RANT: WILL THE END OF COVID BE THE START OF SOMETHING WORSE?

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A NEW DISEASE OR ANYTHING. As difficult as this long Covid year has been for so many, with the loss of loved ones, of livelihoods, the loss of connections and so on, the fact is: we’ve been here before. Human beings have always suffered the ravages of pandemics and plagues; we live within disease vectors after all.  It’s when we cross boundaries and grow our populations into regions where we’ve never lived before and come across new pathogens, or when our transportation networks give local diseases access to new markets, so to speak, it’s at these times that we can expect those pesky viruses and bacteria to take advantage of the situation, often to our disadvantage.

But when Covid is finally over, what will have changed? The city I live in has just announced a “stay at home” order (only going out for food, medicine, outdoor exercise) and our province (Ontario) has gone into another “lockdown” to cope with a 3^rd wave of Covid plus variants. Vaccine rollout is abysmal. (Canada ranks far down the list in the percentage of even first jab completions, let alone those who are fully vaccinated.*) The province’s healthcare system is stressed to the point that Queen’s Park has asked the federal government for assistance to boost the number of front-line medical personnel. There is indeed ‘Covid fatigue’ hitting the province and the nation, as there is in many parts of the world just now, with growing criticisms of government inaction, the actions of lagging support systems, anemic vaccine rollouts and so on. There will be much to analyze and rectify when we’re on the other side of this.

 

    Premier Doug Ford

And that’s what I’m wondering about. Having gone through a devastating blow to world economies and all the struggles that still remain, how will national governments and local authorities respond as they support and direct their restless and frustrated populations? What changes to laws and statutes will they implement? In turn, what will people find acceptable or tolerable? My point is, how far will governments go to restore confidence in their administrations and, more importantly (to them at least), what will they do in order to remain in power?

“Overreach” is what I’m thinking about. And the word is defined in legal terms as "conduct that exceeds legal limits as of authority or due process." (Merriam-Webster.) In Ontario last week, there was a big flap over Premier Ford's government issuing emergency powers that would give police the authority to stop and question any citizen about what they were doing outside, possibly requesting that person return home unless they were engaged in the authorized activities I listed above. In addition, banning outdoor gatherings other than with immediate family members; border “checkpoints” between neighbouring provinces, and outdoor playgrounds to be closed province wide were in the bill.

Well, the Premier did a quick climb-down the next day in the wake of a public backlash and public-health officials' criticisms, as well as several police departments across the province saying they would not enforce the new laws. The Premier had to eat crow, with a public apology for “getting it wrong” and “going to far” with such measures, and he promptly withdrew the proposed legislation. Had there been more attention paid to health authorities' requests for an earlier lockdown, a targeted “hot-spot” immunization policy and restrictions placed on international flights from Covid-active countries (albeit a federal responsibility), there might have been no need for the Premier to consider such restrictions in the first place, and to my point, necessitate his acting with an overreach of governmental authority, potentially violating citizens’ autonomy and privacy rights.

 

I’m reading a SciFi novel, The Great North Road by Peter Hamilton, set in a techno-future about a hundred years or so in the future. It’s a door stopper, but with a fairly entertaining “who-done-it” murder mystery/detective story as the main plot line. It’s relevant for my Rant today because the ‘tech’ that is on display is a surveillance-state's wet dream: nanotechnology that provides enhanced tracking data on everyone’s movements and activities using “smartdust”—essentially microscopic cameras and sensors—that can be sprayed on buildings, roads, anything really, to record vehicle and pedestrian movements in a city, specifically Newcastle, England. The internet (called the “transnet” in Hamilton’s future dystopia) is robust and ubiquitous, and a rich source for data-harvesting of just about everyone's personal information by government, police and powerful corporations. Fun times.

 

We’re not there yet, but will we allow ourselves to be ruled by governments that institute regulations demanding greater and greater access to our personal information and activities? Will we allow our freedoms and individual liberties to be limited and circumscribed by piecemeal acceptance of this or that new law and regulation** until “smartdust” is everywhere, so to speak, and personal autonomy, nowhere? Governments, by their nature, are reluctant to give up power once they acquire it. For example, the “Authorization to Use Military Force Act” (AUMF) in the United States is an example of legislation passed to address an emergency in 2001 (the 9/11 attacks) that's been on the books ever since, and been used  by Presidents to take military actions abroad on a number of occasions, without congressional approval. Canada has a similar “Emergency Powers Act” whose use the Trudeau government contemplated in late 2020 to deal with the Covid pandemic. I'm not saying that would necessarily have been a bad thing, just that power is an intoxicant to be imbibed carefully, whether you're an individual or an institution.

 

And whether by increments, a lack of foresight or vigilance, or by a general apathy in the population, thus are  cemented in place increased surveillance laws, restrictions to personal autonomy, and control over more and more facets of citizenry lives and livelihoods (such as changes to financial, banking or pension fund regulations, social assistance programs, etc.) until the "new reality" become business as usual and is taken for granted. It’s a slippery slope from here to there and something we need to keep in mind when our societies face crises, and the directions they take emerging from them. So yes, I think there are worse things than pandemics. Microbes aren't aware of how they treat us, so they get a pass. How we treat each other, on the other hand, is something that must pass muster. Anyway, food for thought and something to chew on in a future Rant, I’m sure.

 

Cheers, Jake.

 

* Thus far there has been close to one billion vaccine doses given worldwide. The New York Times has an easy-to-read vaccine “tracker” chart which shows Israel leading the pack, followed by the Seychelles and Bahrain with 56%, 53% and 32% of their population fully vaccinated, so I guess it’s time to move someplace sunnier. The United States is down the list a bit, but at a respectable 27% of their population having received the full course of vaccine treatments. Canada is at low 2.6%. I’ve harped on this in an earlier Rant, and this begs the question on the wisdom of getting rid of our domestic vaccine research and production facilities in the 1980s. (Might be time for a rethink, maybe?) 

** In case anyone thinks this is a 'SciFi scenario', recently in England there have been protests against the Johnson Conservative's proposed legislation which would curtail and, in some cases, criminalize street protests, among other measures in its huge, 307-page "crime and sentencing" bill before parliament. Similar anti-protest legislation has been proposed recently in Florida, I believe. 

In the name of "homeland security" or "anti-terrorism", or whatever, governments may adopt policies that, in other years, would be entirely unacceptable by the population. Troubled waters are ahead. 

 

 

    Bernard waited patiently for the bell to ring.

     

 

 

SOME POEMS AND AN ESSAY

NEWS OF THE WORLD #13

Now is the time of baby queens,

and children’s rhymes and peasant dreams,

touching crimes and glass slipper scenes

are hid beneath the shifting sands.

 

The Pope, grown tired, old and blue,

hears, “You’re fired!” (from you know who.)

Though still admired in papal hues

across these once and pretty lands.

 

Our leaders smile with perfect teeth.

And hide the while sharp points beneath.

To turn the dial and set a wreath,

mark their passing with a mirror.

 

“People flow across our lands!”

“It’s time to take Inertia’s stand!”

“It’s time to stow our welcome-band.”

"Let's be clear..." (To make it clearer.)

 

From armistice to arbitrage.

From faith in ice to warming's rage.

From man-made mice to leveraged age,

with our bellies soon let to beasts.

 

Microbes lay their toxic count in. 

Insects flay the tops of mountains.

Mad fish prey in children's fountains.

What matters most does not the least.

 

AFRICA FARMS ITS GREAT ESTATE

Rich people charm, then masturbate.

Cum on your arm you’ll contemplate.

It’s when we’re all fucked, it’s over.

 

This new round of the Greatest Game,

is what's found in a person’s name.

And does it sound like "wealth" or "fame"?

Or "white", like the cliffs of Dover?

 

CENTRAL BANKS FALL! (Eden-owed rent.)

Money tanks stall in tranches lent.

Zombie ranks crawl for a few cents.

(It's a flattening world out there.)

 

FARMERS DRINK POISON. Why not us?

BURGLARS DINK NUN! “It's scandalous!”

BANKERS BLINK! “RUN!” It’s obvious:

'tis the money that makes us fair.

 

Zoom! Stock It!@linemypocket

Boom! Sock it!@nukes(dot)rocket 

Doom! Got it?@midnight’sdocket

But, will there be anything else?

…..

When white gulls flock along a shore

to light on rocks like these and more,

your sight takes stock of something for,

well, something that's for something else.

Those heads of state will roll on by,

most axed by Fate wrought from the sky.

I just can’t wait to see them try

to paper over what’s yawning.

 

But, I still admit to being hooked,

and still remit much that is booked.

Like you, I sit where few have looked

to cheer on the new day, dawning.

Dolls

The styrofoam princess

Sitting in her box.

Such a hollow shape—

A gobbled Goldilocks!

Her important bits

Are long since removed

By the styrofoam princess

Sitting in her room.

 

Mushrooms

Once, seeding clouds

with pale gods

was a matter of pride.

Later, clouds were

seeded with mushrooms—

a fruit that boils stone towers

and melts teeth,

but with a less assuming growth.

 

Echoes

Your voice I will hear first and last.

In river reeds whose tall tips

bend for Pharaoh's ships,

and later, in the smoke of pyres

and crumbling stone.

In clouds of arrows

combing the vast blue sky,

your voice will be

no more distant than a rainbow,

and no more lost.

 

Cause and Effect

Black water puddles

under street lamps

while men conjure

in the dark.

Soon, bright moons

pass by unnoticed,

while in a doorway

vagrant ants

devour a dead rat’s eyes,

and an escaping flea

hops a ride across town

on a mad dog.

 

Please Be Seated

It’s time to go now; your train has arrived.

Your bags are all stored for your trip countryside!

 

Is what’s left behind worth more than ahead?

But, now you must board the Train of the Dead.

 

Oh, don’t be put off by a name or view.

Think of some colour, some heavenly hue.

 

Think sun-drenched colours, so pleasing to recall—

Bright memories of being alive and all.

 

Your fellows won’t complain if you’re careful, as well,

To whisper that which you’re required to tell.

 

Besides, it’s too late for grand revelations and such:

Gurus and loud gods are a bit too much.

 

Take something to read, the journey’s quite long.

Bring snacks and a drink. Is comfort so wrong?

 

But penalties imposed for those late are severe.

The conductor’s pale hands draw decidedly near.

 

So, best take your seat and let your ticket be read

By those left in charge of the Train of the Dead.

 

Memory

Not the taste of ashes

and dust-choked memories.

Not even the waft

of fresh-baked bread

in that tray by the window.

It’s the smell

of hot metal in the night.

Again and again.

 

#4

Rising, he said:

“The brook’s stones,

with their water-smooth skins,

and the shoreline’s cloud

of tawny-plumed willets;

even the temple’s own covering,

that once contained all--

all now are lost to misty gorges

and granite cliffs.

The children have grown weary of their toys.”

 

—From A Book Of Skins,

by Gortho Chathsar (First Kingdom poet)

 

Spring Cleaning

The wind came by today

and managed to stay awhile—

all the while I cleaned my house,

where once I'd thought to stay.

 

 

 

 

 

I DON’T HAVE the grade for this short essay (below), just as I'm not about to, in any way, grade or degrade the above poems (some of which are old and some are new, some are borrowed, some are blue.) But, I’m sure the essay must be worth at least an “A+”. It's a light 'go through' on narration and narrative perspectives that points the way, a bit, for the reader as they delve into weightier and more meaty meals.

 

 

Bon appétit, Jake.

 

 

 

In-Class Essay: Discuss in Relation to the Work as a Whole—The Narrator in Joseph Conrad’s The Secret Agent

 

ONE OF THE IMPORTANT CHANGES that have occurred in the writing of modern, 20^th Century fiction is in the role of the narrator. Previously, for the most part, the narrator operated within what could be considered the same perimeters and world view his readers held. That is, the narrator could be seen as someone who, for the most part, shared the values and conventions that were deemed important by the dominant culture of the day.

Nineteenth Century novels were often concerned with the structure and organization of society, and the narrator was seen more as an ‘interpreter’ of events, a presenter of character and story; as someone who explained the process but did not question it. Society was assumed to function within certain organizing structures: Nineteenth Century English society, for example, had its obvious social classes and colonial/expansionist framework; that was considered a given. Fictional narrators of novels examined their society but did so from a comfortable ‘armchair’ stance. They acted as authorities, but they acquired their authority from the mores and conventions of their society.

A particular type of character, or a certain way of acting, a form of address and so on, all had guides and formulations (prescriptive and proscriptive) for the accepted ways of doing things that the narrators of novels of the time, for the most part, 'agreed with'. The narrators often shared the perspectives of the privileged classes. In this sense, Nineteenth Century narrators had a more restricted role. One sees them, for example, entering the consciousness of a character in an omniscient manner, but doing so under prescribed conditions: A person thought, generally, the way he was ‘supposed to’ think, given the social conventions of the time. An expression of piety, for instance, meant that this was a pious person with pious thoughts, and that was the end of discussion.

I also see the role of this earlier narrator as more of a chronicler, a presenter of a story. It is as if a movie is playing and the narrator acts as ‘usher’ to guide the reader to a particular seat, to have a particular vantage of the movie. Another sense I have, and one that is completely at odds with the narrator of Joseph Conrad’s The Secret Agent, is that pre-modern narration was ‘non-interactive’: The relationship the narrator had with the reader was that of the polite host, a host who is conscious of certain proprieties, certain things that cannot be discussed, and a certain pace— not too slow or too fast. My point is that the narrator, in many instances very present in earlier novels, nevertheless does not engage with the reader. There is no debate between them or points of disagreement .The reader is there to witness the story. The narrator is there to explain it. 

 

ON THE OTHER HAND, in The Secret Agent, a modern novel published in 1907, the narrator is not such a comfortable or necessarily helpful presence.  And one of the difficulties in reading Joseph Conrad’s complex tale is the strident, uncompromising, and unashamedly critical voice of the narrator. When reading the story, there is an uneasy sense that, in the next paragraph, the narrator will ‘explode’ in a pointedly critical examination of the reader! In a practical sense, of course, this stance taken by Conrad in the development of his narrative voice is to ensure that the reader makes no mistake what-so-ever in identifying with, or becoming sympathetic toward, any of the characters in the novel, (with the possible exception of Stevie—who is dead anyway). In this manner, Conrad ensures the sense of isolation is complete: He wishes to depict characters isolated from each other and from society. His use of other narrative techniques, for example time ‘standing still’; or of movement (the circling motions of the characters); or the focus on the inanimate, all act to depict in the novel a private, inward emptiness at the heart of all the characters. If the narrator had instead provided a positive appraisal of some character or revealed information suggesting ‘connectedness’ or empathy in the novel, this would compromise Conrad’s intent.

The novelist depicts a society composed of individuals who lack passion and compassion, who neither desire nor understand the need for genuine empathy and relationships. And his narrator reflects and promotes this vision (however pessimistic). That the reader is not excluded from the virulent characterizations by the narrator is another means Conrad uses to add substance to his vision. The reader is thus isolated from any connection with the narrator, who is no longer the benign ‘guide’ helping the reader along in their examination of the story.

Conrad’s narration in The Secret Agent provides what we have come to see as the modern perspective: at times acting omnisciently—going inside the mind of Verloc, for example, or detailing the emotions of his characters—the narrator also ‘pulls away’ from some descriptions, as if lacking knowledge of the events or was incapable of rendering them. The image of the cart seen indistinctly at a distance, crossing the square comes to mind. Similarly, instead of revealing a thought or emotion, Conrad's narrator chooses to focus on the ‘bits and pieces’ of a character or a setting: Verloc’s hand “twitching”, the knife, and the famous hat from the parlour scene are examples of this fragmentation of the narrative viewpoint. By doing so, by going from an omniscient to a minute perspective, the reader is reminded of the fragments, the bits  of Stevie’s body blown up by the bomb, and once more of the separateness and lack of connection that Conrad envisions for the characters of his novel. 

 

In summary, the narrator moves from a perspective which is akin to the readers, a shared consensus in the pre-modern novel, to a modern one, one that is as fluctuating and imprecise as the shifting consciousness and perspectives of the novel's characters. And, of course, this perspective is one that also mirrors the modern consciousness of the readers as well.

 

 

Works Cited

Conrad, Joseph, The Secret Agent. Penguin Books, N.Y., 1986