Brecht lavorò alla stesura del testo dal 1931 al 1942, mentre era in fuga dalla Germania nazista. L’opera, rimasta incompiuta, è un progetto ambizioso ideato per raccontare la storia del Reich dalla nascita dell’impero fino all’ascesa di Hitler. 
Walter Benjamin, tornando da una visita fatta all’amico in esilio, il 27 settembre 1934 scriveva: “… Con Il romanzo dei tuivuole dare una panoramica enciclopedica sulle idiozie dei tellett-ual-in (gli intellettuali); a quanto pare si svolgerà per la maggior parte in Cina. Un piccolo piano di questa opera è già pronto”. 
Chi è il tui (nome ottenuto dalle iniziali della distorsione di “intellettuale” in “tellett-ual-in”)? Lo spiega Brecht: “Il tui è l’intellettuale dell’epoca delle merci e dei mercati. Il noleggiatore dell’intelletto”.
Il romanzo dei tui è uno sfogo, un’invettiva contro la stoltezza e l’ipocrisia dei quegli intellettuali disposti a vendersi al miglior offerente. È un’accusa contro gli intellettuali che non riconobbero o sottovalutarono l’avvento del nazismo e che, in seguito, mancarono di avversarlo.

Fra le varie abilità dei tui l’arte del lecchinaggio ha grande rilievo. E se è vero che quasi tutti sono in grado di dare una leccata senza infamia e senza lode è altrettanto vero che l’arte del leccapiedi è qualcosa di più complesso:

“… richiede studio e allenamento. E molta disciplina. Solo con l’esercizio è possibile elevarsi dalle bassezze della leccata corriva, e soltanto quando la perseveranza lascia il posto alla fantasia si diviene veri maestri. Il complimento comune è merce dozzinale, cicaleggio meccanico senza senso né ragione, privo di ogni raffinatezza. Il lecchinaggio praticato come un’arte invece produce espressioni originali, peculiari, profondamente sentite: crea una forma. L’artista completo è duttile, poliedrico, sempre capace di sorprendere. Si studi (ne vale davvero la pena) come il grande Go-teh lodò O-leh: con riluttanza. Una lode di questo tipo ha un valore inestimabile. Davvero ingegnoso è anche travestire da biasimo un elogio. Si rimprovera un generale per l’ardimento che potrebbe strapparlo al suo esercito. All’inizio della Grande guerra i tui ringraziarono l’imperatore esprimendogli tutta la loro rispettosa compassione perché sacrificava la sua gloriosa fama di uomo di pace per assecondare i desideri bellici della nazione. Quando il maresciallo Fank Wi Heng perse la guerra lodarono la sovrana indifferenza con cui affrontò quella disgrazia.
Questo non è più dilettantismo, è già arte.
L’arte del leccapiedi è inoltre, sia detto per inciso, una delle poche che dà di che vivere. Il lecchinaggio nutre il suo discepolo.
Come ogni arte, anche questa ha la sua storia e ha conosciuto epoche di prosperità ed epoche di declino, così come una continua mutazione degli stili.”

Avranno ancora lunga vita i leccapiedi? Pare proprio di sì. Finché esisterà la saliva. Parola di Bertolt.
Scritto corrosivo, satirico, spietato.


P.S. L’elenco “Personaggi e luoghi” svela nomi fittizi e riferimenti storici. Lo stesso autore vi compare come Kin-jen. 
Insomma, una penna implacabile, sotto la quale non si salva nessuno. 

This is another of Brecht’s short plays that he referred to as Lehrstucke, or more precisely morality the plays, though this one is a little longer than the other three in the book. Anyway the play is about an unnamed merchant who is wandering across the desert to look at selling some oil that he has discovered. However he becomes lost and it appears that the water is running out. His guide, or more precisely the Coolie, had been given some extra water but decides to let the Merchant have some because if he survives and the merchant dies (or at least comes back a lot weaker than when he left) then the Coolie believes (quite correctly mind you) that he is going to get into serious trouble. However the Merchant is hallucinating at this time, believes that the Coolie actually has a rock, and then proceeds to shoot him.

Long story short, the merchant makes it back to civilisation and finds himself in court having to answer charges of murder, and also a suit that has been brought against him by the Coolie’s wife. The thing is that while we know what went on, the judge is only going by the evidence that has been brought before him, and the evidence is coming from two different avenues – the Innkeeper, who supports the merchant, and the Guide, who supports the murdered Coolie. Okay, we also have the Merchant, but the Merchant is always going to be a biased witness.

However, the problem is that I can’t say all that much more without basically giving away the end of the play (which would be a real bummer for somebody who actually wants to read it), but the thing is that based on the outline that I have given you, you can probably work this out anyway, particularly since Brecht is a communist. Mind you, I can sort of see this at work in our world anyway, especially if you happen to be rich and powerful. There are stories of newspaper moguls here in Australia committing outrageous acts of contempt of court (and parliament), yet getting away with it scot free. In a way this the what the title of the play is about – there are the exceptions and there are the rules.

What Brecht is getting at here is that while we may have a rule of law, there are always going to be exceptions to these rules, and the events in this play are clear in that regard. Well, it’s not so much an exception but rather a rule for one person, and a rule for everybody else. When the Merchant says that he was suffering from heat stroke, hallucinating, and acted irrationally because he was hallucinating, then it is accepted. However the Coolie is correct when he decides to be generous with his water because if he isn’t, and the merchant dies, then he is going to be brought to account. However the exception in the eyes of the judge is that the Coolie acted against his character by being generous – what is expected is that when the merchant is weak then the Coolie will take advantage of him, therefore the Merchant was well within his rights to act in self defence.

This brings me to the question of white privilege; or more particularly white male privilege. While there is a huge debate raging as to whether it exists or not, from my experience it does and the reason I say that is by looking at where I am. I am currently gainfully employed, have a university degree, and live a comfortable existence where I want for little, however if I was not white then it is unlikely that I would be in the same position that I am in now. However the catch is that in our society, at least in Australia, it isn’t so much a question of white privilege – if you are Southern European, Indian, or Asian, then no doubt you will be afforded the same privileges that I am. Sure, there are some extreme racists out there that will target people who are not white, but in general as long as you are not an indigenous Australian then you will pretty much be okay.

Yet there is also a question of money – somebody who grew up in one of the lower class suburbs in Australia is less likely to have the same opportunities than those who grew up in the more affluent suburbs. In fact I knew people that would specifically move into a suburb so that their children could go to a specific public school. Therefore I don’t necessarily believe that it is always a case of white privilege, until you realise that the proportion of Aboriginals in goal far outweighs those of the others. In fact it is more likely than not that indigenous Australians are going to find themselves living in areas where the socio-economic situation is much lower – and don’t even think that you are going to have an easy time getting a rental property in the upper class suburbs if you happen to be aboriginal – it is hard enough for middle class people to get rental properties.

What Brecht is on about is that there is human nature, and there are the exceptions to human nature. This comes about through racism, even if the person making the stereotype doesn’t come across as racist. It could be considered a form of racial profiling – such as indigenous Australians (and Americans) are nothing more than alcoholics that are so desperate that they will resort to drinking methylated spirits. In a way it is similar with Afro-Americans who are generally viewed as violent criminals. This is what Brecht is challenging us with here – the idea that we will categorise somebody of a certain race, and certain class, into a certain mould and will not let them break out of it.

This is actually a really short play, so short that it only took me four beers to finish it. Mind you, these plays generally aren't available in English (which I didn't realise until I started reading this particular book). Anyway, Brecht himself says that the idea of the plays is that they are morality plays, and further more, he wrote them not to be performed by professional actors, but amateurs. Also, as should be noted, this was written during the time when he was basically a communist so there is a lot of communist language used (and one should also note that it was also written during the rise of the Nazi party, however at this time Hitler had yet to seize control of Germany, and the parliament was divided between two extremist groups – the communists and the National Socialists).

The play is about the revolution in China (though one should note that as of its writing, the Maoist revolution was still a long way off – that was to really hit full swing after World War II, though there was still the beginnings of the revolution sturing) and about how a group of revolutionaries executed somebody, and then tell a story to the chorus (who are obviously the judges) as to why the execution was necessary.

The interesting thing that continued to arise during the play is that the nature of the proletariat and the question as to whether the soldiers (and the police) are the friends or the enemies. One sometimes feels that in such a dictatorship the best job to have is in the security forces, but Brecht suggests otherwise. In fact the security forces are being oppressed just as much as the rest of the population – instead of fighting them one should attempt to sway them over to their side. However, it is hard not to view the security forces as being the enemy in that they tend to oppose your movement, as is the case in the play where the police officer is challenging the revolutionary and the worker over handing out leaflets (which the police officer believes is far, far more dangerous than any bomb or gun).

This leads me to the concept of the power of ideas. Sure, there is a suggestion that political arguments are not won or lost on Facebook (or even during a dinner party), however what many people seem to forget (usually those trying to shut down such an argument) is that you're not actually trying to win over the person that you are having the argument with (because in many cases it is nigh impossible to be able to win them over), but rather you are attempting to persuade those whom are listening as to the validity of your argument as opposed to the other side. The same is the case with Facebook because you're not trying to change your opponent's views, but persuade those who may be listening – it is true that arguments aren't ever won or lost, but it is the audience who are the targets – which is the key to many debating contests, and it is also why the audience are the ones who determine the winner in the debate.

As such this graphic actually isn't true:

Finally, I wish to touch on the idea of winning over the security forces. We saw this in Egypt, and also the case with other revolutions – they are never won or lost through the organisers but rather through bringing the military onside. Sure, there are instances where revolution descended into civil war (as was the case with Libya, and is also what is happening in Syria), but this is because the military has disintegrated and they have split off to their respective teams, or that the military was generally made up of a minority, and the majority who are revolting were able to arm themselves effectively. However, in the case of Egypt, the revolution would never have been won and Mubarack deposed were it not for the support of the military (and this was also the case with France, while in Russia the military had been so decimated by the World War that they weren't able to fight the communists, and by the time the West had managed to mobilise against them they had become pretty much entrenched – and also the communist troops were pretty fresh while the troops representing the White Russians had been exhausted through four years of war).

I didn’t have much time to read since July, because I had to write my bachelor thesis and was forced to deal with a lot of Russian poetry by Natalja Gorbanevskaja – who, by the way, is an amazing poet (and I say this despite the fact that I actually don't like poetry..). If you have the time, check her out!

But, since I am finally finished, I sat down on my sunbed and thought, "Hey, let’s read some Brecht." Why not.

I saw the Play Das Leben des Galileo Galilei this summer in a quarry (yes, there’s a stage in a quarry, I’m not kidding) and it was amazing. First, I was sceptical, because everything I had read so far from Brecht was awful. And awful is still a nice word to describe what I thought about it..

But, I would say, Das Leben des Galileo Galilei is not a typical Brecht play, so, very unlikely for myself, I enjoyed it very much!