Old Jack – Memorial to an Australian Airman

The man the Wolf knew as Old Jack left us yesterday.  He was on any view of a good age.  When he rang me a few weeks ago to say that he was in St John of God at Ballarat with cancer, he told me that he was philosophical – but every time I saw him, I thought he that he looked better.  The last time I told him that I expected him to be playing beach volley ball the next time I dropped in.  He was also philosophical about the fact that since he was in hospital, the Wolf was not allowed in.  He had however told me that he thought that he would fall off the twig in about month, and he was about right.

I met Old Jack when I moved to Blackwood some nine or so years ago.  He had got there a bit before me – in about 1938.  He came down the slope to introduce himself.  He was the only one to do so.  We realised we had so much in common – he was an old styled Irish Mick Collingwood supporter.  For reasons I could follow, he was not all that enthused about the crowd at the pub, and he would drop over for a chat about twice a week.  The house was on a steep slope, and the Wolf and I could see the bottom of Old Jack’s very long legs through the window as he came down.  I would offer him a red and he would always say ‘Only a very small one, thanks Geoff.’  He would then sip the bloody stuff like altar wine.  The Wolf became very fond of him because he stayed with Old Jack when I was overseas.

Old Jack was bloody tolerant for one of that generation.  He had very few demons.  He got a kind of guilty pleasure from fruity or spiced conversation, and general irreverence.  Every now and then we might watch a movie.  I was surprised that he was so taken with Patton, and he read all 1000 pages of the memoirs.  After I had done a course on the Stuarts at Cambridge, he knocked over a very sophisticated long book on the 1641 Revolution.  He loved the scarves and jackets I brought back from Oxford and Cambridge, especially those associated with a Catholic college.  We also liked some comedies.  Some could set Old Jack off on a kind of keening pained laugh – like the scenes between Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson’s War.

He had a seasoned Irish attitude to the English, especially royalty.  He told me that after his dad got back from the first war, he and others were very dirty on the Poms for their condescending attitude to our troops and to medals.  He said his father used to insult them on the trams.  When I first called on Old Jack the other day in Ballarat, he had a book on Gallipoli.  When I said it was hard on the Poms, he replied instantly – ‘no more than they bloody well deserve, Geoff.’  Old Jack took the same attitude into the next war – and he kept the faith.

Like a lot of those guys, he did not talk much of the war, and he was close to being a pacifist.  He did however show me a written memoir of his life one day, and we discussed it once or twice.  He joined the AIF and went to Syria.  He there got shot at – by the BLOODY FRENCH!  Old Jack took serious exception to this treatment, and he joined our air force.  He went to New York, trained in Canada, and then served as a navigator in Mosquitoes in England.  He flew 47 missions over occupied Europe.  In an RAAF book, I have seen a photo of his shining morning face and lantern jaw during a pre-raid briefing.  He was active over the extension of the D-day front toward Holland.  He told me that their main fear was going down alive and being lynched.  He was always sympathetic to the Germans on the ground, and Black Saturday really unsettled him, as it did most of us because, he said, this was a firestorm like Dresden.  At the end, he got into Hitler’s bunker and he was revolted by the filth and stench left by a boozed Russian peasant army.  He told he could not believe the suffering of the German people.  He flew in the escort for Churchill back from Potsdam and then escorted Atlee back.  He was hugely entertained when I told him what my Oxford tutor said – the Russians asked the English who they had counting the votes.

There was hardly any malice in Old Jack.  I am a very different matter, and any reputation could rocket into the fence when Old Jack and I got going.  I urged him to go and see Helen Mirren in The Queen.  Old Jack was not moved.  He was bloody bog Irish stubborn.  I told him of the scene where she floods the 4WD after saying she had been a driver in the war. ‘Yeah, yeah…we saw her and her bloody sister buggerizing around, but they did not seem to do much, did they?’  Shit – you are not safe for what you did in 1945!

Old Jack even passed a rude remark about my namesake.  He gave me a shy look and said that Guy Gibson was thought possibly to have consorted with other ranks, and that this was definitely not the done thing.  I told him it was one thing to shaft royalty, and another to question the VC winning leader of the dam busters, whose grave I have visited in Holland, and whose name I bore with pride.  I reminded Old Jack that Bomber Harris placed Gibson in Valhalla – far above the salt.  Old Jack withdrew the remark – and he then proceeded to tip a bucket over Bomber Harris.

Well, he’s gone now, Jack Rayner, and he won’t be back.  He will go into the ground at Blackwood in the space he left beside Grace shortly before I arrived there.  It is a gravestone I have tended on cemetery duty.

Rest in peace with God and Grace, Old Jack.  You did us all proud while you were with us here, and the Wolf and I are better off because of you.

Passing bull 5 : Schizophrenia over Greece

The late Arthur Miller was hauled up before McCarthy’s HUAC.  The failure of due process before the HUAC takes your breath away, but it got worse before the courts.  When people were charged with contempt for refusing to answer, the trials did not take long.  The prosecution called expert evidence.  They called an ‘expert on Communism’ to testify that the accused had been under ‘communist discipline’.  When Miller’s counsel announced he was going to call his expert to say that Miller had not been under discipline of the Communist Party, Miller noticed ‘that from then on a negative electricity began flowing toward me from the bench and the government table.’  Miller thought that his expert was good, ‘but obviously the tracks were laid and the train was going to its appointed station no matter what.’

We all know what that is like.  Too many start out on an inquiry that they already have the answer to.  Good judges avoid this; sensible ones hide it.  We are all guilty of prejudice and intolerant of doubt or qualification, or even shading, once we have made up our minds.  The trap is to think that things must be black or white – because grey is just too much trouble.  You rarely see this failing as starkly as in the difference of views of two respected columnists of the Financial Times, which many think is the best newspaper in the world, about the Greek Euro deal reached on Monday morning.  (It appeared in today’s AFR.)  Just watch the way that these two trains leave one station for the next but different stations.  First, Wolfgang Munchau.

A few things that many of us took for granted, and that some of us believed in, ended in a single weekend.  By forcing Alexis Tsipras into a humiliating defeat, Greece’s creditors have done a lot more than bring about regime change in Greece or endanger its relations with the Eurozone.  They have destroyed the Eurozone as we know it and demolished the idea of a monetary union as a step towards a democratic political union……The best thing that can be said of the weekend is the brutal honesty of those perpetrating this regime change.

But it was not just the brutality that stood out, nor even the total capitulation of Greece. The material shift is that Germany has formally proposed an exit mechanism.  On Saturday, Wolfgang Schauble, finance minister, insisted on a time-limited exit – a ‘timeout’ as he called it.

I have heard quite a few crazy proposals in my time, and this one is right up there.  A member state pushed for the expulsion of another.  This was the real coup at the weekend: not only regime change in Greece, but also regime change in the Eurozone.

Is that clear enough?  Here is Gideon Rachman (who could I think pull rank).

Europe woke up on Monday to a lot of headlines about the humiliation of Greece, the triumph of an all-powerful Germany and the subversion of democracy in Europe.

What nonsense.  If anybody has capitulated, it is Germany.  The German government has just agreed in principle to another multi-billion dollar bail-out of Greece – the third so far.  In return it has received promises of economic reform from a Greek government that makes it clear that it profoundly disagrees with everything that it has just agreed to.  The Syriza government will clearly do all it can to thwart the deal it has just signed.  If that is a German victory, I would hate to see a defeat.

As for this stuff about the trashing of democracy in Greece – that too is nonsense.  The Greek referendum…was in essence a vote that the rest of the Eurozone should continue to lend Greece billions – but on conditions determined in Athens.  That was never realistic.  The real constraint on Greece’s freedom of actions is not the undemocratic nature of the EU.  It is the fact that Greece is bust…..Of course the dilemna of ordinary Greek people is horrible.  I was in Athens last week and felt very sorry for many of the individuals I met, who fear for their jobs savings and future.  But the notion that all this is the fault of cruel Europeans, who have mindlessly imposed austerity on the otherwise healthy country, is a neo-leftist fancy.  Greece has been badly governed for decades and was living well beyond its means.

I shall say something more of this later – a triumph of both freedom of speech and bullshit – but I leave you for now with the beginning of the piece by Alan Mitchell, the AFR’s economics editor, that touches on a proposal that one FT commentator thought was brutal and crazy.

Hold on to this thought: What the world saw as Germany’s hardline ultimatum might yet offer an amicable separation of Greece and the Eurozone.  It was the option of a five-year suspension of Greece’s membership…..

Passing bull 4 – our land is girt by a continuum

We now have the Australian Border Force headed by an ex-rozzer named Roman Quaedvlieg.  The website has bullshit that is astounding even by our impressive standards.

We have significant service and enforcement functions, including: 

  • facilitating the lawful passage of people and goods
  • investigations, compliance and enforcement in relation to illicit goods and immigration malpractice; and
  • onshore detention, removals and support to regional processing arrangements

We consider the border not to be a purely physical barrier separating nation states, but a complex continuum stretching offshore and onshore, including the overseas, maritime, physical border and domestic dimensions of the border. 

Treating the border as a continuum allows an integrated, layered approach to provide border management in depth— working ahead of and behind the border, as well as at the border, to manage threats and take advantage of opportunities.
By applying an intelligence-led model and working with our partner agencies across the border continuum, we deliver effective border control over who and what has the right to enter or exit, and under what conditions.  

Officers in the Australian Border Force are operationally focused, uniformed and part of a disciplined enforcement body undertaking functions across our operating environment – patrolling our air and seaports, remote locations, mail and cargo centres and Australia’s extended maritime jurisdiction.

We work closely with other government and international agencies to detect and deter unlawful movement of goods and people across the border.
The integration of our complementary customs, immigration and border protection functions and capabilities provides more diverse and interesting jobs and careers for our people.  They will be supported by better training, modernised business processes and systems, an increased sense of professionalism and a strengthened culture of integrity.
The combination of enforcement resources from both immigration and customs will enable us to boost our capacity over time and maintain investment in key capital infrastructure that supports the protection of Australia’s border.
The full implementation of the Australian Border Force vision, model and workforce transformation will take time and arrangements will be progressively implemented.

Our Prime Minister was prepared to invoke God in launching the Force and its Commander-in-Chief in his suit of French blue with silver leaf on the lapels: ‘May God bless you, may God bless your work, may God bless the country you are helping to protect and prosper.’

You might think that we could spare the Almighty our bullshit.

Passing bull 3

Lucy Kellaway in the FT (in yesterday’s AFR) had some fun with an email from Satya Nadella to staff at Microsoft telling them of their new Mission Statement.  Someone sent it to her, a collector and connoisseur of bullshit, saying that her job was easy.  The first word was ‘Team.’ Then came the usual suspects like ‘platforms,’ ‘drivers,’ ‘DNAs’, and ‘going forwards’ – and a minor classic ‘extend our experience footprint.’  The CEO says their humble mission is ‘to empower every person and every organisation on the planet to achieve more.’  Achieve more what?  Well, he wants every member of the Team to ‘bring their A game and find deep meaning in their work’, but says that ‘tough choices’ will have to be made.  How many people will lose their jobs to implements created by other teams who have gone after deep meaning?

I set out below material from the Microsoft website.  It says two things.  1.  We want you to buy our products.  2.  When we hit the bullshit pedal, there is no person or organisation on this planet that can stop us.

Microsoft Accessibility

Accessibility makes it easier for everyone to see, hear, and use technology, and to personalize their computers to meet their own needs and preferences. For many people with impairments, accessibility is what makes computer use possible.

Mission

At Microsoft, our mission is to enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential. We consider our mission statement a commitment to our customers. We deliver on that commitment by striving to create technology that is accessible to everyone—of all ages and abilities. Microsoft is one of the industry leaders in accessibility innovation and in building products that are safer and easier to use.

About Accessible Technology

Accessible technology enables individuals to personalize their technology to make it easier to see, hear, and use. Accessibility and accessible technology are helpful for individuals who experience visual difficulties, pain in the hands or arms, hearing loss, speech or cognitive challenges; and individuals seeking to customize their computing experience to meet their situational needs and preferences. Accessibility includes:

  • Accessibility options let you personalize the user experience through the display, mouse, keyboard, sound, and speech options in Windows and other Microsoft products.
  • Assistive technology products are specialty software and hardware products (such as screen readers and specialty keyboards), that provide essential computer access to individuals with significant vision, hearing, dexterity, language, or learning needs.
  • Interoperability among assistive technology products, the operating system, and applications is critical to enabling a world of devices accessible to people of all ages and abilities.

Strategy

Accessibility, as part of overall usability, is a fundamental consideration for Microsoft during product design, development, evaluation, and release. Microsoft endeavors to integrate accessibility into planning, design, research, development, testing, and documentation.

Microsoft addresses accessibility by:

  • Continuing our longstanding commitmentand leadership in developing innovative accessibility solutions.
  • Making the computer easier to see, hear, and use by buildingaccessibility into Microsoft products and services.
  • Promoting innovation of accessibility in the development community and working with industry organizations to encourage innovation; and,
  • Building collaborative relationships with a wide range of organizations to raise awareness of the importance of accessibility in meeting the technology needs of people with disabilities.

Progress

At Microsoft, our commitment to developing innovative accessibility solutions began more than two decades ago and continues with each new product we develop.

Our accessibility efforts are concentrated in four key areas:

  1. Accessibility of our products and services
  2. Leadership and awareness
  3. Innovation
  4. Collaboration

Accessibility of our products and services

Microsoft is making the computer easier to see, hear, and use by building accessibility into our products and services

The lotus-eaters on the left

When Ulysses was trying to get back home to Greece after the Trojan War, he and his crew came upon a very dangerous island.  The people there ate the fruit of the lotus.  This fruit had the effect of a narcotic drug that induced people to find bliss through doing nothing.  If Ulysses had not manhandled his men off the island, they would still be there, sad monuments to apathy.  This is perhaps a story from mythology that the radical left government in Greece could have shown more respect to as it converted a train-wreck into a ship-wreck with frightening consequences for a people looking for a leader to take them out of moral oblivion.

The rest of the world is just sick of it, if not bored, but this awful example of the left in power and in action might be instructive on one question – what does it mean to be left?  My own view is that both the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ are labels that type people and should therefore be avoided – they are at best misleading and at worst dangerous and demeaning.  But here we have a party and government that wears this badge with pride.  What do they say about what it is to be left?

The distinction comes from the sides of the popular assembly that drove the French Revolution into the Terror in which the left sought to liquidate the right.  That was a case where the downcast were driven for revenge for the past and hope for the future, and they prevailed over those who had not been victimised and who wanted to save some of the past and who were less sanguine or more realistic about the future – and after which both sides gave way to a dictator and emperor who convulsed Europe in a generation of wars that left five million dead.

Elsewhere, I endeavoured to state the differences between the left and the right as follows:

The ‘left’ tend to stand for the poor and the oppressed against the interests of power and property and established institutions.  The ‘right’ stand for the freedom of the individual in economic issues, and seek to preserve the current mode of distribution.  The left is hopeful of government intervention and change; the right suspects government intervention and is against change.  The left hankers after redistribution of wealth, but is not at its best creating it.  The right stoutly opposes any redistribution of wealth, and is not at its best in celebrating it.  The left is at home with tax; the right loathes it.  These are matters of degree that make either term dangerous.  Either can be authoritarian.  On the left, that may lead to communism.  On the right, you may get fascism.

For reasons I will come to, I might add that the left is inclined to oscillate wildly between strict legalism and the broadest equity.

Have we seen these features in Greece?

The problems facing Greece are that it has hardly ever been decently governed let alone well governed.  It does not make enough of anything.  It does not create enough wealth.  It does not collect enough tax, but it pays out too much in social service benefits.  Above all, it is hopelessly corrupt in government and business – the in-word is ‘clientelism’, which fittingly comes down from an ancient Roman form of patronage.  Greece just keeps promising to reform, and reneging – and holding its hand out.  Well, there is fertile ground for a reforming radical government, surely.  Not on your Nelly, Mate.

The first rule is that nothing – nothing – is our fault.  It is always someone else who is to blame.

This is because we are the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed.  We don’t like the term victims much because it would put us in bad company.  It is sufficient to say that we are on the side of the angels.  (We don’t say that God is on our side because the Comrades are not so big on Him or Her.)  We never had the opportunities the others have had, and we have never held the power the others have.  We are the people described on the Statue of Liberty, except that we stayed at home.

It follows that we are right and the rest are wrong.

If you think that this is silly, I agree, but you run into a lot in I R here at home.  You might be surprised how many people appear to be committed to the proposition that the worker can do no wrong – it is always the fault of management.  (Well, ‘capital’ would sound old fashioned and silly.)  The other day I had to endure hours of listening to I R lawyers arguing about whether grossly pornographic material was offensive and to an argument that the employer was at fault for not issuing instructions about what it considered offensive in its workplace policy documents – notwithstanding that even the accused thought that this was an insult to his intelligence.

If you think I drew the short straw, shortly afterwards the Fair Work Commission held that a dismissal was unfair in part because the behaviour complained occurred after the employee had been given a lot to drink at a party put on by the employer – free of charge.  The Greeks are not alone in creating their own fantasy world.

How does it work?  In the normal way – you invent your own language to express your own demonology.  Cutting expenses you cannot afford or repaying loans you could not afford involves self-denial and a form of hardship, albeit a hardship that you have brought upon yourself.  What Greece needs is a period of severe, even harsh, self-discipline, and prolonged abstinence.  Imagine trying that on with the lotus-eaters!  So you give that prescription its English title, austerity, and then you demonise that word.  Then you forbid those representing the lenders to use a name that denotes harshness.  People are forbidden to refer to the ‘troika’ – we must refer to the ‘institutions’.  And if you think that is silly, which it is, be careful how you say so because if you say they are being childish, which they are, that will be taken down as evidence of harshness and oppression on your part.

Then you buy your own expert to say that austerity is not just immoral but bad policy.  And there are plenty of economists who say that if the creditors want too much they will hurt or destroy the capacity of the borrowers to repay them.  This makes sense – sometimes it pays a creditor to allow some slack to the debtor.

There are at least two problems with the way the Greek left has presented this case.  One is that they use terms like freedom, democracy, sovereignty, dignity, self-respect and independence.  Now, we all have to invoke loaded terms now and then, but all these things are put in play when a nation joins a federation that involves a form of commercial partnership, or borrows money on terms and for a security.  We understand that if we default on a loan for our house, the bank will sell the house, and we will not get far by crying that the bank is being harsh, oppressive or austere to us.  And even if we can make the case that the bank itself would be better off it chose some course other than enforcing its right to the full now, that is a matter for the bank.  It is beyond our legal power to restrain it on that ground alone.  Both parties to the agreement have rights and property in those rights, and the bank can do that to us because we have put it in that position.

It is the same with Greece and its partners and creditors.  Even if Greece could persuade someone in relevant power that the best interests of the partners and creditors would be served by their proceeding differently, there is no way of stopping them using their rights and property as they think fit.  That is, if you like, a consequence of their sovereignty, and the expression of a common will by democratically elected leaders of the other partner nations.

There are about eighteen other sovereign nations who have rights and property to think about, and Greece has so conducted itself that it does not now get any support from any one of them.  And that weasel word ‘mandate’ is even more slippery here.  A change of government or a referendum in one entity does not change legal relations between it and others.  The Greek left does not I think accept this.

The other problem with the attempt to get to the high ground by talking of democracy or sovereignty is that it ignores the facts of what Greece is saying to its partners and creditors.  The Greeks are not just saying that you cannot get blood out of a stone – they go on to say that if you try to do so we will pull the pin on our dynamite vest.  Time and again the former Finance Minister said that the rest of Europe and the creditors would have to cave in because they cannot afford the cost of a Greek default on its loans.  They have pointed a gun squarely at the rest of Europe.  After last weekend the threat has changed – it is not so much that we will blow your brains out, as that we will disembowel ourselves.  This I think is what led the European president to say that the Greeks should not allow a fear of death to cause them to commit suicide.

Many observers thought that the referendum was a bad idea.  We were again told that this was democracy at work – to what end?  The referendum just asked people to say whether they agreed to all the terms solemnly put by eighteen nations.  The Greeks were not asked what they might accept, and some balance may have been added by ‘2.  Would you like to get into bed with Vladimir?’  (He has no money either.  Russia is already a pariah on the periphery.)  And the Greeks certainly got wrong the reaction of the lenders.  When the lenders refused to keep pouring money into a nation that is utterly insolvent and engaged in blackmail, they were branded as terrorists and war criminals.

This is I fear the real problem for this kind of radical left.  At bottom, they just want and hope that other people will somehow act better – that is, more in a way that is amenable to the views and lifestyle of those on the left.  This became clear to me during the two most recent episodes of Dateline London, a weekly panel show on the BBC on which four journalists from different backgrounds discuss current events.  They have difficulty finding journalists to give a rational account of the Islamic world, and they now have the same problem with Greece.  On one episode, three left leaning journalists lamented the failure of Europe to do more for migrants – there may be 55 million of them out there.  On the last episode, two left journalists, one from Le Monde and one from The Guardian, savaged the lenders and partners of Greece as being heartless and cruel, in the Le Monde case not showing enough ‘solidarity’ with Europe, and in the case of The Guardian, wheeling out all the usual suspects for conspiring against the downtrodden and oppressed.

It occurred to me in each case that these people were, au fond, just wishing that other people were somehow nicer.  What has this wishful thinking, this hankering after narcotic lotus flowers, got to do with political journalism?  Why not look at the world as it is?  What nation is happy with its Muslem minority?  How many hundred thousand more would any nation be prepared to take where hardly any of its people evince a burning moral resolve to have a refugee from a nation disfigured by religious war as their next-door neighbour?  How much solidarity does a taxpayer in Iceland or Finland feel for the concept of Europe when he is being asked to give up property or pay more tax in order that Greek retirees may live in secure financial comfort?

It occurred to me that these journalists were not asking themselves the right questions.  They are secure behind the moral superiority of their own dogma.  They are quite unable to see the other point of view.  This is why this Greek negotiating team was so awful.  It is why they burnt up so much political capital and left themselves friendless, and alarmingly desperate.

The Finance Minister said that the banks would reopen on Tuesday after a new deal had been struck.  He said that would take an hour.  Why?  Because they had already been at it for five months.  Then he wondered about asking a court to grant an injunction to restrain the eighteen other sovereign entities from dissolving the union.  We saw irrational optimism and dogmatic conceit end in madness.  The Greek left presents the absolute threat – they have the answer!  They can even predict the future!

But if these lotus-eaters do not get their way, they behave like very nasty spoiled children.  The creditors now are trying to measure the cost of another load of assistance to a bankrupt nation against the cost of humanitarian assistance to a stricken people.  But when Greek people start dying for lack of medicine, it will not be their fault.  It will be the fault of those dreadful outsiders for not doing enough to allow the Greeks to maintain the style of life to which Europe and its money has accustomed them.

So, while I still think that the terms left and right are slippery, perhaps they may come with some useful amber or red lights.  I regard the whole discussion as beside the point.  It looks to me that the marriage was a bad one from the start and that there is not one ounce of that trust and confidence that are needed to sustain such a partnership.  If it is suffered to carry on until the next explosion, then it may be that the threat of self-immolation has worked again.  Would you really trust a crowd that takes so long to get to the point, that wants to drag out the argument on everything, even points that do not matter?  People who know business know that the best contracts are put in a drawer and never looked at again.  You do not get this with the Greeks – or our I R lawyers – or the Persians talking about the bomb.  The result is that any resulting contract is not worth the paper it is inscribed on.

In the meantime, the Marxist blogger from Sydney University announced his retirement on his blog, and the former Finance Minister then just picked up his helmet and rucksack, and pointed his motorcycle to the wine dark sea in his quest for more lotus-eaters.  Every prediction that he had made had not come about – but he was not wrong.  He is never wrong.  Those poor people in the north were plainly irrational.  They were not even reading from the same script.  They too could end up as lotus-eaters.

PS SPORT

I agree with Our Dawn.  I do not want those half-wits posing as tennis–players representing me in anything.  If we are going to cancel passports, we could start with these twerps – and the Fanatics.

Passing bull 2

This is the second note – the first was way back on 20 May – on the failure of public language.  I propose to do it more often – say, once a week.  We are surrounded by bullshit.

On what I thought was a recommendation in The Economist, I bought a book How the French Think by Sudhir Hazareesingh, an Oxford don of Mauritian extraction.  I have long been interested in the different approach to abstract thought and to intellectuals in England and across the Channel – and how those differences affect their laws, lawyers, and histories.  I have written a little book on that subject.

Sadly, my first gulp came with the second sentence in the Preface.  The author says that at school ‘we were served a copious diet of French classics.’  How do you get served a diet?  And how is either a diet or a feed copious?  This book is published by Allen Lane.  Don’t they use editors now?

After a couple of pages I realised that this was not so much a work of analysis as a collection of quotes, like one of those tedious dirges that disfigure scholarship in North America.  In the Introduction, the author tells us his book will explain the five ways in which French thought is distinctive.  One is ‘its historical character (by which I mean both its substantive continuities over time and its references to the past as a source of legitimation or demarcation…)’  Another is that ‘it is striking in its extraordinary intensity (ideas are believed not only to matter, but in existential circumstances, to be worth dying for…)’  Then we are told that ‘cultural centralization’ in Paris is ‘part of the reason why French ways of thought exhibit such a degree of stylistic consistency.’

Hence the Enlightenment Radicals’ notion of popular sovereignty, the exact mirror of the precept of absolutist power; the holistic abstraction of nineteenth-century counter-revolutionary thought, which matched the essentialism of its republican rivals, and the irreducible nationalism of the communists in the modern age, despite their doctrinal opposition to this ‘bourgeois’ doctrine.  This commonality is also the product of shared collective experiences.  Systems of ideas and intellectual currents such as republicanism and Gaullism often represented the maturation of existing social and cultural practices, or the reactions of particular generations to defining (and traumatising) episodes such as revolutions, civil conflicts and wars.

You might, on a good day, distil some sort of sense from all that, but it would be quite untestable, which is what those brought up in the Anglo-Saxon tradition fear from the European love of abstractions, here splattered on the page so copiously.  But does the reader coming into this discussion cold know whether the infection comes from the French or the author?

Next we are told that the ‘idea of knowledge as continuous and cumulative, which is such a central premise of Anglo-Saxon epistemology, is alien to the French way of thinking.’  Since I am having trouble forming an idea of knowledge that is the reverse of continuous or cumulative, I do not know what that means.

One of the reasons for this…is the emphasis on the speculative quality of thought in France.  French intellectual constructs are speculative in the sense that they are generally a form of thinking which is not necessarily grounded in empirical reality.

I do think I understand that the author wants us to follow the basic difference between rationalist and empirical philosophy, but this statement simply says that French thought is speculative because it may or may not accord with the facts.  And that is what we call bullshit.  It is therefore comforting to know that we may not have missed the point when we see that the paragraph concludes with reference to a paper by an Oxford Professor ‘Why One kind of Bullshit Flourishes in France.’

Next – still in the Introduction – we are told that ‘an enduring source of the French pride is their thought that their history and culture have decisively shaped the values and ideals of other nations’.  This large statement prompts an Anglo-Saxon query about empirical evidence.  And Lo! It comes immediately.  The great Vietnamese revolutionary General Giap learned his trade from Napoleon, and then beat up and banished the French.  If this is a source of French pride, they are broad-minded indeed.

Not many people have died at peace in the comfort of existentialism, that body of views that Jean-Paul Sartre became famous for dilating upon.  What was it?  It acknowledged a simple truth.  Shit happens.  The author tells us that ‘Sartre entered the fray in the aftermath of the Second World War, arguing that human beings could escape the contingency of their existence by seizing control of their destiny.’  It is hard to translate that.  Can we abolish the uncertainty of Fate simply by claiming to control our own?  It is hard is it not?  But it is a feature of philosophy on either side of the Channel that the questions are always easier than the answers.

I was disappointed that the discussion of French historians did not touch on the luminous work of Taine or more recently Furet on the way we see the Revolution.  Taine wrote most beautifully, even in translation.  One remark of Taine quoted by the author does convey a large part of the message of the book.  ‘All that the Frenchman desires is to provoke in himself and others a bubbling of agreeable ideas.’ That are not necessarily grounded in empirical reality.

The Passion of Joe Hockey in the Garden of Fairfax

[The following note appeared in an amended, and improved, form in the Gazette of Law and Journalism where it was to be read with a comprehensive case note.  It has now been slightly expanded.]

More than 30 years ago, the ABC said something rude about the late Frank Costigan in the famous Painters’ and Dockers’ Royal Commission.  Frank and his team sued.  We thought that was a bit rough for a crowd bent on destroying reputations – the raison d’etre of Royal Commissions – but I can well recall the late Neil McPhee QC looking at me hard as he told the court that the only way I could win the case was by pleading truth, and that if I did so, that court-room could not hold the damages.

I thought of that when I heard that Joe Hockey had sued over a remark about his being for sale.  If that had a nasty meaning – if a court found that it meant that our Treasurer was corrupt – what courtroom could hold the damages?

Politicians, especially federal politicians, are on the nose here at the moment.  By that I mean that ordinary people do not think well of them – they have a bad reputation.  A person suing for libel claims that a publication has caused others to think less of them.  If the person complaining is a politician, they therefore start behind scratch, because the chances are most people think poorly of them anyway, and are not going to think more of them because a judge decides to give them the equivalent of three years’ salary for a high school teacher.  In fact, that process will very likely cause a lot of people to think even less of politicians generally, and this lucky dipper in particular.

That was one sort of risk facing Joe Hockey when he sued Fairfax for libel.  Another risk was that he could lose.  Another risk was that he might not win well enough –or that he might win too well.  A partner and mate of mine had his life ruined by a series of train wrecks in libel litigation – his problem was that he won too well.  Twice.

The carefully reasoned judgment of Justice White, which runs to more than 100 pages, raises red light appeal points on legal issues of imputations (especially ‘corrupt’), state of mind (malice), reasonableness and damages.  The elaborate judgment might fairly be said to represent millennial evidence of the remark of Professor Milsom that ‘the law is enmeshed in detail to an extent unthinkable when it had to be encapsulated in a jury decision.’  There are, however, practical issues, and our law is determined in practice.

First, why is not a stoush like this between a politician and newspapers heard by a jury?  Why not have ‘the ordinary reader’ decide the big issues, rather than have a superior court judge try to guess how they think?  Justice White said there was a difference between undesirable or inappropriate conduct and corrupt conduct, and that the ordinary reader would have concluded that one article meant that the Treasurer ‘was engaged in a non-corrupt form of fundraising which used the allure of his office.’  Perhaps, but that is a definitive jury issue, and the Twiggy Forrest ‘binding contracts with China’ fiasco shows that our superior court judges may have a lot of trouble in seeing what is blindingly obvious to anyone else.  The Federal Court does not have juries, and it hears common law issues by accident.  It was not set up to hear libel actions.  If this case gets to the High Court, it may have been considered by eight or more federal judges only one of whom has ever directed a jury in a libel action.  And why should not a jury be able to say to a politician, as one did in Victoria to a Premier – you have handed it out, Mate: now you can take some back.

Secondly, the reasonableness test is being applied by judges in a way that will likely see the end of the political speech defence, and encourage the view that truth is the only substantive defence in a real libel action.  Our judges mostly do not know what is involved in running a business, and they have displayed neither understanding nor sympathy for the workings of the press.

Thirdly, the costs of this kind of exercise, even without appeals, dwarf the damages.  That is perhaps one thing for a federal minister with a big Sydney house suing a national publisher, but small publishers can be put out of business – bankrupted – by the cost of WINNING a case such as this – even without appeals.  And all for a tweet.  I no longer believe that the term ‘chilling effect’ is pointless special pleading on the part of the press.  I have come to the view that the law of defamation as it is now practised is really threatening the vital role of the Fourth Estate in our national life.

Finally, is there not something unreal or grubby even about awarding $200,000 to a politician against the press who got their highly critical story just right but who got tripped up on a poster and a tweet?  It is very unsettling to reflect on the maximum compensation that the State allows for the victim of a multiple rape.

Two leading Australian newspapers wrote long and considered pieces saying that our Treasurer was involved in party political financial dealings in a way that did not become him.  It is a sordid fact of political life that politicians solicit partisan political donations by the allure of their office.  The Treasurer sued for libel on those articles and lost.  The court found against him on most of his imputations and allegations of malice.  It made a finding of malice against just one person involved in the publications.  That finding described behaviour (a ‘personal animus’) of the same moral order as the leering, jeering, and sneering indulged in by our politicians every day in the tawdry motley of their parliamentary lives.

Does the ordinary Australian think better of Joe Hockey now than if he had just grinned and borne it?  Does the ordinary Australian think that our politicians and newspapers just deserve each other – and that you can toss in the lawyers with that unlovely lot as well?  Or would Joe Hockey have been better off to have followed the advice of an English Law Lord who described a novel libel claim by a public figure as ‘just another case of the toll levied on distinction for the delectation of vulgarity.’?

People who know about this form of litigation say that you do not sue for libel unless four conditions are satisfied.

  • There is an obvious error of fact.
  • You having nothing to fear from having your affairs turned over in public.
  • You have the financial and emotional strength to go the distance against professional gladiators backed by the big end of town.
  • And you have a reasonable assurance of getting a result that makes all that risk and pain worthwhile.

You can tell those who do not pass these stress tests.  They take home buckets less than the lawyers – if anything.  You can assess for yourself how this case stands up on those criteria, and what it says about the judgment of this Treasurer in making this trip to the roulette table.  The agony – the Passion, perhaps – of Joseph Benedict Hockey may have just begun – appeal, or no.

Berlin Queens

On my last visit to Berlin, as I was walking away from Ka De We, I became aware of a man in front of me behaving in a curiously unsettling way.  I checked my money belt and took mild evasive action.  My German companion, Gudrun, smiled and when I asked why, she said that he had said ‘Ein mann in der rose!’  It was my own bloody fault for stepping out in pink shorts – by Gant, if it matters – in the gay capital of the world.  There are queens all over the bloody place.  Not today, thanks, Sportsman; I’m trying to give it up.

Now the Queen is in town.  It was quite a show the other night on the BBC and I enjoyed every bit of it.  This country of ours cannot hold a more devout or desperate republican than me – I think I will die before we get independence and self-government – but it is hard not to admire the most complete civil servant the world has known since we lost George Smiley (and then Alec Guinness died).  And then there is the ceremony.  And the hats.  And the troops.

Berlin is now my favourite city.  I have been there often.  First in 1967, when they were still adjusting to the Wall and getting over the death of JFK.  (They loved him!)  The West was like Las Vegas; the East was like a barren bombsite, where you picked up a tail in the Law Library, and you chickened out on your resolve to sell blood to ease the pressure on hitch-hiking at a pound a day at the thought of entrusting your body to a brawny Comrade Fraulein with B O and muscles.  The Americans at Checkpoint Charlie – where real youth hostellers just had to get their passport stamped – asked for your address in case you did not come back.  Bloody charming.

By the time of my next visit, the Wall was down, and the Berliners were coming to grips with the skeletons and relics of generations of a police state.  Some jurists were given a tour of the Stasi HQ on Normanenstrasse.  We saw miles upon miles of files.  It was horrifying.  I returned there more than once.  It was eerie watching people trying to piece together the shreds of their own lost dignity.  For some reason, I find that place more chilling than the HQ of the Gestapo on PrinzAlbrechtsrasse – which, like so much of this great city, is now a museum.

On a later visit, I spread some of the ashes of Mac and Norma in the Tiergarten, as I did on that swish promenade in Dresden, and on my last visit, Gudrun and I did what for me was my first canal trip from near its south east corner.  It is terrific because you get to see their Toorak, the range of their architecture, and parts of the Wall.  This is definitive tourism, but I suspect that I was the only one on the boat who was not German.  I was not surprised that my companion, who comes from the West, got so emotional there, as she did at the old imperial Sloss.  How would you feel if, say, the Japs had been sitting on one side of the Yarra for fifty years and not letting anyone across?

Gudrun is, I may say, just a bit older than me, having been born during the war and having had a father killed in action in it.  I might say how I met her.  It was at a Cambridge Summer School on Stuart Parliaments taught by Dr David Smith.  I noticed Gudrun looking toward God each time David mentioned the common law.  I gave her a run-down.  One thousand years, sixteen volumes of Sir William Holdsworth’s History of English Law, over morning tea.  The Germans are good learners.

David had previously led a weekend course I did at Oxford on Cromwell that changed my views on a few things.  He is the best teacher I have known.  He is a model of modesty and courtesy.  He turns up a bit like his mum has dressed him.  He starts on time and at each tutorial he hands out about six pages of printed notes from primary sources.  During the tutorial, he will carefully read out loud all that material.  He encourages questions and discussions and he rarely gives closed answers.  But somehow or other, and without appearing to alter a step, he always manages to get to the end of the one and a half hour trip, and look up as if surprised and say ‘Well, and I see it is just time for lunch.’  Every time within a minute of the appointed time – within one minute.  It is quite some party trick.  This really winds up the Americans – and me.  It is like a blackfella playing footy – no other bastard knows how it’s done.

Well, the Queen looked terrific, and so did the Duke.  The German President is a tall strongly built man, and the lady with him – I am told not his wife – looked elegant in her hat.  All the ladies were in hats, and the Guard had berets in light blue, a colour favoured by Her Majesty, we were advised, and carbines.  The guards on the doors presented arms and turned eyes to the passageway.  God only knows how many of the Guard are queens – the German Minister of Defence is Ursula von der Leyen, a woman of film-star good looks, seven kids, and an understanding husband (a professor of medicine drawn from the aristocracy) – and when your nation has the history of Germany, you do not buggerise around with the office of the Ministry of Defence.  The show was not as florid or circus-like as at the Palace in London, but it was still bloody good theatre.

The BBC wheeled out one of those Palace gurus, an aging man with a peculiarly vulgar tie, who made the interesting remark that the Queen has been a lot more relaxed at these events since her mother died.  We were told that the Duke speaks German – Gudrun’s grandma calls him Herr Von Battenberg – and that the Queen speaks French – and that would be a very rare double for representatives of the government of Britain in Europe.  (We might put to one side that the House of Windsor got rid of the German in its name during one period of unhappiness.)

Then they went off to call on Frau Merkel (who is fluent in Russian), and we were invited to reflect that this meeting of two women could be a meeting of the two most respected government figures in the world.  They are certainly the two sanest and smartest.  And after walking on gravel paths through linden trees beside cream buildings that remind us that Europe finishes at the border after the next, they went by boat up the River Spee.  As I had done.

It was wonderful television, and a good example of why sane Australians should avoid watching anything on TV that might bear on Oz politics.  (I cannot understand why so many people who are fixated on the ABC spend so much of their time looking at it.  I never watch Oz news and I have never seen Q & A, so most of The Oz at the moment may as well be in Greek; why doesn’t Gerard Henderson or Mr Shanahan or Mr Sheridan just get a weekly report from the CIA and spare themselves exposure to anathema?)

Does any of this show matter?  I think it might.  Europe is falling apart because, as happens across the spectrum, the ideas of the political drivers have become divorced from those of the people, and the centre looks like it will not hold.  It will shortly face an issue much larger than the Greek tragi-comedy – will Britain stay in?  I think it will, but the Germans are desperate that it does.  Why?  Because if the Poms drop out, the dominance of Germany will be unavoidable, and no sane German wants any form of European dominance.  There is simply no good precedent.

So, this might be one of those rare moments where a little flag-waving does no harm.  And in the name of heaven, compare what we saw yesterday in Berlin with what was happening there seventy years ago, shortly before I was born – VE day was on 8 May 1945.  It was in truth like the arse-end of Mars, and some in Britain wanted it wiped off the map, and if you put all this nonsense about the Euro to one side, that is why we all have an interest in the Union being sustained.

And what bliss to watch two political figures looking so assured in their own skins.  I have just mentioned my age so I will not be accused of putting my hand out for judicial preferment when I say that the collapse of the party system across the western world and the fearfully inane posturing of the men inclines me to the view that the women may be our best or only hope.  (And, yes, Boys, that statement is far from universal.  If I had to nominate a political leader who was in it for zero but ego to match Bill Shorten, it would be Hillary Clinton.  But to return to the main point, check out Ursula, and try to banish the thought of a meeting between her and our Minister of Defence, Doctor Death.)

Finally, j’espere que vous restiez encore Australien or spero manere etiam Australiensis.  Both are probably horribly wrong, but I mean to say that I hope that you still remain an Australian, and that a bad fairy has not come and stolen your citizenship during the night.  Or that you have not been butchered in your sleep by an extremist before you had a chance to make a donation to the Party.

Come to think of it, if that very unattractive sometime walloper from Queensland, who looks to be a serial fool, were to cancel my citizenship, would I be discharged from my oath of allegiance to the Queen who is presently in the land of her ancestors?  The oath did seem to me to be dangerously wide, especially given some very ugly German precedents of oaths of loyalty to a certain German head of state, but when I raised my problem with a senior and urbane judge, he coolly observed that they were just giving notice that you could still be hanged for treason.  Neither he nor I had in mind someone quite as off-colour as the current Prime Minister.

PS SPORT

I think that golf has finally found what it needed to replace the Tiger, and it took two of them.  I asked a mate who plays and knows golf who he fancied between Spieth and McIlroy.  He replied:

Well – Spieth is better at getting it around the course and into the hole day in day out.  He really did not play that well in the final round but still got it done on a wicked course with greens not fit for a crappy public course.

When the Irishman is on song he hits as well as or better than Tiger in his prime (I am dealing with on course matters only) and that is the highest compliment available.

Spieth is Steve Waugh; the Irishman is Brian Lara.

That is about my view, and I have clear preference for Waugh, just about the steeliest cricketer if not sportsman I have ever seen.

If I was religious, I would ask God to save the Tiger from going out like Ali.  It is just too painful to watch.

Sorry my dear – from bad to worse

Four things over the weekend reflected my disgust with our current politics in Canberra.

The AFR had a luncheon interview with the Sydney silk, Bret Walker, S C.  I do not know the man, but he is reputed to be extremely able, and at the highest level.  I have admired the strength and dignity of his opposition to the latest vote-chasing excess of our Prime Minister about citizenship – as if some twerp like him could deny me my Australian-hood or my rights.  The interview concluded: ‘I remain behind in Hunter Street’s Mini-Gotham City, drinking the remnants of the wine, trying to work out why his presence makes feel better to be an Australian.’  What a remarkably fine compliment this was for a barrister!  It put me instantly in mind of the silk played by Budd Tingwell in the movie The Castle, whose campaign for the rights of man actually made us look not only useful, but good.  And one thing is so clear – it will never be said of any of those frightful bastards currently infesting Canberra that they make us feel better to be Australian.

The horror of it all was brought home by the headline on page four of the same paper: PM seizes on Labor terror division.  This brings home the complicity of our press in our national disgrace.  Our Prime Minister was quoted as saying that the problem with allowing the court to decide was that ‘the terror suspects could get off.’  In the sweet name of the son of the carpenter, is there anyone out there – anyone – who falls for this kind of bullshit – from a serial idiot who only thrives on conflict?  Well, the paper said that a poll shows 80% of Australians is in favour of the idea, and that is more than enough for our Prime Minister.

Mr Abbott glories in sending out the Royal Australian Navy against unarmed refugees who could not afford the air fare, and he is currently deploying the Royal Australian Air Force to kill Muslims in a sectarian war on the other side of the word to improve our security against Muslims on this side of the world   There are arguments either way on these conflicts, from anyone but the ludicrously named Opposition, just as there were about the role of the Vatican in the Crusades in the Middle Ages, but not about the sense of this idiot’s child-like mantras – ‘people smugglers’ and ‘death cults’.

And what does the vapid obscurantism of Mr Shorten have to offer against this arrant pugilism of Mr Abbott?  He leaves the fight to those libertarian heroes like Christopher Pyne and Doctor Death (who wants to hand out instruction on Ideal Marriage at my expense).  So, we have a man with no brains against a man with no guts.  A man who believes in nothing against a man who stands for nothing.  Two silly bad boys behind the shelter shed, daring each other to flash their willies.  It really is too awful to contemplate.

It is a condition that is caught by a phrase of George Eliot in Middlemarch that I read on Sunday.  A frightful cleric (Mr Casaubon, for those who know the novel) marries the belle of the village, to the disgust of at least one admirer.

But the idea of this dried up pedant, this elaborator of small explanations about as important as the surplus stock of false antiquities kept in a vendor’s back chamber, having first got this adorable young creature to marry him, and then passing his honeymoon away from her, groping after his mouldy futilities….this sudden picture stirred him with a sort of comic disgust: he was divided between the impulse to laugh aloud and the equally unseasonable impulse to burst into scornful invective.

A sort of comic disgust.  There you have it – exactly!  You do not know whether to laugh or cry.  That is what Mr Abbott and Mr Shorten do to you.  But I fear that the first may be worse because he has no idea of just how stupid and dangerous he is.  And his camp followers may be worse, because they are all the quicker to take offence, as if there were something there in the first place.  In the name of heaven, this clown cannot even change his own tie.

Then I was listening to Frank Sinatra over Sunday dinner, in the glow of a rare Demons’ win (and another predicted loss by the Storm at Origin time).  Sinatra’s 1976 recording of Send in the clowns by Stephen Sondheim with a solo piano is a remarkable distillation of anger and despair presented with a sombre but lyrical force.  The last two verses speak directly to our condition.

Don’t you love farce?
My fault I fear.
I thought that you’d want what I want.
Sorry, my dear.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don’t bother, they’re here.

Isn’t it rich?
Isn’t it queer,
Losing my timing this late
In my career?
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns.
Well, maybe next year.

Finally, fuelled by the music and the roast and the red, there came back to me the recollection of the cause of death of Dylan Thomas, the Welsh poet who was gone on booze and drugs – or at least the cause of death asserted on his death certificate, because medical science knows no such condition: Insult to the brain. 

Canberra may not kill us, but it is doing nothing for our life.

Doctor Zhivago

Some writers make it feel easy – Grahame Greene.  Some let you know that you might have to dig in and hope – Hermann Melville.  Some come up at you like nuggets from out of rocks – Christina Stead.  Some are brilliant but prone to flash outside the off stump – Balzac.  Some just let you know that they are big hitters – Tolstoy.  Some just end up over the top – Joyce.  Some are all class but leave you wondering what the fuss is about – Flaubert.  Some leave you wondering where in Hell that came from – Emily Bronte.  And every now and then you come across one who very soon lets you know, and makes you confident, that they have real strength and power.  That was certainly the case with Boris Pasternak in Doctor Zhivago – which, to my shame, I had not read before.  I find it hard to recall a novel that is so strong and powerful.

A young boy born into Imperial Russia is abandoned by his father and when his mother dies, he is taken in by a kindly uncle.   The boy, Yuri Zhivago, who is bright and sensitive, grows up to be a poet and a doctor.  (You might think that is an odd coupling, until you recall Keats.)  He marries Tonya, who was also a medical student, and they go out to live in the provinces as the war comes.

Lara is a daughter of a Russian woman married to a Belgian.  When the husband goes, the mother has an affair with a friend of his, a ruthless man of business and politics – the precursor of the oligarch – who proceeds to defile Lara while she is seventeen and still at school.  The mother tries to kill herself, and then Lara tries to kill her lover.  The businessman hushes up the affair and Lara marries Pasha who is deeply engaged politically.  They too go the provinces.  Pasha is thought to have died in the war but he becomes a ruthless killer and a Commissar for the Bolsheviks after the 1917 revolution under the name Strelnikov.

The paths of Lara and Yuri cross, and they eventually fall deeply in love, even after they find that Pasha is still alive as Strelnikov.  But it is hard to see how they or their love can survive.  It is not just that they are both married – their whole world has been turned upside down by a revolution and a civil war far more barbarous than what France faced after 1789, and which took the French at least a hundred years to get over.  Both Lara and Yuri have what we call baggage that the new regime will reject.  The times are utterly beyond compassion.  If a child goes missing in the country, the parents will fear cannibalism.  The icy egoism of Lenin will give way to the murderous paranoia of Stalin.  Lara and Yuri strive to keep and treasure what humanity is left to them before they get washed away in the maelstrom.  They were not born in the right time or place.

That is a bare outline of a hugely complex story.  The number of characters and the variations in the names make the book very hard to read.  It is at times like separating the threads of Jackson Pollock’s Blue Poles.  But the effect is nearly overwhelming because you get this magical blend of sordid reality set against a feeling of remorseless fate.  Even accidents seem inevitable, and the effect is heightened by sudden changes in tempo or revelation.  The result is to make the two lovers ‘star-crossed’ in a manner that was perfected in Romeo and Juliet.  They are helpless victims and they are no less appealing for that.  They are in truth pathetic, and the backdrop for this pathos is the world being turned upside down in the most gruesome way possible.

Here is the author on the new men after the 1917 Revolution.  ‘Commissars with unlimited power were appointed everywhere, people of iron will, in black leather jackets, armed with means of intimidation and with revolvers, who rarely shaved and still more rarely slept.  They were well acquainted with the petty bourgeois breed, the average holder of small government bonds, the grovelling conformist, and never spared him, talking to him with a Mephistophelian smirk, as with a pilferer caught in the act.’  There were a lot of sans-culottes just like that in Paris in 1793.

Here is the apotheosis of the Commissar: ‘For some unknown reason it became clear at once that this man represented the consummate manifestation of will.  He was to such a degree what he wanted to be that everything on him and in him inevitably seemed exemplary; his proportionately constructed and handsomely placed head, and the impetuousness of his stride, and his long legs in high boots, which may have been dirty but seemed polished, and his grey flannel tunic, which may have been wrinkled but gave the impression of ironed linen.  Thus acted the presence of giftedness, natural, knowing no strain, feeling itself in the saddle in any situation of earthly existence.  This man must have possessed some gift, not necessarily an original one.’  This could be Reinhard Heydrich, a brutal Nazi killer, one of the most evil men ever born.  Strelnikov as the Commissar was a brutal killer– but was the husband of Lara evil like Heydrich?  Or Stalin?  How do ordinary people become cold-blooded killers?

The picture of Strelnikov could also derive from Robespierre.  When the pure are corrupted by power, their killing is indeed merciless.  Puritanical killers like Cromwell and Robespierre may or may not have been as brutal as, say, Stalin, but their dead are just as dead.  Lenin would take after Robespierre, and Stalin was Lenin gone rotten.  The book contains slashing insights into the jealous cruelty that is unleashed after centuries of cruel oppression.

There are passages of poetic insight.  ‘The cannon-fire behind his back died down.  That direction was the east.  There in the haze of the mist the sun rose and peeped dimly between the scraps of floating murk, the way naked people in a bathhouse flash through clouds of soapy steam.’  Snow is a recurring image.   The hero gets a letter from his distant wife, Tonya.  She says of Lara: ‘I was born into this world to simplify life and seek the right way through, and she in order to complicate it and confuse it.’  As it happens, that is fair – but did it have to happen?  The letter concludes with Tonya believing that they have come for her execution.

Yuri Andreevich [Zhivago] looked up from the letter with an absent, tearless gaze, not directed anywhere, dry from grief, devastated by suffering.  He saw nothing around him.  He was conscious of nothing.  Outside the window it began to snow.  Wind carried the snow obliquely, ever faster and ever denser, as if trying all the while to make up for something and Yuri Andreevich stared ahead of him and through the window as if it were not snow falling but the continued reading of Tonya’s letter, and not dry starlike flakes that raced and flashed, but small spaces of white paper between small black letters, white, white, endless, endless.

Even in translation, that writing has a kind of grace and power that can only come from a writer who is justifiably confident of his own strength.  It is a passage that might remind some of a well-known passage by James Joyce in his story called The Dead.*  This is the kind of writing that annihilates the boundary between prose and poetry.

The book is shot through with writing that could only come from a writer who is happy to back his judgment.  This is how the narrative part of the book ends.

One day Larissa Fyodorovna [Lara] left the house and did not come back again.  Evidently she was arrested on the street in those days and died or vanished no one knew where, forgotten under some nameless number on subsequently lost lists, in one of those countless general or women’s concentration camps in the north.

The author was deeply spiritual in the Russian tradition.  There is an epistle of Paul that said something to the effect that ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’  Pasternak translates that ‘in that new way of existence and new form of communion known as the Kingdom of God, there are no peoples, there are persons.’  This is a proposition that might unsettle a whole lot of people, and it was not well received in some parts of the world.  It is hugely liberating for some – including me.  (What kind of God, anyway, would want to play favourites?)  So is the ethical consequence.  ‘To belong to a type is the end of a man, his condemnation.’  That too is so true.  .The author goes on: ‘If he doesn’t fall into any category, if he’s not representative, half of what’s demanded of him is there.  He’s free of himself, he’s achieved a grain of immortality.’

The author is super-bright, but he knows the dangers of intellectuals finding the answer.  He has Yuri saying this: ‘I think philosophy should be used sparingly as a seasoning for art and life.  To be occupied with it alone is the same as eating horse-radish by itself.’  He got that right.  And he also gets right the fearful impact of the revolution on the lives of persons, and not just peoples.  Lara says this to Yuri.

Is it for me a weak woman to explain to you who are so intelligent what is now happening with life in general and why families fall apart, yours and mine between them?….All that’s productive, settled, all that’s connected with habitual life, with the human nest and its order, all of it went to wrack and ruin along with the upheaval of the whole of society and its reorganisation.  All everyday things were overturned and destroyed.  What remained was the un-everyday, unapplied force of the naked soul, stripped of the last shred, for which nothing has changed, because in all times it was cold and trembling and drawing towards the one nearest to it, which is just as naked and lonely.  You and I are like Adam and Eve, the first human beings, who had nothing to cover themselves with when the world began, and we are now just as unclothed and homeless at its end.  And you and I are the last reminder of all those countless great things that have been done in the world in the many thousands of years between them and us, and in memory of those vanished wonders, we breathe and love and weep, and hold each other, and cling to each other.

This is a novel of immense strength, beauty, and humanity.

Nor had I seen the movie, which is very famous, and, apparently, the eighth most seen movie ever made.  It was a great effort by David Lean to get this complex book on to the screen, and it had to be uncomfortably long.  The stars, Omar Sharif and Julie Christie, shine very brightly, but they have to stand against two of the best screen actors ever, Alec Guinness and Rod Steiger (as the loathsome seducer.)  Steiger is viciously seductive in the power he maintains over Lara throughout the film, and you wonder if she is a kind of allegory for Russia, that just continues to swap real bastards as its rulers.  I might say that for both the book and the movie, Lara was for me the moving force.  It is one thing to be seduced by your mother’s lover while you are still at school – it is another thing to call on a society function on Christmas Eve and try to shoot the bastard.  In some curious way, Lara seemed to me to have a fair bit of Heathcliff in her, but this is not easy to put on screen.  Tom Courtenay is the bespectacled and antiseptic Strelnikov who has the signature line: ‘The personal life is dead in Russia.’  You can see that sad truth now every day in Russia in the ugly face of Vladimir Putin.

*Here is the final paragraph of The Dead, which occurs after the wife of the narrator has just told him in bed that a young man called Michael Fury had in her youth had a crush on her and had died for it.

A few light taps upon the pane made him turn to the window.  It had begun to snow again.  He watched sleepily the flakes, silver and dark, falling obliquely against the lamplight.  The time had come for him to set out on his journey westward.  Yes, the newspapers were right; snow was general all over Ireland.  It was falling on every part of the dark central plain, on the treeless hills, falling softly upon the Bog of Allen and, farther westward, softly falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves.  It was falling, too, upon every part of the lonely churchyard on the hill where Michael Fury lay buried.  It lay thickly drifted on the crooked crosses and headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the barren thorns.  His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.