Monday, December 04, 2006

The inscription to Rabelais's Gargantua:
Good friends, my Readers, who peruse this Book,
Be not offended, whilst on it you look:
Denude yourselves of all depraved affection,
For it contains no badness, nor infection:
'Tis true that it brings forth to you no birth
Of any value, but in point of mirth;
Thinking therefore how sorrow might your mind
Consume, I could no apter subject find;
One inch of joy surmounts of grief a span;
Because to laugh is proper to the man.
And the author's prologue begins:
Most noble boozers, and you my very esteemed and poxy friends - for to you and you alone are my writings dedicated - when . . .
And then a book happens.
This is a dude born in the fifteenth century. A girl sitting in the row in front of me says that it's frat humour - "Jackass for the sixteenth century". I disagree.

This is a dude writing at the same time as Luther and Calvin and other tight-collared killjoys. Yes, it's filthy and gratuitous. Yes, it's silly. It's infantile.
The man is breaking away from the early modern context. Well, sure, he makes more shit jokes than Calvin, but he's also a humanist breath of fresh air. He undoes his collar, and loosens his belt, rearranges his codpiece, and damn well takes his infantile glee in the crude. It's an affirmation of the carnal, the silly - the side of the human utterly starved by the dudes we've been reading.

Like, he starts and ends his book with these protracted, romantic riddles that mean absolutely nothing, just to stick it to the scholarly. He mocks monks, scholars, philosophers, theologians, the church, the crown, language (ah the language), himself, and just about anything else you'd care to mention. He was censored, censured, and all sorts of mean nasty stuff, and he cuts a deliciously unheroic figure. It's the first text in ages that I've read all the way through, and done so willingly.
It's a fun time.

2 Comments:

Blogger Brendan McKendy said...

Wasn't Rabelais a bishop?

Probably if Jackass existed in those times, it would have ruled then too. Existing in these times, though, they're just retreading Tom Green's act. And even his stuff probably comes from John Waters or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transgressive_artists

Wikipedia doesn't list Rabelais, but they also don't mention Shakespeare or Chaucer.

What do you think these days about stuff like South Park and the Aristocrats?

04 December, 2006 18:39  
Blogger Brendan McKendy said...

You see, Brendan, nothing is inherently shocking about the contents of South Park. People only object to that stuff because it's so popular with kids.

The Aristocrats is kind of an interesting experiment, in how it seeks to find the extremes in bad taste and to make an art out of them. If someone made a sequel to the Aristocrats, then I'd consider that to be kind of pointless.

Even in these days, a lot of obscenity is produced so as to challenge our preconceptions about what is obscene. People like Carlin and David Cross are products of their religious upbringings, and their work makes it easier for us to deal with subjects that might normally be considered taboo.

So even if the world has changed over the past while, transgressive art is still 100% relevant.

05 December, 2006 22:34  

Post a Comment

<< Home