

AND RIGHTEOUSNESS.

HIS DICTION IS PRECISE YET AT

TIMES AWKWARD.

HIS TONE IS IMPERIOUS.

KATHY'S TONE IS CASUAL.

HER DICTION SLOPPY AND CRUDE.

THE CHARACTERS REVEAL

THEMSELVES IN THEIR SPEECH AND

THEIR NARRATIVE STRUCTURE.

THE EFFECT IN THIS INTERCHANGE

AND THE COMPARISON OF THE TWO

VERY DIFFERENT VOICES SERVE TO

CREATE FOR THE AUDIENCE THE

EMOTIONS OF PITY AND FEAR UPON

WHICH ARISTOTLE PLACED SO MUCH

EMPHASIS.

ALSO WE CAN SEE IN THE

CREATION OF THESE VERY

DIFFERENT VOICES THAT DUBUS

ACHIEVES ANOTHER OF

ARISTOTLE'S ELEMENTS.

IT EMPLOYS LANGUAGE THAT HAS

BEEN ARTISTICALLY ENHANCED.

WHILE THE NARRATIVE VOICES ARE

STILL ESSENTIALLY NARRATIVE,

THE STRUCTURE OF THE NOVEL

ALLOWS US TO INTERPRET THESE

VOICES IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE

COULD SEE THEM AS AT LEAST IN

DIALOGUE WITH EACH OTHER.

IF WE CAN FOR THE MOMENT PUT

ARISTOTLE'S DEFINITION ASIDE,

WE MAY LOOK INTO TRAGEDY.

THE WORD TRAGEDY LITERALLY

MEANS GOAT SONG, PROBABLY

REFERRING TO GIVING A GOAT AS

A SACRIFICE.

TRAGEDY CAME TO SIGNIFY

DRAMATIC PRESENTATION OF HIGH

SERIOUSNESS AND NOBLE

CHARACTER, WHICH IMITATED

THROUGH MIMESIS HUMAN ACTION

AND EXAMINED THE MAJOR

QUESTIONS OF HUMAN EXISTENCE.

WHY ARE WE HERE?

HOW CAN WE KNOW THE WILL OF

THE GODS?

WHAT MEANING DOES LIFE HAVE IN

THE FACE OF DEATH?

IN TRAGEDY, PEOPLE ARE TESTED

BY GREAT SUFFERING AND MUST

FACE DECISIONS OF ULTIMATE

CONSEQUENCE.

SOME MEET THE CHALLENGE WITH

DEEDS OF DESPICABLE CRUELTY,

WHILE OTHERS DEMONSTRATE THEIR

ABILITY TO CONFRONT AND

SURPASS ADVERSITY, WINNING OUR

ADMIRATION AND PROVING THE

GREATNESS OF HUMAN POTENTIAL.

THE BODY-- I'LL SKIP THAT.

AS GEORGE STEINER EXPLAINS,

THERE IS NOTHING DEMOCRATIC IN

DIVISION OF TRAGEDY.

THE ROYAL AND HEROIC

CHARACTERS WHOM THE GODS HONOR

WITH THEIR VENGEANCE ARE SET

HIGHER THAN WE ARE IN THE

CHAIN OF BEING AND THEIR STYLE

OF UTTERANCE MUST REFLECT THIS

ELEVATION.

THE NOVEL, ON THE OTHER HAND,

HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY MANY

CRITICS BEGINNING IN THE 18th

CENTURY BUT MORE INSISTENTLY

IN THE 20th AS THE MOST

DEMOCRATIC OF LITERARY FORMS.

MIKHAIL BAKHTIN TALKS ABOUT

THE MULTITUDE OF VOICES IN THE

NOVEL AS EXEMPLARY IN THIS

CONTEXT.

SO WHAT IS TO BE GAINED BY AN

AMERICAN NOVELIST, AT THE END

OF THE 20th CENTURY, BASING

HIS WORK ON THE STRICTURES OF

THIS VERY SPECIFIC ANCIENT

FORM?

IN SOME SENSE, LITERATURE HAS

NEVER REALLY CHANGED.

AND WHILE "HOUSE OF SAND AND

FOG" MAY ULTIMATELY FAIL THE

TEST FOR A TRUE GREEK TRAGEDY,

IT DOES BEAR SOME TRACES OF

THAT FORM.

FOR ARISTOTLE, TRAGEDY

REPRESENTED THE HIGHEST FORM

OF IMITATIVE LITERARY ART,

PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE

POTENTIAL GAIN TO ITS AUDIENCE

AND TO SOCIETY AT LARGE.

IF WE CAN BE CONVINCED FOR A

MOMENT THAT THE ECHOES OF

TRAGEDY WE HEAR IN THIS NOVEL

REALLY ARE THERE, THEN WE ARE

STILL ENGAGED IN ANSWERING

SOME OF THE VERY SAME

INSOLVABLE QUESTIONS FIRST

POSED ON THE A.G.M. 3,000

YEARS AGO.

HUMANITY, IT SEEMS, IS ONLY

ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS

USING TERMS SUGGESTED BY

ROBERT HILEMAN.

THE TRAGIC HERO IS SOMETIMES

CAUGHT BETWEEN, QUOTE, "TWO

IMPERATIVES, DIFFERENT

INJUNCTIONS, EACH WITH ITS OWN

VALIDITY BUT APPARENTLY

IRRECONCILABLE," UNQUOTE.

TO AVENGE THEIR FATHERS'

DEATHS, BOTH ORESIS AND CAMLIN

MUST IN TURN MURDER OTHER

RELATIVES, PLACING THEM IN A

MORAL DILEMMA WITH NO

GUIDELINES, NO GUILTLESS

OPTIONS.

IN OTHER SITUATIONS, THE

TRAGIC HERO IS DIVIDED, QUOTE,

BETWEEN IMPERATIVES AND

IMPULSE, BETWEEN MORAL

ORDINANCE AND UNRULY PASSION,

BETWEEN LAW AND LUST.

FOR NIETZSCHE, THE STRUGGLE OF

TRAGEDY IS THE STRUGGLE FOR

TWO SOCIAL ORGANIZING FORCES,

THE DIONYSIAN,

SELF-FORGETTING, DRUNKENNESS,

CELEBRATION OF NATURE,

CRUELTY, SUFFERING, MUSIC,

INDIVIDUAL DISSOLVED OR

DESTROYED, FEELINGS OF

ONENESS, VIOLATION OF

BOUNDARIES, EXCESS AND HUMAN

BEING AS A WORK OF ART, AS

OPPOSED TO THE APOLLONIAN,

ARTS OF SPACE, DREAMS,

PRINCIPLES OF INDIVIDUATION,

RULES AND BOUNDARIES,

THEORETICAL OR ELITE

INDIVIDUAL, ILLUSIONS,

OPTIMISM, CHEERFULNESS, REASON

AND SCIENCE.

THESE TWO FORCES ARE ALWAYS AT

WAR AND ALWAYS IN COMPROMISE.

THE TRAGIC FOUR FOLLOWS A

LITERARY WORK TO ACHIEVE A

CERTAIN HEIGHT IN ORDER TO

OBSERVE BUT NOT TO ANSWER THE

GREAT HUMAN QUESTIONS WE HAVE

BEEN ASKING FOR THE LAST 3,000

YEARS.

(Applause)

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT WAS WONDERFUL.

MY NEXT COLLEAGUE TO JOIN US

TODAY IS SEAN SUTTON, WHO IS

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF

POLITICAL SCIENCE, ALSO IN THE

COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS.

HE TEACHES COURSES IN AMERICAN

POLITICS, CONGRESS,

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

IN 2001 HE RECEIVED HIS

DOCTORATE IN POLITICS AT THE

INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHIC

STUDIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF

DALLAS.

HIS DISSERTATION WAS ENTITLED

"A WEALTH OF NOTIONS: THE

POVERTY OF RATIONAL CHOICE

THEORY."

HE'S CURRENTLY WORKING ON TWO

EDITED BOOKS, "POLITICAL

PERSPECTIVES ON SHAKESPEARE

AND BIOTECHNOLOGY," "OUR

FEATURE AS HUMAN BEINGS AND

CITIZENS."

SO LET US ALL WELCOME

PROFESSOR SUTTON.

(Applause)

>> Sean Sutton: I TITLED MY

PAPER "TRAGEDY: PROPER IN THE

HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG."

I HAVE AN EPIGRAM AND I THINK

THIS EPIGRAM IS USEFUL FOR

UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE I THINK

ONE OF THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS

OF THE BOOK IS THE NATURE OF

JUSTICE.

I CHOSE THE EPIGRAM BECAUSE IT

REFERS TO A BOOK BY A GREEK

ABOUT A PERSIAN.

THE BOOK IS "XENOPHON'S

EDUCATION OF CYRUS."

THE EPIGRAM GOES SOMETHING

LIKE THIS: THE TEACHER POINTED

ME TO DECIDE CASES FOR THE

OTHERS AS BEING MYSELF VERY

EXACT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF

JUSTICE.

YET IN ONE CASE I RECEIVED A

WHIPPING FOR NOT HAVING

DECIDED CORRECTLY.

THE CASE WAS THIS.

A BIG BOY WITH A SMALL CLOAK

PUT IT ON A SMALL BOY WHO HAD

A BIG CLOAK AND THEN TOOK THE

OTHERS FOR HIMSELF.

WHEN I TRIED THE CASE, I

THOUGHT IT BETTER THAT EACH

KEEP THE CLOAK THAT FITTED

HIM.

THEREPON THE TEACHER WHIPPED

ME SAYING THAT, WHEN I WAS THE

JUDGE OF A GOOD FIT, I SHOULD

DO AS I HAD DONE.

BUT WHEN I WAS TO JUDGE WHOSE

CLOAK IT WAS, I MUST EXAMINE

WHAT JUST POSITION IS.

WHETHER HE TOOK SOMETHING FROM

ANOTHER BY FORCE SHOULD HAVE

IT OR WHETHER HE WHO MADE IT

OR BOUGHT IT SHOULD POSSESS

IT.

AND SINCE WHAT IS LAWFUL IS

JUST AND FORCE IS UNLAWFUL, HE

COMMANDED THE YOUNG JUDGE

ALWAYS TO RENDER HIS VERDICT

IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAW.

OF ALL THE LITERARY FORMS I

THINK TRAGEDY AND COMEDY MAKE

A NATURAL PAIR.

TOGETHER THEY SEEM TO

COMPREHEND THE SADNESS AND JOY

OF LIFE, YET BOTH TRAGEDY AND

COMEDY CLAIM TO BE

SELF-SUFFICIENT.

THAT IS TRAGEDY AND COMEDY

EACH CLAIM THAT THEY STAND

ALONE.

OF COURSE WE KNOW FROM

EXPERIENCE THAT LIFE IS NOT

SIMPLY CHARACTERIZED BY ALL

PAIN AND DESPAIR OR ALL JOYFUL

MISHAPS AND LAUGHTER.

NEVERTHELESS THERE IS A SENSE

IN WHICH THERE IS SOMETHING

SELF-SUFFICIENT ABOUT TRAGEDY

AND COMEDY.

EACH IN THEIR OWN WAY

ARTICULATE SOMETHING ABOUT HOW

THINGS ARE AND HOW THINGS

OUGHT TO BE.

IF THERE IS A SENSE IN WHICH

TRAGEDY IS SELF-SUFFICIENT,

THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE

TO TRAGEDY THAN TEARS AND

DESPAIR, CARNAGE, DEATH, AND I

WOULD SUGGEST THERE MUST ALSO

BE SOMETHING COMFORTING IN

TRAGEDY.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE TRAGIC

VIEW OF THE WORLD THAT IS

COMFORTING?

PERHAPS BY UNDERSTANDING WHAT

GOES ON IN A TRAGEDY, WHAT THE

CHARACTERS ARE LIKE AND TO

WHOM HAPPENS WHAT DOES HAPPEN,

WE CAN COME TO A REASONABLE

ANSWER.

BUT CAN ONE UNDERSTAND THE

CHARACTERS AND WHAT HAPPENS TO

THEM WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED,

WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE?

OF ALL THE LITERARY FORMS,

TRAGEDY RAISES THE IMPORTANT

QUESTION, THE QUESTION OF WHAT

SHOULD BE DONE.

IS IT NOT IMPORTANT THAT

SOMEONE IN A CRITICAL

CIRCUMSTANCE COULD NOT SEE

WHAT IS RIGHT, COULD NOT DO

WHAT WAS CALLED FOR?

BUT OF COURSE THERE WOULD NOT

BE A TRAGEDY IF THE MAJOR

CHARACTERS, WELL, DID NOT ACT

OTHER THAN THEY SHOULD.

THERE WOULD NOT BE A TRAGEDY

IF THE CHARACTERS BASICALLY

UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS REQUIRED.

MOREOVER, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO

MAKE MUCH SENSE TO EXPLAIN

AWAY THE ACTIONS OF THE

CHARACTERS BY SOME KIND OF

NECESSITY OR SOME OTHER KIND

OF DETERMINISM.

THE GROUND OF TRAGEDY IS THE

VERY NOTION THAT CHARACTERS

ARE FREE TO CHOOSE AND WHAT

THEY CHOOSE TO DO MATTERS.

THE QUESTION THEN TO ASK IS

WHY A CHARACTER ACTED IN THE

WAY HE DID.

NOW, TO CHOOSE CORRECTLY,

TRAGEDY TEACHES US THAT ONE

MUST BE PRUDENT, WHICH IS ALL

THE MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE,

WELL, LIFE IS RATHER

COMPLICATED.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FACTS

IN WHICH WE HAVE TO MAKE OUR

DECISIONS, MAKE OUR CHOICES,

ALL OF THEM VARY.

AND SO WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN

PRUDENT YESTERDAY MAY IN FACT

NOT BE PRUDENT TODAY.

SO AT THE HEART OF TRAGEDY IS

THIS LESSON, AND I FIND

COMFORT IN THIS LESSON.

IN FACT I FOUND "THE HOUSE OF

SAND AND FOG" TO BE A

COMFORTING BOOK.

AT THE HEART OF TRAGEDY IS THE

LESSON THAT MISJUDGMENTS

HURTS.

AND THIS IS THE LESSON THE

PRUDENT MAN HAS EITHER LEARNED

BY EXPERIENCE OR JUST SIMPLY

HAS ALWAYS KNOWN.

MISJUDGMENTS IN SOME WAY NOT

WORTH OBVIOUS VICES?

THE OBVIOUSLY VICIOUS AMONG

US, AND WE ALL KNOW THEM, ARE

EASILY IDENTIFIED AND CAN BE

RESENTED AND THEREFORE GUARDED

AGAINST.

SO I HAVE NO FEAR TOWARDS THE

VICIOUS.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THOSE WHO

ARE PRONE TO MISJUDGMENT ARE

OFTEN WELL-INTENTIONED AND

THEREFORE TOLERATED AND OFTEN

FORGIVEN.

IN TRAGEDY, CRITICAL

MISJUDGMENTS AS WELL AS VICES

TEND TO BE MARKED BY DEATH, IF

NOT INJURY AND CIVIL

PUNISHMENT.

TO REPEAT, TRAGEDY TEACHES US

THAT POOR CHOICES IN LIFE

BRING ABOUT INJURY TO OTHERS

AND OURSELVES.

I TAKE COMFORT IN THAT AND I

DECIDE TO CHOOSE BETTER.

THE GROUND OF TRAGEDY THEN

SEEMS TO BE THIS: A DISPARITY

BETWEEN THE OUGHT AND THE IS.

THE DISPARITY BETWEEN WHAT WE

SHOULD HAVE DONE AND, WELL,

WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE.

"HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG"

OBVIOUSLY ENDS TRAGICALLY.

SEEM TO BE BODIES LITTERED

EVERYWHERE.

THIS TRAGEDY, I CONTEND, WAS

BROUGHT ABOUT BY A SERIES OF

MISJUDGMENTS, AND THE FIRST

BEING COLONEL BEHRANI'S

OVERESTIMATION OF HIS OWN

WORTH.

I WOULD EVEN SUGGEST IT'S

RELATED TO HIS AVIATION

CREDENTIALS.

THE CONSEQUENT FAILURE TO

SECURE EMPLOYMENT WITH EITHER

BOEING OR LOCKHEED ENSURED

THAT HIS ATTEMPT TO PROJECT

THE IMAGE THAT HE WAS SOMEHOW

SELF-SUFFICIENT, A MAN OF

MEANS SO THAT HIS DAUGHTER

COULD SOMEHOW MARRY A WEALTHY

FAMILY, WOULD ULTIMATELY RUIN

HIM FINANCIALLY.

SO WHAT DOES HE TRY TO DO?

HE ATTEMPTS TO LEGALLY ROB

SOMEONE OF HER HOME THROUGH A

PUBLIC AUCTION.

THAT IS IN FACT HOW HE

UNDERSTOOD IT BACK IN THE

HOMELAND.

KATHY NICCOLO, OF COURSE, WAS

DISTRACTED BY HER RECENT

SEPARATION FROM ADEQUATELY

DEALING WITH THE COUNTY-- FROM

RECENT SEPARATION, AND OF

COURSE DISTRACTED FROM

ADEQUATELY DEALING WITH THE

COUNTY'S TAX MISTAKE THAT

ULTIMATELY LED TO THE AUCTION.

HER BOYFRIEND, SHERIFF LESTER

BURDON, THOUGHT THAT HE COULD

USE THE THREAT OF FORCE TO

COMPEL COLONEL BEHRANI TO DO

WHAT HE THOUGHT TO BE THE

RIGHT THING.

THE COLONEL'S SON IS SHOT BY

POLICE OFFICERS WHEN HE SEIZES

LESTER'S EMPTY GUN AND TURNS

IT ON HIM.

COLONEL BEHRANI'S SON DIES IN

HOSPITAL.

IN A RAGE, COLONEL BEHRANI

RETURNS TO HIS BUNGALOW,

ATTEMPTS TO STRANGLE KATHY AND

SUCCEEDS IN KILLING HIS WIFE

AND HIMSELF.

AT THE END OF THE BOOK,

OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE BODIES

LITTERED EVERYWHERE, BUT WE