you want depthlessness?

I'll show you depthlessness.

http://garfieldminusgarfield.tumblr.com/page/1

What a difference simply editing out Garfield makes. Suddenly there's whole other levels to this comic.

Help me out here...

I had a horribly underdeveloped thought while writing a paper for Beat Lit.

I'd love to see if we can get a discussion going on it, disagreeing is fine, but I'd love to further this argument as well.

So here goes... right from the paper itself. (wank)

As I was reading Samuel Beckett’s Molloy recently, the narrator–Molloy–rambled on and on in a 124 page paragraph. I could begin to hear the Kerouac voice in Molloy’s. I was reading these books side by side and always believed On The Road was this wonderfully happy discovery narrative, but as I kept on with both books I found them both to be utterly similar with the narrators losing themselves in their attempts to discover who they were. Similarly however, both Molloy and Sal Paradise never really made any mention of actively seeking to find out who they were, but the "hero goes on a journey" theme is certainly there in both of them. By the time each of them reach an end, I feel that they are both exhausted and when Molloy finally cannot walk any longer and takes to crawling, I somehow feel that Sal Paradise reaches a similar end when he finally lets Dean Moriarty go. Two different vehicles of movement that they struggle to hold on to, Molloy and his two bad legs, and Paradise trying to keep up with an insane creature [Dean Moriarty] for as long as he possibly could.

Molloy, Moran, and my new friend, Lacan

Ok, so I know this is a bit of cross-pollination of classes on my part, but bear with me. Saurou's previous post about Molloy and Moran possibly being one and the same person got the hamster-wheels in my brain spinning around. If Moran is, in fact, an earlier version of Molloy, who slowly, as part 2 progresses, becomes Molloy (as exemplified in the decomposition of his leg, the acquisition of a bicycle, the slow descent into hobo-ness, and the acknowledgment that he doesn't know as much as he thought ["Then I went back into the house and wrote, It is midnight. The rain is beating on the windows. It was not midnight. It was not raining." (p.241)], which then loops around to the beginning of part 1, in which Molloy is writing about something he doesn't know), then I can see a pattern of regression back to Lacan's mirror stage. The character develops backwards, slowly un-learning meaning. Moran is steeped in language - he is a greater lack than Molloy: he seeks reaffirmation of what he is through the studying of those unlike him. The ways in which we, as readers, find out what Moran is like is, most often, through the judgment and belittlement of others. He is constantly saying things like "If there is one thing I hate..." using other people's shortcomings to define for us what he is not. This is characteristic of the fall one goes through when one enters language. Molloy, while displaying many of these characteristics (it would be impossible not to - he may be moving backwards to "before the fall" but he is still stuck in language), doesn't seem so much a lack as Moran does. Molloy doesn't know anything enough to be able to define himself one way or the other, and because of this, he feels a little more whole. The development of the character is a backwards one - it just doesn't seem it at first, because of the way in which the novel is set up. Since we are introduced to Molloy first, Beckett manages to deconstruct characterization is multiple ways, from how we are introduced, the chronology and timeline of the character's life, to the fact that the character's chronology itself is a backwards development.

I sure hope that wasn't too far-fetched.

molloy as an example of derrida's solution to the 'nature/culture opposition'

take molloy as a combination of modernism and postmodernism.

consider: the novel borrows characteristics from both movements. combine these pieces and call it bricolage; mix literary genres into a commentary and call it pastiche.

now say: modernism can include, but is not limited to --

dealing with the mundane
discontinuous narrative; stream of consciousness
tradition, style, form
unconventional use of metaphor
metanarrative
classical allusions
using language to influence what a piece of literature can do or be
the intention to change the reader's 'understanding' of what language is and does

say: postmodernism can include, but is not limited to --

rejecting western cultures, beliefs, values, norms, etc. as only a small part of the human experience
not necessarily concerned with being 'profound'
irony, playfulness
metafiction
a focus on the exterior image
fragmented, unfinished, indeterminate; "jagged"
allowing the reader to draw one's own connections
struggle to express the meaningless of a world filled with meaning-heavy words

(remember: both are reactions to a previous movement. both are break-away-from's.)

and then remember that in response to the 'nature/culture opposition,' what derrida says we should be doing is: "conserving...all these old concepts, while at the same time exposing here and there their limits, treating them as tools which can still be of use." no more truth-value, no more grand meaning, no more limitations. just a lot of moving forward and expanding not only what we think but the way it's thought.

now consider: this is beckett's intent. instead of the "end of the novel," beckett wants to bring about a deconstruction of conventional ideas of meaning-- dispense with traditional ways of telling a story, stripped down, the antithesis of elements what traditionally 'make up' a novel. modernism alone can't accomplish this and neither can postmodernism, but certain aspects taken from each, combined into something much more useful for beckett's purpose, can be "exploited...employed to destroy the old machinery to which they belong and of which they themselves are pieces" (derrida).

Ana Ng and I are Getting Old.

So, when I got to thinking about "depthlessness" as a quality of Postmodernism, I couldn't help but think of the band They Might Be Giants. Now, I know not everyone loves them, but I think as far as Postmodern bands go they're one example that I think deserves note.

Let's get this thing started, okay?



Here're the lyrics, for those who are interested.

"Ana Ng" by They Might Be Giants

The song's depthlessness is apparent on two separate levels: the initial reaction and the secondary reaction to the music. When you first hear the song, something in you tells you that the song is just a load of silliness, completely devoid of meaning and purpose.

Further in, however, you start to wonder if there really is something beyond the top layer. You start to gain some sort of unexplainable grasp of the song, an understanding of what its saying without understanding what it says. You may begin to think the meaning may lie in the lyrics.

That's when it falls apart again. The lyrics are garbled nonsense, strings of words that sound okay, but when you read them they make no sense. The thread is loosened, and what grasp you had on meaning is gone, completely flushed away. You had thought sense was about to happen, but it flew away like a frightened bird the second you even looked at it. The song has just deconstructed itself, right before your eyes. You are lost, grasping for rationality that no longer exists.

"They don't need me here, and I know you're there
Where the world goes by like the humid air
And it sticks like a broken record
Everything sticks like a broken record
Everything sticks until it goes away
And the truth is, we don't know anything"

Linguistics and Their Uses

(I'm not tech-savvy enough to post an actual video)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hHQ2756cyD8

I am in love with Hugh Laurie. He’s my Old Man Crush.



Linguistic elasticity: Spoken and defined by the originators

Sustaining demagoguery:

If Hitler had been British…
Would hearing his passionately delivered speeches in a different tongue give them a tonality that detracts from their effectiveness?

------------------------------------------------------------

Is language a function of what it means to be part of a given culture? Or are qualities of the culture applied to it through the language?

Language v speech
Chess v game of chess

Philosophical ramblings: I can tell you anything I want to tell you and because I am prepared to defend my opinions with different dimensions of the mind, and of space or lack there of, and with absolute Truths v perception. I will win, or at least last longer and win by default. In any art form, the lesson lays in learning how to do it well before you’re allowed to experiment and play. Otherwise you’re Van Gogh who was a cheater.


So, based on this, Hitler would have had to find his own niche (not pronounced nietzsche) within the linguistics of the British language to have been as effective with their people as he was with his own.

-----------------------------------------------------------
More than a means of communication:

My checkout girl
Complimentary moist lemon square
Half forgotten book of erotic memoirs

After Class Thoughts

So, I got to thinking a little bit today after class today is that the scariest thing about all this Derrida "the center is not the center" thing is that it actually kind of makes sense. Lets take Molloy for example.

Molloy is not only on the fringe of society but practically is the fringe, yet he is the most honest character in the anti-novel. He recognizes his faults and states them unapologetically as they are in fact the truth and he is not hiding from that.

Now, if we use the tower analogy as the tower being the center, we can imagine that those closest to the tower all their lives would end up seeing very little of it. They claim to know it best because they've lived under it for as long they can remember but they would not have the same view of it that someone on the fringe, say Molloy, would.

Could it be said then, that those on the fringe are the only ones that can see the true center, or truth? Because then, the Truth with a capital "T" would be outside the center and since Truth is the center, then the center would be outside the center.

Maybe I'm taking too much cold medicine... Oh well! Have a comic: Postmodernity

A Visual

... and a level of boredom

The Convent

Two points of view or one?

Upon completing Molloy the first thing that came to my mind was: is Moran perhaps actually Molloy? I thought for a while that might be a bit too M. Night Shyamalan of an ending, but the more I think of it, it makes sense.

The more Moran progresses in his journey, the more he becomes like Molloy- the legs, the lack of societal proprieties, the crawling, etc. The thought that struck me was what if Part Two takes place chronologically before Part One and after not finding Molloy he then regresses into the Molloy he had created in his head. This would explain the lack of Molloy’s past, and their similarities. If this is true, the writing Moran begins at the end of the book would bleed into the writing Molloy works on in Part One.

In this case, there is only one character in Molloy and we follow his progression from functional citizen to hobo in ditch.

An Opposite View of Centralized Vision in Fiction

Holy pretentious, Batjesusman!

Based on the theory of structure and the preferred method of character-driven story, it is possible that the idea of the author playing, or being near to, god is impossible. As the mode of transportation and movement in the story, the main character is, essentially, a center. For all intents and purposes, a story must function around a character and is therefore a structure. And as a center, the author cannot totally and accurately assume the role of "god" and explain its essence. Therefore, an author must approach a character like any other person and act upon impressions rather than absolute truth and knowledge about said character.

so uhm, i stole the text for these from hour of the star.

thats really all i have to offer?

click to view the whole thing or whatever.

A Question for Discussion - answer please!!

Thank you to those who have posted, but the semester is ticking away and most of you haven't posted.
So, here's a question for you. You should all try to answer this, right here in this blog:

Based on what we've discussed about modernism and postmodernism in class and what you've gleaned from the readings, do you consider Beckett's Molloy to be predominantly modern or postmodern? And what is at stake in this question? Does Beckett bring about the "end of the novel" or does he find a new way of playing with the novel form? What do you see as the differences between modernism and postmodernism in general?

"I write novels that imitate the form of the novel, by an author who imitates the role of Author."

- John Barth, author of Lost in the Funhouse

Fanfiction Paradox

You might have to bear with me on this one...

I find myself wondering what the fascination is with things that aren't there, inside a universe that already doesn't exist. I tend to see this a lot with popular fictional stories, like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and a lot of anime series. There is this obsession among some fan groups that two or more characters of the same gender (and sometimes different genders, or in the case of Hermione and Crookshanks, different species) are madly in love with each other, even if, in the universe created by the author or authors, there is no evidence that these two are in any way attracted to each other.

And I feel terrible thinking this, because it's not like I don't write fanfiction myself. It's not like I haven't already created fictional things that become even more untrue because they take place in someone else's fiction.

Okay, if I try to break this down too much, it's going to be longer than you can stand, so I'll try to make it as simple as possible for the sake of my brain. Authors, artists, and the like create fictional universes that, of course, don't exist except in the imagination of the creator and the one viewing the creation.

Fanfiction then becomes an interesting phenomenon where you create a false reality inside of an already false reality. For some, the initial fictional world cannot even exist to them unless they accept the fictional aspects that they created to fit into it, though this tends to be an extreme case.

Fiction inside of fiction makes my head spin, even though I'm guilty of all of the above myself.

So...

No class today AND we're off Monday for Presidents Day.
So, please use this opportunity to post some blogs. If you can't think of anything to deconstruct (any piece of art, any cultural artifact, any belief system), then you can always post a reading response like Ben did (and there's lots to say about Beckett) or a general response to the ideas of postmodernism like Jess did. But it's time. Ready, go!

"What I need now is stories, it took me a long time to know that, and I'm not sure of it."
- Beckett, Molloy

Reading for Tuesday: Derrida

So, my husband warned me that the Derrida, your reading for Tuesday, was going to be met with, at best, confusion, and at worst, disdain and hostility.

Don't be too frustrated. The expectation is not that you will "get" it the first time around; rather, I feel that it is my responsiblity to expose your brilliant and creative minds to the source, the genuine article, for what has greatly influenced the entire literary field for the past 30+ years. The thoughts expressed in this difficult lecture have influenced everyone from DeLillo to Palahniuk to Danielewski. It was truly groundbreaking for how we read and write literature today. Be comforted that it is the hardest thing we'll read all semester.

That said, here are some key terms to focus on as you read:

CENTER, siginified, origin, essence, presence: whenever you see any words like these, just think of God. All these words refer to a central, original, first cause that serves as the basis, the ground, of any given structure. What he is trying to prove in this lecture is that NO grounds, origins, centers, or first causes exist on their own; any first cause is dependent on what comes after it for definition, so really it is not a first. He's trying to break down the idea that meaning has a fixed origin, or ONE source.

Also remember what we talked about in class: the sign as signifier/signified is replaced with sign as an endless play of siginfiers. Why is this important? Because "meaning" is never fixed in Derrida's world - it's always contingent on language and context. Universal truth is a cultural construction. Just take the word "beauty" - what does this word refer to? Does it refer to a fixed concept that is true for all time and place? Or, does the word just point to examples of beauty that are particular to your language and culture? Does it just point to more words, or more shared ideals? Doesn't this "signifier" simply refer to other siginifers, rather than to some final essence of beauty that we can all agree on?

And why are these ideas so important for writing, reading, and life in general?
Well, "deconstruction" really peels away all the stuffy Victorian and Enlightenment ideals that served to make the white rational Christian male (like Rodrigo) the "center" of everything while marginalizing and silencing anything not central (women, blacks, the poor, gays and lesbians, artists, revolutionaries, the list goes on...) But it doesn't attack the central powers. Rather, Derrida and co. show how this central, dominant logic contradicts itself and is the source for its own undoing because it is built on faulty, paradoxical logic. Just think of why Rodrigo failed to write about Macabea.

OK, I'll stop now.

Notes on Hour of the Star

-Macabéa?
-Maca -- what?
-Béa, she was forced to repeat.
-Gosh it sounds like the name of a disease... a skin disease.

Olímpico - the embodiment of masculinity, ambition and vigor, savoir-faire, and a figure whose self worth rivals Jesus Christ.

Maca - an empty void, impressionable child, a misunderstanding girl with a misunderstanding body and a partial embodiment of Clarice Lispector.

Gloria - the survivalist and the sensual warlord and guerrilla of the urban backdrop.

Between them there is the archetype selection of people that can be grabbed not only from the cities of Brazil, but many different places around the world. Lispector, taking the voice of a man paints a bold, unsympathetic portrait of Macabéa. If a woman had narrated her life the audience might feel too much sympathy or cry.
Dying is a lot easier than showing many emotions in this story.

Depthlessness

Why are postmodern texts "depthless"? Does it mean they're shallow?
On one level, sometimes they are shallow. Sometimes, they're sensual, perverse, campy, pop. This serves as an acceptance of pluralism; art can be a lot of things, not just "serious." However, often the use of camp and pop is ironic or parodic. It's usually a critique of something that we've "assumed" to be true as a culture. Example: Kurt Vonnegut includes crass drawings of "wide-open beavers" in Breakfast of Champions. Is this just because he likes fifth-grade drawings of wide-open beavers, or is he ALSO showing that this idea in itself is somewhat absurd (a wide open vagina closeup is kind of clinical and silly-looking), but has been culturally accepted and proliferated? Isn't a lot of sexual desire mediated by discourse?

Depthlessness also refers to the fact that "symbolism" and "deep meaning" are replaced by a presentation of how meaning is constructed at the level of signifiers, or discourse. So as you're reading, rather than look for WHAT a text means, look for HOW it chooses to present and challenge various embedded meanings. This goes for any cultural artifact you choose to examine, whether it's a literary text or a TV show.