Room · 101

Manifesto of Surrealism - It All Comes Full Circle, My Friend

In a lot of ways, I appreciate the writing of these fine men. I appreciate their ideas, which are--most of the time--much like my own. And if that isn’t the case, then sometimes they help develop my own ideas and assist them in not being a huge ball of nonsense. I appreciate that. But sometimes the arrogance and the hypocrisy of these men appalls me. Sometimes I wonder how or why people could ever listen to them.
For one thing, although Breton does not do this as often as the others that we have read this semester, he does have a way of contradicting everything that he says. He says that rationalism is a waste of time, that he loathes it and that it is dull (6). I suppose this could be a bit pretentious of me to state, but is he not rationalizing his own ideas in this entire essay? The same goes for the other thinkers that we have studied. They condemn words and language when it is the means that they use to express themselves to us. Sure, if we were telepathic, perhaps then it wouldn’t be so hypocritical. But that’s another argument for another time.
His beatings on Dostoevsky shocked me, even offended me. Such writers as Dostoevsky I highly respect for their ambition and their drive. Would Breton dislike George Orwell, one of my favorite writers? Probably. He would probably hate all of my favorite writers; the rational ones, the ones that are “dull”. Breton uses an excerpt from Crime and Punishment to express his feelings on the writer. It is a description, if I remember correctly, of Raskolnikov entering the room of his landlady before the event of the murder. Crime and Punishment is one of my favorite books, and the fact that he puts down this excerpt--and therefore the whole book, since the entirety of the book is written in this fashion--is preposterous to me. He says, in short, that Dostoevsky is wasting his time in writing such a thing. In a way, I suppose Breton hates it when authors spell everything out for a reader, and I agree with that, but only in a movie sense, where things are visual and perceiving your own thoughts while watching it is much easier than reading something and filling in huge gaps. The Trial is probably a novel that Breton would like, although he gives the inclination that any novel is a waste of time to him. And at the same time, he wishes for the revival of a more stable imagination . . . right. So I suppose the authors are not allowed to have an imagination. And while we are on the topic of imagination, I suppose the only thing I do agree with him is how our imagination can destroy us if we let it. However, I do not agree with the fact that the insane enjoy it because of their indifference. I think that Sigmund Freud, who he praises and uses as an example of a step in the right direction, would agree. I think that Freud would say that it is probably underlying in us all, a state of madness. Breton praises Freud’s discovery of the subconscious, and although the subconscious is irrational, Freud still believes in a rational side of us that prevails. A bit of contradiction, there.
But who am I to speak, anyway? In his terms, I suppose I am just being rational. A mediocre, hateful, and dull college student.