When I read the Realtà paper at university last week I was initially unsure as to what to think of the prize-winning display of sophomoric denseness displayed before me. The paper tells the tale of a rutting rhino who stampedes his way through one sexual encounter after another while demeaning women in the process.
The author has claimed that this was meant to be ironic. The only irony I picked up on, however, was that a left wing collective could publish such an ill-conceived and vicious attack on the dignity of women.
More importantly, what is the public to think? That's right, Mr and Mrs Taxpayer, you pay millions of euros a year to give students a stipend so that they can entertain themselves with inane debate over the installation of condom machines while distributing pornographic "literature" to keep them occupied till the former triviality is implemented. That's value for money!
The thing which upset me the most, however, were the usual trolls on the times.com blog, who quite clearly had no idea what was going on but insisted on making their uninformed and unnecessary voice heard while using big words such as "inquisition" and pretending to know what the Marquis de Sade wrote. They're right, of course, understanding the Marquis de Sade is difficult. I suggest therefore that they look up the interview with Ted Bundy, the night before he was put to death and pay attention to the words "the issue is how this kind of literature contributed, and helped mould and shape the kinds of violent behaviour" when referring to easily acquired pornographic literature, such as a newspaper for example.
Yet comparing, or rather, confusing the excerpt by Alex Vella Gera with the works of the Marquis de Sade is purely fallacious for a number of reasons, particularly since the former is anti-philosophical while the latter merits some form of philosophical discussion and analysis especially considering the period in which he wrote.
Neither does it possess any of the literary qualities found in the works of Miller or the Marquis and in fact failed to characterise the irony which it sought to portray due to the base and unimaginative language employed. So after having failed to teach us a lesson in social ethics through the use of blasphemy and obscene language, what is left to debate?
Regardless of the subjective element behind which the author attempts to disguise his purpose, the manner in which the paper was written is painfully objective and is both insulting and crude. Thus, regardless of his intention to educate, the author has done nothing but demonstrate his literary failure to deliver a message.
What if the paper were written in the same manner, but had no "hidden meaning"? Would it have been acceptable then? What if the language doesn't cultivate the imagination necessary due to a lack of wit and creativity, therefore failing in its purpose altogether? Aren't we then left with the scum which persistently floats on the surface of our minds?
Finally, it is clear to me that the author and the spiteful drones who advocate this sort of material are capable of nothing other than perverting the meaning of our individuated and situated freedom and thereby reducing it to a level below conscientious ignorance. In all fairness, it's a very fine line indeed.