A typical sense of 'abandonment' was revealed by a subordinate when Vice Admiral Ugaki, who had been in charge of kamikaze operations from Kyushu, left for his own suicide sortie on the very last day of the war. The senior officer of the Fifth Air Fleet staff, Captain Miyazaki, had tried to dissuade Ugaki on the grounds that such an attack was now inappropriate, but the Admiral was adamant and told him to follow his orders. Shortly afterwards Ugaki went to the airfield, carrying only his samurai sword and a pair of binoculars:

Captain Myizaki had been standing by quietly and solemnly, but finally, unable to restrain himself any longer, he stepped forward and said, 'Please take me with you, Admiral'.

Ugaki answered him sternly, 'You have more than enough to attend to here. You will remain'.

This refusal was too much for Miyazaki. He stopped in his tracks and burst into tears, crying openly and unshamed as the others walked past.

This, like the preceding posts, comes from Ivan Morris's The Nobility of Failure

Do I really believe that suicide attacks are effective? Aren't they, in fact, a foolhardy enterprise for flyers like us without any escort planes or any armaments of our own? … Is it true that self-sacrifice is the only thing that gives meaning to death? To this question the warrior is obliged to reply 'yes', while knowing full well that his suicide mission has no meaning,

Lieutenant Nagatsuka, recalling his last thoughts as he sat in the cabin of his Ki-27 fighter, Japanese air-force, World War II.  He was given the signal to turn back, because heavy rain and fog obscured his target. He reflects:

I experienced no real sense of having had a narrow escape. Still less did I feel the slightest joy on finding myself back at base. With an empty soul I followed the path that led to the underground barracks. I made no effort to avoid the puddles, but trampled right through them, vacant, distracted, totally unaware whether I was walking or reeling like a drunkard. The wet cornfields stretched out far into the distance. I saw their green tapestry without looking at it – that green which I had never expected to see again. Yesterday it had been friendly and familiar, but now it was almost hostile. Surely it was reproaching me for having failed in my mission. At this thought a great sadness filled my heart: the corn had the right to continue growing, at least until autumn, whereas my own existence was undeserved and provisional.

Dear Parents:

Please congratulate me. I have been given a splendid opportunity to die. This is my last day. This destiny of our homeland hinges on the decisive battle in the seas to the south where I shall fall like a blossom from a radian cherry tree….

How I appreciate this chance to die like a man! I am grateful from the depths of my heart to the parents who have reared me with their constant prayers and tender love. And I am grateful as well to my squadron leader and superior officers who have looked after me as I were their own son and given me such carefree training.

Thank you, my parents, for the twenty-three years during which you have cared for me and inspired me. I hope that my present deed will in some small way repay what you have done for me…..

Matsuo Isao, Kamikaze pilot, of the  Heroes' Special Attack Unit, World War II

Dearest Parents:

Please excuse my dictating these last words to my friend. There is no longer time for me to write more to you.

There is nothing special that I can say, but I want you to know that I am in the best of health at this last moment. It is my great honour to have been selected for this duty. The first planes of my group are already in the air. These words are being written by my friend as he rests the paper on the fuselage of my plane. There are no feelings of remorse or sadness here. My outlook is unchanged. I will perform my duty calmly.

Words cannot express my gratitude to you. It is my hope that this last act of striking a blow at the enemy will serve to repay in small measure the wonderful things you have done for me….

… I shall be satisfied if my final effort serves as recompense for the heritage our ancestors bequeathed.

Lieutenant Nomoto Jun of the White Heron Special Attack Unit, a Kamikaze unit, during World War II

If modernism is underpinned by a sense of having arrived too late, Lars and W. are seemingly too late to have even arrived – to have genuinely occurred – at all. Even their despair is disembodied and secondhand, a dim echo of someone else’s hopeless struggle for authenticity. Their self-consciousness renders every gesture a cliché, every histrionic expression of despair a redundant parody of a continental tradition that remains out of reach, laughing down at them from on high. Whereas Kafka had despair and meaninglessness, W. and Lars – two Brods cut adrift without a leader – have only idiocy.

from Danny S Byrne's interesting review of Dogma at Ready, Steady, Book.

History can  only be interpeted if one admits that man has been marked by evil since the beginning. He is condemned, he's cursed. The profoundest book that was ever written is the first book of the Old Testament, Genesis. Everything is said there. The whole vision of human destiny, of man. The very fact that God is afraid of man, that's what is so fantastic.

There's an amazing story in the Koran: when man made his appearance on earth a fish came up aout of the water and a vulture came down from the sky, and they said, 'The danger has come', the catastrophe. And the fish dived down to the bottom of the waters and the vulture flew away into the sky.

Man is accursed. History is at once demonaic and tragic, the whole history of the world.

[Ionescu] is a profoundly unhappy man, and success has only aggravated his misery. Which is what I like about him. Instead of coming to terms with life, he has never despaired as much as since he's been famous. For years we spoke on the phone almost daily. One can die of laughter with him, even when he's in despair. He's a man who is haunted by the idea of death, much more than I. With age, for me, this obsession has grown weaker. With him, it's the contrary. It's not that he's afraid to die. He has a sense of the ephemeral, of things not lasting, and his work is an expression of it. One might even say that is humour is somewhat the disconsolation of dying.

[…] I developed an interetst not so much in religion itself as in mystics. Not because of their religious faith but for their excess, their passion, their inner violence. So I began to read the great mystics, and I soon understood that I could not have faith. But it interested me because the mystics lived a more intense life than others. And too, because of their kind of extraordinary pride, me and God, God and me.

Each one of us obviously knows extreme states of solitude, where nothing exists anymore, especially at night when one is absolutely alone and there is always the difficulty of speaking with oneself. So, I've defined God as the partner in moments of extreme solitude. One thinks of God when one can think of nothing else anymore, of no other person. It has nothing to do with faith in my case, it's solely a pretext for dialgoue. It's a monologue, but because everything else has vanished, one clashes with God, the last companion in solitude.

The existence of God doesn't even interest me.

Yes, why do [the mystics] write, since they're writing for God. God doesn't read.

I should have been a sage, but I couldn't. I wanted to be one, but I couldn't manage it, so I wrote books. Everything I've done has been the result of a spiritual failure. But for me, that's not necessarily a negative concept.

E.M. Cioran, interviewed

It's when I finished studying it, at the point where I stopped believing in philosophy, that I began to read Nietzsche. Well, I realised that he wasn't a philosopher, but was more: a temperament. So, I read him, but never systematically, now and then. But I really don't read him anymore. I consider his letters his most authentic work, because in them he's truthful, while in his other work he's prisoner to his vision. In his letters one sees that he's just a poor fellow, that he's ill, exactly the opposite of everything he claimed. […] His work is an unspeakable megalomania. When one reads the letters he wrote at the same time, one sees that he's lamentable, it's very touching, like a character out of Chekhov.

It was, if you like, the disappointment of philosophy that made me turn to literature. To tell the truth, it's from that point on that I realised that Dostoevsky was much more important that a great philosopher, And that great poetry was something extraordinary.

[Severe insomnia] was the profound cause of my break with philosophy. I realised that in moments of great despair philosophy is no help at all, and offers absolutely no answers. So I turned to poetry and literature, where I found no answers either, but states of mind analogous to my own. I can say that my sleepless nights brought about the break with my idolatry of philosophy.

Normally, someone who goes to bed and sleeps all night begins the next day almost a new life. It's not simply another day, it's another life. And so he can undertake things, can manifest himself, he has a present, a future, and so on. But for someone who doesn't sleep, the time from going to bed at night to rising in the morning is all continuous, with no interruption, no suppression of consciousness. So, instead of starting a new life at eight in the morning, you're still as you were at eight the evening before. The nightmare contintues uninterrupted and, in the morning, start what, since there's no difference since the night before? That new life doesn't exist. The whole day is a trial, it's the continuation of the trial.

In my opinion, almost all suicides, about ninety per cent, say, are due to insomnia. I can't prove that, but I'm convinced.

I quarreled with everyone. I couldn't put up with anything. And I found everyone idiotic. Nobody understood what I understood. It was the feeling of not belonging. Then too, this feeling that everything is a comedy and makes no sense. The future was meaningless for me, the present as well. And so, philosophically, because one is always a philosopher, it's a sort of exasperation, an intensification, of the state of being conscious. Not self-conscious, conscious. The state of consciousness is the great misfortune, and in my case, the permanent misfortune. Normally, it's the contrary, it's consciousness which is man's advantage. Me, I arrived at the conclusion that no, the fact of being conscious, of not being oblivious, is the great catastrophe.

The drama of insomnia is that time doesn't pass. You're lying down in the middle of the night and you are no longer in time. You're not in eternity either. Time passes so slowly that it becomes agonising. All of us, being alive, are drawn along by time because we are in time. When you lie awake like that, you are outside of time. So, time passes outside of you, you can't catch up with it.

[…] consciousness of time proves that you are outside of time, that you've been ejected. One could really call it a philosophical or metaphysical experience.

Everything I've written, I wrote to escape a sense of oppression, of suffocation. It wasn't from inspiration, as they say. It was a sort of getting free, to be able to breathe.

[…] a writer needn't know things in depth. If he speaks of something, he shouldn't know everything about it, only the things that go with his temperament. He should not be objective. One can discuss a subject in depth, but in a certain direction, not trying to cover the whole thing. For a writer the university is death.

Q. Do you have particular writing habits or conditions when you can work? A. I've never been able to write in a normal state. […] I always had to be either depressed or angry, furious or disgusted, but never in a normal state. And I write preferably in a state of semidepression. There has to be something that's not right.

Suicide gives me the idea that I can leave this world when I want to, and that makes life bearable, instead of destroying it.

I considered life as a mere postponing of suicide. I had thought I wasn't going to live past the age of thirty. But it wasn't from cowardice that I was always postponing my suicide. I exploited this idea, I was its parasite. At the same time, this appetite for existing was also very strong in me.

… I read also in order not to think, to escape, to not be me.

Q. You've often expressed in your books your interest in biographies. A. Above all I like to see how people end. When you read about someone's life, you see what illusions he started out with, and it's very interesting to see how they fail him.

E.M. Cioran, interviewed

It is never early enough for W. (who believes things started going downhill in the mid-Neolithic); but neither is it ever late enough. Just as the end keeps on ending endlessly, the novel itself keeps on beginning inexorably. In the paradoxical incipit of Grammars of Creation, George Steiner declares that "We have no more beginnings": here, we have nothing but beginnings, but it comes to the same thing really.

from another interesting review: Andrew Gallix on Dogma for Bookslut.

Iyer implies that a better or “older” world, where literature could still exist, would be one where his own writing couldn’t. The presumption here is that Spurious and its sequel are “signs of the times,” and thus that books can still sum up the epoch in which they’re written: surely a “literary” aim, if ever there was one. Perhaps Iyer’s is a literary project par excellence. Presenting his novels as symptoms or symbols, he slightly uncritically slips into sync with one of W.’s dictums in Dogma: “always write as though your ideas were world-historical.”

from the great David Winters' review of Dogma for The Rumpus.

The irony is that the reality of W.'s and Lars' despair is palliated as it is affirmed and actualised. Writing alone opens a space in which a cure becomes possible, but only if despair is acknowledged. Dogma saturates despair with despair with disingenuous charm; a sly disavowal of despair.

The great Steve Mitchelmore reviews Dogma

Sam Jordison writes up my reading at The Wapping Project for The Guardian (not online; 25th Feb):

“I confess here tonight, before the company, there must be something very wrong with me. I want to parade my inadequacies before an audience. There’s something very wrong with me.”

So said Lars Iyer to the crowd shivering before him in the beautiful – but very cold – gallery space in East London’s Wapping Project, where he was launching his (excellent) new novel Dogma. He went on:

“What kind of person even confesses like this? A masochist! And not even the interesting kind who likes being whipped. A particularly boring kind of masochist, with feeble, pathetic little auto-critiques.”

Such self-recrimination will be familiar to readers of Lars Iyer’s novels. In them the narrator (also called Lars, and just like the author, an academic phliosopher based at Newcastle University) is forever musing over his own short comings. And when he isn’t doing so, his friend, named W., does it for him, comparing him, among other things to a “sad ape locked up with his faeces”, and “a harbinger”, a sign of “the End”.

There has been much speculation about whether this acerbic character is based on a flesh and blood person and now Iyer provided a definitive answer. W. is indeed real. In fact, he even wanted to come and witness the launch of Dogma,  but was too busy.

Yet even if W. couldn’t make an appearance, he remains a constant influence in Iyer’s life. Only this week, the author told us, W. tried to carry out an “intervention” and force him to apply himself to his academic work more rigorously. “He wanted me to mend my ways,” he explained. “He said, ‘you are a disgrace to philosophy. The way you parade yourself on facebook is disgusting.’”

It’s to be hoped that W. doesn’t also read Iyer’s twitter stream, for there, the author admitted: “I’ve put up five tweets today advertising this event. My God. It’s come to this. I have no soul. I’m my own marketeer.” He blamed Thatcher and neo-liberalism for this urge to hawk his own ego, but most of all, he blamed himself: “I disgust myself and the problem is that I enjoy disgusting myself.”

2.3.1971, Grand Hotel Imperial, Dubrovnik

Dear Honorable Dr Spiel,

I promised you a contribution for your Ver Sacrum – You wrote, “something about Ludwig Wittgenstein,” and I’ve been considering the topic for a couple of weeks, since the day, in fact, I returned from Brussels – now I’m on the road again, Ragusa, Belgrade, Rome, etc., and I’ve concluded that to write something about Wittgenstein’s philosophy and above all his poetry, since for me the question concerns Wittgenstein’s utterly poetic mindset (MIND), his philosophical MIND, not Wittgenstein as a philosopher, is too difficult. I might as well have been asked to write something (sentences!) about myself, which is not possible. One cannot describe a state of culture and mind-history. The question is not: shall I write about Wittgenstein. The question is: am I Wittgenstein for even one moment without destroying him (W.) or myself (B.). I cannot answer this question and therefore cannot write about Wittgenstein. – In Austria, philosophy and poetry (mathematical-musical) are entombed in mausoleums, we perceive history vertically. On one hand it is terrifying, on the other, progressive – her fate: philosophy and art do not exist in the consciousness of her people, as they exist elsewhere, but in the consciousness of her philosophy and art(culture) etc.; Austria already knows what her philosophers and poets have yet to discover.

As for Wittgenstein: [er ist die Reinheit Stifters, Klarheit Kants in einem und seit (und mit ihm) Stifter der Größte. – Note: translation of this sentence temporarily abandoned] What we, the Germans, lacked in NOVALIS we now have in Wittgenstein – and a final word: W. is a question that cannot be answered – he is working on a level that excludes answers (and an answer).

Our contemporary culture, in all its unbearable manifestations, is such that its questions would be solved easily, where answers were always at hand – Wittgenstein alone is different.

And the world is forever to remain too stupid to grasp its own stupidity, a world utterly and forever without ideas – where ideas stand for themselves as ideas. This is fatal for the MAJORITY, but the majority is not worthy of consideration. So I do not write about Wittgenstein because I cannot, but because I cannot answer him, which is self-explanatory.

Best regards and all best wishes,

Yours, Thomas Bernhard

translated by Greg Baxter

Lars is a first-person narrator who almost never gets to speak for himself — he is primarily occupied with reporting W.’s alternating self-loathing and Lars-loathing, in a strange mix of free indirect discourse and direct quotation. The result is a strangely co-narrated novel, one that seems to grow directly out of the dysfunctional dynamic of the friendship, which — perhaps like the damp — takes on a life of its own beyond the control of either partner. Unexpectedly, however, the result of this claustrophobic framing is that the despair is always leavened by a certain hope or even sincerity.

Adam Kosko very interestingly reviews Dogma at An Und Fur Sich.