Atheros Ar5bxb Drivers

Unclassifiable writers: the strangeness (sixth)

DGD: Arctic Landscapes-Series 1 (clonografía), 2009

6

The adjective is the most naive terror of modernity (in any currency), which intellectual stereotype up to Sadder and a wiser man , as stated in the famous verse of the Ancient Mariner (1798) of Coleridge. In 1795 Coleridge, Robert Southey and Robert Lowell were locked in draft form, in the wilds of Pennsylvania, a utopian communist society called pantisocracia and which govern all in complete equality. This plan was soon abandoned and, as the sailor of his poem, Coleridge became "wiser and sadder."

To modern thought very obvious (that is, in fact, the main evidence) that the experience can not create anything other than an individual more and more sad as it becomes more wisdom. History with a capital of a past is naive and gullible that nothing has accumulated but unfortunately failed utopia (Marxism is the great example that is often brandished as evidence great, but there are many others, almost one for each attempt at counter-argument.) The sadness comes from this monumental failure to which they remain, as only intellectual attitudes acceptable (ie, "logical"), bitterness, sadness and, for the avant-garde, cynicism. Any intellectual attitude that is not bitter, sad or cynical, it is automatically taxed as naive. (At bottom, this is the origin of the unusual success of virulent critics cultural culture as Cioran. Thinkers like Foucault, Barthes, Eco, or Deleuze must first assert its intellectual authority, through its dialogue with the classic, for only then venture into the "wild" without contaminating its seriousness.)

As repairs are not stopping it precisely because is naive - is that, by way of that logic , the past must always be primitive, credulous, shameful and dark, only in order to support the debugging, skepticism, pride and light of this. Not that yesterday's failure to be inferred as the triumph of today (which would be unsustainable, illogical and, again, naive ) than it is to assume the same failure, only averted by a sense of "impotence illustrated" more acute than in earlier times: the Sadder and wiser man is a man whose grief is the size of what know, that is, what he has learned from the experience of History with a capital. Such learning results in an essential certainty that individual learning, and acceptance can not do anything at all to the tremendous and almost cosmic track that precedes it.

However, there remains a deeper reason for his bitterness and cynicism: the unbearable knowledge that even the superlative evil of today will be seen in future as naive. No matter how torn is the realism of this, no matter how bleak his nihilism is not the media has invented to further lament the defeat of man, even that will be overcome by the following currencies that will probably (and this really gives a certainty of experience) will continue in that sort of competition for the biggest disappointment, the most resounding despair.

Perfect piantados health as well as other stubborn dreamers of utopia, is its freedom inconceivable to deny the paradigms instituted, whose only virtue is further transformed into sanity insanity of these same paradigms. One of the characters Rayuela, astonished, said: "Ceferino guess relationships, and that in the background is the real intelligence, is not it? After such proems, classification end there is nothing strange, quite the contrary. Would have to rehearse such a world. " Perhaps the surprise is that: a world that is not so strange alarm to alert the officers of sanity. Fabricio Lezama Lima and Francisco Diaz, Felisberto Piriz Ceferino Hernández and finally integrate the figure of the poet, who is profoundly subversive from the moment you can guess the real relationships between things.

As is becoming increasingly clear, in this territory boundaries are mobile and are diluted. Make any statement about the unclassifiable seems to betray his own call, but could experimentally be the same matching / differentiation which Cortázar between cronopios and piantados, for example between Lezama and Piriz, or between Felisberto and Fabricio Diaz. Piantados Cronopios and look at who take the time otherwise, and in no way is an illusion or a delusion, it is in itself an indictment of the strategy through which the modern sense of time handling . A good example is in the inevitable cliché "writers of repute". A twin to this euphemism is "internationally known artists, which puts the emphasis on space and ignores the time: just the fact that the popularity of these artists is repeated in several countries, is left out of this panorama of the possible consideration of time that would take such consecration.

From experience we know very well that the prestige usually last a very short time (fifteen minutes of fame to Warhol alluded ironically), but that's why time is strategically withdrawn from such considerations, say that there is a sort of shame or pity (if there is honesty in the media, they would say "today, Thursday 19 August this year, enjoy recognized prestige, in the morning do not know and is not liable"), but precisely so that phrases such as "recognized writers prestige "or" internationally renowned artists "be covered with a false sense of timelessness, as if all were granted recognition or celebrity since and forever.

Time is running (if running) otherwise to cronopios and piantados, and perhaps what defines and unifies them is the fact that beyond the successive past-present-future ("the one and two after by three ") as its territory is fundamental concurrency. But although they share the high privilege, while they differ: there are more writers naïve or "wild" among piantados, ie between those who are most lacking in self-criticism. And this could well way to another question: Is self-criticism is precisely what differentiates a respective naive and piantados cronopio? Because for the modern, the word "self" does not mean "desire" but "that prevents committing naive malice."

Perhaps you could speak rather of different wavelengths . This implies a range in which piantados cronopios and would be but various forms of manifestation of the exceptional, the unclassifiable. While authors like Felisberto Hernández Lezama Lima and speculators are risk-takers in the field of art and language, and in them is not without irony and malice, but they canceled their immense sense of wonder (that could be called innocent Adam, as does Cortázar), in figures such as Francisco Fabricio Ceferino Díaz Piriz and seems to be a complete break with the conventions of the world culture: you can not judge or make fun of them because they are perceived, such conventions do not have any significance for them. Each piantados own lives in a world that has links to our fragile world, ethereal bridges may crumble at any time. Conversely, the cronopios live in a world so vast that it is in our world only as a province, not the students like to explore.

For Cortázar, Lezama's ingenuity is that of Adam, ie the plant who is against all the evil of his time and, above all, without fear in the full root of the human. (Fear is still the great intellectual force, and it is primarily the fear of being naive .) Behold, the first tool to distinguish the great missed / strange, large unclassifiable.

For a contrasting look easy, Felisberto Hernández Lezama Lima and creative equals, while Fabricio Ceferino Díaz Francisco Piriz and are (as Julio Ortega writes) "the other side of the creativity, madness." The border between them exists, but is not as easy to establish. But the mere fact of seeking help to challenge the most common desire of our culture, the desire qualifying.

With all the risks, might consider the difference in experimental terms: Hernández Lezama and authors as they followed the work , while writers such as Díaz and Piriz found mainly in utopia, each your way? This question is visible the precariousness of this classification, since there no utopia in the writing of the cronopios?, And do not go piantados behind the work, whether utopian or not? And despite everything, it seems in effect, and very curious, more utopias in works of piantados that in the cronopios.

What ultimately we care about each other, they share one essential feature: the surprise, but obviously very different doses and with different purposes. We all need to surprise, even though we seem so comfortable in the world rational, orderly, and conventional around us (and precisely for that.) The media can convince us that we are in a world in crisis, yet we are comforted by the statement that we know so well to this crisis and the world that this crisis affects them. But something deep inside of us do not believe at all. Something is reluctant to accept all it tells us about the foundations of the world and the universe in which that world is immersed. We need, therefore, to the surprise and momentum to leave the tight network of conventions that sustains us everywhere (and in more ways than one, we detention).

Regarding literature, there is a profound experience that we all share: there is some disappointment when we read a writer who brings back the same tangle of conventions and deliver what we expected for a moment. This writer can capture our attention, you can even surprise and even delight, but to leave that story or that novel we sense, more or less obscure, we have been betrayed: have returned the world as we knew and in fact this writer has not only strengthened the power of conventions.

Hence the shock, the intimate pleasure when we find authors who provide us access to other realities (which is a single reality, only stripped of the filters that usually keep us from it), to worlds that are, but are are bathed in pure light, a deep atmosphere. In this case is not that we have taken from this world (which would be mere escapism and that we have enough) but we have put in their eyes a certain clarity that allows us to see more of our surroundings and ourselves. And there is no way to describe this clarity, or the actual experience of dialogue with the author, then we know that this is an unclassifiable writer, because there is no way to categorize without betraying that he gives us.

unclassifiable

That which we are well described by Cortazar, is "an incredible enrichment of total reality, which not only contains the verifiable but it shores up the back of mystery as the elephant underpins the world cosmogony Hindu. [...] Should more be asked a narrator capable of marrying the everyday with the exceptional to the point of showing that can be the same thing? ".

might be other ways to recognize the writers heterodox atypical or transparent (obviously not the secret, because if they really are, you never know anything about them). One of those ways is the role: how much worry about being "in the limelight, being seen, recognized and admired. Writers such as Antonio Porchia, Jose Lezama Lima and Felisberto Hernández not refuse to talk to a small group of friends, but give a lecture before the horrified five thousand people greatly (is it in this sense that Porchia says: "One hundred men, together is one-hundredth of a man "). Like posting, feel a tremendous pride in each book and in some cases to the complete works, but know they will never to millions of readers and their names are never in the best-seller lists a week, month or year.

We also recognize the unclassifiable because when they talk do not make concessions. And even when they speak, they seem to be two sentences of Antonio Porchia, "I speak thinking I should not speak: I speak" and "When I say what I say is because he has overcome what I say." Fortunately spoke, fortunately for us let themselves be overwhelmed by what they said, that is, so say . For this is no trace his everywhere, and especially because we owe the great lesson: the search for traces of ourselves, of finding our own compass, not content with what we are given, to develop our own individual antennas for the reception of these vibrations to which we called strangeness.

*

[Continued.]

Reset Casehard Combo Lock

unclassifiable writers: the strangeness (fifth)

DGD: Textile 67 (clonografía), 2009

5

A Julio Cortázar be the first international dissemination of the work of one of the more unclassifiable writers of the twentieth century, the Cuban José Lezama Lima, to all through the trial that he engaged in the pages of the book, almanac Around the Day in Eighty Worlds (1967). Input in the text establishes its territory Cortázar:

These pages about Paradiso, a novel by José Lezama Lima (Ediciones Unión, La Habana, 1966) is not a study on the novel of Lezama, would require careful analysis of all his work as a poet and essayist in the light of the most fruitful developments in the anthropological field (Bachelard, Eliade, Gilbert Durand ...), but the sympathetic pathway approach that chooses to engage all cronopio trade with another.

The word "cornucopia" is an invention of Cortázar that is less likely to classify the unclassifiable that refer to certain things of unprecedented creative freedom (in very plain terms, the cronopios , heterodox, have as opposed to famas , Orthodox, the two are located hope that in one way or another, have the vocation, the call no guarantee of arrival "to transcend orthodoxy through estrangement). In his text on Lezama, Cortázar mark as a method to "friendly approach means that all cronopio choose to engage in trade with other"; the goal is not to let the strangeness of the work requiring Lezama then swallow the tone and thus drying out a text that is to catalog and entrevisiones oblique experiences.

The spell is indispensable, because in the course of the trial Cortazar sees the need to address, and exorcise the word "banned in Western intellectual discourse: ingenuity. Lezama because the greatness of his character classic in the purest sense, does not automatically terminate certain records of the naive, but even based on them. Thus, Cortazar writes:

The irony defense that relies on surface defects of the sum to be cause in many of the unusual candor that emerges in the moments of the narrative of Lezama. In the background is for the sake of simplicity that I speak here of him beyond all school fees, I know its penetrating effectiveness, while so many seek, Parsifal is, while so many talk, Mishkin know. The Baroque complex that is taking root in our American products as diverse and as brothers at the same time as the expression of Vallejo, Neruda, Asturias and Carpentier (gender do not fund it), for very special stained Lezama an aura to match that word only approximate: ingenuity. An American ingenuity, insular in direct and broad sense, an innocent American. A naïve American innocence opening Eleatic, Orphically eyes at the very beginning of creation, Adam Lezama prior to the fault, Lezama Noah identical to that in the Flemish paintings diligently attending the parade of animals: two butterflies, two horses, two leopards , two ants, two dolphins ... An early all-knowing, a sorbonard American compliment but as the stuffed albatross knowledge of Ecclesiastes not have become a wiser and a man Sadder but his science is palingenesia, is known as original jubilant, born as water and fire Tales with Empedocles. Between knowledge of Lezama and a European (or their counterparts River Plate, far fewer Americans in the sense that it points) is the difference goes from innocence to guilt.

The Western rationalist accepts any charge, even the most serious, except one: being naive, and that because his claim to fame than of malice, resulting in a wisdom that can no longer wonder, all-encompassing, and whose last taste is the bitterness, cynicism and disillusionment. It is so afraid of orthodoxy to the naive that the prevailing academic style model in the West considers a synonym of impoverishment clearly ... or innocence, which is conceived as the declared enemy of wisdom, in turn defined as scholarship. Therefore

the worst accusation that can be classifiable authors, and a fortiori to the unclassifiable, is precisely that of being naive, primitive or self-taught, the latter always said by sorbonards completed, ie by those who understand the disappointment and bitterness as a single crown of wisdom ( naïve is an adjective all author directed to where there is a poetic palingenesia , ie a continuous self-creation.) It is therefore doubly appropriate differentiation which Cortázar (The difference goes from innocence to guilt. ") In the text quoted is well established that difference, but it remains one that is necessary to determine "whether this is indeed possible.

Six years after Rayuela, in another book, calendar, Last round (1969), Cortazar abounds on the subject of the eccentricity and the text "Given the success, or the firm as iron piantados "now presents excerpts from a book-utopia Francisco Fabricio Diaz Cuban also called Poetic test the effluent cristífero spell, it is a copyright issue dated in 1961 whose subject is rather obscure but seems to focus on the possibility more or less described by the author taking a picture of Jesus Christ and in general to other EXPECTRA ("must be ghosts who cough a lot," said Cortázar). Diaz prefaces his book with a thought vaguely attributed to José Martí that could well be a declaration of principles of universal piantadismo: "The greatest percentage [ sic] of genius and even supergeniuses, down to the grave unknown to themselves." A first scale is immediately, and a question that only sounds like initially naive itself: what is the difference deep among the ingenuity of Lezama and Diaz?

In another text in Around the Day in Eighty Worlds ("The gesture of the index finger placed in the temple and move as one screw and screwdriver), Cortázar word designates as piantados "One of the cultural contributions of the Río de la Plata. Readers north of 32 take note of that comes from 'piantare', in Italian be sent to move, illustrated by a resounding acceptance tango and you will hear the noise of broken chains Pianta of the wheel ... Did my wife! . " In the beginning the ginners is, therefore, the "Ido", but this unit also can be taken apart, as glimpsed Cortázar: "if the capital boasts a commendable rate of piantados, however our provinces are still full of gone, the linguistic quarrel is not important when there is hope that the sum of piantados gone and one day reach to counter the influence of the wise, with which we are going so far as you know. " And then, even more so attentive Cortázar terminology as it poses a new dilemma:

The difference between a madman and a piantados is that the insane tend to believe sane while Pianta, without thinking systematically about the thing, feels that the sane are too symmetrical nursery Swiss watch, the two after one and before three, which judgment-unopened because a piantados is never a good thinking or a good conscience or a presiding judge, "this guy continues his way down the sidewalk and rather against the grain, and so it is that while everyone stops the car when he sees the red light, he presses the accelerator and God save you.

And to compound the difficulties qualifying, says: "All ginners is cronopio, meaning that replaces much of the humor of those mental faculties are the pride of a prof or a doc, whose only exit if they fail is crazy while being piantados is no outlet but an arrival. "

What is Latin America for the world, perhaps it is Cuba toward Latin America. Or maybe it is Uruguay, a country that seems particularly fruitful to some kind of rarity. In the most unclassifiable and high registers of the weird, the great example remains the work of Uruguayan Felisberto Hernández, the disclosure should also be highly Cortazar. In the preface to The house flooded and Other Stories Hernandez, Cortázar attempts, as it did in the case of Lezama-give " fulgurating jump only thing that matters to him: the estrangement, the unspeakable making immediate contact, that is all that we ignore or dissociate continuously in the name of what is called life. " (In a letter to Ida Vitale-September 20, 1973 - Cortázar remembers "the past when I was getting into his secret world [of Felisberto], the fifties when I discovered that someone over there [on the other side of the River la Plata], had written one of the most amazing works of our time. ") And he adds:

always secretly anguished call to literary criticism as a work place of Felisberto tends to draw from his hat the great white rabbit of Surrealism is a way to fix the image before moving on to something else, and it is true that the rabbit is very much alive and constantly walks on the piano of Felisberto. [...] But here operates Felisberto discriminatory maneuver would have been the first to refuse. How long will insist on putting the surrealism in a privileged spot falsely, which is a way to marginalize him in front of a supposedly more urgent and important? How long teaching surreal absurdity, once promoted by Breton, later by his followers, and always eager for some critical simplifying cloud?

A second scale appears when one considers that Cortázar also released records another rarity, the Uruguayan piantados, through the appointment made in Rayuela of excerpts from a book of Ceferino Piriz, light world peace, whose history is no less eccentric than its content: in 1953 he was sent by the author in an essay contest sponsored by UNESCO. Cortázar, elected as a member of the jury of this competition, was saved from oblivion in this and other texts:

As things are true in his own ways that are not always those of Unesco, barely lit the lantern-contest appeared enormis piantados envelopes and packages of all colors. Of course no one heeded them and the prize was given to Wladimir Weidle intelligence is the same, but I could save some of the most memorable manuscripts, and I was slowly giving way to the awards I could. Cefe walks with me and in several languages.

The text of Ceferino Piriz loose some ideas for solving global problems and so began a universal classification that sounds crazy and makes us laugh out loud, but the author has done very seriously. When Cortázar wrote "Surrealism tends to be more active and effective in the hands of non-surreal" ("Theory of the tunnel"), perhaps related to samples as light world peace.

The author of Rayuela even considered the idea of \u200b\u200bexplaining in the novel, through a "note editor, Ceferino Piriz that was not his invention and had merely quoting light world peace, adding the story of how this manuscript had come into his possession. For if Piriz had been a character would have been a "bad invention, a cruel mockery, and quite useless addressed to certain writers naïve or" wild " while existing summoned to literally unbelievable, but not implausible but insulting to the modern mind. Cortázar dismissed the idea of \u200b\u200bthis note under the consideration that was a breach of the convention of reality of the novel itself. (Of this there is no record, but you can imagine, finding a way to insert these fragments into a book that was out of the book but also in acting as its great sounding, Cortazar has thought of "expendable chapters "that made the fame of Rayuela as plural and permutante book.)

stupefaction

A reader when checking Rayuela Piriz writers there, so much deprived of intellectual malice (in the case that this reader has not encountered before with other rare ), adds a question that is never fully responded: Why interested Piriz Cortázar to such a degree as to devote so large a novel space on the other hand is full of references to great literature, to serious work, the bright malice (which by the way the author devotes less space in question)? The critic Luis Harss attempts an answer: "A Cortázar liked it because it seemed a perfect example of the extreme injustice that can pure reason ('the last thing you lose Crazy is their ability to reason, "said Chesterton) and copied it without changing a word. And the truth is that it fits neatly into a fictional landscape in which the farce and metaphysics come together to break through to the ends of the known between apocalyptic boundaries seem the products of a monstrous settlement in a Turkish bazaar or market flea ( Ours, 1966). But the question remains: why fits perfectly? Adolfo Castanon

reminds us where it comes from our attitude of receptivity to the strangeness: "The cult professed Macedonio Fernández, César Vallejo Oliverio Girondo or would not entirely explicable without the surreal impression. Vagaries of history and geography, first fell in love with the Maga and after Nadja. Small first New World Symphony Cardoza and then travel to Mexico Artaud "(" Self Portrait with scenery. André Breton, 1996). And Tomas Segovia who back even further the line and see that calling it the surreal coming of Romanticism:

romantic What they say is: "We know what Homer said, but also what he meant without realizing it, how does an epic poem and what was the historical context that made his writing, but to know that we have lost the power to write the Iliad. " But this thought did not confronted with the reason or against science, but from reason and science. The Romantics were scientists and were considered the heirs of Rousseau and Voltaire; what they wanted was the synthesis, were critical of the objectivity that we lost a genius, why come to obscure languages \u200b\u200bsuch as religious or magical language of those who have been banned for the reason: the insane, children, women, savages. [ Islands, Barcelona, \u200b\u200bDecember 2004.]

While still searching for the summary, with increasing awareness of the potential treasures it contains, the strangeness continues to perform on their own terms, without reconciliation or synthesis with no concessions to those who want to interpret it, place it, cataloging it or categorize it, and above However, no possible code to bring it everyday and even less to see as the very source of the everyday.

*

[It has been built here a part of the unpublished book to read Rayuela .]

*

[Read sixth.]

What To Write Inside A New Baby Card

unclassifiable writers: the strangeness (fourth)

DGD: Landscapes-Blue Series 21 (clonografía), 2009

4

Since we are speaking here of writers unclassifiable would describe how does the modern effort of classification, and perhaps the most telling example of this issue and side items is the experience of one of the most reluctant writers to classifications: Joseph Conrad (1857-1924). This involves briefly drawing a picture and go back to the last quarter of the nineteenth century when the British Empire reached its maximum expansion and power through a multitude of colonies and ports that are spread throughout the world's coastlines, from the South Pacific to India and the Far East. The rapid growth of commercial shipping long distances between the capital of the British Empire and its colonies led to a series of technical changes, the most profound and significant was that affected Victorian navigation.

For millennia man's relationship with the sea-the most fascinating expression, terrible and uncontrollable natural forces, had resulted in sailing. The sail with the help of the wind had derived not only a way of life and art, but an entire philosophy and worldview. In its thousand ramifications, this design included a pace , a dialogue of man with nature and the oldest meaning of concepts such as adventure and exploration. In the late nineteenth follow, the English imperialist expansionism began to demand an acceleration at all levels, primarily in the vessels, requiring greater speed, capacity and military power. Thus, the sailing, with its ancient traditions, its hardness and defiance, was replaced in a short time and not a little violent, the dehumanized, predictable Asepsis impersonal moved by steam ship with a steel hull.

Conrad, fascinated by the adventure and the hardness of the nautical life, became a sailor at an early age and witnessed the extinction of an entire world, demands of capitalism and the imposition of another monumental beginning with the replacement of pace by hurry. He was born the modern swift, consuming itself, which would extend throughout the twentieth century beginning with the industrial revolution.

Conrad tried to register in their writing remains the world was dying and therefore, very conscious, filled with its texts a unique gallery of human types in extinction: captains, officers, sailors, ship, old salts, etc., in an attempt similar to other great literature of the sea like Melville, Stevenson, Kipling and London.

The first two novels of Conrad, Almayer's Folly (1895) and An outcast of the islands (1896), were greeted in a curious way, since it immediately fueled the author's reputation as "a exotic romantic storyteller "a misunderstanding that would haunt and torment for the rest of his career. It is a nickname that is worth further consideration, since it can be clearly seen that since historians often do modern critics: if a writer as Conrad laments the disappearance of a violent world and its replacement by a much less human, it is called "romantic." This word is far from being used in the profound sense that gave the romance in the time of his powerful art, but simply, it becomes synonymous with "idealist."

problems the easy classification of Conrad as a "romantic" begin with the fact that, while this writer portrayed the contradictions of its characters and explores the trend of the devastation, rapine and evil, then the historiography and criticism, from this side of Conrad's work, they call it "precursor of modernism." There are, therefore, in the same author, two opposing sides. One of them is applied the label "romantic", which is associated with the "idealist", it is clear that here is a unique fusion of "idea" with "ideal" who has ideas is who has ideals, and the idealist is one that is anchored in the past, as obsolete, in the abstract, in the dark ages .

Rather, what matters to the history and literary criticism is other side of Conrad's work, one that is not based on the ideas (the ideal) but on "facts", ie "acts", for here is part of another forced synonymy and understood, the " act "with" currently "only" facts "are" current ", ie modern , and not all the facts but only those that are linked to the conquest, war and devastation collectively and individually.

In other words, to criticism, and not a little uncomfortable way, "Conrad is archaic when world rescues a late (rescue understood as idea, abstraction, Utopia), and is effective when it focuses on the individual's tendency to evil (a trend seen as fact, concreteness, realism). If Conrad was only the first, would be a "romantic", an "idealist" terms in which it is understood others as archaic, obscurantist, reactionary, escapist, even reactionary. But it also the latter (a portrait of vulnerability and the venality of man), and it is this facet that "saves."

In this consideration, the author emphasizes the ideas is "romantic", while that puts it in fact is "modern." No other significance is this paragraph from a popular encyclopedia

Some of his works have been labeled as romantic, although Conrad usually soothes the troubled romance with realism and turns the moral ambiguity of modern life. For this reason, many critics have placed it as a precursor of modernism.

First merit recognized by critics: Conrad "normally softens Romanticism" (the plot, ie, known to excuse this fall with a load of realism , involving "conflicting orders" and "moral ambiguity").

The English version of the same encyclopedia also contains this sentence: While Some Of His works Have A strain of romanticism, I is viewed as a precursor of modernist literature ("While some of his works have a tendency toward Romanticism is seen as a precursor of modern literature "). It is significant that the word strain, equivalent to "trend", "vein", "tone" also means "strain" and "exhaustion", and it seems free one letter over the distance of stain "stain." Second merit grant the author: Conrad wash their own spots. Hence, his biographers use phrases such as "disciplined his romantic temperament with an implacable moral code." In other words, managed to overcome its tendency to falsehood, illusion and escapism utopian (ie, to oppose the definition of the world accepted by the rush of modernity) through a discipline made of pessimism, precision and truth .

's just why the same encyclopedia in English translation comes to a crushing-and unintended-revelation when he accepts that Conrad's literary work "fills the gap between tradition classical literary writers like Dickens and Dostoevsky and modernist literary schools. " How sad destiny of unclassifiable writers, to "fill gaps", ie to work, without any deliberation, to confirm and hold that perfect world order that tend classifications. There is but one step to imagine that Conrad, when he decided to devote himself to literature, he said "my great vocation is to fill gaps."

Once located in vein, the same Encyclopedia notes: "Conrad, along with the American author Henry James, has been called pre-modern writer, and also can be framed within the symbolism and literary impressionism. " In less aware this is a "classification plural" (an effort of understanding) that an acceptance by any side you want, and Conrad is paid to have done a great service to the world map of literature, that of having "filled gaps "This means that filled gaps, which helped to build bridges between ideas (the obsolete and archaic) and facts (the new and modern), but not to bring ideas and facts but that they replace those ideas ( the same way that the engines replaced the sails).

Just the facts are read (accepted, understood) so far from the reader organicity Conrad's work (and not divided into facets but seen and undertaken as an adventure, an inner exploration, an indivisible unit.) Modernity sees only what you see, and therefore are not known even the most famous paragraphs Conrad, for example one in which, in her most famous novel, The Heart of Darkness (1902), warns that the accent is in fact closed in on themselves (which is otherwise not realistically only genre of modernity), but viewed them as metaphors:

The stories of the sailors have a frank simplicity, all its significance can enclosed within the shell of a walnut. But Marlow was not a typical man of the sea (with the exception of his penchant for telling stories), and for him the importance of a story was not in the kernel but outside, enveloping the story in the same way the glow surrounding light, like one of those misty halos that sometimes are made visible by the spectral illumination of moonlight.

obsession with the facts, believes that there is nothing more than reading the open book of reality, the reader away from that statement of principles literary Conrad recorded in the preface to the black Narciso The (1897):

Por el poder de la palabra escrita hacerte oír, hacerte sentir [...] y, ante todo, hacerte ver. Eso, y no más, y eso lo es todo. Si lo consigo, encontrarás ahí, de acuerdo con tus carencias: ánimo, consuelo, miedo, encanto —todo lo que pides— y, tal vez, también, el vistazo de una verdad de la cual te habías olvidado.

[ Leer la quinta parte .]

Animation Pregnant Women

The farce of democracy

Just commenting on a fact I've been reading and I play what does not ring.

If a referendum is, however is not binding, and "just vote" 18% of the population (of which 91% voting yes), that does not mean that the remaining 82% of the opinion that no .
That means that 82% are lazy passing of democracy and do not vote.
That means that they move less than Bert and Ernie on a bed of Velcro.
That means that 82% is the sweat, it comes loose.

I'm sick of that "is interpreted." This is a democracy, if you do not vote do not vote, period, not interpreted cazurros bunch of crap. Country
dioxide
blessed ...

Bubble Letters For Happy

In .. independent .. independence! Friends will be friends

Today marks the final consultations (no referendums) on l'determination of Catalunya, and is celebrated in several villages, the largest among them Barcelona.
The question is clear:
"This d'acord amb Catalunya esdevingui that an Estate dret, Democratic i social, integrate into the EU?"
"You agree that Catalonia will become a rule of law, social democratic and integrated into the EU?" Many people

critical meaning and existence of these consultations with arguments to each more absurd.
That if you are illegitimate, that if they spend taxpayer money, if you seek to break Espanya, and other nonsense like that.

For starters, no such consultations binding (and hence are not referendums, I pillaís huh?) represent the true meaning of democracy, that is, as politicians should not get wet and Espanya as demonstrated by CT Case does not include living in harmony a people who feel different from them. an organization has rolled up and decided to ask the Catalan people who think.
With this I believe the first two are crap resolved. Nor is it illegitimate to ask the people in a democracy (of course!) Or the taxpayer is paying a fucking guy, unless to do so voluntarily.

on what is broken Hey Panya, for which you want to tell you, I do not care for swimming live in a country that's got me like a fucking slave paying a bunch of bums who have had 30 years to fix your shit autonomous community. But ah! Sure! You are very well without giving a stick to water and what you pay for the others! ¬ ¬ U
Espanya But that is they want, the Catalans and the Basques currando as slaves, paying a fortune and not seeing or 70% of the amount paid.

great thing is that we have reached a point where non-independence arise independence (read if you feel like this article Newspaper) but this country is tightening and tightening tambourine. To see if the locals (I no longer am ... not whether for better or worse, mine is clear that although I have uprooted am Catalan) are animated and show some interest in the world in which they live. ------------------------------



Meanwhile Icelanders have given us all a lesson in how they should doing things, since they have had to vote if the country paid the piper (the debts we) of one of its banks to foreign investors are poor and they have said "NO! course!"
As I read in a commentary on the news, "perhaps the banks gave us money when things went well? But that pay for them? Managers pay!" (More info here ) ------------------------------



And all this has happened the same week as their distinguished ladies and gentlemen, Members Europeans have refused to fly in anything but first class and get off the salary, so they work! Damn bastards
gan children of p ***. By guillotine I passed them "and see how it does next." Start


be time to open up all eyes, let's take the bull by the horns and put before us, for these politicians doodles are little more than a number, one vote, not worth a shit and we prove it day in and day too.
why I cry

INDE

IN INDEPENDENCE!

Visca Catalunya! (From London with love

Well, third week in London and everything is interesting if not more, people are very civic unlike Barcelona, \u200b\u200bbut the city is really stressful, there are many people, but great!

Best of all (and why I write this post in Catalan) are friends, I leave my land. Even while the plane was a part of me singing "Red River Valley" I knew that people love, that really count, although all would have nosequants half miles.

The fact that you have shown me, as if necessary. People really worth has remembered me (yes, that is "remembered," but I said all my life remembered ... You can blame my mother xD) and yet still be far feel near.

And this post is a dedication to friends as the song says Queen "when you are in need of love they give you care and attention" and that is that whenever I wanted I received ... because if one thing I learned is that they do not have a crystal ball to know when I'm fucked if I call you but will always be there.

I come after hundreds of memories. Send a message all rallies and receive the call I wanted to get two minutes, wanted to stay I need to talk and have them on my side ... if ever there were was my fault, not to say that there needed to be.

The fact is that among all friends and friends that you find throughout your life there are some to stay, and they really are and they are worth preserving whatever happens.

And here a tip for all, dreams can be achieved if one can believe that, otherwise you espabilat. That life is too short to be wasting time on someone being 'what society accepts, "Be true to yourself, there is nothing greater than going to the Mount getting what we want, all you want, without betraying who we are.

Dark Circles On Dog Skin

unclassifiable writers: the strangeness (third)

DGD: Landscape 38 (clonografía), 2001

* *

3

One of the hardest tests that are sometimes the poet, the artist, is the acceptance of their marginality. Today's society is made to look the "stars" to promote the motivations that day. It might even be a question of rhythm: the rhythm apparent, sons of the momentary interests of the seduction community or circumstantial, not match with what one is. [...] The media imply a lack of human charity. And apart from the commercial aspect, offer essentially show, something that poetry is not .

Roberto Juarroz

Another book worth considering breaking all the expectations of restraint and not only for its size (it is divided into two thick volumes, one of 1.676 pages, the other 2.376) but the title and the euphemisms that are proposed to encompass the unclassifiable. is Crazy, eccentric and marginal Latin American literature (CRLA-Files, Poitiers, 1999), which also includes the papers of a meeting of writers, this coordinated by Joaquín Manzi, as untypical Latin American literature, is clothed with the character of being an "accounting of the marginalization of literature in the century ends." Here, then, euphemisms are not considered necessary: \u200b\u200bthis book in two volumes and does not seem dedicated to writing secret and not even the "unusual" but to the madness (the first volume begins with "Map of American madness" Maryse Renaud). However, the latter is associated with the eccentricity and marginalization, which are two characteristics of "atypical." That is, it addresses the same but with fewer scruples.

Thus we speak of Mercedes Cabello de Carbonera from under "Madness announced, or Afonso Henriques de Lima Barreto as dipsomania and submission to the madness", and Francisco Matos Paoli is labeled as "crazy poetry. Regardless of the quality or hastening of the respective judgments, this first volume that holds the secret, unusual or eccentric to be associated with terms such as madness and art. Even though the various authors try to situate the author who studied in a particular record of this scale, the other items around and delimiting this figure.

This happens with the inclusion of Juan Jose Arreola and Efren Hernandez with names such as Horacio Quiroga, Vicente Huidobro, Oliverio Girondo, Gabriela Mistral, on the one hand, and on the other those of Qorpo-Santo (José Joaquim de Campos Leão), Juan Emar (Álvaro Yáñez Bianchi), Emilio Lascano Tegui (self Viscount), Joaquim Machado de Assis, Porfirio Barba-Jacob and Roberto Arlt. Since they are included in this volume, these authors, even "vanguard" ("atypical") that is, acquire respective combinations (which the reader does not bother to measure individually) of three elements: "crazy", "eccentric" or "marginal." Your choice.

The second volume includes essays whose titles provide new inferences of synonyms for writing secret: heterodoxy, range, rarity, periphery, benign madness. "Crazy, eccentric, marginal or all together? Some of the authors studied, as João Guimarães Rosa, Alejandra Pizarnik, Enrique Lihn, Paul Rokha, Mario Vargas Llosa, José Lezama Lima, José Revueltas, Augusto Monterroso, Lillian Hellman, Clarice Lispector and Leopoldo Marechal, are or are not marginal according to how they want to see. Everything depends, therefore, the burden of giving meaning to words. To be called marginal Borges, Miguel Angel Asturias even Agustín Yáñez or they could be described as eccentric, too, if you wish, Octavio Paz could be placed in the category of insanity. At the end of these large volumes, the reader can not fail to see some form of rarity in any writer, any human being. And perhaps he lacks some reason .

Books like those mentioned above attempt to "separate" the canon (typical) unclassifiable writers, sullen to their generations, unwieldy by orthodox critics. (Moreover, criticism is not designed to detect who has genius, but exactly who do not have . A criticism is to "conquer" the same way as everything else: with obsessive determination and through complicated strategies, but mostly playing the game that she understood and controlled. An author who wants to show that he has awakened genius scorn and contempt, the artists have learned that the best thing to be granted is a bitter cynicism begins to accept that the "genius" is a thing of the past, romantic, démodé , primitive and finally completely alien to the human. And the human, the same way of these inferences, is defined as failure.)

dint of digging into these works, so that such interpretations end up doing is to present the reader with a new table definition. Faced with such weirdness, who reads these anthology not conclude that these writers are unknown undisclosed, but because they lack the merit of those that are "known." In the vicious circle, it is understood that these are exactly known for its merits (the first one, the sanity), so is outside the canon, either for lack of merit, or by indifference to them .

However, such "extravagances counts" there is at least some form of affirmation given to the minority, so flows the understanding that there is some merit to avoid being classified , but do not drive that merit to be known but by small groups of readers (how tricky this statement is the cult of eccentricity itself, the transparent is the need to get amazed at the strangeness). Atypical anthologies as American literature and Locos, eccentric and marginal Latin American literature are in a dangerous edge because they end up, regardless of their good intentions (especially to rescue from oblivion the cataloging reluctant works), by be efforts to classify the unclassifiable (rationalize the strange, chaotic order, establish exceptions that prove the rule, so at the price of making authors misunderstood in incomprehensible), but there would be no interest in editing if not sensed, in essence, a call of another kind or, rather, the fact that it is necessary another mentality access otherness. It is essential to face surprising strangeness, which means no confirmation transformed into normal.

The danger of each of these books anthology is that, willy-nilly becomes a ship of fools , that is, requires rare to board a single ship, when the only way to be faithful to them would let each in his personal watercraft and sail the seas to see who wants to explore without trying to tell the direction. In theory, this is what has made each author of the essays collected, since it is supposed to be a specialist in a particular figure atypical, has investigated individually, and only knows the other "atypical" less intensive modes (if not ignored), but reading it sometimes appears certain that, even when the biographer is only to the biography, there are moments when I considered not so staff but it would seem almost communal, is say that the tester is of the mindset dominant majority the consensus always defined by opposites (as coherent as opposed to the incoherent, etc.).

The merit of this anthology lies in bringing together material that was published separately elsewhere, eventually dwindle and become mere "curiosities" due to comparison to its context, however, happens that when a joint is a chemical reaction explosive. The reader's experience shows that, from a nondescript to another and another, begins to make comparisons, common denominators and overall criteria in spite of his initial attempt to understand that each of them is sui generis . Just as the authors of each test, the reader will therefore begin to classify ("this is weird," "this one is eccentric," this is great "). When you travel enough text, the reader should recognize that the inferred items are all writers, known and unknown, in one way or another: mad, marginal, dangerous, cutting-edge, peripheral, forgotten or heterodox.

In the second volume of Locos, eccentric and marginal ... Claudio Canaparo A key when Elijah Ingar described as "a writer fallen off the map". In effect, the maps are official and an official (canonical authority, cultural power) that decides who to include in the maps (the power, through its main tool, the propaganda, which says who "is" and who "is" not only that, but what and how they are the merits needed to "be" and to "be"). But it also says Ingar Canaparo not simply "not" on the map, but fell him. New synonym for a writer inferred secret: the crash. The simple fact of not being a celebrity is converted to the ominous (re) fall into anonymity.

only so the only surprise that actually generates the majority reader of this book in two volumes is that which arises to note that there may be writers who are not interested be on the official map. All strange that they acknowledge is an eccentricity of not having dedicated his life and efforts not just to be on the literary map, but above all, to avoid falling him. The price of this is terrible, to posterity not interested in these figures but one thing: why not fathom the horror fled, like all of the terrible void of anonymity.

springs here a crucial question: how a secret writer becomes "paradoxical and contradictorily-known? Sometimes it is by one person, usually another secret writer who writes one or more texts with the total certainty of being the only one who knows this author and thus becomes itself "authority" is ie specialist. In the two books mentioned only three names that are repeated: first Elena Poniatowska, a well known writer, and on the other Qorpo-Saint-secret and the Viscount de Lascano Tegui. Does this indicate greater accuracy in the classification of these three writers as "rare"? Or simply means that the call was made to specialists rather random and therefore did not who know and have dealt with the work of these writers secrets (in which case there would be more repetitions) or many others (in which case both books could have been a thousand times more pages)?

is said, perhaps without too much exaggeration, that every writer who comes to the "marquee" (or "candlestick") supersedes its predecessors and represents (or hide) a hundred more that remain in the shadows and that "naturally "fought hard to occupy the same site. Who analyzes the picture from this mentality is based on reasoning that in principle seems false: no writer who voluntarily autodefiniría as "secret." Ergo, the goal of all literature is the marquee, either (at one end) by lust for power or (in another) and need for disclosure. And if all motivations, ethical or not have a single goal, under "secret writer" always comes from outside and involves one whose strategy of power failure (on one end), as well as to the other who does not have the media to advertise (on the other end.)

All writers, then, would be playing the same game, regardless of their motivations: a power play. Part of that game, then, is that every player agrees (more implicit than explicit) that if no "Merit" attributed to it items that would never have chosen for himself or for his work and always come from outside, eccentric, marginal, maverick. All these adjectives are in the same line as crazy, dangerous, forgotten ..., and the latter will go to anyone who wants to play the game, to warn of the dangers running if you really want to leave anonymous. It would be interesting

analyze how the specialists included in these books relate to those who study authors. The analysis will be subjective, no doubt, but still presents a scale ranging from admiration and enthusiasm to scorn and ridicule, and at its midpoint manifests a kind of academic indifference "objective", a large part of the text is in this middle ground, some in need of a "critical distance", others in search for dispassionate portrait it is the reader who form an "opinion." However, since the name of the game for both titles is "eccentric" in almost all texts will be some form of bewilderment: at one end of the scale, this will happen when the devotion of the biographer encounters dark areas or unexplained in life and work of biography, at the other extreme, when you get tired of seeing specialist everything through the lens of the picturesque. Conclusion: there is no language or style capable of describing the real surprise, an area of \u200b\u200bthe spirit for which there is no name (of a hill that is, in essence, unclassifiable). He understood

according to which every writer needs heterodox orthodoxy by force, rests on the truism that even published writers secrets, ie require readers seek recognition. But is it the same? Is it possible to feel a difference, but it is difficult to specify in each case, among the writers who claim to be recognized at all levels, and publishing to find readers in the highest sense of the term? If there is such a difference may perhaps be stated another way: there are writers who speak to be noticed, and there are those who speak because they can not stop saying what they see in the world.

How painful it must be that an unclassifiable writer requires a recognition among readers accustomed to being recognized and being according to a consensus of rigid classifications. What a great loneliness of each writer unorthodox, because by its very definition can not form groups, schools, currents, and in the few cases where, despite everything he has done, fails to form, precisely and to the extent of his honesty groups eccentric , Marginal schools, current atypical , all away from the limelight, the media, on the merits. This is why the vast majority of writers choose to assimilate input to orthodoxy, to play the game of prestige although some of them dislike, make merits of the only established, which usually ends up diluting the artistic power of each ( but at the same time begin convincing them that they have sufficient strength to cross the swamp without getting dirty). How sad, particularly, vengeance perpetrated against which manifests against the Olympic game recognized prestige.

A stunning example of this revenge is offered by a text in the first volume of Locos, eccentric and marginal ... signed by Hervé Le Corre, whose title is "From the rare degenerate (critical psychiatric and modernism)." A title and lost the "seriousness" and become complacent pedantic, condescending paternalism, even unveiled as a sign of intellectual imperialism that is allowed to be commiserate with the strangeness, and this record extends to all the authors collected in these volumes. What remains after reading these books, in addition to the estrangement in the reader? The final image is sadness and noise. Nobody

concerned with the sensational title Locos, eccentric and marginal Latin American literature. In fact, should be chosen carefully to find what is called a "marketing strategy" (ie to sell a book in half fiercely unclassifiable rated). Ultimately this book does not disclose secrets writers, we sell more or less picturesque forms of madness and sometimes, as in the case of Le Corre, striking forms of degeneration. How many of these writers would be horrified to be stuck in the shaker, and above all be appalled at the fact that posterity has ended up designing their visions the world as a degeneration, as eccentricity, such as dementia?

*

[Read quarter.]

* *

Write In Guest Book For A Funeral

unclassifiable writers: the strangeness (second part)

DGD: Landscape 30 (clonografía) 2001

* *

2

* Science speaks of mystery, but it almost always in the tone of what still has not managed to uncover (and added an implied "But there we are") and the latter word is synonymous with winning (hence the phrase as the conquests of science is as usual and festive). Western mentality lists only works if the world and not a real thirst for knowledge but because cataloging equivalent to dominate. It is classified as ordered, standardized, weighed and measured, hence the unclassifiable only be understood as "still has not been pigeonholed in its right place," meaning, "which is on track to be ordained "while it is not, will be watched with a growing distrust (and almost say with growing fear) because it represents the chaos.

The same is true all systems of thought as his positivism encounters prevail areas where the paradoxical, contradictory, ambiguous, the irreducible, these areas are treated as mysteries, enigmas, charades ready to be solved. It happens, of course, in literature, and here we talk about exactly this area uncertain, fleeting, elusive, in which certain writers have sailed, some by fate, others by vocation, almost always out of the channels through which flows so as euphemistically called "mainstream." And although others (some almost impermeable) to the media, from time to time and call them the rescue, which is meritorious, but rarely occurs through an effort of understanding and rescue rather that be done in the same tone in which science speaks of "anomalies" and the religion of "heretical currents, ie, in a word to reinforce the canon.

good example is found in a book published in 1996 titled Atypical in Latin American literature (ILH-CBC Printing Office, UBA, Buenos Aires, 1996, 431 pp.), Edited by Noah Jitrik and joint presentations at a meeting of writers with an aura of "count of the century" every writer invited to this conference talks about some author more or less linked to the strangeness. This "strange literary account of the twentieth century" therefore proposed its own euphemism: "atypical." Among all the items used to refer to the unclassifiable, that is one of the least insulting, but not without its dark area. And is that using the term "atypical" is invoked, automatically, a "local color" as opposed to which we can highlight to the non-typical. Saying "secret writer" implies all those who are not secret, while saying "writer atypical" typical back to everyone else. In reviewing the rate of Atypical in Latin American literature is remarkable that only three of the authors of these trials used the word atypical in their titles, as if the other tests raised a kind of embarrassment, discomfort.

however, why what words have been replaced "atypical"? Sonia Romero Gorski gives your Felisberto Hernández article entitled "Eccentricities at water's edge." Graciela Gliemmo contains the text "We're cool, crazy and dangerous: the Colombian nothingness." Other essayists opt for euphemisms more intricate, well, Ana Maria Zubieta called Arturo Cancela "A best-seller forgotten." But even these texts are included in a book with a specific name that bathes them all, so the reader infers that "atypical" is something between eccentric, brilliant, crazy, dangerous or forgotten.

The volume includes the essay "Antonio Porchia, an inhabitant of the universe" Miguel Espejo, and here, exceptionally, this title produces a curious inversion. Are not we all "inhabitants of the universe", which corresponds to a typical? With that phrase, mirror likes to allude to a simultaneity: the Argentine maestro Antonio Porchia, the most unclassifiable of all authors unclassifiable- Unlike other human beings, living in the universe so ubiquitous, as we knew him his friend and disciple, the Argentinian poet Roberto Juarroz. For a close reading, the title plays with the redundant and obvious in order to rescue the typical and atypical: we are all in the universe, but only a few are really its inhabitants, as was Porchia. However, that finding it enough to single out the text and avoid the cover with the inferences that handle all the others? Is it enough to understand, no need to differentiate Antonio Porchia of other authors anthologized, but that should not be equal to each other through contaminated letterhead?

In the list of authors studied in this book, which like all is incomplete and arbitrarily, it is understood that each of these writers holds a very personal "atipificidad", but still may surprise some readers the inclusion of names as Silvina Ocampo, Elena Poniatowska, Martin Luis Guzman and Juan Gelman, who clearly enjoy the dissemination and prestige that are considered unfairly absent in the other figures studied (the "atypical"). The authors of the respective trials could be argued that, although Ocampo, Poniatowska, Guzman and Gelman are "typical" (ie, within the inference Overall the book are "known"), there are areas where their works that can properly be considered "atypical" within the meaning of parts marginal areas subversive little-known texts that are unorthodox or difficult to understand.

But is not this same reasoning can be applied to any writer "known", and especially the most famous? If accepted "typical writers atypical areas, then why not include Borges, to mention the more immediate example of a celebrity author and typified by unknown on its slopes less studied? Any big name in the literature, therefore, could included in the book. What, then, the "atypical"?

When you say "white" or "black", these concepts are understood as poles of a scale that connects them, are located between "shades of gray" as required by those who reject the "Manichean." The book Atypical in Latin American literature therefore creates a scale that would leave "as at least unusual," but this, instead of arming the reader, inviting and almost forces to establish the scale opposed: the ranging from "most to least typical." Both scales would be connected at a point environment in which writers could be found that are both "less atypical" and "less typical." You can substitute the word and talk about writers' most well-known unknown "," kinder than dangerous, "" more superficial underground "and so on. In that case would Ocampo, Poniatowska, Guzman and Gelman, authors also highlight in an imaginary anthology of the "typical" (anthology undertakes no because then the "typical" is revealed for what it is, a derogatory item.)

But these accommodations are arbitrary in particular cases are examined. Miguel de Cervantes fought to be something more than "the author of Don Quixote ", so did about Michael Ende Neverending Story or Julio Cortázar Rayuela after . Few are the authors 'typical' who have not struggled with the definition (it means to be petrified, boxes, turned predictable), and the result is that the critical uses that attitude with the primary aim of classifying with renewed momentum. Moreover, in the scales of binary thinking every moment increases the understanding that every writer "atypical" necessarily aspire to be established. Is not the term "atypical" most of the criminalization unpunished because it arises from outside, usually on authors who can not defend themselves?

In the world of science, studying the exceptions serve to prove the strength and resilience of the rules, and subsequently to confirm, the same is true when analyzing the literary work of the "atypical." Typically not designed as defined in the dictionary, "characteristic of a type" or "peculiar to a group, country, region, period," but emphatically as the standard . Down with the certainty that only thoroughly discusses the most typical, can be found there a multitude of outliers; there is no exceptions to the rules abound in most monolithic, of no use that heterodoxy is revealed at each step rather than "default" from orthodoxy but as its very foundation. The atypical still looks like chaos, ie the typical threat that is order.

In Atypical in Latin American literature, the presence of Antonio Porchia radiates something that goes beyond casual items such as "atypical" and is translated into something that can only be called strange . Although the text of Miguel Espejo is respectful, choose two brackets: one is the literature other indefinable marginality Antonio Porchia (1885-1968), author of one book, marvelous, called Voices . [1] In the first case, the literary world is seen as a standard that ignores everything that threatens its stability. In the second case with society. In both cases it is an order that is challenged from within by a chaos that can not be understood, and can not be understood because it tends to define the terms of its opposite, order.

In general, all quantities studied in this way suffer large deformations: literature, society, life and work of a particular author. The rule is chained to the "abnormal" the orthodox to unorthodox, rule their defenses, but not in a dialogue, but in a witch hunt. The standard orthodoxy, the rule requiring combat and destroy what questions to finally "mainstream", ie for use as evidence of the strength of the rule, the strength of orthodoxy, the permanence of the established order. The Western mind would collapse if he contemplated the "atypical" independently of the typical, ie with a name that automatically alluded to its opposite. Antonio Porchia's presence in this book, however, pronounce the name: strangeness. And perhaps, even better, estrangement . A stranger who, for once, not measured against the non-strange, but wraps it in the same aura of otherness . Perhaps nothing is more subversive.

* Note

[1] can be seen in this blog, a text devoted to Porchia, clicking here.

* *

[ Read the third part.]

* *

Places To Get A Brazilian Wax In Worcester, Ma

BLOOD IS FIRE AIR

this canvas has shifting names
this canvas changes everyday
so the dreams I dream today
will soon be faint and fade  

my veins unfold and the single line
describes neither river nor path
but a chain of random thoughts
a feeling flow, a stringing row

and blood is air and air is blood
they’ve tied the tightest bond
and every other solid form of love
is just a heavy soar

bleeding my breath away
breathing in my blood
no waste, no glory, no right, no wrong
just a drop after a drop

a drawing of nonsense
drawn with blood and adolescence  
once in hope, in faith, in lust for essence
a line of the hand:
a line of inheritance.   

a dot, a dot, a line.
life’s in-gravity unfold
this red spill is not a story
it’s self explanatory

and blood is air and air is blood
they’ve tied the tightest bond
no waste, no glory, no right, no wrong
just a drop after a drop

I tie my shoelace every morning
I untie it every night
I tie my shoelace every morning
I untie it every night

Table De Multiplication 100 X 100

NURSES

Start a fire, light a crime,
spend a dime on gasoline.
Skip the blame an rise a flame,
feel no shame to strike the scene.

Burn the shelter, kill the deream,
cut the ties and feed the steam.
Press beyond and break the bonds,
get the heat of what is real.

Fire nurses
take care of everything,
Just dial and get your 
Fire nurses deal.
When nothing's to be said
incinerate your fears.

Start a fire, light a crime,
spend a night on gasoline.
Skip the blame an rise a flame,
feel no shame to strike the scene.

Burn the shelter, kill the deream,
cut the ties and feed the steam.
Press beyond and break the bonds,
get the heat of what is real.

That's the way to show you'll take no more,
that's the step it takes to fall,
that's the way to loose control
of all the words that you've been told

That's the way to show you'll take no more
that's the step it takes to fall,
that's the way to loose control
of all the things that you've been told

Desmume Pokemon Gold Stuck

unclassifiable writers: the strangeness (first part)

DGD: Landscape 11 (Clonografía), 2001

*

Valentina, Erick
*

1

*

One of the characteristics of Western binary thinking is the dialectical trap: it is impossible to conceive the "high" without the "low", the "far" without the "close", the "old" without the "modern." Any adjective implies, in contrast to his opponent. Therefore it is said that power depends on your opponents, and only a mentality binary can say with total conviction, that the exception proves the rule. This mechanism is presented, of course, in the field of art. For example, any understatement that tries to qualify the literature "unorthodox" reaffirmed (or recreated) to the Orthodox. When Ruben Dario used the term "rare" to refer to artists be reduced to formulas or currents, not unaware that the same word indirectly devoted to the opposite: non-rare, namely those that were automatically defined as "normal." Even the phrase "secret writer" seems to stand out automatically, like it or not, what is not is secret, that is, to what is disclosed.

* Otherwise, if the word "secret" is dangerous, not only because it seemed to suggest that it is writers who failed to publish but, worse, they hid themselves from the society. In cases where cheating, called "underground" to this stream (from the English name underground) only strengthen the rule of the superficial, but otherwise there might be termed "transparent" to the strange that the literature is a powerful testimony of the unclassifiable, as irreducible of the paradox of the simultaneous.

*
unclassifiable writers talk about here, those who seem more reluctant or resistant to the ratings, but you need to realize that since the term "unclassifiable writers" is itself a classification, just as they are classified unclassifiable. Since acts of inventory, catalog and rank are inevitable for our mentality, which knows only guided by the categories, labels and definitions summary, I have chosen the nickname "unclassifiable writers" not because it is more correct or more just, but because it is the least calls misleading: it is the only one that contains its own negation, the only one to doubt herself openly. The other two are benign, "secret" and "transparent" are not free of ambiguity, the use should be explained that the writers alluded to are not "secrets" because they have hidden (though some have done so deliberately) but because showed no interest in "get noticed" by your company (in this line is but a step to call them "invisible") and if they qualify as "transparent" should be added that it is not because you could see through of them (though metaphorical level is for many of these writers) but did not play that game because of darkness graduates that is called "socioliteraria life."

* (Due to the nature of the topic at hand, none of the benchmarks used here can be understood as fixed and immutable: all are ambiguous and elusive, and contain more exceptions than rules. For example, refusal to participate in the prestigious game of "culture" is not a determinant in any way, some of these writers expressed a categorical rejection of the self, it is true, but others agreed, each in its own way , play that game.)

* There have been many ways of calling, to allude to this form of the strangeness to which these writers represent and embody. Rubén Darío since called "the rare" is the label most commonly used, undoubtedly due to the prestige of the Nicaraguan poet, but as we have seen, this name is not free of uncertainty and trap, nor are the most common, including "heterodox" and "underground." Almost every critic who is interested in these figures suggests new euphemisms for no one not realize that all these formulas fail when try to refer to these persons sui generis .

*

When any media used clichés like the phrase "writer of repute", jump behind something like an authority that seems completely independent of the media: if something is mentioned with respect (although it is formal and purely procedural), and if these terms are repeated, is raised in the hear an understatement for "For something to be." Any reference about what recognized is always thinking that happens in an abstract world, pure, dispassionate, in which recognition is given by itself, "by own merits, and therefore does not depend, as it actually happens, "an avalanche of social, cultural, political, and especially mechanisms of propaganda and publicity, as in the case of any" product. "

* We know that propaganda and advertising is based on repetition: the more one repeats a name most likely to increase the collective memory to hold it. Repetition generates recognition: the "product" is beginning to be recognized, ie, begins to have prestige, which is what is meant as popularity. The media make us inferred that if a name is repeated is "on merit", and certainly so in many cases, but the accent is not on merit but on the consensus that defines what is meritorious and what is not. And that consensus is very simple: it is commendable that repeats and repeats what is praiseworthy. We, the supposed beneficiaries of the media (in fact we are their customers), we know that the media can not cover everything and make a selection. The funny thing is that, although we suspect that in this selection "nor are all who are or are all those" while we think they are, are , and those not, not deserve to exist (exist is to have the merits necessary to "be in the public eye.")

* We know that information is selective and discriminatory, but we believe sufficient to meet the media for its information: the media can not cover all boast of what is happening in the world anytime, anywhere, and not even try, not understanding that we do not mention what does not exist, but that is not worth that has no merit, that has not been recognized by the consensus. Therefore, we do not mind ignoring everything that does not have enough prestige, that is, lacking the necessary merit to be "in the spotlight." Shine, be noticeable or recognizable is the coveted goal or "success", the flaw involves the dreaded "failure": not being able to emerge from obscurity and anonymity.

* And since anyone can draw attention from the extravagance, or the squalid rant (there is the stereotypical story of Herostratus, allegedly burned the Library of Alexandria in order to achieve the persistence of its name), there are strict rules for the "ascension", ie to demonstrate the merits. Who does not follow that the Decalogue (based on when lust, cannibalism, and the double standard) not get official recognition and beyond the canon .

* There is another inference, even more aggressive: that perhaps the author had a certain prestige in "their" time, but he has lost and therefore no longer "in force", ie no longer belongs to "current affairs" has lost interference in the present, which means it is out of history. Here another greedy commonplace acts referred to progression prestige / fame / glory "is worse having had and lost than never have had."

*

The big word that relates to this is "success." The language of the media and its implications clearly show that when using that word is not spoken of a human triumph, artistic or spiritual, but a victory of the individual's ability to get noticed and convince the consensus of the value and authority of the work personal. The understatement is overwhelming: he does not take that tremendous struggle against anonymity, devoid of all authority (if not claim for itself the roost , nobody is going to grant it, but not if it does not accepted the terms and following the stringent rules set to claim a place in the cultural milieu). And in the rhetoric of power that governs the West, there is no greater contradiction that of an author without authority .

*

can imagine that for every act or event mentioned by the media there are countless events that they do not collect, in this vast body of negligible (which comes with the media, as is understood, it significant ) are, perhaps, many events that could be called insignificant, but also others who could help to redefine the table of values \u200b\u200bdetermined for the media what they mean and what does not. This vast and uncertain territory No Man's Land is the media that ranges from "negligible" to "not significant priority."

* Large inference can be treated here only in passing is that it exemplifies a commonplace among anthropologists: "The happy people have no history." Just story that involves the opposite of "happiness" (as defined deceptively fragile and as is its opposite), conflict, devastation, disaster, tragedy. Not free the link between history and prey (or between happiness and insignificance) and, in fact, it comes from one of the largest media vendetta against the unclassifiable. A shady implied implies that the "happy people" are not developed or evolved and are alien to progress. The word "happiness" in this context, inferred primitivism. In a word, the phrase "happy people" means they are stupid, because intelligence is bitterness and cynicism, or is not. This is the league that is usually done between writers and unclassifiable naive.

* For all this to Henry Miller comes to exclaim:

*

be silent all day, not seeing any newspaper, not to hear any radio, not hear any gossip absolutely and completely abandoned laziness, to be utterly and completely indifferent to the fate of the world, is the finest medicine you can take. Slowly release the book culture, problems melt and dissolve, the ligámenes break, thought, when you surrender to it worthy, it is very primitive, the body is transformed into a wonderful new instrument, is look at the plants, rocks and fish with different eyes, one wonders what led the frantic struggles that men are involved [...]. Newspapers beget lies, hatred, greed, envy, suspicion, fear, malice. We do not need the truth as he serves us the daily press. What we need is peace, solitude and leisure. [ Colossus of Maroussi, 1941.]

* "How irresponsible!" Snapped the man with half , unable to conceive of someone who does not want to be "aware" what happens in the world. But Miller does not talk about irresponsible, quite the opposite: grasping what could be the guy if you get rid of what the media with him (we are not aware of the world but in the current media): only then could truly engage with the world. Miller, the great unclassifiable, know that we are only committed to the media, that is, with the reality they present, that what we call the world is the image built expressly to build the man who must inhabit. Miller's work is testimony to his intense commitment, the impulse that leads incorruptible not narcissistic self-gratification but to the need of redefinition, beginning with the words peace (a waiver of the wars of all kinds which is the daily) alone (a rejection of gregariousness compact needed to keep intact the pyramid of power) and leisure (a claim of interior space and time to which the prevailing image of the world attacks and numbing).

* *

*

[An abbreviated version of this text (fully presented here,

in several parts) was read in the context of XXXII International Book Fair

Palace Mining, March 5, 2011.]

* * *

[ Read the second part.]

* *