Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1541 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." (Original Post)
Gravitycollapse
Aug 2013
OP
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)1. Good Quote but
is there a context for the quote?
Jim__
(14,074 posts)2. From a review of Vonnegut's "Mother Night"
I don't know if this is the only place that he used it, but, from the review:
...
Whether any sort of absolution can inhere in the fact that Campbell (a playwright of some skill) was, according to his word, only acting a part is the novels most engaging moral question. Considering his record as a Nazi propagandist, he claims I can hardly deny that I said them. All I can say is that I didnt believe them, that I knew full well what ignorant, destructive, obscenely jocular things I was saying. Is it better to be an opportunistic demagogue or a fascist ideologue? Is it worse to believe lies or to willingly spread them? Campbell describes the totalitarian mind as a snaggle-toothed thought machine; a system of gears where teeth have been filed off at random. Thus, thinks Campbell, the fascist mind has periods of apparent functionality interspersed with periods of fearful lunacy. But this insight is tempered by the feeling that such knowledge is of little practical benefit, nor is it good in itself. Some minds are made one way; others, another. So it goes, as they say.
The reader is told a tale by a master propagandist, and is therefore under no obligation to believe a word he says. Only three people believe that he was an agent working for the Allies, and they are nowhere to be found. One may be inclined to think that truth, particularly historical truth, is not a matter of concensus, but Howard W Campbell Jr., finds that, placed against the postwar need for a particular type of justice, his story, cast into doubt by his aknowledged genius for demagoguery, is of little interest. He offers only his continued survival my unbroken, lily-white neck as evidence for the truth of his tale.
In his Introduction, Vonnegut notes several morals that his novel demonstrates. One is that we are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. Another is that when youre dead youre dead. Only those that survive can tell stories, true or otherwise. The stories of virtuousic liars like Arpad and Campbell get told. Those of the briquets do not.
...
Whether any sort of absolution can inhere in the fact that Campbell (a playwright of some skill) was, according to his word, only acting a part is the novels most engaging moral question. Considering his record as a Nazi propagandist, he claims I can hardly deny that I said them. All I can say is that I didnt believe them, that I knew full well what ignorant, destructive, obscenely jocular things I was saying. Is it better to be an opportunistic demagogue or a fascist ideologue? Is it worse to believe lies or to willingly spread them? Campbell describes the totalitarian mind as a snaggle-toothed thought machine; a system of gears where teeth have been filed off at random. Thus, thinks Campbell, the fascist mind has periods of apparent functionality interspersed with periods of fearful lunacy. But this insight is tempered by the feeling that such knowledge is of little practical benefit, nor is it good in itself. Some minds are made one way; others, another. So it goes, as they say.
The reader is told a tale by a master propagandist, and is therefore under no obligation to believe a word he says. Only three people believe that he was an agent working for the Allies, and they are nowhere to be found. One may be inclined to think that truth, particularly historical truth, is not a matter of concensus, but Howard W Campbell Jr., finds that, placed against the postwar need for a particular type of justice, his story, cast into doubt by his aknowledged genius for demagoguery, is of little interest. He offers only his continued survival my unbroken, lily-white neck as evidence for the truth of his tale.
In his Introduction, Vonnegut notes several morals that his novel demonstrates. One is that we are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. Another is that when youre dead youre dead. Only those that survive can tell stories, true or otherwise. The stories of virtuousic liars like Arpad and Campbell get told. Those of the briquets do not.
...
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)3. thanks it helps
Even though I read the book, your paste reminded me of how it relates.