In his textbook Europe and the Middle Ages, historian Edward Peters makes reference to the “customary diplomacy” of the Byzantine Empire in its dealings with the newly emergent Magyar raiders.1 A modern scholar, and generally careful in his use of language, Peters nonetheless utilizes this ‘tyranny of a construct’ to define Byzantine relations with its neighbors, going so far as to assume the advanced reader will understand the inference, perhaps chuckle at the sly inclusion. For among medievalists, ‘Byzantine diplomacy’ remains a byword for duplicity and treachery, and Peters’ modified insertion of the term is both a reassertion of the construct – instructing the ignorant and winking at the educated – and yet a mere echo of the dominant western perspective towards Byzantium from centuries past. In this paper I will argue that, although Byzantium does have a rightful reputation for deceitful diplomacy, they were far from being alone in carrying out dishonorable dealings (and not always immune, therein, to the stratagems of competitors); that Byzantium, through its cultural heritage, geopolitical situation and subsequent wealth, and the constant stresses of managing hostile neighbors, simply performed subversive diplomacy better than their many enemies out of skill and sheer survival-necessity.

To understand why Byzantine diplomacy emerged as a negative term, we must go back to the root causes – the attitudes that split eastern and western Europe, and in turn fashioned propaganda to define the ‘Other’; and, later, the scholarship that reflected this schism. In the last century, through the translation and release of important texts, historians have mapped out in depth Byzantium’s richness of influence, but before the 19^th century, this was far from the prevalent attitude. We need only to approach Edward Gibbon for instruction. While writing his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon felt that Byzantium would bore the public; it lacked “an adequate reward of instruction or amusement.”2 The Eastern Roman Empire, to his 18^th century perspective, consisted of “a tedious and uniform tale of weakness and misery…we search, perhaps with fruitless diligence, the names and characters that deserve to be rescued from oblivion.”3 Harsh words for a historian, but not surprising, given the harsh criticisms that rang through the Enlightenment: Byzantium, incensed-hazed, garish in artistry, conquered by the eastern enemy – Byzantium could not match the idealized grandeur of the republic and empire before it.

            A caveat to Gibbon: his literacy with Greek paled before his Latin, and later in life he disparaged this weakness. He was dependant on extant published texts; Psellus’ Chronography was not available at this time,4 and many of the manuscripts Gibbon did consult were Latin translations, not always accurate.5 Moreover, elements concerning the fundamental structure of Byzantium diplomacy and its historical remnants did not, at that time, avail scholars in understanding much less restoring this neglected period of history.6 In any case, the dominant intellectual atmosphere would be difficult to counter or dismiss. A smattering of opinion from such Enlightened minds. Voltaire: “This worthless collection [Byzantine history] contains nothing but declamations and miracles. It is a disgrace to the human mind.”7 Montesquieu: “The history… nothing but a tissue of rebellions, sedition and treachery,” and concluded that the only way Byzantium could have endured for as long as it did being “unusual outside conditions.”8 The Germans soon adopted the meme. As Hegel mused on Byzantium: “…a disgusting picture of imbecility; wretched, even insane, passions stifle the growth of all that is noble in thoughts, deeds and persons.”9 Again, this attitude was not particularly new. Though a spurt of interest and enthusiasm concerning the Orthodox Church had briefly emerged in France during the Reformation, the popularity of Virgil throughout the Middle Ages – including that prominent mention of ‘perfidious Greeks’ – had for centuries influenced and augmented the deep-seated point of view in the west that Byzantium was indulgence, treachery, deception and schism. In the Decline, Gibbon mentioned how, in the 15^th century, a common belief held that the Turks were descendants of the Trojans, and that the storming of Constantinople was just payment for the sacking of Troy.10

            Not that Byzantium made it easy to counter these scathing criticisms. From early sources, historians have found that the Byzantine diplomats themselves did not write of their activities, nor were written of except under special circumstance; ‘prudence’ (synesis) was considered the virtue of the diplomat.11 No diplomatic documents are preserved in original form up to the year 800, and historians of that time rarely mentioned the details of treaties,12 further enhancing the cataracts of scholarship leading into the 19^th century. As Jonathan Shepard, in concluding his overview of Byzantine diplomacy from 800 to 1204, stated: “we owe our knowledge of the more original and daring Byzantine diplomacy largely to non-Byzantine sources… from a modern perspective, when viewing Byzantine diplomacy, the emperors and their court chroniclers have been their own worst enemies.”13

As modern scholarship developed, the view on Byzantium changed drastically. The oldest journal of historical scholarship, The English Historical Review, published in its second year of distribution (1887) an article by C. E. Mallet concerning the Empress Theodora. Mallet openly criticized Procopius (whom Gibbon put his trust in, spiritual issues aside) and defended her character in glowing terms.14 Anna Comnena, disparaged by Gibbon for her piety,15 impressed later scholars, who realized her position as one of the first female historians. Still, despite this sea change in perspective, modern historiography offers opposing theories in the assessment of Byzantine diplomacy itself. Dimitry Obolensky, in his Principles, addresses certain failures of Byzantine diplomacy but predominantly writes of its achievements. Through “skill and resourcefulness, wisdom…effectiveness…ingenious and elaborate methodology… there can be no doubt that, in an overall view, Byzantine diplomacy was outstandingly successful.”16 Lounghis, on the other hand, claims that “the history of Byzantine embassies to the west was a failure.”17 When Alexander Kazhdan surveyed their arguments, he found problems with both. Obolensky focused on Byzantine relations to the north, emphasizing the contribution its culture had on Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia and Georgia, and the advancement of the Orthodox church. Christianity, the word in permeating form, appears over 30 times in Obolensky’s article; these religious terms are totally absent from Lounghis’s monograph, who deals primarily with the western end of Byzantine diplomacy, and claims that these techniques deepened the split between East and West.18 While both arguments are useful in examining specific interactions, Byzantium’s foreign relations were so complex over its thousand-year history that intense focus to one region/period to the neglect of others severely undercuts any argument seeking to encapsulate the ongoing evolution of Byzantine diplomacy.

Historian myopia aside, it is know that, increasingly, from Late Antiquity into the Middle Ages, the Byzantines focused on defense. Though several emperors throughout its span carried on expansionist projects, including Justinian I, Basil II, Manuel I – the intent of these wars were restoration, rather than conquest. “Even in the late Roman period, the ideal of peace was cherished, and war interpreted as an abnormal interlude between two peaceful situations.”19 It is commonly accepted that in the early period of Byzantine history, the rulers and citizens felt their empire comprised the whole of Orbis Romanus, a conceptualization and subsequent identity reaching back to imperial Rome. The ultimate end of foreign relations was the preservation of the state, in both physical boundaries and perceived dignity.20 How that preservation was maintained, however, has left us with generally accurate if biased accounts from period historians on the nature of that methodology. In his Anecdota, Procopius, when not fully engaged in salacious gossip or apocryphal phantasmagoria, heavily criticized Justinian’s economic policies. For a long time, many historians dismissed Procopius as untrustworthy, his Secret History more a rant than a revelation. More recent scholarship attests that Procopius generally got the facts right, even if with “willful misinterpretation.”21 That Justinian was wasteful with imperial finances, and that it led to harsh taxation and graft, is well established. But Procopius, enamored with the glory of the past, railed at the largess distributed to the threats north and east. “He kept squandering away very great sums… when once the barbarians [the Huns] had tasted the wealth of Rome, they could no longer be kept away.”22  Procopius failed to take into account that, for Rome, buying off aggressive neighbors was a well-established practice going back to Augustus. Immediately preceding Procopius’s own lifetime, Zeno had temporarily ceased this activity but Anastasius reinstated the policy.23

            In his article concerning Procopius, C. Gordon draws the conclusion, “Procopius learned…perhaps in the first time in detail, about foreign subsidies. He saw them as undignified for a proud empire.”24 Nor was Procopius alone in his condemnation of buying off threats. Agathias, writing in roughly the same period, considered Justinian’s first period of power successful because the taxes were spent in reclaiming Roman lands. The Emperor’s later reign, however, came under increasing scrutiny and criticism as Justinian moved into a policy of dividing his enemies to avoid military conflict, and whenever this failed, by purchasing peace via large concessions to whichever the dominant threat at the moment.25

The implementation of subversive diplomacy became more important as Byzantium faced more and more dangers. By 800, Byzantium endured Muslims to the east, Khazaria to the distant northeast, the Franks in the west, and tribes north of the Danube and in the Balkans. By the mid 1100’s, Byzantium faced a significantly greater number of challengers, including city-states, heretics and Crusade-migrations.26 Byzantium diplomacy was utilized to serve a variety of purposes, either to maintain stability, to subvert or convert neighboring territories, or to instigate intertribal warfare in order to relocate pressures. Naturally, Byzantium justified deceiving its enemies in the fulfillment of its aims. As 12^th century historian John Kinnamos wrote: “Since … matters lead toward one end, victory, it is a matter of indifference which one uses to reach it.”27 The Machiavellian principle ‘the end justify the means’ held little moral ambiguity for Byzantine’s rulers and citizens, rooted as they were in the conviction that such techniques were as just as they were holy: this validation linked foreign policy with the task of Christianizing the pagan world and punishing those heretics who dared molest the ‘chosen people’ of the Christian God. History is, of course, stacked with examples of this “endowed sanctity”28 to an empire’s diplomatic activities.

With that said, it is necessary to review the controversial methods employed. Byzantine historian Evangelos Chrysos detailed this subversive diplomacy as a layered process. New rulers were welcomed by Byzantium into a “family of kings,” realigning Byzantine’s superiority with the bestowing of acknowledged legitimacy. Noble-born guests – and/or hostages – were hosted at Constantinople, both to establish connections with far-off nations and to assimilate the captive princes into Byzantium culture. Emperors utilized sumptuous displays of wealth to impress visiting ambassadors or rulers; this was “a palace where appeal was made to every sensory organ of the visitor, from sweet-smelling unguents and spices, to the chanting of acclamations and music witnessed by tenth-century envoys, to the fountains flowing with scented wine.”29 It is essential to note how important the connection of imperial documents, extravagant gifts, and ceremonial acts were: as gestures, they held deep symbolic meaning for those on the receiving end.30 “Aspirants to wealth, titles and office were for the most part willing participants in this ritual… [the] message was the divinely-sanctioned centrality of emperor as the source of all rightful commands on earth…amongst all God’s creation… a means of outclassing in visible form most other rulers; demonstrating the futility of attempts at competition… the ceremonial mode of Byzantine diplomacy served as both ‘teaser’ and ‘deterrent.’”31 Those who ignored Byzantine invitations, moreover, risked appearing miniscule among those already elevated in this political and religious hierarchy.32

            On the other hand, Byzantine Emperors were expected to remain in Constantinople, as ‘bride’33 to the city; it was undignified to meet rulers at foreign courts.34 The populace grumbled when Constantine VII spent long periods away from the city. This raises questions as to whom really ran the diplomacy, the ruler or his chosen diplomats, and “whether [diplomacy] can be assumed to have been a sensory system, operating efficiently in unison” – for policy could and was enacted without the explicit approval of a palace-bound emperor.35  Thus Psellus’s revelation of how he often drafted letters to the Fatimid caliph, “conveying by subtle allusion exactly the opposite impression” from that intended by Constantine IX: “What I wrote had one meaning for the emperor and another for the caliph.”36 

            Other methods of diplomacy included the establishment of the Skrinion Barbaron, a ‘Bureau of Barbarians’, the first centralized foreign intelligence agency, formed under Justinian,37 and political marriage. This latter technique emerged scattershot, and – in the earlier periods – usually under duress; up to the seventh century the practice of unifying Byzantium with ‘barbarian’ rulers was virtually nonexistent. This changed when Justinian II married the sister of a Khazar khagan. Political marriages lasted until the ninth century, but after occurred very infrequently until the end of the eleventh century. From then, however, foreign domestic alliances became much more common: by the twelfth century, marriage was a fundamental technique to ensure alliances.38 

            The catalyst for the negative connotation of ‘Byzantine Diplomacy,’ however, has deeper roots, concerning more devious techniques. These practices were long-standing. In Late Antiquity, the example of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610 to 641) serves well. A messager of the Persian king Khosrau II was captured with a missive ordering the execution of a general. Heraclius added hundreds of names to the document, provoking a rebellion by those on the list.39 

One can hardly find a better source for patriotic defense of Byzantine diplomacy and elucidation of its techniques than Anna Comnena and her biography of her father, Alexius I. Contemptuous of all foreigners, she in detail articulates the schemes and maneuvers her beloved father used to defend his empire against ‘Kelts’ and ‘barbarians’ – a term, for Anna, that encompassed virtually every area outside Eastern Rome. Examples appear early in the text. In Book One, Tutush arrives from “the remotest parts” of Anatolia to plunder Roman territory.40 The Norman mercenary Roussel of Bailleul, who has caused much unrest in Asia Minor, meets with Tutush and asks alliance. “His scheme was thwarted by Alexius, who by cordial offers, backed… by gifts, and ever device and stratagem, won Tutush over to our side.”41

            After numerous plots of like nature, the finest examples of Byzantine diplomacy emerge with the arrival of the first Crusade. Peter storms through Hungary at the head of a ‘Kelt’ army, joins forces with the Normans, and together they ravage the outskirts of Nicaea and commit outrages against the populace. Alexius negotiates with the Turks—no doubt as nervous as Byzantine about these constant interlopers—and the archisatrap Elkjanes sends two men to spread stories in Peter’s camp that the Normans were sharing plunder.42 The result, in Comnena’s word: “…the Latin race is unusually greedy for wealth…the set out helter skelter…Near the Drakon they fell into a Turkish ambuscade and were miserably slaughtered.”43 It is no wonder, considering the above maneuvers – cheered and championed by Anna’s erudite pen – that Byzantine diplomacy might rub certain historians, more obsessed with what ‘Rome’ was than what it became, the wrong way.

            Alexius then set in motion his own scheme of receiving loyalty from the various Crusades warlords. “Hugh of Vermandais…was welcomed with honor …generous largess and every proof of friendship to become his liege-man and take the customary oaths of the Latins.”44 Following Hugh came Godfrey de Bouillon, who, after much ego-clash and several pitch battles, submits to Alexius: “he came to the emperor and swore on oath as he was directed that whatever cities, countries or forts he might in future subdue…he would hand over [to the] emperor.”45 Anna reveals the Eastern perception to these migrations: “to all appearances they were on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem… in reality they planned to dethrone Alexius and seize the capital.”46

Treachery was not the only way to impress dangerous men. When Bohemond eventually arrived, Alexius had, “…set a room aside in the palace precincts and had the floor covered with all kinds of wealth: clothes, gold and silver coins, objects of lesser value filled the place so completely that it was impossible for anyone to walk in it…Bohemond was amazed at the sight.”47 For Anna, Bohemond – one of the most vexing of Constantinople’s foes – never intended to keep this treaty: “he was the supreme mischief-maker.”48 After the investment of Antioch, Bohemond, eager to remove Taticius, the Grand Primicerius of Byzantine, took advantage of a Turkish envoy to employ his own method of deceit: “He devised an evil scheme for removing Taticius…’I wish to reveal a secret to you,’ he said, ‘because I am concerned for your safety… the sultan sent these men from Chorosan against us at the emperor’s bidding. The counts believe the story is true and are planning to kill you.’”49 Taticius escaped to Cypress and Bohemond took Antioch as his personal prize, violating the treaty. Bohemond later used Taticius’s departure as cause for his claim of Antioch, under the argument of ally abandonment.50 To her credit, Anna mentions that Bohemond, having no estates of his own at this time, was hungry for the real estate of the holy land. This in itself represents a comprehension in the East about what was going on in the West, and the threat it represented: landless warriors and lesser-sons, marching to carve themselves out a piece of the world, and encouraged by clergy eager for the stability of controlled violence. When confronted by this sort of migration creep, ‘Byzantine diplomacy’ suited far more when dealing with these “habitual rouge[s]”51 than honorable discourse.

By 1107, diplomacy with the papacy had disintegrated. While Urban II had followed a moderate policy, his successor, Pope Paschal II, was easily persuaded to back the Normans. The papal legate assigned to Bohemond was told to proclaim a Holy War against the Byzantines. “The Crusade now had the official support of the pope, not to rescue the Holy Land so much as to break the Eastern Roman Empire.”52 This act of aggression, a forewarning of the 4^th crusade, is possibly the true breaking point in the evolving schism between East and West, the first baby steps before open declaration and invasion.

As shown in the above summation of The Alexiad, Byzantine Emperors often had to contend with foes as versed in duplicity as they were. A wider view presents numerous examples that ‘Byzantine diplomacy’ was the standard and the norm, rather than a singular policy adopted by one corrupt empire. And it could be used against them. A late ninth century depiction reveals certain court customs of the Carolingians: the Byzantine diplomats are waylaid by officials and forced to wait until admitted into Charlemagne’s presence: “[he] glittered like the sun at its first rising.”53 In 917, Byzantium sent an envoy to Baghdad. After being led through twenty-three opulent palaces, “exhausted and breathless,” they were finally admitted into the caliph’s presence.54 Jonathan Shepard poses the possibility that the Franks and Moslems were reacting and imitating to Byzantine policies; but, again, even extravagant power assertions did not always impress neighbors. Sometime in 957-958 a diplomat arrived to the Fatimid court of al-Mu’izz. After listening to complains that no ambassadors of his caliphate had been sent to Constantinople, he replied: “ People send ambassadors to other people… either because they are in need of something or because they have an obligation towards the person… we do not know, thanks be to God, that we are in need of your master or that we are in any way obliged to him. Why then, should we send an ambassador to him?”55 Shepard suggests that wealthy potentates could be contemptuous of the emperor’s invitations and flaunt such refusal. About this time Byzantine codified Concerning Embassies, detailing how the government graded countries via geopolitical position, without regard to culture or creed: “If the envoys come from very distant parts…then we may show them as much…as we wish. But if they far surpass us… we should show them neither our wealth nor the beauty of our women… but rather… weaponry.”56

For contrast to Anna Comnena’s panegyric, and to gain insight as to the western perspective, I perused the history of the First Crusade as depicted by Steven Runciman. The British historian paints a compelling account of Urban II and the pope’s underlying desire to unify the churches, along with the decaying infrastructure that Alexius inherited. Unfortunately, Runciman’s book became suspect when I read the following: “He (Alexius) made two great errors. In return for immediate aid he gave commercial privileges (Venetians)…and at one crucial moment he debased the imperial coinage, which for seven centuries had been the one stable currency in a chaotic world.”57 Debasing the currency had become a regular practice around the mid-11^th century, and Michael VII (1071-1078) gained the title Parapinakēs, or “minus a quarter,” for his penny-pinching ways.58 Alexius, on the other hand, is credited for reforming and stabilizing Byzantium coinage: “Such fantasies as the influence of the Veneto-Byzantine Treaty of 1082 granting the Italian city widespread immunity from imperial regulation and taxation…leading to the decline of the native mercantile class and thence to downward pressures on the coinage may now be safely relegated to the trash-can of history.”59 Again, a reminder of the slippery slope of history and historiography: if errors in regard to imperial coinage can lead to judgments like Runciman’s above (apparently a long-held one, given the tone to the Dumberton text), then how serious would the errors be of those contemporary writers recording the deceit and treachery disguised as diplomacy? Regardless, Runciman presents Alexius in a positive light and balances well the myriad and sometimes nebulous goals of the First Crusade, though for entertainment value it is difficult to best Comnena and her bitter barbs at ‘barbarians.’

The Byzantine Empire extended from Late Antiquity to the nominal “end” of the Middle Ages. Edward Peters’s textbook mirrors this historical demarcation, ending roughly with the capture of Constantinople. For over a thousand years the ‘second Rome’ perched on the bridge between east and west, encountering, influencing, assimilating; and therein, fashioning its own unique identity from these disparate contacts. Constantly faced with threats from virtually all directions, Byzantium utilized subversive diplomacy to ensure its own survival and more, its prosperity; these techniques safeguarded a “chosen people” in their chosen city, even if it also helped to further erode the rift between eastern and western Europe, with issues unresolved a cold thousand years down the road. Now that humanist naval-gazing has been replaced with a more keen appreciation for the neglected and forgotten corners of lady Europa, the legacy and resonance of Byzantium has further enriched our comprehension of this turbulent ‘Middle’ period in history.

Bibliography

Antonucci, Michael. “War by Other Means: The Legacy of Byzantium.” History Today

vol. 43, issue 2 (February 1993): 11-13.

Baynes, Norman H. “Review.” The English Historical Review vol. 68, No. 268 (July 1953): 456-457.

Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. London, England: Penguin, 1969.

Gordon, C.D., “Procopius and Justinian’s Financial Policies,” Phoenix vol. 13, No. 1

(Spring 1959): 23-30.

Hendy, Michael F. and others, eds. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton

Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection. Washington D.C.: Dumberton

Oaks, 1999.

Laiou, Angeliki E. and Cécile Morrison. The Byzantine Economy. New York City, NYL

Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Mallet, C.E., “The Empress Theodora,” English Historical Review vol. 2, No. 5 (January

1887): 1-20.

Peters, Edward. Europe and the Middle Ages. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson / Prentice

Hall, 2004.

Procopius. The Secret History. London, England: Penguin, 1981.

Psellus, Michael. Fourteen Byzantine Emperors. London, England: Penguin, 1966.

Runciman, Steven. “Gibbon and Byzantium.” Daedalus vol. 105, No. 3 (Summer, 1976):

103-110.</f

Over the last couple of years I’ve had this reoccurring nightmare involving education. The theme varies but the core is always the same. I’m in school – usually high school – and find myself buried under a vast amount of uncompleted busywork as the semester clicks toward completion. I see the disappointed faces of my long-past instructors and rush hither and yon trying, trying, trying and ultimately failing to complete the neglected coursework. The underlying assumption in these dreams is that I was far too lazy to do the requirements and now face failure across the board. I’m not sure when these nightmares started, just that they’ve happened infrequently from sometime before the age of 30. Generally I wake from such a dream, shake my head and wonder “wtf?” It got to the point that I would realize that I was dreaming while I was dreaming, and on a couple occasions I told myself that this was bullshit (I remember one such occasion while toiling away at Wolf Creek last winter).

I relate the above because it happened again, a week or so ago. Amusingly, instead of failing out, I was informed by my former language teacher in HS that I was getting a B+ rather than an A, as expected. I woke from this particular dream gnashing my teeth and internally giggling. It seems no matter what corrective steps one takes, the pall of the past still clouds over…

This last dream specifically emerged from the last three weeks/three months of the past year, when after 12 years of absence I returned at last to higher education to earn a degree in secondary education. The original ‘feeling of failure’ probably stems from the 6^th grade, when, out of rebellion to my arch-conservative teacher, I simply stopped doing my math homework halfway through the semester. The teacher gave me a C on my report card; I told him I didn’t feel the grade was correct and tallied the averages myself, which resulted in a 22% for that particular subject. The teacher was kind enough to give me a D ‘for my honesty’, to which I responded to my bemused parents, upon arriving home, that “honesty is the worst policy!” Ah, memories…strange what is retained.

In any case, I achieved a straight-A semester for Fall ’08, in no small part owed to my patient wife and my own almost-manic panic at particular assignments and subsequent over-compensation. This is the second time in my life when I’ve received straight excellent marks, the other being my final semester of high school. In a way, it was very easy – all I had to do was read the assigned material and follow the directions… and devote enough time to get it done properly and effectively. No small task, considering I’ve returned to “Fort Leisure” or “Fort Loser” if you like, where the average grade for an undergraduate research paper is a B- and a marijuana-suffused air of lackadaisical disregard floats above the campus mesa, relatively unchanged in the fourteen year gap, except the kids no longer dress like hippies (the skater-esque thigh-hugging boxer-revealing ‘gangster-style’ seems to have maintained its popularity in that span, no doubt due to the rise of X-treme sports over the last 10 years).

I began to realize the differences between my classmates and myself early on, in my 8:00 class, a survey of American History. The teacher – new to the campus, and used to a more rigorous standard – announced that we’d have a 15 page paper as part of our final grade. I immediately began to consider the options and thought about covering the development of republican ideas from ancient Rome to the founding fathers…a task that would ‘only take me 40 or 50 pages’ and was quickly nixed by the teacher, who wanted 15 pages, no more and no less (I eventually settled on arguing for the electoral college). The other classmates had other concerns, and were not shy in vocalizing that 15 pages was well beyond what they’d been asked to do before. (15 pages double spaced, I eventually found out, is around 3,400 words). I didn’t share with my classmates the fact that I’ve written over 500,000 words of fiction in the last two years; instead I commiserated with their stress and felt no little stress myself – writing fiction is one thing, writing condensed research is something else entirely – and, truth be told, I myself was adapting to the demands of college. For the past decade or so I’ve been able to study on my own time, at my own pace, without requirements. If it took me two months to read a primary text, no problem. College, on the other hand, requires skimming and balancing actual knowledge with bullshit.

Another aspect I had to ‘struggle’ with was the lack of classroom participation. We all remember that annoying little fucker from elementary school that would always raise their hand to every question. I tried not to be that annoying little fucker – but sometimes it was difficult. A couple examples:

Sociology:

TEACHER: “…now, the Cultural Revolution took place in the mid 80’s…”

IAN: “Uhm, sorry professor, the Cultural Revolution took place in the mid to late 60’s.”

TEACHER: (confused expression): “Are you sure?”

IAN: “The Cultural Revolution was Mao’s attempt to regain power after the disastrous policies of the Great Leap Forward. Mao died in 1976. You can still see his body in Tiananmen Square…”

CLASSMATE IN THE BACK ROW: “Who is Mao?”

(mixed laughter)

Or, from my African History class:

IAN: “I remember reading a Newsweek article in 1994, when they ‘covered’ the Rwandan genocide. There was an article on page 65, informing the reader that 86,000 people had died that month…”

CLASSMATE:  “You read Newsweek when you were four years old?”

IAN: “No, I read it when I was 18.”

CLASSMATE: “hunh?”

IAN: “I’m 32.”

(entire class laughs)

---So yes, I guess I succumbed to the ‘annoying little fucker’ syndrome at some points L

 ....

In any case, the ‘warm up’ semester of Fall ’08 showed me a lot. I actively observed my teachers and their techniques, as I’ll be facing classrooms of my own in a few years. I also managed to scrape off some of the rust from my studying habits, which will come in use next semester, when I have 23 credits (I did marry a Korean, you know…). To prepare for that workload, I’ve spent much of my Christmas break reading my textbooks for next year and am currently around 2/3^rd complete (the hardest stuff is done, though).

Another reason I’m working my ass off is the financial situation. I suppose I should feel lucky – school is entirely paid for and I get around 1000 a semester extra, but given that my bills are around 1k a month, and I work an absolute shit job right now (with little opportunity to be found elsewhere, thanks to the economy), I’m hoping to pick up some scholarships next year.

Seong joo suggested we go out and take some photographs yesterday.

11. Rush Limbaugh

Charges: The father of modern stupidity, Limbaugh spins reflexively, never struggling with issues, because he knows his conclusion must favor Republicans, and his only task is finding a way to get there. In other words, he may or may not actually believe what he’s saying, but it’s beside the point. His job is not to say what he thinks, but to instruct his listeners on what they should think. If the facts don’t agree, he can always change them, as his “ditto heads” are already armed against the contrary evidence with the all-purpose “liberal bias” attack. “Rush is right,” as the slogan goes, and all those nerdy reporters in the “drive by media” are lying, because they secretly love terrorists. It’s this creepily worshipful, breathtakingly infantile abdication of intellect to a blatantly dishonest hypocrite that makes Limbaugh’s audience so goddamn sad. These pathetic, insecure, failures of men look to Rush as the champion of their impotent rage, helping them to externalize responsibility for their own deficiencies, pinning the blame on those darn liberals and their racial and gender equality.

Exhibit A: You have to marvel at the sheer ignominy of someone who coins the term “Obama recession” two days after the election.

Sentence: Tiny speaker implanted in his inner ear which blares Randi Rhodes 24-7.
5. Alan Greenspan

Charges: The mortgage meltdown may seem complicated, but it started simple, with Al Greenspan pegging the Fed fund rate at 1%. This made Treasury Bonds a fairly lame investment, and led to investors looking for other seemingly safe securities to buy, which led to a flourishing demand for mortgage-backed securities, which led to banks increasingly lowering their standards for mortgage applications, eventually giving liar loans away to anyone willing to take them, which used to be called usury. This led to a decline in the real value of these MBA securities due to high probabilities of foreclosure, but somehow they were still AAA-rated by credit agencies displaying either hopeless incompetence or criminal collusion. Even a monkey wouldn’t need a slide rule to see what would come next. But Alan Greenspan, super-genius guru of the glorious realm of the self-regulating free market, is totally flummoxed. Refusing to accept any blame for years as the housing bubble, long-predicted by out-of-favor economic realists,  bloated and burst, only recently has Greenspan accepted even marginal responsibility, admitting only that he was “partially” wrong, professing a state of “shocked disbelief” that lenders couldn’t regulate themselves, and thinking to himself, “This isn’t how it worked in Atlas Shrugged!”

Exhibit A: “Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should.”

Sentence: Recurring role as a senile great uncle on new C-grade sitcom “Krugman’s Krew.”

1. Sarah Palin

Charges: If you want to know why the rest of the world is scared of Americans, consider the fact that after two terms of disastrous rule by a small-minded ignoramus, 46% of us apparently thought the problem was that he wasn’t quite stupid enough. Palin’s unending emissions of baffling, evasive incoherence should have disqualified her for any position that involved a desk, let alone placing her one erratic heartbeat from the presidency. The press strained mightily to feign respect for her, praising a debate performance that involved no debate, calling her a “great speaker” when her only speech was primarily a litany of insults to city-dwellers, echoing bogus sexism charges when a male Palin would have been boiled alive for the Couric interview alone, and lionizing her as she used her baby as a Pro-life stage prop before crowds who cooed when they should have been hurling polonium-tipped javelins. In the end, Palin had the beneficial effect of splitting her party between her admirers and people who can read.

Exhibit A: Waving her embryo-loving credentials, in the form of her Down syndrome baby, at "But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy."

Sentence: Hand-to-hand combat with Vladimir Putin and a pack of wolves.

 

22. PUMAs

Charges: Redefining feminism as “supporting Hillary Clinton, whether she wants you to or not,” and “defending” that feminism by embodying negative stereotypes of women as irrational and scornful, there was no demographic more painfully dumb than aggrieved Hillary backers plotting to defeat Obama. Drunk on a dream of vengeance for their queen, this strange minority picked up every despicable, paranoid, racist talking point they could from the worst of the right wing, even complimenting Sean Hannity on his “fair and balanced” coverage of Obama. Desperately twisting words in a sad attempt to tar Obama as a sexist and willing to subject themselves and their country to a probable assault on reproductive rights in the name of spite, the PUMAs comported themselves with all the dignity and sense of a false rape accusation.

Exhibit A: It’s hard to choose, but nothing was more ridiculous this year than hearing an obscenely rich Hillary fundraiser named “Lady de Rothschild” describe Obama as “an elitist.”

Sentence: President Palin appoints Mullah Omar to Supreme Court.

32. Ben Stein

Charges: Daddy got him a job as a lawyer and speechwriter for Nixon; since then his ethics have slid. Whether misrepresenting Democratic policies on Fox News or dry-humping free market mythology in The American Spectator, Stein's brand of conservatism is as credible as a memoir on Oprah’s reading list. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, his 2008 anti-science propaganda film, would have made Leni Riefenstahl blush. He intentionally misquoted Darwin to link the theory of evolution to the Holocaust, earning the diehard Zionist a firm rebuke from the Anti-Defamation League, to which he replied, “It's none of their fucking business.” In his cinematic quest to paint a handful of fact-deficient creationist teachers as the oppressed soldiers of free speech, Stein willfully misrepresented himself to interview subjects, butchered their words with creative editing and infringed on a multitude of copyrights.

Exhibit A: Used portions of John Lennon's “Imagine” in his movie without permission or irony.

Sentence: ClearEyes replaced with a virulent strain of antibiotic-resistant staph.

43. You

Charges: You think it’s your patriotic duty to spend money you don’t have on crap you don’t need. You think Hillary lost because of sexism, when it’s actually because she’s just a bad liar. You think Iraq is better off now than before we invaded, and don’t understand why they’re so ungrateful. You think Tim Russert was a great journalist. You’re hopping mad about an auto industry bailout that cost a squirt of piss compared to a Wall Street heist of galactic dimensions, due to a housing crash you somehow have blamed on minorities. It took you six years to figure out what a tool Bush is, but you think Obama will make it all better. You deem it hunky dory that we conduct national policy debates via 8-second clips from “The View.” You think God zapped humans into existence a few thousand years ago, although your appendix and wisdom teeth disagree. You like watching vicious assholes insult each other on TV. You support gun rights, because firing one gives you a chubby. You cuddle falsehoods and resent enlightenment. You think the fact that 43% of whites could stomach voting for an incredibly charismatic and eloquent light-skinned black guy who was raised by white people means racism is over. You think progressive taxation is socialism. 1 in 100 of you are in jail, and you think it should be more. You are shallow, inconsiderate, afraid, brand-conscious, sedentary, and totally self-obsessed. You are American.

Exhibit A: You’re more upset by Miley Cyrus’s glamour shots than the fact that you are a grown adult who is upset about Miley Cyrus.

Sentence: Invaded and occupied by Canada; all military units busy overseas without enough fuel to get back.

The final for my Sociology class is a graphic novel concerning one or several of the subjects we studied in class. A couple people have asked for samples, so I'm posting them here. Please excuse the art...  bascially, this is the first draft to a cult/conspiracy theory satire novel I've had in the planning stages for some time.

The following is pages 2-4 and 13-14 of Until the End of the World.

(below is a blend of pages 13-14)

 One random day in April 2001 I found myself seated on a bench in the biggest mall in Budapest, Hungary. For the last three hours I'd wandered around the shopping arcade, eyes goggling at the plethora of beautiful women. Eventually a Hungarian guy sat next to me – probably in his early thirties, by the slight stomach bulge and receding hairline – and I made a comment about the bewildering amount of hot chicks in the city. The Hungarian informed me about Budapest's prominence in the pornography scene & how a girl could make a year's wage in a day's work. He wasn't much interested in the girls, however – he could tell I was an American and wanted to talk about his favorite subject, heavy metal bands. (In fact, it became impossible to direct the conversation anywhere else once he warmed up to the subject and began comparing/contrasting bands like the Scorpions, Van Halen, Motely Crue, etc.). Somewhere in the conversation I mentioned Guns n' Roses' oft-delayed album Chinese Democracy. "I've heard it'll be coming out soon," I said. The Hungarian shook his head and scowled. "It's not coming out this year at least," he grumbled.

I relate the above story because, when I heard that CD was finally going to be released in November, I asked myself – "does anyone care"? 17 years is a long time. Then I remember that yes, some people – like the fellow mentioned above – really do care. I'm reminded of another story of my misspent youth. Robin, Gene and I were hanging out at the Durango mall, probably about to eat some Little Caeser's Pizza (ah, the memories….) when we spied, down the way, two couples straight-outta-the-trailer-park, each with matching Gn'R shirts. Robin started snickering and openly mocking; they glared at us and shuffled on.

A couple days ago, I saw a co-worker listening to the usual: AC/DC, Great White, Metallica. I'd put her as early forties. I mentioned that I'd heard a few of the tracks of this album. "It sounds ok," I said, smiling.

"Just ok?"

...

Ok, I admit, I liked Guns n' Roses when they first emerged. I was 13 when Appetite for Destruction was released, and it was one of those albums whispered of and then brazenly jammed in the junior-high halls. So for me (and moreso, for some of those of my generation) GnR represents nostalgia - a dose of the old. This last summer – while doing a painting gig & waiting for school to start – I played all four albums while doing finish work at a house. Appetite still stands pretty strong, a snapshot of a time and place, possibly the true peak album of L.A.'s 80's glam-metal rock scene. Lies is spotty, and the Illusion albums even more so – I found myself skipping some of the more egregious sections.

So anyway – seven years and spare change from that random conversation in Hungary, I find myself with mp3's of this album on my hard drive. Here are my initial impressions. Caveat: I rarely listen to this style of music and it's been well over a decade from when I last cared about GnR (possibly from 1993, with the rise of grunge/alternative rock). I'm also dismissing any expectations one might have from knowing that this album cost 13 million dollars at least.

1 – Chinese Democracy – Great intro – a babble of Chinese voices leads into epic drums and thrumming guitar, climaxing with a catchy riff. Shame about the rest of the song. While not terribly bad (interesting solo), it's not incredibly catchy nor does it develop much beyond the basic idea. 2/5

2 – Shackler's Revenge – Mediocre "rocker". I can see this being blasted from monster trucks at the local Wal-mart. 1/5

3 – Better – Filtered wailing guitar and drum machine segue into an Illusion-era mid-tempo GnR song. "Better" Indeed. 4/5

4 – Street of Dreams – Opens with another of Axl Rose's Elton John imitations. Guitars and orchestra quickly follow. An 'epic ballad' similar to the second half of the blue-Illusion album, with lots of piano and plaintive wailing. 4/5

5 – If the World – The first interesting song so far. A Spanish guitar leads into a blacksploitation groove. Cool instrumentation, clean singing, great solo. 5/5

6 – There Was a Time - New agey voices leads to Axl ranting over breakbeat; guitars thrum in and its on. I'd heard this song as a demo on youtube and thought it was terrible – but all the frills (and there are lots of frills) on this song actually make it enjoyable, though Axl gets a bit whiny around 4:20. Bleepy Buckethead solo. Messy climax leads back into the angelic voices from the start. 4/5

7 – Catcher in the Rye – Catchy 'pop' song, slight country-ish atmosphere. It sounds so similar in tone to the previous song that it could be "TWAT pt.2" 3/5

8 – Scraped – Ouch. This 'rocker' is actively embarrassing in parts. 1/5

9 – Riad n' the Bedouins – The most distinctive aspect of this song is that, in the intro, Axl used a sample from Ulrich Schnauss's A Strange and Isolated Place, sans any sort of digital manipulation – it sounds exactly the same. Jarring for me, as I've used this song on several mixes. Pity Riad is relatively one-note throughout. I just can't get over the sample usage – so blatant, yet pointless, as it is not developed elsewhere, just randomly protooled on. 1-2/5

10 – Sorry –  Bluesy/Pink Floyd and/or "Axl does Metallica blues". 4-5/5

11 – I.R.S. – midtempo rocker, interspersed with Kenny G and some nice guitar work, guitar orgy at the end. Shit, Axl actually sounds like his Appetite-self on this song! 3/5

12 – Madagascar – self-pity lyrics, French horns and a long bridge of film vox intermixed with Martin Luther King. I'd heard a live version of this song and actually prefer it (drums and guitar arrangements) to this. 4/5

13 – This I Love – Professionally maudlin. Nice guitar solo. 3/5

14 – Prostitute – Wow, the album features three power ballads as a conclusion! I admit to feeling sleepy by the time this song came around. Nice outro, though… 3/5

Overall: It's impressive in some ways, not impressive at all in others, resources considering.