August 2nd, 2010 / 12:23 pm
Author News
Christopher Higgs
Author News
Shipley, Gary J. Theoretical Animals. (2010)
Was I able to understand this book? – No.
Did I think it was an enriching reading experience? – Yes, absolutely. It’s beautiful. I want to roll around in it. I want to swing from its branches.
— from David F. Hoenigman’s review in 3AM Magazine
Available now from BlazeVox
Tags: Gary J. Shipley, Theoretical Animals
I stubbornly assert my argument that it A) requires more craft and will B) prove more rewarding, for the reader/audience, finally, if the writer produces material that *appears* to make more “sense” on the surface (with a cursory reading) yet reveals mad depths on closer inspection. I mean: which is the Bravest New Creature: a sack of warm, bloody guts… or the thing that almost looks like a (wo)man (but isn’t)?
This looks great, in its way… it looks pretty. But I think the “avant garde” is eating itself and excreting twee.
“Shipley’s writing is important because it’s a fearless attempt to advance the art of literature.”
By performing Cormac McCarthy re-writing Dylan’s “Tarantula”…? Depth of reference aids the critic and writer alike, I think.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7ZhY6BDNXWMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
I stubbornly assert my argument that it A) requires more craft and will B) prove more rewarding, for the reader/audience, finally, if the writer produces material that *appears* to make more “sense” on the surface (with a cursory reading) yet reveals mad depths on closer inspection. I mean: which is the Bravest New Creature: a sack of warm, bloody guts… or the thing that almost looks like a (wo)man (but isn’t)?
This looks great, in its way… it looks pretty. But I think the “avant garde” is eating itself and excreting twee.
“Shipley’s writing is important because it’s a fearless attempt to advance the art of literature.”
By performing Cormac McCarthy re-writing Dylan’s “Tarantula”…? Depth of reference aids the critic and writer alike, I think.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7ZhY6BDNXWMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Added to the list. Thanks, Chris!
Added to the list. Thanks, Chris!
What a shame it’d be to always dismiss that which doesn’t “make more sense on the surface”.
What wonderful books, paintings, movies, music, people and experiences you’d be missing out on.
There are
so many things
you can learn about.
BUT…you’ll miss
the best things
if you keep
your eyes shut.
– Dr. Seuss
“What a shame it’d be to always dismiss that which doesn’t ‘make more sense on the surface’.”
It’s a strange maneuver to use quotation marks when what you’re doing is paraphrasing me, David. Rather than re-iterate (and therefore dilute) my first comment, I’ll direct you to my second, and ask: how is what Shipley is doing here an improvement on what Dylan did (in a self-confessed half-assed way) with Tarantula… more than 40 years ago? Were you aware of Tarantula before you read Theoretical Animals?
I think that nuance distinguishes literary works within a general category/genre: how is nuance even detectable (as opposed to projected) in a pre-grammatical text?
Further: it’s a category error on a fundamental level to lump texts in with films, music, painting, etc. Texts are made of language and language only exists (even “magically”) as a communication of “meaning”. Reading a pre-grammatical text is akin to looking at a painting with your eyes closed or listening to music with your ears thoroughly plugged… the smell of the painting, or the vibration of the music is all that remains and that’s the equivalent of a jumble of pre-grammatical word-clusters.
There may be something exquisite in that to a mandarin sensibility but there’s no mandarin sensibility on earth than can distinguish the smell of every Picasso painting from every other and truthfully claim to be edified by the effort.
The general use of the “avant garde” is more, these days, to make a statement about one’s Lifestyle choices… which is the sign of a thoroughly-domesticated “avant garde”. When did Inconsequentiality and Boredom become the so-called avant-garde’s favorite weapons?
I think the current Anglophone so-called avant garde is manifesting the political symptoms of the cultural trauma of the past several decades and is stunted and impotent in its Tweeness. Or maybe that’s just what happens when you teach “avant garde” in college.
There are snatches of beauty to be had in the pre-grammatical clustering of words and phrases but mere snatches of beauty don’t add up; they remain isolated and fleeting and much easier to generate than cumulative assaults on Hegemony. It’s telling that you cite Dr. Seuss. Dr. Seuss is for children. The Warlords who own and run this culture consider it to be in their best interest to infantilize Art and Artists and I think they’ve succeeded in doing so. I’m not arguing for polemic: I’m arguing for greater sophistication. Your review describes an unsophisticated artifact (again: see Tarantula).
Preemptive aside: if anyone can express excitement about a text based on a review and two excerpts, someone can therefore express the opposite.
What a shame it’d be to always dismiss that which doesn’t “make more sense on the surface”.
What wonderful books, paintings, movies, music, people and experiences you’d be missing out on.
There are
so many things
you can learn about.
BUT…you’ll miss
the best things
if you keep
your eyes shut.
– Dr. Seuss
“What a shame it’d be to always dismiss that which doesn’t ‘make more sense on the surface’.”
It’s a strange maneuver to use quotation marks when what you’re doing is paraphrasing me, David. Rather than re-iterate (and therefore dilute) my first comment, I’ll direct you to my second, and ask: how is what Shipley is doing here an improvement on what Dylan did (in a self-confessed half-assed way) with Tarantula… more than 40 years ago? Were you aware of Tarantula before you read Theoretical Animals?
I think that nuance distinguishes literary works within a general category/genre: how is nuance even detectable (as opposed to projected) in a pre-grammatical text?
Further: it’s a category error on a fundamental level to lump texts in with films, music, painting, etc. Texts are made of language and language only exists (even “magically”) as a communication of “meaning”. Reading a pre-grammatical text is akin to looking at a painting with your eyes closed or listening to music with your ears thoroughly plugged… the smell of the painting, or the vibration of the music is all that remains and that’s the equivalent of a jumble of pre-grammatical word-clusters.
There may be something exquisite in that to a mandarin sensibility but there’s no mandarin sensibility on earth than can distinguish the smell of every Picasso painting from every other and truthfully claim to be edified by the effort.
The general use of the “avant garde” is more, these days, to make a statement about one’s Lifestyle choices… which is the sign of a thoroughly-domesticated “avant garde”. When did Inconsequentiality and Boredom become the so-called avant-garde’s favorite weapons?
I think the current Anglophone so-called avant garde is manifesting the political symptoms of the cultural trauma of the past several decades and is stunted and impotent in its Tweeness. Or maybe that’s just what happens when you teach “avant garde” in college.
There are snatches of beauty to be had in the pre-grammatical clustering of words and phrases but mere snatches of beauty don’t add up; they remain isolated and fleeting and much easier to generate than cumulative assaults on Hegemony. It’s telling that you cite Dr. Seuss. Dr. Seuss is for children. The Warlords who own and run this culture consider it to be in their best interest to infantilize Art and Artists and I think they’ve succeeded in doing so. I’m not arguing for polemic: I’m arguing for greater sophistication. Your review describes an unsophisticated artifact (again: see Tarantula).
Preemptive aside: if anyone can express excitement about a text based on a review and two excerpts, someone can therefore express the opposite.
So if we all agree to read that book by that Bob Dylan fellow, afterwards we’re allowed to express interest in Theoretical Animals?
The book by that Dylan fellow is bullshit. Which was my point ( “(in a self-confessed half-assed way)” ). Anyway: do whatever ye will whenever ye will it, Dave! Don’t give a fuck. Have a good one.
So if we all agree to read that book by that Bob Dylan fellow, afterwards we’re allowed to express interest in Theoretical Animals?
The book by that Dylan fellow is bullshit. Which was my point ( “(in a self-confessed half-assed way)” ). Anyway: do whatever ye will whenever ye will it, Dave! Don’t give a fuck. Have a good one.
[…] admit that BlazeVOX has published a few books I’ve loved (and written about or run promos for here), but this sort of pay-to-publish policy seriously threatens to diminish the press’s […]