“We live in a world where many kinds of regression dignify themselves with the mantle of progress.”
- Michael Moorcock, Byzantium Endures
The Colonel Pyat Quartet, sometimes called ‘Between the Wars’, is Moorcock’s literary magnum opus. Despite this, it is nowhere near his most well-known work. His numerous Eternal Champion fantasies are the most popular, the Cornelius Chronicles are the much-lauded pinnacle of his iconoclasm, and other literary works like Mother London achieved greater accolades. Yet Pyat is a peerless creation, at once an unreliable narrator, a surrogate for the author, a despicable racist rogue... and still, astonishingly, likeable. Pyat is impossible to praise. He lies to us constantly. He breaks out of his narrative to regale us with apparently meaningless asides. Yet we end up falling in love with him, and indeed pitying him.
This remark about the mantle of progress appears at the end of the first paragraph of the first book. Pyat has just declared that he was born on the 1st of January in South Russia. He then immediately notes that both the geography and the calendar have changed “to comply with Anglo-Saxon notions”... and thus adjusted he states he was born in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on 14th January 1900. It is at this point that the remark about dignifying regression via the ‘mantle of progress’ (that is to say, a cloak) is delivered. Pyat views himself as a proud relic of an ancient Slavic culture - he is a nationalist, but his nation doesn’t exist, and neither is he willing to offer an honest account of his heritage.
The rise of the USSR, which is the topic of the first Pyat book, Byzantium Endures, was justified by the revolutionaries as progressive, a sweeping away the past for a glorious future. Pyat sees it as a regression to the empires of antiquity. But his hackles, as with so much that Pyat says, are a self-deception. The second paragraph consists of Pyat’s flat denial that he is Jewish, although he admits that everyone around him in London thinks this. Throughout the four books, Pyat repeatedly denies he is Jewish... his insistence becomes so vehement, his prejudice against Jews so venomous, we begin to realise that something else is going on. The fact that the last book, The Vengeance of Rome, concerns the rise of the Nazi party and the onset of the Holocaust is the ultimate clue as to why Pyat denies what gradually becomes inescapable to the reader: Pyat is Jewish. And he hates Jews.
What is at work throughout this epic sequence is a diagnosis of the Holocaust itself, revealed as flowing from the historical tides of the Russian revolution, the Fascists in Italy, the rise of Hollywood, and so much more besides. Moorcock’s desire to engage with this theme was motivated out of a fear that it might happen again, and truly I cannot think of a more powerful, poignant - nor challenging - account of the catastrophes of the twentieth century. When I last met with Moorcock in Manchester, while I was working on Chaos Ethics, I confessed to him my reluctance to even begin reading the final volume... my terror at where it was going was so great. He was sympathetic: he’d had the same experience writing it.
This remark about regression cloaked in the mantle of progress is a lesson for us all - and it is doubly relevant today because it is almost beyond doubt that the Pyat Quartet cannot be read by those who have aligned with either of today’s polarised political factions. To the right, its wry humour will seem to be in appalling taste. To the left, the racism of its central character is forbidden. In this fate, Moorcock’s masterpiece anticipates itself: the self-deceiving idealism of the steadfast reactionary is, after all, the villain throughout…
The idea that Moorcock’s Pyat Quartet could not be read by contemporary progressives should concern us. The entire concept of a racist narrator - let alone one we are invited to like - are sufficient grounds for cancellation in contemporary outrage culture. This warns us that Moorcock is all too correct: “We live in a world where many kinds of regression dignify themselves with the mantle of progress.” Unfortunately, this means he might also be correct about the risks of something as ghastly as the Holocaust recurring... I pray he is mistaken. But as I watch the present play out in ignorance of a past that Moorcock so richly understands, it can be hard not to be afraid.
Hi Chris. I’m back. I just made my first review post at “A Thousand Miles.” I have more in the works, but I keep falling behind. I’ll now be making comments using the AGREE, SEE DIFFERENTLY, and PUZZLE categories I created in my review. Also, where appropriate I’ll be attempting to refer back to previously reviewed positions. There is an example of this below.
SEE DIFFERENTLY #TMPdif_1: Causes of the Holocaust (continued)
“What is at work throughout this epic sequence is a diagnosis of the Holocaust itself, revealed as flowing from the historical tides of the Russian revolution, the Fascists in Italy, the rise of Hollywood, and so much more besides.”
COMMENT
For most of us the Holocaust was a hideous surprise. Was there anyone who guessed that the genesis of such an event was part of the DNA of modern civilization? After the fact, many savants and pundits have tried to discern the Holocaust’s root causes. Many factors have been proposed. I’m not a scholar of the Holocaust, but in response to: “Is there any truth to the claim that the Russian revolution was one of the causes of the Holocaust?” ChatGPT responded:
“There is no direct causal link between the Russian Revolution and the Holocaust. … In summary, while the Russian Revolution may have contributed to the political and ideological context in which the Holocaust occurred, it cannot be considered a direct cause of the genocide.”
Similarly, in response to: “Is there any truth to the claim that the rise of Hollywood was one of the causes of the Holocaust?”
ChatGPT responded:
‘No, there is no truth to the claim that the rise of Hollywood was one of the causes of the Holocaust. This claim is not supported by any credible evidence or scholarly research. … While some scholars have explored the ways in which Hollywood films have depicted or represented the Holocaust, there is no evidence to suggest that Hollywood played a role in causing the Holocaust.”
But Moorcock is imaginative. It is possible that his imagination has revealed deeper causes. A chat with ChatGPT gave me a bit more information about the Colonel Pyat Quartet, but it looks like I would have to read this work to even begin to evaluate Moorcock.
AGREE #ATMagr_2: Global Disaster Unfolding (continue):
“Moorcock’s desire to engage with this theme was motivated out of a fear that it might happen again, and truly I cannot think of a more powerful, poignant - nor challenging - account of the catastrophes of the twentieth century. When I last met with Moorcock in Manchester, while I was working on Chaos Ethics, I confessed to him my reluctance to even begin reading the final volume... my terror at where it was going was so great. He was sympathetic: he’d had the same experience writing it. … Unfortunately, this means he might also be correct about the risks of something as ghastly as the Holocaust recurring... I pray he is mistaken. But as I watch the present play out in ignorance of a past that Moorcock so richly understands, it can be hard not to be afraid.”
COMMENT:
Yes. A lot of us are afraid. Whatever its underlying chemistry, the genesis of the Holocaust was in the minds of human beings. Currently we have no evidence that our civilization is protected from a new Holocaust. Indeed, as I write this there appears to be a palpable chance that something similar could take place in the US in the next five years. Imho there are several actions ordinary citizens can take to reduce the chances of a new kind of Holocaust:
.-- practice civility to all at all times,
.- practice empathy at all times
.-- understand that except for a few sociopaths and psychopaths everyone is
acting out their own understanding of what’s best, and should be so
engaged,
.-- understand that no civilization can stand against pure anarchy, that the
only choice is between the rule of a few or the rule of many,
.-- understand that since social reality is created from human minds, no truths
about it will ever have the certitude of truths about physical reality,
.-- understand that even though any social reality truth is only plausible, effort
must be made to get to as close to solid truth as is practically possible,
.-- understand that the only way of creating social policy with a reasonable
chance of success is by open, civil discourse, and
.-- understand that since any social policy may fail to meet its objectives, all
implementations must be subject to review, revision, and possible
rejection.