The Khazars From Eden

Brent Lewis

Bias and spin are all around us. Everything in this life is a matter of perspective. Whether it is a history book, an article in a newspaper or a story passed down orally through generations, people cannot help but leave their mark on anything they try to report. Information is documented in an active fashion, which makes being an active reader essential: “The only strength I have comes from what I poured into you and what I take out of you, because one can find in truth only as much as one puts into it” (Pavic 179). When our view of the world becomes bogged down in our own personal history and cultural context, foreign views may slip into the background or disappear entirely. Surrounded by overlapping subjectivities, it becomes hard to tell how much of the picture we are seeing when analyzing something we are reading or have been told. Both William T. Vollmann and Milrod Pavic address this issue within their respective works. Although neither offers a c! lear solution or way to know the full “truth,” both writers encourage their audiences to embrace a fluid understanding in life, not limited by their particular context.

Vollmann’s essay “Some Thoughts on the Value of Writing During Wartime,” from a compilation of his work, Expelled From Eden, made me think of the trinity of books in Pavic’s Dictionary of the Khazars. I was reminded of the different records of the Khazar polemic and the struggle different historians and writers had throughout the novel trying to piece this history together. A common message for increasing understanding and empathy between people can be found in these two works. I first made this connection through Vollmann: “Many or most of you, I’m sure, know the distinction between flat and rounded characters. A flat character is at worst a cardboard villain, a stereotype, at best a predictable sort” (144). The focus of his essay is the responsibility of authors, particularly journalists, to make all their characters multifaceted. He elaborates on this point throughout, attributing these underdeveloped characters to misunderstandings, hate and a lack of sympathy between people of different cultural contexts.

Vollmann contends that our understanding depends greatly upon which characters and events are presented to us as flat and which are rounded. He drives this point home when talking about the Iraq War. In America Saddam Hussein is presented as a flat character, his actions are predictable and we need little context to understand him. We validate our actions by demonizing this cut-out of a human being, while ignoring the numerous humanitarian crises that arise in their wake. Americans do not recognize the full picture because of the pieces that are left flat to them. They do not hear about the starving families or babies that go without medical care due to sanctions. For the same reasons these actions bread hate in the Iraqi people, who know little of weapons but do feel the impact of the sanctions. And because neither side has taken steps to understand the other, to fill their adversary out, the picture never gets any clearer.

A similar problem arises within Pavic’s work. When different individuals try to understand the history of the Khazars, they find their records are incomplete. The reports from the Khazar polemic, when a representative from the three great religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) came to persuade the Khazar’s leader that his people should convert to their sect, all contain holes. Each group has their own record, which neglects to mention the name or arguments from either of the other two groups (Pavic 168). They all tell a similar story, but each version has a different outcome and central figure. The other two delegates are always flat characters; they are there but almost not worth mentioning.

These flawed records are problematic for those characters within Dictionary of the Khazars who want to gain a more complete picture of this event. They all recognize the holes and realize that each group probably has records, which could fill these holes (Pavic 184). To gain a better understanding they must look to sources they normally would not, to flesh out the flattened characters of their culture. This is the central theme of both pieces, that we must look beyond the sources of our own personal spheres to gain a more fulfilled understanding. We must look in unlikely places to bridge the gaps in our understanding, as the three religions have to consult each other in Pavic’s lexicon novel. This process is difficult when we regard these groups as others and believe we already have them figured out: “If he dreams of you as you dream of him, if he constructs your reality in his sleep as his reality is constructed in yours, then the two of you can never look into each other’s eyes, for you can never be awake at the same time” (53). When ! the reality of others is constructed within our social context, we will never really see them as rounded characters. Giving new consideration to your opposite or enemy often complicates your analysis but can help to inflate your compressed landscape.

This is a point Vollmann emphasizes in his own work: “Never forget the other point of view. No matter how you judge it, try to see it fairly and try to describe it accurately” (152). It is also the point of only being able to get a semi-complete picture through groups that normally do not cooperate in Dictionary of the Khazars. None of the groups had the full story, because they overlooked one another. This communication barrier is related through the devil Akshany in the form of a parable using a moth: “It (the moth) doesn’t even know we exist. You try to communicate with it, if you can. Can you tell it anything in a way it understands; can you be sure it has understood you completely?” (Pavic 126). The moth is smashed in Akshany’s hand, demonstrating his mindset, that the only way to make the other see us is through violence.

Within the context of Pavic’s work the definition of people within a cultural context that is not their own is the same thing as making these people flat characters. The key to understanding in both these pieces is viewing the world from other perspectives and contexts. Neither author is saying you have to agree with them or change your opinion of them. Both works just ask that you try to understand them.

Conflicts and cycles of violence are not bred into us, but grow from a lack of communication and effort by parties to at least gain some knowledge about opponents: “Now, imagine that there is somebody who cannot approach us to let us know that he exists except in one way---by killing us” (Pavic 126). Progress is only made between opposing groups when mutual understanding is attempted. If we are going to be enemies the least we can do is try to employ a little empathy and stop treating one another like a mystery, as Vollmann says: “You should get to know them well enough to understand why what they believe is plausible to them, and you should explain their views to other Americans as sympathetically and as accurately as you can” (153). As we give these non-distinct figures bodies in our world we may find that we can co-exist.

Both these authors question what would be viewed as the “truth” within society. In Dictionary of the Khazars the challenge is to religion, particularly doctrine and texts. The devils in the story reveal that there is not one hell, but three, one for each faith (Pavic 52). And although you may escape damnation within your own, you are most certainly heading for torment in one of the other two. According to Pavic’s devils none of the doctrines or holy books is right, they are all inherently flawed. The religions could find the “truth” if they could stop fighting one another. But because they are manipulated by devils and keep themselves separated, they are left in the dark and doomed to burn in hell. This division of heaven and hell is quite contrary to the idea of the infallibility of the Lord and religion found in most traditions.

Vollmann on the other hand tackles the world of journalism. He discusses the ways people and events are represented through the media to fit their cultural understandings. Newspapers are viewed as unbiased records of world events, but Vollmann indicates that they can often have the opposite effect when politics are involved. He says it is the responsibility of writers to resist the pressure to present stereotypical characters: “If you become a reporter, you will have to live with the dumbing down of your message, but please never, ever allow the fundamental essence of that message to be distorted” (152). Discrete distortion in the news and in religion leads to misunderstandings and conflict in this world.

It is not only the writer’s responsibility, but the public at large as well. We must try to be fair in our reporting, admitting and confronting our biases not only to ourselves but also to others. By openly sharing our flawed pictures with one another we can begin to restore them and get one step closer to the “truth.” Being an active reader and questioning what is presented to us will lead to more honest reporting: “a government which tells its citizens that the world is black and white is not lying, necessarily, but at best it’s a Raymond Chandler government, whose characters will use their skills, if they possess any, to move the story toward a predetermined result” (Vollmann 145). The government and reporters aren’t necessarily trying to deceive the people but are trying to push the agenda they think we want. It must be made clear that filtered information is not desired.

Both Vollmann and Pavic’s work embody a spirit of hope for human relations that I found refreshing. Yes, everything is relative and this world is filled with biases but things are not hopeless, as long as people are willing to acknowledge their perspectives and try to gain an accurate depiction of others. It is when we consider others unapproachable and leave them flat that hate is introduced into this world. We cannot remove our own cultural index, but that does not mean that we have to be slaves of it. Pavic’s devils go to any length to ensure that people remain sedated within their divided social contexts and fear those who want to expand their consciousness: “It is those who actually differ among themselves who pose the greatest danger. They long to meet one another, because their differences do not bother them” (53). Through collaboration and exposure we can understand one another and learn to co-exist. “Truth” to these authors is never fully ! realized. But we can build our knowledge throughout our lives, as long as we never stop questioning, learning and empathizing with others to the best of our ability. The Dictionary of The Khazars and “Some Thoughts on the Value of Writing During War Time” ask that we not get too attached to where we think the truth lies and recognize that it moves. No one can navigate the sea of objectivity for us, although some responsibility lies with those who are trusted within society. But ultimately it comes down to the individual to decide what they are going to believe. We are all responsible for ourselves; you must choose to be an active observer yourself.

Works Cited

Pavic, Milrod. Dictionary of the Khazars. New York: Random House, 1988.

Vollman, William T. Expelled from Eden. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Michael Hemmingson. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2004.