A different perspective on Sarkozy
Today sees the publication of a book hailed as the literary event of the year – Yasmina Reza’s “L’Aube, le soir et la nuit”. Ms Reza is best known for her 1994 play “Art”, which has been produced in many countries: in London Tom Courtenay and Albert Finney were in the original cast. She has written several plays, screen-plays and short récits, and is an actress herself.
At the start of the presidential campaign she got herself invited on to the Sarkozy bandwagon, following him so closely that she became part of the furniture – a fly on the wall. The result is this book, surrounded in pre-publication hype – no one was allowed to read it early, there was confusion as to whether it was actually a novel or a documentary campaign-trail journal. Review copies were despatched only the day before yesterday, with an embargo until today. I am still waiting for the postman to bring mine – the chap at Flammarion told me to come and pick it up, like so many Parisians he cannot believe that anyone actually lives in France profonde.
Meanwhile Le Monde broke the embargo by publishing extracts and a commentary yesterday evening – a rushed, chaotic piece that made me feel the book could be a lot of fuss about extremely little. There are better pieces this morning in Libération and rue 89, but the book appears to contain little those interested in Sarkozy did not know already, wrapped in authorial self-analysis (“she seems to be in love with the image she gives of herself,” says the Libération critic) and sprinkled with the sort of phrases some find titillatingly deep, others crushingly banal: “writers and tyrants have in common a desire to bend the world to their will”. Whatever its literary or political merits, it will generate a lot of comment and sales. I shall read it when the postman brings it and possibly write about it here.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:37 am
I have read in Le Monde both the extracts of Reza’s book and the review of the book in Le Monde des Livres. Both are extraordinarily complacent. Is Reza the George Orwell of Mr Sarkozy, or as one article suggests her Chateaubriand or her Zola ( to cover both Napoleonic episodes) ? She seems to be much more her propagandist. The passages where she reports Mr SArkozy’s excesses of language sound realistic, but at the same time they display the vulgarity of the character. In that respect Mrs REza has certainly elevated Sarkozysm to the rank of a myth, or rather to the mimicking of a myth.
In his famous book The King’s two Bodies, the historian Ernest Kantororowiz showed how the medieval system of power rested upon the king’s two bodies: the one secular and real, the other one spiritual, united with the spiritual body of the Church and with Christ. The present king of France has indeed the first secular and real body. Has he the second ? Well, one could risk , a bit speculatively, the following theory. The spiritual body of the Church and the Christ has today been replaced by the soft, virtual, and immaterial body of the *Media system* which is the Mind of politics. No one, today, can govern without the Media, and Mr Sarkozy has fully understood this. The Media are today’s king’s second body. Unlike the body of Christ, they do not save us, but they are here to trump us, and to blind our eyes in front of truth, by releasing half truths and lies. And the Media’s body, unlike the Christ’s body incarnated in the Church, is not material. It is made of material messages, of which News Agencies, Newspapers committees, and Virtual media are the vehicles. To control them is to control the two bodies in full.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:25 am
“The vulgarity of the character”. What a prig you are, Mr Angel! It rather seems to me that it is you who are elevating Sarkozy to a far too high level of power and influence, as though he were one of the twelve Caesars. How would you judge Blair in this light? Are you an expatriate pissing in or a Brit pissing out?
August 24th, 2007 at 11:45 am
I have just taken a closer look at the language used by Sarkozy and which seems to have upset Mr Ange. It should be remembered, and many foreigners have difficulty judging the force of swearwords in a language not their own, that French does not have any words with the force of “f**k” or “c**t” (the asterisks are mine), nor is the French “merde” always the equivalent of “s**t” - it often is no stronger than damn” or “blast”. When he calls Royal a “conne”, that is much like calling her a twerp. Frankly, if all the people who use profane language on occasion in private are to be labelled worthless and all those who are mealy-mouthed are to be considered honourable, we will soon have a topsy-turvy world.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Dialogue between Jérôme Garcin and Yasmina Reza in “Le Nouvel Observateur”, August 23rd 2007. JG. “tout au long de votre livre reviennent, obsédants, exaspérés, obstinés, la détestation et le mépris, chez Sarkozy, des journalistes, qui sont tous “stupides” et qui n’écrivent que des “articles de merde”. Il me semble qu’il y a chez vous une même méfiance à l’égard des médias. Est-ce que je me trompe? - YR. “Non, vous ne vous trompez pas…J’ai demandé un jour à un journaliste qui a suivi Nicolas Sarkozy pendant toute la campagne pourquoi certains de ses articles s’avéraient contraires à ce qu’il me disait, il m’a répondu: ‘ Parce que ma direction ne veut pas de cette vérité, et les lecteurs de mon journal encore moins’ ….J’ai senti chez lui, malgré ses allures de battant, une fêlure profonde, une solitude, qui rendent cet anti-héros très proche de mes héros ordinaires.” …………… I am afraid indeed that this may read like tripe to angry bloggers and vulgar to journalists. Remember that in French rude speech is not as rude as it sounds. Reza is a creative individual entitled to her take on things. Sarkozy has an extremely large number of old friends and doesn’t have to rely on a ‘grandes écoles’ network. And the probability that he will fail to reform those areas which most need reforms is very high. Those media who want to help should be welcome. Reza has done her bit. Thank you Yasmina
August 25th, 2007 at 4:52 am
After some deliberation about John Harris’ last two comments I decided to publish them anyway as an example of what, in the future, I shall not publish. While I am in favour of free expression (obviously, because that is what a blog is), I feel that intelligent conversation must be polite – whatever one thinks of the person or the ideas expressed by the person one is communicating with. In the preface to this blog you will find “it will only work if people leave their contributions politely, modestly, to create interesting conversations with people we don’t know on a shared theme….”
And that is the second point: the peculiarity of a blog is that you communicate with (leave comments for) people you do not know. And since we are all strangers, as at a masked ball, politeness is doubly imperative. For example, John Harris, in the first comment above, appears to assume that ange.scalpel is either “an expatriate pissing in or a Brit pissing out.” In his second comment John reminds us that “many foreigners have difficulty judging the force of swearwords in a language not their own.” I am not sure whether in that sentence John is addressing all of us as “many foreigners” or ange.scalpel in particular, but if the latter, he is teaching a French person how to understand his own language. ange.scalpel is a born and bred Frenchman, author of several books, working in one of the most prestigious jobs in French higher education. Neither John Harris nor anyone else was to know this – that is the point (although the high level of ange.scalpel’s culture might be guessed from the references he makes). At last count a quarter of those reading this blog were French, a third from the UK. Some commentators are interested amateurs, some extremely well-qualified (recently a former editor of the Economist, before that the founding editor of the Independent): my request to anyone wishing to comment on this blog is to do so freely, but “politely, modestly” – you may just be teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.
Because some people will be writing in their second language, it is important, in my view, to criticise le fond and not la forme of what they write.
On the particular point raised by John Harris and Marie-France about the devaluation of the French swearwords: yes, this is something I think most people living in France would quickly pick up. There are nevertheless codes for the use of gros mots. They are, fairly obviously, banned from the primary school I teach in (in other words children are taught, sometimes by punishment, that they are wrong, even though their parents use them – the start of double standards). Equally they would never, by common consent, be used at my parents-in-law’s table. Franz-Olivier Giesbert caused quite a stir in 2006 when he revealed in his book “La Tragédie du president” that Dominique de Villepin swears a lot in private, particularly when referring to his colleagues. And while on the subject of words, I imagine ange.scalpel used the word “vulgarity” in its original English and common French sense – not necessarily as a judgement on something offensive. Dominique de Villepin, for example, cannot be called vulgaire, even though he uses gros mots.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Thanks for those comments, including to Mr Harris. I agree I that I am a sort of prig, and in a way I even am proud of it, but that does not invalidate my comment, which was not , in spite of the fact that I pointed out Mr Sarkozy’s excesses of language, about his linguistic vulgarity , which I know to be common among politicians ( recently a French MP, friend of Sarkozy, treated Mrs Comparini, a political adversary of being a “salope” and this provoked quite a stir , which shows that the public is, after all, sensitive to these excesses). My comment was about 1) the vulgarity of Mr Sarkozy’s *mind*, as it is revealed by the excepts of the Reza book, and also, more importantly, about the role of the Media in ihis system. De Gaulle had writers in his wake - Malraux - and Mitterand too - Marguerite Duras, Françoise Sagan - as well as Chirac - who had, Le monde recalls us , the more obscure Denis Tillinac. All politicians have their panegyrists. But I found that this time Mrs Reza had gone quite far. It is not clear that her book is a charge against Sarkozy, or that it is a laudatio, as I suggested. That will depend on what people think of Sarkozy, in good or in bad. I myself think it is a laudatio. She certainly considers herself as a litmus paper for the great man. Now that led me to my remark about the king’s two bodies, which MR Harris neglects. It is a remark about the Media system elevated at the level of a means of government. This is certainly not new. Bush and Blair have gone quite far in that, and Hitler too. The stage setting of politician’s private life is not new either. But it seems to me that with the episodes picked out by Tim King in his blog, we have reached a new stage, at least in France. I agree with Mr Harris that Sarko is no Caesar, but he obviously believes , or want to believe, that he is a sort of Cesar. And as it says in the Reza book, it’s not reality which counts, but the representation you have of it. That is what prompted my comments about the king’s two bodies.
Otherwise, yes, Mr Harris, I am a sort of expatriate pissing in. Is the pissing bad or it is the inward character of it ?
August 25th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Well, Mr King, I was only trying to liven up your blog a little, seeing as it attracts less comments than the “Times” blog (this is not a value judgement). If bloggers are to avoid “teaching their grandmothers to suck eggs” many will not contribute at all since inevitably they will come across contributors more knowledgeable and intelligent than themselves. My question concerning “pissing out or in” - a very common expression if a little vulgar - was more one of interest than of accusation. Also, while healthy opposition is essential for democracy - please excuse the bromide - trivia about Sarkozy’s holiday or language in private do nothing to contribute to it.
P.S. Note the reference to Sarkozy’s *mind* in his contribution: that is insulting. However, I will make no “invidious caparisons” (a quote from “The School for Scandal”, in case you didn’t know).
August 25th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
On second thoughts, looking at what I wrote I see only the word “pissing” as objectionable. To suggest I am arrogant in pointing out the different connotations in swearing in the two languages I think is presuming too much: there will be English people living in France and reading your blog who speak little if any French, for a start. Furthermore, Ange Scalpel shows a fair degree of arrogance himself in claiming that Sarkozy has a vulgar *mind* just because he doesn’t share his political views. Have I suggested you or Ange Scalpel have vulgar *minds* just because you don’t share mine?
August 25th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
You seem to have a very thin skin, Tim! I can see nothing wrong with Hornsby’s two short comments while finding, Scalpel, the man you claim is so intelligent to be arrogant. A trait you share in suggesting John’s comments about language are teaching grandma to suck eggs.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Tim, why so po-faced over John Harris’ remarks? He may have been a bit provocative - but only a bit, and no bad thing anyway - and he might have been a little vernacular. However it seems to me that he has something to say and he certainly didn’t tip over into the kind of childish abuse you see on so many other blogs (check out the Guardian’s CiF). I think you’ve got an interesting blog going here; but I don’t think you need to get too headmasterly about how your contributors express themselves - being serious doesn’t necessarily involve being dull.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:07 am
No, I agree entirely that being serious doesn’t have to be dull. What I want to avoid, however, is a general slippage into exactly the abuse you describe - prevention being better than cure. A recent writer on blogs in general (forgot his name, sorry, but will find if interested) said something to the effect that on most blogs within the space of three or four comments someone will inevitably use the word Nazi. In other words, “intelligent conversation” (once the motto of Prospect magazine, the parent of this blog) degenerates too quickly into playground trading of insults - with people using words they probably would not if they were face to face at someone’s table. John Harris has some extremely valuable things to say and I hope he continues to express them here. My personal conviction is that every idea can be expressed in a variety of ways, and that the more polite way is very often the most lethal.
The other point I was trying to make is that, unlike many blogs, this one attracts many non-English writers. There is always a possibility that they will use a word in its French sense, without fully understanding all its English nuances. If they make an unintentional mistake and are then criticised for their use of that word, the criticism seems to me unfair. That’s why I feel commentators have to be doubly careful in how they respond (because from the pseudonym they do not necessarily know the nationality of the author) - however, that should in no way prevent them from responding, just do it with delicatesse. That is why I wrote that it’s far better to criticise le fond than la forme.