Jeremy Fernando & Kenny Png - On Happiness

7/24/2019 Jeremy Fernando & Kenny Png - On Happiness

1/51

ON

HAPPINESSkenny png

& jeremyfernando

This book attempts to approach the notion of happinessand

specifically, the question of whether it is possible to be happy-

through the apparently paradoxical statement, I am happy

because I should be happy! This is a treatment of the possibility

of happiness without a reliance on the usual subjective notions

of freedom, and choice. Hence, this is an attempt to think the

impossibleperhaps even defend the undefendableand posit

that happiness is a state of otherness; one that seizes you, and

perhaps even ceases you.

What is called into question is the logic that you can choose

to be happythe hinge on which the entire self-help genre

revolves. Not only is this an anthropocentric gestureas if the

self is the centre of her/his worldbut more than that, it is alsoa totalitarian gesture: if there is a methodology to control ones

life, this also suggests that it is applicable regardless of situation;

and more than it, it is replicable, repeatable. And by extension,

all people are ultimately flattened into mere variations of the

same. Hence, what is at stake here is the singularity of the

person, of each person.

ONHAPPINESS

KENNYPNG&

JEREMYFERNANDO


2/51


3/51

ON HAPPINESS


4/51


5/51

2HAPPINESS IN SLAVERYTRENT REZNOR4FOREWORD.

OR A LETTER TO KENNY JOHNLOFTHOUSE 10HAPPINESS LIM LEECHING 12THE BOXES KENNY PNG34ON THE HEIGHTS OF DESPAIRE. M. CIORAN 38ON THE WINTEROF MY DISCONTENT; IN FOURAND A HALF GESTURES JEREMYFERNANDO 74 THE VOICES OFMARRAKESH ELIAS CANETTI 78AFTERWORD PETER VAN DE KAMP

84AIN'T IT FUN GENE O'CONNOR &PETER LAUGHTNER 88ABOUT THECONTRIBUTORS

First Edition

kenny png & jeremy fernando 2010

The Boxes

kenny png 2010

Published by

publisher

Address / Website

Distributed by

company

Address / Contact / Website

Illustrations

kenny png

Cover and book design

michelle andrea wan

With the support of

company

National Library Board SingaporeCataloguing in Publication Data

Png, Kenny, 19xxThe Boxes / by Kenny Png & Jeremy Fernando. Singapore : Polymath & Crust, 2010.p. cm.ISBNxx : xxx-xxx-xx-xxxx-x (pbk.)

I.Title.

PRxxxx.xxxSxxx xxxx OCNxxxxxxxxx

Printed in Singapore

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,

including photocopying, or by any information storage and retrieval

system, without the written permission of the publisher.

No part of this play should be staged, by professionals or amateurs, or

used for recitation, lecturing, public reading, radio broadcasting, televi-

sion, film, video or sound taping or in electronic media, without the

written permission of _______.


6/51

3

slave screams he thinks he knows what he wants

slave screams thinks he has something to say

slave screams he hears but doesnt want to listen

slave screams hes being beat into submission

dont open your eyes you wont like what you see

the devils of truth steal the souls of the free

dont open your eyes take it from me

i have found

you can find

happiness is slavery

slave screams he spends his life learning conformity

slave screams he claims he has his own identity

slave screams hes going to cause the system to fall

slave screams but hes glad to be chained to that wall

dont open your eyes you wont like what you see

the blind have been blessed with security

dont open your eyes take it from me

i have found

you can find

happiness is slavery

i dont know what i am i dont know where ive been

human junk just words and so much skin

stick my hands thru the cage of this endless routine

just some flesh caught in this big broken machine

HAPPINESS INSLAVERY

TRENTREZNOR


7/51

5foreword. or a letter to kenny.

October 24th 1997 is the date Kenny Png has on his script as the date of

the first presentation of The Boxes. Its interesting, that. My memories

are a little blurred but in fact my impression is that the first presenta-

tion was for an A-level examination in (I think) July 1997. Of course

we are dealing in absurd uncertainties already. Is my memory reliable?

What isa presentationor, er, wasnt it a performance? Some things

I doremember clearlylike scolding Kenny that there is no such thing

as a rehearsaleverything is a performance, including life. Why do I

remember? Because I was a teacher and teachers repeat endlessly. They

have to. They deal with people like Kenny in their hundreds, every day

of their lives.

I digress already. If I am trying to capture the process of what hap-

pened so many years ago(Kennys request to me)then lets see what

was reallyhappening back in 1997 in VJC, in the TSD department, where

Kennys masterpiece was being hatched.

Well, me first. I (as teacher) was striving to hold together, inspire

as a team, liberate as artists, inculcate some sense of discipline in a rag-

ged and motley bunch of teenagers. Around 70, I think. Alone. Actu-

ally, thats the high-falutin version. I was actually trying to get grade

As in Theatre Studies & Drama (TSD) for as many of em as possible.

This is not the least of a million paradoxical absurdities. Without grade

As, TSD wouldnt have survived in the grade-production-line which

passed as education in those days. And they needed not only grade As in

TSDwhich in the pantheon of noble A-levels was generally despised,

mocked, scorned or deridedbut in all other subjects. Anything less was

FOREWORD.LETTER

KENNY.

JOHNLOFTHOUSE

OR A

TO


8/51

6 on happiness 7foreword. or a letter to kenny.

takable air of frustrated energy, defiance, confusion, and intelligence?

Like screaming. Couldnt he just act or design or do movement?

Each student had to do what was called an individual skill. This in it-

self always seemed absurd to me since theatre is the most communal of

arts. But what happened far too often was that anyone with an ounce of

creativity opted for the bizarrely-named dramatic sequence. This was

a guarantee of endless time wasted, total frustration for all involved and,

usually, tears and disaster before the candidatethey were simulta-

neously examination candidates and performersopted at last for

a safe skill like acting. Thats the cynical realist in me speaking. In

actual fact, I loved the way the kids would launch fearlessly into a crea-

tive act with no background, no knowledge, no developed skills. It was

a quest for liberation, freedomhappiness, if you like. It was what made

me get up every day.

Anyway, Kenny opted for the dreaded dramatic sequenceas I

knew he would. Now he wants me to recall my memories of it. Kenny,

I have very fewmmmmbootsendless painted boxeslitter all over

the placePearlyn and Ian almost in tearsendless rehearsals endlessly

stopping and starting. Kenny, give me a break! I was shepherding 70-plus

students simultaneously through years one and two with sometimes 70-

plus pieces of theatre evolving at any one time. (The students did a group

piece as well as an individual one and churned out hundreds of essays a

month too.) But here goes.

1. Kenny was as stimulatingly creative then as I am sure as he is now.

failure. And so, the curiosity that had brought these kids to the subject

and which had become the passion that drove their every moment (to

the neglect of all other subjects, very often) was liable to prove their

downfall if someone (me) didnt insist on some sense of balance.

As for the students, well they were a bunch of bright, determined

kids who had washed up on the shores of TSD because it offered some

glimpse of creativity in a bleak and barren landscape. Waifs and strays,

often, they ranged from the frankly anarchic and rebellious via the lost

and confused to the clear-headed and ambitious. In fact most combined

all those features simultaneously. After all, they were only 17.

And finally, the course. A remarkable tribute to the far-sightedness

of a supposedly-blinkered Singapore system, TSD appeared in 1988, a

spearhead of the rather quaint Humanities programme launched then.

It combined the study of the history of theatre, the performance skills

central to theatre, and the theory of theatreall worked on or written-

about in terms of performance. Not for TSD the laboured What makes

Oedipus Rex a tragedy but Choose 2 contrasting scenes from OR and

show how you would stage them.I mention this as the ultimate absurd-

ity which lurks behind Kennys script: the fantastically-creative course

which produced (still does) much fine theatre, and a massive number of

creative artists, was itself bound by assessments. The creative thrived

because of the totalitarian grid imposed upon it. The proscriptions of the

syllabus inspired genuine artistic activity.

How did I feel then when Kenny appeared at my door with his ragged

and indecipherable bits of paper, mumbled ideas, and that quite unmis-


9/51

8 on happiness 9foreword. or a letter to kenny.

I remember it with great affection. The examiner, the outside fas-

cist agency, bless him (he was actually a gentle hippy really) loved it too.

We often mentioned it in the years that followed. Its bold, innovative

however derivative it seems in retrospectand rooted in deep concern,

with an intuitive feel for those paradoxes which make Singapore what

it is. It represents the determination of the artist to control his own art

at leastconception, script, set and staging, sound track, performance,

production and direction. Of course, whether he really was in control, or

whether it made Kenny and his performers happy, let alone convince me

or the audience they were happyis easier to sort out in dry philosophy.

I am never sure if art has any meaning anyway, especially performance

art. What I can say with certainty is, it was a memorable experience.

Subjectively, that is.

I think.

If I remember alright.

In fact, let me put my cards on the table. The final result never wor-

ried me or, to be honest, really interested me. And I sense Kenny too is

not worried if the piece got an A or not. The process was all and thats

what has stayed with Kenny and influenced his life choices. And that

continues to make me happy in retirement.

At least, I think I am

Code forhe changed his mind or developed new ideas all the time.

2. His scriptshis hand-writing was atrociouswere an indecipher-

able and tatty work in progress. I never had a clear view of what was

what til the end. Code forit was chaotic.

3. Any verbal interaction with Kenny was (and is?) liable to veer off into

energetic, powerful side-alleys, often littered with non-sequiturs, or

high-speed and unfinished sentences. Like talking to a machine-gun.

Code forI had little idea what he was talking about. And often, nor

did he, that much was clear.

4. Kenny was rebellious and anarchic and restless. Code forhis input

was inconsistent, often hidden or obscure, or even just, er absent.

5. Kenny was a ruthless dictator of a director who terrorized his crew

and performers. Code foronce in the theatre space, it was clear he

knew what he wanted. And would get it at any cost.

The piece itself. Was fantastic. It speaks for itself. Read it. A remark-

able piece of original work, written and performed, by 17-18 year-olds for

a public examination. Unfortunately, we are at the core of the ultimate

paradox. A dead script is far from that wonderful, live ephemeral mo-

ment, when one sits in the theatre with a wonderful, live group of human

beings, who have come together at one unique moment in time. Who

gasp, open their eyes wide, laugh, cryor walk out. No-one walked out.

I think they were intrigued, bewildered, shocked, maybe. Some maybe

even a little worried, scared even, looking over their shoulders? This was

Singapore 1997 after all, and installation art had a heavy history.


10/51

11

The tart dream

envelopes

the gateway

shrouded from

plain sighting

Stretched by the

manners of

felicitous

web weave borne

down by the

weight of its

own making

Not daring

a smile it

yet contends

Holding up

pillars, walls

HAPPINESSLIM LEE

CHING


11/51

THEBOXESKENNY

PNG


12/51

3939

2424

416416


13/51

PROLOGUE

the boxes 17

Dim lights. The stage has 16 boxes of different sizesall blacksuspend-

ed overhead. Stage is empty except for a character down centre-stage.

He has a black box for a head and he is wearing a neat and uniformly col-

oured suit, tie, and trousers. In his hands is another black box. He starts

moving as lights come up. He moves in a straight mechanical manner

turning at right angles towards the centre of the stage; in fact he is walk-

ing in squares around the centre of the stage to reach it. Once he reaches

the centre of the stage, he puts down the black box he is holding in the

centre of the stage. The centre of the stage is also the centre of a 3 me-

tre by 3 metre invisible square which is mathematically. Once he puts

down the box, he starts moving back to his starting position via the exact

steps he came by. He will move off-stage after reaching the position. As

he moves off-stage, two characters in all-black with tight fitting boxes

around their bodiesand a shoe on their headsstart moving out of the

stage-wings, one from each side to totally opposite and reflective posi-

tions on the invisible square; in-line with the black box, and the centre of

the stage. The characters are bare-footed and each has a number on their

boxes: the character on the right has the number 2424, and the one on

the left has the number 3939. The two characters move in very straight

and sharp mechanical waysthey do not bend their knees, or move any

part of their bodies intentionally except for their feet. Once they reach

their positions, they give a cry and start a movement sequence. One

movement sequence consists of the two characters moving one round

around the square in an anti- clockwise direction. They exclaim happy!

with each step and give a mechanical smile every five steps. The char-


14/51

on happiness1818

acters faces are frozen into this smile whenever they are not moving.

Their movements are synchronised and follow the beat of the sound-

track, which is a cacophony of noise with a regular beat; the sound is

accompanied by flashing lights of green, blue, and orange, which stop

whenever each movement sequence is over, and re-start when the se-

quence begins againall of this to give a sense of confused lighting.


15/51

the boxes 21

1

5

10

15

20

25

They do a movement sequence.

2424 I am happy because I should be happy!


both We are happy because we should be happy!

They repeat a movement sequence.

3939 Are you sure we are wearing our shoe the right

way?

2424 We are wearing our shoe the right way because

it should be the way.

3939 Well it might be better if we wear our

shoe vertically on our heads.

2424 No! Wear our shoe horizontally because it is

the right way because it should be the way

both We are wearing our shoe the right way because

it should be the way. We are happy because we

should be happy!



16/51

on happiness22

1

5

10

15

20

25

the boxes 23

1

5

10

15

20

25

3939 Like maybe some blue boxes for instance: we

might look better.

2424 No! We will look like freaks. We wear boxes

of this colour to look normal because it should

be the way; besides any other colour would

make us look indecent.

both We wear boxes of this colour to look normal

and decent because it should be the way. We

are happy because we should be happy!


3939 Oh, have you realised that we can move our

arms and knees too?

2424 Dont do that! It should not be the way.

3939 Why???

2424 Thats because we must have the discipline not

to move our arms and knees so that we can

fulfil the greater purpose in life.

3939 Which is?

3939 Err isnt it rather meaningless to move in

this way. I have a feeling that even though we

have moved so much we are still not far from

where we started.

2424 Nonsense! We have come a long way from

where we came because we move in this way

which is the right way because it should be the

way.

3939 but after coming such a long way in this way

we dont seem to have gotten anywhere anyway.

2424 No! We move in this way because it should

be the way and we have come a long way and

we are happy because we should be happy.

both We move in this way because it should be the

way. We are happy because we should be

happy!


3939 Cant we wear something else besides this?

2424 Like??


17/51

on happiness24

1

5

10

15

20

25

the boxes 25

1

5

10

15

20

25

3939 What about this?

2424 No, there is no beat to it.

3939 Yes, but it makes you feel weirdas if you

really want to move to it.

3939starts moving on his toes, on the spot, going

around in circles.

2424 What are you doing? Stop! I dont think this

should be the way.

3939 Why? There is no beat to move to now anyway

besides, it feels real good.

2424 Really?

After some hesitation, 2424starts to move like

3939too. Soon they get faster and faster, in total

contrast to the slow-moving tune.

3939 (Shaking his head)Wheeeeeeee !

2424 (Shaking his head)Wheeeeeeee !

Suddenly the movement music comes back on.

2424 being not able to move our arms and knees

for the rest of our lives.

3939 Yes!!!

both We do not move our arms and knees even

though we can because it should be the way.

We are happy because we should be happy!

They continue with another movement

sequence. However, half-way through, the

background music is abruptly broken off

and the lights also stop flashing. 2424stops

moving, and 3939stops a few steps later.

3939 Why are we not moving?

2424 Because there is no beat to move to.

3939 Cant we just move on without the beat?

2424 No, it should not be the way.

Soothing music is piped in.


18/51

on happiness26

1

5

10

15

20

25

2424 Oh no!

3939 Oh no!

They immediately try to go back to their

synchronised movements but they are discordant.

Then2424loses his balance and falls on the

floor, whirring his feet.

3939 Now look what you have doneyou have

broken the order!!

2424 Its not my faultcan you help me please?

3939 No! This should not be the wayyou dont

deserve help.

2424 Please help me.

3939: Never, you rebel! REBEL! REBEL! REBEL!

REBEL!

A third character exactly like them but with the

number 416416appears from stage-right and

occupies 2424s position.



19/51

the boxes 29

3939moves back to his original position on

stage-left.


both We are happy because we should be happy!

They start a movement sequence, ignoring 2424

who is still whirring his feet. However this

time as they are moving, the sound of crashing

boxes is heard loudly and the flashing lights are

disrupted regularly; with flashes of shadows on

the 16 suspended boxes. Then everything (sound

and lights) is turned off abruptly save the sound

of the characters going Happy! which ends

after four repetitions.

Curtain.


20/51

the boxes 31

THE BOXES was first presented at the LT AVA of the Victoria

Junior College, 20 Marine Vista, Singapore, on 24 October, 1997.

They play was directed by Kenny Png, who also scored the original

soundtrack.

The cast was as follows:

2424 : Kenny Png

3939 : Pearlyn Quan

416416 : Ian Choo


21/51

32 on happiness 33


22/51

35

The passion for the absurd can grow only in a man who has exhausted

everything, yet is still capable of undergoing awesome transfigurations.

ON THEHEIGHTSDESPAIR

E.M.CIORAN

OF


23/51


24/51

39on the winter of my discontent; in four & a half gestures

1 Franz Kafka. (1998). The Trial. pp.223.

Merde

That was the sound from behind the door. Or at least that was what

weIremember. A judging sound, the sound of judgement: after all,

Kenny Png had to submit himself, be judged, before the law. Which is

not to say that was definitely what happened: after all, one can never be

definitive about such things, especially when they are based on memo-

ry. One has to then approachkeeping in mind the register that one is

called to such thingswith a certain amount of reasonable doubt.

One has to note here that this was a piece that was written for two

primary reasons: to be seen by peers; and also to be judged by a certain

examiner, by one who knew nothing of the persons involved in the piece,

nor the piece itself, one who was aptly termed an external examiner.

And here it is difficult to ignore the tropes of dissection and dismember-

ing, as if an autopsy was to be performed, on not only the performance,

but the performers as well.

Here, if we allow ourselves to be sensitive, it is not difficult to hear

the register of K, of Kafka, and of The Trial, in particular where K is

brought before a power that he neither knowsand can never know

nor can see, but which clearly has effects on him. Hence, at best, all K

can do is to guess, to posit, what is required of him. It is this positing that

is captured in the statement of the priest in the cathedral when he says

to K, no you dont have to consider everything true, you just have to

consider it necessary.1This is due to the fact that K is faced with a law

that he must approach, and which has power of judgment over him, but

ON THEWINTER

OF MY DISCONTENT;HAPPINESSIN

4JEREMYFERNANDO


25/51

40 on happiness 41on the winter of my discontent; in four & a half gestures

4 ibid. pp.221.5 ibid. pp.215.6 ibid. pp.216.

remain; it is of his own free will that he does. This opens the possibility

that it is the man who is free; unlike the doorkeeper who is captive to

his duty, is captive to the Law, as not only has he to wait for the man to

appear, but must also wait there till he decides to leave: in this sense, it

is the executer of the Law who is most bound to it. As the priest explains

to K,

the man is in fact free: he can go wherever he wishes, the entrance

to the Law alone is denied to him, and this only by one person,

the doorkeeper. If he sits on the stool at the side of the door and

spends the rest of his life there, he does so of his own free will; the

story mentions no element of force. The doorkeeper, on the other

hand, is bound to his post by his office; he is not permitted to go

elsewhere outside, but to all appearances he is not permitted to

go inside either, even if he wishes to.4

Even as the doorkeeper is bound to the Law, it is not as if he knows

what the Law is: one can assume that he hasnt been too far into the

LawIm only the lowest doorkeeper the mere sight of the third is

more than even I can bear5and moreover, it is the man who in the

darkness now sees a radiance that streams forth inextinguishably from

the door of the Law6; nothing is said of whether the doorkeeper sees this

light. This suggests that both the man and the doorkeeper, regardless of

whether they are there by choice or by duty, are affected by a power that

2 ibid. pp.215.3 ibid. pp.216.

at the same time, is a law that is always hidden from him. And it is this

that the priest attempts to highlight to him through the famous parable

of the Law:

Before the Law stands a doorkeeper. A man from the country

comes to this doorkeeper and requests admittance to the Law.

But the doorkeeper says that he cant grant him admittance now.

The man thinks it over and then asks if hell be allowed to enter

later. Its possible, says the doorkeeper, but not now.2

It is not that the manor Kis not allowed into the Law, not allowed

to see what it is that is judging him, but that he is not allowed to at this

very moment. As there is no time stipulation to but not now, it is not

that the doorkeeper is lying to him, but that the moment of admittance

is deferred, not necessarily eternally, but perhaps for just one moment

longer than the life of the man. However, it is not as if the Law has no

effect on their lives: on the contrary the man from the country waits out-

side the doorway till the end of his life, and Ks trial fully occupies his

daily existence. In other words both of them are completely consumed

by the Law, by a force that they do notand cannotsee or comprehend,

by a force that they remain completely blind to.

Even though the Law is a force that affects them, has an effect on

them, it is not as though they are compelled to be before it: after all, the

man decides that he would prefer to wait. 3At no point is he forced to


26/51


at best whether it is a correct understanding, which suggests that every

misunderstanding is not only potentially a correct understanding; but

that it is impossible to distinguish between them in the first place. One

might even posit that within every understanding lies a misunderstand-

ing. It is for this reason that even the executer of the Law remains blind

to it: all the doorkeeper is doing is carrying out the Law in that part icular

situation, the situation of the Law being solely for you; in other words,

the only knowledge that the executer of the Law has is of its effects; the

only time that the executer knows of the Law is at the very moment (s)

he is executing it.

But it is not as if our own K is unaware of this; of the absurdity of

standing before a Law he is not privy tobeing judged by a judge undoing

the very Law he is judging by, the very Law that allows him to judge in the

first place. After all, he is constantly reminding us that, I am happy, be-

cause I should be happy! And at that point, I recall many in the audience

jumping to the conclusion that he must have been writing a commen-

tary on the state, on politics, on public policy. Of course there were all

completely missing the point: what was at stake was far more than mere

politics; what was at play was the very notion of happiness itself. And

more precisely, the absurdity of the relationality between happiness and

choice. Here perhaps it might be helpful to take a strange detourto tem-

porarily defer a direct approach to the relationalityand look through

the lens of politics itself, in order to open a register between freedom and

happiness.

7 ibid. pp.217.8 ibi d. pp.223.9 ibi d. pp.219.

is beyond their comprehension; even the radiance that streams forth is

only seen at the end; only now does he see this light. And even though

the man sees this light, this radiance emanating from within the door,

within the Law, he never knows what it means, or even what the light is.

The unknowability of the Law becomes even more curious if we take

into account the fact that no one else could gain admittance here, be-

cause this entrance was meant solely for you.7This suggests that it is a

personalized Law and this opens the register of the paradox that every

lawthat the Law itselffaces: in order for something to be Law, it has

to have a certain universality, in that it is applicable to everyone with-

out distinction or discrimination; however each application of the Law

is singular, unique, and situational. Hence, at best, the Law can only be

knownif that term can even be used in the first placeat the very mo-

ment in which it is applied; to the man, to K, to you: the Law can only be

glimpsed by the effects it has on one, but can never be known as such.

This is precisely why the priest tells K, you dont have to consider eve-

rything as true, you just have to consider it as necessary. For it is not

so much that one cannot tell between what is true or not (which is the

misunderstanding that K has in thinking that lies are made into a uni-

versal system8) but more radically that each truthand by extension

each lieis only provisional, situational, singular. It is the situationality

of the Law, of each positing of the Law, that allows the commentators

[to] tell us: the correct understanding of a matter and misunderstand-

ing the matter are not mutually exclusive.9In fact, one can only guess


27/51


28/51


In a democracy, the subject has to assume complete responsibility for

both her/his actions and also that of the state. The freedom of the subject

is closely related to the choice(s) that is presented to the subject; and in

fact, the point of ultimate freedom, expression of ones will and choice,

comes at the moment of election. At each election, the subject has three

options: elect a particular candidate or party, spoil the vote, or refuse to

vote. But whichever option the subject chooses, (s)he has already agreed

to accept the outcome of the election. This, for instance, makes all claims

to Bushs illegal election moot the moment the results were officially an-

nounced; one can challenge them up to the point they are announced, but

no longer after. More crucially, the subject has to take responsibility for

the outcome. In effect, whether or not you elected that particular person/

party, you are responsible for her/his/their actions. By extension, this

means that whatever legislation is passed by those elected to officeno

matter how brutal or disagreeable they may beis effectively passed by

the subject(s) on themselves.

This ironic lack of freedom in democracy is due to the attempt at bridg-

ing the gap between the subject and the other; by attempting to know the

other too well. By having a direct hand in choosing ones own leaders,

one is in effect having a stake in the leadership, whilst being governed by

that same leadership. Hence, there is no longer a gap, a space, to complain

about that same leadership; after all, you were the one who chose it.

And here we momentarily turn to Slavoj iekpotentially a strange

source when attempting to examine a notion like happinesswho con-

In a Fascist state, the subject is denied all freedom; all power lies

in the hand of the one absolute leaderin this sense, (s)he plays the

role of the (Absolute) Other, on which everything depends. The sub-

ject is merely a part of the whole body (in the form of the state): this

is the corporatisation of the state and its subjects. Hence, all action of

the subject is a result of the Leader: this is why Adolf Eichmanns de-

fense in Jerusalem, when he claimed that he was innocent as he was

merely following the orders of the Fhrer, is perversely correct. Ironi-

cally, this absolute enslavement also ensures the absolute freedom

of the subject; for there is nothing that the subject can responsible

for. (S)he is merely a cog in the entire body, and as such, the subject is

not responsible for anything, even her/him self. So even if the subject

is punished by the law for something in a Fascist state, it is not that

(s)he is guilty for doingor not doingsomething, for one can only be

guilty if one is responsible for it, but the fact that the Leader deems her/

him so. The fact that the private and the public spheres are collapsed en-

sures the true freedom of the self; one is accountable only to the self and

not to any external force.

In a Totalitarian statethe Soviet Union under Stalin for instance

the other takes the form of the Party. In this manner, once again there is

no freedom for the subject as everything is determined by the Party; all

responsibility comes under, and is of, the Party. Hence, the subject can

always blame the Party for anything, even bad weather. Once again, a per-

verse form of freedom for the subject can be found in this situation.


29/51


too far away, not too close, This fragile balance was disturbedby

what? By desire precisely. Desire was the force that compelled the

people to move onand end up in a system in which the great ma-

jority are definitely less happy.10

And it is this absurd gap between absolute freedom of choice, and

the act of choosing, that K opens: for if we were only ever satisfied with

real choices, all commercialism, and advertising would fail. Even though

shaving cream is essentially the same, we are only satisfied when we get

to choose between 20 variations; and this is what we want: sterilized,

safe, options, alternatives. But instead of complaining about the illusory

nature of choice, what K does is to plunge head on into the illusion; and

here we awaken another spectre, that of the Beckettian I cannot choose,

but I must choose.

This though, is a reconstitution of choice, of the act of choosing itself;

for it is no longer a choice that is purely of the self, but rather a choosing

that is always already in relation with what is out there, with a certain

thrownessinto a situation. In other wordsand here do we have much

choice but to speak in words that are other to usthis is a choice that

is in response to the call from elsewhere, to a call from the other. Here,

perhaps it may be helpful to allow ourselves a momentary turn to Wern-

er Hamacher, and his response to Peter Connor, where he meditates on

what a call entails, on what it means to be called:

10Slavoj iek. (2003). The Puppet and the Dwarf: the Perverse Core of Christianity . pp.42.

The above paragraphs on Fascism, Totalitarianism and Democracy were inspired by aconversation with iek on 8 August, 2004 in Saas Fee, Switzerland.

tends that happiness lies in the gap between the ability to choose, and the

actual consequences of real choice. He asks:

When exactly can people be said to be happy? In a country like

Czechoslovakia in the late 1970s and 1980s, people were, in a way,

actually happy: three fundamental conditions of happiness were

fulfilled. Their material needs were basically satisfiednot too

satisfied, since the excess of consumption can in itself generate

unhappiness. It is good to experience a brief shortage of some

goods on the market from time to time (no coffee for a couple of

days, then no beef, then no TV sets): these brief periods of shortage

functioned as exceptions that reminded people that they should

be glad that these goods were generally availableif everything

is available all the time, people take this availability as an evident

fact of life, and no longer appreciate their luck. So life went on in

a regular and predictable way, without any great efforts or shocks;

one was allowed to withdraw into ones private niche. A second

extremely important feature: there was the Other (the Party) to

blame for everything that went wrong, so that one did no feel re-

ally responsibleif there was a temporary shortage of some goods,

even if stormy weather caused great damage, it was their fault.

And last, but not least, there was an Other Place (the consumerist

West) about which one was allowed to dream; and one could even

visit it sometimesthis place was at just the right distance: not


30/51


12Jacques Derrida. (1998).Right of Inspection. pp.1.13 ibid. pp.1.14ibid. pp.1.

that this communion is one that is without consumption, without sub-

sumption; the other remains wholly other to ourself, even as we attempt

to momentarily get in touch.

Perhaps it is this touching that we have to examine, a touching that is

clearly an actwe must after all attempt to touch somethingbut an act

that is also always already exterior to us, to ourselves, to all notions of the

self. And here, as we are attempting to read, we must never forget that we

are reading a play, for even though we are free to read, we are always al-

ready governed by the laws of reading, and the rules that come with each

genre. As Jacques Derrida reminds us time and time again, even though

the reader has a right to see, and that it takes a certain skill to see,

in that it is not a random, purely arbitrary act, (s)he is always already

bound by a law of seeing. After all, you have the authority to tell your-

self these stories but you cannot gain access to the squares of that other

one. You are free but there are rules.12In this way, reading, and seeing, is

a negotiation between the reader and the text. One is free within a cer-

tain set of rulesafter all one is always already bound by grammarand

ones reading is an interjection, an interplay between the reader and the

text within the rules laid out, the rules before which both the reader and

the text must stand; there is a law that assigns the right of inspection,

you must observe these rules that in turn keep you under surveillance.13

In order to play the gamethe game of seeing, the game of readingyou

have no choice but to remain within these limits, this frame, the frame-

work of these frames 14And more than this, a text gives both you and

11Werner Hamacher. Interventions. in Qui Parle: Journal of Literary Studies 1, no. 2 , Spring 1987:37-42. italicsfrom source.

Why is the call thought of as something which, rather than taken,

taken down, or taken inbe it from a specific agent, subject, prin-

ciple, preferably a moral onewill begiven? And if each call which

issues is destined to make demands on the one who is called (but

this is also questionable), is it already settled that I will hear,

that I will hear this call and hear it as one destined for me? Is it

not rather the case that the minimal condition to be able to hear

something as something lies in my comprehending it neither as

destined for me nor as somehow oriented toward someone else?

Because I would not need to hear it in the first place if the source

and destination of the call, of the call as call, were already certain

and determined. Following the logic of calling up, of the call and

along with that the logic of demand, of obligation, of law, no call

can reach its addressee simply as itself, and each hearing is con-

summated in the realm of the possibility not so much of hearing as

being able to listen up by ceasing to hear. Hearing ceases. It listens

to a noise, a sound, a call; and so hearing always ceases hearing,

because it could not let itself be determined other than as hearing,

to hearing any further. Hearing ceases. Always. Listen11

And as Hamacher teaches us, listening is the openness to the possibil-

ity of the other, of the potentiality of being in communicationin com-

munionwith the other, an objectless other, an other that might be com-

pletely other to itself. It is this objectlessness of the other that ensures


31/51


32/51


by the Law. It is only when something is illegitimate that the author-

ity of a person is required in order to enact it. In other words, author-

ity is the very undoing of the Law itself. For instance, a death-sentence

can only be pardoned by the authority of the sovereign. In doing so

(s)he is going against the legal system which sentenced the person to

death; the same legal system that upholds her/his very sovereignty. How-

ever, a foregrounding of the illegitimacy of the sovereign would not only

shatter the illusion, but also bring about the collapse of the entire system.

This is the lesson of The Emperors New Clothes: the shock and horror

of the crowd was not in the fact that the little child pointed out that the

Emperor was naked (who didnt already know that), but in foregrounding

the absurdity of the situation (he is only the Emperor because everyone

deems him to be so; and they are subjects because he is Emperor). The

child was told to be quiet precisely because what was highlighted was

the fact that the people were making themselves subservient; they were

subjected by their own act of subjugation, and moreover in the face of

absolute lack of evidence that the man standing in front of them was the

Emperor. What was at stake though was not just the status of the Em-

peror himself, but the very empire itself; for if the illusory state of his

authority is exposed, then the entire kingdom comes crashing down. And

hence, the child was silenced not to protect the Emperor from the shame

of being naked, but more pertinently to protect the secret that his author-

ity rested on nothing: he was only Emperor because he was in a lineage

that was recognized by his subjects; he was sovereign not because he was

15ibid. pp.2.

itself (through its characters, through the outcome of its own narrative),

a right to look, the simple right to look or to appropriate with the

gaze, but it denies you that right at the same time: by means of its

very apparatus it retains that authority, keeping for itself the right

of inspection over whatever discourses you might like to put forth

or whatever yarns you might spin about it, and that in fact comes

to mind before your eyes.15

It is in this way that every seeing reveals and conceals at the same

time; every seeing always already involves a certain inability to see, an

inability to know. In effect every reading is a positing, taking a position,

making a choice, which comes with a moment of madness, of blindness.

Otherwise, all one is doing is re-writing the text; otherwise, one might

as well not be reading at all. And here, once again, the spectre of Kafka

returns to us, whispering to us that one can never know the law which

one stands before.

At this point, we might want to take yet another detour, and al-

ter the perspective of the thinking, and perhaps direct it onto K him-

selfand here open the register of authorship. One can detect an echo

of the author that can be heard in authority; as if the writer of the sit-

uation can play at being God; all-seeing, and in full-control. The trou-

ble with authority is that it is always already illegitimate. For if some-

thing is legitimate, access to it would be open to everyonegoverned


33/51


gesture of acknowledging that the secret is a secret, that he is indeed Ra.

Perhaps this is the lesson of Andy Warhol. It was not so much the

reproduction itself that is the art, but the very gesture of recognizing

the objects to be reproduced. There is nothing to an old pair of shoes ly-

ing around; it is van Goghs realization of the possibilities in those very

shoesthe singularity of the situationthat momentarily elevates it to

the realm of art. In this sense, one can posit that both Warhol and van

Gogh were authors at that moment of recognition; through their respec-

tive media, both of them create a singularity by arresting a particular

moment in time. And since it is a singular moment, it is in some sense

always also an original gesture; one that has never happened before, and

one that is also non-repeatable. In this manner, one can posit that the

artistic gesture is the reification of time itself: the concretisation of a mo-

ment through a medium, as if that moment was real; in other words, the

authoring of a moment.

The irony though is that every gesture is always already a reproduced

gesture. After all, regardless of medium, one is capturing a moment, and

more precisely, a moment that has passed. In this sense, all art is a recon-

stitution of memory. This is not to say that every act of memory is art; or

that every attempt to capture memory is art. Far from it.

Perhaps here one might consider the status of forgetting. In order to

do so, we should momentarily stop and consider what it means to say I

forgot. One can always posit that I forgot is a performative statement:

anyone who has been through a school system has used this umpteen

a singular one, but because he was in a series of ones. In fact, if he was

truly new and original, no one would recognize him, and he would not be

sovereign, barring a war-like situation where a new Emperor enforced

his authority over people, subjugated a new group. However, even in that

situation, he is only Emperor when his subjects finally recognize him.

Hence, all authority is only as such due to the sovereign being a repro-

duction of all the sovereigns before her/him; and not the person as such.

However, the very source of that authority itself, the reason for a pact

between the Emperor and his subjects, remains a tautological premise

(he is Emperor because the people are subjects; they are subjects because

there is an Emperor), remains outside of reason, remains unknown; re-

mains a secret.

In some way, the question that remains sounds paradoxical: if we

posit that it is important that the secret is protected, how is it a secret, if

everyone already knows what the secret is?

Here perhaps, we need to turn to the very notion of secrets them-

selves. And to do so, let us momentarily draw upon an old tale. When Isis

poisoned Ra, she promised him the antidote in exchange for his secret

name, which was the source of all his power. And he whispered into her

heart, and she felt herself filled with all the knowledge and wisdom of

Ra; all the power that came with his nameAmen-Ra. However, it was

not as if no one else knew it; in fact everyone knows that his name is Ra.

What this shows is that secrets rarely lie in the content (after all, Amen

is merely an affirmation), but in knowing that something is secret, in the


34/51


35/51


36/51


16This was in reference to the utopian ideal of the Leninist revolution and can be found in Slavojiek. A Plea for Leninist Intolerance inCritical Inquiry. Winter 2000.

www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-crit-inq/v28/v28n2.iek.html (italics from source).

yet another seguea back-track evenas if it was possible to do so, and

re-enter the realm of the polis for a moment, and consider the instance of

revolutions. Here, we return to Slavoj iekthis time calling on him as

one of the thinkers of modern day revolutionswho never lets us forget:

In a proper revolutionary breakthrough, the utopian future is nei-

ther simply fully realized, present, nor simply evoked as a distant

promise that justifies present violence. It is rather as if, in a unique

suspension of temporality, in the short circuit between the present

and the future, we areas if by Gracefor a brief time allowed to

act as if the utopian future were (not yet fully here, but) already

at hand, just there to be grabbed. Revolution is not experienced

as a present hardship we have to endure for the happiness and

freedom of the future generations but as the present hardship

over which this future happiness and freedom already cast their

shadow-in it, we already are free while fighting for freedom, we

already are happy while fighting for happiness, no matter how

difficult the circumstances. Revolution is not a Merleau-Pontyan

wager, an act suspended in the futur anterieur , to be legitimized

or delegitimized by the long term outcome of the present acts; it

is as it were its own ontological proof, an immediate index of its

own truth.16

And it is this as if that remains crucial to us: we must act as if we

(or wrong) with any certainty. Hence, art lies in its praxis, in each attempt

at making something, doing something, practicing ones craft; at best, all

that can be said is that art is a gesture towards the possibility of art. More

than that, whether something ever reaches the realm of arta reproduc-

tion that is not just a reproductionor remains just another reproduc-

tionnot that there is any logical difference between the twoalways

already remains a secret from us, perhaps until it happens. And when

it does, its reason might still remain unknown to us, which means that

all attempts to reproduce the gesture might only remain a reproduction.

In other words, art is nothing more than a gesture. And more than

that, since art always already remains potentially exterior to the person,

there are no artists; there is only the possibility of the gesture.

One that is made in blindness to everything but the possibility of art

itself.

I am happy!in blindness to everything, but the possibility of hap-

piness itself.

Which is why, there always already had to be two of them; even as

they are walking around in circles, declaring their happinessfor hap-

piness could not reside in just a single, total, being. As K is teaching us,

happiness is always already there; perhaps the only reason we are un-

able to see it is because it is there, but just not yet. However, this is not a

nihilistic gesture, one aimed at nothingness, for that would be too sure,

too certain, too totalising, but rather a gesture of hope, a gesture of pos-

sibility, potentiality. And here for a moment, it might be strange to make


37/51


38/51


it feels real goodall hell breaks loose. This of course does not mean

that one has to be forever separate from everyone else, from everything;

but rather, even in a joining, a conjoining, one always already remains

singular. In this very sense, the phrase when two become one has to be

read ironically; and what else would be this gap, this distance, but that of

an ironic distance.

Perhaps here, we might as well reverse all the way to the beginning;

and start again. This is after all, one of the possible readings of a revolu-

tion; going round and round in circles. And listen to another register of

merde; that of Ubu Roi. More preciselyif we can ever even use that

notion when speaking of Ubu Roiwe need to open our receptors to his

laughter, the great guffaw of the King, a King very much unlike the naked

one we spoke of earlier. For this king is one that takes his kingshipand

himselfwith an absurd level of seriousness, so seriously that we have no

choice but to take him ironically, at a distance; otherwise we either have

absolutely no way of fathoming anything, or we understand nothing by

attempting to understand everything. Hence, what we have to do is to ap-

proach Ubu Roi at a distance, allow for the fact that he is kingwhatever

that even begins to meanand take everything he says, and does, with

belief and un-belief at the same time. For there is no referentiality to the

words of this king; all he is doing is saying, all he is doing is speaking: all

he is doing is naming at the moment he names.

Isnt that though the nature of all names? Singular as there is only one

thing, at one moment in time, that is being named; multiple as no name is

are able to do so. This suggests that each time we act, there is no way

in which we will know whether it is a correct or wrong actin other

words, we will never have the comfort of certainty. Each time we act is its

own ontological proof, with no hope of reference or precedence: each

act is singular, and irreducibly different from every other act. But at the

same time, we can only know that something is irreducibly different in

the presence of another; which suggests that each actand by extension,

each personto borrow Jean-Luc Nancys beautiful formulation, is al-

ways already singular-plural.

And if one is singular, but always already in relation to all others, this

suggests that happiness cannot be vested in the self; despite all the claims

by self-help gurus, and television psychologists, one cannot will oneself

to be happy. But as our friend K tells us over and over again, we can only

be happy because we should be happy. All the self can do is listenand

open oneself up to the possibility of being happy.

Here, we might begin to posit that happiness lies in the dash between

the singular and the plural; after all, if happiness is nothing but the open-

ness to the possibility of happiness, this suggests that it is both always

already there, and to come; all one can do is stand before it. But at the

same time, as we have opened in the register of maintaining the gapthe

proper distance as it werebetween choosing and real choice, we must

allow the dash to keep the singular and the plural apart. As K demonstrat-

ed to us, the moment the two of them come togetherthe moment 3939

and 2424 do something because they want to, choose to do something as


39/51


ECHOES

Althusser, Louis. (1977).Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. (B. Brewster,

Trans.). London: New Left Books.

Badiou, Alain. (2002).Ethics: an Essay on the Understanding of Evil.(Peter

Hallward, Trans.). London: Verso.

Barthes, Roland. (1994).Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes.(Richard Howard,

Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bataille, Georges. (1985). Visions of Excess: Sel ected Writings, 1927-1939. (Allan

Stoekl, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

_______________. (2001).LAbbe C.(Philip A. Facey, Trans.). London: Marion

Boyars.

Baudrillard, Jean. (1988). The Ecstasy of Communication.(Caroline Schutze,

Trans.). New York: Semiotext(e).

_____________. (1990). Seduction.(Brian Singer, Trans.). New York: St Martins

Press.

_____________. (2007).In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities.(Paul Foss,

John Johnston, Paul Patton, & Andrew Berardini, Trans.). Los Angeles:

Semiotext(e).

_____________. (2007). Symbolic Exchange and Death.(Iain Hamilton Grant,

Trans.). London: Sage Publications.

Beckett, Samuel. (2006). Waiting for Godot.London: Faber an d Faber.

______________. (2006).Endgame.London: Faber an d Faber.

Blanchot, Maurice. (1992). The Step Not Beyond.(Lycette Nelson, Trans.). New

York: State University of New York Press.

________________. (1999).Awaiting Oblivion.(John Gregg, Trans.). Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press.

________________. (2000). The Instant of My Death. (Elizabeth Rottenberg,

Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

unique. Therefore a name both refers to one thing and everything other

than that one; at exactly the same time. Each act of naming is a reifica-

tion of a moment in time; authored, illegitimate, necessary. Hence each

time we name, we have no choice but to name as if we can. Of course,

we can choose to wallow in our discontent, and do absolutely nothing at

all, decrying the impossibility of knowing, and the impossibility of doing

anything. Either that or we can do it, in spite of the inability to do so, do it

whilst knowing that it is all merde; all the whilst echoing the belly laugh

of our king Ubu.

I am happy, because I should be happy!

What else is happiness but a name; or otherwise, a warm gun


40/51

70 on happiness 71

Borges, Jorge Luis. (2000).A Universal History of Iniquity.(Andrew Hurley,

Trans.). London: Penguin Books.

Cixous, Hlne. (2004).Portrait of Jacques Derrida as a Young Jewish Saint.

(Beverly Bie Brahic, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.

Derrida, Jacques. (1993).Memoirs of the Blind: The Self-Portrait and Other Ruins.

(Pascale-Anne Brault & Michael Naas, Trans.). Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

_____________. (1998).Right of Inspection. (David Wills, Trans.). New York: The

Monacelli Press.

_____________. (2000).Demeure: Fiction and Testimony. (Elizabeth Rottenberg,

Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Duras, Marguerite. (1986). The Malady of Death.(Barbara Bray, Trans.). New

York: Grove Weidenfeld.

Fernando, Jeremy. (2009).Reading Blindly: Literature, Otherness, and the

Possibility of an Ethical Reading.New York: Cambria Press.

Hamacher, Werner. (1999).Premises: Essays on Philosophy and Literature from

Kant to Celan.(Peter Fenves, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Jarry, Alfred. ( 1997). The Ubu Plays: Ubu roi, Ubu cocu, Ubu enchaine & Ubu sur

la butte.(Kenneth McLeish, Trans.). London: Nick Hern Books.

Ronell, Avital. (1989). The Telephone Book: Technology, Schizophrenia, Electric

Speech.Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

___________. (2004). Crack Wars: Literature Addiction Mania. Chicago:

University of Illinois Press.

___________. (2005). The Test Drive.Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

iek, Slavoj. (1991).Looking Awry: an Introduction to Jacques Lacan through

Popular Culture.Cambridge: The MIT Press.

__________. (2003). The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity.

Cambridge: The MIT Press.


41/51


42/51

75

Here I am, trying to give an account of something, and as soon as I

pause I realize that I have not yet said anything at all. A marvelously

luminous, viscid substance is left behind in me, defying words. Is it the

language I did not understand there, and that must now gradually find

its translation in me?THEVOICESMARRAKESH

ELIASCANETTI

OF


43/51


44/51

79peter van de camp

I am happy, because I should be happy! exclaim the characters

in Pngs The Boxes with repetitive insistence. Toying withpetitio

principii, the causality teeters on the circularity which is borne out by

the characters movements. All is vanity, in the various meanings of

the wordas are the shoes, and their positioning, on the characters

heads. This has the trappings of the theatre of the absurd, with a nod

to Beckett (and a wink at Magritte). The dramatis personaeare pup-

pets, their movements mechanical, their garb ridiculous. But Png does

not share Becketts gray [sic] abandon; for that, he is adamantly causal

and putative (because and should loom large in this short play). Un-

like absurdist drama, The Boxes is invested with meaning. It pits the

human condition against human conditioning, offering an allegory of

lhomme moderne, literally boxed in by the fashion of the age.

And what is more fashionable than the dictate to be happy? It has

proven to be the greatest marketing ploy of modern society. Happiness

being what most people strive for most, it has become the prime moti-

vator for consumerism. There is even a perfume called Happy (which

scores high in the engagingPerfumes, The A-Z Guideby Luca Turin and

Tania Sanchez). Hang on, I hear you say, hasnt it always been this

way? True, Aristotle observed in his Nichomachean Ethicsthat hap-

piness is the highest aim of humanity. But that is a facile translation

which hides a fundamental difference: Aristotleseudaimoniatranslates

literally as well-spirited, in other words, being content. Contentment

requires self-control; happiness does not. The latter word is derived

from hap, meaning chance or fortune (good or bad) that falls to any

AFTERWORDPETER

VAN DEKAMP


45/51

80 on happiness 81

one; luck, lot (O.E.D.). To be happy means to be favoured by fate. A

desire to be happy, however putative, reeks of hybris: we were not born

to be happy. And all the produce, all prescribed behaviour that is sup-

posed to warrant happiness, are but silly talismans.

Like any self-respecting dramatist, Png holds up a mirror. In it we

see ourselves decked out with talismanic straitjackets, the victims of

our fetishes, all caught in our compulsion to be favoured by fate. O

tempora, o mores!

Jeremy Fernando, in the accompanying article, puts paid to Sartres

pathetic paradox that we are compelled to be free. In a philosophically

mature essay, he lays bare the absurdity of the relationality between

happiness and choice. His perspective is panoramic, from Slavoj iek

describing the trappings of communist Czechoslovakia through Kafkas

The Trial, with the perforce elusive nature of the law, through the

spectre of the Beckettian I cannot choose, but I must choose. These he

contextualizes with Derrida topsy-turvying that we are free to see, but

there are rules, and with Hamachers solipsistic Other, only to arrive at

the belly laugh of Alfred Jarrys Ubu Roi.

Behind the curtains of Pngs play, nous (vo) is fumbling for a fit

response to the vacuous, infelicitous logos on display. That reply is

articulated by Fernando with deft circularity at the start and end of

his treatise: out of spirit comes a voice, and all it says is that one word

merde.


46/51


47/51

85

Ain't it fun when you're always on the run

Ain't it fun when your friends despise what you've become

Ain't it fun when you get so high that you, well you just can't come

Ain't it fun when you know that you're gonna die young

It's such fun... such fun

Ain't it fun when you're taking care of number one

Ain't it fun when you feel like you just gotta get a gun

Ain't it fun when you j.j.j. just can't seem to find your tongue

Cause you stuck it to deep into something that really stung

It's such fun

Well somebody come up to me they spit right in my face

But I didn't even feel it, it was such a disgrace

I punched my fist right through the glass

But I didn't even feel it, it all happened so fast

It's such fun, such fun, such...

Ain't it fun when you tell her she's just a cunt

Ain't it fun when she splits and leaves you on the bum

Ain't it fun when you've broken up every band that you've ever begun

Ain't it fun when you know that you're gonna die young

It's such fun, such fun, such...

Having a real fun time, such fun, such fun

AIN'T ITFUNGENEO'CONNOR

&PETERLAUGHTNER


48/51


49/51

89abo ut the con tri buto rs

JEREMY FERNANDOis the Jean Baudrillard Fellow at the European

Graduate School, where he obtained his PhD in Media Philosophy. He

works in the intersections of literature, philosophy, and the media; and

is the author ofReflections on (T)error,Reading Blindly, and The Suicide

Bomber; and her gift of death . Exploring his thinking through different

forms has led him to film, music, and installation art; and his works

have been exhibited in Vienna, Seoul, Singapore, and Hong Kong. He

is the editor of the thematic magazine One Imperative, and a Research

Fellow at the Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, Nanyang

Technological University.

KENNY PNGis a director, photographer, musician, and an award

winning television documentary maker. His works have been

showcased in major television channels such AXN, ANIMAX, MTV,

Channel News Asia, Discovery Asia, Disney Channel Asia, as well as

festivals including Sidewalk Cinema (Vienna), Sexpression (Hong

Kong), Operation Automaton (Singapore) and the Seoul FX Radio

Festival. In his spare time, he heads The Enigmatic Army: a creative

collective, comprising writers, musicians, film-makers, and artists

from Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and India.

What started as a keen interest in the arts & crafts that began as

a kid, MICHELLE ANDREA WANhas since developed into an

obsession with producing immaculate works. Hailing from the BAs

of Visual Communications from the RMIT Melbourne, and English

ABOUTTHECONTRI

BUTORS


50/51

90 on happiness 91abo ut the con tri buto rs

Kerry International Summer School of Living Irish Authors; director

of Mangan Publishing; executive editor of the Mangan series; and

advisory editor of the Irish Academic Press.

Literature from the NUS, she is now a graphic designer at a local

renown agency. Her aesthetic philosophy is one of simplicity over

clutter. Her works includeFridays with Philip, a collection of rhetoric

by Philip Lim; the book cover forBoom, by local playwright Jean Tay;

and a forthcoming book, Cooking for The President, featuring Perana-

kan recipes & memoirs by Wee Eng Hwa, daughter of former presi-

dent Wee Kim Wee.

A tortured and confused product of the Oxford, London, and Edin-

burgh universities, JOHN LOFTHOUSEwandered the globe with

his faithful spouse teaching English until the sheer boredom of it all

drove him back to his second love, theatre. He then wandered the

globe again teaching theatre. His undistinguished career saw him

finally beached on the tiny islet of Singapore where he devotedly

laboured on the limited artistic aspirations of fellow-tortured souls

like Kenny Png, until finally finding calm and repose in the bosom of

SOTA, Singapores wonderful new School of the Arts. Whereupon,

still with his devoted wife, his first real love, he retired and lives in

Spain, sawing logs and hitting small white balls, his fourth real love,

and venturing to Uganda, his third great love.

PETER VAN DE KAMP PhD is a poet, and Associate Professor of

English at the IT Tralee. He has published 18 booksbiographies,

anthologies, criticism, monographs, manuscript editions, transla-

tions, and original poetry. He is also the founder and director of the


51/51

Date post:	20-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ching-lim-lee-ching
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Jeremy Fernando & Kenny Png - On Happiness

Documents