Apes of God

APES OF GOD 

Windham Lewis

Books for Bigots

In my quest for Books for Bigots, my next consideration is APES OF GOD by Windham Lewis.  I really can't answer why it became a 'next' read.  It simply appeared at the top of a stack of books and looked interesting.  I will say it is not  easy with lots of foreign words, words from the art world, references to painters and painting old and new (after all Windham was a painter first and novelist second).

With some preliminary introduction of characters with not much continuity, the main action is at Lord Osmund's Lenten Party - - a costume party, lasting much of the day with a very lengthy and weighty meal at which all participants are actively engaged in biting comments, slander and slurs toward each other  which seem to be the normal course of eating a meal with others of the same sort and all of whom are acquainted with everyone else.  No offense seems to be taken.

Windham doesn't think much of his characters who presumably are the referenced Apes of God.  How Windham arrived at this description of his characters, the diners - - the costumed arrivals, is unknown.  The Lenten Party is of 250 page duration in which no indication appears Windham had any affinity for any of his characters.  They are indeed rich apes.  The book is touted as a satire and indeed it is a satire on the aristocracy of English life in the 1920s.  The participants of the Lenten Party are clearly well-healed, idle, and bored.  How do Bigots fit into this narrative?  They don't.  This book is so far out of the reach of the normal bigot that one might wonder why put it in the category of Books for Bigots.  First, all books are Books for Bigots - - even Mein Kampf would give the Bigot reading it another perspective.  Perspectives are anathema to Bigots.  The key to Bigotry is maintaining one and only one perspective - - one's own.

With THE APES OF GOD we have life as whimsy.  Whatever comes to mind is followed, is acted upon.  The Lenten party have no context other than each other and clearly do not enjoy the others' company except as spectacle nor find any particular amusement in the event in which they are participating.  It really is just life as whim.  They are people with money and without purpose.  

I will say Bigots are not whimsical; they have no whimsy; they are indeed purpose driven.  Bigots have purpose and they insist that their families and  acquaintances have purpose.  Not just any purpose mind you, but the purpose or purposes that they themselves possess are to be a universal purpose or universal purposes.  Not an ounce of whimsy for them.  

A little whimsy would not be a bad thing really - - not life controlled by whimsy,  but a moderate amount.  It could bring some fun into one's life, another anthema with Bigots - - fun.  They normally don't exude fun; fun is one of those things lacking in most Bigots.  It's entirely too bad; a little whimsy would lighten things up tremendously and possibly, just possibly, make it possible to interact with a Bigot.  But, alas, wishful thinking.  

So, in a form of conclusion, APES OF GOD  is not a Book for Bigots.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Flatulence

 FLATULENCE

Contrary to popular belief, flatulence does not cause disfigurement, organ malfunction, or other infirmities.  Some of us live in households where these beliefs prevail.  This circumstance is not only annoying, but totally without justification which alone makes it annoying.  The question is how can one, one who contributes to the household flatulence, avoid the complaints and illogical reactions of household members who hold these popular, unfounded, and unscientific beliefs.

There are currently several popular methods in use to combat flatulence.  One is incense.  I find the use of incense disturbing.  It puts into the air substances that can not possibly be good for the lungs.  These proponents of incense commonly are the same opponents of anything resembling cigarette smoke.  Second hand smoke is, by current standards, harmful to one's health.  It apparently can damage a person's lungs.  The effect of cigarette smoke, now forbidden in most middle and working class households on up the social ladder, is deemed not only harmful but deleterious to one's social activities.  For instance, the circumstance of one  not being able to enjoy a smoke while at the local pub imbibing one's favorite drink seems unnecessary and really over the top.

But not with incense.  Incense smells good, hence it must be good for you.  Not so.   A second alleviation of the harmful effects of flatulence is the fresh air vent.  This device may be used with or without the accompaniment of incense depending on the household view of the dangers of flatulence.  The more fear, the more devices are employed to defeat its essence.

The use of incense does not dispel the dangers of disfigurement, organ failure, or other infirmities; it merely camouflages it.  One is not avoiding these imminent dangers, but as with many things in our current living arrangements,  merely masking it.  With the vent, no imminent danger is involved, merely discomfort.  Why, and I ask this seriously, why would one prefer cold air blowing on you while one does their business in a small, enclosed space.  One can not even enjoy some solitude with a paper under such circumstances.

In conclusion, one must state unequivocally that this attitude toward flatulence is unwarranted, unnecessary, and annoying.  Buck up folks.  It will not kill you; it is a necessary biological process caused by other living organisms and will continue as long as there is life on the planet.  I say "Get over it already!"

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Justification

  JUSTIFICATION

One always knows, when one of our elected representatives sends out reports to their constituents justifying their latest vote in congress, that what they have done is somewhat suspect.  In this case Representative Ms. Miller-Meeks has acted to "safeguard" our elections.  Now we are to prove we are a citizen to be able to vote.

To my understanding, there has never been an allegation anywhere within the United States that any election has ever been decided by non-citizens voting.  If some such allegations exist, I would appreciate someone enlightening me.  Otherwise, my doubt of it ever happening will continue.

This new statute, which our representative lauds, is called the SAVE ACT and it will apparently decrease the "vulnerability" of the "integrity" of our elections and increase our "trust" in their results.  I, for one, never did not trust our elections.  It never occurred to me that hordes of Hondurans were deciding who our congress people are or who the president of the United States will be.  I'll have to bone up on current events; maybe Fox can enlighten me further.

It seems to me that anyone who is affected by our elections should be able to vote in them - - seems only fair.  For instance, if one candidate wants to eject all non-citizens from the country and one candidate wants to welcome non-citizens as people who might actually  benefit our economy such as roofing our houses, cutting up hogs in a meat packing plant, or otherwise doing jobs most Americans don't want, they should be able to vote too.  After all, if I am some illegal Haitian cutting your steak in some meat-packing plant in the middle of Iowa, working, paying into social security, adding to the economy of rural Iowa from where most born-Americans flee as soon as able, I should be able to vote.

Of course, once again, it's Biden's fault that we have this fictional crisis by allowing hordes of illegal immigrants to "pour into our country".  You would think these "hordes" are all voting to hear Miller-Meeks exclamations of distress.  We can't even get many of our own citizens to vote let alone these millions of illegal and legal immigrants.  Of course, in the mind of Rep. Miller-Meeks, they are all voting democratic, not republican.  Otherwise, why complain.

Which brings me to another issue, best left for another time:  If the people are in charge, which is the usual understanding of a democracy, how is it that the government can decide who can vote?  If a person is convicted of a felony, they can not vote and there are new felonies every year which means fewer and fewer
"citizens" can vote.  So not only non-citizens are prohibited from voting, so are citizens.  Apparently, if I have been convicted of a crime, the integrity of an election is imperilled if I vote.

Our current efforts have been, both state and federal, to make voting more difficult.  This is not good.  Voting should be easy: the day or days set aside for voting in federal elections should be federal holidays; people should be encouraged to vote, not discouraged.  Contrary to Ms. Miller-Meeks declarations of concern, elections have integrity only if everyone is welcome at the polls, not persona non grata until proven otherwise.  "Hey, you can't vote until you prove to me you are an American" Half the population won't either know how to do that or take the time to do it.  This is not "integrity".

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Whew!

 WHEW!

Having read the latest from our State Representative Dunwell, the only response really available is WHEW!  A truly amazing effort to justify the quest for racial purity and the true American spirit.  The Representative, in attempting to justify our current legislature and its ongoing efforts of enforcing purity in our institutions of higher learning and government administration whether city, county, or state, uses words and concepts of which he has no understanding. His educational background has none of the attributes he and others are so apparently desirous of achieving - - by getting rid of them.

The truly amazing quality of his latest opinion piece in the Newton Daily News justifying our legislature's actions is the concern with our "higher education" in Iowa as it experiences "skyrocketing costs, declining intellectual diversity, and the encroachment of identity politics".

Let's begin with the last "the encroachment of identity politics".  Clearly identity politics, assuming the Representative knows what it is, is not what the Representative objects to.  He is objecting to other people's "identity politics".  He is objecting to any politics not identical to his own.  These include ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, denomination, gender, sexual orientation, social background, and political affiliation to name but some.  

Then we have "intellectual diversity".  How one can say, with a straight face, that by getting rid of diversity, one can achieve it really can only come from a person who is just repeating words he has heard others say or is being misleading purposefully?  But this is, in fact, what Dunwell and his cohorts in the legislature do not want - - "intellectual diversity".  It really frightens them that our colleges are there to educate and to hopefully produce people that may not have the same beliefs they have and are able to question our everyday assumptions. The purpose of our educational establishment is not simply to train people to go work for corporate America. Also, our legislators don't want any "historical distortion" like what our history really is and how we got here, since this, apparently, would be an "ideological agenda". Some of our history is not so great; admitting it might actually have some benefit.

So rather than the use of euphemisms and nonsense to explain and justify their behavior as our legislators, let's just call it what it is: bigotry.  The war against the other will not be successful no matter how hard they try but to continue to try they will.  There was an article recently that what little gain in Iowa's population has occurred in recent years, 94% of it is from international immigration.  This does not please them - - these people coming here are different from us - - this is not good.

It is really not a healthy situation when the people who are in control of our government are so afraid of the other that they will go to any length to exclude them.  The idea how an institution such as a university has a diversity and equity office can give our legislatures such discomfort is seriously discomforting in itself.  The people in charge of our state government are afraid of the other and fear is not a healthy attribute to have when they are in charge and make the laws that affect us all.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

 

Middlesex

 MIDDLESEX

Jeffrey Eugenides

Books for Bigots

I normally wait until finishing a book before commenting on its value to a Bigot; on whether supporting Bigotry or vilifying it as unworthy.  In the case of Middlesex though, I am forced to smile at a Bigot attempting to read the novel.  I realize it is an act of fiction to even suggest a bigot reading a novel, especially this particular novel; but I suppose it could occur under the most unusual of circumstances.

First, the first person narrator is a hermaphrodite - hence the title.  This would be the first concern of any Bigot, to think that there is such a thing as a person with both sexual attributes.  But the concern would be alleviated in some fashion by the understanding that this hermaphroditism was caused by the grievous sin of brother and sister marrying and having a child.

The unfortunate biology did not appear until the third generation; but even so as it was caused by sin and since sin of the father is visited on the children for unnumbered generations, it was bound to occur.  Ergo, most satisfying to any true Bigot.

Desdemona and Lefty, of Greek origin, living in Turkey and the subject to probable death by Turks who were reclaiming land in Turkey seized by the Greeks. joined relatives in Detroit.  Since they were now adults but without consensual or nonconsensual sexual comfort decided, they had each other and would make due.  One would need a smidgen of knowledge about the animosity between the Greeks and the Turks which has been in existence long before there was a Greece or Turkey with periods of mass slaughter on both sides occurring over the centuries..  It is one of those things that in the Balkan area of the world seems to be rather prevalent - - if you are not one of us, we are going to kill you - - if given a chance.

So we have immigrants at the heart of the story, we have incest, and beyond that Lefty is assisting Zizmo running liquor from Canada during prohibition.  I am assuming that although illegal, it does not cause as much anguish in the mind of the normal Bigot as what previously occurred, i.e. bigamy.  Booze is an iffy subject for bigots (and can go either way), but since sex is not involved, we can give it a pass as something which many Bigots, although non-approving, usually don't consign the participants to the infernal regions.

We are not even halfway in the novel and able to make a judgement on the appropriateness of MIDDLESEX for the usual Bigot.  Now you say, why do you think you are such an expert on what Bigots would read or not read.  Well, I am surrounded by them and know them well.  I do understand that most Bigots don't read, let alone read novels, especially current ones; and this particular novel would be no exception to that general rule.  So why bother, you say?

I bother for the reason that if a Bigot were to read this book, they (and I use that pronoun purposefully) might say to themselves, "I am not a Bigot and I will prove it by reading a book".  The mere idea that one is a Bigot and maybe, just maybe, recognizes  it, seems to me a good thing. In general, as a general rule, having one less Bigot in the world is always an improvement.  Whether or not reading Middlesex would cause one to give up Bigotry might be a rather slim possibility, but it should  be a positive if it were to occur,  I would think.  To realize that there are people in the world, not like you, but who spend their lives much as you do, with the same concerns, problems, and anxieties whether a hermaphrodite or not, would hopefully,  have a positive effect. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The State of Things

 THE STATE OF THINGS

Occasionally, one must look around and take note.  It really isn't difficult to do if one actually makes an effort.  We really only get things piece by piece from our sources of information whether it be newspaper, TV, or the internet.  Such and such happened to today or the legislature did such and such today.  The only escape from this is our national channels of Fox, MSNBC, or CNN and these sources don't give you anything but outrage.

Nowhere do you see any objective analysis of the events taking place.  Take for example the Iowa legislature.  The Iowa legislature has been and continues the effort to destroy the changes that have occurred in our society and our thinking over the past several decades.  They want a return; they want a belief system that mirrors that of their parents and to which they are familiar and comfortable.  

A prime example is that of self-identity.  Our legislators are insistent that we, as individuals, have only certain options when we define ourselves.  We have one option when it comes to sex:  we are either male or female.  The only reason that homosexuality is off the screen is because of the new identifications, such as transgender, which have replaced it with new ideas of what a human can be whether biological or simply of choice or experimentation.  

This idea that our legislature can simply by passing laws prescribe how I am to think about myself or my ability to accept others for what they think of themselves, is to give themselves a power which they do not possess, or should.  Our legislature is no longer about how to benefit the public which they purport to represent; they have determined that their function is to prohibit things they do not understand nor care to.  They no longer have the usual purpose nor do they function as intended.  The goal should not be to pass X number of laws every year, but to deliberate on the matters that will benefit the electorate.  The laws they are passing are not of benefit to anyone - - they are restrictive: they are meant to prohibit ideas and beliefs.  Our legislature has turned against the people they purport to represent.

Our legislators, the majority of them, have certain beliefs and in their minds it is their function to enforce these beliefs on that part of the public which do not share them.  The fact that a book does not proscribe or be consistent with their beliefs, that a university department teaches contrary to their beliefs, that our cities reflect certain concerns not present in rural Iowa, are now the focus of our legislature.  This is not a healthy situation and we should be disturbed.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Zoo City II

 ZOO CITY II

LAUREN BEUKES

BOOKS F0R BIGOTS

ZOO CITY deserves a second notice.  It is a book that has as its main character a somewhat mottled existence.  We are to see that she is a person of good instincts, not unkind, scrounging for a subsistence with the ability to find lost things which is her main source of income.  Living on the top floor of a basically abandoned building with water sometimes and electricity sometimes and associates that come and go as they find ways, mostly unethical, of making some cash.

We don't learn that Zinzi December will do what is necessary to retain some sense of maintenance until later in the book.  Helping to scam an elderly couple which clearly will devastate them gives us an immediate sense of unease.  Until that point, we feel Zinzi is a really ok person regardless of minor flaws simply trying to survive in a barely survivable world.  

Zoo City is named such because people have an animal with them as they go about their business.  Zinzi's animal is a sloth which perches on her shoulder as she goes about her business.  Others have their animals as well.  For instance, one of her associates has a mongoose.  These critters all seem content to sit on the shoulders of the person they are with and seem to be able to communicate with their ride.

Johannesburg is a nightmare with those with money hidden behind walls and barbed wire.  Johannesburg is also full of refugees from other parts of africa.  Strange place to congregate.  If Johannesburg is a Mecca for refugees, the rest of Africa must really be a nightmare. Now, none of this a Bigot wants to hear.  Acknowledging a world that is not fixable by prayer, is not something that can be tolerated - - so ignored.  Johannesburg and the life presented can not be fixed by prayer and one gets the impression as one proceeds through the book that it can not be fixed.

A major part of the action involves teenagers making records and becoming rich beyond their competency.  The idea that totally worthless teenagers (and they are totally unable to function in any way reminiscent of normal human conduct)  can become megastars by recording an album is a further commentary on life in the city, or anywhere for that matter.  The book has a plot that devolves into a final hurry up and lets get this thing over, but the plot is irrelevant to the scene - - something merely to carry it along.  

The book is worth reading which, alone, makes it unavailable to Bigots.  One of the chief characteristics of Bigots is to not read literature - - it causes too much angst to understand that the world is not what they make it out to be.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo