Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [delany-list] Re: Editions of Hogg (2)

Expand Messages
  • Peter Fogarty
    ... Atlantis: a meeting pot of cultures, languages and civilisations. A commons where protocols and sensibilities are negotiated with one another. I really
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 10, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      At 09:01 a.m. 11/02/2005, Steve M wrote:

      >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.



      Atlantis: a meeting pot of cultures, languages and civilisations. A
      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.
    • Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
      ... And I don t recall even seeing these questions... --Dan l
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        >I wanted to reply to them, but knowing the stellar nature of this group, I
        >needed to refresh my memory of Atlantis and read it again. I just haven't
        >had the opportunity. Just so you know.

        And I don't recall even seeing these questions...

        --Dan'l
      • Robert Elkin
        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
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 10, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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
          now, anyway.

          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).
          Best,
          Rob

          --- Guy_Fawkes99 <guy_fawkes99@...> wrote:

          >
          > Robert,
          >
          > 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
          > conservative,
          > 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 delany-list@yahoogroups.com, Robert Elkin
          > <rictusaporia@y...>
          > wrote:
          > > Hi Guy,
          > >
          > > While the "common-sense" touchstone may be fine
          > for
          > > both blatant & tongue-in-cheek "ad hominem"
          > rhetoric,
          > > we shouldn't fail to notice that such a barometer
          > is
          > > ultimately a conservative tool designed to
          > preserve
          > > "traditional" ways of perceiving "reality," &
          > tends
          > > not to promote or encourage "different" ways of
          > > perceiving that same "reality" (the sun, after
          > all,
          > > 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
          > way
          > > similar to that by which "The Matrix" codes its
          > > "world" for its dreaming inhabitants. Must the
          > book's
          > > cover then be part of only one of these worlds,
          > the
          > > historical & non-analytical? I would suggest that
          > the
          > > cover also participates in the analytic world of
          > the
          > > textual universe (i.e. is part of the narrative),
          > and
          > > in that context can be traced to the "mind" which
          > > relates the text's words, thereby becoming
          > something
          > > which can be analyzed & not only made anecdotal.
          > I'm
          > > not really arguing with what you say so much as
          > trying
          > > to augment it.
          > >
          > > As for the book's "purpose" re
          > the-generally-ignored-
          > > because-"unsanitary"-aspects-of-reality--certainly
          > > your take is a valid & meaningful one, perhaps
          > even
          > > "key" in some sense--but no book has only one
          > > "purpose" (and I'll say this despite the general
          > dig
          > > 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
          > disparagingly
          > > as a first step to sending it to the ghetto of
          > unclean
          > > thought), and it's the additional purposes which
          > keep
          > > it alive.
          > >
          > > An interesting expansion of your ideas, it seems,
          > > might be to look at the ways it does "spill out"
          > into
          > > "reality"--symbolically, reading an ejaculation is
          > the
          > > literal equivalent of getting an ejaculation in
          > the
          > > eye...
          > >
          > > Best,
          > > Rob
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > --- Guy_Fawkes99 <guy_fawkes99@y...> wrote:
          > >
          > > >
          > > > Robert,
          > > >
          > > > To the degree I could follow what you
          > said--you're,
          > > > frankly, much
          > > > too bright for me--I think you have strong
          > points,
          > > > and that I should
          > > > rethink my outlook. Typical rhetorical strategy
          > on
          > > > my part:
          > > > simplify a fairly abstract argument into
          > something
          > > > that least
          > > > *sounds* common sensical, and then present my
          > > > opponent (you, and by
          > > > opponent, I mean to-the-death adversary) as
          > flunking
          > > > the common
          > > > sense test.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > But let me try to understand what you say
          > better.
          > > > How does
          > > > describing the semen stains as reproductions
          > (ha!)
          > > > 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
          > own
          > > > seems like a
          > > > perfectly fine thing to do with the book. It
          > *is* a
          > > > book that deals
          > > > with (slightly augmented) reality in all its
          > gritty,
          > > > viscous
          > > > detail. It's a book whose purpose is to
          > describe
          > > > the most usually
          > > > concealed parts of reality--grit, grime, piss,
          > > > farts, snot--as
          > > > beautiful and erotic. It seems that such a
          > book--a
          > > > book that is to
          > > > me, tho not to Delany, a realistic book--cries
          > to
          > > > spill out (as it
          > > > were) into the real world.
          > > >
          > > > And if it sounds like I may have misunderstood
          > your
          > > > points, that's
          > > > because, at some level, I probably did. What
          > you're
          > > > saying sounds
          >
          === message truncated ===




          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
          http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
        • Peter Fogarty
          ... I really really really want to read the field manual he wrote for the CIA....
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 10, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            At 04:28 p.m. 11/02/2005, Robert Elkin wrote:

            >By the way--ever read Cordwainer Smith?



            I really really really want to read the field manual he wrote for the CIA....
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.