Thursday, September 22, 2005
Free Beer
Not here, I mean this is after all an address in the cyber néant, and even if my prose may give it a certain je ne sais quoi sense of presence, I don't see beer oozing out of your keyboards and seeping through your fingers any time soon. At least not because of me. And no, this isn't in these here United States of America, nor even over yonder in Canada. Alas, most all of North America is a tad too puritanical to give away booze. No, you must make your way to Germany, and go see Bayern Munich play, and then cheer agains them till they lose. As reported on the Guardian Online today, Bitburger, a german brewery based in Munich, has promised to give away 10,000 L of beer to the supporters of the first team to beat Bayern. Bayern has won each of their last 15 games, six this season plus the nine ending last season. So who wants to go watch some football in Germany?
On Description (by me and Hamon)
This is an excerpt of some musings I wrote the other night before I set out to read Philippe Hamon's book Du Descriptif (Of the Descriptive)
On Description
First, my own thoughts (as they ramble, babbling through my head);
To describe is to attribute qualities to something, it is to make it (that something) an object of thought and a subject of discourse, and in doing so, to differentiate it from other things—to make it no longer some thing, but a particular thing, distinguished as an individual entity, or, as part of a larger group that is different from other groups . Above all, description is expansive in nature. It enlarges the footprint that a particular entity occupies in our imagination. To a character in a novel, it may bestow certain qualities whilst depriving others, and similarly, when describing a friend, we are attempting to create a picture of that person and communicate it to someone else. The colloquial phrase, “can you give me a picture of it,” hints at part of what is at stake: we are not simply supplying a list of attributes and expecting that to suffice, but instead, we also supply or assume a coherency as all of the attributes are bound by the context of being applied to a particular person or thing (or idea). A good description should bring its object to life, therein making it a subject. To describe then is often already to assume existence, either as an existing object with duration and extension, or as an imagined possibility, that nonetheless has some sort of coherence. We should be careful to not always assume this to be the case. Indeed, many modern novelists have employed descriptions in ways that directly challenge our attemps at coherency [this needs thought in particular needs work]. By "coherency" in the last sentence I mean an a priori belief in things existing as they are in a manner (roughly) synonymous with things as we perceive and understand them. [This las sentence need flushing out to be sensible]
As a particular category in literature, description has traditionally been opposed to narrative (advances in the story). In this view, description is that which does not advance the plot, and was thus sometimes seen as superfluous. Characters’ actions comprised the story, and depictions of their demeanor or physique, or of the place they inhabited, were taken to be exterior to the story. If we limit a story and its importance to what might be conveyed by the simplest of point form fabulas, this could seem almost correct. However, even in the choice of verbs with which the action is represented, there is a process of differentiation. At its basis, description is the creation of difference, without which a particular thing could not be perceived to exist.
Now on to Hamon’s introduction (“Du Descriptif”, 1993):
“The essence of description (“du descriptif”), if there must (“devait”) be one, its effect, would be in one effort: an effort to resist the constraigning linearity of the text,…” p.5
This is surely one of the effects, and perhaps principal uses, of description, and it suggests the traditional notion of the descriptive as separate from the plot driven (actions and events), but it ignores the many ways in which description can appear within a linear progression. For example, take the sentence, “Natas overheard Chris talking on the phone”. Depending on the reader’s familiarity with “Natas”, it may carry very little or a great deal of meaning as the subject of the sentence. If we are partway through the story, then all our acquaintance with Natas thus far has the potential to affect our understanding of this sentence. The reader may also recognize “Natas” as being “Satan” spelled backwards, and then wonder if the author meant to ascribe to Natas some sort of satanic sense of being. Next, we might imagine that the author had simply written “heard” instead of “overheard”, or perhaps “listened to” or “eavesdropped on”. Each of these verbs carries different connotations, and thus differs in the way it describes the action undertaken by Natas. Again, the proper name “Chris” may invoke particular associations, which is just to say that even the choice of a proper name can be an aspect of description. To take an example from literature, the character “Bottom” from Réjean Ducharme’s Dévadé has a name that umistakably conveys two aspects of the character’s life, which are also themes of the novel (Bottom’s name is important both for its being in English in an otherwise mostly French novel written by a francophone Canadian, and for the actual meaning of the English word). We might also substitute different verbs for “talking”—yelling, screaming, whispering, chatting—many come to mind, but the point is that in choosing a word we make a choice amongst many other possibilities, and if we accept Saussure’s idea of diffentially established meaning [cite, syntagmatic v. paradygmatic axis, or Jakobson’s metonymy v. metaphor], which I do, then we will agree that even word choice involves a process of differentiation, which is then mirrored (though not precisely, more to say on this, though it may not be relevant) by the reader while deciphering the text.
On Description
First, my own thoughts (as they ramble, babbling through my head);
To describe is to attribute qualities to something, it is to make it (that something) an object of thought and a subject of discourse, and in doing so, to differentiate it from other things—to make it no longer some thing, but a particular thing, distinguished as an individual entity, or, as part of a larger group that is different from other groups . Above all, description is expansive in nature. It enlarges the footprint that a particular entity occupies in our imagination. To a character in a novel, it may bestow certain qualities whilst depriving others, and similarly, when describing a friend, we are attempting to create a picture of that person and communicate it to someone else. The colloquial phrase, “can you give me a picture of it,” hints at part of what is at stake: we are not simply supplying a list of attributes and expecting that to suffice, but instead, we also supply or assume a coherency as all of the attributes are bound by the context of being applied to a particular person or thing (or idea). A good description should bring its object to life, therein making it a subject. To describe then is often already to assume existence, either as an existing object with duration and extension, or as an imagined possibility, that nonetheless has some sort of coherence. We should be careful to not always assume this to be the case. Indeed, many modern novelists have employed descriptions in ways that directly challenge our attemps at coherency [this needs thought in particular needs work]. By "coherency" in the last sentence I mean an a priori belief in things existing as they are in a manner (roughly) synonymous with things as we perceive and understand them. [This las sentence need flushing out to be sensible]
As a particular category in literature, description has traditionally been opposed to narrative (advances in the story). In this view, description is that which does not advance the plot, and was thus sometimes seen as superfluous. Characters’ actions comprised the story, and depictions of their demeanor or physique, or of the place they inhabited, were taken to be exterior to the story. If we limit a story and its importance to what might be conveyed by the simplest of point form fabulas, this could seem almost correct. However, even in the choice of verbs with which the action is represented, there is a process of differentiation. At its basis, description is the creation of difference, without which a particular thing could not be perceived to exist.
Now on to Hamon’s introduction (“Du Descriptif”, 1993):
“The essence of description (“du descriptif”), if there must (“devait”) be one, its effect, would be in one effort: an effort to resist the constraigning linearity of the text,…” p.5
This is surely one of the effects, and perhaps principal uses, of description, and it suggests the traditional notion of the descriptive as separate from the plot driven (actions and events), but it ignores the many ways in which description can appear within a linear progression. For example, take the sentence, “Natas overheard Chris talking on the phone”. Depending on the reader’s familiarity with “Natas”, it may carry very little or a great deal of meaning as the subject of the sentence. If we are partway through the story, then all our acquaintance with Natas thus far has the potential to affect our understanding of this sentence. The reader may also recognize “Natas” as being “Satan” spelled backwards, and then wonder if the author meant to ascribe to Natas some sort of satanic sense of being. Next, we might imagine that the author had simply written “heard” instead of “overheard”, or perhaps “listened to” or “eavesdropped on”. Each of these verbs carries different connotations, and thus differs in the way it describes the action undertaken by Natas. Again, the proper name “Chris” may invoke particular associations, which is just to say that even the choice of a proper name can be an aspect of description. To take an example from literature, the character “Bottom” from Réjean Ducharme’s Dévadé has a name that umistakably conveys two aspects of the character’s life, which are also themes of the novel (Bottom’s name is important both for its being in English in an otherwise mostly French novel written by a francophone Canadian, and for the actual meaning of the English word). We might also substitute different verbs for “talking”—yelling, screaming, whispering, chatting—many come to mind, but the point is that in choosing a word we make a choice amongst many other possibilities, and if we accept Saussure’s idea of diffentially established meaning [cite, syntagmatic v. paradygmatic axis, or Jakobson’s metonymy v. metaphor], which I do, then we will agree that even word choice involves a process of differentiation, which is then mirrored (though not precisely, more to say on this, though it may not be relevant) by the reader while deciphering the text.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
evening thoughts (from Ludwig Wittgenstein)
Our language can be seen as an ancient city: a maze of little streets and squares, of old and new houses, and of houses with additions from various periods; and this surrounded by a multitude of new boroughs with straight regular streets and uniform houses. (Philosophical Investigationsp.80 or so I think)
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
So I knew that one day I would eat these words, "Proust is better than sex". It's now about six months later and I find myself reading Proust again. Who knew that a brief two week fling would turn into what is sure to become a year long obession. Our courtship has only just begun, but already I wish I were...well...not having sex, but drinking, yes drinking would be better. In fact, that's what I'll be doing in about an hour and a half, but for now, I am thinking about my new mate, discovering those parts I adore (the ways in which Marcel's dreams and memories unfold into his reality), and also those that I hate (probably the corpus of "theories of description" with which I'll have to come to terms). Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy literary theory, and it will probably constitute the bulk of my first chapter, but I just don't know how many different times I'm willing to read the same goddamn thing (So much literary theory is just a repackaging of things that have come before, and it seems that few are willing to properly admit and reference their intellectual debts, though perhaps they are simply unaware.)
Sunday, September 11, 2005
in the reading
"Not even Shakespeare can write well without a proper subject. It is a vain endeavour for the most skilful hand to cultivate barrenness, or to paint upon vacuity."
—Dr. Johnson - from "Johnson on Shakespeare, p.556 (quoted by Norman Rabkin, "Rabbits, Ducks, and Henry V," Shakespeare Quarterly 28 (1977): 279-96.)
—Dr. Johnson - from "Johnson on Shakespeare, p.556 (quoted by Norman Rabkin, "Rabbits, Ducks, and Henry V," Shakespeare Quarterly 28 (1977): 279-96.)
Sometimes the correct course in life is clear, and yet it can be the most difficult path to choose. Though the path may indeed be the goal, it is difficult to understand without a view of the end.
Smiling, with tears in my eyes, and nothing really to say, I sit here wishing I could talk to you. There are many possible referents for that "you". Chances are, if you're reading, it probably includes you (unless you got here by pressing that annoying "next blog" button).
Anyways, as I said, I don't really have much to say, but I think I'll continue rambling on, hoping that something will come up, or at least that I'll feel soothed at the end.
Oh yes, anyone have any good alternatives to capitalism? I've become something of a fan over the last few years, but I still long for a utopic world of rainbows and pots of gold for all.
Smiling, with tears in my eyes, and nothing really to say, I sit here wishing I could talk to you. There are many possible referents for that "you". Chances are, if you're reading, it probably includes you (unless you got here by pressing that annoying "next blog" button).
Anyways, as I said, I don't really have much to say, but I think I'll continue rambling on, hoping that something will come up, or at least that I'll feel soothed at the end.
Oh yes, anyone have any good alternatives to capitalism? I've become something of a fan over the last few years, but I still long for a utopic world of rainbows and pots of gold for all.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
more on last night
While eating breakfast this morning (soft boiled eggs and toast), I thought of some problems with regard to what I wrote last night. The obvious case: lyrics. I don't tend to listen to lyrics, so they hadn's initially occured to me. It's not that I don't listen to vocals, but I listen to them principally as part of the instrumentation. That's part of why I hate most Pop music. The vocals are usually so far forward that the mix is unbalanced (not to mention the overall suckiness part). But I digress. So clearly I am forced to admit that music does communicate. Now, I have a hairbrained idea for maintaining my own intuitions about music, but it requires an elaboration of the essence of good poetry, and then, seperately, of the relationship between vocals/lyrics and the rest of the mix. As for the former (the poetry part), I actually have some ideas. They'd be intellectually indefensible (in a western sense), as they rest on a phenomenological understanding of poetry and its effects, but they make sense if you're willing to accept an appeal to personal and shared experience. As for the latter part, I've no idea and am entirely out of my league.
I'm going to go have drink.
Cheers!
Love Ev
I'm going to go have drink.
Cheers!
Love Ev
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)