I tend to become involved.  It occurs to me that these discussions might
be broadened and made more helpful if there were more participants, partly
as you say because my own reactions are pretty uniform, so far as they
go.  In the distractious buzzing light of which, I shall limit myself to
the slenderest riposte.  

You say 

"The name 'realism' is associated (in my very short thesis) with ontology
and event, as I think it has to be. (If we are to allow ourselves to say
that something is real, we must I think allow ourselves the luxury of
asserting that it first of all 'is'.)"

You're talking about -reality-.  Realism is a very specific
phenomenon.  This is akin to confusing modernism and modernity, or nature
and naturalism.  Granted: what is -real-, -is-.

Individuals: there is a taxonomy of these.  It is implicit in social
relations, and (if we desire not to retreat into ground-fixing
ergo sums) ought -necessarily- to be taken into account.  The reason that
Prynne avoids the term and chooses "person" instead, is that he has
recognized (how could he not have?) that "individual" is a tainted
term.  Hence the use of the word "individualism" in 'Numbers in Time of
Trouble', in quote marks, in a blatant attempt to reveal the positive
flipside of that evident taintedness.  It's the same point, and I'll make
it yet again.  As John James once wrote: Words are not free to be used as
people wish.  If you paint an abstract picture all in green in Northern
Ireland, this is a different gesture to painting it all in orange, however
much you may insist that you are expressing something wholly subjective or
fortuitous.  The word "individual" is -far- from neutral, and I think you
just won't choose to allow the pertinence of that fact.  To disallow it
does not seem to me a liberty, but rather a wilful delusion.  


Prynne does indeed use the word 'person' in the sense I indicated.  

Honestly Chris -- I know this sounds like nasty opportunism -- it is
precisely in our disagreements on this list and backchannel that what I
feel to be the weakest aspects of your theatre work (which, for anyone
here who hasn't seen it, is -magnificent-) are illuminated.  This new
adoption of the term "realism" seems almost unearned: -how much- of
reality -- of the real which not only -is- but also
-is-for-millions-people- (rather than "for everyone"), are you writing
about?  I think, despite my love of your work, that the -liberty- with
which certain kinds of noise are permitted to alter and constitute the
events simultaneously -deflects- the principal significance of them.  Or
often it seems so.  


Exhausted, not wishing to shut down avenues of enquiry, cul-de-sacs etc, K
   








%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%