[delany-list] Re: Editions of Hogg (2)
- At 7:30 AM +0000 2/10/05, Guy_Fawkes99 wrote:
>Finally, let me mention I posed my Atlantis questions a while ago,You posted them a WEEK ago. Not really much time. But thanks for the reminder.
>and sent them to Delany who said he wanted to read the replies, but
>there haven't been any replies so thanks for letting down Delany and
>more importantly me you bastards.
I'd have to re-read Atlantis: I didn't even REMEMBER any of the
particular scenes you mentioned. And I just don't know when I'll get
around to that. Of all Delany's books, Atlantis is the one I've
connected with the least--even less than The American Shore, which is
not a warm and cuddly book.
I didn't actively dislike Atlantis; I just didn't connect with it as
a reader. I do recall that I didn't feel that there really WAS any
narrative or thematic connective tissue joining the three pieces in
the book, and that the Atlantis metaphor seemed arbitrary and
unrelated to any of the works. But there were external factors for
both of those reactions: I'd already read 'Citre et Trans' elsewhere,
so I skipped it in the Atlantis volume, and Armistead Maupin has
linked Atlantis pretty strongly with San Francisco for me, so it's
hard to free the metaphor up for other associations.
So I may come back to your questions in a couple of years when I get
around to reading Atlantis again, but there are other things I want
to read first.
- At 09:01 a.m. 11/02/2005, Steve M wrote:
>I didn't actively dislike Atlantis; I just didn't connect with it asAtlantis: a meeting pot of cultures, languages and civilisations. A
>a reader. I do recall that I didn't feel that there really WAS any
>narrative or thematic connective tissue joining the three pieces in
>the book, and that the Atlantis metaphor seemed arbitrary and
>unrelated to any of the works.
commons where protocols and sensibilities are negotiated with one another.
I really dug Atlantis, much more than any of Delany's other work since the
Neveryon sequence (and I have pretty much all his books except for Heavenly
Breakfast and The American Shore - and Phallos is in the mail as I write)
and I have gone back to it several times. Like you, I didn't remember
clearly the scenes mentioned but do remember their presence, just didn't dig
deep into the why. What I got from it is a sense of transition, everyone is
transiting, meeting, like a caravanserai in the Himalayas, appropriating,
borrowing and talking across, past one another. That's Atlantis. It got me
reading Hart Crane and W H Auden.
>I wanted to reply to them, but knowing the stellar nature of this group, IAnd I don't recall even seeing these questions...
>needed to refresh my memory of Atlantis and read it again. I just haven't
>had the opportunity. Just so you know.
- Hello Guy,
While I like the pun as well, your tolerance is
unlimited for not calling me on the preachy
self-righteousness that manages to kill all
the rest of the cool ideas in the piece.
Re "common sense": I was far too loose with too much
of the argument (see above).
Re "alive"--how about this--the book gathers time into
itself as a kind of singularity, offering virtually
endless simultaneous reads that tack it to (or maybe
compose) the fabric of its consequent continuum. A
time stack, zipped & pulsing, it waits to be unzipped
& freed from its bounds again and again, (insert
ejaculatory pun here). Or that's what I'm thinking
Re Bush: Are my eyes deceiving me, or did you really
use the word "think" as a verb with Dubya as the
implied subject??? (I know, you already said that, &
much more subtly--but the Connecticut Cowboy's
re-election itself is so absurd it might have come
from Mr. Show...)
By the way--ever read Cordwainer Smith?
Go Bastards! (loved your last paragraph! If I'd ever
read Atlantis, I'd contribute--but far too much on the
plate right now, what with prepping two heavy-reading
classes & teaching them).
--- Guy_Fawkes99 <guy_fawkes99@...> wrote:
>=== message truncated ===
> The "common sense" approach (Jason, the quotes
> aren't used to
> indicate irony!) is, I think, a more neutral tool
> than you suggest.
> It's really available to anyone and almost any
> viewpoint. It's ex
> post facto, not predictive. When it's used to frame
> an extremely
> *un*popular view, then it seems trasparent or even
> absurd. (If
> you're familiar with Mr. Show, you'll know a lot of
> its best
> absurdist humor stems from people doing insane,
> indefensible things
> as though they couldn't be more apparent; e.g.,
> blowing up the mooon
> for no discernible purpose.)
> That is, there is no one traditional way of
> perceiving reality, and
> so the technique's available for use by a lot of
> people. (Although
> you're right to suggest it probably works best for
> status-quo based arguments. I think Bush uses the
> technique with a
> brilliance only a true moron could muster, because
> only a true moron
> is completely untroubled by the notion that there
> are many, many
> ways to think about any particular thing.) So I
> can agree there
> are other purposes to the book besides the one I
> propose, though I'm
> not clear what you mean when you say these other
> purposes keep the
> book alive. What are those other purposes and how
> do they keep the
> book alive in a way the glorifying-grime can't?
> Your spillings puns cracked me up.
> Finally, let me mention I posed my Atlantis
> questions a while ago,
> and sent them to Delany who said he wanted to read
> the replies, but
> there haven't been any replies so thanks for letting
> down Delany and
> more importantly me you bastards.
> --- In email@example.com, Robert Elkin
> > Hi Guy,
> > While the "common-sense" touchstone may be fine
> > both blatant & tongue-in-cheek "ad hominem"
> > we shouldn't fail to notice that such a barometer
> > ultimately a conservative tool designed to
> > "traditional" ways of perceiving "reality," &
> > not to promote or encourage "different" ways of
> > perceiving that same "reality" (the sun, after
> > does not "come up" every day, despite common-sense
> > perceptions that it does).
> > As to the stains: there's no reason why they
> cannot be
> > two things at once--it all depends on context, of
> > course. While in historical & non-analytical
> terms of
> > "book as object" they may be physical
> reproductions of
> > an actual thing, the "universe" of the book is far
> > from physical in any way other than (let's say) a
> > similar to that by which "The Matrix" codes its
> > "world" for its dreaming inhabitants. Must the
> > cover then be part of only one of these worlds,
> > historical & non-analytical? I would suggest that
> > cover also participates in the analytic world of
> > textual universe (i.e. is part of the narrative),
> > in that context can be traced to the "mind" which
> > relates the text's words, thereby becoming
> > which can be analyzed & not only made anecdotal.
> > not really arguing with what you say so much as
> > to augment it.
> > As for the book's "purpose" re
> > because-"unsanitary"-aspects-of-reality--certainly
> > your take is a valid & meaningful one, perhaps
> > "key" in some sense--but no book has only one
> > "purpose" (and I'll say this despite the general
> > at "the postmodern" in another member's recent
> > post--when something makes you uncomfortable, ese,
> > it's always nice to be able to label it
> > as a first step to sending it to the ghetto of
> > thought), and it's the additional purposes which
> > it alive.
> > An interesting expansion of your ideas, it seems,
> > might be to look at the ways it does "spill out"
> > "reality"--symbolically, reading an ejaculation is
> > literal equivalent of getting an ejaculation in
> > eye...
> > Best,
> > Rob
> > --- Guy_Fawkes99 <guy_fawkes99@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > > To the degree I could follow what you
> > > frankly, much
> > > too bright for me--I think you have strong
> > > and that I should
> > > rethink my outlook. Typical rhetorical strategy
> > > my part:
> > > simplify a fairly abstract argument into
> > > that least
> > > *sounds* common sensical, and then present my
> > > opponent (you, and by
> > > opponent, I mean to-the-death adversary) as
> > > the common
> > > sense test.
> > >
> > >
> > > But let me try to understand what you say
> > > How does
> > > describing the semen stains as reproductions
> > > limit the world
> > > of the book? Surely the world of the book is
> > > different from the
> > > book-as-object; and while the prose of the book
> > > attends to the
> > > former, the semen stain attends to the latter.
> > >
> > > In any case, mixing up the book's world and our
> > > seems like a
> > > perfectly fine thing to do with the book. It
> *is* a
> > > book that deals
> > > with (slightly augmented) reality in all its
> > > viscous
> > > detail. It's a book whose purpose is to
> > > the most usually
> > > concealed parts of reality--grit, grime, piss,
> > > farts, snot--as
> > > beautiful and erotic. It seems that such a
> > > book that is to
> > > me, tho not to Delany, a realistic book--cries
> > > spill out (as it
> > > were) into the real world.
> > >
> > > And if it sounds like I may have misunderstood
> > > points, that's
> > > because, at some level, I probably did. What
> > > saying sounds
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.