The Ghostliness of Buildings

Have you ever thought about the ghostliness of buildings? Once a building (of any kind) is thirty or forty years old, several generations have most likely passed through it. Not necessarily generations in the strict sense, but generations of occupants.

Who were they? Where did they sit? What were their routines? What did they think of this space you are currently occupying? How has its mood flickered over the decades?

It's the complete lack of a record (in most places) that is most ghostly of all. It's not like every house and train station and shop has its historian. The vast, vast majority of the events that take place are utterly forgotten in the place where they happened.

Another strange thought is this one: "Some day I will never see the inside of this building again." Whether that's because you die, or because you move, or because you change jobs, or because you change towns...One way or another, the thought often strikes me on the mental funny-bone.

St. Praxedis

 

Today is the Feast of St. Praxedes, an early Roman martyr. I'd never heard of her before. The painting above is by Vermeer.

These early saints and martyrs are fascinating, partly because we know so little about them and yet their fame must have been considerable for generations after their death. How did the details fade from living memory?

I've always liked that one of the busiest train stations in London is called St. Pancras. It seems strangely appropriate, Perhaps because so much of national life is built on train stations, and the ancient Roman saints are a foundational stratum of the Christian society that still undergirds our world.

Definition of a Sadist

Somebody for whom "hurt you" is its own reward.

A Faint Memory

Today a long-ago memory swam back into my consciousness, a throwaway reference in some movie review (I think it was a review of Poltergeist) that referred to "the good old nuclear family"-- something like "the good old nuclear family triumphs again".

I think I was a kid when I read this, and I can't remember what I thought of it at the time. But it seems a good example of something that's been going on my entire life-- that is, the constant diet of obliquely dismissive comments regarding this or that social institution. But never saying exactly what's wrong with them.

A common example of this used to be sardonic references to "2.4 children." Of course, the birthrate has dropped well below that now, and our societies are dying, so maybe 2.4 children wasn't so bad after all.

But nobody ever really said what was wrong with it. It was just a standard snide comment meant to portray people as-- what? Bourgeois, average, complacent, white-bread, banal...something like that. It was never actually articulated.

I'm sure you can think of many other examples of this. Perhaps the most obvious one these days is "white male". If you refer to somebody (or an institution, or an audience) as "primarily white and male", or something like that....you don' t have to explain what the problem with that is. It's just a generalized expression of disapproval or disdain. Somehow just using the words is scoring a point.

"Middle America" is another example.

I think this is one of the way the left has exerted its cultural dominance for decades now...a constant drip-drip-drip of this sort of derogatory reference, so pervasive and almost subliminal that it's a type of conditioning.

Because really, what's wrong with the nuclear family?

(When I hear leftists use the slogan "It takes a village to raise a child", I have the strong sense that they really mean: "It takes the government to raise a child". The slogan itself is unobjectionable.)

Possibly My Favourite Newman Quotation

"Here I will not shrink from uttering my firm conviction, that it would be a gain to this country, were it vastly more superstitious, more bigoted, more gloomy, more fierce in its religion, than at present it shows itself to be. Not, of course, that I think the tempers of mind herein implied desirable, which would be an evident absurdity; but I think them infinitely more desirable and more promising than a heathen obduracy, and a cold, self-sufficient, self-wise tranquility."

This is a passage from John Henry Newman's sermon "The Religion of the Day". It very often comes to my mind.

It come to my mind especially when I read about some religious controversy of the past. For instance, the hostile reaction in England when the Catholic Church restored its hierarchy there in 1850, definitively emerging from its post-Reformation underground.

I hesitate to use that example, since the last thing I ever want to do is appeal to Catholic triumphalism. (In fact, I rather regret calling this blog "Irish Papist"; I'm scared it sounds whingy and petulant, since "papist" was a pejorative term.) What I'm saying is that I entirely sympathise with the Protestant reaction. I entirely sympathise with almost all religious passions.

If religion is the most important thing in life, then surely it should be the focus of public controversy.

As I've mentioned in a previous post, I've recently been watching episodes of The Journey Home, the EWTN programme in which converts to Catholicism tell their story. The show is American, so most of the guests are American. Quite often they relate stories of family turmoil and estrangement arising from their conversion. This is sad, of course, but it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me. It seems quite understandable.

I greatly admire Americans for taking religion so seriously.

As Newman's quotation suggests: it's better to not be bigoted, it's better to not be fanatical, it's better to not be narrow-minded. But only if you've actually risen above such failings, not if you've never even risen to them.

Happy Feast of our Lady of Carmel!

Today is the Feast of our Lady of Carmel. Remarkably, it was approved all the way back in 1587.

I'm always fascinated to hear people talk about different "spiritualities" within the Catholic Church, often associated with different religious orders. Some people even become lay members of tertiaries of these Orders. (I've just learned that Bishop Fulton Sheen was a member of the Third Order of Carmelites. So was Eamon De Valera, and he was buried in the Carmelite habit.)

I've pondered whether I feel especially drawn to any such "spirituality". I don't think I do, but I do feel a certain attraction towards the Carmelites. I was married in a Carmelite church and I especially like reading about Carmelite saints, since they are contemplatives. But it's only a faint attraction-- Carmelite Lite, as it were. (I couldn't resist that.)

Poems I Like: "The Workman's Friend" by Jem Casey (AKA Myles Na Gopaleen AKA Flann O'Brien AKA Brian O'Nolan)

This comic poem is from At Swim Two Birds, the staggeringly precocious novel written by the young Brian O'Nolan, who accumulated an impressive list of pen-names throughout his life. In the novel, it's attributed to Gem Casey, a working-class poet. Apparently Jem Casey was a stealthy dig at the Irish priest-poet James Casey, who wrote temperance poems. The irony is plain (pun intended).

At Swim Two Birds is a complex and intellectual novel, but the poem is delightfully simple. Myles (I think of him as Myles) probably intended it entirely as a joke, and possibly tossed it off in a few minutes. It has that air of inspired breeziness. It's clearly a comic poem, but it's seriously good. I like any poem with a running refrain, if it's done well.

"Your only man" is a Dublin term that means "just what the doctor ordered". It's still occasionally used, albeit rather archly. "A pint of plain" is a pint of porter or stout. "Darlint" must be an ephemeral version of "darling"; I've only ever encountered it in this poem. Many versions render it "darling", which seems fine to me.

My favourite line is "and no rashers grease your pan". Everyone knows rashers are streaky bacon, right?

The Dubliners recorded a spoken version of this poem. Try not to die of nostalgia as you watch it.

The Dublin literary scene in Myles's time was an immensely boozy one, as immortalized in one of my favourite books, Dead as Doornails by Anthony Cronin. Personally, I'm not much of a drinker (I was a teetotaler till I was twenty-seven), and I haven't spent much time in pubs. But do I have a rather romantic view of them-- I grew up listening to stories of all the discussions, debates and drama that happened in pubs. My own experience of them has been more disappointing. But isn't that life?

The Workman's Friend

When things go wrong and will not come right
Though you do the best you can
When life looks black as the hour of night
A pint of plain is your only man.

When money’s tight and hard to get
And your horse has also ran
When all you have is a heap of debt
A pint of plain is your only man.

When health is bad and your heart feels strange
And your face is pale and wan
When doctors say you need a change
A pint of plain is your only man.

When food is scarce and your larder bare
And no rashers grease your pan
When hunger grows as your meals are rare
A pint of plain is your only man.

In time of trouble and lousy strife
You have still got a darlint plan
You still can turn to a brighter life
A pint of plain is your only man.

(This is a painting of the author that, extraordinarily, I came across in UCD today, purely by accident. It hangs in the Engineering Building, five minutes walk from the library where I've worked for twenty-five years. I'd never been in it before.)

The Late Ted Bonner

More than ten years ago, I wrote this article about Don't Shoot, I'm Not Well!, an excellent book of humorous essays by the late (indeed, the Late Late) Ted Bonner, who died in 2002.

I think he's a much-undervalued Irish humourist. He doesn't even have a Wikipedia page!

I've been doing some research on Mr. Bonner but I've hit a bit of a wall. So-- this is a long shot, but if any relatives or close friends of Ted Bonner come upon this blog post, could you get in touch? My email address is Maolsheachlann@gmail.com.

Mr. Bonner was a frequent guest on The Late Late Show, and even presented it once. Hence the reference above.

(And maybe this appeal is not such a long shot after all. My poem on a record-breaking snooker marathon that occurred in Preston Polytechnic in 1981-- or, more accurately, a photograph of the post-marathon celebrations from an old Guinness Book of Records-- gleaned, over a few years, three comments from people who had been in attendance, including one of the record-breakers.)

The School of No Escape

What happens when a mysterious new headmistress called Miss Voor takes over a girl's school called St. Juniper's and starts making mysterious changes?

Well, you can find out by reading The School of No Escape, a serialized story from the comic Misty which appeared in full in the Misty Annual 1979, free to read on the Internet Archive. It begins on page sixteen. It's pretty good. I like stories set in schools and other self-contained environments.

(I was curious to see if there was actually a St. Juniper. There is, kind of. Brother Juniper was the name of one of St. Francis's original companions. He's never even been made venerable, but the famous Franciscan missionary St. Junípero Serra was given his name when he joined the Order. Whether the writers knew this, or whether they just plucked the name out of the air, who knows?)

To a Shopping Channel Presenter

I was scanning through my blog archives and came across this bit of silliness. I rarely engage in free verse, but this is one of those rare occasions, and I'm mildly fond of it. It's not a satire on consumerism or anything lame like that.

To a Shopping Channel Presenter

I'm sincerely sorry that I can't afford
To buy your non-stick frying pan.
But listening to your evangelical zeal
Makes me strangely happy.

We seem to live in an age without belief;
An age, it often seems,
Where socialists don't believe in society
Liberals don't believe in freedom
And Christians don't believe in God.

But you!
You believe in this non-stick frying pan
(And the free spice rack, if you phone in the next hour)
More than anyone has ever believed in anything.

I get the impression, hearing your excitement,
That if everybody bought this non-stick frying pan
All the wars of the world would cease
Dandruff would go away
And teenagers would never fight with their parents again.

Alas, alas, I cannot afford to buy it.
And the agents who are just waiting for my call
Are destined to wait
And wait
And paint their nails
And look out the window
And say to one another, mournfully,
"I don't think that he's ever going to call."

My Two Reasons for Reading

I've noticed that I read (watch YouTube videos, etc.) for two main reasons:

1) To learn something.

2) To savour an atmosphere.

I get annoyed at myself for the second motive. What do I ultimately get out of it? That's what I ask myself.

Recently I became very drawn to the whole idea of "campus horror". I read a horror novel set in a university and watched two horror films set in a university. I wanted to savour the atmosphere. But then I feel a bit guilty, thinking: what do I take away from it? What did I get from it? How am I enriched or improved?

Of course, you can both learn and savour an atmosphere at once. Sometimes I start reading a particular author or blogger (or just a book) to learn something, but then revisit it to savour the atmosphere. I can't seem to liberate myself from this preoccupation with atmosphere, and I'm not even sure I want to.

Effort Inflation

If you can give 101 per cent, then why are you holding back on 110 per cent?

And if you're giving 110 per cent, why not 200 per cent?

And if 200 per cent...

Maybe we should just keep (or rather, restore) 100 per cent as the ceiling.

(No Nigel Tufnel references, please.)

People Should Use Their Titles

I've just been watching an interview with a bishop (on a Catholic TV show). The host was addressing him in quite a familiar way. Which is fine, but I did find myself once again thinking: "I prefer it when people use their titles, and other people's titles."

There's no self-interest in this belief, since I have no title, unless it's "Mister".

It seems more suitable, and interesting, to address a Bishop as "Your Grace" rather than "Bishop", as the host was doing. (Although I've just seen that American bishops are generally addressed as "Your Excellency", and "Your Grace" is reserved for Archbishops-- which is interesting in itself.)

My job involves emailing academics a lot, and I greatly enjoy addressing them as Dr Such-and-Such or Professor What's-His-Face. They worked hard to get that title. (Even if they're a doctor of Media Studies or a Professor of Women's Studies or something.)

It's only a small thing, but I think it adds a little bit of colour to life.

Congratulations To Me

I'm awarding myself the Basil Fawlty Award for not mentioning the war-- I mean the thing-- you know, the thing that every other Catholic blog on the face of the earth is talking about. (Well, not blogs per se. There aren't any blogs anymore-- this is the last Catholic blog, except its sister blog across the Irish Channel. I mean Catholic YouTube channels and Substack columns and the like.)

On the one hand, why can't the Vatican duh duh duh. What about the German bishops duh duh duh. On the other hand you can't openly defy duh duh duh.  Faults on both sides duh duh duh let's pray for reason to prevail duh duh duh. Large families duh duh duh homeschooling duh duh duh accusations of Pharisaism duh duh duh go back to the actual documents duh duh duh.

I almost mentioned it there but I think I got away with it.

Leftists Talk About Bread-and-Butter Issues for Public Consumption...

...but, when it comes down to it, what they really seem to care about is identity politics and political correctness.

This fact was borne upon me for the thousandth time recently when I got an election flyer for a left-wing candidate. Everything in the flyer was about local amenities, public transport, and the like. Not a single mention of the liberal social agenda, globalism, or anything like that.

It always seems to be what they lead with in ordinary, everyday debates as well. I'm constantly asked, by my leftist friends and colleagues, why the rich should dominate society like they do-- or some such question. I rarely have the courage (or the appetite) to reply: "But this doesn't really seem to be what you care about, or the threat I think you represent. What you really seem to care about is changing all the immemorial traditions of mankind."

More of the Same

The BBC posting another highly newsworthy and socially relevant story-- some women (enough to make a news feature, apparently) are wearing "divorce rings" to celebrate the destruction of their marriages.

For a long time now, the media and entertainment industries seem to have gone full blast to sow hatred and resentment between men and women.

Every time I see a couple walking hand-in-hand or arm-in-arm along the street-- especially an old couple-- it feels like a little victory against this agenda of hatred and separation.

The Protestant Champion

I never talk to myself, and until I heard other people doing it, I believed that talking to oneself was a merely literary of dramatic convention-- that people didn't really do it. But I do have a habit which seems even more eccentric-- that is, suddenly laughing at something I've remembered at random. I don't see why one shouldn't do this, but I don't notice other people doing it.

Today I was laughing at the memory of a passage from GK Chesterton's autobiography, which I think might be his best book. I'm sure I've posted this passage before, in some form or other, but here it is again. I think it's very funny.

For scene-setting, all you have to know is that Chesterton's grandfather and father were estate agents. The family were Unitarian, but not particularly religious.

I cannot help having a dim suspicion that dignity has something to do with style; but anyhow the gestures, like the songs, of my grandfather's time and type had a good deal to do with dignity. But, used as he was to ceremonial manners, he must have been a good deal mystified by a strange gentleman who entered the office and, having conferred with my father briefly on business, asked in a hushed voice if he might have the high privilege of being presented to the more ancient or ancestral head of the firm. He then approached my grandfather as if the old gentleman had been a sort of shrine, with profound bows and reverential apostrophes.

"You are a Monument," said the strange gentleman, "Sir, you are a Landmark."

My grandfather, slightly flattered, murmured politely that they had certainly been in Kensington for some little time.

"You are an Historical Character," said the admiring stranger. "You have changed the whole destiny of Church and State."

My grandfather still assumed airily that this might be a poetical manner of describing a successful house-agency. But a light began to break on my father, who had thought his way through all the High Church and Broad Church movements and was well-read in such things. He suddenly remembered the case of "Westerton versus Liddell" in which a Protestant churchwarden prosecuted a parson for one of the darker crimes of Popery, possibly wearing a surplice.

"And I only hope," went on the stranger firmly, still addressing the Protestant Champion, "that the services at the Parish Church are now conducted in a manner of which you approve."

My grandfather observed in a genial manner that he didn't care how they were conducted. These remarkable words of the Protestant Champion caused his worshipper to gaze upon him with a new dawn of wonder, when my father intervened and explained the error pointing out the fine shade that divides Westerton and Chesterton. I may add that my grandfather, when the story was told, always used to insist that he had added to the phrase "I don't care how they are conducted," the qualifying words (repeated with a grave motion of the hand) "provided it is with reverence and sincerity." But I grieve to say that sceptics in the younger generation believed this to have been an afterthought.

Honestly, This Sort of Thing Makes Me Sick

I idly wondered if CNN would actually summon some patriotism for America's 250th birthday. But their top story, at the time I accessed their website, had this headline: The World Cup's unexpected gift to America: A game the rest of the world knows as football is teaching America something about itself on its 250th birthday. (If you click on the article itself, the headline changes to: "America held a big birthday party — and a soccer extravaganza broke out.")

Here's a passage from the story: "The game the rest of the world knows as football is teaching America something about itself on its 250th birthday and reminding international visitors that the nation is far more welcoming and complex than its bitter political caricature. The World Cup’s gift of joy is a unifying distraction after tough years marked by ideological divides and a pandemic’s economic fallout. And its blend of European and South American superstars and rising African and Asian teams is also holding up a mirror to the country’s own diversity and its enduring political experiment, enriched by immigration."

Seriously, can they get off the hobby-horse for even one day?

But it's more than that. This sort of rhetoric seems so self-defeating to me.

Liberalism wants to celebrate America for its diversity. It also wants to celebrate Ireland, America, Spain, etc. etc. for their diversity. Everything is diversity, all the time. But if everything is diversity, doesn't diversity itself become...monotony?

And what is diversity composed of? What are the ingredients of diversity? Well, they are national and ethnic and religious traditions, that's what. Diversity is like artificial intelligence-- it can't create anything. (Although immigrant ethnic communities do create their own traditions, like the Italian-American Feast of the Twelve Fishes. But that's still national and ethnic and religious cultures, even if they happen to be displaced.)

As for "tough years marked by ideological divides"-- why is ideological diversity a bad thing, while cultural and ethnic diversity is seen as a good thing?

It's all so tiresome.

Happy 250th Birthday, America!

I won't be online tomorrow so I'm taking this opportunity to turn red, white and blue in honour of America's 250th birthday!

I firmly believe that 1776 was a turning point in world history, and I'm increasingly of the opinion that the principles of the American Revolution should be exported worldwide-- and that this would protect, rather than harm, the unique and organic traditions of each people and nation.

And I love America, aside from politics. True, I haven't spent more'n a few weeks there-- but people who have lived their entire lives in the USA have drastically differing views of it, just as people who grew up in Dev's Ireland had (and have) drastically differing views of it. So, I'll boldly insist that I love America.

God bless the USA!

The Twinkly Nineties Aesthetic

Sometimes it's hard to tell if something is a feature of the world or just a feature of your own mind.

About this time last year, I wrote a post about the different aesthetic associations that, in my mind, come along with different "currents" of Catholicism.

But there are "aesthetics"-- in my own mind-- associated with so many things. Sometimes they're so specific, I wonder if they can be real.

I was sitting in a café in the Ilac Centre the other week, talking to a fellow poet. I was specifically talking about my frustrated efforts to write a poem about the Ilac Centre. Specifically, the poem was about the Ilac Centre in the nineteen-eighties. I said: "Well, it had a very specific atmosphere back then. There was a fountain in the middle, and a big balloon rising up and down above the fountain, and there were windowed lifts that went up to the top of the centre, and there was a mezzanine café, and there was a mosaic of street traders there, and..." All of this came together in a definite aesthetic for me, but as I tried to describe it, it seemed evanescent to say the least.

Anyway, recently I've been thinking of a very specific aesthetic which I called the "twinkly nineties aesthetic". I think it can best be exemplified by this scene from Groundhog Day. (The bit where the music begins.)

This aesthetic had a few elements which I'll try to identify:

1) It was unabashedly sentimental and upbeat.

2) It tended to use nature imagery, either literally or metaphorically.

3) This is harder to articulate, but it seemed to assume an equilibrium of social forces. For instance, liberalism and conservatism, religion and science, masculinity and femininity, tradition and progress-- there was a certain sense of stability.

4) I somehow associate it with blue jeans, hazy blue mountains in the distance, running brooks, stepping stones, and...that kind of thing.

3) Twinkly keyboard music.

4) A spring atmosphere-- sunshine, green fields, light sparkling on rippling water, etc.

I particularly associate this atmosphere with religion class in my school in the nineties. The religious education was terrible and was mostly watching "inspirational" films, or films about moral issues. They weren't all from the nineties, but the ones that were (or close to it) tended to have this atmosphere, at least in parts. For instance: Regarding Henry (1991), Shadowlands (1993), Scrooged (1988), Alive (1993) On Golden Pond (1981). In fact, although it's the earliest (and a long way from the nineties), On Golden Pond might be the prime example.

We'd also have retreats which involved a lot of lying around (literally lying around) listening to twinkly keyboard music like the music in the Groundhog Day video. At least, that's how I remember it.

A still from The Stand (1994)

I also associate this aesthetic with The Stand (1994), which I watched on my thirtieth birthday. Despite its post-apocalyptic theme, it still had this sort of atmosphere-- partly because the survivors of the devastating virus are returning to nature, out of necessity. Cocoon (1985) also has this sort of atmosphere. So does The Bucket List (2007) and The Twilight Saga: New Man (2009) which shows that it's not necessarily confined to the nineties.

If anyone reading this video thinks I'm just talking about "hippie-ness", I'll have failed to express what I mean. It's something much more specific. Yes, it is hippie-ish, sort of. But a specific kind of hippie-ish, a long long way from gentle people wearing flowers in their hair in San Francisco.

Whether it exists outside my mind is quite another matter. I'd be interested to know if anybody else know what I'm talking about.

Spooky

 

Happy Feast of St. Oliver Plunkett

Today is the feast of St. Oliver Plunkett, as well as the date he was executed. He was the last Catholic martyr in the British Isles. He's an interesting saint and worth reading about.

In fact, you might say that the first of July is mired in blood-- St. Oliver's is the least of it. This is also the date that the Battle of the Somme began, as well as the Battle of Gettysburg, as well as the Battle of the Boyne!