>Allen - it seems to me if a narrative attaches itself to an object of
>perception
>that has to do with one important property of the object, ie that it
>persists in
>time
my problem is with the mode of description, it no longer matches the
philosophical, conceptual and aesthetic potential of the occasion.>
in is necessary for me to say the object if it persists does so in
spacetime, and that's obvious also, but it has a different ramification
from stating that that which persists does so only in time. if you note
what Barrett is saying on this, or Todorov before him, or Jameson
contemporary with him, their saying misaligns the historic and the
political because they misalign the aesthetic etc. I say, it is not that
the object persists but that our narrativity engages with consciousness
which is not a static state and is necessarily involved in situating and
that means where-you-are-when-you-are,
and not some for-always-the-case statemwent about the object.
>Of course, the perception of the narrator takes place in time too, and so
>does
>the perception of the reader of/listener to her narration, and that's a
>different bundle of neurons
there is a sense in which it is diffeent as consciousness continues to be
diffderent,
but i don't think that necessarily makes it aesthetically different
>
>I believe much of Ron Silliman's (and Lyn Hejinian's) prose work _is_
>narrative
I understand it to be Barrett's view that Ron Silliman is not writing
narrative but non-narrative and I think that such assertions from Barrett
become pebbles on a beach. Now I enjoy what he trips me on and I like
his range and engagement, but I also happen to think he is mistaken.
of course I am also aware that I trip myself, and bang my elbow, but I
get used to that.
allen
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|