Reality Beats Fiction Always. Time to Learn This Again!

Let’s hope Angela Merkel gets the Nobel Peace Prize for her courageous stand to accept hundreds of thousands of war refugees. This is political dynamite, she handled it as well as possible, as a teacher of the highest values. A rare case of a Western “leader” displaying courage and creativity.

Meanwhile the Nobel in literature was given to reality. Svetlana Alexievich, a Belarussian journalist, born in Ukraine, a prose writer known for deeply researched works about female Russian soldiers in World War II and the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, won the Nobel Prize in Literature on Thursday “for her polyphonic writings, a monument to suffering and courage in our time,” the Swedish Academy announced. (The other day the Nobel was implicitly given to history, 23 centuries old. If they recognize history, the Nobel folks may as well recognize reality.)

Ms. Alexievich,67, 14th woman to win the literature prize, is a rarity: her sparse work is mainly nonfiction.

Work Makes Free: the Murderous Nazi Thieves’ Outrageous Slogan. The Reality of Nazism Ought To Have Beaten To Death The Soft Fiction Of Deluded Humanism

Work Makes Free: the Murderous Nazi Thieves’ Outrageous Slogan. The Reality of Nazism Ought To Have Beaten To Death The Soft Fiction Of Deluded Humanism

Yes, in World War Two, short in skilled personnel, the USSR used women in combat. Some even commanded tanks. And it’s mostly with tanks, better tanks, but maybe at the cost of twenty million soldiers killed in combat, that the Soviet Union beat Nazi Germany. I remember reading an Italian non-fiction book. After hard fighting in Ukraine, the author was stunned to see a beautiful Russian blonde dead in her punctured tank (not her tank top, her T34 tank). Take that, fiction authors! Where is your reality?

What’s literature? “Litera”, original Latin for “letter” came to mean ‘document’ and ‘letter, epistle’. “Literatura” is ‘writing formed with letters, book learning’. Nothing there said it has to be fiction. However in French literary circles, ‘literature’ has come to mean ‘fiction’. I view fiction as, mostly, an inferior sort. It is to reality what pornography is to sex. And not even that.

Any fiction is inspired by reality: after all, reality is where minds come from. However, confusing fiction with reality can be a trap. The authors of fiction who are known made their work marketable (otherwise they would not be known). But marketing is not enticing with thinking: it entices with seduction. Marketing perverts thinking, it’s sugar for canned minds.

And a canned mind, is not a kind mind. Or, more exactly, a canned mind is as good as the can it is in. Beware of cans, especially of the mental type: after a while, they turn bad, and fester with live toxins.

In contrast, by evoking reality, one can dare to go where the market does not want to go, and where the market cannot go. Facts are facts, they are not made to be comfortable. Facts are, all too often, not something one wants to buy. Why? Because we have turned into a society which confuses market and civilization. We ask, we tolerate to have the “markets” of everything and guide us.

It was high time the Nobel literature committee recognize that being able to present reality, especially reality in all its harshness, is more important than presenting someone’s fiction as if it were reality (as novelists are wont to do with wanton abandonment!) In one case, sticking to reality, one tries to stick to what is, and in the other, confusing reality and fiction, one admittedly do away with reality, at the outset, and replace reality with what can be sold to the little minds of the shoppers, avid and standardized.

Humanity has to be educated. This is what literature is for. Literature is not just intellectual masturbation. Too much sugar for too long makes one sick, and it’s a modern disease (one aspect is called diabetes, and kills, ages and degenerates its victims). Sugar drinks ought to be rejected. Similarly all too easy, all too comfortable fiction. Bring forth reality, the maker of worlds.

Considering reality, in full, is uncomfortable.

What do people foresee if the West Antarctic Ice Shield (WAIS), the Wilkes Basin and the Aurora Basin all collapse at the same time? Sea level may augment as fast as one meter per year.

I speculate: that’s 30 times faster than the most recent peer-reviewed scientific papers by specialists.

I speculate, but in full cognizance of striking elements of reality, catastrophes such as the sudden flooding of the Black Sea region, or flooding of the Mediterranean Basin, or the collapse of the Hudson Bay ice shield, or the Younger Dryas’ sudden collapse of the Gulf Stream current, and so on.

What I foresee is a quick adaptation of most values, as Homo Sapiens will present the largest biomass which one could possibly exploit. How quaint today’s fiction will then seem!

Knowing the world feeds the imagination. Knowing only fiction literature is getting to know only the minds of the fashionable and marketable, and how they learned to seduce the commons. Yet, reality is not common. The wise needs more: reality in full.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Reality Beats Fiction Always. Time to Learn This Again!”

  1. gmax Says:

    Too much mild fiction and couch potato sports, have rendered brains soft and pointless, with phobia for anything resembling intelligence. It’s the Dysneyfication of America. It’s even worse than Disney. Disney is brainy relative to what’s out there


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Some of the Disney and Pixar movies are actually excellent for young children. It’s other brands which tend to have stupid slap stick stuff. Watching sport on TV turns people into vegetables in all ways. Mentally, physically… I do lots of sports (I average more than one hour a day, and can go a full day mountain running/climbing). Yet I have not watched one hour of TV sports in years. I despise it.


  2. Kevin Berger Says:

    Immense doute au sujet d’Angela et de la décision Allemande.

    Moralement, je trouve ça absolument dégueulasse, une trahison des peuples, du Peuple, au profit d’une vague migratoire parasite et déstructurante… et politiquement, quelle était la motivation première de cet appel d’air?
    Un vague truc émotionnelle, avec en arrière-pensée l’idée de rattraper la réputation perdue avec la “gestion” de la Grèce, l’envie pour Merkel de se recaser à la tête de l’Onu?
    Ou alors quelque chose de plus sordide, questions démographiques, main d’oeuvre, casser les sociétés Européennes,…?

    En tous cas, quelle honte, quelle hypocrisie. Et comme la situation semble partir en sucette, je me demande vraiment quel explosif cette mèche a allumé?

    Enfin, bon, je suis pour le coup complètement en désaccord avec vôtre position – ce qui ne change rien ni pour moi ni pour vous, et certainement pas pour la gestion de cette crise -, aucune obligation morale, aucun intérêt, juste de la souffrance et du drame en devenir, et je pense ici aux peuples d’accueil, les autres je m’en fous, ce ne sont ni des “réfugiés” ni même des “migrants”, mais bien des colons.
    Beaucoup de frictions en vue, et les frictions à cette échelle sont autant de souffrances à échelle humaine.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Angela is smart. She has a huge problem: German demographics. German birthrate seems to have become the lowest. The very latest population evaluation showed 79 million Germans (not 83 as in the one before).
      So she is trying a shock remedy: more Germans, by force of immigration.
      Britain is 63 millions, thanks to a huge immigration wave. Original British stock is still 40 million (they reproduce, but don’t grow). British GDP went up nearly 10% in the latest period… During which the one of non-immigratory France went up… ZERO.

      Ideally, legislation would be passed for German mothers. Meanwhile, Angela does what she can: shock the psyche of the legislators, get them e-motional, make them move.
      That’s my view of it.

      Who is betraying Germany? Those whose decisions, or lack thereof, has led to demographic collapse?
      Although I am 100% pro-immigration, I am also 100% for de-Islamization. The former cannot go without the latter. Thus I ma extremely coherent. In other words, I am pretty much against the main line of the French pseudo-left.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      By the way, I am for strong immigration into France. But more like the way the USA does it: smartly.
      Strong immigration now means survival tomorrow.
      There are 70 million French citizens. The more, the better (as long as they are the real thing, so I support civilization).


    • Kevin Berger Says:

      “(as long as they are the real thing, so I support civilization).”

      C’est là toute la question, n’est-ce pas? Comment “intégrer”, puisqu’on à même renoncé à “assimiler”, alors qu’il n’y a plus rien à quoi “s’intégrer” (et ceci sans même évoquer le fâcheux précédent du terme en Algérie)?

      Je crois me souvenir d’une estimation pour la France d’environ 10 000 conversions annuelles de l’islam au Christianisme, essentiellement protestant/evangélique, càd probablement plus que le mouvement inverse (et sans doute pas non plus les mêmes populations, parce que le profil du converti, d’après ma petite expérience personnelle, bonjour les déchets et les soumis(es)…).
      En comparaison, la “République” s’accommode très bien de l’islam et du communautarisme, et en fait son beur(rre), du bas du système, avec son clientélisme et électoralisme religieux, jusqu’en haut, avec sa Corruption en C majuscule. En l’état, la “République” est le fossoyeur de la la France, en conscience ou pas (le PS semble déjà en bonne voie pour former la matrice d’un parti explicitement communautariste).

      Vous écrivez sur les Francs, sur l’Europe,… Tout cela est très intéressant, et c’est bien pour ça que je suis ce blog… mais, est-ce que vous croyez vraiment (et ce n’est pas une question rhétorique, je suis curieux de connaitre vôtre avis) que cela touche ou même peut toucher la population Française d’origine extra-européenne? Voire la population de souche, au moins en partie (jeunesse) défrancisée et démoralisée et acculturée?
      Vous écrivez à propos d’une Nation, d’une Histoire, alors que tous les efforts vont dans le sens exactement contraire, un peu à l’image de vos commentaires sur les bouleversements climatiques présents et à venir et des non-réponses qui y sont sciemment apportées.
      Je ne veux pas vous mettre en défaut, j’en suis de toute manière incapable, et il ne s’agit pas non plus d’être négatif, moqueur,…, je m’interroge juste un peu.


    • Kevin Berger Says:

      Sinon, et puisque je vous toujours le choses par le petit bout de la lorgnette, je suis assez intéressé par les récents bombardements Français en Syrie, passés presque complètement sous silence par la presse internationale (grâce aux rodomontades Russes) et qui sont bien je crois des éliminations ciblées (20 bombes sur un même camp d’entrainement endormi), de jihadistes “Français”. De *grosses* poussées de sueurs froides pour les fêtes de fin d’année, peut-être? Je me demande vraiment quelle serait (sera?) la situation en France, après une attaque type Bombay ou Nairobi?


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: