Craft Notes
Tao Lin on the Future of the Novel
At the Observer, Tao Lin considers the future of the novel.
“I feel less pressured to consider, engage with or respond to the development or advancement of the novel than to undistractedly view each possible novel as uniquely occupying an area on something spherical (like how humans on a round Earth don’t feel able to “advance” by walking in the correct direction, unlike they would in a side-scrolling video game or flat world, unless they’ve self-defined a goal like to live in Manhattan, but are required to be “productive” in other ways), where, though, as conscious beings with urges created by evolution, the default mode of perception is to distort it into a line, to discern an illusion of progress or direction.”
What do you think.
Tags: Future of the novel, Tao Lin
tao lin is a jackass.
I like the phrase “perhaps to give the illusion that the essay isn’t personal taste stated as objective rule.”
I like the phrase “perhaps to give the illusion that the essay isn’t personal taste stated as objective rule.”
Why do people keep asking Tao Lin to make aesthetic judgments/predictions when most of his answers in this “realm” are insistently as “neutral” as possible.
This answer is a non-answer is what I think? I mean I am a-ok with Tao Lin not actually having an opinion here, that is totally cool. But why do we need 400 places that have us telling him he doesn’t have any opinion on these things over and over again?
Why do people keep asking Tao Lin to make aesthetic judgments/predictions when most of his answers in this “realm” are insistently as “neutral” as possible.
This answer is a non-answer is what I think? I mean I am a-ok with Tao Lin not actually having an opinion here, that is totally cool. But why do we need 400 places that have us telling him he doesn’t have any opinion on these things over and over again?
“It’s all about, me, me, me. Please, look at me! Love me! Want me!”
he’s a complete narcissist and always manages to turn aesthetic judgements/predictions to turn an essay of such a theme into a ‘statement’ about about how art is subjective to try and dispel any critical opinions about his own writing.
Also, for someone without an opinion, he seems to care about the opinions of others by trying to create an illusion of saying something without saying a single intelligent thing. It’s all in the structure of his writing that tricks people. pay attention to how this essay is built and you’ll see right through it.
lol noumenal being used a bunch of times for a ‘neutral’ guy with ‘no opinion’
I understand his point of view in that quote and believe his viewpoint to be ultimately true, interpret that as you will. I have some interest in engaging with other past novels if and when I write a novel, but I don’t think I would make that a primary conscious concern, and I reject the notion of advancement, progress, direction of the novel. The other common viewpoints I see on the topic seem to me those of manufacturers of historical narrative and/or propagandists for some aesthetic tendency.
It seems relevant, if one wishes to talk about the essay in a logical manner, to note that Tao is careful throughout to avoid the common tendency of presenting personal taste/viewpoint as objective truth or argument-with-implied-supremacy. So in some sense, any judgment of the essay in the context of “is he right about the future of the novel” is illogical (and indeed, no one can ever be right about the future of the novel; further, I highly doubt most people are actually trying to predict so much as root for a team/tendency). “I don’t like his taste [and/or viewpoint]” would be a logical subjective statement; “he is wrong” would be illogical.
as soon as we start to think of advancement, we think of what is “better” instead of thinking of what is “different.” it makes more sense to see things as changing, rather than see things as always being improved. yet we’ve been trained to think otherwise: that life is the movement from worse to better. that the movement of time is a movement which tracks progress. that the world is in constant need of improving. i don’t think tao’s position here is neutral. i think it is one that is, or has the possibility of being, deeply felt (i’m not sure about Tao himself, of course). when one stops looking at stuff as being worse and being better, then one stops trying to improve, which typically leads to fucking shit up. one just does. what i see tao doing here is taking a buddhist/taoist-like way of seeing the world and applying that to literature. there is no way to improve the world, things just change. there is no way to improve the novel, novels just change. i don’t believe one can compare faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury to something written today and go “wow, that faulkner book is okay, but the new book sure shows how much better the novel now is, how advanced it has gotten.”
i’ve only started a book Ken has recommended, A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History, but I’m reminded of De Landa some here.
i don’t subscribe Tao’s idea that there is no good and bad in art though. i feel like he takes his eastern detachment thing too far. some books just suck. that is a whole other thing though.
strike “and believe his viewpoint to be ultimately true […]” –that doesn’t apply to that quote
or something
real quick: dude, i never thanked you for the rec on some art books. i bought both volumes of Art Since 1900 and they rock it. many thanknesses. exactly what i was looking for.
Here’s the thing about Tao Lin: there’s this parallel between Tao and Tyler the Creator (who, by the way, is not all that great) where they’re both famous for being mildly different and neither of them are all that interested in [italics] pleasing [italics] (read: fellating) their general audience, which causes people to alternately set their little typing fingers into a vengeful frenzy on comments sections of websites that dare speak either of their name; or to sit in their bedrooms and quietly spooge themselves at the deep internal eroticism (like your soul being filled with fresh-from-the-drier-blankets) of daring to like something that (ostensibly) no one else does (though in reality lots of other people are quietly spooging themselves alone in their rooms over owning something by Tao/Tyler as you read this (if you read this)(take a second to think about all that quiet spooging)).
Anyhow, Richard Yates was good. I think nearly every other page in my copy has “Tao Lin is kind of an asshole” penciled in the margins.
Oh, and I also thought Tao’s response was pretty clever, and I respect his dedication to being gratingly obnoxious.
Salim:
what makes someone a narcissist / does the viewpoint of this essay put you in the mind of narcissism, i.e. this essay is not judging any one tendency better than another, but affirms the uniqueness (and one could infer the specialness if one chose) of every novel (each written by a person, thus every person, by inference…)–does such an essay demonstrate narcissism–has it occurred to you tao may be a highly logical person or one who is at peace with what is
Who said he doesn’t have an opinion / this essay contains many opinions, presented as such
He says many things, they are all said with a high degree of coherence, in my opinion, and said in a manner that demonstrates a high degree of intelligence/perspective, in my opinion. Perhaps you are objectively incorrect
What trick / How is this essay built that contributes to or creates trickery
“i know many terms but [sometimes] speak in concrete specifics” – Tao Lin
Have you considered Tao has many different qualities as a writer
I don’t consider Tao “neutral” and, as stated above, he has opinions and has expressed them, here and elsewhere.
Expressing one’s subjective opinion, advancing one’s agenda with the most rhetorical grandstanding, the most force or panache does not make one more intelligent, more respectable, or “better” than someone who sees such a display for what it is (to a greater degree than anything one ever does, a power grab/self-aggrandizement in the face of metaphorical and then actual death) and does something else–offers perspective, facts, and opinions stated as such, and not in opposition or as adversarial to other opinions–does not make such a person “neutral.” There is no argument to win. There is no winning. You can understand the game or not, you can play it or not. You can play it different ways. It is possible to have opinions, have passion and temper the urge to impose or inflate, while still potentially communicating and inspiring, as Tao has done in this essay.
“his eastern detachment thing” sweet
For clarity I should probably point out that I only read the quote, not the whole article here.
“There is no winning. ” is basically something I want to say constantly to everyone on the internet ever.
Also, I should state, regarding my comment above, that I am wrong, of course, when I say “I am a-ok with Tao Lin not actually having an opinion here,” because like you say, this neutrality (“willingness” to be more positive about it I suppose) is an opinion.
hello
haha. i know. my dog is staring at me with insane eastern detachment right now.
“and I reject the notion of advancement, progress, direction of the novel.”
It’s interesting to me that you put it this way, because I think it really sort of contextualizes the idea of the novel within (everybody’s favorite theorist’s) D + G’s rhizomatic approach to The World. It seems like it’s true, but the sort of willingness presented in D+G’s approach to the rhizome (in my reading) seems to be more against a sort of hierarchy oh power (i.e. The Canon / What Is Important) & within an interest of giving more of a presence to the invisible, insisting that A is not automatically less than B– which perhaps is the sentiment here, though (and I’m not passing a judgment here) I’m inclined to see both Tao’s sentiment above and yours right here a sort of detached sense of “you can do what you want in life,” which I think is a good over-arching ideology to have (I obviously subscribe to it), but I think if you muddle the idea of that with a disengagement with the capacity for these different modes of the novel, it’s just as absent of an engagement as, you know, like denying anything outside of the hegemony? It strikes me as a sort of active disengagement if we’re not probing difference, instead just insisting that “there is a difference” and that is the bottom line.
“sweet
read with high levels of interest throughout”
wise words from someone who would know
“‘Thought catalog’ published a ‘piece’ by me.”
“Paper published a graph by me.”
this comment is more confusing to me than tao’s quote
“‘Thought catalog’ republished a ‘piece’ by me.”
i have thought of ideas as wheels for a while, actually, specifically as gigantic hula hoops; novels are one way an idea can exist; tao is talking about something buckminster fuller talked about, and yes i agree with them
Hi Mike :) Also, yeah, I think there are definitely opinions/ aesthetic preferences in the article, though mostly somewhat vague and implicit. The overall philosophy could be viewed as neutrality, although I view it more as perspective and rigorous logic mixed with a certain detachment, which to me isn’t the same thing.
reading tao’s quote has helped me in broad ways and i feel better now.
I do accept and promote that ideology, Mike (“you can do what you want in life”), but I see my statement about advancement, progress, direction of the novel as primarily a logical appraisal of the observable facts about novels–the uniqueness of each work of art even within certain traditions or tendencies as they are codified, the variety of novels produced at any time, the lack of any consistent direction or evolution to novels, the admixture of elements and tendencies present in all novels, the reductiveness of any historical narrative of the novel or historical situating of a particular novel, etc. At the same time, I mean it to reflect my attraction to the idea of the oneness of things, which is not of time or kind or difference. I have aesthetic preferences, and I could guess as to why, and I enjoy having them and sometimes thinking about them, but I also affirm a oneness. I am both
I think what this article does most importantly is dispel the myth, fabricated by the likes of Tom and Tobias Wolffe, that the “future of the novel” can even be accurately predicted (Bible Code Methodology aside).
For that, at least, I’m thankful.
I prefer something like a spherical progress. Like a Hegelian Indra’s Net that inexorably expands in every direction while every expansion simultaneously informs and expands (and negates and synthesizes) all previous expansions.
i think he’s falling into the trap he’s warning against a bit. his alternative to linear progress is also objectifying, and it seems to me that he thinks that what he writes somehow exists in vaccuum, with other writings floating around in there. this is crazy solipsistic. sitting on the the same coin as linear progression, just on the other side of it.
what i was saying was something like progress in infinite directions. without thinking of infinite “progression lines”. no progress without negation, for instance. a current writer alters previous writers who have already altered them, “they create their own precursors” (borges)
then again we may be secretly speaking the same language. i suspect parmenides (movement is impossible) and heraclitus (nothing exists except for movement) were secretly speaking the same language.
I like this essay.
kb, you misrepresent what tao says in the essay. he doesn’t warn against any traps. he presents what his orientation is and is not toward the concept of the future of the novel and elaborates on same, offering what he sees as facts as well as viewpoints and opinions with explanations and qualifications. he makes no statement about the status of his own writing, implied or explicit, nor does he make a statement as to anyone’s writing existing in a vacuum. no solipsism is displayed in this essay, arguably; rather, things external to him are considered, abstract concepts, and he presents his viewpoint toward concrete things as well as these abstractions.
i am attracted to seeming contradictions along the lines of the parmenides/heraclitus you mention here
also, not necessarily as directed at you, kb, but often handy in times of rhetoric: http://thoughtcatalog.com/2010/%E2%80%9Cunable-to-process-neutral-statements-as-neutral%E2%80%9D-hamster/
I think the opinion expressed is that influence, progress, and development, as abstractions, are less useful than encounters with specific literary works. I am glad that Tao consistently repeats answers (“aesthetic judgments”) like this because shifting critical emphasis away from influence and development might produce a less-Bloomian/Paterian approach to Literature, an approach which is useful for comprehensibility, but which stifles creative productivity and, in it’s selectivity, ignores equally important aspects of—as Tao might put it— [the world].
I think the opinion expressed is that influence, progress, and development, as abstractions, are less useful than encounters with specific literary works. I am glad that Tao consistently repeats answers (“aesthetic judgments”) like this because shifting critical emphasis away from influence and development might produce a less-Bloomian/Paterian approach to Literature, an approach which is useful for comprehensibility, but which stifles creative productivity and, in it’s selectivity, ignores equally important aspects of—as Tao might put it— [the world].
I wish Jimmy Chen would come paste the definition of didactic here.
I wish Jimmy Chen would come paste the definition of didactic here.
[Paris Review] INTERVIEWER
Do you think literary criticism is at all purposeful? Either in general, or specifically about your own books? Is it ever instructive?
NABOKOV
The purpose of a critique is to say something about a book the critic has or has not read. Criticism can be instructive in the sense that it gives readers, including the author of the book, some information about the critic’s intelligence, or honesty, or both.
I don’t think that ‘thinking about one’s feelings/ideas’ or ‘trying to control one’s celebrity’ are evidence of “narcissism”, because, while centered on oneself, these actions are healthily, normally, and even rationally self-centered
I don’t think tao lin is more or more egregiously self-promotional than most people who put things in front of other people
tao lin’s evasions are, to me, grating – sometimes gratingly sophistical – without being “obnoxious”
it is a pleasure, to me, to try to understand and to say why I think his attempts to express a non-partisan perspective are doomed to expressing partiality
for example, after tao lin quotes zadie smith about “lyrical Realism”, he reports that: “I’m confused why she believes [lyrical Realism] might not survive if it’s currently dominating the culture.”
because zadie smith doesn’t say that “lyrical Realism” is “dominating the culture”, I think that tao lin is not “confused”, but rather is disingenuously smuggling a criticism of zadie smith’s perspective into his account of that perspective
but I don’t think perspective and conflict between perspectives are avoidable or morally reprobate
(just because one believes that ‘there is nothing to win’, or even that there is nothing to win, those are no evidence of the neutrality of any perspective; to the contrary, perspective itself is practice ‘against’ neutrality
salim, you will notice how competitive are people who say ‘there is no winning’
is this what you mean by “trying to create an illusion”?)
why not accept tao lin’s point/s of view as having its/their uses, and disclose to oneself (and to others, if one has a taste for that) why the self-understanding of that utility might be unsatisfactory with respect to the desiderata (in all demonstration of understanding) of logical consistency and empirical verification
haha deadgod. cheers
Zadie Smith does in fact say that [a breed of] lyrical Realism “has had the freedom of the highway for some time now, with most other exits blocked.” this can be interpreted as “dominating the culture.” I think Tao thinks Zadie is implying the possibility (unlikely to him given its dominance, as asserted by Zadie in the part I just quoted) that lyrical realism might die out “naturally,” as it were. i would suggest that instead Zadie is implying that her essay, McCarthy’s novel, and the influence of various other people reacting negatively to what she see as the staleness of lyrical realism could and moreover maybe “should” lead to lyrical realism dying out or becoming much less popular and dominant in the culture. so she is saying “lyrical realism has been dominant; there is another path; probably we should follow that other path; however, i for one hope a *better* lyrical realism survives, in some form, because i might still want to write in that style.”
Tao? So, why is this belief in “noumena” and “phenomena” necessary for existence, experience, and evaluation? Could you not have attempted to predict a future for the novel without using antiquated terms employed by Plato and Kant–and severely critiqued by Nietzsche?
Furthermore, and, more specifically, why is such a belief needed for a prediction of the future without future of the novel? A future that is always already more than one? And why only one future? And why only one novel? And what, precisely, is a novel? I would guess that in order to predict the future of the novel, one would have to know what a novel is? I don’t get the sense–in this essay–that you do? Which isn’t to say that I–or anybody else, for that matter–might know. But, it might help to know what a novel is when attempting to predict the future of it.
What is also strangely familiar about the logic of this essay is the a priori status assigned to the “noumena.” Once again, why did you privilege such a concept, such a belief? And why is it necessary for a determination of the future of the novel? About which, almost anything can be said? Both the future–and the novel–are wide open, for now.
The notion that language–or noises–derive from the “mystery” of “noumena” is both causal and conventional. Why did you decide to make the foundation of language causal? And why so conventional? And why intricate it with the notion of “noumena?” And not with mystery itself–in all its messiness and uncertainty?
“Tao? So, why is this belief in “noumena” and “phenomena” necessary for existence, experience, and evaluation? Could you not have attempted to predict a future for the novel without using antiquated terms employed by Plato and Kant–and severely critiqued by Nietzsche? ”
i don’t think it is necessary
i think i thought about things and then chose to view existence as, for me, being comprised of concrete reality and something that is not concrete reality
i could have used new terms like ‘fia’jefaioefjaef’ or ‘aoraeijraeoiraje’ or something but i chose to use ‘world of noumenon’
“Furthermore, and, more specifically, why is such a belief needed for a prediction of the future without future of the novel?”
i don’t think it isn’t ‘needed’
i think i chose to think about it in that manner
“A future that is always already more than one? And why only one future? And why only one novel? And what, precisely, is a novel?”
i don’t know what you mean by ‘already more than one’
i think i defined what a novel was, to me, and in the context of the essay, in part 2 of the essay
“I would guess that in order to predict the future of the novel, one would have to know what a novel is? I don’t get the sense–in this essay–that you do?”
‘novel’ can, and does, mean something different for every person
in terms of the essay i defined it, in part 2, so that people and myself would know what i was referring to whenever i used the word ‘novel’
“What is also strangely familiar about the logic of this essay is the a priori status assigned to the “noumena.” Once again, why did you privilege such a concept, such a belief?”
‘noumenon’ could have been described as ‘world of abstraction’ or ‘non-physical world,’ or something like that, but, in part, i felt that i wanted to retain the definitions of ‘abstraction’ and ‘non-physical’ as something other than ‘world of noumenon’
i felt like i wanted to have something to refer to ‘world of noumenon’ and i chose to use ‘world of noumenon’ because in my view, based on what i’ve read, people will less be likely to feel confused that i’m referring to something else
“And why is it necessary for a determination of the future of the novel?”
it isnt necessary, i don’t feel that anything is necessary unless a context and a goal are defined
i’m not necessary, the essay isn’t necessary, unless a context and a goal are defined, and, in the essay, they aren’t, i think
necessity requires ‘if-ness,’ i think
if i want to eat a pineapple, and the pineapple is in the refrigerator, then it will be necessary for me to move my body or for someone else to move their body to bring me the pineapple, for example
“The notion that language–or noises–derive from the “mystery” of “noumena” is both causal and conventional. Why did you decide to make the foundation of language causal?”
i don’t think i said in the essay that language ‘derives from’ ‘the “mystery” of “noumena”‘
i think humans have urges to avoid pain and feel pleasure, to satisfy themselves by eating or being physically comfortable, to do things that will lead to reproduction, to avoid sadness, etc., and that language can help them in these things, so they learn language, among other reasons
“And why so conventional?”
when thinking about the things i thought about for the essay i didn’t think ‘is this conventional’ before thinking things
“And why intricate it with the notion of ‘noumena?'”
i first thought about how i exist, and what i experience while existing, and i thought that i experience things with the five senses, but i also have a private experience of something that isn’t sensed with the five senses, and i decided to use ‘world of noumenon’ to define that
after thinking about what i experience i thought about where language comes from and why people learn it and use it
“And not with mystery itself–in all its messiness and uncertainty?”
from part 2 of the essay:
“It’s unknown why we don’t exist only in the world of noumenon but are forced to endure, or perhaps gifted—though vaguely, almost mischievously—an amount of time, between birth and death, in concrete reality.
To articulate and discuss this mystery, and to do (1) and (2) below, humans have—through a kind of baton-passing, over hundreds of generations—developed different noises (and symbols for these noises) with functionally agreed-upon meanings.”
“Tao? So, why is this belief in “noumena” and “phenomena” necessary for existence, experience, and evaluation? Could you not have attempted to predict a future for the novel without using antiquated terms employed by Plato and Kant–and severely critiqued by Nietzsche? ”
i don’t think it is necessary
i think i thought about things and then chose to view existence as, for me, being comprised of concrete reality and something that is not concrete reality
i could have used new terms like ‘fia’jefaioefjaef’ or ‘aoraeijraeoiraje’ or something but i chose to use ‘world of noumenon’
Perhaps. But, if you don’t think it is necessary, then why did you think it was necessary to use such a concept or belief? I mean, like you said, you could have used “‘fia’jefaioefjaef’ or ‘aoraeijraeoiraje’ or something” but you decided to use “world of noumena.” Why?
At the same time, you did decide to view the world as “being comprised of concrete reality and something not concrete reality.” Why is this duality necessary for a prediction about the future of the novel? Is it possible to think about the future of the novel “outside” of dualistic thinking? If so, why did you decide to think the future of the novel within the terms you decided to use? Especially, if you could have–by your own admission–used anything, or any term, to wonder about the future of the novel?
“Furthermore, and, more specifically, why is such a belief needed for a prediction of the future without future of the novel?”
i don’t think it isn’t ‘needed’
i think i chose to think about it in that manner
But, why? You could have chosen anything? You could have chosen to think in any manner you wanted? But, instead, you decided to use more conventional terms, terms with histories and understandings that are much more conceptually messy than neat. Why?
“A future that is always already more than one? And why only one future? And why only one novel? And what, precisely, is a novel?”
i don’t know what you mean by ‘already more than one’
i think i defined what a novel was, to me, and in the context of the essay, in part 2 of the essay
Well, for me, there is always possibility in the unknown. The future is not always equivalent to the unknown. But, there is much about the future that cannot be predicted. Thus, there is always the possibility–even built within the same future–of more than one future. The power to decide grants us at least that much. But, even when we do decide something–as you decided to use “noumena” and “phenomena”–there is always room for the unpredictable internal to our decision and it trajectory.
You know, I read both parts of the essay. And I’m still unclear what your definition of a novel is for you. Maybe you could point it out for me?
“I would guess that in order to predict the future of the novel, one would have to know what a novel is? I don’t get the sense–in this essay–that you do?”
‘novel’ can, and does, mean something different for every person
in terms of the essay i defined it, in part 2, so that people and myself would know what i was referring to whenever i used the word ‘novel’
I agree. What constitutes a novel may be different for a lot of people. But, I’m still unclear what a novel means to you? So, what exactly is a novel?
“What is also strangely familiar about the logic of this essay is the a priori status assigned to the “noumena.” Once again, why did you privilege such a concept, such a belief?”
‘noumenon’ could have been described as ‘world of abstraction’ or ‘non-physical world,’ or something like that, but, in part, i felt that i wanted to retain the definitions of ‘abstraction’ and ‘non-physical’ as something other than ‘world of noumenon’
i felt like i wanted to have something to refer to ‘world of noumenon’ and i chose to use ‘world of noumenon’ because in my view, based on what i’ve read, people will less be likely to feel confused that i’m referring to something else
Okay. But, like you said above, you could have decided to use different terms to predict the future of the novel. If you have not decided to use “noumena,” do you really think you could have written about the future of the novel? I mean, it seems obvious to me, that you don’t believe that the future of the novel depends on “noumena,” or your use of word “noumena.” But, something else. Something much more mysterious?
“And why is it necessary for a determination of the future of the novel?”
it isnt necessary, i don’t feel that anything is necessary unless a context and a goal are defined
i’m not necessary, the essay isn’t necessary, unless a context and a goal are defined, and, in the essay, they aren’t, i think
necessity requires ‘if-ness,’ i think
if i want to eat a pineapple, and the pineapple is in the refrigerator, then it will be necessary for me to move my body or for someone else to move their body to bring me the pineapple, for example
That’s strange. If what is necessary requires “if-ness,” then it seems to require that which is conditional. So, what you’re saying is that you don’t believe in the conditional “unless a context and a goal are defined.” And as you said, you are not necessary and the essay is not necessary. And that which is necessary requires “if-ness,” or a conditional. So, what was the goal of the essay? If, as you imply, it had no goal, was not necessary and, therefore, without “if-ness” or a condition? Also, what about the essay–by your logic–makes it unconditional? Isn’t this logic kind of a totalitarian imposition on thinking about novels, their futures, the origin(s) of language? If not, why?
Context seems more difficult to define. But, its relation to pineapple is probably infinite.
“The notion that language–or noises–derive from the “mystery” of “noumena” is both causal and conventional. Why did you decide to make the foundation of language causal?”
i don’t think i said in the essay that language ‘derives from’ ‘the “mystery” of “noumena”‘
i think humans have urges to avoid pain and feel pleasure, to satisfy themselves by eating or being physically comfortable, to do things that will lead to reproduction, to avoid sadness, etc., and that language can help them in these things, so they learn language, among other reasons
Okay. But, you did say, “Although each human’s world of noumenon is unique and private—direct access by others is impossible—the world of noumenon is theorized, or hoped, it seems, by most religions and philosophies, to be actually a oneness within which we become isolated when we take on physical form and enter concrete reality, which, like a virtual world, is a shared space in which we can communicate our worlds of noumenon with others, if we want to and at our leisure, until we return to the oneness upon death. It’s unknown why we don’t exist only in the world of noumenon but are forced to endure, or perhaps gifted—though vaguely, almost mischievously—an amount of time, between birth and death, in concrete reality.
“To articulate and discuss this mystery, and to do (1) and (2) below, humans have—through a kind of baton-passing, over hundreds of generations—developed different noises (and symbols for these noises) with functionally agreed-upon meanings.”
So, since we “don’t exist only in the world of noumena but are forced to endure . . . an amount of time . . . in concrete reality,” there is mystery. I misread. But, my question remains: Why does your notion of language–or noises–derive from this “mystery” that we must exist in a world that is both “noumenal” and “phenomemal?” Why did you decide to make the foundation(s) of language causal? And not, say, something else? Because, you could have made the origin(s) of language anything, right? So, why did you make it goal-oriented, or necessary, and not, say, something else?
“And why so conventional?”
when thinking about the things i thought about for the essay i didn’t think ‘is this conventional’ before thinking things
So, you wrote the essay without thinking about “how it was going to go” before writing it? That makes sense. That’s revealing. But, didn’t you have a chance to read the essay before publishing it? You know, to go over things? Perhaps, to re-write parts of it that seemed familiar or predictable?
“And why intricate it with the notion of ‘noumena?'”
i first thought about how i exist, and what i experience while existing, and i thought that i experience things with the five senses, but i also have a private experience of something that isn’t sensed with the five senses, and i decided to use ‘world of noumenon’ to define that
after thinking about what i experience i thought about where language comes from and why people learn it and use it
Just so I’m clear–because I’m trying to understand the essay, to get as much from it as I can–you decided to use “world of noumena to define” “a private experience of something that isn’t sensed by the five senses.” When you say “to define,” are you saying that “world of noumena” is goal-oriented, that it has a goal? It’s okay if “world of noumena’ both has a goal, or is a goal, and doesn’t have a goal, or isn’t one. I’m just curious.
I’m attracted to the notion that language comes from mystery. Or that we cannot know it origin(s). I’m not sure about why we use it, though? Or, that out of the mystery of our existence, we decided to learn it and use it? But, I wonder about these things, too.
“And not with mystery itself–in all its messiness and uncertainty?”
from part 2 of the essay:
“It’s unknown why we don’t exist only in the world of noumenon but are forced to endure, or perhaps gifted—though vaguely, almost mischievously—an amount of time, between birth and death, in concrete reality.
To articulate and discuss this mystery, and to do (1) and (2) below, humans have—through a kind of baton-passing, over hundreds of generations—developed different noises (and symbols for these noises) with functionally agreed-upon meanings.”
Like I said, I’m not sure about this. However, The Music Man is a terrific musical and still has not fulfilled the powers of its promises, but somehow feels closer to what I imagine the origin(s) of language may be. But, that’s just me.
Tao? They went through. I posted them below (or above) with more questions. Thank you for giving time to these questions. This kind of stuff always makes me wonder. It’s fun to think about–together, alone.
i agree. i think tao understands that objectivity is impossible, but aims to be as objective as possible with the tools he best knows how to use. i don’t think tao is trying to dispel rumours either. he is attempting to communicate in the clearest, most truthful way he knows how to his position on ‘the future of the novel.’ whether someone agrees with tao re: truthfulness and/or objectivity is subjective, which is also something he addresses in this essay: everyone is going to say something specific to him/her about the future of the novel–were authors in past decades considering such ‘a future’? that term has such finality to it, like the future is the end-all-be-all. i think they were just trying to write as best as they could, as all writers do.
The future of the novel is hard to predict because no one knows the future. The future determines what people will be thinking about and feeling, and what type of language they will be using. No one can predict the future of language.
No one knew in the 70s or 80s that there would be the Internet and it would have an online writing scene, and writing emails and gmail chats and text messages would change how we use language.
No could predict 9-11, The Bush Years, two wars, an economic collapse and the emotional effect it would have on its overly sensitive writers.
Literature is an outgrowth of the times. No one can predict the future therefore no one can predict the future of the novel.
This is a Henry David Thoreau kind of look at the world, “Time is but a stream I go fishing in.” If you know anything fishing, a fisherman knows that every stream is different and contains different kinds of fish, different streams require different types of fishing poles, different types of hooks, different types of line, different types of bait, each stream requires different things. But fishing for trout in a a shallow clear stream and fishing for catfish in a large murky river requires different things to catch the fish, but not better things to catch the fish.
This is a Henry David Thoreau kind of look at the world, “Time is but a stream I go fishing in.” If you know anything about fishing, a fisherman knows that every stream is different and contains different kinds of fish, different streams require different types of fishing poles, different types of hooks, different types of line, different types of bait, each stream requires different things. But fishing for trout in a shallow clear stream and fishing for catfish in a large murky river requires different things to catch the fish, but not better things to catch the fish.
fixed typos
I think you are confusing “predict” with “know certainly”
everyone can – and does – predict the future
– for example, when they save money or spend it, or when they stop at a red light, or dozens of decision-making times a day
I thought what tao lin meant about not predicting “the future of the novel” was that, rather than guessing that “future”, he prefers to cause it, by anticipating novelistically the questions he himself asks: “what are you thinking about” and “what do you feel”
this practical response will surely attract the anger of people who want a prescriptive or at least conceptually guided and guiding ‘answer’
– but it seems to me an honest evasion:
‘I don’t want to predict other people’s weather tomorrow; instead, I’ll make it rain a little bit’
“Perhaps. But, if you don’t think it is necessary, then why did you think it was necessary to use such a concept or belief? I mean, like you said, you could have used “‘fia’jefaioefjaef’ or ‘aoraeijraeoiraje’ or something” but you decided to use “world of noumena.” Why?”
in part because people could type ‘noumenon’ into dictionary.com and there would be a definition
“At the same time, you did decide to view the world as “being comprised of concrete reality and something not concrete reality.” Why is this duality necessary for a prediction about the future of the novel?”
it isn’t necessary, i chose to think about how i exist in part 2, then to think about the future of the novel in part 3
i chose to do that, it isn’t necessary that people do that
“Is it possible to think about the future of the novel “outside” of dualistic thinking?”
yes, it is possible to think about anything in any kind of thinking, i think
“If so, why did you decide to think the future of the novel within the terms you decided to use?”
based on everything i know i felt [part 2 of my essay] therefore i thought about the future of the novel in terms of that
“Especially, if you could have–by your own admission–used anything, or any term, to wonder about the future of the novel?”
i could have used any term instead of ‘world of noumenon’ in place of what is defined after ‘(2)’ in part 2 of the essay
i used ‘world of noumenon’ because people can look it up on dictionary.com and because i read about it while reading about schopenhauer and reading schopenhauer and because it was the most similar pre-existing term to what i was describing
if i used ‘erjaelrkjelrkejrear’ people wouldn’t be able to look it up on dictionary.com
if i used ‘spiritual world,’ or ‘soul,’ or other words, there would be other things associated with it, to most people, that i didn’t want to refer to
“But, why? You could have chosen anything? You could have chosen to think in any manner you wanted? But, instead, you decided to use more conventional terms, terms with histories and understandings that are much more conceptually messy than neat. Why?”
because ‘world of noumenon’ was the most accurate, based on what i know about that term, term to describe what i was describing
i think i used the term to describe what i was describing, in that i provided a definition for it after using it
“You know, I read both parts of the essay. And I’m still unclear what your definition of a novel is for you. Maybe you could point it out for me?”
In these terms there is only one kind of novel: a human attempt to transfer or convey some part or version of their world of noumenon to another’s world of noumenon.
“I would guess that in order to predict the future of the novel, one would have to know what a novel is? I don’t get the sense–in this essay–that you do?”
In these terms there is only one kind of novel: a human attempt to transfer or convey some part or version of their world of noumenon to another’s world of noumenon.
also the 2nd-to-last paragraph (re ‘art’)
“What is also strangely familiar about the logic of this essay is the a priori status assigned to the “noumena.” Once again, why did you privilege such a concept, such a belief?”
i know there are things i can sense with my five senses
i feel like that are other things also, and i chose, in my essay, to term those things ‘world of noumenon’
i based this on experience and my thoughts about my experiences and other people’s experiences and their thoughts about their experiences
“Okay. But, like you said above, you could have decided to use different terms to predict the future of the novel. If you have not decided to use “noumena,” do you really think you could have written about the future of the novel? I mean, it seems obvious to me, that you don’t believe that the future of the novel depends on “noumena,” or your use of word “noumena.” But, something else. Something much more mysterious?”
i defined ‘future’ in my essay, i defined ‘novel,’ then i expressed what i personally wanted to read and write
“That’s strange. If what is necessary requires “if-ness,” then it seems to require that which is conditional. So, what you’re saying is that you don’t believe in the conditional “unless a context and a goal are defined.” And as you said, you are not necessary and the essay is not necessary. And that which is necessary requires “if-ness,” or a conditional. So, what was the goal of the essay?”
christian lorentzen asked me if i wanted to write some for ‘the new york observer,’ i said i did, we discussed what i could write about and decided on something like ‘the futures of the novel’
http://twitter.com/#!/xlorentzen/status/60482642595954688
i feel like the first paragraph of the essay directly says what the goal of the essay is: ‘…can be read, in entirety, as an effort, while distracted, to encourage myself (by first discerning what exists in the absence of distractions and if I desire that) to be less distracted in the future.’
“If, as you imply, it had no goal, was not necessary and, therefore, without “if-ness” or a condition?”
i think my essay defined a context, part 2, and a goal, part 1
“Also, what about the essay–by your logic–makes it unconditional?”
i don’t know what you mean, i don’t know how an essay can or cannot be unconditional
people can apply conditions to my essay, they can say ‘if this essay ____ then ____’
“Isn’t this logic kind of a totalitarian imposition on thinking about novels, their futures, the origin(s) of language? If not, why?”
i don’t know what you mean by ‘totalitarian imposition’
my essay says that i currently want to read and write novels that [see part 3]
“So, since we “don’t exist only in the world of noumena but are forced to endure . . . an amount of time . . . in concrete reality,” there is mystery. I misread. But, my question remains: Why does your notion of language–or noises–derive from this “mystery” that we must exist in a world that is both “noumenal” and “phenomemal?”
i don’t know what you mean
“Why did you decide to make the foundation(s) of language causal? And not, say, something else? Because, you could have made the origin(s) of language anything, right? So, why did you make it goal-oriented, or necessary, and not, say, something else?”
i thought about why people talk and concluded two reasons, which i stated in the essay
“And why so conventional?”
i don’t have a complete knowledge of every thought that has ever been thought, therefore i don’t know what, objectively, is conventional and to what degree
i don’t know what you’re asking with that question
i thought about something and then typed it into an essay, different people will think different things about it
if you think it is conventional then you know the answer as to why it is conventional
i don’t know why you think it is conventional
i don’t think it is conventional or not conventional, i think it is accurate as to what i thought, on average, for the time i worked on it
“So, you wrote the essay without thinking about “how it was going to go” before writing it? That makes sense. That’s revealing. But, didn’t you have a chance to read the essay before publishing it? You know, to go over things? Perhaps, to re-write parts of it that seemed familiar or predictable?”
i wrote the first draft and it was something like 4000 words and didn’t have a part 1
i rewrote that probably 3-6 times, 2-5 hours each time
at some point i wrote a first draft of part 1
i combined it and made it 3 parts at some point
i worked on that 2-4 times, 2-5 hours each time
i sent that to christian as a ‘first draft’
after he approved i worked on it 4-8 times, 2-5 hours each time
“And why intricate it with the notion of ‘noumena?'”
i used ‘world of noumenon’ to describe ‘(2)’ in part 2, in part to avoid repeating that entire paragraph every time i wanted to reference what is described in ‘(2)’ in part 2
“Just so I’m clear–because I’m trying to understand the essay, to get as much from it as I can–you decided to use “world of noumena to define” “a private experience of something that isn’t sensed by the five senses.” When you say “to define,” are you saying that “world of noumena” is goal-oriented, that it has a goal? It’s okay if “world of noumena’ both has a goal, or is a goal, and doesn’t have a goal, or isn’t one. I’m just curious.”
i don’t know if it has a goal, i don’t know what ‘goal’ means in that context
by ‘to define’ i mean i used those three words to symbolize the 30 or so words i used in ‘(2)’ in part 2
in that essay, zadie smith says she thinks “the catastrophe” netherland is in some kind of response to isn’t “terror”, but rather “is ‘Realism'”
– as you say, “the staleness of lyrical realism”
however, in netherland itself, it’s not so much a “staleness”, but rather a surfeit of mellifluity: “in practice netherland colonizes all space by way of voracious image […] Is this really Realism?”
I think she sees, in the expertise of the book, a decadence
she also talks about, towards the end of the essay, an alternative to the crowded, exitless “highway”, “the skewed side of the road where we greet Georges Perec, Clarice Lispector, Maurice Blanchot, William Burroughs, J. G. Ballard”
she refers to the “crossroads [of the two traditions – Realism and not-Realism – , where] we find extraordinary writers claimed by both sides: Melville, Conrad, Kafka, Beckett, Joyce, Nabokov”
there are (at least) two traditions, and, in the artificial battle-of-the-bands that she sets up, she chooses remainder because it’s ‘healthier’, less cloying
–
my point is that tao lin excerpts from – and in illustration of – his point of view –
(I think tao lin is not “confused” by zadie smith; I think he is teasing her for fretting about the category “lyrical Realism”, maybe in over-analysis of why she likes the one book more than the other)
– that tao lin is, in fact, a partisan
plainly, I don’t think this side-taking is ‘wrong’
I simply think tao lin’s diffidence, whether it is a conscious pose or not, is factually self-mistaken
his work is a barnacle on the whale of literature.
This seems like fun, I’ll respond. I haven’t been in a comment debate in a long time.
“I think you are confusing “predict” with “know certainly””
No, you are confusing the “assume” with “predict.”
You assume the red light will turn green, you assume if that if you save money you can be a trip to Spain in August.
Those are assumptions.
Barely anyone predicts the future, they assume that future things will occur in a normal fashion based off of past experience.
“I thought what tao lin meant about not predicting” I am not concerned with defending Tao’s theory on the future of literature. That was the reason I believe that taking one’s time to predict the future of the novel is strange. And perhaps a waste of time.
“this practical response will surely attract the anger of people who want a prescriptive or at least conceptually guided and guiding ‘answer'”
I don’t know why anyone require an answer to this. I like that you wrote “wanted”.
I find it strange that anyone would want an “answer” to this.
See the point of “prediction” is usually this: in terms of politics people often try to predict things, and by trying to predict things they can come up with scenarios to deal with the sitution. Like creating a computer model that looks at if a large hurricane hits the shores of Miami, and all its possible scenarios that might play out. The government will look at the computer model and make adjustments to the city so when the possible hurricane comes, the city will not be that badly affected.
People do that when they try to predict their own lives using tarot cards or calling a psychic.
But creating a computer model for the future of the novel would be very hard.
And if we knew the future of the novel there is no reason to create a possible scenario plan to go along with it. Because they are freaking novels and they are just stories that people make up and hopefully get pubilshed, and hopefully some people enjoy the book.
What i think happened is this:
In political science, in the sciences, there is a lot of prediction articles. Predicting how the disaster of Japan will affect treasury bonds and how CO2 emissions will affect climate change are very important. People need to get a real idea of the consequences and possible scenarios to deal with them, because that shit is real and has big impacts on our lives. And the writers of literature see this, and think, “I want to literature to have big impacts, I want literature to mean something. It means something to me.” So they think it is awesome that they write things about the future of the novel.
If I predicted the future of the novel it would read like this: This is for fun, I’ll do it and see what happens:
The novel novel started with Knut Hamsun’s “Hunger” and “Growth of the Soil” and has not really changed since because those novels mark the beginning of the Modern Age of technology and obsession with growth and having very high populations in cities, it came at the end of slavery, the Americas and Africa had finally been conquered by Western powers. Kut Hamsun’s novels come at the end of a very large march to conquer the world and then to create a world of technology Last Man comfort. “Growth of the Soil” shows this perfectly with the father being a farmer and the son going off to the city.
Novels haven’t really changed that much because everyone is trying to maintain that infastructure, the infrastructure of growth and maintaining what we have. The paradigm of the times has not really shifted since the end of the 1870s. The paradigm is, Civil Rights, Growth, and Technology will make us more comfortable. A society puts their energy into making a paradigm into reality and after it is built, they put their energy into maintaining it.
I do not think there will be any substantial changes to the novel or literature until the paradigm of growth and technology comes to an end.
I would like to add that this all started maybe in the 1850s and not as late a the 1870s. And that all writers do is add nuances Knut Hamsun’s works. Nothing else. I am nothing but a nuance, Hemingway was nothing but a nuance.
But that doens’t mean, Hemingway isn’t a fun read.
“I understand his point of view in that quote and believe his viewpoint to be ultimately true, interpret that as you will.”
Do you think you would have written this same comment if Tao’s article had said something totally different from what it does? (ie. Do you think it’s true because he wrote it or because of the merit of the argument? Are there articles by Tao Lin that you disagree with or find ‘untrue’?)
Exhibit A: Typical Tao Lin response to criticism (copied from the ‘comments section’ of his piece on Thought Catalog “Meme-Hunting Expedition: Toronto” where he writes):
“in my view your statement ‘isn’t saying much’ because your use of the word ‘best’ denotes that you alone know what the goal of life is. . . .”
Exhibit B: Appropriating and recontextualizing a “Typical Tao Lin response to criticism” to Noah Cicero’s comment:
“in my view your statement ‘isn’t saying much’ because your use of the word ‘nuance’ denotes that you alone know what the goal of literature is. . . .”
i agree that “staleness” wasn’t a good word choice if one wants to accurately reflect the position of Zadie’s essay. recalling it again now, i am remembering how she said Netherland is so good at its chosen “thing”–a certain breed of lyrical realism–that it is overly familiar and thus unattractive to her–or as you put it, in its expertise a decadence.
yes re her praising the “healthiness” of Remainder, as she sees it
I can see how Tao might be teasing her or teasing other people in the essay, indirectly. Tao has opinions and tendencies/ideas that he is attracted to, and he states them in the essay, but I think calling him a “partisan,” by most definitions, would be an exaggeration or inaccurate, because he qualifies and presents his viewpoint and the existing viewpoints in the scene of lit/authors writing about the future of the novel so carefully and with as much accuracy/objectivity as he can, and I would say he doesn’t see it as logical in his view to be “partisan” in any kind of conventional or earnest manner re this topic. I would say he does this qualifying/thorough accuracy/closer-to-objectivity thing NOT to be sneaky or something, or to avoid some dreaded lack of neutrality (he knows and “admits” that he has opinions), but rather in the interest of accuracy and proceeding from the knowledge, clearly expressed at the beginning of the essay, that “this ‘the future of the novel’ -type talk,” as it were, is *merely* a distraction from novel-writing if one is a novelist.
MOREOVER, he explains clearly that, given his current perspective and his definition of “future,” plus his understanding of [various things having to do with time and potentiality], “it’s impossible, in this view, for the novel to have a future.”
The rest of that paragraph: “For a novel not to seem familiar, in this definition, it would have to be the articulation of a thought or feeling that’s currently impossible to conceive of thinking or feeling, which could perhaps be made possible only by a change in DNA—if humankind moved genetically reptileward, over millions of years, slowly losing aspects of consciousness and capacities for language—or maybe something like if consciousness, as a physically immeasurable and therefore unpredictable somethingness, disappeared suddenly, as if by a binary change in the “settings” of the universe. Maybe that would cause an unfamiliarly incomprehensible change—or ‘future,’ in my definition—for the novel. But from that perspective my current perspective couldn’t be comprehended, as there would be no ‘past’ to actuate a future; it’s impossible, in this view, for the novel to have a future.”
So, deadgod, not only is Tao not some sort of closeted or sneaky partisan in this essay, but also he has called into question/nullified the topic at hand at the outset of the essay, thus making the rest of his essay an exercise in “what can I say with accuracy about what has been said on this (to me perhaps dubious) topic, and how can I as accurately as possible explain my viewpoints and preferences.”
I think Tao’s grasp on logic precludes his ability to truly be partisan.
Going back to teasing:
Tao has been a very sweet satirist at times, in my opinion, and has openly teased various people and things. This essay is hilarious, imho http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=449302
There was the TIME Franzen cover story thing, which I think was a parody of the article moreso than of Franzen http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/great-american-novelist/Content?oid=4940853
and the ongoing North American Hamsters project is some brilliant and creative teasing, I feel http://heheheheheheheeheheheehehe.tumblr.com/tagged/north_american_hamsters
These satiric or teasing things by him are exciting and interesting to me, in part because they seem vaguely of a tradition to which arguably his fiction does not belong (I associate satire moreso with the Sterne/Joyce/Flann/Burroughs “crowd,” as it were, and I don’t associate Tao’s fiction with that crowd), so that seems interesting/cool, because I like versatility and surprise from a writer. Also, the North American Hamsters, in particular, which is intended to be an iPhone app, seems particularly creative and distinctive.
Tao has been funny throughout his career, in his essays, poems, and fiction. More often than not, he is “simply” funny, not trying to satirize anything in particular.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNYEq-MJgSM
The goal of literature is to write books that people finish.
Exhibit C: Appropriating and recontextualizing a “Typical Tao Lin response to criticism” to Noah Cicero’s comment on his comment in an effort to show that the previous two exhibits demonstrate the vapid nature of a “Typical Tao Lin response to criticism” and that the sort of lazy relativism that he engages in when reacting to said criticism(s) is as shallow as it is easy to replicate:
“in my view your statement ‘isn’t saying much’ because your use of the word ‘goal’ denotes that you alone know what the goal of writing books is. . . .”
Your hypothetical question seems difficult or impossible to answer because I don’t know what this “totally different” article would be in this scenario. This hypothetical requires arbitrarily imagining a different scenario.
I don’t think the article is “true” because Tao wrote it. I am probably more interested in anything he writes and his perspective on a topic than I am with other people I don’t like or respect as much. I can’t think of an article by him that I have thought of as “untrue.”
I don’t have all the same tastes as him, I know that. For example, I’m pretty sure we have very little taste in music in common based on bands he has mentioned liking. In college, I liked Joyce, Woolf, and other Modernists a lot, and I still like them although their influence may not be as “potent” as it once was. Tao seems to like a school of writing, the K-Mart Realists, that in college I had assumed without reading them I would not like. Well, I did read some things by K-Mart Realists. From my exposure to Carver, I do not care for Carver. However, Tao has mentioned liking Ann Beattie, for example, and “Chilly Scenes of Winter” in particular, an author and book perhaps I would not have sought out otherwise, and I read that and loved it. In general, his influence has been big and has led to me seeking out new things and to some changes in my literary tastes and thinking.
Tao often makes an effort in his essay- or piece-writing to strive for accuracy and logic, to qualify things so he is not presenting his subjective opinions as the objective truth or better than other opinions. I like this tendency. Because this tendency is quite consistent, I don’t often strongly disagree with statements he makes in his pieces, because he has already qualified them therein, so any deviation from his subjective opinions, such as might exist with me, don’t seem logically relevant to present as arguments against/refutations of a given piece. Also, we agree about a lot of things. Thus, with his pieces, it seems to be a question of how much I enjoy or am interested in the piece, not whether I agree with it or not.
I think if more writers didn’t present their subjective opinions as supreme truth, it would be logical and attractive to more people more of the time to dispense with argument and rhetoric. I think this prospect is unattractive, possibly, to many people, because a highly logical style of writing, such as Tao sometimes employs, can seem robotic or [something arguably negative] to people. When Tao tries to write in a thoroughly logical style, he seems to also create humor and/or ontological interest, in my opinion. Thus, the “robotic”/impersonal style can be used in the creation of something (to me) life-affirming.
What I think and how I feel is that nothing I think or feel could ever possibly either begin or end with my consciousness.
“My”… as if it were specifically mine or as if “I” am something other than it.
are you me? or am i you? because i feel like we’re somehow related.
what is a novel exactly
like, how is “prose” different than “poetry”
poetry is older, seems like
the big difference is novels were written in “vernacular” yeah?
like how people talk in real life?
they weren’t in meter or set to music or used “weird” words
seems like most novels are like “stories”
seems like poems aren’t stories usually
i guess a lot of the old poems are stories
some of them are like “songs” tho
i dunno
“the future of the novel”
people will keep writing things like “he opens the door. he walks into the room. he looks at the wall.” yeah?
“use key. open chest. get dagger.”
does “the novel” even change
how has “it” changed
there are different novels i guess
there are multiple novels i guess
they are different seems like
people are writing more
there will be more novels in the future i think
i think more novels written by non-humans will be published in the future
like chimpanzees and gorillas and computers and like alphabet soups
the future seems cool
have you guys heard about the drug wars in mexico
what will happen there in the future
i think they’re building a new atom collider thing
a “particle accelerator”
they’re gonna find some new particles
that’s gonna be cool i think
[test]
Like how is anything anything, man? Like you ever thing about how different things are maybe the same thing duuuuuuude? Like, think about that on weeeeeeeeeed.
Oh, man. I laughed–and I laughed and I laughed. Good one.
no, these words overlap in meaning more complexly than your neat distinction
prediction entails assumption(s)
that a red light will turn green and a penny saved is a penny more tomorrow are not empirically and logically indefensible assumptions – they are assumptions formed by grasping the unity and coherence of that world which is the condition for the possibility of “a red light” at all and “a penny” at all – in short, they are “predictions”!
‘20% chance of rain tomorrow’ is a prediction that’s based on numerous assumptions, as the prediction that, say, ‘novels will become more fragmentary’ would be based on numerous assumptions
while all assumptions are predictive but not necessarily ‘predictions’, all predictions depend on assumptions – the two are not separable in the way you seem to say
the fact that predictions don’t come true is no argument that they don’t exist nor against their usefulness
we predict a hurricane, we prepare for what we’ve predicted, and, even if the hurricane doesn’t happen exactly as we’ve predicted, our preparations dispose us more towards surviving the hurricane in the most prosperous way – that’s, by analogy, the argument for political-economic prediction: preparedness as much as is practicable
with the “novel”, I agree (I think) with tao lin and with you: while it’s a fun parlor game to predict “the future of the novel” (as you’ve done at the conclusion to your post), this predicting doesn’t do much along the lines of actually writing novels, so: bah
(I don’t think of hamsun in the ‘boundary’ way that you do, nor of the paradigm that you you see dating to the 1870s)
Lames… Self-aware deadpan, dumbass
“Hey! You know when you put the glue into your computer to plug up the internet in there? Wanna try this new lipstick?”
Thank you.
i feel like… i move beyond “fatalistic irony” into just like “sincerity”…
i feel really honest
i feel like i’m just saying what i think, how i feel
i feel like it’s “honesty” “thinly veiled” with “irony”
or it’s [whatever] and [whatever] simultaneously
@ATrueArtist that’s the weed thing yeah
i feel like i was going for a different vibe
i feel like i was being “honestly bewildered” by those things in a “sober” way
@HTMLmidget are you making fun of @ATrueArtist or showing appreciation for his comment or what
i don’t understand your tone exactly
@Kill Whitey are you responding to @HTMLmidget or me
your comment is interesting to me
you are expressing the “ideology” of “fuck hipsters” or something and you made your username “kill whitey”
like you associate the “ideology” of “hipsterism” with like “whitey” (i.e. the “cultural hegemony,” “white supremacism,” “capitalist liberalism”???)
like you did that
but also i’m like 99% you are “white”
so what does that mean
seems like i could have at some point commented anonymously on htmlgiant with the username “kill whitey” and called people racists or something
like that seems like i thing i would have / could have done
i wouldn’t have said anything about “hipsters” or anything tho
what is the difference in our “ideology” then
why are our positions on “hipsterism” and “irony” different
(what does that mean…)
also you said “lames” which is a thing people say in rap songs
(the first one that comes to mind is jay-z’s “takeover”)
so you are “aligning” yourself with a “non-white” or “post-white” “ideology” or something (like a “race traitor” thing, yeah?)
(maybe you aren’t “white” and all of this doesn’t make sense)
you are using the language of “non-white”/”post-white” “cultural ideologies” as a tool to “subvert” what you see as the “white ideologies” of “hipsterism” and “irony” (???)
but i’m probably just like you
we’re probably pretty much the same
i’m just like less concerned with [something] than you
i dunno man
what am i even saying here
like “killy whitey” yeah
like when the revolution comes i’ll let them kill me if they want
i’m a degenerate and shit
i’m outtie ~ htmlgiant.cop
haha knut
I don’t mean “partisan” in a pejorative sense, synonymously with ‘fanatic’ or ‘dogmatist’
I take “partisan” to be nearly a synonym of ‘having a perspective’
(the word is used to connote ‘mindless, belligerent side-taking’ in current pop-political discourse; I think this limited meaning is a mistake, though Webster’s New Collegiate definitely supports this polemical connotation . . .)
a perception, like of a tree in a field, is hard to connect with “partisanship”; but as soon as that tree enters one’s decision-making, one’s orientation towards that tree becomes “partisan”
– at least, that was how I was (too idiosyncratically?) using the term
–
here is how tao lin defines “novel” in the second part of the blogicle-linked article:
this monism is set up by his excerpts of “Recent Statements About The State Of The Novel” (the first part of the article)
of course, excerpts are selected; unless they’re randomly pulled out of their contexts, they’re chosen for a reason: to illustrate something
the excerpts in the “Recent Statements” assemblage illustrate the contest over the past thirty years or so over ‘what the novel should be and/or do’
there are all kinds of binary oppositions that the set of “novels” can be divided along
excluding one ‘half’ of novels in favor of the other means leaving out not only “novels”, but good novels
tao lin is saying, to the rivals for ‘what a novel is’, “come on, now” (transl. mine)
tao lin presents his excerpts of “Recent Statements” in order to put a foundation under his strong literary-critical ecumenism
the point I’m making is not to quarrel with tao lin’s comprehensive inclusiveness, but rather to call his support of it a “partisanship” (in favor of ‘not militating preferences generically’, which is, I think, tao lin’s (paradoxical) Prime Directive)
–
I think that logical consistency and empirical compulsion informing a perspective require it to be “partisan” in the more contentious sense
one’s mind can be open to the possibility of some particular determination of it being ‘wrong’, and can hold opposing determinations before it for evaluation, but a commitment to some evaluation, while knowingly susceptible to transformation, is nevertheless a ‘commitment’
p.s.
turns out kill whitey was tully dierks
he told me on facebook
he was joking around
I really wish Tao Lin would just stick to visual art, because his writing and authorial personality are embarrassingly gimmicky.
I honestly feel you are putting too much work into your boring tao lin imitation. Is that your whole personality?
huh
Something can evolve into multiple different things at the same time while still remaining itself.
It doesn’t seem like he doesn’t have an opinion so much as he honestly doesn’t think it’s productive to try and convince anyone he’s right. “There is no winning.”
http://xrl.us/bh8tjk
Mice, Mice, Mice. Fish in sewers. We were fine and then we weren’t.
[…] I’m trying to say this is: Tao Lin has A LOT of ‘haters,’ [e.g. seehttp://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/tao-lin-on-the-future-of-the-novel/ the first two comments of which say "tao lin is a jackass" and "his work is a barnacle on the […]