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.]

* *