REVIEW

Book Review: Nazi Literature in the Americas... and India

February 29, 2008
aatish
Roberto Bolano's in his recently translated novel Nazi Literature in the Americas weaves an entire literary universe filled with imaginary writers and their writings. Not all writers were, however, fans of Hitler or other Nazi leaders or even their ideology. Bolano's biographies of these imaginary writers, inspired in a way by Borges' Book of Imaginary Beings, are short - the longest runs into a few pages, the shortest about a page in length.
 
Marked by sharply etched portraits of the writers and of their equally imaginary writings, the novel reads like a racy potboiler, except that there is no evident plot in the novel. Only the last story (which readers of Bolano's novel Distant Stars will be familiar with because it is a summary of the same novel) is somewhat longer and has Bolano himself speaking in the first person and somewhat gives the clues to the underlying impulses behind the novel.
 
In this he recounts the story of Ramirez Hoffman, a Chilean air plane pilot who seemingly heralded a 'new era' in Chilean arts after the coup against Salvador Allende's socialist government and the establishment of Augusto Pinochet's military dictatorship. Hoffman's poetry is written in the sky using smokes from his air plane thus announcing the new blend of technology and arts as Chile was 'recovering its manhood' under a military dispensation.Some of Hoffman's poems, all one liners written on the skies, read as follows:
 
"YOUTH...YOUTH"
"GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE IN DEATH"
"LEARN FROM FIRE"
"Death is friendship"
"Death is Chile"
"Death is responsibility"
"Death is growth"
"Death is communion"
"Death is cleansing"
 
and so on till "Death is resurrection" and the generals themselves realize that something is amiss. It is, however, something far more macabre that leads to his downfall.
 
Bolano's prose is marked by the alacrity of flash fiction (which to me is one of the most important developments in literature in the internet age), but nevertheless carries forward the tradition of the serious novel. The absence of an explicit plot in the story does not mean that there is no plot as a post-modern reading would suggest. Instead, the plot is hidden below the surface, like an underground river.
 
The point that he makes is that Nazi-like brutality has a long lineage, and it resides perceptibly and imperceptibly in literature as well. Literature is, therefore, a battlefield in the recovery of humanity and is not outside the realm of politics, and neither is politics outside the realm of poetry and literature.

Reading the novel, I could not but relate very much to India where, interestingly, it is rather normal to have politicians, in the tradition of rulers of the past like Bahadur Shah Zafar and Nawab Wajid Ali Shah, to double up as poets and writers. It is therefore not unusual that two major contemporary politicians - Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Narendra Modi, former Prime Minister and a present Chief Minister of Gujarat respectively - belonging to what is easily the closest we have to a fascist political movement, the Bharatiya Janata Party, have some claim to being poets. 

To look for Nazi literature in India, one does not need biographies of imaginary writers. In India, they live among us, in our times. The question of literature and politics being separate also does not arise. They are so intricately tied up that both are the same. The nightmare and the muse.

Related Posts on Roberto Bolano

Aatish's interests span Literature, South Asia, Latin America, Left/Dalit/ Subaltern Politics and Urdu Poetry.
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Book Review: Nazi Literature in the Americas... and India

Article

Author: aatish

 

Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

#1
bob
February 29, 2008
09:25 AM

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross" -Sinclair Lewis

Fascism has arrived in the US and A, and appears to be taking hold in India.

#2
Chandra
February 29, 2008
10:05 AM

"It is therefore not unusual that two major contemporary politicians - Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Narendra Modi, former Prime Minister and a present Chief Minister of Gujarat respectively - belonging to what is easily the closest we have to a fascist political movement, the Bharatiya Janata Party, have some claim to being poets"

How can you draw such a conclusion? What criteria do you use and what evidence do you have that suggests that these individuals meet these criteria?


rgds

#3
kerty
February 29, 2008
10:58 AM

I would like to know what fascism is, how it is defined and its comparative with other political movements. It remains one more alien mystery concept used more as a term of abuse and demonization rather than enlightening the political discourse, as if people are supposed to shut up and drop whatever they believe in at mere mention of it because it is supposed to be so terrible.

#4
commonsense
February 29, 2008
11:04 AM

Kerty:

""I would like to know what fascism is, how it is defined and its comparative with other political movements. It remains one more alien mystery concept used more as a term of abuse and demonization rather than enlightening the political discourse""

You will not recognize it even if you had it for breakfast. But then again, you might just have it for breakfast...

#5
commonsense
February 29, 2008
11:12 AM

Kerty:

"" (Fascism) It remains one more alien mystery concept used more as a term of abuse and demonization rather than enlightening the political discourse, as if people are supposed to shut up and drop whatever they believe in at mere mention of it because it is supposed to be so terrible."'

Not so dis-similar to the way you deploy "communism", "alien ideologies" "non-Indian" "adharma" to try and shut up others A little bit of reflexivity never hurts my friend. Especially when the shoe appears to be on the other foot! It's all the same game, isn't it. And sooner of later, the game ceases to be worth the candle, does it not?

#6
aatish
URL
February 29, 2008
12:00 PM

bob: it is quite alarming to see the increasing rise of fascist like movements in India which has corresponded with the onslaught of neo- liberalism.
Chandra: not sure if you are referring to my reference to the two gentlemen referred as belonging to the closest we have to a fascist party or their claim to being poets. To the former, there is enough that has been written about, to the latter, of course, it is contentious though the fact that they have not only published their 'poems' (mediocre as they are) but have also been sung by leading singers like Jagjit Singh and Bhupinder.
Kerty: The term fascism is associated with the rise of the movements associated with Hitler and Mussolini but also cast a long shadow on others, in India it has been associated with the RSS. I use the term in that context.
commonsense: good point about the breakfast analogy...

#7
kerty
February 29, 2008
12:27 PM

Aatish.

Nazism is well-defined and well-understood by most Indians. But what the hack is Fascism? How it is defined? What are its characteristics. And how does what happened in Italy or Germany relate to India? You can use it in any context or associate it with any movement or organization, but that is neither here or there, unless people understand what the hack is fascism. You used the term and associated it with BJP and subsequently with RSS - so onus is on you to spell it out, and you can leave alone my breakfast.

#8
aatish
URL
February 29, 2008
12:48 PM

Kerty:I would refer you to Sumit Sarkar's article on the theme.

#9
commonsense
February 29, 2008
01:27 PM

Aatish,

Kerty is within driving distance of Sumit and Tanika Sarkar who have been at the U of Chicago for the past two years or so...However, as you well know, he is simply baiting here...

#10
Chandra
February 29, 2008
02:06 PM

Aatish:

I am not persuaded by partisan hacks accusing somebody of being a facist without any evidence. Do you have any evidence to back this claim?
You cannot tarnish somebody without evidence.

#11
aatish
URL
February 29, 2008
02:53 PM

Chandra: please see comment #8 above.

#12
kerty
February 29, 2008
03:35 PM

Aatish..

I do know who this Summit Sarkar fellow is and why his word is the last word on it. Please post a link to his article here and I will have a look at it. Since his thesis has not caught on wildfire in India and remained obscured there, it shows how wildly academic it probably is. Why don't you post an article on that line, so we all can understand its pros and cons?

#13
aatish
URL
February 29, 2008
03:40 PM

Kerty: I have linked the article in the comment (on the text "Sumit Sarkar's article". But here it goes again:
http://www.sacw.net/DC/CommunalismCollection/ArticlesArchive/sSARKARonSANGHPARIVAR.html

#14
kerty
February 29, 2008
03:43 PM

Attish..

Typo correction in #12..

First line should read as:
I do NOT know who this Summit Sarkar fellow is..

#15
commonsense
February 29, 2008
04:09 PM

Kerty:

""Since his thesis has not caught on wildfire in India and remained obscured there, it shows how wildly academic it probably is."'

Kerty Bhai, Sumit Sarkar has been in the line of fire by the Hindutva types for a very long time, in the mass media....perhaps you have been too busy with your business...

Needless to add (then why add?) his word is not the last word on this topic. That is the prerogative of prophets not scholars....

#16
kerty
February 29, 2008
04:16 PM

Aatish..

I read the first few para of the link and skimmed thru the rest. I still could not see the term Fascism clearly defined or explained anywhere. Instead, it is a collection of partisan rants about communalism and Hindutva, never defining or explaining those terms either - plus long litany of how BJP vs so-called Secular politics has been playing out in India.

A scholar would have defined the phenomena of fascism, its modus operandi, its aims and objectives, its historical origins, its historical applications, and how to recognize such phenomena. After laying such a foundation, he should have laid out what is that BJP and RSS are doing that make them fascists. Merely stating that Fascism means 'blatant acts of authoritarian repression or reactionary violence' does not cut it. Historically, all counter political movements have been built on some elements of repression and violence, differing perhaps only in nature of repression and violence used by them. Thus, such loose definition can not rationally distinguish one movement from the other, and explain why one movement is fascist and another movement is not. All it does is to allow such labels to be thrown indiscriminately at any political movement one may disagree with. And that is what Sarkar seems to be doing. You have got to do better than Sarkar to educate people on what Fascism is.

#17
commonsense
February 29, 2008
04:23 PM

Kerty:

""I do NOT know who this Summit Sarkar fellow is..""

Endearing! Kerty Shab never refrains from waxing eloquently on Indian history but has no clue as to who this "eminent" (Arun Shourie's term)historian is!! Nor that Sarkar's father was also one of the pre-eminent historians of India. Who needs to actually read history in order to discuss it. Especially some wag said "there is more history in myths, and more myths in history than people imagine.."

""Until his recent retirement, Sumit Sarkar was Professor of History at Delhi University, India, where he began teaching in 1976. Tanika Sarkar is Professor at the Department of Modern History at Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.""


Before somebody jumps on me, I am NOT defending Sumit Sarkar nor Tanika Sarkar...they can do it themselves!

#18
kerty
February 29, 2008
04:54 PM

Anytime 'eminent' is prefixed to a scholar, academics or historian, my antenna usually perks up and beams, "Oh no. Please, not another one". I have come to classify them as revisionist, iconoclastic, de-constructionist, whose legitimacy need to be asserted as a label in front of their names and whole credibility is earned by quoting each other. Customized and made to order. Like AG of 'Jodha Akbar' - 30% facts and 70% imagination, but it does make for a damn good masala movie.

#19
commonsense
February 29, 2008
05:12 PM

True, true, but the prefix "eminent" was coined by that other eminent historian Arun Shourie (sarcasm alert!) as a term of ridicule and sarcasm...not used by the sarkars to describe themselves...

#20
Ms.Anona
URL
February 29, 2008
05:38 PM

I'm a de-constructionist.......... I think.

#21
commonsense
February 29, 2008
05:51 PM

Hmm?

#22
Ms.Anona
February 29, 2008
06:08 PM

Let me know if I ever come close to being cool enough for you.

NYU???

#23
Ms.Anona
URL
February 29, 2008
06:52 PM

Well, I just got another rejection for employment. After lingering me on for 3 months, they decided to go with........... yadda yadda yadda. At least they called back this time. Sure, I'll check into U of C, I'm sure they'll be thrilled.

Sorry for the randomness.

#24
commonsense
February 29, 2008
07:21 PM

Kerty:

""I read the first few para of the link and skimmed thru the rest. I still could not see the term Fascism clearly defined or explained anywhere.""

As I said, you wouldn't recognize fascism even if you had it for breakfast. Hint: it's not crunchy. But then again, it could be!

#25
commonsense
February 29, 2008
07:24 PM

Ms A:

""Let me know if I ever come close to being cool enough for you.""

Ms. A, I'm a straigt-laced workaholic...Thanks anyways! Some guys might get flattered...

#26
temporal
URL
February 29, 2008
10:32 PM

cs:

you can return a favour ....now that you confessed to be on a sabbatical;)

in response to this piece by aatish i wanted to post a quote...i tried and could not find it

well first the thrust of the quote from memory

"....dictators and tinpots who pursue policies do not hear voices out of thin air ....but echo words of madmen and poets from the past with vision...."

or something similar

where did i read it?....hmmmm... i think i can bet it was in an economics text book by paul samuelson....he began each chapter with a wonderful quote...

can you find the quote?

#27
commonsense
February 29, 2008
10:56 PM

temp,

will try tomorrow...too brewed up at the moment...sounds like a nice quote...paul samuelson text still going strong?

Tomorrow for sure...

#28
Ravi Kulkarni
March 1, 2008
12:05 AM

Dear Aatish,

I read your article and that of Summit Sarkar with interest. There are many statements in both that I agree with: there is no doubt that some on the far side of the hindutva brigade are guilty of heinous behavior. However, there is are several contradictions in both the arguments.

Sarkar's quote:

"But Muslim communalism cannot dominate Indian society and introduce fascism. That only Hindu communalism can"

And yet, at the end he makes this statement:

"The Muslims in India, it needs to be added, are not an insignificant minority, but 120 million-the biggest in the world next to Indonesia."

So which one is it? Is the muslim communalism big enough to be dangerous or not? There lies the central flaw in the argument. A lot of hindu backlash, particularly in the 20th century has been a result of centuries of oppression by muslim leaders. To ignore that is to be a leftist historian. The ideology of such "eminent" historians blinds them, either intentionally or unintentionally to the objective reality.

The articles are also alarmist. Today's India or for that matter, anytime India is far from being a monolithic country, culturally, socially, religiously or by any measure. Just look at how hard it is for any national party to get enough votes to form a government. India is a wonderful, bewildering, and sometimes frustrating amalgam of cultures, languages, religions. India has also had a history of tolerance and culture of co-existence. Fascism will never have a chance there.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

#29
commonsense
March 1, 2008
12:29 AM

T:

Was it this quote from the economist Keynes..?

" . . . the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil."

The last half of the last paragraph in John Maynard Keynes's book General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. That quote has to be read and re-read slowly, reflectively, savoring the language, and the thoughts. Just read this: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back." Pure delight, like a sip of very fine cognac.

#30
commonsense
March 1, 2008
12:41 AM

Temporal,

Yes, Samuelson does quote Keynes in his textbook...

For the benefit of those who do not meet Paul's high standards of erudition, I here provide Keynes (1936,pp. 383-384) statement, to which Paul alludes in his Foreword:"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I amsure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradualencroachment of ideas ... Sooner or later, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil."When I showed the first draft of Paul's Foreword to some eminent economists, many reacted withshock and dismay. One replied that Paul was accusing us all of being "a bunch of whores."

#31
aatish
URL
March 1, 2008
08:04 AM

@Ravi: Thanks for taking the trouble to read Sumit Sarkar's article. However, that is not the subject of this post and hope we will have that conversation at a more appropriate occasion.

Thanks everyone for your comments. I hope this post creates some interest in Bolano's work- one of the most original literary voices in the last one decade.

#32
temporal
URL
March 1, 2008
12:45 PM

cs:

ole!

that is the one! there was something so lucid so eloquent about that some of it got stuck in the by lanes of memory. thanks for retrieving it:)

aatish:

welcome back to DC:)

this is now my offficial reaction to your post:



#33
commonsense
March 1, 2008
02:32 PM

Temporal, you're welcome! Just trying to repair my credibility here after too many outbursts! But then it gets a bit boring if i don't indulge in some dramey-baazi..

#34
temporal
URL
March 1, 2008
02:40 PM

heheh

common sense repairing common sense's credibility?

#35
Ruvy in Jerusalem
March 1, 2008
06:06 PM

Again breaking silence to do a kindness. Everyone has gabbed and gabbed on and on, but nobody has deigned to say what fascism is.

Kerty:

Fascism is primarily an economic system where business and labor get together to form a "corporate chamber" which runs the country. This "corporate chamber" is supposed to end economic strife by combining the interests of labor and business in one organization devoted to the common goal, the enhancement of the Italian state.

Under this system, the individual exists for the good of the nation, and all of his rights re subservient to the good of the nation. So, "freedom" as you and I might understand it, does not exist. In addition, the only measure of the effectiveness of the Italian state under fascism is its ability to wage war; so the orientation of the fascist state is to build the Italian empire and the Italian military.

In the end, the fascist state fell down on this last issue, the ability to wage war. The Italians were able to barely subdue Libya. They conquered Abyssinia with their tanks and airplanes, but when it came to defeating the Greeks in the mountains of Epirus, well, the Greek dictator was far more inspiring to his people than Mussolini was. He told the Italians okhi "no," when they demanded control of a Greek island and drove the invading Italians into Albania.

Google up "Okhi Day" and see what you get.

Fascism had many elements of socialism; Mussolini had started out as a socialist in the early 1900's. Fascism is wrongly confused with Nazism, which was/is a racist philosophy/religion and which was far more successful in doing good for those Germans who were on the right side of the Aryan divide, and who kept their noses clean and out of politics.

But Nazism called for the extermination of whole peoples on racial grounds, and fascism never did. Many Jews were high up in the Fascist hierarchy in Italy until Mussolini adapted Germany's racial laws to Italy.

The fact that the Italians had been defeated in Albania by the Greeks and had to be rescued from that defeat by the Germans finished off the fascist system, which from then on was seen as a mere puppet of the hated Germans.

#36
kerty
March 1, 2008
06:16 PM

Ruvy..

Thanks for providing Italian context to this often-used term in political discussions in India.

#37
temporal
URL
March 1, 2008
06:20 PM

Who's On First?

Abbott & Costello

by Abbott and Costello

A Word-for-Word Transcript

Abbott: Well Costello, I'm going to New York with you. You know Bucky Harris, the Yankee's manager, gave me a job as coach for as long as you're on the team.

Costello: Look Abbott, if you're the coach, you must know all the players.

Abbott: I certainly do.

Costello: Well you know I've never met the guys. So you'll have to tell me their names, and then I'll know who's playing on the team.

Abbott: Oh, I'll tell you their names, but you know it seems to me they give these ball players now-a-days very peculiar names.

Costello: You mean funny names?

Abbott: Strange names, pet names...like Dizzy Dean...

Costello: His brother Daffy.

Abbott: Daffy Dean...

Costello: And their French cousin.

Abbott: French?

Costello: Goofè.

Abbott: Goofè Dean. Well, let's see, we have on the bags, Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third...

Costello: That's what I want to find out.

Abbott: I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third.

Costello: Are you the manager?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: You gonna be the coach too?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: And you don't know the fellows' names?

Abbott: Well I should.

Costello: Well then who's on first?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: I mean the fellow's name.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy on first.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The first baseman.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy playing...

Abbott: Who is on first!

Costello: I'm asking YOU who's on first.

Abbott: That's the man's name.

Costello: That's who's name?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: That's who?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, you gotta first baseman?

Abbott: Certainly.

Costello: Who's playing first?

Abbott: That's right.

Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?

Abbott: Every dollar of it.

Costello: All I'm trying to find out is the fellow's name on first base.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy that gets...

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: Who gets the money...

Abbott: He does, every dollar. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

Costello: Whose wife?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Abbott: What's wrong with that?

Costello: Look, all I wanna know is when you sign up the first baseman, how does he sign his name?

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: How does he sign...

Abbott: That's how he signs it.

Costello: Who?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Costello: All I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name on first base.

Abbott: No. What is on second base.

Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.

Abbott: Who's on first.

Costello: One base at a time!

Abbott: Well, don't change the players around.

Costello: I'm not changing nobody!

Abbott: Take it easy, buddy.

Costello: I'm only asking you, who's the guy on first base?

Abbott: That's right.

Costello: Ok.

Abbott: All right.

PAUSE

Costello: What's the guy's name on first base?

Abbott: No. What is on second.

Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.

Abbott: Who's on first.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He's on third, we're not talking about him.

Costello: Now how did I get on third base?

Abbott: Why you mentioned his name.

Costello: If I mentioned the third baseman's name, who did I say is playing third?

Abbott: No. Who's playing first.

Costello: What's on first?

Abbott: What's on second.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He's on third.

Costello: There I go, back on third again!

PAUSE

Costello: Would you just stay on third base and don't go off it.

Abbott: All right, what do you want to know?

Costello: Now who's playing third base?

Abbott: Why do you insist on putting Who on third base?

Costello: What am I putting on third.

Abbott: No. What is on second.

Costello: You don't want who on second?

Abbott: Who is on first.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together:Third base!

PAUSE

Costello: Look, you gotta outfield?

Abbott: Sure.

Costello: The left fielder's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: I just thought I'd ask you.

Abbott: Well, I just thought I'd tell ya.

Costello: Then tell me who's playing left field.

Abbott: Who's playing first.

Costello: I'm not... stay out of the infield! I want to know what's the guy's name in left field?

Abbott: No, What is on second.

Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.

Abbott: Who's on first!

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together: Third base!

PAUSE

Costello: The left fielder's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: Because!

Abbott: Oh, he's centerfield.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, You gotta pitcher on this team?

Abbott: Sure.

Costello: The pitcher's name?

Abbott: Tomorrow.

Costello: You don't want to tell me today?

Abbott: I'm telling you now.

Costello: Then go ahead.

Abbott: Tomorrow!

Costello: What time?

Abbott: What time what?

Costello: What time tomorrow are you gonna tell me who's pitching?

Abbott: Now listen. Who is not pitching.

Costello: I'll break your arm, you say who's on first! I want to know what's the pitcher's name?

Abbott: What's on second.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together: Third base!

PAUSE

Costello: Gotta a catcher?

Abbott: Certainly.

Costello: The catcher's name?

Abbott: Today.

Costello: Today, and tomorrow's pitching.

Abbott: Now you've got it.

Costello: All we got is a couple of days on the team.

PAUSE

Costello: You know I'm a catcher too.

Abbott: So they tell me.

Costello: I get behind the plate to do some fancy catching, Tomorrow's pitching on my team and a heavy hitter gets up. Now the heavy hitter bunts the ball. When he bunts the ball, me, being a good catcher, I'm gonna throw the guy out at first base. So I pick up the ball and throw it to who?

Abbott: Now that's the first thing you've said right.

Costello: I don't even know what I'm talking about!

PAUSE

Abbott: That's all you have to do.

Costello: Is to throw the ball to first base.

Abbott: Yes!

Costello: Now who's got it?

Abbott: Naturally.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, if I throw the ball to first base, somebody's gotta get it. Now who has it?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Who?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Naturally?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to Naturally.

Abbott: No you don't, you throw the ball to Who.

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's different.

Costello: That's what I said.

Abbott: You're not saying it...

Costello: I throw the ball to Naturally.

Abbott: You throw it to Who.

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: That's what I said!

Abbott: You ask me.

Costello: I throw the ball to who?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Now you ask me.

Abbott: You throw the ball to Who?

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: Same as you! Same as YOU! I throw the ball to who. Whoever it is drops the ball and the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball and throws it to What. What throws it to I Don't Know. I Don't Know throws it back to Tomorrow, Triple play. Another guy gets up and hits a long fly ball to Because. Why? I don't know! He's on third and I don't give a darn!

Abbott: What?

Costello: I said I don't give a darn!

Abbott: Oh, that's our shortstop.

#38
commonsense
March 1, 2008
10:42 PM

ha ha!!

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/7370)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.






Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!