A tenor voice
Choi Sung Bong is a name on everyone’s lips, no? The young tenor’s sudden rise from obscurity to fame on the television show, “Korea’s Got Talent,” has been captured for posterity on YouTube, with English subtitles. “Posterity” being defined today as, “forever, or for a couple of years, whichever comes first,” it grows even while it sheds, & the posterior of our culture has become enormous. But fame is still fame, while it lasts. And we do offer enhanced, if belated coverage of Asian Pop on this website (see, “Gangnam Agonistes,” Dec. 21).
By his own account — the main points given succinctly & modestly to the judges in reply to their direct questions when he first went on stage — Choi was dumped in an orphanage by his parents at age three. At age five, tired of beatings, he ran away. The rest of his childhood was spent on the streets of Seoul, sleeping in stairwells & public lavatories. He supported himself as urchin, selling chewing gum & “energy drinks.” There were “bad things” he did not want to talk about, such as being “sold to someone.” By age eight he had tenuously graduated to day-labour jobs, such as delivering milk & newspapers. Twice he was hit by cars, & went untreated; but after a serious fall he finally made it into the Kun Yang hospital, where the cumulative effect of traumatic injuries were diagnosed & given medical attention.
Choi prefers the name “Ji-Sung,” once given him by a kindly lady food vendor, to the name with which he was registered at the orphanage. (He seems to remember every kindness ever done him.) His life-transforming event happened in a nightclub. At age fourteen, selling whatever he was then selling, he heard a performer who sang “so sincerely.” It was classical repertoire. Choi was only vaguely aware that God had endowed him with a magnificent tenor voice. The food vendor told him he must take lessons, must get some schooling. He earned enough on the street to attend some classes in an arts high school. He listened to recordings, especially by Andrea Bocelli, & tried to emulate them. Another kindly lady gave him voice lessons, for free. He remained invisible, until the day almost two years ago when, still looking so desperately young, he came out to sing before the pop judges on television.
His choice of song was “Nella Fantasia” — by Ennio Morricone, the great Italian composer of spaghetti-western soundtracks. But this number comes from a religious film, about the Jesuits in 18th-century Latin America: the only friends the native Indians had against rapacious white men (though the first missionaries sent to them were martyred). I mention all this as a reminder of the many ways in which, I believe, Christ has embedded Himself even in popular culture; & how we must be discerning & not sneer at the “cross-over” genres by reflex — as I am apt to do.
Choi did not project emotion on the stage. Watching the clip, at first I thought, “perhaps he is autistic”; then saw him smile shyly. He answered the judges’ prying questions in a monotone; he did not seem to be playing for sympathy, but to be self-protectively cautious about his past. There was a fluster of anxiety in the hall: “How will this turn out?”
And of course it turned out fabulously. By the end of the first bar, Choi had taken the house down; the judges themselves were near weeping. They waived him right through to the finals. Then after, we see him being mobbed backstage. But again: no emotional response from him, no triumph; & when he can be free of all the well-wishers he walks alone down a corridor, to be by himself.
Now, as hack journalist of long standing, my scepticism was aroused. This story is too perfect; I smell a script. And I flinch at what happens when all the “fact checkers” go to work on what Choi said, because I already love him. But from what I am able to see, after Korean journalists had done their best to find holes in his story, every traceable detail had checked out. Still, they & other writers sprinkle their accounts with qualifiers — “Choi claims this, Choi claims that” — because our world is choking with cheats & frauds & imposters, & no one wants to be caught with his cynicism down.
This last statement is not entirely true. I am every day amazed by media credulity at the imbecile level, typically towards self-serving demagogic politicians. But as I know from first hand, the journalists are seldom so innocent or ill-informed as their reporting might make them appear. They identify with party — usually with the “progressive” side; the side of “secular humanism” — & wish to help it swing elections against what they take to be the “dark side,” of religious believers & the like. (And there will always be darkness enough to go around.) “Truth,” for most journalists, has been “relative” for so long, that they can no longer detect their own lies & hypocrisies. “Good” is whatever serves the agenda, even if it requires the suppression of context to make it sound plausible. The hard simple truth, the big inconvenient fact, will be ignored or scorned. Often, the moral posture becomes the more strident, the more twisted it becomes: & what is beautiful & inspiring is spontaneously derided.
Choi Sung Bong ran off every agenda. His “claim,” though understated, & made only in straightforward reply to factual questions, was staggering. Choi unknowingly broke all the rules, by failing to be a victim of his environment. There had to be something wrong with his story.
Charles Dickens, that wonderful old hack, quite capable of cynicism, was the man to tell dangerously sentimental stories like this. He was the Victorian Solzhenitsyn, in a sense. In a book potentially so mawkish as Little Dorrit, whose central setting was the notorious Marshalsea prison — into which Dickens’s own father had once been thrown, for debt — we find the figure of little Amy Dorrit. She was raised in the Marshalsea, as ward of a father likewise imprisoned. A swill of human evils surrounds the child, & reaches out in the panorama Dickens presents, of moral posturing that extends across England, France, & Italy; by all of which Amy seems untouched. She does what she can for people, out of unthinking loyalties, out of a naïve & unquestioning human decency; she takes her lumps without whining.
Out of a gorgeously colourful background, the “vision” of Dickens is assembled — of this goodness rising from the very mire; a goodness of which Amy becomes allegorical symbol: this angel rising from the squalor. (Dickens is replete with child angels.) From the Marshalsea as from Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag, it is a vision of salvation. The whole world is a prison camp, & from the bottom of it, “we are rising.” In some details, the novel may seem overwrought; in its overall effect my heart still stops at its splendour, at the breadth & audacity of the thing.
Dickens was no politician. The attentive reader will never find in him anything resembling a political agenda. He is clear that the corruption does not stop at any door; that the evils extend not only through the Marshalsea & out of its gates through the streets of every city, but also through the corridors of the Circumlocution Office. He did not imagine any solutions to the “problems of society,” short of that rising. Only when men & women rise — from within their own humble stations — can the good happen. Dickens’s faith was of the simplest evangelical kind; he had no room in his mind for precise theology. His God was of the simplest kind: the Christ child, & not the adult preacher. Yet from that childish angle he could depict a “life force” at work, that cannot be disentangled from Grace, & by which, mysteriously, Love will conquer all.
I have had the good or bad fortune myself, though only in moments, to taste real hunger & life among some of the poorest & most abandoned of mankind, & see how “the bottom of society” looks & feels. These were only little glimpses, by the luck of my travels; & by more luck I have had little glimpses of life “at the top.” I am disinclined to be sentimental about the former; nor too excoriating about the latter. As Dickens showed in Little Dorrit, give the poor enough money & they will soon assume airs. The problems of “society” will be reproduced in every society, & legislation will usually accentuate the worst features, giving new scope to corruption. Salvation comes not through “programmes” but through persons: a teacher, a food vendor, a nightclub singer.
The beauty in Choi’s case is that it proves nothing. Or else, arguably, it proves everything, which is as good as nothing. I wrote above that, by his own account, his life-transforming moment came in that nightclub, when he found his own calling, which was to sing. I cannot know if his “victory” on television was any kind of a good thing; victories in this world being in their nature transitory & illusory. It is entirely possible that it was the worst thing that ever happened to him. But not if he has taken it in his stride.
I read all your essays and more than occasionally think you are reading my mind. Maybe all of us, part of this winnowing process, are just on the same wavelength, I don’t know. I went to the HD Met production of Wagner’s Parsifal last Saturday and while I watched, I thought about the militant atheists and the others that want to wipe out Christianity. What will they do about all the art, all the music, sculpture, poetry and literature that glorifies God? Do they think Michelangelo’s David is just a sculpture of some person? Are they going to ban Handel’s Messiah? The Church is in trouble but always somebody, somewhere, will gaze upon its treasures and think, “What inspired that?”
Just returned from YouTube on the prompting of your article. Morricone’s “Gabriel’s Oboe” from The Mission never fails to make me weep. I had never heard a vocal rendition of it before. Thanks.
Stop me if I am being a bore, but I can’t help but want to think of all the unacknowledged Chois who didn’t have a voice, except I can’t because I simply lack the capacity to dwell upon unrelented misery in the abstract. Choi the individual who discovers a voice to charm stirs me with warm feeling; but Choi the suffering dumb multitude whose most cherished memories are of some passing kindnesses unremembered by those who extended them leaves me cold. Mind you, I trust the coldness before the warm feeling, which latter, I suspect, has nothing to do with the real Choi and everything to do with what’s wrong with a real world that finds Dickens something more than maudlin drivel. And when it comes to short-circuiting a tendency to indulgence in such drivel I find the gospels were sensible to an inspired degree in largely passing over an account of our Lord in his youth, and restricting what they do tell to pointing out that he was, after all, a bit of an ass.
Thank you for writing this. I am half Korean, and grew up hearing about the suffering of the poor (especially orphans) in Korea. God bless Choi. I will be praying for him.
Wait, I can’t take pleasure in a man’s kindness unless he remembers it? Do I need to track him down to make sure he remembers? After all, I don’t want to leave you cold just as you don’t want to bore me.
All we hear or read in the “news” now is that: “President Obama said today,” or “Stephen Harper said today.” While this reporting is true as far as it goes, it doesn’t go very far. What I expect from an intelligent human being, let alone a journalist, is some indication as to how true the statement is. The constant repetition of lies and half-truths that passes for journalism is not very interesting or helpful. No wonder they can’t even give away newspapers any more.
So thank you Mr Warren for giving us some news that is first of all, good news. I also appreciate that you recognize the limitations of what you are reporting and try and put it all in a context of truth.
I have been too harsh on my fellow journalists, above, for I did not take the space to add that most, including some of the worst, truly don’t know what they are doing. In such cases I often suspect that they lack all self-knowledge, genuinely confusing their own “worldview” with what they imagine to be the only possible sane & rational view, without realizing that they are themselves fully neither sane nor rational.
It is thus a great advantage to be on the “right” in a newsroom, & therefore usually in a minority of one. From this position, one does not have the luxury of imagining that the majority view exists “only among fanatics.” It is perfectly commonplace, wherever you turn. One has no choice but to argue with it. The rest of the newsroom retains the option of saying, “But everyone knows!” — because in their hothouse social circle everyone is truly of the same interchangeable mind, even if what they know is all garbage.
Beyond this, the totalitarianism implicit in “political correctness” is a huge insulating factor. That each has a conscience I believe, for all men are endowed with conscience; & sometimes it does surface, beautifully, even in the most unlikely candidates. But for the most part, in our contemporary newsrooms, it is drowned out, or overridden by the groupthink.
By way of mischief, let me quote Adolf Hitler, who told Hermann Rauschning in 1934: “I liberate man from the coercion of a mind that has become an end in itself; from the dirty & degrading self-inflicted torments of a chimera called conscience & morality, & from the demands of a freedom & personal autonomy to which only a very few can measure up.”
Was just reading this in connexion with a Catholic Thing column I’ve been writing, touching on the same issue of groupthink versus conscience. Every form of totalitarianism, including the “soft” forms, requires of its followers what Hermann Göring required of himself: “The name of my conscience is Adolf Hitler!”
For the soft totalitarian, however, its name is just “progress” or something.
Well, at least Göring placed the locus of his moral compass outside of himself.
Dear Mr Speaker, I have kept quiet for a while (maybe because I am not smart enough to comment with intelligence) but I can’t resist a short comment now. You deride the idea of “group think,” arguing that truth is not based on majority opinion. And I don’t disagree with you. But are you suggesting that the Church is exempt from “group think”? I would argue that most religions are the best example of “group think.”
But maybe I am just giving in to the liberal, progressive, atheist, Darwinoid group think.
Yes, Lord Kevin, I fear that you are.
There really is no way around this: either God exists, or He does not. Then if He exists, He is as revealed to us through Christ or, Christ was a fraud. In that case, the Catholic Church is just “groupthink.”
But you will still have to give us some credit, for staying on-message for two thousand years. … (And a couple thousand more, counting from Abraham. And I’d like to take this opportunity to share a high-five with the other Great Religions, even if they have been wobblier along the way.)
I think of “groupthink” as something shallower, more spontaneous, & rather shorter lived; something corresponding to George Orwell’s old phrase, “smelly little orthodoxies”; a flash in the pan of history; something that will look as odd & embarrassing after a generation or two, as the hairstyle that was caught in the flash of the Polaroid the same distance back; & would be laughed off, were it not for all the corpses.
Or in more Darwinoid terms, something that is constantly mutating, under the direction of something other than God.
P.S. perhaps I should mention that I used the term “groupthink” consciously in the standard, modern sociological way. The late Irving Janis is, I believe, still the academic authority, & he defines it as concurrence-seeking within a cohesive “in-group,” which tends to suppress independent critical thought, & leads to irrational & dehumanizing actions directed against “out-groups.” In this sense one finds it often enough within churches. But it’s a class thing, in its nature; a religion must bridge over varieties of class.
If the Speaker will permit me to bend his commenting rules, and I will accept his ruling if he does not, but majority opinion and group think are the same thing. Humans, for whatever sociological reason, have a tendency to accept opinions if they are held by the majority. This doesn’t mean that there is no free or original thought, just that it is more difficult when you are swimming up stream.
The relative youth of an opinion is not an argument against its veracity. Any more than a long held opinion is proof of its truth. It is true that the Church has survived for two thousand years. But survival over a long period of time is not an argument for its inherent truth.
Congratulations, Mr Middlebrook. No one has ever forced me to side with the sociologists before.
Mr Speaker: it seems to me that the Catholic Church is unique in this respect. There were times that the orthodox were in the minority, for example during the Arian heresy which also lasted a long time. In my case, before becoming Catholic I observed that the Catholic Church was an anomaly first because of her age, and second because of the stability of her doctrine. This second point requires some effort to detect but it is, in my humble opinion, nothing short of astounding. There is nothing there to compare to the changing ideas of “what wise men call the world.” That convinced me that there is Divine Revelation. The combination of a lasting group through the centuries sustaining a steady set of ideas against the most brutal persecution is a sign of the divine. If it is divine, it is exceptional and worth looking at like the burning bush in Moses’ story in Genesis.