Showing posts with label Critical Theories of Literature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Critical Theories of Literature. Show all posts

Saturday, October 24, 2015

What We're Up To Right Now.


Our lives are very similar, I think, in that we are both awake right now at 2 in the morning tape-measuring a bag we bought from the Goodwill to make sure that it meets the Frontier Airlines “personal item” restrictions because we spontaneously bought tickets to Denver next month simply because the fare was too good to pass up ($78 round trip).  

See how much we have in common? It is weird how similar our free time activities are.

Our paths may diverge from there though because I was also just rewriting in my head a paper I turned in on Thursday. Your paper was likely not due on Thursday. I was required to write a book review, which meant finding a recent book and reading it and then writing the sort of review that one would read in Entertainment Weekly or Jezebel or Slate or The Awl. The project of this book review will likely later require that I actually submit it to someplace like The Awl or Slate or Jezebel or Entertainment Weekly.

Since it is on my mind, I’m going to go ahead and post my book review here. It may not be to your liking … let me ask: do you enjoy unicorn erotica?

For the 0.05% of you who said, “Fuck yeah I do!” please enjoy what’s below.

.
.
.

Horn of Desire.


Book Review:

Unicorn: Horn of Desire: Unicorn Pleasures Book 1


We live in strange times, or so said Plato - sort of - and he didn’t even live long enough to know the Bermuda Triangle, the internet, or The Ovipositor (which if you are unfamiliar with, please do not Google, or, at least, remember later that I warned you). If you’re like me then you probably consider the Greeks to be kind of charmingly quaint. The way a teenager girl thinks of her grandfather’s dating advice. So, on your behalf dear reader, I went looking for some strange. Something we can stuff in our knapsacks before climbing into the Wayback machine, something we can wave in Plato’s face as we say, “So you think that you lived in strange times?”
So what are we shoving into our knapsacks (that BTW, sounds dirty enough to be a crude euphemism, but I checked Urban Dictionary and it is not)? I’ll give you a hint: I hope you like unicorns - like - really like unicorns.
So here is how we got to unicorns: A Methodology.
We all know that the combination of cost-free e-publishing and internet anonymity has given rise to an entire Amazon digital distribution center of writing too lowbrow to be embraced even by those who make a game out of embracing the lowbrow, which is to say that we simply assume the writing is bad. And yet, people buy this stuff. Case in point, crime thriller author Mark Dawson has sold of 300,000 e-books in his series about the assassin named John Milton. This is actually a great example of what is going on out there: “John Milton” is of course a cutesy nod at John “Paradise Lost” Milton, which is an acute enough reference that even your uncle who didn’t finish high school can get it and say, “Hey, I understand that this is a reference to something else!” The elitist in me wants to say that this is sort of intertextuality for dummies. It is a way of plugging the intellectual parking meter.
So get this: our book dear reader, is called Unicorn: Horn of Desire: Unicorn Pleasures Book 1 written by Cecilia Chase, which is not her real name. Guess what this book is about. I dare you.
As for plugging the meter (which it turns out is also not a euphemism) the opening scene of the book takes place on a warm summer day in a barn on the ranch where our narrator Serena works with her “cherry bomb” best friend Mo. The girls are helping ranch owner Mr. Fullerton and fit, blonde, former rodeo champion ranch hand Brett Nilson to collect semen from a horse by using what is called a “phantom mare”, which is basically a sort of barrel the horse is coaxed into fucking. Serena ends up inside the phantom mare holding the jug into which the horse is furiously ejaculating. This, dear reader, is to be understood as a guiding metaphor. If you somehow miss that, I’m sure the author will send a telegraph to your house which will read: HOW DID YOU MISS THAT? STOP.
The book behaves as one would expect from a standard Harlequin romance, and yet also manages to be unexpected. When Serena observes Mo and Brett having sex in a hayloft, the latter surprises the former with an uninvited foray into anal sex, which of course Mo discovers that she loves. When Serena masterbates, it isn’t enough that she simply masterbate, but rather that she has to completely fist herself in order to reach orgasm. There is a sort of psychosexual bar being moved here. Or rather, Horn of Desire is participating in a bar moving that is already taking place in our culture. Here I will make the obligatory mention of Fifty Shades of Grey, itself originally published as an ebook and originally conceived of as dirty Twilight fanfiction. That’s not the only thing though; I think that for the generation raised on reading Harry Potter novels, one can draw a straight line to Harry’s lackluster successor Twilight, on to Fifty Shades of Grey and straight on to the weirdly rapey porn work of James Deen and to the “monster erotica” of which Horn of Desire is a kind. There are other kinds, in case you’re curious. Christine Simms (not her real name) writes a series of books about women (usually abducted women) having ravishing sexual relations with various types of dinosaurs. Her book Taken by the Pterodactyl includes a scene where the virgin protagonist is aroused by the tenderness with which the creature pecks off her clothes.
It is easy to chuckle at all of this, but it just may be that there is a larger question here and one which Plato is sure to ask us: What the fuck is going on here?
There are two things here worth noting.
The first: Chase’s writing in Horn of Desire is fine. It isn’t great, but she does what she needs to do. The book functions. Characters have traits. The unicorn is described. It all functions, and more than just that, Chase is always winking at her audience. She knows why they are reading this thing. She knows that we are all living our lives in a world where actual beastiality is - let’s say - generally considered unerotic, but that at the same time people will shell out in excess of $150 for a Bad Dragon dildo (again, don’t blame me if you Google that). Chase knows that she is threading the needle and her readers know it too. While the writing in Horn of Desire may lack some tension, there is still tension. These books are high-wire acts because it would be so easy for the “erotic” to tip over into the “that’s fucking disgusting” and that tension is part of their joy.
The second: If we consider what Steve Erickson wrote in Amnesiascope about how “sex is the last subversive act”, and we consider a mainstream publishing industry which may have contracted to such a degree that it simply can’t afford to be truly subversive, then maybe - just maybe - what we are seeing in these weird texts being written and read in the shadowy literary hinterlands of digital publishing is something akin to Obi-Wan Kenobi hiding out in the deserts of Tatooine, far enough from the madding crowd that he can do what he wants without anyone killing him. As much as it will pain me to have to explain this to Plato, there is some value in the works of our culture that simply aspire to be what they are, rather than to be winners of the Man Booker Prize.
I suppose that there is a third thing to consider …
The third: it is also possible that some people just like to get off on reading relatively high-quality erotica about hot interspecies action. And so, you know, Plato shrugs, whatever.  

.
.
.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

The Spasmodic.



Right now I am reading a book for class. The book is called “The Necropastoral” and it is written by a poet names Joyelle McSweeney, but it is not poetry, it is about poetry. Right? I’m annoyed too. She has the verbal verve of a poet, but let me share with you a pretty typical section from the book:


This spasmodic, ampersanding, defective interpenetration, with its sticky goo-, moan-, and pity-effects, is of course a model of politics and temporality that completely denatures liberal models of the body and the state, of points and events, of agency, hierarchy, power, linearity, and historical time. (8)


So yeah, that is one sentence and this book seems to have a whole lot of sentences like that one. I think that I am going to read this book but I am simply going to switch my brain off and enjoy all of the fun words because - oh did I mention - I have to finish reading it tonight. Because sometimes I am bad at studenting.

.
.
.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Wilbur Wright Finally Opens Up About Creative Writing.


Below are a couple of pieces of writing I have done recently for my Theories of Fiction class. You were probably smart enough not to pursue an English degree (you probably majored in something like Getting-a-Job or Having-a-Skill) and so I will briefly tell you what a Theories of Fiction class is:



Basically it is just a study in how writing works and what it does. Sort of. Imagine that you wanted to learn how to fix a bicycle and so you took a class called “Theories of Bicycle Repair” and then you showed up to class with a wrench and some spare tires and they handed you a book about how to fix a bicycle. And you’re all like, “Well that’s cool, but I had to walk here because my bicycle needs fixed” and then for the rest of the semester you talked about different ways to fix a bicycle and people were saying things like, “In Wilbur Wright’s essay about bicycle repair he said that before you can fix a bicycle you have to understand what sort of bicycle you are fixing, so let’s spend a couple hours talking about different types of bicycles” and you’re all like, “Well that’s cool, but I have to walk home later because my bicycle is still broken” and everybody was like, “Yeah, but is it really broken? It is still a bike, right?” and then you’re all like, “Well yeah, but …” and then they’re all like, “Maybe you just aren’t appreciating the multitude of possibilities of what a bike can be? Maybe you have an ideological bias about what a bicycle is supposed to do. Why are you oppressing the liminal potentialities of what a bicycles can be? Did you ever think of that?” and then class is over and you walk home.



This is an unfair characterization. I actually love the class and I enjoy the people in it and I like the reading. That being said, the nature of the class is that it is about how to repair a bicycle, not about repairing a bicycle.



For the sake of clarity I should mention that a Theories of Fiction class is different than a Critical Theories of Literature class (which I have talked about on here before). A Critical Theories of Literature class is more like a history of intellectual thinking as it relates to literature. Critical Theories also tends to be one of the hardest classes any English major has to take, but it is invaluable to me as a writer and as a person, primarily because it requires one to rapidly move between different modes of thought. One week you will work your ass off trying to understand one way of thinking (say Structuralism) and when you finally get it you say, “This is fucking great! I totally get it and I think I am a Structuralist now!” and then the very next week you will have to work your ass off trying to understand a way of thinking which is actively diametrically opposed to the way you just learned to think (say Deconstruction vs. Structuralism) and you end up saying, “Wait, I also understand this! I now renounces my Structuralist past! I am a Deconstructionist now!” then a week later you end up being something else.



The end result of all this a sort of wonderful elasticity of the mind, known in most other disciplines as “Schizophrenia”.

.
.
.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Demystification.


In honor of the Critical Theories of Literature final I took last night, below I am reposting a thing I wrote when I was suffering through Theory as an undergrad.

.
.
.

Critical Theories Demystified.


Only four or five people alive will find this funny. I hope that the rest of you will indulge me. Or at least forgive me.


Critical Theories Demystified
By James Bezera

Aristotle reads Jorge Luis Borges:
"What the fuck is this?"

Immanuel Kant reads Jorge Luis Borges:
"I have no fucking idea why I like this."

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel reads Jorge Luis Borges:
"This fucking guy isn’t German, is he?"

Jorge Luis Borges reads Jorge Luis Borges:
"What the fuck do you guys not get?"

.
.
.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

I'm a Fan of Shaun Tan.


I am very relieved tonight because I just turned in my term paper for my Picture Book Theory class. Yes, the paper was due pretty early, but I am happy to have it done. I had - what I think was - an interesting approach to the paper (I think I posted the abstract on here awhile ago), but the actual writing of the paper (you know, the work part) was actually rather challenging. I did a lot of my research last week, but I had a great deal of trouble finding my way into the paper when I sat down to write it. I feel like I have basically been in a bunker for the last four days because virtually all of my time was devoted to the paper. But now I am free of it!

None of that is terribly interesting, I know, but you know what is interesting? The work of Australian illustrator/author Shaun Tan. I did a - sort of - Deconstructionist analysis of one of his books in my paper. His work is absolutely strange and fascinating. You should go to your local library and check out literally anything that he has done. You won’t be disappointed.


Here are some pictures of his work, it is kind of amazing.






.
.
.

Monday, April 7, 2014

Man is a Desiring Machine.


I am sitting here on hold with the state of California and I am going over some of my notes from last week’s Critical Theories of Literature class. The notes themselves are not terribly interesting unless you’re super into Psychoanalytic Criticism. However the bits scrawled in the margins are kind of fun (not all of the lecture is actually useful for studying later, but I like to keep ahold of the tangential bits that are interesting):

- A German saying I learned:
“Love is home-sickness”

- Something that Edgar Allan Poe apparently said:
“Man is a desiring machine.”

- Something my professor said:
“If I had had that experience than I would have an even stranger sense of myself that I do now …”

- You would not believe how much Freudian Psychoanalytic Criticism deals with the notion of castration (male children are afraid their fathers with castrate them, female children believe they have already been castrated, fear of castration is sublimated into the unconscious, “The Uncanny” is just the return in disguise of the repressed “Castration Complex”, etc. etc. etc.) and so in the margin of my notes I apparently wrote: Do I really need shorthand for Castration?! And below that are a few attempts at inventing shorthand symbols.


.
.
.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Describe a Dog.




I hesitate to call the thing below a story. More accurately it is a dramatization of my notes from class tonight where we were talking about a literary theory called Deconstruction. Deconstruction is probably my favorite theory because it is simultaneously ridiculous and undeniably profound. It is massively confusing and dense and if there was an easy way to explain it then I wouldn’t have spent the last two weeks of my life reading about it, but here I will do my best to sum it up:


In a language where everything is defined by what it is not (a dog is not a cat or a racoon or a chair or a horse) then the actual thing (a dog) doesn’t appear to have any inherent uniqueness wholeness or meaning on its own (Try to describe a dog to someone who doesn’t know what a dog is. Make sure your description is accurate to ALL dogs and that you do not describe ALL dogs by comparing them to things they aren’t).


Anyway, this crazy Frenchman came up with Deconstruction and he was both cool and a complete asshole in the way that only Bond villains are usually able to pull off.

.
.
.

The Deconstructed Detective.



The Deconstructed Detective
by james bezerra



The Epilogue: This is not a short story.


.


“Thank you,” he says as he breezes into your apartment through the front door and slips across to your kitchen table where he sits down and pours himself a glass of your wine and proceeds to eye your dinner, “for inviting me.”

“I didn’t invite you. Who are ...” you begin to say, but it is useless now because somehow you find that you’ve been inexplicably drawn to the table and that you’ve sat down with him at the table and now he’s offering you a glass of your own wine.

He pours you a glass and exactly half of the volume of the glass is occupied by wine.

“I have news,” he tells you. “I have made a discovery. You have been tricked! You have been the victim of a ruse de guerre. Of a crime. Of a con!”

This is, in fact, news to you.

“What do you mean?” you ask.

“Let me tell you. But first, how is your wine?”

“It’s fine.”

“Wine is made from dead grapes. Did you know that?”

“I’ve never thought of grapes that way. Of being alive or not.”

“What about raisins?” he asks you.

“What about them?”

“They’re dead grapes too. Do you think of them that way?”

“No,” you say, because you don’t.

“Of course not,” he laughs and howls and smacks your table, “because there’s no such thing as a ‘live raisin’ because then it wouldn’t be a raisin at all.”

You shake your head. “True. Fine. But tell me more about this con.”

“I will,” he shouts at you, “just as soon as you stop talking!”

This has offended you. “Don’t shout in here!” you shout at him, “The walls are very thin and everyone will hear you shouting. Any besides, I wasn’t even talking anymore.”

“But you are.”

“What?”

“Talking now.”

“No you are!”

“I am only talking when I am talking and not while you are accusing me of being the one who is talking. When you accuse me of talking, you are the one who is talking, because you talk in order to accuse me.”

“Fine,” you say - feeling all hrrmgh now, “I will stop.” So you do. You stop talking. You look at him. You wait for him. He is sipping your wine and seems far too content with himself right here in this moment right now. Sitting there happy and content with himself while right now - out there in the world somewhere - someone is conning you. When you can’t stand it anymore you finally say, “Well tell me about this con!”

“Yes,” he says. “I will,” he says, “but first: more wine!” He pours more wine into your glass, but mostly into his, then he asks to you, “Wonderful weather we’re having, isn’t it?”

“Tell me about this con job!”

“That. Yes. Well, you have been played you for a fool.”

“What are you even talking about?”

“You are a victim. Don’t be ashamed. It could happen to anyone.”

“I’m not,” you say. “Now how do you know I’m being conned?”

“It is just the most obvious thing really. More wine?”

“No!”

“Have you any snacks? Raisins perhaps?”

“Not again with the raisins. Tell me how I am being conned.”

“First you must think as a con artist would. Are you thinking that way?”

“I don’t know!” you yelp, and it is the only thing you have really been certain of during this whole conversation.

He begins to explain, “For a con to work, the one being conned must not know about it, would you agree?”

“Yes, of course.” You agree because that makes perfect sense.

“So the one being conned does not know that he or she is being conned, correct?”

“Correct.”

“And you did not know that you were the victim of a con, correct?”

“Y ……..,” you hesitate to fully commit yourself because you can see where this is going, “Yes,” you answer finally.

“Well there you have it! Had you known then you would not have been being conned.”

You hesitate much longer now because of the way he worded that last sentence … something about it … as though he had composed it in such a way as to deliberately confuse you. You sip some of your wine. Finally you say, “That does not prove I am being conned.”

“Ah, but it also does not prove that you aren’t. That is just logic my friend.”

You have to admit that you see his point. That you would never know. You have to admit that there is something logically compelling about his argument, but also, somehow, not. But it has enticed you. You must admit that there is something exciting in what he says. Your heart is thumping a little faster. Your skin is flushed just a little pink. You must admit that he certainly has rattled your cage.

“Who is conning me?” you ask him.

He shrugs, “Well, to determine that we must investigate. Luckily, I am a detective.”

“How do we go about investigating it?”

He pours himself more of your wine. He swirls it in his glass. He begins to say, “Wonderful weather we …”

“No!” you shout at him. “Let’s continue investigating.”

“But we have not yet begun our investigation.”

“What? Why not?!”

“Because you have not yet paid my detective’s fee.”

Frustrated, you tromp to your bedroom, take money from your sock drawer. You return and slap the money down on your table. “There is your fee, now let’s begin.”

“My god!” He shouts and points across the room, “What is THAT!”

You turn to look. You see nothing but the corner of the room. You turn back. “What?”

“I thought I saw something,” he says, “I must have been mistaken. Anyway, where were we?”

“Your fee.”

“Yes! My fee. Well as soon as you pay my fee we can begin investigating.”

“I just paid you your fee!” You point down at the table, but when you look down, you see that it is not there.

He chuckles to himself. He sets down the glass he has been drinking your wine out of. “Now be reasonable, if you had paid me my fee already then we would be investigating already and since we aren’t, then you clearly haven’t.”

You can not deny that what he says makes a kind of sense, but also, somehow, doesn’t? You tromp back to your bedroom, hrrmgh-ing all the way. You return with his fee, which you place directly into his hand while making eye contact with him and saying, “Here is your fee which I am paying to you.”

“Thank you,” he says as he takes it, stands, and begins to slip back toward the door.

“Where are you going?!” you holler at him.

“Well to investigate, of course.”

And with that, he is gone. There is nothing left of him but the sound of your front door closing and after a moment that is gone too. You’re not entirely certain what just happened, but you know that something just happened. Outside it is 9 October 2004.


.


The Prologue: Did Derrida die, or did he live?


.

.
.