|
Klaus Bung: Diana: Dead as a Dodi
Length: 3,780 words = 21,500 characters
E-mail: klaus.bung@tudo.co.uk
Written in 1997
|
Klaus Bung:
Diana: Dead as a Dodi
Letter to a friend in Portugal
6 September 97
Dear Mariana,
Death and deception go together and not
only by alliteration like Dido, Dodi, Diana, Di and Die
[1]. Est nomen omen? [2] Princess Diana
has just been buried on a tiny island in a lake on a private estate,
where her grave can be closely guarded and where no unauthorised
persons can touch her. Without these precautions I would indeed
not be surprised if in three days' time the newspapers announced that
she had risen from the dead. The problem of idolatry, the
formation of legends, and pious fraud is two thousand years old.
Jesus too had to be buried on a private estate (belonging to the Earl
Joseph of Arimathaea), in a tomb hewn into the side of a rocky
mountain, a heavy boulder was rolled across the entrance, and finally
as a last precaution against media intrusion and manipulation[3]a guard was placed outside
the tomb - at the request of the "Jerusalem Sceptics
Association". They went in a body to Pilate and said to him:
"Your excellency, Sir, we recall that this impostor said, while he was
still alive, 'After three days I shall rise again'. Therefore
give the order to have the sepulchre kept secure and guarded until the
third day, for fear his disciples come and steal him away and tell the
people, 'He has risen from the dead'. This last piece of fraud
would be worse than what went before". [4]
So it seems to have been with Diana, media
fraud after her death even worse than before. But let me
explain.
I am so glad that you are not English. Therefore I can
perhaps dare to let off some steam about the hysteria which, in this
country, has followed the death of Princess Diana. I would not
dare open my mouth here, because I do not want to be lynched, for
blaspheming against our new goddess. It is enough to make me
convert to Islam which, wisely it seems, prohibits idolatry. And
this IS idolatry.
One would have expected these excesses, these outpourings of
public grief after the deaths of one of our great dictators (Peace be
upon them; they need our prayers if anyone does), an Adam Hassihn, an
Idyll Amin, an Adolph Hittler, a Paul Josef Gobbles, a Guiseppe Stalin,
a Ginseng Khan, a Lame Tambour, dutifully and passionately mourned by
each and every one of their devoted subjects, but not for a woman who
had contributed nothing lasting to history, like those great men
did. How can such grief be created in a democracy where no force
and no fear is used? Perhaps we do not need dictators. We
conform and fall in with the expected sentiments even before we are
compelled. Our dictators do not need to use force since their
techniques of persuasion are so powerful.
"Fuck the Pope. God bless King Billy
and his fleet" [5] is
sprayed on Glasgow railway bridges. Will any poet ever spray:
"Fuck chaste Diana! Bless our Gracious Queen!"?
Princess Diana died on Sunday, 31 August 1997. Her
funeral took place on 6 September 97. The public hysteria whipped
up by the media over her death is incredible. The empty minds of
shallow people need an emotional adventure (similar to their
self-righteous anger displayed during the Gulf War, the enduring
loathing for the child murderess Myra Hindley [6], and the like). Panem et circenses! [7] These
are all deeply satisfying emotions, and we must be grateful for the
people, even if they be criminals, who give us a chance to release
them. People with such needs are being stirred up by the media
and in turn give them a subject to reflect upon - a positive feedback
circuit, like a swing, working itself up to ever greater heights,
trying to break all records.
The greater the crowds reported by the
media, the more people are induced to join them and to think they have
lost somebody who was important in their lives. How empty these
lives must have been! Otherwise why would these people feel
compelled to project their affective needs onto a public figure, a
filmstar, rather than having their lives filled by relations with their
personal friends, their families, their work, their interests and
hobbies, their books (for those who can read), &c. Is there
not enough to love, to enjoy, to lose, to miss, to be sad or content
about in our private lives?
"The biggest funeral in the history of the human race" - yes,
but not the greatest, and not because of the greatness of Princess
Diana or the extreme love of the people, but merely because of the
availability of the media which made her life, her fame and the
excesses of mourning possible, a Moloch, which needs to be fed with
emotions, however false, continuously.
Sing all: "Worthy is Diane who was slain
to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and
glory, and blessing. And the beast said: Amen."[8]
Diana had her Mark Antony in the pulpit and, outside the
Abbey, a receptive crowd wary of their rulers. "Here was a
Princess! When comes such another?[9] During the last year of her life she
proved that she needed no royal title to perpetuate her particular
brand of magic", said her brother, the Earl Charles Spencer, during his
tribute at Westminster Abbey, with a stab[10]at the friction that had existed between
Diana and the Royal Family, to whose conventions she did not want to
conform, and which ended with her divorce and with her losing the title
"Royal Highness".
When the Earl had finished his speech,
playing out the Princes'[11]
maternal "blood family" against their paternal Royal Family, heard with
consternation in the Abbey, the sound of applause wafted in from the
mob outside, intermingled with muffled shouts of
"Revenge! About! Seek! Burn! Fire!
Kill! Slay!
Let not a Royal live!"
And the mourners inside the Abbey did what was demanded, saved
their heads, broke with protocol and applauded the seditious
Earl. "He comes not, friends, to steal away your hearts. He
is no orator, but (as you know him now) a plain blunt man."
But Diana would never have gained the
popularity needed for her continued magic, had she not married Prince
Charles first. Her royal status made her ordinariness endearing
to the people. Charles launched her on her career as Queen of
Hearts, a pretentious title. It was an unlucky choice: its
original holder was the unfortunate British Princess Elizabeth
(1596-1662)[12],
almost proverbial as Queen of Bohemia[13], who had to live in exile for 40 years and
is now buried in Westminster Abbey. It was the Queen of Spades
who ultimately enthroned Diana as Queen of Hearts. The memory of
her fate will be as sad as that of the Queen of Hearts, Queen of
Bohemia. Est nomen omen[14]?
There are countless ordinary people who
have her human touch, her kindness and compassion. I have a
friend, let's call her Pilar for she wants to remain anonymous, who
works in England, supports a large poor family in the Philippines,
sends almost half her meagre income to them, and spent all her adult
life working for the welfare of others, while at the same time
neglecting the most urgent of her personal needs, because she is unable
to say No when faced with the needs of others. And she is not
alone in this world. Her life is not, and will never be,
glamorous, and nobody except me will make a fuss about her virtues, her
humanity, her unselfishness, her deep concern with human
suffering. I am happy and honoured to have known Pilar, but I do
not care particularly about Princess Diana. I have somebody good to admire much closer to
home. Nobody will comment on Pilar's normality or enthuse over
her saintly way of feeling and acting, not even those who know her
closely, because nobody is particularly surprised by it. We all
expect normal people to behave like normal people.
If Pilar had visited a children's hospital
or touched a cancer or an AIDS victim with exactly the same love and
affection as Princess Diana, as on occasion she has done with friends
in that condition, the sufferer would not have been as impressed as
Diana's protégés were. They were impressed not by Diana's
humanity but by her royalty.
She had, through her royal status, been raised above the level
of normal people. It was expected that, as a result, she would be
stand-offish, formal, perhaps even uncaring: "Qu'ils mangent de la
brioche"[15].
The fact that she, unexpectedly, retained that human touch endeared her
to the people. They were astounded by the combination of glamour
and humanity, as paradoxical as that of divinity and humanity in
Jesus. She acquired her glamour only through the royal connection
(since there are innumerable other women as beautiful as her), and she
is not unique in having the human touch.
Take the case of Jesus. He was not
particularly virtuous (he was an anarchist, glutton and wine-bibber,
drug addict, companion of sinners, whores and politicians) [16] , his
ethical teachings contain nothing that has not been preached by other
wise men before him (Socrates, Confucius, the Buddha, &c.), many
were more compassionate than he (e.g. the Buddha, who did not restrict
his compassion to human beings but taught us to love and respect all
sentient beings) and his suffering was no worse than that inflicted
daily on countless other human beings (torture in Algeria during the
war of liberation, in Germany under the Nazis, today in former
Yugoslavia, Rwanda, &c.). Yet he was immensely popular -
popular unto death. What was special about him was only the
notion that he was divine, the son of God, that he underwent his humble
birth in a stable, his suffering, voluntarily: he could have continued
to live like a royal in heaven - in splendid isolation. But he
chose to do otherwise.
Diana's brother, the Earl Spencer,
reminded us that Diana, in Greek mythology, was the Goddess of hunting,
and that yet Princess Diana, was the most hunted person in the
world. He wisely failed to mention that Diana was also the
Goddess of Chastity. A Blackpool miner, angry about the public
hysteria and missing his football programmes on television, was heard
to say "Fuck Diana" and was promptly accused of necrophilia.
Diana's lover, Dodi Al Fayad, who died
with her (some people spoke of a "Vorspiel und Liebestod"[17]), has given rise to a
new simile in the English language: "Dead as a Dodi[18]". Unkind people have already started
misusing the new expression: "Diana can be forgotten now. She is
as dead as a Dodi." Elton John, who sang "When I am laid in earth[19]" during the funeral
service at Westminster Abbey, has started work on a new opera,
entitled: "Dodi and Aeneas", a project which has outraged lovers of
Purcell and Berlioz[20]and
the anti-gay lobby alike.
"If you have tears, prepare to
shed them now," urged the orators. The public frenzy made itself
felt even in India, where Mother Theresa decided to die (5 Sep 97) on
the day before Diana's funeral. She was getting jealous of all
the publicity for Diana and wanted to get in on the act while the
public still had a few tears to shed. She will receive a state
funeral in India next Saturday. The conductor Sir George Solti
decided to follow suite (sic!) on 6 September, the day of Diana's
funeral. The pop singer Chris de Burgh wrote a song in Diana's
memory in which he talks of a new star that has been added to the night
skies. People are already demanding not only that our monarchy be
more pliable, but the installation of a new Holy Trinity: Theresa,
Diana and George - Mother, Daughter and Holy Ghost. Perhaps a new
Church of New England will be founded to accommodate that
Trinity. In Holland, pressure is building up for the Pope to join
the big exodus and make way for a democratic mastiff.
The question arises whether Diana was
simply ambitious [21]
, - as her funeral shows, successfully so. "When that the poor
have cried, Diane has wept." She knew that charitable work would
endear her to the British people. Therefore she elected to do
this.
Having no need to earn a living and having enough money, she
had time to devote herself to good causes. But is it not
infinitely more difficult to run an ordinary household, live with a
poor and ordinary husband, bring up four children in suburbia, with all
the boredom and duties that entails, to care for sick friends,
relatives, ageing parents, than to go on trips to African minefields,
to Bosnia, to assist in heart operations, go to orphanages, shake hands
with AIDS victims &c? Work in these conditions is hard and
boring for people whose daily jobs they are.
But such visits become glamorous and
highly rewarding for a Princess who floats in from the outside, however
often, acts out of character (by playing at being ordinary, which she
is not), and knows that she is being applauded, admired and loved for
being so much "like us", considering that she is so utterly unlike
us.
That effect of admiration is produced even when no press is
present. Therefore Diana can be called self-seeking (like most of
us, but more successfully so) even when she did her good deeds away
from the limelight of the television cameras.
People blamed the media for her death, but
the media only reflected the obsession of the general public with
Diana. Those who were mourning today were those who yesterday
bought the newspapers in which they wanted to see her pictures.
The excesses in public mourning come from the same simple-minded
attitudes which led to the excessive interest in her during her
life. If the people had not wanted her pictures in the
newspapers, the photographers and journalists would not have hunted
her. And far from her death putting an end to this public
obsession, it got worse after her death. Now people really let
themselves go: no holds were barred. Why were they sad: because
they could no longer hunt her. They hunted her into death and
even after death - and even feel virtuous about it. They are too
stupid to see the connection and dare criticise the newspapers and
photographers. Not only the editors have "blood on their hands",
as the Earl Spencer said, but so do all the pathetic mourners.
The public obsession with Diana during her life was as bad as that
after her death.
The media expressed surprise with the
enormous outpouring of public emotion. But this was created by
the media themselves. The media and the people are worshipping an
idol, i.e. a goddess whom they themselves have created. God and
gods, if they are to be any good, are man-made, custom-built.
Diana was a perfect example of such a plastic goddess.
It all started with the BBC [22]. I heard the accident announced on the
World Service at 2 a.m. Diana's death was announced at about 4
a.m. By the time I woke up, at 9 a.m., the media circus at the
BBC was in full swing: all the five BBC radio stations had been linked
to broadcast only one programme - reminiscences and interviews about
Princess Diana, and continued this for the rest of the day. How
can one say so many useful things about one person, except by repeating
the same sentiments again and again? I do not know what happened
on television, but it must have been similar. Somebody very high
up must have made this decision. Nothing can yet have been known
at that time about the strength of public feeling.
The BBC's saturation coverage was
therefore not in response to public sentiment but produced it.
At that stage the public might have been content with a few
news bulletins and a few memorial broadcasts. But these days the
media make total, continuous participation possible, - news carpet
bombing, as they did during the Gulf War. What was done for Diana
was done because it was technically possible. The available means
decided the actions, as they did in Auschwitz or in Guernica. We
have trains and gas: let's use them. We have bombers, let's see
what they can do. "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg", Hitler
screamed. "Wir wollen ihn" [23],
roared the people. "Free Barrabas, crucify Jesus. His blood
be upon us and our children" [24],
shouted the crowd who wanted a total execution.
Diana's was total, totalitarian
mourning.
Any member of the public noticing that their normal radio and
TV stations have changed their programmes and discuss nothing but
Diana, all of them, for a whole day, is being told implicitly but very
forcefully that this death is a momentous event (which most clearly it
is not) and that he must be very upset about it, whatever his prior
feelings may have been; that Diana is extremely important, that her
death is sad beyond words, and that therefore, if he does not
participate, if he does not fall into line, he is a cruel, heartless,
antisocial traitor, like me. Sid, the ordinary citizen, will
therefore fall in with the general mood, as people did in Nazi Germany
during the skilfully orchestrated Nuremberg rallies, and as people do
during evangelical crusades by Billy Graham and the like. Once
this has happened, the media can report the expressions of public grief
and say how surprised they are about it all. But it was they that
started and created it. What we have yet to see, regrettably, is
the media discussing their role in this grandiose farce. Diana,
poor cow, will be milked until she is bone-dry - to the bitter
end.
In brief, the whole Diana circus, life and
death, is a media event, created by the media and utterly impossible
without the media. It tells us nothing relevant about Diana, nor
about the people who mourn her - only that, these days, superlatives no
longer happen, we can create them at will (as we do, also, on Save the
Children Day, and other hyped up charity events.)
People are crying not because they are sad about Diana, but
because others are crying. They are feeling sorry for each
other. And doesn't it feel good to have an excuse for a proper
weep! Grief spreads - like a virus. The media are the
carriers.
I wonder whether the people who made the
initial decision to deify Diana (e.g. those in the highest echelons of
the BBC, and their political friends, perhaps Prime Minister Tony Blair
himself) had a long-term political motive in stirring up the populace,
e.g. to mould Diana into a rod with which in the future to beat or
threaten the monarchy; to put pressure on the royals, as they did
during the week of mourning when they successfully pressurised the
Queen into breaking with royal protocol: by prematurely returning from
Balmoral to London, by flying the Union Jack at half-mast over
Buckingham Palace and by inducing the Queen, contrary to tradition, to
speak to the nation on television. Only that would explain what
happened, or rather, what was made.
The Prime Minister and the Labour Party have now appropriated
Diana and made her the symbol of their cause, a "People's Queen" for a
new Britain und new Labour, against Toryism and old-style
monarchy. If the Falklands War won Mrs Thatcher a new term in
office, so will Diana (if nothing else) win Labour the next
election.
Here is new Labour's new war cry:
I see you stand like greyhounds in the
slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit; chase the Queen and shout.
Cry 'God for William, Harry, and Diane'.[25]
12 September 1997
Diana's wake
The body of this letter was written on the day of Diana's
funeral. But the public hysteria has not ended yet and its
patriotic dimensions are coming to the foreground. On 10
September Fabio Piras, a Sardinian tourist, was given a one week prison
sentence for having stolen a teddy bear that a member of the public had
put down among the flowers at St James's Palace as a tribute to
Princess Diana. On appeal this sentence was reduced to a one
hundred pound fine. Fabio Piras was punched in the face by a
member of the public when he left the court after having won the
appeal. He was a foreigner.
On 11 September two 50-year-old ladies
from the Slovak Republic were given prison sentences of 28 days each
for having stolen eleven teddy bears and a number of plastic flowers
from the pile of tributes outside Westminster Abbey. In defence
they said it was the custom at Slovak funerals to take home tributes
left on the grave, as a memory of the dead. The teddy bears were
dirty, and the women thought these would be thrown away. The
judge justified his severe sentence by saying he had to take current
public sensitivity into account; nazi justice on the basis of healthy
popular sentiment (gesundes Volksempfinden).
What a civilised judge should
have taken into account is the law, and nothing else. That's why
we have to study law at university for many years and why we have
judges and courts, rather than revolutionary tribunals and lynch
mobs. Unhappily these poor foreigners had strayed into an
atavistic society where they were punished not for theft but for
sacrilege and blasphemy.
Diana, like God in blasphemy cases, does
not give a tinker's curse about a handful of flowers or gifts taken
from the tons which the people had piled up in the street: in cases of
blasphemy God is never offended and never reacts. Only his
henchmen do, with lust and with a vengeance. When Jesus
blasphemed [26], High
Priest Rumpelstiltskin became as furious as an Ayatollah and rent his
clothes. "'He is the Devil, he is the Devil! What further
need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his
blasphemy', shrieked the little man, and stamped his right foot so hard
in the ground that he could not draw it out again. Then in his
fury he took hold of his left leg with both his hands, and pulled away
so hard that he tore himself into two halves". That is the grim
truth. Is this the way English justice is going in Diana's wake?
Good night, lady; good night, sweet
lady; good night, good night.[27]
© 1997 Klaus Bung
E-mail: klaus.bung@tudo.co.uk
Footnotes
Note for editors
|
|