This guy is a playwrite. Why should anyone care what he thinks about foreign policy anymore than one should care about what Paris Hilton thinks? I sure don’t.
Hmmm, looks like Saddam made the cut with ease. Wanker.
Funny, I feel the same way about you. And you still wander around free to post wherever you like. What a world!
Huh? Where did I say this guy didn’t have the right to his opinion? I just said I didn’t care what he thinks, and the fact that he’s a Nobel winner in literature doesn’t make any difference, why should it?
As to what I may or may not post in a forum designed for discussion of various issues, how is that even remotely relevant? If Mr. Pinter had come here and made a post containing the text of his speech, it would have been perfectly appropriate. It’s even acceptable in his speech, I suppose, because that is his time to talk. My beef is with the impression the OP gave that because he won a Nobel prize for literature, that gives his opinion on foreign policy any more weight than anyone else’s. It doesn’t. If his speech had been about publishing issues, or censorship, or the impact of the internet on media, or any one of a myriad of other topics that I can think of, it would.
Well, his plays have always been very political so you might say his work has always been in the political arena. He has also been involved in political causes for many years, and is known to be outspoken to a level that makes others uncomfortable.
Long story short, it is not exactly the first time he has commented on politics. Whether or not you or I agree with his opinions, they are no less worthy than that of other citizens that think about these issues a lot.
Lots of writers have been involved in politics (not to mention, politics have been involved with them quite often as well). Vaclav Havel was a playwright. I don’t see how being a writer disqualifies you somehow from discussing politics.
I doesn’t, of course. But, equally, being a Noble laureate doesn’t automatically compel us to lend additional weight to the guys opinion. Just like I think, although he’s well-spoken, Noam Chomsky is a pustulant windbag. He may speak very well, but that’s not a reason to give any special import to what he says. That’s the point Weirddave is making. Hell, even Richard Feynman, one of the leading authorities (and not incidently a Nobel laureate himself) said that all authority should be questioned always.
Pinter is just one more voice.
Whereas I can rant about Bush and Blair and Iraq and preach to the choir here on the SDMB, and get the usual clusterfuck of righties nitpicking definitions of mass murder - the fact that he is a Nobel winner, Pinter can speak to a larger audience and maybe find a larger choir.
Historically, writers and artists have often been the first to speak out and plant the seeds of discontent. And once a silent majority is no longer silent, things begin to change.
Glad to have Harry join the choir.
Why should I believe that? :dubious:
Quoting from the cite, emphasis mine:
And the fact that he won a Nobel for literature is supposed to all of a sudden make him a complete expert on foreign policy? I quite sure it does, just the same way that Richard Gere, Alec Baldwin and Babs Streisand immediately became foreign policy experts because people bought tickets to see their movies.
I swear, the next thing we’ll read is a quote from Joe the Wino, complaining about Bush because Joe wasn’t able to buy or steal a short dog this morning and it’s Bush’s fault.
Harry’s been singing your tune for years now, since long before you probably even heard of Iraq.
Because I said so. Snork.
No, but his plays are political in nature. If a man writes an play such as Master Harold … and the Boys by Athol Fugard whose subject matter condemns Apartheid, and this play wins an award, is the only merit of the play it’s pure literary content, for example the style and clarity of the writing? Or is something also being said about the substance of the content or the impact the work has on others?
Or in another example, if you look at a highly political painting such as Guernica by Picasso, is the only merit of the painting the physical skill of laying paint to canvas? Is not the political message inseparable from the raw skill of the artist?
Pinter is not known for making “appropriate” speeches at any time or place, and has been dragged off at least one podium that I know of. He considers his political views inseparable from his art, and to say that one is of merit while the other is worthless is to ignore that they are intertwined.
I’m not saying he is some kind of expert nor do I believe I have made an appeal to authority in my previous post. I’m saying that his views are no more or less worthy than those of someone who thinks about these things quite a lot in the course of his/her work – which I wouldn’t say Barbara Streisand or any Hollywood figure does, thus the analogy is not very valid.
I am sure the author of the Turner Diaries spent quite a lot of time thinking about the evils of black people while he was writing his book. That doesn’t mean I’m going to give his crackpot theories any creedence at all. The same applies here.
The Law Lords just came down with a powerful decision against rendition ( http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051208/aand-1.htm ). They cited a poet.
I thought his speech was great!
And “playwrite” is not a word – it’s “playwright.”
I don’t believe that Pinter is trying to pass himself off as a foreign policy wonk. He isn’t recommending a foreign policy, he is pointing out the results of a particular policy.
I’ve got to say that I think any foreign policy that has US officials defending cruel and unusual interrogation methods as legal so long as we don’t do them on US territory is at least highly questionable.
The Chilean overthrow by the military was endorsed by the Chilean congress because Allende was screwing up the country. Besides, many of those right wing government we supported during the cold war are now either democratic or liberal democracies as of today. Naturally you can say the same thing about countries supported by the USSR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973#The_Chamber_of_Deputies_calls_on_the_military
Not only that but my understanding is it was someone in the Reagan Administration (I forget his name) who encouraged Pinochet to hold the plebiscite that removed him from power. Its not like Chile was a haven and the US screwed it up and did everything it could to keep Pinochet in power. I wish someone would write a counterpoint to all these one sided political opinions. The only thing I’ve ever seen is Horowitz when he wrote ‘the sick mind of Noam Chomsky’ http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1020
William Shockley won a nobel prize for working on transistors, that doesn’t make him an expert on genetics.
By the way, in giving the award, the Nobel committee repeatedly and explicitly praises the politics of his work. Read the [url=http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/presentation-speech.html]award presentation[/url if you like.
A choice excerpt from that presentation:
*It is usually said that Pinter’s political commitment came late. But Pinter himself describes even his first period – The Dumb Waiter, The Birthday Party, The Hothouse – as political. In these “comedies of menace”, language is a weapon of aggression, evasion and torture. The early works can be seen as metaphors for authoritarian intervention on several levels: the power of the state, the power of the family, the power of religion – all undermining the individual’s critical questions. Pinter uncovers the reasons for wanting to destroy the identity of others and the fear disguised as violence against those who stand outside the party, club or nation.
*
Since the Nobel Committee explicitly endorsed his politics in this award, I’d have to say his Nobel speech was probably one of the more appropriate forums he has chosen. You’re free to disagree with his words and opinions, I still say he was not guilty of jackassery in giving a political speech. He is perfectly qualified – as much as any journalist or diplomat or other observer of world events to comment on those events.
If Pinter has been conscious for any part of the last twenty five years he must be at least as good at foreign policy as is GW Bush.
I think you mean “twenty five minutes.”