The Future of Novelists and Terrorists: Mao II in Focus - Essay Example

The Future of Novelists and Terrorists: Mao II in Focus by and Number day Month year Outline I. Introduction A. Statement of Questions B. Information on Mao II II. Analysis and Arguments A. Similarities of Novelists and Terrorists B. Difference between Novelists and Terrorists III. Conclusion A. Summary of Important Ideas B. Answer to Statement of Questions The Future of Novelists and Terrorists: Mao II in Focus “Theres a curious knot that binds novelists and terrorists. In the West we become famous effigies as our books lose the power to shape and influence. Do you ask your writers how they feel about this? Years ago I used to think it was possible for a novelist to alter the inner life of the culture. Now bomb-makers and gunmen have taken that territory. They make raids on human consciousness. What writers used to do before we were all incorporated." (DeLillo 41) The statement above is an excerpt from Don Delillo’s book Mao II. It perfectly encapsulates the main purpose of this essay that is to establish if there is a relationship of between novelists and terrorists. Are they the same or not? Are their futures somehow related to each other? All of which would be discussed by analyzing the Delillo’s own words in order to establish what I think is his stand on the matter. Mao II is a book filled with many defining features which covers elements of writing, terrorism, dictatorship, media, extremism and other social and political phenomenon (Whitebrook 763-764). Delillo wrote the book in a way that these elements are interconnected with each other, affecting the society, the world and the individuals (Whitebrook 763-764). Which are all beautifully embodied, illustrated, experienced, described, captured and questioned by the different characters of the novel namely: Bill Gray, the main character of the novel who was a famous author who remained famous even after he chose to live his in life seclusion; Scott, is basically Bill’s errand boy, the two have a very co-dependent relationship specially in the first part of the book; Karen can be considered as a religious extremist; Brita, a photographer of writers who will set the changes in the story in motion. Throughout the book you can see how these characters are battling through to survive and trying to establish their identity amidst the overwhelming influence of ‘the crowd’. In particular, Bill Gray’s isolation is actually a defense mechanism to protect himself and his 3rd book from being marred by the outside forces. That is ‘the crowd’ (represents a community, oneness and sense of belonging) and the media (represent linequality and capitalism). The view that the media is bad influence is further emphasized by George, wherein during a heated conversation with Bill he said that the thing that Neo-Nazis and western media have in common is that both believe that worst is better (DeLillo 131). The essay is centered on the idea/ argument on whether novelists are like terrorists. Cunningly, Delillo wrote the book in the 3rd person, consequently allowing him to write about the issue using different perspectives while conveniently appearing neutral on the issue. However, seeing that Bill Gray is the central character of the novel, I think it is safe to assume that Bill can represent the novelists’ stance. Throughout the novel the supporting characters keep comparing Bill to terrorists, saying that he is like them. For instance, in the 2nd part of the novel, Bill after several years met with his former editor Charlie Everson. During their conversation Charlie attributed Bill’s chosen isolation to Bill’s skewed perception of a writer. That is (DeLillo 97): "You have a twisted sense of the writers place in society. You think the writer belongs at the far margin, doing dangerous things. In Central America, writers carry guns. They have to. And this has always been your idea of the way it ought to be. The state should want to kill all writers. Every government, every group that holds power or aspires to power should feel so threatened by writers that they hunt them down, everywhere." An argument which is later on echoed by George Haddad while talking with bill about novelists and terrorists in chapter 11, the spokesperson of Abu Rashid (a terrorist who took a poet as a hostage who would later on be Bill’s subject of obsession), but this time George is referring to terrorists. He said that (DeLillo 157): Is history possible? Is anyone serious? Who do we take seriously? Only the lethal believer, the person who kills and dies for faith. Everything else is absorbed. The artist is absorbed, the madman in the street is absorbed and processed and incorporated. Give him a dollar, put him in a TV commercial. Only the terrorist stands outside. The culture hasnt figured out how to assimilate him. From these two statements, it can be interpreted that the novelists are the same with terrorists in that they are both outsiders and both poses a danger to society. In addition, Charlie made a comment wherein he equated the brilliance of a writer with bitterness and rage (DeLillo 101): For many happy years Ive listened to writers and their brilliant kvetching. The most successful writers make the biggest complainers. This is so interesting to me. I wonder if the qualities that produce a top writer also account for the ingenuity and size of his complaints. Does writing come out of bitterness and rage or does it produce bitterness and rage? Again, he shared this opinion with George. The following was stated during a conversation with Charlie and Bill concerning the hostage situation (DeLillo 130): Of course hes innocent. Thats why they took him. Its such a simple idea. Terrorize the innocent. The more heartless they are, the better we see their rage. And isnt it the novelist, Bill, above all people, above all writers, who understands this rage, who knows in his soul what the terrorist thinks and feels? Through history its the novelist who has felt affinity for the violent man who lives in the dark. Where are your sympathies? With the colonial police, the occupier, the rich landlord, the corrupt government, the militaristic state? Or with the terrorist? And I dont abjure that word even if it has a hundred meanings. Its the only honest word to use. It seems that Charlie and George are pointing out that the both the novelist and the terrorist the same purpose or at least share the same emotions. Terrorists kill to attract attention to their cause, while writers are, at some point in the novel George refers to novelists as ‘half-murderers’ themselves, implying that both have the sane power to influence, control and will do any means necessary to make an impression and get their message across. Up to this point, I have been indicating cases wherein the line of reasoning is that novelists and terrorists are the same with each other. Now it is time to present the opposite contention, the side where I share the same opinions and sentiments. First case is Bill’s response to Charlie while during the heated conversation in chapter 11 wherein Charlie kept likening him to a terrorist. Bill is essentially saying that novelists are not like terrorists, in fact he sees himself to be at odds with them, that is (DeLillo 156-157): For some time now Ive had the feeling that novelists and terrorists are playing a zero-sum game. What terrorists gain, novelists lose. The degree to which they influence mass consciousness is the extent of our decline as shapers of sensibility and thought. The danger they represent equals our own failure to be dangerous. And the more clearly we see terror, the less impact we feel from art. This line of conversation continues between George and Bill with George constantly justifying the acts of terrorism (i.e. violence, kidnappings, bombings, assassinations and mass killings) saying that it is all for a higher purpose. While Bill criticizes and question the methods on how far these terrorists are willing to do to satisfy their purpose, questioning the cold-heartedness of going as far as killing innocent people and teaching children how to hold a gun. Bill’s passion for preserving life can be seen on his earlier sentiments during a photo shoot with Brita (DeLillo 48): Every sentence has a truth waiting at the end of it and the writer learns how to know it when he finally gets there. On one level this truth is the swing of the sentence, the beat and poise, but down deeper its the integrity of the writer as he matches with the language. Ive always seen myself in sentences. I begin to recognize myself, word by word, as I work through a sentence. The language of my books has shaped me as a man. Theres a moral force in a sentence when it comes out right. It speaks the writers will to live. Here Bill uses literature to express his identity. His will to live is actually a constant element in the book. Although he isolates himself from reality he also uses his work (i.e. the third book, which he remains unpublished because he keeps revising it) as a tool in keeping sane and in surviving. In fact, in the second part of the book he journeys outside to help Charlie and George free a terrorist hostage. Ironically, his pursuit to go to Beirut to talk to Rashid and rescue the hostage led him to his death. Which I have to admit validates Scott’s claim that “Mao used photographs to announce his return and demonstrate his vitality, to reinspire the revolution. Bills picture was a death notice” (DeLillo 150). It should be noted though, that although Scott believes that Bill is sending out a death notice he also believed that Bill will actually die, he was expecting Bill to come back and it is only the appearance of death that Bill wanted to establish. Meaning, Bill does value his life, something that he does not share with terrorists, especially with suicide bombers. To wrap up the discussion, novelists and terrorists, according to Charlie and George, are alike on the terms that they are both outsiders, dangerous, fuelled by bitterness and rage and passionate about their purpose. On the other hand, Bill made his counter-arguments wherein he emphasizes on the fact that the biggest difference between him and the terrorists is that he values life. In fact, he criticized their methodology, especially their apparent inconsequentiality towards killing innocent lives. In addition, Bill do not believe that novelists are as dangerous as they see it, in fact he believes that the terror felt by the people from acts of terrorism, lessens the impact of literary works that depicts the same atrocity. This is an echo of the epigram and the first argument made by bill earlier in the paper. In other words, the arguments show that novelists and terrorists are nothing alike, especially in terms of methodology and application. In fact, Bill would actually say early on the article that writing is the art of making things up. In regards to the future of novelists and terrorists, allow me to use Bill’s (refer to epigram) and Abu Rashid’s words (DeLillo 235) Terror makes the new future possible. All men one man. Men live in history as never before. He is saying we make and change history minute by minute. History is not the book or the human memory. We do history in the morning and change it after lunch. Both are suggesting that terrorism holds a great influence on the future while books although famous at first, would eventually lose their ability to influence. Delillo paints a grim future for novelist and terrorism; still I am convinced with its possibility. Works Cited DeLillo, Don. Mao II. New York: Viking, 1991. Whitebrook, Maureen. "Reading Don DeLillo’s Mao II as a Commentary on Twentieth-century Politics." The European Legacy 6.6 (2001): 763­-769. Read More