Elusive Trope's picture

    And then There was Vaclav Havel

    There was the passing of Hitchens and Jobs and The Supreme Leader.  And also Vaclav Havel.  I went to the front pages of Huffington Post and The Daily Beast, and except for one opinion piece at the Huff, you wouldn't know that he had passed away.

    The opinion piece by Lucas Kavner began:

    This past week the world mourned the loss of both Vaclav Havel and Christopher Hitchens, two major thinkers who incidentally had a lot in common. Both moved mountains with their words and built philosophies around their larger-than-life personas. Both unexpectedly supported the Iraq War, defying their supposed leftist ideologies, and constantly questioned religion. Both were consistently tough to predict or pigeon-hole.

    This is not to say I completely agree with Kavner.  But Havel was an important person in the world of politics and activism, along with his contributions to the art world.  He is a fascinating man who had some important things to say, and was able to say them in a powerful way.

    One of my favorite quotes of his was:

    Hope is a state of mind, not of the world. Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good.

    I hope to write a more in-depth blog about Havel in the near future. He was definitely more than someone who could toss out a good quote. He did have a profound influence on me over the years, having discovered him when I was 16 years old through my stumbling upon the writings of Milan Kundera.

    I also think he, through his days as a politician in Czech government, demonstrates the modified adage: "if you're not part of the problem, you're not part of the solution."

    Rest in Peace Vaclav.  And thanks.

     

    Comments

    Havel was vastly more important than Hitchens. Only a serious set of blinkers puts Hitchens in Havel's league. In fact, Havel easily outstripped Hitchens both as a writer and as a public figure. Obviously, Havel is already in the history books. Hitchens, at best, goes in the occasional history dissertation with lots of footnotes. That's no disrespect to Hitchens. Few of us achieve the status of lively historical footnote. But it's disrespectful to both men's achievements to compare them.

    Havel really was a great playwright. It's a shame that small countries have only one or two of their writers, at best, become the international representatives of "Czech literature," but if only one Czech playwright was going to be known outside Bohemia, Havel was a great pick.

    I was driving home last night listening to Good King Wenceslaus on the radio, and thinking about Havel. Vaclav, of course, is the name that gets Latinized as "Wenceslaus," so King Wenceslaus is, I think, Vaclav IV. Vaclav Havel didn't want to be a king, but he was a great leader, and he never pretended to be a saint, but he did a lot of good for the world around him.


    I agree with you about the comparison with Hitchens. 

    The reason I brought up Huff and the Beast is that these sites portray themselves to have a focus on the political (and the arts), and yet someone as historical to the world of politics (and the arts) like Havel passing away can be reduced to a few opinion pieces for which one has to search in order to find it is sad.  If anything his passing does allow the opportunity for news driven sites like these to expose people to the like of Havel that would otherwise not be exposed in the torrent of information we have these days.  Who knows if many of the people working at these sites even know who he is.


    Oh, no need to apologize. You're right to point out how strange the coverage has been. It's like "We've lost two great leaders this week: the unforgettable and inspiring captain of our local bowling league, and also the Senator." Embarrassing for those alleged journalists.


    The Senator never could pick up the spare - but his lobbyists did pick up the checks.


    And here I though Kim Jong was just ill!

    Hitch should not be put in the same league as Havel; although the brit did visit all the battlefields in Europe anyway.

    Hitch was a stand up comic of the intelligentsia. He had a great vocabulary, a great sense of history and could respond (under the influence) better than any entertainer I have ever seen. As I said somewhere else, he was great when he took my side of things! But many times it was clear that he was present to debate for money and in order to sell his books/newspaper columns.

    Havel saw it all. Hitch was my age and I assume saw only a portion of the devastation experienced in Britain as well as Europe.

    My God Havel incorporated the full pain of a world wide depression as well as the Nazis and the commies.

    I still marvel at how well Europe succeeded in building an economic miracle from all that rubble!

    Havel was a God!

     


    If Havel was a God maybe he was Mimir, while Hitchens was Loki


    Well that's easy.

    I hereby render unto Trope the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this Dagblog site, given to all of him from all of me. hahahahaha


    The Beastie Boys would say  Kim Jong was illin', now he be chillin'. Coulda used a line from Dylan.


    hahahahahaahahah

    I don't know what to do!

    Okay, I hereby render unto Peracles the Dayly Poem of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, Given to all of Peracles (A great Greek hero, hahahahha) from all of me!


    There's a typical Czech pub behind the castle where Havel used to sneak out for a beer in the evening. It can happen in a country of 10 million. I once saw another President putting his grandkids on the train with us. No secret service, no cordons keeping the crowds away. Could have said hi but that would have been tacky.

    Perhaps we'd be better off if all our countries were smaller and more human.


    Perhaps.  There is definitely something about developing systems for humans that are on a human scale.  Hee. Imagine that. On second thought, that's crazy talk.


    The Human Scale blog I wrote touched on this a little while ago, in its own clumsy way.  The connection between one's elected leaders and the "people" is another dynamic.


    I read this at Yglesias Moneybox blog today.  It makes me want to read more Vaclav Havel:

    "Many of the great problems we face today, as far as I understand them, have their origin in the fact that this global civilization, though in evidence everywhere, is no more than a thin veneer over the sum total of human awareness, if I may put it that way. This civilization is immensely fresh, young, new, and fragile, and the human spirit has accepted it with dizzying alacrity, without itself changing in any essential way. Humanity has gradually, and in very diverse ways, shaped our habits of mind, our relationship to the world, our models of behavior and the values we accept and recognize. In essence, this new, single epidermis of world civilization merely covers or conceals the immense variety of cultures, of peoples, of religious worlds, of historical traditions and historically formed attitudes, all of which in a sense lie "beneath" it."


    Great passage that shows his ability to tackle the deeply complex fusion of the abstractions in our heads and the ways these abstractions get materialized and perceived in real time.  Matt Welsh wrote of Havel:

    Like Orwell, Havel was a fiction writer whose engagement with the world led him to master the nonfiction political essay....he used common sense to deconstruct rhetorical falsehoods, pulling apart the suffocating mesh of collectivist lies one carefully observed thread at a time.

    Havel still played the game of geo-politics, but he at least wrote essays and gave speeches that in essence undermined the very game he was playing.  In this manner, he was an intriguing figure on global stage.


    In the March 90 NYR, an excellent article by Timothy Garton-Ash about the velvet revolution includes a photo of Havel and Dubcek on a balcony together when they have just heard a piece of news about the gradually unraveling of the Soviet Union. Leaning towards one another and smiling. Two good guys.

    I was in Prague in Jan of 1990. Havel and the outgoing Communist leader had reached an agreement but even a non-speaker of that language could sense the tension. The taxi driver scoffed at the name of our Hotel clearly because it resembled the name of the nearly-successful resistance movement. There were fresh flowers and lit candles at impromptu shrines, where protestors had been killed the month before. Also, encouragingly, lots of signs clearly saying, "Havel to the Castle."

    A month later Havel was here. Me, too. In his case to address Congress (and go to CBGBs). I listened on the car radio. He'd thought of speaking in English, he said, but his staff convinced him it would be a catastrophe, so we would have the chance to hear the beautiful Czechoslovakian language. Then his first Czech words , repeated by the translator, were, "The last time I was in prison."

    Great applause from the joint session and me at the wheel for what that's worth.

    From the rest of the speech what I recall was his urging Congress to be patient with the Soviet Union because it was moving in the right direction. Of a piece with his recognizing Dubcek and opposing the "lustration"— the hunting down of ex-leaders from the communist regime—which commenced with the very different Vaclav, Vaclav Klaus whose own subsequent very different Premiership caused him to be known as the Czech Margaret Thatcher. For Klaus anyone associated with the former regime—by which he had been comfortably employed—was an enemy until they could prove otherwise. For Havel, until it was proven otherwise, they were human beings trying to get through the day.

    That was Havel.


    Thanks for this remembrance.

    For what's it worth I do believe that applauding at the wheel of the car does make a difference just as the poet Jane Hirshfield once said at a reading during the Q&A she has to believe that monk on a rock in the wilderness praying for peace makes a difference.

    A poem by Hirshfield, Rebus, comes to mind that seems to me somehow to touch on the journey Havel had in our world

     

    You work with what you are given,
    the red clay of grief,
    the black clay of stubbornness going on after.   
    Clay that tastes of care or carelessness,
    clay that smells of the bottoms of rivers or dust.

    Each thought is a life you have lived or failed to live,   
    each word is a dish you have eaten or left on the table.   
    There are honeys so bitter
    no one would willingly choose to take them.
    The clay takes them: honey of weariness, honey of vanity,   
    honey of cruelty, fear.

    This rebus—slip and stubbornness,
    bottom of river, my own consumed life—
    when will I learn to read it
    plainly, slowly, uncolored by hope or desire?   
    Not to understand it, only to see.

    As water given sugar sweetens, given salt grows salty,   
    we become our choices.
    Each yes, each no continues,
    this one a ladder, that one an anvil or cup.

    The ladder leans into its darkness.   
    The anvil leans into its silence.   
    The cup sits empty.

    How can I enter this question the clay has asked?

     


    we become our choices

    automatically brought to mind Auden on the death of Yeats. Starting with

    He disappeared in the dead of winter

    not quite true of Havel . Hard not to quote the next few lines

    The brooks were frozen, the airports almost deserted,                                                 And snow disfigured the public statues;

    down to

    he became his admirers


    I hadn't realized this, but Larison reminds us that like Hitchens, Havel supported the invasion of Iraq.

    ... Perhaps because of some misguided sense of gratitude to the United States, Havel was one of the first leaders in central and eastern Europe to align himself with Bush’s folly. One of the perverse side-effects of the first two rounds of NATO expansion was to create an unhealthy eagerness on the part of the new members to fall in line behind U.S. policy, no matter how foolish or far removed from their own interests it may have been, and in this Havel was no different. Like many other leaders in the region, Havel was wildly out of touch with his own people on the Iraq war question. It can’t be stressed enough that the people responsible for weakening and jeopardizing the “trans-Atlantic relationship” during 2002 and 2003 were the Bush administration and its eager supporters in Europe. On one of the more important issues of the last decade, the famous dissident became a predictable conformist and yes-man.


    Havel's support of the Iraq invasion has to be included in any assessment or understanding of Havel and his place in history.  But to simply conclude that Havel (or anyone for that matter) came to decision because he was a conformist and a yes-man is the type of lazy and usually ideological analysis that make discussing how the Iraq invasion occurred so difficult. Havel's personal experience with totalitarian regimes alone has to be taken into account, when looking into the matter.  This doesn't mean that I agree with Havel on this account.  I opposed the Iraq operation then and now.  But the whole issue has been so politicized that the discussion ends up being closer to a question of whether one believes Cheney and Rumsfeld were visionaries or evil incarnate, and with one's answer showing as Bush said "either you're with us or you're against us."


    I was in Praha in February of 2002 and had heard of Havel. I took a survey questioning local opinions. I asked one person, a tour guide of about 25, what he thought of Havel. He said, "Vaclav Havel is a joke, Vaclav Havel is a shoe shine boy, shoe shine boy, fucking shoe shine boy". I decided not to bring it up anymore.
    I can not say for sure what the range of possible statistical error is in my survey and I personally know very little about the man except that he got very good press in the US. So, just sayin'.


    I wouldn't say Havel was perfect and the embodiment of all that was good and decent and wise.  He was just another being passing through this world.  I think what can be said that regardless of what he did and didn't do, he struggled to do the right thing.  Which all we can ask of ourselves, regardless of our positions within the hierarchies of society.  On top of that he was able to articulate the aspirational in a powerful way, even if he wasn't always able to achieve it on a personal level.


    Latest Comments