Knowing the size and the preferences of your literary penis

In his column in DER SPIEGEL Jan Fleischhauer was talking today about the overestimation of moral contribution of writers to the political scenario. Although I recognize that Jan Fleischhauen is right regarding the role of Günter Grass in Germany, one is obliged to wake up the small Aristotle in us and to distinguish between different classes of texts given authors write. Let’s give the example of Bertold Brecht: when he left his inspiration run free and was writing with the only purpose of getting rid of his uncontrollable impulse to write, he was brilliant. This part of his work is really good and has universal value. The only problem were those moments when he decided to use his talents as a writer to fight for the cause of socialism. Every time Berthold Brecht decided to use his talent, the only thing he wrote was crap. Not only a bit of crap but hideous mountain of crap. Failing to distinguish between these two kinds of Brecht’s texts may compromise the whole evaluation of the meaning of his work for humanity. Yes, Brecht wrote some wonderful pages beside the many tons of socialist crap. The lesson we learn from Brecht is that arts and talent are not something artists may have control upon. When Brecht tried to use his talent in the way he wanted, it did not work. The same is true for Günter Grass. The harder he tries to be meaningful, the less he is. He would be much better served if he would just let his talent speak the way it is and not as Günter Grass - the person- would like it to be. These guys resemble to me those guys who want to control when they are going to have an erection. They worry too much about getting it and when the time arrives... it is not there. The same happens with their writings. Günter Grass wants to write about renewable energy or immigration just because the topics are being discussed a lot on tv. His literary penis, however, is not very keen to do it. The outcome is the usual disappointment. The take home message of Jan Fleischhauer was that writers should know better the size and the preferences of their literary penises. I think I agree. But what about those cinema stars and singers fighting for big causes all around the world such as George Clooney, Sean Penn and Bono Vox? They don’t have a literary penis. They fuck with borrowed ones.

As the Brazilian writer Alexandre Soares Silva said once: “The strongest evidence that we should not listen to the opinion of singers and movie stars is that most of the time not they but other people are in charge to decide what they are going say”. Since fucking with a borrowed penis is a tremendous act of perversion, just ignore the opinion of movie stars next time, ok?

Ask the question as long as you need to get the answer you desire

Much like the political strategy of the European Union regarding the ratification of a European constitution by member states is the Brazilian policy regarding the abortion. Unpopular law projects are submitted again and again to public opinion till the project is aprooved. In Brazil there is an about 30 years old abortion law, which allows the abortion in three cases: rape, life-risk for the mother, and inviability of the phoetus. There is nothing wrong with this law, its application is quick and it is an effective mean to promote the protection of women and their rights. However, in the last 4 years at least once an year a new law project pops out, which is meant to substitute the abortion law. If this law is approved, abortion will be allowed in every case and at any time. To abort a child 5 minutes before its birth will be considered fine. Although the Brazilian population is massively against this very liberal (some would prefer to say diabolical) abortion law, specific groups of left-wing politicians submit slightly modified version of the same law project year after year. At some point in the future they will probably succeed because they have been preparing to succeed for decades. Every time a new version of the abortion law is discussed in the parliament, the level of rejection in the general population can be measured. Of course, after having discussed the topic of abortion for the nth time, citizens may get tired and want to finish the discussion forever. This is the time point in which instead of crying loud their opposition to the new abortion law, citizens will just remain silent and let obscure left-wing politicians dictate new rules regarding rights over babies’ life and death. That these projects have been systematically blocked in the last years suggests that even corrupt Brazilian politicians still have some moral values left and do not want to be associated with the abortion of healthy. The important question is how long they will hold. I bet not longer than 10 years. When this day has arrived, I will propose an even more radical abortion bill. The retroactive abortion: If mothers give their consent, anyone can be “aborted” at any time of their lives. I cannot avoid the mental picture of Fidel Castro’s mother requiring his immediate abortion. In Germany it would be the mother of Tito Bollen claiming her rights. Definitely.