yyaldrin

in je ogen waait de wind
i heard the first part yesterday, it's nice if you don't know that much about the book. funny though that one of the two guests they have on didn't even read the book but only books about the book.
 

luka

Well-known member
He hasn't managed to find his equals that guy. He's been on a few podcasts with total morons. The other blogs he interacted with were run by idiots.
 

luka

Well-known member
"Pierre Menard’s novel and radical technique for the art of reading, involving deliberate anachronism -- reading a work of literature as if it was published after the works it had itself influenced -- and fallacious attribution -- reading a work of literature as if it was penned by a different author entirely -- can itself be radicalized.

Not only can new and powerful insights be gained by reading Gilgamesh, for example, as if it was written by Nietzsche, or by reading the Old Testament as if it was influenced by the Mabinogion, but even more can be discovered if all texts everywhere and at all times were accepted as being written simultaneously."
 

luka

Well-known member
Has anyone read this one yet? Hurry up and read it, then say something intelligent about it.
 

catalog

Well-known member
I just read this latest one about house of leaves, simultaneity and so on this morning. I thought it was a bit rambling to begin with, sort of all over the place. But then he explained that and it got a bit tighter. He settles on the pandemic at the end but I don't actually think he's saying anything all that interesting. Its like he's struggling to have a take on it. What's he saying, that the pandemic is godlike? I don't know, I wasn't convinced, felt a bit shoehorned in. I did enjoy the bit when he was quoting the guy who wrote about 'cosmogony,' just cos I really like that word, cos it contains smog. Might look into that guy. And what he was saying about tolkein, fancy into fantasy, that's interesting, how close those words are, even in terms of meaning, but they've separated.
 

catalog

Well-known member
The other good bit, that I really liked actually, was where he talks about dot becoming circle becoming line. How it (it being religion, group ritual, but could be more broadly historical thinking, or even thinking in general, I think he's saying) starts as a speck, enlarges into a circle, which then unfurls into a line. And the line is wavy at first, but becomes straight, rises vertical but then collapses straight, becomes horizontal and chops around on that horizontal. Like that is what written history does, makes us think we are on a line, or at the end of a line but we are still sort of just a dot. We are seeing so many graphs these days, lines coloured differently to mark progress. "Flatten the curve".

But also when drawing, you touch the pen to paper to make a dot and generally you then make a line. You would not really make another dot. But that precision and detail is what a lot of the propers do. And painting especially is more like that, you make a mark, spread it around from what it is, the shape and form comes out of the dot, you do less of the making of lines, or at least I do.

I do like that as a way of thinking actually, dot circle line. I think that's quite useful.
 

catalog

Well-known member
Like when I draw, I draw in lines, I make outline shapes. Would be interesting to try an opposite approach of drawing from inside out. Would need a bit more ink though. We like the line in drawing cos it means you bound the space and it doesn't need filling in. The fill comes after the line. But znore seems to be saying to me that you should move from inside out. Actually I don't think it's what he's saying at all, I think he's saying that moving from anything but the dot is a corruption, cos the dot represents a oneness with the thing, whereas the circle makes it a cycle, a process, and the line makes it linear progression. So I suppose he is advocating pointillism, if he were talking about drawing. But everyone makes their own point. I think he would be into clouds and birdshit more than he would be into human drawings. That's what I'm getting from him
 

luka

Well-known member
First time I met him I gave him acids and took him through Tate Britain but he didn't seem terribly interested in pictures. Not really his thing I don't think.
 
Top