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