Cathal O’Searcaigh Censorship Book Burning Curriculum
February 15, 2008
Should Cathal O’Searcaigh’s books be banned ? This is a question that has been raised since the debate began on O’Searcaigh’s activities in Nepal. But I have not heard anyone suggest that books should be in fact be banned at all , rather this is a point made by those who are intent on not facing the issue of O’Searcaigh’s books being on the national curriculum. Let’s be very clear about this , no one has advocated that books should be banned (or burned ). There is no mob howling in the street. There is no witch-hunt but there is a serious question to be asked.
Those who say no to this have two principle arguments. The first I have already dealt with so this leaves us with what seems to be their only real point. They say , “But what about Wilde , Lorca and all the others , are we to get rid of them all “? Now let me repeat what I’ve said before. No one is advocating that O’Searcaigh’s books be ‘got rid of’. We pick and choose who we put on the curriculum , people are put on and taken off all the time. When we remove one poet to make room for another does it mean we are denying the merit of the work ? So there is nothing wrong in principle , there is no fundamental principle at stake here. But many would declare , “Hold on a minute , this mans work may be taken off because of his private life and that’s a different matter , there is most certainly a principle involved ” The answer to that is that O’Searcaigh is in trouble not for his private life but his public actions. And we censor people every day of the week for their actions and not always by taking them to court. We reserve that right and exercise it with regularity. So that’s not the real argument either , so what is ?
It’s very simple , “we must look at the work (poems) and not the man”. The poetry stands on it own. All this is fine but we must go beyond soundbites regardless of whose they are or what purpose they serve. When we place the work of a living poet on the curriculum we honor him (the fact that it may not be our intention to do so is neither here nor there ). And we can shout all we like that it’s all to do with the work , we can declare it from the mountain tops but we cannot alter that fact. Indeed the accusation that we have at times been motivated by a desire to honor someone whose work does not in fact merit it has been made many times. But what then about all those other poets ? What about the dead poets , does it make a difference if a poet is dead or alive ? …….I can hear the laughter , even as I write this I can almost see the smiling faces ……but let’s stop here a moment and consider the matter. Does it in fact make a difference ?
We honor our heroes (and poets ) , the living and the dead . But the dead are distant , and we see them at a distance and with the benefit of history and hindsight. But what of the living ? Our living poets and heroes are much closer. Should O’Searcaigh be able to teach his poetry in the class room ? Would it be alright if he were a teacher ? Would a man who is involved in sex tourism be acceptable as a teacher ? Be honest , and if not why not. We demand a standard in private and public behaviour from our teachers and others who’s duty it is to educate the young , we may say that the mans private life is his own business but that’s not and never has been strictly true. Should the teacher’s work (his ability to teach) not be our only consideration when we hire him? And the politician that we elect , what about him ? Do we separate the man from his work ? The answer is a simple no. Are we then just hypocrites or is there a reason for this apparent double standard ? Not everything can be reduced to law and statute. Our post moder liberal society has passed so many laws that we must (on pain of prison) be careful what we say. History ,what did or didn’t happy in the yesterday , is something to be decided on in a criminal court…..and all of this with the best of liberal intentions. Those who are quick to proscribe even our spoken thoughts , our words , tell us now that we must do nothing……..The work must stand on it’s own…….what’s behind all this ?…….what indeed.
Where do these liberal idea’s come from ? The Art for Arts Sake movement has informed much of modern thinking but is little understood by many. Art it say’s stands on it own (the thing in itself) and does not have a social function (in itself). But the fairytale , the story and the poem do have a social purpose. We may try to flatter ourselves that we , unlike the primitive artist can produce an abstract or private art , an art for it’s own sake but in aiming for self flattery we only fool ourselves. Art for Arts Sake , to be understood must be understood in the context of the philosophy and culture from which it arose and the culture it helped to shape. It was never intended as a end in itself. The Russian poet , Afanasy Fet was greatly influenced by the movement and wrote much of his poetry in the spirit of Art for Art’s Sake and those who wish to pursue the study of it might do well to study his poetry and philosophical writings.
Our words are , more often than not , are put in our mouths. We express opinions about liberty and rights which we believe to be our own but which in fact we learned somewhere…..just as those who say , “The work must stand on it’s own”. We may think we are expressing an original idea but that does not make it so. A vulgar concept is made no less vulgar by the fact that we are unaware of it’s vulgarity. And what passes for liberal though in much of today’s self proclaimed liberal society is the worst possible form of vulgarity. We demand a freedom for Art to express itself that we are not prepared to extend to our fellow man. We sell off our social housing stock , our homeless litter the streets , the old and infirm perform their bowel movement in hospital corridors , we encourage mass immigration (it’s good for the country/us) with little regard for those who pay the price. And we have an answer for everything. Homophobic , racist , art for art’s sake …..(be careful what you say)….a woman’s right to choose ( but not to say what she thinks). And all , we tell ourselves for the common good. Thousands of years of philosophy reduced to soundbites. …..
Even those who are critical of O’Searcaigh feel the need to regard him as a good man. No such urge was felt when Jackson and Glitter were being judged. We speak of his spiritual dimension …..and such things. We seem incapable of declaring him bad. And yet we judge others every day of the week and feel no need to explain ourselves. But does a good man exploit others as he has done ? If he were an ill educated brute , if he had grown up in an amoral criminal environment we would of course keep this in mind as we passed judgement. But O’Searcaigh is no brute. He’s had the benifit of a good education , he understand morals and ethics….his friends keep telling us of his fine mind. O’Searcaigh , over a period of time solicited money from fellow artists so that he might do what he was doing. This was no momentary lapse of reason…..And a man who willfully does such a wrong , who makes others uknowingly complicit in the wrong is he not a bad man? They have read Hamlet and not understood a single word. They weep at the last act …….OH HAMLET they sigh…..as some poor minion hauls yet another body off backstage. Their arrogance is boundless. They are quick to judge us while contorting themselves in an effort to avoid judging one of their own. Like rape , it’s to do with power more than sex. And they have the power. Might is right.
Dublin , a city once famous for it’s bookshops now has practically no bookshops left ….the more of a liberal education the general population gets the less inclined are they to read books. ….there’s a moral there for anyone who want’s to see it.
And so , back to the question I started with. Should O’Searcaigh’s books be removed from the curriculum? What do I think ? The truth is that I’m not sure….I really don’t know. But I believe that we should talk about it in an open manner. There is no black and white answer. There is no ‘one fit’s all solution’. There is nothing so dangerous as a society (or a mind ) ruled by certainties. But in a society where freedom of speech is being chipped away at (for all the ‘right’ reasons ) we should not be surprised that some don’t even want to have a dialogue.
There is no such thing as a free dinner , or a free education or for that matter a free curriculum. Even the most liberal of art’s curriculum serves a purpose. We don’t learn art , philosophy or poetry we are taught it. We may think we are thinking in a free manner but this is rarely the case. We are happy with the free movement of labour and if we hear a contrary opinion we shout ‘RACISM’. Economic exploitation is justified even made into a virtue. No deviation is permissible…. ( and all the while we grow a little richer ). All this requires an ethic and a philosophy to underpin it. And we have to believe it all , we have to believe that’s it’s we ( the reasonable man ) who is making the decisions and that those decisions are ’good’. We must convince ourselves that our values can ’stand on their own’. That way , in time we don’t even feel the need to justify them. They are after all self evident to any ‘reasonable man’. They are true in themselves. …….and so we pass laws restricting free speech and call it liberal , anything can be justified and is. Twenty years ago I was a liberal and have not changed in one single regard but the word liberal has changed. We change language and are not even aware of it. E. P. Thompson once said that before we kill people we must kill language. Before we kill a ’man’ he must become an ‘enemy’. Words have power. And so , a liberal state passes another yet law to protect the people from themselves. And it creates an Art and Poetry (that stands on it own) to underpin this culture. The Academy speaks , and says what it was taught to say and thinks it has said something new. ……. No , nothing is black and white. Things are rarely as simple as they seem.
Going back to this idea that the art must stand on it’s own , it is interesting to note that when scholars discuss this concept in it’s cultural and historical context they rarely if ever consider their OWN historical context. There is , if you like an assumption (prejudice) that they are writing the last page , making the definitive statement. We can see the fatal flaws that previous generations have made but not the ones that we are making. We are more than a little arrogant…And by a happy coincidence our philosophies , values etc , the culture we create , just happens to work in our own interest. No one votes for high taxes “…..
Yes , yes , yes -” but we can’t go down the road of banning…” If you were to stop any man in the street right now and say ,”Should we take O’Searcaigh’s book off the curriculum ” the reply , I guarantee you , would be , “No we mustn’t ban his books”. This need , this almost atavistic compulsion to say no to banning in-spite of the fact that banning is not the issue is in itself revealing. There’s something going on here that has nothing to do with the argument in question. Their need is no different to the need that O’Searcaigh’s supporters displayed by rushing in to defend him with such speed. It’s a bit too insistent , too urgent…….it’s as if they are saying , ”I don’t want to think about this”.
As young people say today , “Let’s get real”. Merit has never , I repeat never been the only issue when it comes to who or what is on the curriculum. From the foundation of the state people have had their work represented for almost every reason under the sun from their percieved ‘patriotism’ right down to the ’services they have given to society.
Just one final point. It’s strange , well it’s really not strange at all - the argument that merit alone should decide the issue forces me to point out that while O’Searcaigh’s poetry is no doubt popular I don’t think any serious critic would claim that he’s in the same league as Hartnett …this is no Melville or Joyce were talking about here. I defy anyone who’s read Hartnett’s poem , “The Retreat of Ita Cagney“ to say that O’Searcaigh has come anywhere near to Hartnett. No doubt you will say , “But those who know about poetry say he’s a fine poet”. But there is self interest at work here. Much of the rushing to defend O’Searcaigh is a matter of closing ranks. And the idea that the man in the street might decide the relevance (or worst still the value) of O’Searcaigh’s work is something that they are not prepared to tolerate. You must have noticed that when he (the man in the street) intimates that he has something to say the spectre of ‘mob rule’ (and by intimation) brute ignorance is raised. Substitute ”Immigrant” or better still ”Black’s” for the man in the street and we all know that they would be screaming ‘Racism’. And it is of course a form of racism. It’s quite normal for such people to make racist assumptions and voice them as long as it is directed at the ‘man in the street’. And if a working class community expresses reservations about mass immigration the entire community is damned as ’Racist’. Of course when , as happens frequently now in the UK , an immigrant community expresses concerns about this mass immigration they get very confused and don’t know what to say either way. What , what for the love of God do any of these people know about poetry or any art form ? These are the ones who condemned Kavanagh to the wilderness for decades. Who for years would literally smirk if you mentioned his name. They gave Charlie Cullen the same cold shoulder for quarter of a century….would you like me to go on ? Do I have to spell it out? These are the ones who sneered when Charles Haughey commissioned a work by Seoirse Bodley and then critised ’the work’. One of Europe’s finest composers and they snickered and sneered . No effort there to separate the artist from the patron. No ”the work must stand on it’s own “that time. These are the people who dismissed Bernadette Greevy , who didn’t know whether to praise or laugh at O’Riada (they are still not sure / the verdict isn’t in )……..
…………That such people should have a say in the first place , that they should be the ones who decide what does or does not go on the national curriculum is nothing short of a travesty.
……
February 15, 2008 at 9:28 pm
If you read what Simon Parry wrote from Kathmandu in the Irish Mail on Sunday, Feb.10, you would have read what many people are saying about him over there. It is disturbing reading.Ramesh Khadra, the hotel manager of the Buddha Hotel where Searcaigh rented room 405 at 8 euro a night for long periods of time, recalls one boy who visited Searcaigh’s room. “In the morning,the boy was bleeding and in a lot of pain. Cathal took him to hospital.” This violation alone is enough for a conviction and registration on the sex offenders’ register. There was another boy whom he sent from his room because “he couldn’t complete the sex”. Tour operator, Nischal Kunwar, who arranges mountain trips for Buddha Hotel guests said, “In one day, he would have up to 16 boys visiting him in his room….” Gosh, Searcaigh had some appetite for what he liked best. He would hang around a nearby college where the teenage boys studied and met them that way. He always went for rural village boys. They were poor and needed the money.He didn’t bring them back directly to his hotel but gave them a hotel name card, and invited them to call.They’d come to reception and ask for him. When reception would phone up and ask if the boy could be sent up, if there was already another boy in his room, he’d say,”Tell him I am busy writing poetry.” When he checked out for the final time hotel staff found a bag of 50 condoms, pornographic videos and a collection of boys’ underpants pinned to the bathroom wall. Krishna Thapa, director of the charity, Voice of Children said he would say to the boys,”You must do this if you want to be a man”, and “This is normal in Ireland”. When Searcaigh learned that the film was going to blow his cover he phoned Mr. Khadra, the hotel manager asking for help and said,”But I was gay and everybody knows that”. Mr. Khadra told him he didn’t have a solution for him. Mr. Khadra later learned that after the call Searcaigh sent money to two long-term male friends in Kathmandu to distribute among 3 or 4 youths - 21 euro each. “I think he did it to silence the case against him”, he said. The Irish police appear to be investigating Neasa’s film only but it’s early days. Searcaigh is getting a quarter of a million euro grant for an extension to his Donegal house for a library and archives.Little enough! He gets a cnuas grant of 50000 euro a year from Aosdana. He gets all the regular Gaeltacht grants as his permanent address is Gortahork,which qualifies him for Gaeltacht status. This would include a grant for speaking Irish even though he was over in Kathmandu getting his kicks from defiling its youth. I loved his poetry,bought it all, heard him reading it on radio and loved the sound of his voice too. But that has stopped. The joy has vanished. The lines are tarnished and sullied with the blood and pain of the disadvantaged boys of Kathmandu who were violated by this evil twisted brute.They were his victims because they were poor. There is a choice of poets on the Leaving Cert.curriculum. We have many fine poets in the Irish language. We are not trapped by depending on Searcaigh. One can escape even if Hannafin continues to keep it on. If what he was doing in Kathmandu is as correct as he said it was, why is he not still doing it? Why did he stop? Why is he in hiding? I expect this pederast will continue to prey on youths somewhere when this storm blows over. Like paedophilia it is an evil compulsion. He needs to be locked away. It’s only a matter of time before he’s jailed. The game is up. Give his wealth to the youths of Kathmandu. He won’t be needing it where he’s headed.
February 15, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Maire,
Thank you for your comments. All this talk of denial is missing the point and it’s those who keep insisting that his work should remain on the curriculum who are really in denial….They are far more concerned with projecting themselves as ‘liberal’ than they are with engaging with the very real issues here….and the whole things is getting worse with every day…it’s turning into a grotesque nightmare.
February 16, 2008 at 1:21 am
I made a mistake there about the grants, there are so many of them. He gets 12000 euro annually from Aosdana. The grant for his cottage is actually 258000 euro. He has received 55000 euro altogether since he joined Aosdana. Other grants I forgot to mention are 15000euro grant to his publisher to fund 2 poetry books, a 2000euro grant from Foras na Gaeilge, received in the last 3 years. He avails of the artists’ tax exemption. He raised 50000 euro for his Nepal charity education projects, which researchers now doubt ever existed. His charity is not formally registered. He’s pulling in the bucks,not bad going for a guy who never did a day’s paid work in his life. Those who are teaching or are prescribing a syllabus for students have a Duty of Care towards the students. Teachers are in loco parentis and must act in the best interests of the students. Prescribing the material of a man who is under investigation for sex crimes is giving him a status of respectability pending the outcome and is not a student centred syllabus. His poetry should be pulled. He is not a suitable role model for students.The bottom line is, if in doubt, err on the side of caution. Teachers must have garda clearance to be in the classroom. O Searcaigh, as long as he is under police investigation would not qualify for garda clearance, nor would it be morally correct to put the poetry of a man who is unfit to enter the classroom on the syllabus.Of course it is not unreasonable for teachers to invite living poets whose poetry is on the syllabus to their classrooms,if they can find them, something that couldn’t be permitted in the case of this particular poet. He is a serial offender. He went back again and again to Nepal and spent long periods there in room 405 of the Buddha Hotel where he operated, what can only be interpreted as a conveyor belt of sex slaves to fulfill his evil needs.It appears he may have been reported to the authorities a good while ago, because he had trouble getting a visa to bring his friend Prem in. I read various reports that Prem was a friend or partner. He went to Mary Hannafin for help with the matter and told her Prem was a writer! Cathal and Mary are said to have attended college together. I wonder what college this was. Can anyone find out? And what did they study? I thought Searcaigh studied in Limerick but dropped out.
February 17, 2008 at 4:57 pm
i am currently teaching leaving cert irish and am seriously thinking in refusing to teach his poetry. Am i obliged to?
February 17, 2008 at 5:15 pm
John,
To the best of my knowledge you are obliged to teach his poetry. You should contact your union and just tell them you have some serious reservations about it and take their advice on the matter….but the chances are that you probably won’t have to in the near future. Don’t refuse to teach it just explain your problem. I’m sure you will not be the only one who is not comfortable about the situation. And I imagine that others too will be asking advice on the matter.
February 17, 2008 at 7:06 pm
John, you will be able to survive without teaching O Searcaigh’s poetry, as there’s enough choice within the questions at the Leaving Cert exam Honours level anyway to leave it out. I taught Irish but am in a different area of teaching now, and there’s enough choice at Junior Cert and LC General level to be able to leave it out there too if it’s on the course, as far as I can recall. I remember leaving out Coileach Ghleann Phadraig in the prose and got away with it because of the choices. I hated the coileach, that’s why I left him out. I loved O Searcaigh’s poetry. I loved Caiseal na gCorr, An Tobar, Neidi Eoin and to hear O Searcaigh reading Nil Aon Ni was just magic.He had a great love of his home place and he could take one to other worlds in his poems. I couldn’t teach his poetry now if I was still working in that area and would contact the union. My passion and joy is gone. I am disabled by what I have come to know.
February 20, 2008 at 10:54 pm
But, Maire, what have you come to know? That Cathal O Searcaigh is attracted to young - perhaps very young - men. The youngest man described in the film is 17. I have seen it. This is distasteful, no doubt, but neither criminal nor necessarily immoral. Just as it is distasteful for older people of both genders to seek much younger sexual partners, which, as we all know, they do, and not secretly either. In most of these relationships, there is financial gain on one side, and lust on the other. Not nice, but has been going on since time began. So why are we trying to hang O Searcaigh particularly?
February 21, 2008 at 1:01 am
The heat is turning up on him now. Glad that some of the boys who were violated are speaking out.Just like all the convicted paedophiles before him this man will remain defiant to the end and will go down screaming. Funding should be made available from Ireland for counselling these boys, or counsellors trained in sexual abuse counselling should be sent to Nepal.As a country we need to make restitution. This poor country needs help from the West and not exploitation in the form of pederasty.
March 4, 2008 at 6:37 am
germaine…
I honestly feel like I am cracking my head against large immovable apologists cast in stone. Again I repeat this is not an argument on the sexual mores of ‘may to december’ relationships.
It is an argument for the protection of minors against predatory individuals out to exploit them. As you said history both past and present has furnished many examples of young gold diggers and old fools easily parted from their money. However, in the vast majority of these cases the goldiggers in question were well over the age of eighteen.
Compare this sex/cash exchange barter with sexual tourism, where children are abducted from remote villages or sold by their families in desperation to sex traffickers who bring them to brothels, were they must work for a pittance to gratify mostly fat western men. The brothel keeper makes sure his sex workers are forced to comply with the client men’s wishes no matter how painful or perverse.
Germaine, this is a a far cry from the odd isolated ‘Anna Nicole’ type scenario you proffer or the young pupil running off with teacher. Although it should be pointed out that these May-December relationships are equally disastrous. Nicole died of a drug overdose, she was a troubled woman and child who was easily exploited by men, by family and by hangers on. Pupils and other young people who run off to shack up with what were former authority figures to them, usually in later life report that they were in fact groomed and that their own lives were far from stable so therefore they were doubly vulnerable to a predatory older person.
In the Western World we have many agencies to try and protect children and young people at risk. From housing help, to benefit help to care homes to child protection. Nepalese young persons and children from other impoverished nations have no such recourse, and these are the countries were sex tourism is rife, the sexual tourist predator loves the fact that the kids in these countries are so vulnerable.w
You speak about these relationships being about a financial transaction, this would suggest the boys Cathal had sex with in Nepal were prostitutes. In the film it is clear these boys were not prostitutes. They were local school boys who O’Searcaigh befriended, invited up to his room proceeded to bugger and then nail their underwear to the wall. The hotel keeper said he brought sixteen boys a day to his room. I believe the only financial transaction that took place was when O’Searcaigh sent letters to the boys -post scandal- pleading with them not to divulge anything, that he might kill himself and offered them eight euros each…now i think germaine, thank we can safely concur, there was no real financial gain for these poor innocent boys who were flattered by the interest this fat, funny hat, wearing westerner was showing them. And even if they did sleep with the ‘one man charity that is Cathal’ knowingly for money because they are starving, their parents are starving, they live in crushing poverty with few life chances..who Germaine is morally bankrupt here? I mean Cathal had hundreds of thousand of pounds at his disposal to improve the lives of these children..so why sleep with them…surely even the great ‘celtic mystic Cathal’ is not that deluded as to believe these young boys find him a sexual magnet,
Face it Geraldine, this is about power and control, exploitation and abuse. If you condone it anywhere on the planet especially in vulnerable third world countries, like Thailand, the hunting ground of sex tourist Garry Glitter who PAID for two 11 year olds, are you going to suggest that this was just a little financial transaction and everyone was happy..hmmm I sincerely hope not and as to hanging O’Searcaigh, he can do that himself if he wants to, after all he alone is the architect of his current misery and the woes which he visited upon young boys in the poor country of Nepal. Not that I believe that Cathal has any concern for any misery felt by the young boys he exploited.
March 10, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I have one simple reason for pulling O Searcaigh’s Poetry off the LC curriculum, which is nothing to do with censorship, or the quality of his literary output. Since presumably he gets paid by the department (in other words the taxpayer) for this - we should all as taxpayers object to our money being used to fund Mr O’ Searcaigh’s abusive lifestyle.
In this respect I feel, without having seen the film, that I have read and heard enough corroborating evidence to convict him as accused. He is guilty of no crime his defenders say, yet we are are told that homosexuality is illegal there. Whether it should be or not is a different question. The acts he admitted to are illegal here, and I would say certainly should be there. His defenders can’t adopt both sides in the argument.
Unlees we object to his state funding we are aiding and abetting the horrible creep in his disgusting lifestyle.
March 12, 2008 at 1:18 am
I can’t actually believe that people are defending this repulsive human being. I have just watched the film and the man’s lack of guilt, remorse and ability to recognise that he is a sexual predator of the lowest order is beyond belief. To travel to a poor country and lure young boys to his room under the premise of learning, where he proceeded to molest them, is unacceptable. The fact that he is a member of the aosdana should have no bearing on the situation whatsoever. And also this has nothing to do with sexual orientation - I’m sure everyone would be equally horrified by this if it was young girls involved. His indifference to the situation disgusts me and something must be done about this. It can not be allowed to be swept under the rug and action must be taken to ensure that the children involved are helped, and that this sick individual is brought to justice
March 12, 2008 at 1:57 am
It would seem that Cathal was chomping at the bit to have Neasa’s film censored..his ‘people’ citing lack of signed clearence forms, particularly from the boys…true enough, they might actually be required by law, but only for the under sixteens!
Basically, all concerned thought this film would be eulogy to Cathal and his poetic genius..instead it was about him being an abusive sex tourist with a penchant for shagging naive and impoverished boys…just look at the statement from his publisher below, grasping at any straw to prevent the film being shown..also, the last line is an absolute classic…Speaks VOLUMES about Cathal’s poetry!
Micheal O Conghaile, of Clo Iar-Chonnachta, was out of the country and only became aware of the situation days ago.
He confirmed yesterday that he had been in contact with RTE to determine what poems were actually used.
After discovering that the five poems, which feature either in part or in their entirety, are covered by copyright, he has made a formal request for them to be removed.
“I have heard nothing since but if this does not happen, I will be seeking legal advice with a view to obtaining an injunction,” he said.
Translations
He added that he also had concerns about the translations of the poems, which he said did not do the poet or poetry justice.
March 12, 2008 at 5:47 am
Before seeing the film I did not like or trust the way in which it had come about nor did I trust Neasa’s method or her motives conscious or otherwise.Tonight I saw Cathal O Searcaigh as a sixteen year old in a middle aged mans body in Dionysian indulgence. I wonder at this nightmare scenario many of you seem to see. If beauty be in the eye of the beholder the dreamer is beholden to look again. Cathal needs to look again but he is not alone in that. Re spect
March 12, 2008 at 3:04 pm
The abuse of power is a serious issue. The betrayal that you experiences when someone you believe you can trust and whom you believe cares about you as an individual and a human being is devastating.
People who are economically or socially deprived can become victims to the ‘power’ that can be abused by state or church agents. And this makes it more difficult to challenge as the victim knows they have state and church machinery behind them. In Sharkey’s case he adopted a quasi religious/sage role what with the hat and the embroidered waistcoat, what I often thougt was a kind of uniform - the parphenalia of religion and holiness. This must have been confusing for country boys coming from an underdeveloped country. Doctors, teachers, social workers and the like are in a postion and when one realises that you to them are just an object who because of vulnerability regardless of age they are manipulating to get sexual pleasure often of a saditic nature it is truly traumatising and soul destroying. The predator has long moved on when the trauma kicks truly in and it is with one for the rest of one’s life.
March 12, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Another thought about this. Leaving aside the legal age whether the boys were youths or children the definition of rape by a well known and respected writer called ‘Lees’ can’t remember her first name is ‘The use of force of coercion’ so if that is the definition for adult rape why should we say about young people they were this age or that age so it was legal. Rubbish. Call it pederasty a nice word and it was practiced by the Greeks or Romans or someother empire builders that our ‘civilization’ is built on. Well guess what the Greek and Roman empires were built on slavery. So we don’t say slavery is O.k. because the Greeks and Romans practiced it. Anyone who defends the exploitation and manipulation and use of these boys needs to have the consequences of such behaviour explained to them and they should be left in no doubt about the subsequent trauma that is suffered by those on the receving end suck sneaky and sadistic scheming. It is about power pure and simple and the addiction to power by people who feel they are superiour to the average person. Aosdana et al. are only fuelling this guy’s ego. And another thing his poetry is not all that. This was all on the cards when you read his poem about the B+B in Gardner Street and his pick-ups there. I thougt the poem about the dead ewe over the cliff was alright but then that could have been a bit of scheming as well as he’s always going on about how awful his father was to his mother. Who knows the truth. I feel the guy is still attached to his mother so that he can’t form any relationship with another adult. As well as that I read a comment about him on the internet onece. It was truly revolting so I reckon he has some victims in Ireland as well. They should come forward.
March 12, 2008 at 3:34 pm
That should read the ‘use of force or co-ercion’. Sorry.
March 13, 2008 at 10:26 am
uriel…
Dionysus was a greek myth.
Fact> Cathal O’ Searcaigh is 53 years old, he does not have a learning disability. He does not have the mind of a sixteen year old. (Going on your premise,if a sixteen year old had the mind of a one year old it would be ok to shag six month old babies) Cathal O’ has managed to build a business empire around his poetic offerings, this would suggest to me he is as sharp as they come. Furthermore, he was able to build his own mythical persona as old man wisdom and con the artistic world out of bid money to fuel his blatant sex tourism. Finally Uri, dress it how you will to better aid your sleep the man is an abusive and uncaring predator.
March 13, 2008 at 11:49 am
I understand the points made about the poems standing alone from the man, but i would encourage some revision of his poems in relation to the themes and interpretations of his poems. Academics and readers interpret the meaning of poems. We look for symbolism, themes and understanding within the lines of a poem. Some academics can draw from the life experiences of a poet, for a greater understanding of a poem meaning. Having watched the documentary, i seen a man that is manipulative and somewhat arrogant. At the same time he came across as been in complete denial. On another level he reminded me of some kind of lord surrounded by his serfs and slaves. He talked about the beauty of the nepalise people. How he loved his young friends and admired their innocence. The point i am making is that there were so many disturbing things said in this documentary by O searcaigh that i really question his motives and most importantly ” His words “. Were we been manipulated and deceived by o sercaigh. Wether we were been manipulated or he is a man in complete denial of his own motives and actions, which is the case with some people who abuse, we need to revise his poetry. It should not be taken of the Leaving or junior certificate soley because of his actions in nepal, but the meanings of his poems should be revised. have the academics and educational commitees got the meanings of some of his poems wrong. When they looked at his poetry before deciding to put it on the curriculum , did they know about this side of his character. I firmly believe that should they look at his poetry again they might see far darker themes and nuances and innuendo within his poems. Academics all over the world still argue to-day over meanings of lines and words (some) from Shakespeare to Yeats. I believe there should be a complete revision of O Searcaigh poetry. The question should be asked ‘ what themes does his poetry now convey ? ‘.
March 14, 2008 at 12:10 am
This may seem a very strange question as I did feel myself recoil from the tv watching the expressions of pain and confusion across some of the young boys faces in the documentary.I had never read or listened to any of Cathal O Searaighs poems before,to be honest I haven’t read poetry since leaving school 20 years ago,however nearing the end of the program Neasa read a poem ,I’m guessing it is one of Cathals poems and I found it so moving I would be grateful if anyone knows of this poem? As I said it is a strange question to ask as I think the very idea of him taking advantage of those young boys is so terrible.Yet this man ,Cathal has words that I must hear again.
March 15, 2008 at 4:28 am
Nuala
Far be it from me to state that any of this is ok.This is painful.
We see what we see. What we surmise is not fact.You clothe this in your way however that does not guarantee that your perspective is true to this situation or that you are seeing what is actually there while it does allow you to vent and perhaps that too aids sleep.
I suggest that my actual premise “look again” ‘respectere’is particularly valid where perspective seeks fact rather than the more illusive truth and proceeds directly to judgement and condemnation.
March 16, 2008 at 3:02 am
‘respectre’ -Uri, having looked again I conclude that Cathal O’ is a spectre indeed..
March 16, 2008 at 10:09 am
Just a short update …..it’s been reported this morning that interpol have had O’Searcaigh under investigation since 2006…
March 16, 2008 at 2:22 pm
To the stupid bollix that wrote O Searchaigh gets 50,000 a year from Aosdana, it’s 12,500 a year, gobshite.