sometimes you just draw a blank. more often than not, though, your mind is churning away, connecting dots and realizing things it probably shouldn't, and wishing it could blurt when blurting would be decidedly anti-social, quote unquote unprofessional, or many another paradox of very human but so-called sordid/disorderly conduct.
some notes:
squirrels. squirrel stories.
law of averages not working.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
nick kick
am on a hornby kick, having looked up all the reviews that were readily digestible from the library's stunning online database (which makes me feel spoiled and wealthy beyond compare). (I love my alma mater.)
so, now in the midst of about a boy, and why? you may ask, and i grant it's a breezy read, so it's fun, very fun, and absorbing -- all the musical cues, but mainly, i wanted to read a novel that was turned into a hit screenplay, to see what made its movement that way plausible, and whether i'd see it too (in my mind's eye, say, pretending i were a producer on the scout). though hugh grant was cast so well in that part, it's nearly impossible **not** to imagine the character will as *not* the embodiment portrayed in the film. the surprise in the novel was the accuracy of the simple little notations about single parenthood, so aptly portrayed, as to make my life seem a cliche, but the astounding fact that knowing and living a thing are very separate realities (and hornby does brilliantly at delineating the difference, deftly stroking out will's acknowledged drastic 'freedoms' in contrast to adult responsibilities of, well, adult people; and especially will's own light-bulb moments, my favorite of which summarizes will's recognition that the idea of picking up single moms is not such a great one, since single moms never have any free time, thus, they never just go and hang out)... the fact that knowing a thing and living a thing are abyss-mally divided, makes the well of difference. Now a sense of this book comes as a bunch of gestures rapidly dashed out, but nuanced, like a practiced illustrator of the human form.
so, now in the midst of about a boy, and why? you may ask, and i grant it's a breezy read, so it's fun, very fun, and absorbing -- all the musical cues, but mainly, i wanted to read a novel that was turned into a hit screenplay, to see what made its movement that way plausible, and whether i'd see it too (in my mind's eye, say, pretending i were a producer on the scout). though hugh grant was cast so well in that part, it's nearly impossible **not** to imagine the character will as *not* the embodiment portrayed in the film. the surprise in the novel was the accuracy of the simple little notations about single parenthood, so aptly portrayed, as to make my life seem a cliche, but the astounding fact that knowing and living a thing are very separate realities (and hornby does brilliantly at delineating the difference, deftly stroking out will's acknowledged drastic 'freedoms' in contrast to adult responsibilities of, well, adult people; and especially will's own light-bulb moments, my favorite of which summarizes will's recognition that the idea of picking up single moms is not such a great one, since single moms never have any free time, thus, they never just go and hang out)... the fact that knowing a thing and living a thing are abyss-mally divided, makes the well of difference. Now a sense of this book comes as a bunch of gestures rapidly dashed out, but nuanced, like a practiced illustrator of the human form.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
anticonfluentialism
magical thinking would dictate that as soon as I saw the word "anticonfluentialism," I was immediately drawn to it.
One of Chris Forster's Infinite Jest blog posts conveys the seduction aptly, in his post called "A Final, Belated, Infinite Summer Post" (October 15, 2009). The post is dedicated to analyzing the seeming unresolution of IJ's ending. Let it be said here that I haven't finished the book; in fact, we've only just begun; yet I'm teased by the tantalizing complexity of the plot and never would have believed any resolution was coming anyway, so my supposition is or seems to be confirmed.
back to Foster's post:
..."So one solution to the novel’s apparently untidy ending (Infinite Detox calls the ending “a reader-hostile kick in the nuts”), is to reconstruct the missing coherence from implications and hints from elsewhere in the novel. Another is disavow coherence completely, to read coherence as Gerry does, as an Entertainment-like seduction to be resisted. Because the novel offers no tidy, definite ending, it is tempting to read Infinite Jest as an instance of what the novel describes at one point as “anticonfluentialism.” I find such a reading, though, at odds with the novel in other ways. Endnote 61 describes anticonfluentialism as “An après-garde digital movement, a.k.a. ‘Digital Parallelism’ and ‘Cinema of Chaotic Stasis,’ characterized by a stubborn and possibly intentionally irritating refusal of different narrative lines to merge into any kind of meaningful confluence” (996). To my mind this is not simply a delightful red-herring, but a deliberate provocation on Wallace’s part (there are other such moments in the novel I think)."
Every morning, I have this feeling.
One of Chris Forster's Infinite Jest blog posts conveys the seduction aptly, in his post called "A Final, Belated, Infinite Summer Post" (October 15, 2009). The post is dedicated to analyzing the seeming unresolution of IJ's ending. Let it be said here that I haven't finished the book; in fact, we've only just begun; yet I'm teased by the tantalizing complexity of the plot and never would have believed any resolution was coming anyway, so my supposition is or seems to be confirmed.
back to Foster's post:
..."So one solution to the novel’s apparently untidy ending (Infinite Detox calls the ending “a reader-hostile kick in the nuts”), is to reconstruct the missing coherence from implications and hints from elsewhere in the novel. Another is disavow coherence completely, to read coherence as Gerry does, as an Entertainment-like seduction to be resisted. Because the novel offers no tidy, definite ending, it is tempting to read Infinite Jest as an instance of what the novel describes at one point as “anticonfluentialism.” I find such a reading, though, at odds with the novel in other ways. Endnote 61 describes anticonfluentialism as “An après-garde digital movement, a.k.a. ‘Digital Parallelism’ and ‘Cinema of Chaotic Stasis,’ characterized by a stubborn and possibly intentionally irritating refusal of different narrative lines to merge into any kind of meaningful confluence” (996). To my mind this is not simply a delightful red-herring, but a deliberate provocation on Wallace’s part (there are other such moments in the novel I think)."
Every morning, I have this feeling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)